Tag: 2 out of 4

47 Ronin ended up being a textbook example of the phrase “production hell”. The “good people” at Universal Studios decided to give the directing chair to Carl Rinsh, who has only ever done some shorts and commercials before this big budgeted movie. It was supposed to be released in December of 2012, but went 50 million over budget, and required massive reshoots.

Why reshoots? Because Universal Studios thought that Keanu Reeves would be the star of the movie. When they found out he was just a side character, they brought in new editors and had to reshoot many scenes to make him a much bigger player. After all, how else could they market this already huge huge budget movie, without a star being the star? How dare the director try and tell the actual ronin story!

Apparently lying about who the stars were wasn’t too important, given that the main poster for the film (Seen here), features a guy with bone tattoos. He is in the movie for about 5 seconds, has one or two lines, isn’t a villain, and isn’t even wearing make up. Yep, those are his real tattoos, you may remember him from the “Born This Way” Lady Gaga music video.

Yep, here are your brave 47. Not the best shape. Some old. But whatareyougonnado?

47 Ronin is actually a true story that takes place in Japan, this version is just heavily influenced by fantasy. You know, to make cooler fight scenes. But the message and plot are still there.

Early in the 18th century, Japan was in a feudal system, run by warlords. One warlord, Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano) wanted to extend his rule and conquer the land of a neighboring kingdom, but he wanted to do it without being seen as the aggressor.

At the Ako castle, Lord Asano (Min Tanaka, who looks like the Japanese Bill Nighy) had to host Lord Kira and the local Shogun over for a festival. After a few blunders, Asano attempted to kill Kira (with magic influence being the cause) and he was sentenced to death. Kira has a witch (Rinko Kikuchi) working for him! With their lord dead and because Asano’s only heir was a girl, Mika (Ko Shibasaki), the shogun says that she must marry Kira, joining their kingdoms to prevent further bloodshed. Oh yeah, and all of Asano’s samurai get kicked out and lose their jobs.

A year later, the former samurai leader, Ôishi (Hiroyuki Sanada) decides it is time the remaining ronin (term meaning former Samurai) to rise up, and avenge their former lord’s death. There is of course another side story about Kai (Keanu Reeves), a half blood Japanese man, who also might be part demon. Don’t worry, he is totally a good guy too.

Also featuring Jin Akanishi as Ôishi’s son, and Takato Yonemoto as the coolest ronin in the army.

Shit, that guys sword glows. You know it is serious now.

Overall, 47 Ronin can be seen as a nice fantasy based retelling of an actual historical event. From what I can tell, the story is basically right, minus the parts with the demon raised half blood. Not sure where that came from, but I am not an expert on Japanese history.

On the other other hand, while watching, you can definitely tell the problems that went into production. Scenes are edited weirdly, and I was able to notice that although Reeves’ character was involved, he wasn’t 100% involved. Calling him the main character is silly, because Hiroyuki Sananda as Ôishi is clearly the main lead according to the story. Another way to imagine it is that Sanada plays the main lead, and that Reeves is the strongest weapon in his army, so they are both important.

The acting could have been better, and honestly, I would have liked better CGI effects than what was offered. Sure, the dragon fight scene was nifty, but multiple “villains” had similar styles and it just felt like I was getting a few rehashed fights. Unfortunately the movie will most likely bomb, because the story is great. It just needed a lot more polishing.

Mini-Theme!

While watching Margot At The Wedding, I couldn’t help but think of Rachel Getting Married. They have similar-ish titles, obviously a similar theme, and are both super indie movies. How do I define indie movie? Low budget, usually very dramatic, and of course, having the camera follow a character as they walk.

Usually they follow from behind, but the side walk is also very popular.

Oh yeah, Rosemarie DeWitt. Her existence basically screams out that the movie you are about to watch is an indie film. She is the titular Rachel, and by golly, she is indeed getting married. But the movie really isn’t about her. It is about her sister, Kym (Anne Hathaway), playing a role to keep her from getting typecasted.

That is because Kym is currently checked into rehab, the drug kind, not the alcohol kind. She has been given a few days off to attend her sister’s wonderful wedding, even though there is a lot of drama in her family.

Her dad (Bill Irwin) is worried for her well being, but Kym interprets it as mistrust, not caring. Her sister ended up picking her friend to be the maid of honor, not Kym, so she dislikes that as well. Sure, Kym while on drugs got into a car accident which killed their younger brother Ethan, but why would that be a problem now? (That is a joke).

Rachel is also upset that during her wedding, a weekend literally to celebrate her, is turning into a Kym-fest, with all focus on her. Boo that.

But wait, there is more. The mother (Debra Winger) is involved as well, and isn’t even at the house the weekend of the wedding. She is only coming the day of. Yep, she has some secrets into this broken family as well.

But by the end, there are big hugs for all to enjoy!

I actually saw this movie first a few years ago (and here is a secret, I didn’t rewatch it for this review, shh. That is a first for me, okay!). I did it because at the time, I had a bit of an obsession with Anne Hathaway (still do?), so it was exciting to see her in a role that she was nominated for Best Actress in! I’ve only seen three of the movies of the five that had Best Actress in them, but I reluctantly agree that she probably didn’t deserve the win. Kate Winslet was baller that year. And since Anne got the Best Supporting Actress award a few years later, all is fine anyways.

None of this is about the movie, which moved a bit slow for my taste. Sure, it was a very different look/role for Anne, which she did do awesome at, but the film dragged on for me. I think it was 20-30 minutes too long, for the story that we actually got. The ending was a bit touching. The movie was going for realism, but by doing so, took out the entertainment factor. Although the acting was good, and the plot was relatively original, I think it lacked in enough other places for me to leave the movie disappointed.

Oh well. They can’t all be tear jerkers. I should probably hurry and watch Doubt and Frozen River to see if Kate Winslet really did deserve it that year, though. (Probably. Did you see The Reader?)

Before this week, I had never seen Mary Poppins. Classic movie sure, and I of course knew songs and scenes from it, but I never watched it in its entirety. Blame the parents. While watching the movie as an adult, I did find it very odd. The message was clear: money is evil, family is great, but why they chose to enforce that message in the 1960s was beyond me.

That was my main goal for watching Saving Mr. Banks: to figure out what the money and banks ever did to the Mary Poppins author. Oh, and to figure out why she was behaving like a huge bitch.

I didn’t think anyone could be mean to a face like that.

Saving Mr. Banks is supposed to tell the true-ish story of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) acquiring the rights to a film version of Mary Poppins, from the author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson). Of course because it is a Disney movie about the creator of Disney, don’t expect that much actual truth in the movie.

The one thing that does appear to be truthful is that Travers was very very hard to work with. She was granted script rights, and she used the heck out of them. She didn’t want animation, didn’t want music, didn’t want Dick Van Dyke, didn’t want a lot of things. She was very peculiar over her character, and didn’t want Disney to mess it up.

Everything else that occurred in the film is whatever they wanted to say, presumably to rewrite history. For instance, Disney was a chronic smoker and he never hated it, despite it leading to his death. They made a few tiny references in the movie (a cough every once in awhile) but made sure they never showed him doing the deed. In fact, he had a line calling it a disgusting habit and one he was trying to quit. Riiiiight…

The movie is spliced with the tale of Travers’ early life, when she moved to the middle of no where with her family. She lived in a small house, but had a loving (yet alcoholic) father (Colin Farrell), and a quite annoyed mother (Ruth Wilson). Her stories were based on an actual nanny sent to clean up their home, after a few unfortunate events leaving it in disarray.

It should be obvious that most of her complaints with the original script, end up getting included in the final project. So something has to change by the end of the movie, but is it change that all parties actually agree on?

Also featuring Paul Giamatti as an optimistic driver (strange role for him), Bradley Whitford as the writer, and B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the song writers.

What? You didn’t want a farm story during a Mary Poppins movie movie? Too bad!

After watching the movie, I am unsure how much of it is true, and how much of it is just revisionist history. I mentioned a few discrepancies above, but I also don’t know if the back story on Travers’ early life is accurate. I loved the back story, loved it far more than the other part of the film. It was sweet and it was tragic. It made Mary Poppins make a heck of a lot more sense and give it a more powerful meaning. But given all the other changes, I can only doubt that the past problems are somewhat fabricated as well.

This film is also meant to be a pseudo-biopic for Walt Disney, but since it is such a small part of his wildly successful life, and full of inaccuracies, I wouldn’t be willing to label it as such.

My favorite actor from the movie is surprisingly Colin Farrell, playing the “real” Mr. Banks who needs saving. His performance was incredible, despite being a minor role. But hey, he has impressed me a lot over the last few years with a few of his role choices.

What this film taught me is that the real Travers was indeed really hard to work with, for potentially tragic yet inexcusable reasons. If our current pop culture network existed back then, there would have been tons of negative press thrown her way, with hardly any sympathizers.

Saving Mr. Banks itself will probably mostly just apeal to those who grew up with Mary Poppins in their lives and want to relive the magic in a completely different way.

Part of me was hoping at the end of the movie, when they did the premier of Mary Poppins, that they would show the entire film. You know, secretly turn it into a Double Feature. That would have been truly surprising. But Saving Mr. Banks on its own plays a relatively safe story: one that is very powerful, but also full of deceit.

Marry Christmas! Because those jerks at the local theater wouldn’t give me Black Nativity, I was left without a movie to review on Christmas.

So I decided, fuck it, lets think outside the box.

I bought a DVD version of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past some years ago at a Black Friday sale, but never got around to watching it. So of course, this RomCom, is some weird alternative telling of A Christmas Carol.

Basically 100% identical, but this one has attractive women fawning over our main character instead of money.

Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) is a successful photographer of models for magazines. He is with a different woman every week, and then moves on, never getting in love, never getting serious, only having fun. Turns out he learned it from his mentor, Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas) after a bad prom in high school.

But now, his brother (Breckin Meyer) is getting married to the love of his life (Lacey Chabert), of which Connor doesn’t approve. It is not like Connor is going there to mess it up, he is just going to highly suggest it. Also at the wedding is his former fling, Jenny (Jennifer Garner), who he knew most of his life.

Either way, during the weekend wedding, for whatever reason, he learns he is going to get visited by the ghosts of girlfriends past. No, don’t worry, they didn’t all die or anything. It is just that they will appear to him in visions and talked about briefly. Of course girlfriend is a vague term, because he didn’t date any of them, he just hung out with some for about a week or two, and sexed a lot. Will a look into his past, present, or future sway his lifestyle and make him go for his one true love?

Emma Stone plays the ghost of girlfriend past, Noureen DeWulf of girlfriend present, and Daniel Sunjata plays an eligable bachelor who is interested in Jenny.

Lacey Chabert you recognize from Mean Girls. You are welcome.

It is strange going back to 2009 to see a movie of this nature. All because of Matthew McConaughey. Pre-2010 he had these roles a lot, like Failure To Launch or How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (both of which feature him leaning on the cover, fun fact). But now he has evolved into a much deeper actor. Bernie. Magic Mike. Dallas Buyers Club. Mud. The Lincoln Lawyer. So many damn movies.

But this is RomCom Matt, and he follows the formula perfectly.

In fact, this movie follows it way way too easily, and it doesn’t feel too important. He only one does one big act of love near the end. Everything else is jut playboy flirting. But I guess Jenny always loved him and never moved on, so it was easy to get her back at the end? Seems a bit silly.

It would make more sense if everyone knows the journey he went on over the three days, but they dont, that shit was all in his mind basically. Everyone didn’t get transported back to his awkward middle school years. Personal journeys don’t mean squat when no one can really see that you have changed outside of saying “Oh yeah, I have changed!”.

So I guess that’s my disappointment, as a man who tends to enjoy a nice RomCom. This one is a bit weak. It is original in the RomCom world (but obviously not itself, original) so that is cool. But it wraps up everything too neatly, even for RomCom standards.

Very Wrong.

How Wrong?

This much Wrong.

Wrong is a film brought to us by Quentin Dupieux, who is famous for the movie Rubber. Rubber is famous for being completely absurd, and a strange movie, but I ended up liking it. Knowing that, you should know that he is going for a very similar style to Rubber. So if you hated Rubber, just don’t even try this one.

Same thing happens to me when I listen to Michael Bolton at work.

Poor old Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick). Sure, he has a bitchin’ mustache. But he woke up to a very not good day. His dog ran away! Or was kidnapped. Either way, his dog is no longer there, and the world he lives in appears to be quite bizarre. Like his neighbor, Mike (Regan Burns), who goes on daily morning jogs, now refusing to admit to it. He hates running, why would he ever do that?

That isn’t the only thing. Police officers are unnecessarily rude, which might be a normal real world thing. His work office has a downpour going on in the inside, but that is apparently normal too. He might not even work there.

But his dog is missing. That is what is important. Not his conversations with a lady working a new pizza place (Alexis Dziena), or his gardener (Eric Judor). It turns out that the dog may have been taken by a group who randomly steal peoples pets, to make them truly love them. Strange. Yes. But Master Chang (William Fichtner) insists that it makes peoples lives better in the end. Unfortunately, mid kidnapping, the driver got into an accident, and died, and the dog escaped. So the stolen dog is lost.

They hire a private detective (Steve Little, aka Stevie Janowski) to get on the case, and Dolph just has to keep on living.

The hardest thing to believe in this movie is that he would write a novel, on a type writer, by water.

At this point, I am not sure if absurdity is really a film genre, or if I like it. Anyone could come up with an “absurd” movie, and call it art, even if it makes no sense, with weak plot or acting, and just bizarre antics. I am not saying that is a good description of Wrong, but close. I would say Napoleon Dynamite was an absurd movie, and one I dislike for its lack of real plot.

I definitely think I got less out of this movie than with Rubber. Rubber draws you in with the strange sounded plot, and I believe, delivers an even stranger movie. The plot description for Wrong just sounds pointless, and probably the only thing drawing people to this movie is knowing he made Rubber. It definitely has its extreme moments of weirdness, but not enough for me to love the movie. There were some great scenes. I loved the scenes with the Private Investigator. The gardener had an interesting arc, but the ending of it felt a bit weak to me too.

For all I know, the entire movie was just made to troll people. It might be a test to see what people can draw from it, calling it a highly intelligent movie, so that Mr. Dupieux can come out in two years and go “hah, just kidding.” That would be fun.

Snow Queen? A CGI film? If you got to see the film cover, it had a tagline at the bottom that states “A Magical Adventure in a FROZEN Land!”

It also states that it is “From the Legendary Hans Christian Andersen, Author of The Little Mermaid.”

I haven’t reviewed a cheap knock off Disney movie yet, unless you count Chop Kick Panda, but Dreamworks isn’t Disney. But this one clearly has to be right? It capitalizes the word Frozen in its ad, and also makes a true but misleading claim about where the story comes from.

I can’t wait. I can’t wait.

Eh. Maybe I can wait a bit.

For those of you who actually know the original Snow Queen story, this one basically seems to follow that exact same plot. Down to a letter. Nothing new about this one, just an animated tale of a famous story. So I guess, its like any book to film adaption. Since I don’t know the Snow Queen story, it is basically a new plot for me.

Basically, mirrors be crazy. This woman got so mad, she became a Snow Queen (Cindy Robinson) and tried to put the world into an endless winter. She also wants to destroy all art, for some reason. She really hates this glass maker dude, who has mirrors that reflect the soul. So she kills them. Whoa.

Well, he had children too, so the threat to her rule isn’t gone. Boy, Kai (Marianne Miller) and girl, Gerda (Jessica Straus) become orphans and don’t even remember each other. Eventually, the Snow Queen realizes that they are a threat, and sends a troll named Orm (Doug Erholtz) who has the power to turn into a black weasel only, to kidnap the boy so she can presumably kill him too.

Gerda, just realizing she has a brother, gets rightly pissed off, and journeys across the land, with the troll and her own weasel, to try and save him.

On the way they run into land pirates, crazy plant ladies, and just bitter harsh cold.

I am now going to imagine that as the face of every troll on the internet.

Alright, turns out I was wrong. This movie is NOT a cheap Disney knock off. Besides the fact that it is a movie of the actual story, it also was made by Wizart Animation. Who are they? A new CGI film company out of Russia (making this film foreign), and this is their first release. It came out last year and was in development for awhile, so the Frozen thing is basically a coincidence. Obviously not their advertising of it, they are still trying to latch on to its fame, but the idea wasn’t a copy cat. Heck, they also are already working on a sequel.

Unfortunately, the animation was the worst part of the movie. Something seemed off about it the whole time, it is pretty obvious it isn’t using state of the art / new technology to bring us this movie. Probably pretty old technology, graphics wise. Reminded me of a video game.

I actually enjoyed the story line and some of the visuals in the film though. By the end, I was getting a bit tired of it, sure, but the early parts of the movie kept interest for awhile. The crazy plant lady came out of no where, but looked really cool as it went down.

Nothing I will say will convince you to watch this film, and honestly, there is probably no reason to. But if you are forced to watch a newish animated film, there are a lot worse you could pick.

Out of the Furnace has the honor of being the only movie coming out this week, in a month that is typically packed to the brim with movies to take advantage of those holiday sales.

It also has the honor of making me think of the Meatloaf song, “Out of the Frying Pan,” so much that whenever I hear the film’s title, I can’t help but sing “And into the fire!” in my head.

This is an actual scene of the film, lollipop and all.

Russell Baze (Christian Bale) is your average factory worker living in Pennsylvania. He is a man who works for a living, a guy who will never be rich, but overall, a very caring and loving man. He has a lady (Zoe Saldana), a younger dumber brother Rodney (Casey Affleck) in the army, and his father is getting sick. But after a night of trying to do good and a few mistakes, Russell finds himself behind bars after a drunk driving accident.

Now, years later, his life has changed drastically. His father: dead. His woman: left him for a cop (Forest Whitaker). His brother: suffering from extreme PTSD after four tours in Iraq. Rodney is also deep in gambling debt and starting to take up illegal bare knuckle boxing to pay his debts. But when he gets involved with the Appalachian hill folk and their leader, Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), his life is going to make a change for the worse.

It is up to Russell, a good man who hasn’t done a lot wrong in his life, to potentially give up his moral convictions, his good nature, and his innocence, in order to avenge or save his brother… You know, depends on what they do to his brother first.

Willem Dafoe is also in here as a small town loan shark, and Sam Shepard plays a family friend.

Here’s a hint. That gun is not for hunting. Okay, normally yes for hunting, but right now it isn’t. Shut up.

Out Of The Furnace might feature some of the better acting performances of the year. There is a scene with Bale and Saldana on a bridge and it absolutely tore my heart up. It was very unexpected and it felt incredibly real. This is the best performance for Affleck since The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. If it wasn’t for Harrelson’s goofy looking head, I wouldn’t have recognized him speech wise as the incredibly corrupt hill folk.

Unfortunately, the great acting is the only real thing I like from this movie.

It is definitely a slower moving film, as it wants to build up the fact that Russel is a great human and just trying to live his life. A lot of intense scenes involving others are spliced with Russel hunting and working, just to show how un-extreme his life is. In fact, the movie goes to incredibly lengths to make that point during the ending, which seems to drag on forever. On top of that, the ending almost feels a bit dreamlike, including an ambiguous final scene that I am unsure of its purpose.

I believe this film has a lot of symbolism incorporated within it, but potentially too much symbolism, and not enough entertainment.

Fantastic acting, a good idea for a story, but just a dull way to deliver that story.

It took a few years, but I am really stoked that I finally had the opportunity to see 1408. Technically the opportunity was always there, but never the drive.

1408 is part of an unintentional grouping of films. You probably know what I am talking about it. It fits in the category of “Movies that are just four numbers starring John Cusack”. Of course! 2012 is the other half of the pair.

Honestly, the only reason I never watched it was because I wanted to release it when it made sense from the date. But 2008 and was so long ago and there is no 14th month. 🙁

Overall, a terrible reason to wait, when SLJ has been waiting so patiently.

Mike Enslin (Cusack) is famous for debunking paranormal encounters, made famous around the world. You got a haunted house? Prove it. A haunted rocking chair? Doubt it. A haunted room? Let him stay in it.

Most of these people are lying to get more people to visit, and he finds out the truth. A pretty famous author now too, with people recognizing at least one of his books. Some of them about actual scary places too, but more often than not…you know.

Until he clambers his way over to Dolphin Hotel, a new rumor that has reached his ear despite its apparently long and dark history. The hotel refuses to let him rent out room 1408, but some court battle seems to work in his favor. Still, the head of the hotel, Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), does his best to convince him, including providing a full history of everyone that killed themselves or died in that room over the last hundred years. Still no dice.

Because ghosts aren’t real, right? Right?

Also starring Mary McCormack as his wife. But mostly for haunting purposes.

What in the fuck is wrong with that room?

Room 1408 turns out to be extremely ludicrous. Note, that is more than a normal amount of ludicrous. At first, it is your standard haunted room stuff. Phone/TV on the fritz, hot, seeing images. But eventually it gets beyond reasonable, as you can see in the picture above.

And it also decides to use a lot of deception/trickery to catch the the viewer and poor John Cusack off guard. But, was it scary?

Not to me at least. I didn’t think it was terrifying really, but I more so just felt bad for John, who must have had a killer headache or something. Hah. Killer.

I think if they went a more realistic approach, I would have found it scarier. However, because it was so far past realism, I gained some entertainment out of it as the room in the middle of a large hotel somehow crumbled under neath him. I wish this movie could have been better for me, I really do. But eh, shit happens.

Clearly, it took me a long, long time to watch Killers. Like three years is forever in movie years.

But why? Well, the trailers made it look super un-interesting. So that is a downer. Second, it stars That guy who I only liked in One Movie. (But to be fair, I tend to dislike most of the cast of That ’70s Show in movies)

And it came out around the same time as Knight and Day, a “similar themed movie” which I loved. A lot. But I bought Killers anyways, knowing one day I would just have to suck it up and watch the dang movie.

There is nothing you can really do to make me look at him and think Action Star.

Spencer Aimes (Ashton Kutcher) is not your ordinary dream boat, apparently. No, he is some sort of spy/assassin, but he wants to get out of the game. Good timing really, because he is in Nice, France at the same time that Jen Kornfeldt (Katherine Heigl) is, along with her parents (Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara).

But he wants to give it up, and now seems like a good time. He also runs into Jen and they start to hit it off quickly, while both hiding some secrets. Oh well.

Good news, they hit it off, and three years later, they are living together and everything is fantastic! Except, maybe Spencer’s boss never really accepted his resignation? Maybe he still expects him to help out? For whatever reason, the boss contacts him in this trying moments, where Jen thinks he is getting bored with their relationship and cheating on him. Next thing you know, one of Spencer’s friends is trying to kill him.

What?? For some reason, a $20 million bounty has been placed on his head. Shit. Now all these assholes are coming around trying to get their kill money on, which means he for sure has to tell Jen about his past.

The rest of the cast is full of cameos, of their friends, and coworkers, some of which might be other assassins sent to kill Spencer, some of which might be just actual friends. Who knows?! They include Rob Riggle, Usher, Katheryn Winnick, Casey Wilson, Lisa Ann Walter and Kevin Sussman.

Nope. Gun doesn’t help either.

Good news, the plot wasn’t what ruined the movie!

No, the plot ended up being okay. Not knowing who from your friends and family might be assassins sent to collect on a bounty? Leaves for a lot of potential action and comedy, not to mention improvised weapons.

Katherine Heigl wasn’t bad in this movie either. She played her role well. I couldn’t believe Kutcher at all, but I made that obvious. Selleck was nice too.

What kind of killed it for me is how long it took to get to the assassins, friend or foe, oh god danger, part. I think it was about 45/50 minutes into the movie. That is far too long! What was going on before that? A bunch of gossip, some love stuff, typical romcom secretive bull crap. Yawn yawn.

Because the second half was actually a bit entertaining, minus the extreme miscast of Kutcher. Maybe he could have been in the first half, and then they could have secretly replaced him with Gerard Butler for the second half. A man who is getting put into romcoms, despite only being great at action and musicals.

Oh well. I think I only spent a few bucks on this movie anyways.

Mel Gibson‘s real life antics have seemed to put a dimmer on his movie career.

The Beaver came out right after or before one of those recorded racist rants of his, which obviously heart the film monetarily, despite being awesome and Jodie Foster‘s first real try and directing.

He even got kicked out of The Hangover Part II, but that was probably better for him in the long.

Presumably, the same backlash has affected viewings of Get The Gringo, an action movie that came out a year ago, that I have heard maybe one or two people ever talk about.

I personally blame it on his strange ability to look like an adult Eddie Munster.

The Gringo (Gibson) is nicknamed that because he is white, and in a Mexican prison. Why? Well, the film opens with him and a partner getting chased by the cops. They ram through the Mexican border, and crash. Then they get caught by corrupt Mexican police, who give him false charges, and take the $2 million in cash in his vehicle!

The prison he is sent to isn’t a normal prison either. It is a ghetto. You can’t just leave, but their are apartments and stores, and its own viable economy set up in the area. It doesn’t have police roaming the streets either, just outside, so people can basically do what they want and they police themselves. Because of the set up, there are even kids in the prison, born and grown up in this area. Like, for instance, Kid (Kevin Hernandez), a kid here who sees Gringo steal some cash. Whoops.

Well, something is special about this kid, because The Gringo eventually finds out that no one is willing to hurt him or wrong him. Very interesting indeed. Must have something to do with one of the bigger criminals in the joint, Javi (Daniel Gimenez Cacho).

Oh well, Gringo just has to find away to escape, get his money back, and punish the people who set him up. Not too bad. Also featuring Peter Stormare, Dolores Heredia, and some Dean Norris action.

Yep. Two main characters, neither given real names.

Get The Gringo is indeed a strange movie, in that it has comedy. Or non intended comedy. I am not sure. Let’s say it is all intended.

Not in the “Oh its so bad that it is funny” or “so ridiculous/awkward that it is funny” but like, legitimate humorous scenes and narration by Gibson to entertain on a not so action-y level. Which is surprising, because of the three genres listed on IMDB, none of them are comedy. That is silly, I laughed a ton.

Get The Gringo’s first half was strangely entertaining for me. The Gringo was placed in a strange world and he had to use his wits and “charisma” to get him places, and everything seemed to work out.

Unfortunately, the ending and second half left me a bit more bored than I would have liked. I enjoyed the eventual escape that occured, and how it went down, just felt a lot of the build up to get to it was a too dull for me. Too much mindless shooting, not enough sexy shooting. I think most people would enjoy this movie more than me, and it certainly is worth a gander for those who enjoy action with non slapstick comedy.