The Bourne Legacy

Director: Tony Gilroy
Writers: Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Actors: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, & Edward Norton
[Can a shiny new cast reopen a legendary series?]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

It did not take long for the film adaptions of Robert Ludlum's Bourne series, made up of The Bourne Identity (book-1980 film-2002), The Bourne Supremacy (book-1886, film-2004), and The Bourne Ultimatum (book-2007 film-1890), to establish themselves as this generation's standard for action/adventure movies about spies. Tragically, Ludlum did not get to see this trilogy make the jump to cinema since he passed away a year before the first movie's release.

Not long after Ludlum's death and the release of the first Bourne movie, Eric Van Lustbader began writing novels that have continued Jason Bourne's story. He has written six books so far, The Bourne Legacy (book-2004 film-2012), The Bourne Betrayal (book-2007), The Bourne Sanction (book-2008), The Bourne Deception (book-2009), The Bourne Objective (book-2010), The Bourne Dominion (book-2011), and The Bourne Imperative (book-2012), which has been well received considering the fact that they are a continuation of another author's work.

Now enter the new The Bourne Legacy film, which attempts to reopen the series with the title of Lustbader's first novel, but with a new main character and completely different story. Does this movie deliver that goods we have come to expect from the Bourne series or does it crash and burn like many an after-thought sequel? Let's find out!

WHAT I LIKED

Rachel Weisz. I am, of course, biased, as I am of the persuasion that The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) would not be worth watching without her.

The wolves. Now I am not claiming that these wolves are cooler than White Fang (1991) or scarier than the wolves in Fire and Ice (1983), but they are worth mentioning.

Fire and Ice (1983)

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

I try to not engage in movie hating mid movie, especially when my wife is present because she does not appreciate such behavior. However, this movie was so bad that about three-fourths of the way through the movie my wife began tearing this movie a new one. This started with the POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS Barricade Tape in Manila, Philippines. While it is true that both Filipino and English are the official languages of the Phillipines, one would think that the police would use tape with the native language.

Aaron Cross has a creepy fixation with doing mean things to wolves.

Aaron consistently refers to his two medications as "chems". What is this, Fallout (video game-1997)? While the term "chems" is legitimate slang for synthetic medication, I have a difficult time believing that this secret government agency with names for everything refuses to refer to blue and green pills as anything different than "chems", "blues", and "greens".

One of the best things about Jason Bourne in this series is the fact that while he is capable of amazing feats of skill and yet he is still bound to the normal restraints of being human. These restraints are cast off with little to no mention in The Bourne Legacy. The agents are now super-powered or at least capable of climbing things like The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), jumping ridiculous distances, falling from bone-shattering heights, and shooting air support like they are in a round of Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 3 (video game-2011).

If one was to take Jason Bourne and make him chattier / whinier then you would have Aaron Cross. Also, Aaron doesn't seem to snap between friend and killer like Jason does either, which is one of the main reasons Jason is so intriguing. All-around Aaron is a weaker character.

The story of The Bourne Legacy was not good. It was so schizophrenic that I was unable to tie most of it together. This does not bode well for a plot-driven movie like this one.

This movie was far too comfortable with some people, agencies, and events being unexplained until later in the movie or at all. Who is this guy played by Edward Norton? I watched the movie and I have no idea. What does his agency do other than pester other agencies? I watched the movie and I have no idea. What do his assistants actually do other than talk smack? I watched the movie and I have no idea. Why was this movie even made? I watched the movie and I have no idea. The most annoying delayed information was when Aaron talks about his life before the blue pill. He talks about his low IQ as if he just likes being smarter, as opposed to having previous brain trauma, as you find out later.

No one likes a one-upper and this movie is exactly that. You thought Treadstone and Blackbriar were scary? Outcome is scarier! You thought Jason Bourne was awesome? All the new agents have super powers! You thought those agents were cool? We have even cooler ones! Not only is one-upping annoying, it does not make sense considering just how powerful these people and programs are.

LARX was the lamest super-powered bad guy ever. Galactus, in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) was scarier and he was just a space cloud. All LARX did in the few minutes he was on the screen was chase them and not very effectively. New Goblin's paintball mask was more useful in Spider-man 3 (2007).

In an attempt to make viewers feel better about how poorly this movie connects itself to the previous three films, The Bourne Legacy zooms out while playing "Extreme Ways" by Moby, the same song used to end The Bourne Ultimatum (2007). This left a bitter taste in my mouth.

This movie gives inspirational credit to Robert Ludlum but not Eric Van Lustbader, even though they stole his book's title.

FINAL THOUGHTS

It was painfully obvious that this movie project was started and abandoned by those already working on the series, only to be picked up by those wanting a piece of the action. I give The Bourne Legacy a D- for being that annoying sequel that everyone wants to ignore.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

I would recommend that you not see it. If you are fan of the Bourne series and enjoy movie plots that make sense, then brace yourself for the inevitable disappointment and confusion you will feel when watching this film. I won't say that I completely regret seeing "The Bourne Redundancy", Paul Greengrass' nickname for the film, but it will not be on my watch again list anytime soon.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 5 of 10 (D-)

Plot: 3 of 10 (an unnecessarily complex plot that explains itself too late or not at all)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.!/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-55%/A-58%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (While the action is not as fierce as previous Bourne films it still has quite a bit of: shooting, stabbing, punching, bashing, breaking, snapping, crashing, wrecking, exploding, etc.)

Language/Profanity: 4 of 10 (occasional use of: "ass", variants of "shit", and "bitch")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (Aaron Cross is shirtless a few times)

Spiritual Aspects: 1 of 10 (the names Jesus and Christ are used a expletives)

Drugs/Alcohol: 1 of 10 (nothing worth mentioning)

Prometheus

Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Jon Spaihts & Damon Lindelof
Actors: Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce, & Idris Elba
[Proof that you do not need Sigourney Weaver for a good Alien movie]

Rated R {for non-squeamish adults}

Ridley Scott revisits the world of his science fiction masterpiece Alien (1979) with Prometheus, a daring prequel to the Alien quadrilogy. Fans of the classic series wait eagerly to find out if Prometheus will fall in line with Scott's Alien (1979), and its even more popular sequel directed by James Cameron, Aliens (1986), or if it will leave them wanting like David Fincher's third installment, Alien3 (1992), and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's fourth, Alien: Resurrection (1997). Can Scott bring a thrilling, game-changing performance like he did with Alien (1979)? It will take more than a cool sounding slogan to make me a believer.

"In space no one can hear you scream..." - Alien (1979)

WHAT I LIKED

The budget of Prometheus was more than ten times that of Alien (1979). I am not saying that budget makes a movie, because that is far from the truth, but it definitely did not hurt. In fact, in several pre-release interviews Scott mentioned his excitement about the technological advancement and being more able to show his vision for the film.

Two viral clips, called "Prometheus Viral", were released to promote the film and give viewers important back story before they saw the movie. Is this the next stage in movie advertisement evolution? (Both videos can be viewed below)



This movie is all about the thrilling plot twists...
"If the ending to [Prometheus] is just going to be the room that John Hurt walks into that's full of [alien] eggs [in Alien], there's nothing interesting in that, because we know where it's going to end. Good stories, you don't know where they're going to end."
- Damon Lindelof, writer

The story was not spoon fed to the audience. There were several moments in the movie where I had to work plot connections on my own or information was not explained. Some examples of this would be David reporting that crew has been asleep for "2 years, 4 months, 18 days, 36 hours, 15 minutes" [unexplained], Dr. Shaw carbon dating something on a foreign planet [unexplained], director Vickers having sex to prove she is not an android like David [connection] and drug-fueled Dr. Shaw being about to run after traumatic abdominal surgery [unexplained]. While I admit that this bothers me in most movies, the confusion added to the thriller of this film.

Prometheus brought visuals and sound on par with several of Ridley Scott's other masterpieces, like Blade Runner (1982) and Gladiator (2000).

The characters and their interactions with each other were without a doubt the best part of this film. Both Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron really brought it with David and director Vickers, but Noomi Rapace's performance as Dr. Shaw was nothing short of amazing.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

I really hate when commercials show you key parts of a film, especially when a movie is in the thriller genre. Prometheus was guilty of this trend in all of its commercials excluding its first teaser. (That trailer can be viewed at the bottom of this post)

The viral clips, which included important back story, were not in the film. This was an huge oversight, as most movie go-ers are not avid Alien Youtube©, Facebook©,and Twitter© fans.

If you go to Prometheus to be startled like you were in Alien (1979), prepare yourself for inevitable disappointment. Prometheus relies more heavily on story than its predecessor, which is not really a bad thing other than it left a hole in my heart in the shape of jumping in my seat/grabbing my neighbor in sudden panic.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Prometheus was far from the best movie of the year, but it was more than refreshing to see a well-made  aliens vs. humans film that did not leave me feeling like I wasted my time... and that if I could go back in time and stop myself from doing so, I would have done so five times! *cough* Skyline (2010) *cough* I give Prometheus a B for being better than average.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

This is a genre film. If you do not like science fiction AND thriller films, do not waste your time. For those who enjoy said genres, I would encourage you to see Prometheus on a big screen with killer sound so that you can enjoy its vast visuals and sound. Definitely worth the cost of my theater ticket.

SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B-)

Plot: 7 of 10 (a classic science fiction plot, insane plot twists included)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-73%/A-72%

CONTENT

Violence: 9 of 10 (off-the-hinge intense violence/gore: several characters are bio-poisoned, decay/disintegrate, threatened, burned/melted by acid, burned/caught on fire, straggled, choked, squeezed, decapitated, thrown, and have limbs broken. Frightening images include: aliens slithering into character's screaming mouths, exposed bone, a character's body is taken over by an alien, an alien pregnancy, a violent emergency surgery, aliens doing alien stuff, and large alien tentacles attacking and killing several characters)

Language/Profanity: 7 of 10 (use of the following: "damn", "hell", "shit", "bitch", "bugger", "f**k")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 6 of 10 (crew members are seen in their non-provocative, bandage-resembling undergarments all throughout the movie, some are seen changing, a woman sits in her boyfriend's lap while they kiss and embrace, the lay in bed together, she begins to remove his shirt, sex is implied and confirmed later by another character when it is discovered that she is pregnant, a man jokes about two other men having sex, a woman flirts with a fellow crew member before inviting him to her room, sex is implied)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (the story credits the creation of humanity to aliens, characters wrestle with this concept throughout the movie)

Drugs/Alcohol: 5 of 10 (alcohol is consumed several times throughout the movie, a character rigs his space suit to allow him to smoke what he implies is weed)

Marvel's The Avengers

Director: Joss Whedon
Writers: Joss Whedon & Zak Penn
Actors: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson, and many more!
[A cast of everyone you ever wanted]

Rated PG-13 {Please remember that PG-13 means 13 and up parents, GEEZ!}

Inspired by the comic book marvels of Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, Marvel's The Avengers had fans electrified with a first trailer of voice-overs and an animated logo. The full weight of this excitement was shown in its breaking of opening weekend box office records with $207,400,000, crushing the $169,189,427 made by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) by just under 40 million dollars. Money is not everything though, as we have seen with so many super hero movies... *cough* Green Lantern (2011) *cough* So let's take a look!

WHAT I LIKED

I was quite worried that having several main characters and their stories in a single movie would be end in tears, especially since they are super heroes. However, this movie blew me away with a integration of characters like nothing I have ever seen before. Here is my run down...

Hawkeye actually mattered in this movie. Definitely a step up from Thor (2011).

Black Widow was surprisingly important to the story plot. I liked her performance in Iron Man 2 (2010) but her character seemed to work better as member of the super hero team.

Thor had a solid performance that added greatly to the story. I liked Thor (2011) but I felt like he seemed too other-worldly. Marvel's The Avengers gave him the human connection he needed.

The Hulk was a character that took some time to get into the flow of the movie, but once he got going I wished the smashing would never end. Mark Ruffalo's performance as The Hulk not only crushed Eric Bana's The Hulk (2003), a disappointment to the Marvel franchise, but it found room for improvement in Edward Norton's The Incredible Hulk (2008), the salvation of The Hulk series .

Captain America brought the same enjoyable class to the movie that he did in Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and it could not have fit better.

Iron Man / Tony Stark was the best part of this movie. End of line.*

Awesome characters aside, the combat in this movie did not leaving me wanting anything other than another Avengers movie. 

*Tron (1982)

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

This movie was over marketed, more specifically over commercial-ed. I really dislike it when I am shown a significant amount of defining moments from a movie without context.

!!!NOTE!!!
I have seen several other reviews that claim Marvel's The Avengers was too formulaic. This is a terrible complaint. A movie with comic roots is going to be formulaic if it is being true to said roots. 

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie was everything I wanted and more. Even with people telling me all the best parts before seeing it. Marvel's The Avengers deserves the rare A for saving the world and my watching experience.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It is definitely worth the theater ticket. I will be adding this movie to my collection ASAP.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 9 of 10 (A)

Plot: 9 of 10 (An incredible amount of action while still explaining exactly what was needed)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 8.8/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-93%/A-96%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (intense violence but not graphic with minimal blood: constant hand-to-hand combat, a man's eye is gouged out, people of shot/stabbed/burned/bludgeoned/blasted, aliens are shot/stabbed/burned/bludgeoned/blasted/disembodied/crushed/, blood is seen on wounds/playing cards/walls/dead main characters)

Language/Profanity: 4 of 10 (infrequent use of: "damn", "hell", "bastard", "oh my God", and "son of bitch")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 4 of 10 (skin-tight somewhat revealing costumes are worn by the female characters, an intimate relationship is implied between Stark and Pepper by their flirty banter and actions, Banner is nude but given clothes before he is fully shown)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (Thor and Loki are constantly referred to as gods or demi-gods, Captain America after meeting both claims there is only one God)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (Occasionally drinking throughout, a character is accused of using "weed")

The Hunger Games

Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Suzanne Collins, Gary Ross, & Billy Ray
Actors: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, & Wes Bentley
[A cast of knowns and well-knowns]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

Based on the first book in Suzanne Collins' popular teen novel trilogy, The Hunger Games had fans worried that more changes than the THE added to its title would destroy their much loved story. This (for the most part) melted away as it broke opening weekend box office records with $152,535,747 in sales, placing it behind the $169,189,427 made by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) and the $158,411,483 made by The Dark Knight (2008).

WHAT I LIKED

Many movies could take a lesson from The Hunger Games' use of appropriate violence. Do not misunderstand me. This movie is quite violent, but it shows only what is needed to convey its message, nothing more and nothing less.

Call me a sucker for well designed costumes and sets, but I was quite impressed. Especially with how it played off some really outrageous characters, costumes, and customs as normal. You should see what these people were wearing!

I fell in love with the story in this film. It had so many great elements, so that were new and some that were inspired by other world events or works. I was a bit worried going into the theater that The Hunger Games movie adaption would lean more heavily on elements in other similar and popular stories, like Battle Royale (book-1999, film-2000), that also were adapted into films but luckily it did not.

Most movies involving insidious governments all about injustice and oppression are extremely preaching, like V for Vendetta (2005) and many others, but I was extremely relieved that The Hunger Games avoided this painful and overused rut.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

There were several moments in the film that I wished I could hear what the characters were thinking. I am not advocating radio-like voices like the one's in the Speed Racer (1967) tv series. It was obvious, though, that the book could and probably did use these opportunities (at least for the main character, Katniss).

Yet again, I find myself disappointed and distractied by fans of a movie. For your convenience and understanding, I have two divided them into two classes, the purists and the racist purists. While I admit that the purists are not as bad as a group like the Twilight (2008) moms, who were practically killing themselves over a fictional character from a poorly written book quadrilogy, no one wants to hear excessive whining during a movie about something small they would have been oblivious to. Regardless, complaints are made less valid by the fact that the author, Suzanne Collins, was working directly with the makers of the film. The racist purists, however, are a totally different kind of crazy. I admit that when a movie changes something pivotal to a character's development I get a bit nervous, but this mostly out of concern for the original message of the original media. Imagine if Black Dynamite (2009) was a white guy. If the changes are non-impacting or add to the story then I have no problem. It was obvious that they do not share my optimism with their nasty and racist (not to mention highly publicized) comments about some characters being black. Shame on you racist purists! 

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie was great, but it was not perfect. I give it a B+ for showing all other books-to-film how it should be done.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It is worth the theater ticket. I would definitely recommend The Hunger Games in whatever form of media is available to you (excluding smoke signal and/or reenactment).


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 9 of 10 (definitely possessed those rich book roots that other book adaptions dream of)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-85%/A-86%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (children are forceful taken from their parents to fight in a survival game, a child kills another with a rock, a child is burned, a child is stung to death, a child's neck is broken, a child is poisoned, there is constant weapon combat leading to several sword/knife/spear/bow/etc. deaths, dead bodies are shown but not lingered on, there is a violent riot, and there is an implied forced suicide)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (infrequent use of: "damn", "hell" and "oh my God")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (a few jealous looks and kisses are exchanged)

Spiritual Aspects: 1 of 10 (nothing worth noting)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (One of the supporting characters is a drunkard, and unidentifiable colored drinks are consumed throughout the movie)

John Carter

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, & Michael Chabon
Actors: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Thomas Haden Church, Willem Dafoe, & Mark Strong
[This movie had lots of familiar faces even if you are terrible for names]

Rated PG-13 {definitely a movie for teens and up}

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic novel "A Princess of Mars", John Carter of Mars showed that deviation from an original source can work if the source is used as an inspiration rather than a fanboy-pleasing crutch. I am, of course, comparing this to a similar Disney experiment, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which struggled greatly with complications from its video game series to film conversion. 

WHAT I LIKED

It was very obvious that this movie's budget exceeded 200 million. Contrasting movies like Green Lantern (2011) and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which squandered their high budgets with cheesy and even painful CGI, John Carter put those funds to good use with beautiful landscapes and non-distracting CGI.

I was also impressed with the acting in this movie, as others like it have suffered from the unnatural and awkward flirting bug, which I hear some of the fans of the novel wanted.

I absolutely loved this movie's throwback to the classic space opera feel, placing it in with some giants of film like Flash Gordon (1936) and Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977). Besides their vast scope, there is something about these films that is just charming. Needless to say, I left the theater wanting a follow up story.


WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

My only real complaint about this movie is how poorly it was marketed. It was not until the day of its release that I saw a good trailer (embed below) and became interested in seeing it. All other marketing and trailers were painful at best.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie definitely surprised me with both its creativity and quality. This movie is easily deserving of a B rating.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

I would definitely recommend as a rental. If you enjoy movies like this then you should consider seeing it in theaters.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 8 of 10 (obviously had book roots)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-51%/A-69%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (it is fairly violent: with constant gun and sword battles, executions, a torture scene, a beheading, a saddening flashback, and skeletons to match)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (there was some: with "hell", "damn", and "goddamn" sprinkled covertly into it)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 5 of 10 (healthy sexuality is show: characters exchange longing looks but do not have sex until they are married, his wife is shown covered in sheets afterward)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (this a big issue in the film: as the angel-like bad guys claim they run the show under the guise of a deity, that their powers are technology that isn't for sharing, and that they will do whatever it takes to stay on top)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (John walks into a bar for a drink early in the film, and is shown drinking a few times)

Battle: Los Angeles

Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Writer: Christopher Bertolini
Actors: Aaron Eckhart (Dark Knight, No Reservations, etc.), Aaron Eckhart, and more Aaron Eckhart.
[There were other actors but Aaron Eckhart (Ssgt. Michael Nantz) dominated the screen]

Rated PG-13 {definitely not a good idea for small children or squeamish people}

The prerelease IMDB plot summary of this movie read...
"A Marine platoon faces off against an alien invasion in Los Angeles."
and that is exactly what you will see if you watch this movie, nothing more and nothing less.

I imagine that is why critics despised this movie so much. There was nothing "new" about it. Battle: Los Angeles was just a movie about soldiers across the globe duking it out with extraterrestrial invaders on their respective coasts (this movie focuses on the Marines in Los Angeles). With that said, it was an excellent watch. It may have been the same old thing but it did it with a style and class that most Sci-Fi/Action movies lack.

WHAT I LIKED

Besides the awesome war-time action, Battle: Los Angeles showed that tons of obscene language is not necessary for a good combat-laden film. Take that every other war movie!

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

My only complaint, which is a minor one, is that some of the camera shots made you think something was sneaking up on the soldiers when really they just wanted to get closer. This somewhat distracted from the movies action because then you were wondering why they filmed it that way.

FINAL THOUGHTS

While the movie is not much deeper than the trailers, it did not hurt my viewing to have seen any of them. This movie deserves a B- for being better than average but nothing new.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It would not kill you to wait for it to release but the theater experience was worth my $8.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B-)

Plot: 6 of 10 (nothing new)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 5.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-35%/A-49%

CONTENT

Violence: 8 of 10 (there is a lot of death: they wade through corpses, forces take turns savagely murdering each other, soldiers are gravely wounded, and they dig through a live alien's innards to find a weak spot)

Language/Profanity: 6 of 10 (surprisingly low for a war movie)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 4 of 10 (virginity and losing it is discussed, one of the Marines give his wife's pregnant belly a kiss)

Spiritual Aspects: 2 of 10 (I'm sure someone says Oh God and I just didn't notice)

Drugs/Alcohol: 3 of 10 (there's a party early in the movie where a guy pukes up a beer, everyone is drinking)

Redline

Director: Takeshi Koike
Writers: Katsuhito Ishii, Yoji Enokido, & Yoshiki Sakurai
Actors: Takuya Kimura, Yû Aoi, & Tadanobu Asano
[A cast of very famous anime voice actors]

Not Rated {for adults only}

R-r-r-r-r-r-r Redline, Katsuhito Ishii's action-packed racer, has continued to built in popularity since its first showing in 2009 at the Locarno International Film Festival, especially in animated media circles.

This film is a bit hard to describe, other than that is like Speed Racer (tv series-1967, film-2008), The Fast and the Furious (2001), and F-Zero: GP Legend (2003) rolled into one movie, so I will refer to a favorite comment about the movie...
"You will leave Redline with no pants, socks or even underwear as they would all be blown away by the sheer bombastic brilliance of Redline." - Luke Halliday, Capsule Computers

WHAT I LIKED

Redline has phenomenal art with awesome coloration. It boasts seven years of development and over 100,000 hand drawn images. 

While some have said that Redline lacks a story, I would argue that it is a story played in action rather than with words. It is true this movie tells you very little about anything other than the Redline race and a little back story on each of the champion racers, but this movie does a great job of giving you big enough pieces of the puzzle that you can put them together, except for a few weird parts.

The detail and effort put into the development of each character is amazing. A character may only get a few seconds of screen time and yet you can tell that they really spent time thinking out that character and their motivation. This, however, can be a bit confusing until you have seen JP enough to establish that he is the main character.

I really liked the race tracks in this movie. Mostly because they weren't really tracks or even roads.

Hands down, my favorite element in this movie is the speed. The racers drive so fast that they bleed and their cars explode. Just when you think they are going as fast as they possibly can... they go faster and faster AND FASTER!!! It reminded me a lot of Dragon Ball Z (1989), where the characters, despite hitting their power limits, continue to gain power.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

This movie is weird. A tiny bit less of that would have been nice.

I really dislike how much more profane the English dub of this film is, most of which is completely unnecessary.


FINAL THOUGHTS

While I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, its appeal is not universal. I give it a B- for being great movie but  far too weird to be an A movie or close to one.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

Definitely a worthwhile watch for anyone who appreciates phenomenal art and can tolerate or enjoy absurdity.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B-)

Plot: 6 of 10 (An intriguing but overly complex mess)

This movie is on Evan's personal favorites list.
I recommend watching this movie in the original Japanese.

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes A-83%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (most race scenes contain tense action, characters commonly drive so fast that they bleed out their noses and mouths, punches result in blood, there gun/ship fights where characters bleed/explode/die, a guy is punched then his teeth are pulled out of the glove that hit him, a character is disintegrated, and a character is absorbed by a monster)

Language/Profanity: 8 of 10 (occasional use of the following: "hell", "horndog", variants of "ass", variants of "shit", variants of "damn", "bastard", variants of "c**k", "p***y", and variants of "f**k")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 6 of 10 (there are several scenes where clothed boobs noticeably bounce, an innuendo about racing making someone hot, implied adultery between a racer and his female boss, a reoccurring dream sequence features a suave racer with two scantly clad women in the back who he kisses at the same time, a female character is topless with breasts showing while watching tv for nearly 30 secs, there are two scandalously dressed racers who are referred to as "rejects from a porno", a group of fans in bikinis is seen at the end of the race, and a loving kiss is shared between embracing characters)

Spiritual Aspects: 2 of 10 (one of the cars is named "Godwing", the names of Jesus and God are inappropriately used, and a female character is referred to as a goddess)

Drugs/Alcohol: 6 of 10 (characters smoke hookah/cigarettes/cigars often throughout the movie, occasionally alcohol is consumed, legal/illegal betting is key to the story, in two scenes cocaine is consumed, and character mentions "tweeking")

[Japanese trailer]

[English trailer]