The Bourne Legacy (2012)

You know, spy movies are like making bacon. To make sure it is perfect, there are certain things to look out for.

First, when frying it in a pan, be sure to only cook it in its own greases, as it needs nothing else. For this reason it is also advisable to cook more than simply a few strips at a time, so as to be sure there is enough grease to go around, otherwise it may burn.

Also, there is no need for constant flipping. Once per side is enough, similar to if you were cooking a steak.

Finally, never put cold bacon straight into a hot pan. Always lay the strips in a room temperature pan first, then put the pan on a burner at medium high heat. This will ensure an even cooking, and prevent burning.

You see, if the bacon were the characters, and the pan is the script, and the grease is the action, you have to make sure that the script isn't too hot, because the characters might start splattering action everywhere and make your stove-top all greasy. Maybe some might splash on your arms and it might string real bad, and you want to wipe it off you quick because it's burning your arm, but your hands are full because you're turning the characters with a fork and if you drop it than a bunch of action is going to get all over your shoes and the floor and it might cause moderately severe burns and grease fires suck to put out so you better just take the pain.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't like the Bourne movies. But I do like bacon. Hmm. That analogy made more sense in my head...

Pictured above: Espionage.

Going into "The Bourne Legacy" I had been made aware that unless you were a big fan of the Bourne series up to this point, and had a pretty good knowledge of them going into it, this was going to be a really rough movie to watch. The word "confusing" popped up more than a few occasions. Apparently "The Bourne Legacy" takes place while the events of the third film are going on, kind of like a companion piece to it, if you will. However, from what I understood watching the film, while events from "The Bourne Ultimatum" affect this film, the events from this film don't affect "The Bourne Ultimatum." I think.

I get the feeling I'm going to have to fall back on the phrase "I think" more often than I'd like when talking about this film. In the case of "The Bourne Ultimatum" I have to resort to it because honestly, I slept through a good chunk of that film. That was an intensely boring experience for me, and I literally have no memory of it. None. The only thing I think I remember is a shot near the end where someone sitting in their car looks in their side mirror and sees someone else walking down the street. That's it. Mothra could have gotten elected as the new Pope in that movie and I wouldn't remember it. Although since I can't remember otherwise, I have to assume that Mothra becoming Pope could have indeed happened.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't care for this movie any more than I cared for the others, which was not a lot. And while I had no idea what was going on in the Matt Damon Bourne movies, at least they had the decency to have a modicum of action in them. Well, at least the first one did. I can't remember the others.

The biggest problem with "The Bourne Legacy" is that it's boring. It's a bunch of talking heads spewing lingo-laden techobabble. Remember in any of the various "Star Trek" series whenever someone, usually Spock or Data would start rattling off some indecipherable science speak which basically boiled down into something really simple like "We need to increase the power to this thing" except it sounded really smart? That's "The Bourne Legacy" in a nutshell. Just 2 hours and 10 minutes of just that, except they're replacing science-speak with espionage-speak.

Every line of dialogue Edward Norton has could be followed by the question, "What?"

I could figure out the "what" of the movie. I knew what was going on, because at the core it's really not difficult to "get." Jeremy Renner is part of what can only be described as a super solider program. He needs meds to stay alive. Jason Bourne happens. The people running the program flip out and try to kill all their agents to cover it up. Jeremy Renner grabs a doctor who worked on the meds to make it so he doesn't need meds anymore. They go to Malaysia, get the cure, and now he doesn't need meds anymore. The end.

That's the plot. I knew the "what" but the thing that made it really frustrating was that I had no idea what was going on with the "who" or "why." It's just a bunch of people talking about whatever and doing stuff and running from some other people because of who knows why and they need to get this thingy because they need it for that thingy and oh look a motorcycle. I know what one of those things are. So hey, is anyone going to get shot in the face in this thing or what?

"Oh, this? Naw, man. This is my cell phone. I made it look just like a gun. And in hindsight, I'm not sure why."

I shouldn't have to tell you that it's a very annoying way to watch a movie. But such is the current state of the "spy thriller." Nothing can be simple like blowing up Fort Knox to make the price of gold skyrocket. No, you need plots within schemes within conspiracies. And you know, it really makes me miss the overblown, exposition laden monologues the villains give where they explain what their plan is, because trust me, some clarity in this movie would have been nice. Not that it would have mattered much, since "The Bourne Legacy" doesn't even have a central villain.

That's right, there's no antagonist. Oh sure, there are people out there trying to shoot him for various, poorly defined reasons, but really, the antagonist in this film is the fact that he has to take medication. Oh, take THAT Blowfeldt! That's some hardcore conflict going on there. What's next, is Wilfred Brimley going to get into a high-speed helicopter chase with his diabeetus?

Oh man. Now I want them to bring back "Airwolf" and cast Wilfred Brimley in the lead.

And for those of you who saw the film and are going to bring it up, no, the little Asian man on the motorcycle doesn't count. I said "central villain." You can't throw a random little Asian man in with 20 minutes left for a chase scene and call him the antagonist. And Edward Norton doesn't count, either. With the exception of a flashback which makes little sense and adds nothing to anything, the two are never on screen with each other, and I'm not entirely sure that Renner's character knows if Norton is the one trying to find him. So it's entirely possible that our protagonist isn't even aware of the "bad guy." Truly an earth-shaking rivalry equal to Holmes and Moriarty!

Don't lie to me, press photo. This 35 second scene is the only time they share screen time.

The action that's in it, when it feels like having it, is at best just OK. Certainly it's not good enough to make us wait for as long as they do. There's a shootout in a house that's halfway passable, and there is the centerpiece action scene with the motorcycles, but I honestly found that last chase to be kind of redundant to the point of boredom. It also didn't help that I had no idea who the guy chasing them was supposed to be. And of course it's all filmed in that patented Bourne style shaky camera which guarantees that you'll have no idea what's going on, although to be fair it's better shot than the rest of the Bourne movies.

But there was one other thing that "The Bourne Legacy" had that the Matt Damon series did not. And what that thing was is quite possibly one of the singlehandedly greatest moments that I've seen in any movie ever, and I'm dead serious. There's a scene in this film that is Barney Stinson level Legendary. You can't even contemplate the awesomeness. Or the hilarity.

Allow me to set the scene for you.

So Jeremy Renner is 2 miles from the middle of Nowhere, Alaska, right? He has a tracking device in his hip. The people trying to kill him are using that device to lock on to him and fire missiles at him from a drone aircraft. So he cuts out the tracking device and sits by a tree to wait for the wolves that have been following him for days to find him.

As the wolves find him, Jeremy Renner straight up tackles the pack leader like Warren Sapp, an act which is by itself so absurdly hardcore that it deserves its own discussion. As he wrestles the wolf into a full-nelson headlock, he manages to jam the tracking device down its throat.

See where this is going? Yeah, it's going exactly where you think it's going.

"Oh crap."

Jeremy then starts running away from the wolves as we see the drone lock on to the signal. As the missile is launched, streaking towards the target, Jeremy, in slow motion action hero glory, makes his final dash through the woods. And then BOOM! A massive explosion behind him completely annihilates that poor furry bastard who had no idea what was in store for him when he woke up that morning.

And I could not stop laughing. It was one of the most hysterical things I'd seen all year up to that point. I mean, how many movies have the hero taking out a wolf with a goddamn Stinger missile? That's one of the best uses of "overkill" I've seen. That's Schwarzenegger level ridiculous. That's like John Malkovitch's death scene in "Con Air." That's like dropping Knights of The Round on an Imp with 3 HP in "Final Fantasy." That's like the Mythbusters cleaning out a dump truck with 500 lbs of high explosives.

That, my friends, is awesome.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I will be the first to admit that I am not the best judge of these movies based on the fact that I plain don't like them, but I did not like "The Bourne Legacy." Maybe if you're a huge Bourne fan you'd dig it. Maybe. But for me, with the exception of the exploding wolf scene, it's just boring, unmemorable, and confusing. Skip it.

Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy (2011)

This is going to be brief. In fact, I'm debating whether or not to even write anything about "Tinker, Tailor, BlahBlah, Whatever." The reason for this is simple: It holds a special distinction.

Now, I've seen a LOT of movies. I've sat through some vile, vile crap. But there are very few movies I've hit the "STOP" button on. I've fast forwarded through some, true, but very seldom have I just not been able to even bring myself to chapter skip to the end. I could probably count them on one hand.

Well, now I might need to use both thumbs.

I couldn't make it through this one, guys. I just couldn't. I'm shocked, honestly, because I really like Gary Oldman, but good gravy was this bad. And it wasn't even the good kind of bad where I could make fun of it. It was just BORING.

What puzzles me is that I've actually sat through movies that were more boring and dull and plodding than this one. For crying out loud, I sat through "Tree of Life," although that was a close one. I think main difference is that while a movie like "Tree of Life" is mindbogglingly boring and dumb, at least I "got it." It was a pretentious art flick. I got it.

What "Tinky Winky Dipsy Po" is though, is a spy movie. And I HATE spy movies. Unless the spy movie's poster contains the phrase "James Bond returns in..." I hate them. And while I can stomach spy movies to a degree, the plot of "Tipsy Turvey Drunk Stupid" is so murky, so understated, so cryptic and so meandering that every 5 minutes or so, I was forced to pause the film and recap the movie out loud to the best of my comprehension, just so that I could try and figure out what, if anything, the scene I was watching was talking about. And most of the time, I was unsuccessful.

After a while, I was ready to crack. It seemed like I had been watching this movie for 3 and a half hours, and at no point did I approach anything resembling a firm grasp on who was who or what they were doing. So finally, in desperation, I did what I always do when I'm not enjoying a movie: I hit the "select" button on my PS3 remote to see how much time was left.

I wasn't even an hour into the film. There was still about 60% of the movie left to go.

With a mighty roar of "Are you FRAKKING kidding me?!" I hit the stop button. I'm not proud of this, but it had to be done. I have better things to do with my life.

I know as a self-styled critic, it is important to watch movies. But there was really no reason for me to keep watching "Wynken, Blynken, Nod." It's every lousy spy movie I've ever seen, only on a morphine drip. It's so slow that "2001: A Space Odyssey" would lap it. You could clock the edits with an egg timer. Characters just seem to appear out of nowhere and start talking like they're vitally important, when I didn't have the slightest clue who any of them were. And finally, after seeing that I wasn't even halfway through, I realized there was no coming back. And I didn't care.

THE BOTTOM LINE - Skip, skip, skip, dear GOD skip it. The only conceivable way I could in good conciseness recommend this movie is if you are just a die-hard sheep who cannot physically get enough spy movies. If you thought something like "The Good Sheppard" was interesting or something...maybe. I just could not find the motivation to spend another hour of my life watching this crap.

Abduction (2011)

I really don't know how to feel about Taylor Lautner. Although he was god-awful terrible in "Twilight," I can't fault him for that. Everyone was terrible in that except for Billy Burke and Michael Sheen. It's the source material. You can't do anything respectable with it. I do think he has just the slightest bit of potential, given the fact that of the three leads in that so called "saga," he was the only one with more than 2 emotions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not marking any dates in my calender for when his next movie comes out, I'm just saying he has a range greater than a Chia-Pet. That's a legitimate compliment for someone cast in "Twilight."

So how does Taylor's first starring role hold up? Will he surprise us with some acting chops before now hidden by the shlock of the teenybopper material that was holding back huge amounts of raw talent? Or will he once again become an obnoxiously smirking sex symbol for jail-bait and soccer moms to fawn over as he stumbles around removing his shirt at every opportunity? Is this going to be his moment to prove to himself and the world that there is more to the Taylor Lautner Experience than just abs and hair gel? Will he -

Time into film: 4 minutes 32 seconds.

Ok then. Just checking. Matthew McConaughey would be proud.

Seriously, you could forge steel on these abs. This guy is amazing, and as much I complain about it, if I looked like that, I would develop an allergy to shirts, too.


As you may have been able to figure out, "Abduction" was not the gutsy, groundbreaking role that would define Taylor Lautner as a legitimate actor and launch him into the spotlight to run with the big dogs. No, this is just another teenage cash-sink with nothing substantial about it. It exists so that young girls can watch Taylor Lautner try to be Jason Bourne in a setting that isn't dark, gritty, or confusing (or bloody).

Oh and he gets a girlfriend. He has to get a girlfriend. That's of critical import. OMG!

Relationships in spy movies ALWAYS end well.

In order to dumb it down for the kiddies, "Abduction" had to be...well, just a little bit dumb. The idea is that for some reason or another, most likely for his safety, Taylor Lautner's character has been, without his knowledge, raised by foster parents. His dad was a spy or something, as are, without his knowledge, his foster parents. When the truth is revealed through a missing children's website in a rather silly set of coincidences, all of a sudden his identity is out, and people want him dead.


The plot isn't the worst thing I've ever seen. In fact, as silly as it may seem at the moment, generally speaking it does tie itself together well. Most times when something silly comes up, within a few minutes they do back it up with enough evidence to at least make it plausible, and there were a few times when a plot hole I found earlier was fixed by the end. So credit is due to the writers.

The problem, I think, mostly boils down to the fact that it is so blatantly marketed towards a demographic that needs everything clinically NEAT AND TIDY with no challenging ideas or non-happy endings. It broadcast where it was going at all times, and there was never any doubt as to its goals.

You may say that the same could be said of the Bond series, and while I admit that at its core the Bond series has always been about raw entertainment value, I remind you that you're comparing Taylor Lautner to the likes of Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan, and that dog just won't hunt. As much as I don't like them, even the Daniel Craig Bond movies at least were doing something different and dark. This is just lite fluff.

Like there would ever be that many people at a Pittsburgh Pirates game.

One thing that was a plus in the movie's favor was Mikael Nyqvist playing the villain. He was the main guy in the Swedish "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series, and despite my hatred of those films, I don't have a problem with him. In fact, he's a pretty solid villain, and has a certain quiet menace about him which is quite effective, and in a better, darker film could have been straight up scary. The man's no Ian McShane but he does seem like someone who would do very bad things to you if you pissed him off.

The rest of the admittedly impressive cast is pretty much wasted. Alfred Molina is yelling into a blue-tooth headset for most of the movie, Jason Isaacs dies far too soon to be of any real significance despite being the most interesting and believable character, and Sigourney Weaver is just there to look a little like the Crypt Keeper and depress us when we think back to when she used to be really attractive. And even when they are doing stuff, the dialogue coming from their mouths doesn't really sound natural. They don't sound like they believe what they're saying. But it doesn't really matter because this isn't their show anyways, it's Taylor Lautner and his pecs. For the adults, it's just a paycheck.


Hey, you know what? I just realized something. There's aren't any abductions in this movie! I feel cheated. Unless it's himself Taylor Lautner is abducting. Can you abduct your own self?


The best part of the movie, and the one thing I will give it credit for, is the scene where Taylor Lautner and Mikael Nyqvist meet face to face at a baseball game. The way they are walking down opposite sides of a section and the conversation when they meet up is quite well done, and again, in the hands of a better, darker film could have been quite intense. But because we're watching "Abduction" we know that it's going to end in a chase scene because Taylor Lautner still has to slide down that big glass structure and do some suspiciously CG-looking parkour.

Oh, and one last thing! I'm so sick of these movies that have these kids living in multi-million dollar homes, sporting perfect bodies and teeth, with brains and talent to do anything they want in addition to being really popular at school and having a smoking hot girlfriend having to go to a shrink and BITCH AND MOAN about how they "don't fit in" and how they "feel like they're not in control of their own life."

"The fact that I have a free ride to life pains me to my soul."

Shut the hell up, you little entitled brat.


THE BOTTOM LINE - Are you a 14 year old girl? Then you'll think "Abduction" is awesome. Are you not a 14 year old girl? Then you won't. It didn't make me angry enough to say that I hated it, in fact it was better than I thought it was going to be, it was just so forgettable that it's hard to see the point. Skip it.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

I'm going to ruin Tom Cruise for you forever. And when I say "ruin" I'm not referring to what you would probably think of. Let's be honest, he needs little help in that department. But there are two very different sides to Tom Cruise. There is Tom Cruise The Person and Tom Cruise The Actor. Tom Cruise The Person has become a walking punchline with a weird nose and he probably gets his spiritual guidance from Captain Crunch, but the world loves Tom Cruise The Actor, which is obvious considering how utterly crazy Tom Cruise The Person can be and still maintain his alter-ego's massive fan-base. The dude still has crazy box-office draw, but he has always been a big star who is easy to watch for most people. Personally, I like Tom Cruise The Actor, but I'm going to ruin him for you all right now. You ready?

His teeth are off center. Rather severely.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Just try and pay attention to his acting now. It's not possible. There will only be funky teeth. You're welcome.

I was a really big fan of the first "Mission: Impossible" from way back in 1996. That movie was the bomb and it still holds up today as one of the best action movies of the 90's, and possibly the most entertaining spy movie ever made outside of a Sean Connery Bond outing. Also, it had Jean Reno, which means that it's at least partly awesome by default.

The second movie was an abomination that still hurts me when I think back on it. Although if I'm being completely honest, there's only two things I remember about that piece of trash: Slow-motion doves and Ethan Hunt suddenly and inexplicably knowing kung-fu. Both of these stupid elements can be attributed to director John Woo, who is one of the worst things to happen to action films since Michael Bay. I think "overindulgent" is about .2% of the strength of the word needed to describe both of their styles, but where they differ is that John Woo uses doves flying in slow-motion and Mexican standoffs, whereas Michael Bay uses helicopters flying in slow-motion and wants to have sex with the U.S. Military. Subtle differences, I know. You kind of have to pay attention. Oh, and Michael Bay also has racism. Can't forget that.

ANYWAYS. "Mission: Impossible 3" was actually pretty good. It's another one that I don't have too clear a memory of, which is weird because it's the one I've seen most recently of the original trilogy. The only thing I really clearly remember is that Philip Seymor Hoffman would have been a much more threatening bad guy if he didn't look like a dude who should be running a Magic: The Gathering tournament. You can't make something that pasty and doughy scary. It's just not feasible, and having him fight Ethan Hunt at the end in hand to hand combat and lasting more than 25 milliseconds was a joke. Other than that it was a solid flick.

So now we come to "Mission: Impossible - We're Not Numbering Them Anymore For Some Stupid Reason." (Is that a rule now? Are movies not allowed to be numbered past 3?) I was looking forward to this one. It looked like a pretty fun romp despite the use of Eminem* in the trailer with that song of his that's been in every trailer for everything now. It also seemed that Simon Pegg was still in it, which I was all about. So yeah, why not?

*Oh geez, spellcheck didn't list "Eminem" as a misspelling. It's in the freaking dictionary now. Seriously?

Above: Tom Cruise in the facility where they keep all his crazy.

Well, turns out that "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was indeed a fun time. It was a blast, an action packed thrill ride, a non-stop rollercoaster and all those other stupid buzzwords that are slapped on the cover-art of the DVDs. Gah. I feel dirty writing those phrases, but the fact remains that it was a good time which was very much what you would expect from a (not disappointing) big summer blockbuster, except that it came out in winter. Out of all the other films, this one came closest to capturing the awesomeness of the original. It's not as good as that one was, mind you, but it came pretty close.

I think something that "Ghost Protocol" has that the other sequels were lacking in somewhat was gadgets. Part of the fun of "Mission: Impossible" and super-spy movies in general are all the cool toys they get and how they use them. It's kind of like Batman and his utility belt. You have no idea what he has in there, or indeed how he ever packed for all these contingencies, but whenever he whips out a new gadget you're just forced to sit back and say "Of course he had that. He's Batman." It's the same with "Mission: Impossible," but the other sequels didn't give us too many new things. "Ghost Protocol" gives us nifty contact lenses that function like a personal HUD (complete with camera!) magnetic gloves without the magnets, numerous insta-forging devices, a levitation suit, and an absolutely ridiculous "make you invisible" projector screen which has to be seen to be truly understood. It's crazy, but the series definitely needed some super-gizmos again. It just made it far more fun.

"No, Pandora! I DON'T want you to play "Sandstorm!" I don't care how funny it would be!"

Another plus the film had going for it was Simon Pegg. I'm a big fan of his, in fact I consider him to be one of the 3 funniest people on the planet, and I was hoping they would have him in a more prominent role this time out, since he was pretty underused in his introduction in "Mission: Impossible 3." Fortunately I was right, and Simon does have a pretty prominent role in this film, and does more than just provide computer support and provide quips over a headset. And, to the filmmakers credit, they never have him get goofy. You see, "Pirates of The Caribbean?" You can have comic relief with some dignity! Imagine that!

(On a side note, however, I am still baffled how they could get Sawyer from "Lost" in this movie and not get one single funny, smart-ass remark out of him. That just blows my mind.)

The plot is honestly nothing too incredibly special, but then again, it seldom is in movies like this. Bad guys have hurty thing, good guys need to get hurty thing, good guys go all over the world and do outlandish things with spy tech to retrieve hurty thing from bad guys. It's not brain surgery over here. Like I mentioned earlier, that's not why you go to these movies - you go to see them use the cool gadgets.

However, "Ghost Protocol" did something interesting because (slight spoiler alert) Ethan Hunt and team fail every single mission in this movie, apart from the opening mission and the last, final battle. Every other mission in the movie goes bad by the end, and it's really incredible that they succeeded all things considered, because they were not sporting a good batting average.

"Hey Ethan! As long as I've got your attention here, you think I could get a raise, boss?"

There are set pieces in this film which rank among the very best that (the admittedly somewhat paltry) 2011 had to offer. From an exciting and often times funny opening prison escape set to Dean Martin to the much-touted Dubai skyscraper climb which was almost unbearably intense, "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" may have just saved a series which was looking to be pretty much washed up.

THE BOTTOM LINE - A really fun time, and the best of the series since the first one. Will most likely make my Top 10 of 2011...somewhere in the back half.

Killer Elite

I have a theory about Robert De Niro. I believe that his mole is actually a sentient life form, born of some malicious other-worldly dark deity. It spreads its minions among us in order for it to sow despair and sorrow, and De Niro has become an unwilling victim of its whims. Every night, the mole whispers horrible secrets, Lovecraftian in nature, of the coldness and insanity-provoking terrors of the universe, and urges him to go out and spread these horrible truths, thereby doing its bidding. This endless torment has caused him to become corrupted and worn, hanging on the brink of insanity every minute of every day -- a dessicated husk held together only by the machinations of his new Dark God.

And that's why Robert De Niro scowls all the time.

That's also why people with big moles on their faces creep me out. I'm always waiting for them to scream "Cthulhu f'tagen!!!" and stab me to death with ceremonial daggers. And before you call me on it, no, Val Kilmer doesn't count. In fact, the reason why I'm such a big Val Kilmer fan is because he has been the only person able to combat the Dark God's power! His mole may make the attempt to corrupt him, but Val's shear bad-assery stops it cold every time. It's more like a trophy Val Kilmer allows to stay on his face, so that he can mock the Dark God's impotence. And the Dark God knows better than to push the issue further, because like any self respecting life form, he's seen "Top Gun," and after that, he knows that to combat the awesomeness that is The Val is useless. He's our only hope, people! We need Val Kilmer back!!!

Our first and last line of defense...

Going into "Killer Elite," I was...hesitant. It was like a mix and match of things I like and things I don't like. Jason Statham is pretty sweet, but although he's a national treasure I just can't get excited about seeing Robert De Niro again. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The man has been doing an impression of himself for some 30 years now. Just squint your eyes, scowl, shrug a lot, and repeat yourself when you are being intense. That's the De Niro Method at work. The worst part is that it's considered light treason if you don't worship the ground the guy walks on. Is it just me? I can't be the only one who is annoyed by Robert De Niro, can I? Don't get me wrong, if I met the dude I'd tell him "You was the bomb in "The Godfather Part II"...in 1974" but I probably couldn't bring myself to say anything else.

I assumed that De Niro probably wasn't going to have a huge role in it, since it appears to be an action flick and De Niro couldn't out-action a rack of lamb nowadays. So Statham is was then. I then noticed that Clive Owen is in it, and my expectations sank that much lower. Ugh. Clive Owen? I do not care for him much at all. It's probably more his track record being in movies I didn't like than him as an actor but maybe this will be-

Ha. Ah ha! HA HA!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Awww. Isn't that just the cutest little mustache? Has Selleck Claus been leaving little gifts on all the good boys and girls upper lips? That's just precious and deserves a mocking ^_^. In truth, it's closer to an unrefined version of a post-2000 Burt Reynolds than the powerful Tom Selleck 'stache, but either way it's ridiculous. How can you take that seriously? And dig on this: He's the bad guy. Isn't that hilarious? During the fight scenes I kept imagining Ron Jeremy instead and it lost all sense of tension. Would have made "Killer Elite" a better movie, though.

Since I've beat around the bush long enough with this, I'll just come out and say it: I didn't care for "Killer Elite." And it wasn't so much that the movie was bad, necessarily, it was just impossible for me to care about, silly mustaches aside. I say it wasn't necessarily bad because this is more of a problem I have with the genre in general than any kind of lacking "Killer Elite" had in the way of film-making. I don't like spy thrillers. I hate to say it but I've been forced to come to that conclusion after many attempts to try and prove it to myself otherwise. I especially have an aversion to modern "serious" spy thrillers.

The problem is that they are so frigging complex. Too complex. I'm not a stupid person but I have a real problem following names, especially if there are a bunch thrown out all at once, which they always are, and that's a pretty big issue if you're trying to follow one of these movies. Maybe if these movies were allowed to take their time it wouldn't be so bad, but they always rocket forward like everyone in the audience has a photographic memory for names and faces. But I don't, and it's always thumbscrews for me to figure out who is shooting who and for what purpose. The same thing happens to me with mobster movies, and that's why I don't like them much, either. My head begins to spin, and I realize I have no idea who anybody is, or why they're doing what they're doing. And you know what happens when I reach that point? I stop caring.

I reached that point in "Killer Elite" about 30 minutes in. It's a 2 hour long film. For the last 3/4's of the movie, I had no idea what was happening, and not in a good Christopher Nolan "Memento" kind of way. It was a "I'm bored out of my mind" kind of way. It has to do with an Arabic Sheik forcing an assassin (Statham) out of retirement by kidnapping his friend, another assassin...who got caught and is helpless for some reason. He's a frigging assassin...oh wait it's De Niro. No action for him, got it. He's contracted to kill a bunch of ex-SAS officers who killed the Sheik's sons in a war, and Owen is...some kind of secret agent person or maybe SAS who is trying to stop the killings, I guess. Maybe?

See that's what I'm talking about. I never even had a clear understanding of who one of the main characters is. Is he a cop or a spy or what? Why does he care? The assassinations are made to look like accidents, why is he running around with a gun and sending scouts out to the desert to tail people who they don't even know? I'm sure the movie explains it but I feel like I need Cliffs Notes just to watch this thing. And with these kinds of movies, I can't help but think, "What's the point? The only thing I know for sure is that at some point one of the characters you least suspect is probably going to double-cross the main character, and it's going to end with him finishing the last job and retiring." Because that's how they almost all end. For as many twists and turns as they try to have, they sure are formulaic.

"If we introduce enough character names, it will make our movie seem really, really smart."

Every once in a great while there is an admittedly well filmed scene where Statham punches or shoots something, and that's cool, but I was so uninterested in the plot of "Killer Elite" that it ruined any enjoyment I may have been able to squeeze out of the film. Who are these people and what are they doing? The bigger question is: "Who cares?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and write the screenplay for my new movie where Val Kilmer battles Shoggoths...

The Bottom Line: I am no great judge of spy thrillers, since I generally don't like them anyway, but this was a boring, overly confusing mess with unfortunate facial hair. Unless you're a die-hard fan of the genre, skip it.