Flight Risk (3/5 Stars)

The appearance of “Flight Risk” in movie cinemas would be a non-story if not for the unexpected pedigree behind the picture. The movie is a small-scale bottle episode that takes place entirely within a 90 minute plane flight from an unnamed non-descript town in Alaska to Anchorage, Alaska. The movie is so small the characters do not have last names. It appears to be the first produced screenplay by screenwriter Jared Rosenberg.

The conceit can be summed up in a few sentences. Winston, played by Topher Grace, plays a fugitive accountant for a mobster. He gets picked up by federal law enforcement, played by Michelle Dockery, and immediately surrenders and pleads for a deal. He appears to be much more afraid of his mobster boss then the feds. In order to get Winston to New York to testify in trial a trial that is happening right now (for the purposes of expediency, it is helpfully mentioned that the judge is a hard-ass and won’t agree to an adjournment) the feds charter a small plane to take Winston to Anchorage and then onto to Seattle and then New York. This plane is piloted by Daryl, played by Mark Wahlberg, who is not who he says he is. Spoiler alert, he works for the mobster, and the totality of the movie is contained in his efforts to kill everybody on board either slowly or immediately depending on his present circumstances. I really can’t say more without going into spoiler territory.

What is interesting about this movie is that it has a legitimate movie star, Mark Wahlberg, that seems out-of-place in such a small-scale project. Case in point, Mark plays a supporting character and yet he is the only person on movie poster. Mark's presence is likely explained by its director, one Mel Gibson. This is the first movie Mel Gibson has directed since 2016’s Hacksaw Ridge (a movie I did not get to review because it was unheralded on release, but one I ultimately considered the best of the year), and second movie since 2006’s Apocalypto (one of the more unique movies ever made). Mel Gibson would have directed plenty more movies since 2006 had he not gone off the deep end and said some very awful things. (I am generally forgiving about what people say and in particular what people say in private. For instance my bar is low enough to give Jon Gruden a total pass. Having said that, Mel Gibson said some crazy shit and as far as these things go, his cancellation is one of the more reasonable ones out there). Which is a shame because whenever he does put something out there, regardless of whether it is enjoyable or not, it is usually well made and distinctly original. If Hollywood truly cared about diversity (and you know I don’t), what it should do is employ more people like Mel Gibson because he actually has a different point of view from most of the movie industry. He has a different point of view from most people in general. I see online that he is making a sequel to Passion of the Christ, entitled The Resurrection of the Christ. It is about time, if only because of the tremendous commercial opportunity that it is likely to represent. It is easy to make a lot of money when you are the only person catering to a very deprived audience (see James Cameron’s Titanic and blockbuster movies made for women as of 1997).

“Flight Risk” feels like a director getting taking a practice run on a smaller project just to remind himself how it works. It is competent. The actors do their jobs with respectability. The screenplay is a little too on the nose with Topher Grace’s sarcasm and Mark Wahlberg’s creepy threats, but really, if you have confined yourself to the cockpit of a small plane for 90 minutes, this is basically as good of a movie as you are going to get. It has a brisk running time, enough action, and some of the jokes land. Michelle Dockery is likable. It came out in January. What are you going to do? Hey, at least it gave me an excuse to write about Mel Gibson as a director. I’ve been doing this blog for twenty years and I haven’t had that opportunity.

Machete Kills (3/5 Stars)

Back from the Dead with an Unexpectedly Entertaining Third Act

Writer/Director Robert Rodriguez is back with Danny Trejo as Machete, the ex-CIA, ex-FBI, ex-DEA, ex-federale turned illegal immigrant day laborer turned outlaw turned ICE agent. The character Machete by definition works better in two-minute trailers rather than two-hour movies. His main characteristics are looking like Danny Trejo (best described by one critic as, “a man who had a staring contest with the sun and won”) never dying and killing people. He had his start in a fake movie trailer accompanying Rodriguez’s zombie masterpiece “Planet Terror.” (I’m basically the only one who calls that movie a masterpiece and am trying to spread the word). Machete is a man of few words and, given Danny Trejo’s impending old age, works better when he stands still and glares and less when he actually fights people. In the end, what makes, “Machete Kills” ultimately worth seeing is a few other characters namely Michelle Rodriguez’s “She” (pronounced like “Che” of Guevera fame) and the new bad/crazy guy Mel Gibson. Unfortunately the entrances of these two characters come in the movie’s third act. Before that the movie slogs a bit in the territory of so-bad-it’s-bad before ultimately triumphing in a satisfying so-bad-it’s-good ending.

The badness of the first two acts of “Machete Kills” needs a detour into an education in the Grindhouse genre in order to fully explain. For those unacquainted a “Grindhouse” movie are B movies that promise sex and violence and nothing else. By definition these movies can’t be great in the classic sense (say ‘Citizen Kane’) but they can succeed, and some succeed spectacularly, in never being boring. Robert Rodriguez, that very underrated American treasure of a director, specializes in elevating this type of movie from B-level trash into high art (Sin City, Planet Terror). But just because they are not good in the classic sense does not mean that they automatically find themselves within the so-bad-it’s-good genre. Rodriguez doesn’t make bad movies per se. He makes good Grindhouse movies. Let’s use some of Rodriguez’s previous work as the gold standard of this type of movie we can give some guidelines to further elaborate on this tricky area of cinema. 

First the action and plot must move fast. The Grindhouse format is especially conducive to this in that plot holes are usually present. However in a good Grindhouse picture the plot hole should resemble a short cut that propels the story forward faster than it normally would in a regular picture. A great example is the ‘Missing Reel’ in Planet Terror that lands the audience in the middle of a battle thereby skipping the needless part of the enemy actually showing up to the fight. Also given that the plot does not need to make perfect sense, it might as well be sensational. “Machete Kills” involves drug cartels in jungle castles and a nuclear bomb aimed at Washington D.C. That is good so far. Unfortunately “Machete Kills” clocks in at around two hours. There is too much here and later I will give an example of what to cut. These movies really should be no more than 90 minutes.

Second, the action does not have to be realistic but it does have to be novel. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people die or how gory it is just as long as the way they die is surprising and dare I say, clever. This is basically what makes a great Grindhouse movie fun to watch. The creative love that is put into the violence evidences something more in the maker than simply sadism. This detail is also what separates a great Grindhouse movie (like Raimi’s Evil Dead series) from the torture porn genre (Saw series). In a way that makes “Machete Kills” different from “Machete” is that there is a sizably less amount of cleverness that goes into the action sequences. In “Machete Kills” there are far too many scenes where opposing forces show up across open spaces and fire machine guns at each other. By too many scenes I basically mean more than one. There was only one in “Machete,” and it worked fantastically by itself. I suspect that because this is a sequel Rodriguez may have felt that he had to start off where he left off and started with machine guns instead of going back to the workable formula in “Planet Terror” and “Machete” of hand-to-hand combat than melee weapons than guns and than finally a big ass gun battle. “Machete” has good gags (I especially liked how Machete how defused a bomb in midair while riding it) but went on autopilot a few too many times.

Third a great Grindhouse movie has to like its women characters. By “like” I don’t mean that they have to do nice things or dress conservatively. What I mean is that there has to be more to them than just skimpy clothing and a bad attitude. Or to put it another way: it has to be a role that the actress playing it would obviously enjoy playing or at least find challenging in a professional sense. This is a particularly important guideline given the immense amount of Grindhouse and horror movies that employ their women characters to do nothing but scream and die in terrible ways. Rodriguez in general does well by his actresses, not an easy thing to do given the thin line he is walking in this genre. (Again take a look at Rose McGowan in “Planet Terror”). In “Machete Kills” I think he does well by Lady Gaga and Michelle Rodriguez who have memorable/badass fight scene. He does okay by Amber Heard who could have had more to do. But one character is not treated well and that is the sadistic bordello madame played by Sofia Vergara from TV’s Modern Family. She tries to kill Machete with her Double Ds, a type of machine gun that doubles as a bra (try not to think about where the ammo comes from). The problem is not the Double Ds. The problem is that there really is not much to the character besides that. She has no good lines and is routinely frustrated in not so clever ways in battle. Rodriguez should have just cut the whole subplot. It didn’t work and without it the movie would be the correct length.

In the “Machete” series Rodriguez has done something that is not really necessary according to my made up guidelines but is ultimately interesting to watch and that is his stunt casting. Rodriguez goes out of his way to employ actors/actresses who are unemployable due to career ending scandals. In the first movie he cast Lindsay Lohan (multiple arrests for disorderly conduct) and Steven Seagall (famously awful actor in terrible movies). In this movie we are treated to Charlie Sheen as Carlos Esteves (“Winning!”) and Mel Gibson (stuff I’m not about to write here). Unlike Lindsay and Seagall, Carlos and Mel are actually good actors and they do remarkably well playing the President of the United Stated and Crazy Bad Guy named Voz respectively. Truly Rodriguez is a kindhearted man who is always willing to give the fallen from grace a second chance to redeem themselves in movies that contain ridiculous amounts of violence and bad taste. 

There must be something to say about Rodriguez’s political consciousness. It is present in the ‘Machete’ movies even if they are just throwaway motivations for characters than actual lucid political arguments about illegal immigration and drug war policy. Still it makes an admirer wonder what Rodriguez could do if he actually attempted to make a serious movie about these topics. I’m sure he could do it. I’m also sure he would do it only if he really really wanted to do it. I can’t think of another director who seems to make movies purely for his own enjoyment and the enjoyment of his family (an example is the Spy Kids franchise. Rodriguez is the only filmmaker I know of that would make a feature length film based on the story idea of his five-year-old child.) He seems to be completely divorced from the type of greed that would induce him to make his films more mainstream or the type of awards acclaim that would make him choose more conventional subjects for his art. I like this guy a lot.  

For those of you with keen eyes you may also spy the Crazy Babysitter Twins and Rodriguez’s actual doctor (who looks like he’s lost a good deal of weight). They don’t have much to say in this movie though they were part of the group of characters taken into space on Crazy Bad Guy’s rocket ship in anticipation of the next movie. The title of that one is “Machete Kills Again…IN SPACE.” And yes I am very interested in seeing that as well. 

The Beaver (1/5 Stars)

I am not a doctor. So you should take what I’m about to say next with a grain of salt. As far as I know, not all depression comes from the same types of places. The most typical kind of depression I would think can be characterized as a lack of hope. This lack of hope can basically be about anything really and have many psychological or emotional causes. In that case, it should help the patient to have a happy family, a loving wife, and a decent job. Therapy, prayer, social interaction, and the like should have positive effects. A second type of depression is merely a symptom of some other type of physical disease, syndrome, or problem. The best examples I can think of are people with sleep apnea. One case involved this horribly depressed guy that no amount of therapy helped. Turned out he was such a loud snorer that he would consistently wake himself up at night. He hadn’t had a decent sleep in years. In his case horse tranquilizer would have been a better help than therapy ever could be. They performed surgery on his nose to fix the snoring problem and his depression vanished.

Now take the example of Walter Black, played in this movie by Mel Gibson. Walter Black used to be a successful businessman, a loving husband, and a good father to his two sons. Now all he wants to do is sleep. He still is the CEO of his toy company although due to his off performance it has been suffering in the stock price lately. His wife, played by Jodie Foster, still loves him but has just kicked him out of the house as a measure of last resort. Every type of therapy, self-help mantra, and pill has been tried to no effect. Keep in mind that his depression apparently preceded all the problems he now has in his life. Now, knowing all of that, which type of depression profile does Walter Black seem to fit? Does he sound like the type of person that has severe complex emotional and psychological problems or does he sound like he is simply utterly exhausted.

This movie is under the impression that Walter Black suffers from emotional problems. I admit that I don’t get it. I spent the entire movie wondering what exactly his problem could possibly be. The depression itself is never explained or given a cause. I’m just going to assume that the writer of this movie, Kyle Killen, got his inspiration from some very successful and brilliant person he knew that inexplicably fell into a depression. He must think that these things just sort of happen from time to time. (That’s life, alas.) That kind of attitude is a mistake I think because it can lead to some pretty wacky very unhelpful solutions not just in the movies but also in real life. A person suffering from physical depression can’t mentally “snap out of it,” because the problem isn’t a mental thing. No, sticking a beaver puppet on your hand and creating a new personality for yourself is not going to work. To this movie’s credit the beaver solution doesn’t work for the entire movie. However, I find it inexplicable that the beaver would work at all. There are several scenes in this movie where the practical aspects of a grown man wearing a beaver hand puppet with a cockney accent are glossed over to a shameful degree. The most distressing is when Walter Black shows up to work with it on and the beaver starts giving orders. Guess what? Nobody quits that very same day. I don’t find that very realistic. If Walter Black is suffering from neither physical depression (for which the beaver would not help) nor emotional depression (for which the comfort of his wife would be a much better solution), then he must be insane. Except he does not look or act like an insane person in the movie. In effect, the character as written and as Mel Gibson plays him doesn’t make sense. And that might be okay in a comedy, but it is fatal in a serious movie. I can’t have empathy for something I don’t understand. Then again, I’m no doctor.

Then there is this subplot involving his son. He has a business at school where for two hundred dollars he will write your paper and at the same time make it sound like you did it. Quite the skill, the novelty of which the movie takes for granted and never explores. One day the school valedictorian/head cheerleader, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who as I am writing this is 21, comes up to him and offers him $500 to write her commencement speech. She explains that even though she gets straight A’s, is the most popular girl in the school, and excels at everything she has ever done, she still has nothing to say. This is what I would refer to as a clever screenwriting technique that gives the lonely misunderstood emo boy an excuse to be needed by the most beautiful girl in the school. Anyway, even in the presence of such a character as Walter Black, she takes the gold medal for most unrealistic character in the movie. This comes to a head in one scene that seems to be constructed as a revelatory insight into the human condition but comes off as more of a cruel joke. It is revealed that this girl was arrested when she was in 8th grade for tagging, which is slang for graffiti. She hasn’t exercised her art in over four years. And then one night, inspired by a sort of “express yourself” cliché, she decides to take it up again. What she accomplishes in one night after four years of no practicing and apparently with only an 8th grade art education looks like something that would take an accomplished artist several weeks to do. She steps back and nonchalantly remarks that, “I guess I had a lot of things to say.” The art is very modern so its hard to understand what exactly she was trying to say, but I will take a guess that is something along the lines of a huge “F*** You” to every teenager who has ever picked up a pencil or paintbrush, tried art for the first time, and realized that it might actually take some time and practice to become good at it.

Again, these sorts of mistakes wouldn’t bother me in a broad comedy, but a movie that intends to be realistic about mental illness and teen angst can’t be allowed to get away with not knowing what it is talking about. These are serious issues after all. Here are some good movies that deal with depression that perhaps you should watch instead: Lars and the Real Girl, Punch-Drunk Love, and Fight Club. Those may seem to be odd choices but they are the best I have seen at portraying how being in a hopeless funk feels like. If you don’t think “Fight Club” is about depression than may I direct you to the scene where the imaginary friend gets so fed up with his real counterpart that he starts beating the living shit out of him. A similar thing happens with the beaver in this movie, but “Fight Club” did it better.

p.s. If you know someone who seems depressed because all they ever want to do is sleep, it wouldn’t hurt to make sure that they are actually sleeping and not simply lying on a bed hoping to God they could go to sleep but finding themselves physically unable to. Sleep deprivation is a killer. It’s what interrogators use on prisoners to break them. At least 7 hours a night, people. Chances are you’ll feel better.