Avengers: Age of Ultron: What's The Difference Between An Avengers Movie And A Michael Bay Movie?

There's nothing new about how I feel towards the superhero/Marvel trend of releasing comic book based movies every couple of months.  I'm sick of it.  I'm sick and damn tired of seeing these movies.  I'm tired of watching their trailers, I'm tired of seeing all the impressive CGI that is being/has been developed to make these movies more and more visually impressive... I'm just over the comic book/superhero genre.  I'm over it.  Every time I see one, I swear to myself that it was the last one.  I don't get excited for them like I used to.  I don't count the days until I get another look into a world that was only two hours long.  I'm over it.  I'm trying to keep myself from becoming entirely disillusioned with the thought that I will, one day, still make it as a screenwriter.  Every single time I see another one of these movies coming out, I realize that the original script/idea is dead.  Unless I've adapted an obscure comic book, no one really gives a shit anymore of what original ideas I have written down on paper.  They just want Iron Man.  Or Thor.  Or Ant-Man (God knows why).  So, I'm over it.  Yet, like an Alzheimer's patient, I still manage to end up at the theater to watch the next one.  And here's what pisses me off - they're all not bad.  I'm serious.  Minus, like, Thor 2 and The Hulk and maybe some sort of Superman film... they're all put together very well.  I mean, hell, Guardians of the Galaxy was one of my favorite movies of last year.  It's just not fair.  I have the utmost respect for Joss Whedon and if they're going to keep pushing out Avengers movies, then I'm glad they have someone capable to pen the script and direct the film.  It's just infuriating that he keeps making decent movies and people keep seeing them because this trend isn't going to go away for a very long time-- if ever.  I mean, once the actors from The Avengers finally get sick of playing these heroes, Marvel will freaking reboot the series all over again with younger more up-and-coming actors.  They will literally never end.  Ever.

So, Avengers: Age of Ultron... what can I say unbiased about the movie?  I can't bash the movie because it wasn't bad in the slightest.  I can't praise the movie because then I'm perpetuating this endless cycle of asses in seats to watch these movies.  So, I guess I can just tell you what was good about the movie and what wasn't and let you decide for yourself.  First, off, there is a lot of good, I hate to say.  The biggest praise I can give the film is the chemistry of the actors and the characters.  It's not like the first film where they're all getting to know one another and there's little tiffs here and there and everyone distrusts everyone and all that.  Now, they know each other, and like each other.  They get along well, they can poke fun at each other, and they genuinely seem like friends.  What's also good is that somehow, with 187 different characters in the movie, Whedon ends up giving ample time to [almost] everyone and giving them character.  They're not just superhero names... they're people that we, as an audience, care about.  With the exception of Thor-- because I don't think even Joss Whedon knows what do do with him in the mix of all these other heroes-- everyone is pretty well defined.  Even Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is given ample time in the film so that we don't just think of him as a weird, bow-and-arrow-only addition to a super human team.  (He is, by the way, my favorite Avenger.  Just so you know.)

James Spader, who voices Ultron, is also fantastic in the film-- like almost everything he's ever been in.  He's got a perfect blend of black humor and psychotic in his voice that lends to a pretty sophisticated villain.  Even if he's a weird CGI robot who is supposed to represent the antithesis of Tony Stark, Spader still brings his own brand of weirdness to the character.  Tom Hardy already showed us with Bane that a good actor can bring a hell of a lot to the table with just the sound of his voice.  The humor is perfect.  The movie, while I guess is fun and exciting, is actually pretty hilarious. While I can appreciate a Christopher Nolan dark and foreboding Batman film, the Avengers need to be funny.  They need to be able to interact with each other like people do... like friends do and give the audience some comic relief without being too stupid.  Whedon is able to walk this line with finesse.

As for the negative of the film, well, let's see-- Ultron's motivation is a tired movie trope.  Artificial intelligence is born, evolves, realizes that humans don't accept the gift of life and therefore in order to sustain a perfect Earth, humans must be eradicated.  It's been done countless times and, to me, is tired.  It's also not a great enough motive to base an entire character around, but Whedon is even clever enough to use this old idea and not make it seem hackneyed. Elizabeth Olson's character is pretty badass-- her "Russian" accent is not.  The death and destruction and smashing of buildings and robots gets pretty old after awhile because there's too much of that in summer blockbusters.  You get together some good people to fight bad people and shit is gonna get destroyed.  After awhile, there's really nothing new to blow up.  There's just different locations.  Which brings me to the question-- really, what's the difference between an Avengers movie and a Michael Bay movie? (Obviously, I'm not talking about The Rock here, either.  That movie is GOLD.)

Think about it.  Is there really a difference between Avengers and Transformers?  You've got some good mech-heroes paired with tough human heroes.  You've got bad mecha-heroes hell bent on destroying the Earth... mostly from space.  Is this any different?  Not really.  So, why do I find myself enjoying Avengers and mocking Transformers? As I was watching Iron Man and Captain America and Thor and Hulk and Black Widow and Hawkeye rapidly fight and subsequently destroy things around them, I realized that I actually gave a shit about these people.  I didn't want to see any of them get killed.  The one thing that separates the two films is the writing.  It's easy to blow up buildings and have epic CGI fight sequences, but it's difficult to care about the fighters in question.  If Shia LeBouf was fighting Megatron or if Optimus Prime was trying to save Mark Wahlberg's daughter from death and it went completely to shit... I don't think I would care.  I'd applaud Bay for having the balls to do something like that, but really it would be okay with me.  If anything happened to any one of the Avengers, even though I'm sick of the films, it would probably sting a little bit.  So, that's what will keep me from being entirely disillusioned from my screenwriting dream-- even though there's really nothing original to be seen for, probably, the rest of our lives... good writers can still exist and make sure to take secondary source material and make it good.

See the movie or don't see the movie.  It doesn't matter.  It's going to gross a billion dollars and make way for a cavalcade of sequels and spin offs and prequels and TV shows.  But, if they're going to keep churning them out like some sort of super assembly line, I'm glad they've got a writer/director who is capable of not making me hate myself every time I forget I'm sick of the genre.

B

Ex Machina: Slow, Subtle, Brilliant Sci-Fi

I saw this movie a little over a week ago and it's taken me that long to be able to express how I felt about Ex Machina.  It's a brilliant little piece of science fiction, a creative twist of the artificial intelligence sub-genre.  If you're looking for I, Robot or some sort of ultra-violent summer popcorn blockbuster, then it's going to let you down.  But, if you're a fan of character-driven, slow moving, smart science fiction, then look no further than Ex Machina.

What's strange about this film is even though the pace moves rather slowly, the film doesn't meander around what goals it wants to accomplish.  There is no long character explanation and set-up.  It begins immediately with Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) winning a work contest where he gets to go spend a week on a secluded island inhabited by the CEO of his computer company, Nathan (Oscar Isaac).  He gets to the island and is immediately greeted by Nathan who appears to be normal, but also very lonely... and of course, secretive.  Nathan reveals to Caleb that he has created authentic artificial intelligence and would like Caleb to be the subject in his Turing test.  Over the next seven days, Caleb will have "private" one-on-one interaction with Ava, the robot, to determine if he believes her intelligence is genuine, rather than simply programmed. Of course, there's many small twists and turns and much to find out about the recluse, Nathan.  He's a drunk whose brilliance is unparalleled, but whose anger is quick.  He's a complex character that isn't at all who he appears to be.  Especially when Ava tells Nathan during the first couple sessions not to believe a word Nathan says and that he isn't his friend.

It's a thinking person's sci-fi.  It's not overly computer animated, although the design of Ava is flawless and a marvel to look at.  It's a quiet movie with only a few onscreen characters, but it's the evolution of the two characters that makes the movie interesting to watch.  At first, Caleb is enamored with his boss and hangs on his every word, but each day that passes he becomes more and more weary of the man Nathan actually is and what his motives might be.  While a twist may or may not be expected, I will tell you this-- while it's not a twist, per se... the ending is quite unexpected as well as satisfying.

However, it's the two leads that really drive the film.  Yes, the conversations between Caleb and Eva that draw the most interest, it's Gleeson and Isaac that truly run the room.  They're essentially two up and coming actors that have begun to make themselves known in the film industry (I mean, hell, they're both in the upcoming Star Wars movie), but they're two very good and very watchable actors.  Director Alex Garland, making his directorial debut, knows how to write an engaging script that moves at a slower pace to make way for character development.  Though it's his first directing job, he's written some very compelling sci-fi in the past.  Check out Sunshine, Dredd, and 28 Days Later... for confirmation.

Like I said... it's not all thrilling sci-fi action and mayhem.  It's drifts down the river comfortably rather than careens down it horrifically.  Check it out, if it sounds like it's for you.

B

Furious 7: They've Come A Long Way From Stealing VCRs

Let me break down the anomaly that is The Fast and the Furious franchise here.  The first film was essentially a modern-day remake of Point Break where Paul Walker was a pretty boy cop. Vin Diesel was a giant rock monster who raced cars by day and stole VCRs by night.  Yes, VCRs.  And everyone couldn't act worth shit.  The second film even Vin Diesel didn't want to be a part of.  It took place in Miami (probably) and Paul had a partner in Tyrese Gibson and was going up against a C-list bad guy and Luda had an afro.  That's it.  Oh, and Eva Mendes was in it.  The third movie everyone gave up all hope.  It starred Bow Wow.  Paul Walker was done.  Diesel had Riddick and XXX to look forward to.  No one gave a shit about the franchise anymore.  Then, everyone involved with the movie fell on hard times and wasn't getting film roles and someone had a brilliant idea to get the gang back together for a "reboot" sequel of sorts.  And it wasn't too terribly bad.  Everyone was still bad at acting, but they looked like they were having fun and the action was solid.  Then, when the fourth film made money, they realized they might've just struck gold and needed one more piece of the puzzle fit in order to solidify their place in franchise history.  That's when The Rock was brought in for Fast Five.  What that movie did so well is they finally realized what they had on their hands-- the ability to do whatever the hell they wanted... without repercussion... that had to involve cars and guns.   They now had a "team" and could pull big heists.  But, they're anti-heroes who are actually heroes.  Fast Six upped the ridiculousness even further until we've reached today with the release... of Furious 7.

Furious 7 is by far the most outlandish, ridiculous, preposterous, excessive, nonsensical, extravagant, and beautiful film in the entire franchise. If the rest of the series went "balls to the wall" then Furious 7 is the entire sack and taint thrown against the circumference of the world.  It's insanity on steroids.  And it's so... much... FUN.  Why this movie doesn't have 100% on rottentomatoes, I have no idea.  Critics get so much up their own ass that they can't take a movie for what it was meant to accomplish.  You know what you're getting when you watch a Fast and Furious movie. You're not getting A-list acting.  You're not getting a brilliantly witty and intelligent script.  You're getting fast cars, hot women, huge men, snarky seven year old quips, and fun fun fun.  And Furious 7 is the absolute definition of fun.  It's what every good action movie should strive to be.

Plot isn't very important here, but for review's sake-- Dominic Toretto (Vin) and Brian (Paul Walker) took down baddie Owen Shaw in the previous film.  Now, his even more ruthless ex-special forces brother (played stunningly by the personification of testosterone, Jason Statham) is out to kill the shit out of everyone involved.  While this is happening, Toretto and Brian are recruited by Kurt Russell... that's right... I said Kurt Russell... to save a female hacker from a terrorist (Djimon Hounsou) who wants to take her newest invention, God's Eye, and use it for good.  Look, don't worry about the plot here.  It's not important.  It's the frame around which the action gets to happen, but it's not that important.  Here's what is important that you can look forward to in this film:

• Jason Statham ups his badass level to 10.
• The Rock and Statham have a hand-to-hand battle.
• Kurt Russell is in the movie.
• Cars fly out of the back of a plane and land on a mountain with the team in them.
• Paul Walker fights Tony Jaa... more than once.
• Jason Statham is there to screw everything up during every play they have.
• They go to Abu Dabi and drive really expensive cars in the middle of the desert.
• Michelle Rodriguez fights Ronda Rousey
• They essentially fly a car between skyscrapers
• Did I mention Kurt Russell is in this?
• Half of L.A. is destroyed.
• The Rock shoots a Gatling gun at a helicopter
• Vin Diesel and Jason Statham have a private battle... using giant wrenches and their bald heads.
• That when you think you've seen batshit crazy... just keep watching.

There's not a single moment in the entire film where I wasn't entertained.  And it wasn't just fun, badassery, and entertainment... it was exhausting (in a good way).  After every prolonged action sequence I had to sit back and catch my own breath (though there was hardly even enough time for that before the next one began).  Furous 7 does everything right including a wonderful and very respectable tribute to Paul Walker at the end.  Walker died in a car accident halfway through shooting the film  They used stunt doubles, CGI, and his two brothers as stand ins for the remaining parts that needed to be filmed.  It was a perfect way to retire his character from the franchise.  And for those who thought you'd never tear up in a Fast and Furious film, think again.  His family would be (and I'm sure are) very proud.

Furious 7 is the embodiment of fun.  If you're looking for action, you'll get it and then some.  It's one of the best action movies I've seen in a long time and my favorite of the series.  Yes, it's stupid.  Yes, it's incredibly unbelievable.  Yes, they do ridiculous shit without any repercussions whatsoever.  However, if you're coming into this film thinking you're getting anything else... you're going to be sorely disappointed.  Leave belief suspended at the door and this will be the most fun you'll likely have all year.

A

Chappie: Like Short Circuit, But With Massive Blood and Death

When District 9 came out, newly touted director Neill Blomkamp showed us a new side of science fiction.  He brought aliens and documentary together within the confines of a third world country in the midst of the slums and poverty and showed not only a poignant message, but a compelling movie as well.  Since then, however, he's kind of been stuck in the same rut, trying to replicate that magic again instead of trying something else new and inventive.  His follow up film, Elysium, was also set in the third world future, but had a different twist than the aliens of the first film.  I actually liked the movie, but it was generally panned by critics.  Now, his third widely released film is still in the same vein of poverty stricken South Africa, but instead of a bunch of aliens, or a disease that causes Matt Damon to wear a super suit, it's about robots.  You've already said everything you need to say about South Africa, Blomkamp... move on.  As far as Chappie goes... it's certainly his weakest effort, but it's not without it's merits also.

Chappie is Short Circuit on steroids.  In the future, in South Africa, crime is at an all time high.  So, a multinational corporation designs robot police so that real human police can stop getting slaughtered.  The robot police work exceptionally well, too well, in fact, and crime hits an all time low.  However, the robot's creator, a nerdly office worker and computer programmer, has this idea of making a robot with what is essentially a soul.  He wants it to be living, feeling, understanding, and evolving (because obviously he hasn't heard of Skynet).  So, he takes a malfunctioning police robot home, uploads software into it, and boom, it has a soul.  Unfortunately for him, a small group of thugs have screwed up their last job and owe a bunch of money to a South African warlord.  So, they steal the nerd and his robot in hopes of teaching the robot how to do a heist.  This small group is played by South African wondergroup Die Antword.  Yolandi, the girl of the group names the robot Chappie and essentially becomes its mother.  Ninja... yeah... his father.  The problem is, Chappie has to learn and grow just as a human does, so he's stuck in a child-like state throughout the time that he's supposed to be learning how to shoot a gun, steal cars, and fulfill the requirements of a fully fledged heist.  Then, if this isn't enough, Hugh Jackman with a mullet is also a computer nerd and kind of a sociopath has designed super huge police robots, but keeps getting the models rejected because they're considered overkill.  So, he installs software that makes all the regular robot police malfunction and his overkill bots are needed more than ever.  His character and motivations are definitely the strangest of the film.

So, yeah, there's a lot going on in the movie.  At base level, there's Chappie.  The innocent, and admittedly adorable, robot who is learning what it means to be human from two pretty heinous individuals.  Then, there's Mullet Jackman trying to sabotage robots in order to get his robots sold.  Then, there's nerd dude who wants to get Chappie back.  Then, there's Die Antword on a time clock trying to pull a heist.  Then, there's all out war in the country and it just becomes something of a mess.  It's too frenetic and it never really stops to enjoy itself.  There are moments of fun and games with Chappie in his developmental stages, but the scene lasts only a short while and it's back to frenetic action and everything hitting the fan all at once.

It's also very Yolandi and Ninja heavy.  They're horrible people (who learn from Chappie as much as he learns from them), but if you're not hugely into Die Antword, this is probably going to be a bit of an annoyance for you.  It's really difficult to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with the film, but sitting in the theater watching it I just felt that it was missing something, something I couldn't put my finger on.  It definitely lacked a focus, and was generally all over the place.  But there was something else.  And even now, having seen it a week ago, I'm still unsure as to what was missing in the film.  If anyone has any thoughts themselves, I encourage you to tell me.  But, Chappie  isn't a bad movie, it's just an overly-packed movie with similar themes found in Blomkamp's other films-- themes that were better told through better filmmaking.  His next venture is an Alien sequel, which, in theory, keeps his film entirely up in space rather than South Africa.  If he can use his efforts in perfecting another aspect of the sci-fi genre, I think he'll re-discover his steps and take us back on an another amazing journey.  Chappie just missed this mark by too much.

C

The Gunman: A Humanitarian's Action Movie

Dude!  Sean Penn is kinda fu*kin ripped!  Like, you'd think with his shirt off he'd have really saggy skin and just a weird rubbery, but coarse body that hangs... this is getting strange.  I'm just saying, the dude is in shape and it was surprising to see.  The dude is also a self-righteous prick.  This is true.  But, for some damn reason, he's a very watchable self-righteous prick.  He's the asshole that you know is an asshole, but don't mind is an asshole because he's so watchable and [usually] makes good movies. The Gunman is no different.  He's clearly preaching his "humanitarian" side and giving long tedious lectures about relief work in third world countries and other monotonous geopolitical Sean Penn themes... but at least he's fun to watch.

It generally pisses me off to the point where I can't enjoy a film when the trailer is spliced together to be as misleading about the film as possible.  The purpose of a trailer is to advertise a movie, give you a look at what you're going to see, and hopefully convince you to see it.  These days, it's about convincing you to see the movie whether the movie is actually about what you're watching in the trailer or not, who cares, they just want your money.  I was severely mislead by the preview for The Gunman.  Here's what was advertised to me-- a new addition to the "I'm over 50 so I'm actually more badass than these shaved kids today" action films like Taken or The Expendables.  Hell, there were a couple instances in the trailer where it was shoved in your face that The Gunman was directed by the same dude who did Taken.  In the trailer, you've got Sean Penn working for some company... looks like a hit man company where he's hired as a contractor to kill people and this is what he's done for his entire life.  However, someone (Javier Bardem) has turned.  The company is now being led by a new man (Javier Bardem) and he's out to clear house of all loose ends.  So, he sends guys to kill Sean Penn.  When those guys get dead quick, he kidnaps Penn's wife until Penn shows up and has to kill everyone else.  This is exactly what the trailer shows.  It might have been my interpretation on a few aspects, but one thing was certain-- Penn was a badass and Javier Bardem was the villain.

Here's what The Gunman is actually about-- Sean Penn is doing humanitarian work in Congo with partner Bardem and love interest.  He works for a mining company.  The rebels in Congo are being funded weapons by the mining company.  The only person standing in the rebels' way of total anarchy is the Mining Minister.  Penn is then hired by the company to assassinate the Minister, but the caveat being he must leave the country as soon as it's done.  He asks Bardem to care for love interest, does the job, and leaves.  Eight years later, he's back in Congo after having spent most of the time away.  Now, he's actually an honest man, doing honest humanitarian work, digging wells for the desolate. When three rebels show up to camp to assassinate specifically him... he knows something is afoot and because it's Congo-- it must be because of the last time he was there.   So, he goes home and starts putting pieces together and, yes, someone is trying to kill him because of his last job.  It must be Javier Bardem, right?  Because that's what the trailer shows!  NO!  It's not.  Bardem is now just a sloppy drunk who has married love interest and is just a pawn in the larger game of the story.

It's strange that the trailers mislead you because the idea for the movie isn't so terrible that you'd have to be mislead, but it still gave the movie, and especially Bardem's role, a very strange feel to it.  Like I said earlier, Sean Penn is a very watchable actor.  I was excited at the prospect of him being a new action badass, and while there are some very cool action/death scenes... they're few and far between and take a loooooooooong time to get going.  I'm not entirely sure why Javier Bardem decided to take a very small, very inconsequential role.  I understood when I thought he was the villain, but this role wasn't much.  I also don't understand why Idris Elba took the role and is actually second billed.  He's in the movie probably a total of three minutes.  It was just a little bit disappointing expecting an action film that plays out like a more sophisticated version of Taken and winding up with a political thriller that plays out like a much more shitty and pandering version of The Constant Gardner.

The movie isn't without it's merits.  The writing isn't bad... it's just too preachy.  The acting is solid.  There's no doubt about that.  And the story is interesting to a point... but after that point the movie just kind of rolls on with your eyes on the screen, but certainly not glued.  There are cool fight sequences in the movie and that keeps it going, but once you realize you're in for the Sean Penn preachy hour, you may want to just catch this one at home in five years when it runs every other weekend on TBS.

C

Run All Night Figuring Out How To Use Liam Neeson Is Like A Fine Wine... Insert Wine Reference Here

Fellow readers: I know we're not all alike.  I know that there are some strange movies that I swoon over and special places in my heart for actors you may or may not give a shit about (*cough* Nicolas Cage).  There has been and will always be a special place in my heart for Liam Neeson.  The man knows badass like he was born with it.  He plays badass so well I just kinda assume this is how he acts usually even off set.  Once showed America his badass-ness with Taken, the dude has found his niche.  The problem with that sort of niche is that America is tired trying to decipher which ones are the good ones and which ones are the piss ones.  Sometimes, I'll admit, it's hard to tell.  We all knew that Unknown, Non-Stop, Taken 3, and Battleship were going to be utter shite.  But, I'll admit that I thought Taken 2, Clash of the Titans, The Grey, and A Walk Among The Tombstones were going to be gold.  Unfortunately, the latter two were the only ones worth anything.  So, with the high volume of Neeson movies coming out, you don't want to waste your money on one that isn't as badass as the first Taken.  Well, ladies and gentlemen, I present you with Run All Night.  Probably the best Neeson movie since Schindler's List.  At the very least, the best since Love, Actually.

Plots in a Neeson movie don't usually matter, but they kind of matter this time.  Neeson stars as Jimmy Conlon, the second hand man to crime boss Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris).  When Shawn's son sets up a drug deal that goes awry, he's left to clean it up with his own incompetent hands.  Unfortunately, caught in the crossfire of this deal is Jimmy's son, Michael.  Shawn's kid decides he has to kill Michael and Neeson intervenes at the last second killing Shawn's idiot son (who really had it coming).  But, because there is some strange code of honor among thieves, Shawn isn't able to let this one go.  He puts out a hit on Jimmy and Michael.  Jimmy must now spend the rest of the night trying to keep his son alive.  The entire movie takes place, essentially, in one night.

On the surface, this sounds like your typical high concept Neeson film that just allows him to kill as many people as possible within the confines of a small time-frame. But, there's much more to it than that.  Jimmy and Michael haven't spoken in years and are, in every sense of the word, estranged.  As Jimmy tries to keep Michael alive, he's also trying to repair their relationship that is all but dead.  He's also trying to keep his kid from becoming himself as well.  He's trying to keep him from pulling a trigger so he doesn't fall into the "life".  There's a wonderful father/son dynamic that paints Neeson, and everyone else in the movie for that matter, as more than a one-dimensional character.

What it really comes down to is that this is still a Liam Neeson action flick.  However, what separates it is the writing.  We all knew Neeson could act, but given the wrong script, it doesn't matter how good an actor you are, you'll come off wrong (Taken 2 and 3).  But, with good writing, a good story, fully-fleshed out characters, and perfectly choreographed action sequences... you're in for a good film.  What's cool too is this is Neeson's third collaboration with director Jaume Collett-Serra who helmed the sub par films Unknown and Non-Stop which were very underwhelming.  But, having worked together enough, the two of them were able to figure out that perfect combination of great action with a great script, despite some terrible directorial choices to freeze time and cheesily wipe from one location to another (a very weak point of the movie).  Run All Night isn't just a mindless action flick, it actually has something to say-- which is as rare as much as it is a delight.

B+

Focus: A Good Conman Film That Unfortunately Loses... Focus

I'm a big fan of conman films (for the best ones check out The Sting and Matchstick Men) and I'm a big fan of Will Smith... so, if you tell me that the two are coming together for a mid-winter movie, my initial instinct is to say that I'm in.  Especially since Will Smith has been on hiatus from the box office, it has to be a hell of a script in order to pull him back into the limelight.  However, with it's February release date I have to wonder... what's the catch?  The catch is that the movie's title is essentially what the script is lacking. Writers and Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have a certain style to their movies.  They write crass comedies that are equal parts vulgarity and heart.  Their previous works, Bad Santa and I Love You Phillip Morris, however, are far better than their latest outing.  That isn't to say that Focus is a bad movie... it just doesn't live up to the expectations nearly everyone will have going into the film.

Without giving anything away, Will Smith plays Nicky, a successful small-time con man.  He meets Jess (Margot Robbie) in a hotel restaurant and the two hit it off.  When Jess tries to pull an obvious con against Nicky and he calls her out on it, she decides she wants to join forces and have Nicky teach her the ways of the grifter.  They plan a massive series of small time capers against drunk and staggering Mardi Gras travelers and wind up pocketing (along with the rest of the team) over a million bucks. The two fall for each other, but Nicky lives by the code that there's no room for love in the conman game.   So, he leaves her with her share of the money and moves on with his life.  Flash forward three years: Nicky is hired by Garriga (Rodrigo Santoro) to pull a big con against his business rival.  Nicky agrees and the plan moves along swimmingly until Jess shows up out of the blue as Garriga's current squeeze.  Nicky realizes he still loves her and mixing work and love turns out to be quite the challenge.

That's essentially it.  It's actually mostly fun to watch and try and figure out who is playing who and who is the victim and who has the upper hand and how are things going to get seriously screwed up and how they're going to get out of the next pickle... However, the scenes with Nicky and Jess are, well... boring.  It's unfortunate because Will Smith and Margot Robbie have amazing chemistry together, but it's not fun watching the two of them together.  I mean this in the love aspect of the film.  In the grifting sections they're a joy to watch.  As Nicky shows her the ropes and teaches her the game, you'll find yourself glued to the screen.  But, later in the film, when Nicky is trying to get Jess to run away with him, when he tries to woo her, it's mostly mundane and unfortunately uninteresting.

Another problem the movie has is the tone.  While the dialogue plays mostly like a fun comedy, it's shot with dark, serious colors and shades.  There's a serious overtone to the movie, but the characters are having a great time.  The way the film is shot and presented seems like it may have played out differently on paper.  Are we looking for a comedy with dramatic elements or a drama with comedic elements?  A good conman movie is able to incorporate both organically much like the aforementioned Matchstick Men and The Sting.  This film is difficult to pinpoint just what exactly the directors were going for.  When they're acting out their plan and playing everyone around them, the film is a blast.  It's when it slows down in order to get our two leads together is when the film drags.

I would say that Focus mostly succeeds as a film, but the failures are very evident and quite hard to ignore.  While this isn't exactly the movie to bring Will Smith back into the minds of the average moviegoer it's a better step in the right direction than After Earth was.

B-