Simmons, J K

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares129 Views

    ‘The Accountant 2’ Review: Ben Affleck’s Revenge of the Killer Nerd

    by

    Affleck returns as a brilliant C.P.A. who moonlights as a mysterious, gun-toting fixer and gets help from his little bro, played by Jon Bernthal.“The Accountant 2” is a blithely nonsensical, enjoyably vulgar follow-up to “The Accountant” (2016) about a numbers whiz played by Ben Affleck, who has impeccable marksmanship and shaky people skills. Like the first movie, the sequel embraces violence without apology, slathers the screen with (fake) blood and unleashes a small army of stunt performers who convincingly play dead. This one has another complicated intrigue and a great deal of plot, though most of the tension comes from watching Affleck struggle to suppress a smile while sharing the screen with an exuberantly showboating Jon Bernthal.The sequel picks up eight years after the first movie introduced Affleck’s Christian Wolff, a brilliant autistic forensic accountant who moonlights as a freelance avenger with help from friends. (The movie’s breezy embrace of cliché includes the stereotype of the autistic savant.) J.K. Simmons shows up as Ray King, the former director of the Treasury Department’s criminal investigations unit. He briefly enters wearing a cap and soon exits without a pulse, though not before setting the story in motion. Cue the gunfire and choreographed chaos, as well as amnesia, plastic surgery, trafficked women, child hostages and a miscellany of villains, ones who are cruel enough to bring out (and amply stoke) the audience’s bloodlust.King’s successor, Marybeth Medina (Cynthia Addai-Robinson), re-enters afterward to help nudge the story forward as does Christian’s younger brother, Braxton (Bernthal). Everything (and everyone) flows together more or less, even when the story strains credulity, as B-movie shoot-em-ups often do. It helps that there’s less back story here than in the first movie, which revisited Christian’s brutal childhood and his Oedipally nurtured violent skill set. That frees up the filmmakers — like the first movie, this was written by Bill Dubuque and directed by Gavin O’Connor — to focus on keeping all the people and parts nicely moving. Among these is Affleck, whose controlled, inward-directed performance holds the center.One irresistible draw of a diversion like this is that while its good guys are often bad, its bad guys are assuredly worse. Both Christian and especially Braxton have obvious moral failings (ha!), but their kill counts are never the problem, which puts them in fine, crowded company. American movies love gunslingers, after all, whether they have Texas or British accents, wear white hats or gray ones like Christian. Among these are the seemingly ordinary men — blue-collar types, next-door dads, computer jockeys — who, when hard push comes to brutal shove comes to catastrophic violence, will take off their glasses à la Clark Kent to transform into near-mystically gifted avengers. They lock and load, restoring order to a broken world.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Juror #2’ Review: Clint Eastwood Hands Down a Tough Verdict

      by

      In his latest (and perhaps last) movie as a director, Eastwood casts a skeptical eye at the criminal justice system in a mystery starring Nicholas Hoult.Clint Eastwood has been such a familiar force in American cinema for so long that it’s easy to think you’ve got him figured out. Yet here he is again, at 94, with a low-key, genuine shocker, “Juror #2,” the 42nd movie that he’s directed and a lean-to-the-bone, tough-minded ethical showdown that says something about the law, personal morality, the state of the country and, I’m guessing, how he feels about the whole shebang. He seems riled up, to judge from the anger that simmers through the movie, which centers on a struggle to find justice within — though perhaps despite — an imperfect system and in the face of towering self-interest.Justin (a very fine Nicholas Hoult) has just finished fixing up a baby nursery at home when he walks into a Savannah, Ga., courtroom to report for jury duty. He and his wife, Allison (Zoey Deutch), are expecting, and tying themselves into knots of worry because several years earlier, their last pregnancy ended tragically. For them, his civic duties couldn’t have come at a worse time. Even so, Justin shows up, eager and attentive, and before long is seated on a jury in a criminal case that takes an abrupt, unexpected turn: The defendant has been charged with murder, and Justin quickly realizes that he himself might be the real killer.Did he or didn’t he is one question, and the start of a mystery, both procedural and existential, that soon finds Justin playing at once a freaked-out juror, potential culprit and dogged detective. The defendant on trial, James (Gabriel Basso), has been accused of murdering his girlfriend, Kendell (Francesa Eastwood, the director’s daughter). They’d been drinking at a local dive when they began arguing. They went outside, where it was dark and pouring rain, and continued to fight in front of a smattering of customers who had followed them. She walked off alone, he trailed after her in his truck, and before long she was dead.It’s a deliciously twisted setup, like something out of an old film noir in which the hero becomes the main suspect and, by desperate default, also slips into the role of a detective working the case. In this movie, voir dire has scarcely ended — Eastwood, who famously likes to work fast, races through the typical preliminaries — when Justin is sweating in the jury box and listening to the prosecutor, Faith (Toni Collette), and the defense lawyer, Eric (Chris Messina), make their cases. Before long, the lawyers have made their closing arguments, and Justin is sequestered in a room with 11 people who are also on the case.Eastwood takes a bit of time to find his groove. The opener is, by turns, pokey and rushed, and you can almost feel his impatience as he lines up the story’s pieces. He doesn’t seem to have spent much time thinking about the movie’s visuals; they look fine, I wish they looked better. He seems especially uninterested in Justin’s home life, and given how dreary and claustrophobic it looks, you can hardly blame him. Once the trial begins and the lawyers start prodding and probing, Eastwood settles in nicely. Justin realizes that he was at the bar the same night as the defendant and victim, triggering a series of jagged flashbacks that, as the trial continues, grow longer, more detailed and, in time, help fill in the larger picture.Written by Jonathan A. Abrams, “Juror #2” is a whodunit in which justice turns out to be as much on trial as the defendant. Both sides seem to have a weak case. The defendant is shady, the autopsy inconclusive, the only witness questionable, and there’s an enigma among the jurors, most of whom just want to go home. And while Eric nevertheless delivers a righteously indignant defense, Faith seems overly eager to wrap things up, partly because she’s running for district attorney and already fake-smiling like a glad-handing politician. Their arguments are shrewdly handled, pared down and delivered in a dynamic volley of edits that turn their speeches into a he-said, she-said duel, with a stricken Justin caught in the middle.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      ‘National Champions’ Review: A College Football Revolution

      by

      Athletes go on strike seeking health insurance in this drama as a coach tries to forge his legacy.In New Orleans, two college teams, the Cougars and the Wolves, are days from facing off in a major game — a game that will make or break the legacy of one coach. That would be James Lazor of the Wolves. One of the TV sportscasters hyping the game announces, “Monday night is about etching his name in the history books.”His star quarterback, LeMarcus James, has other plans. Along with his best friend, a lesser player named Emmett Sunday, James is going on strike. Referring to his fellow college athletes, James says in one televised statement, “Over 12,000 of us participate in a multibillion-dollar business that doesn’t even give us health insurance.”Written by Adam Mervis and directed by Ric Roman Waugh, “National Champions” is a drama whose timeliness has only been slightly compromised by the N.C.A.A.’s recent interim policy allowing athletes to earn revenue via endorsement deals. To go by this fictional movie’s argumentation, that real-life shift only slightly changes the overall picture for college athletes.Coach Lazor is played by J.K. Simmons, but his character here is no “Whiplash”-style martinet. He’s ostensibly compassionate, and says he sees LeMarcus as a son. But, unsurprisingly, the coach’s patriarchal stance is later shown to be part of the problem.The movie wants to make its points on class and race hotly. LeMarcus, appealingly played by Stephan James, is Black, and then again so is Katherine Poe (a simultaneously imposing and enigmatic Uzo Aduba), the ruthless lawyer the N.C.A.A. has put on a mission to destroy and discredit the quarterback. The vicious machinations echo an adage popularized by Jenny Holzer: “Abuse of power comes as no surprise.” But the movie dilutes its impact with lackluster direction of samey scenes — people in hotel rooms speechifying — and a distracting nighttime soap subplot.National ChampionsRated R for language. Running time: 1 hour 56 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Television

      ‘The Stand’ Review: Stephen King’s Pandemic Story Hits TV Again

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Best of 2020Best ComedyBest TV ShowsBest BooksBest MoviesBest AlbumsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘The Stand’ Review: Stephen King’s Pandemic Story Hits TV AgainA mini-series from CBS All Access adapts the sprawling novel about opposing camps of survivors in a post-apocalyptic America.Whoopi Goldberg plays a gifted centenarian in “The Stand,” a new mini-series adaptation of the Stephen King novel.Credit…Robert Falconer/CBSDec. 16, 2020, 1:45 p.m. ETStephen King’s slab of a novel, “The Stand” (originally 800-plus pages, later expanded to 1,100-plus), begins with a manufactured viral epidemic that wipes out most of the human race. That would seem to make it pretty relevant, or at least timely, in the year of Covid-19.The pandemic that King imagined in 1978 wasn’t like the one we’re experiencing now, though, and in the new mini-series “The Stand,” premiering Thursday on CBS All Access, the depiction of it doesn’t resonate in any strong way with our nerve-racking experiences of the last 10 months. It’s a Hollywood-style outbreak, racing past quarantines and leaving bodies dramatically splayed around the landscape. (Filming on the nine-episode series began in September 2019.) If there’s an incidental lesson, it’s that Covid-19 has changed the narrative when it comes to plagues, in ways that will show up onscreen in due course.It’s also true that while descriptions of “The Stand” always start with “virus wipes out billions,” the plague is really just a plot device — a way for King to distill the story into a confrontation between American good and American evil, represented by bands of survivors in a city on a hill (Boulder, Colo.) and a latter-day Sodom (Las Vegas).That also sounds pretty relevant to our current situation — red versus blue in a divided America, your choice which side is which. (King’s feelings are clear — the forces of good in Boulder are pretty snowflakey.) Here too, though, the mini-series doesn’t set off the vibrations that it might — not because the material isn’t engaging, but because the treatment of it is serviceable, workmanlike, maybe just good enough to keep you on the couch for nine hours.And isn’t that just about always the case with Stephen King adaptations, particularly on TV? Maybe creators assume that what the King audience wants isn’t adaptation but transcription. Or maybe, with rare exceptions — Brian De Palma and “Carrie,” Stanley Kubrick and “The Shining” — filmmakers with their own distinctive styles avoid the books because they don’t want to make what will most likely be called a Stephen King movie.This new version of “The Stand” (a four-episode mini-series written by King came out on ABC in 1994) was spearheaded by Josh Boone, who directed “The New Mutants,” one of the few big-studio popcorn movies to open in theaters during the pandemic. It’s a reasonably skilled and unobjectionable job of transcription and compression, stutter-stepping among time lines to keep track of King’s manifold plot strands and characters.The cast is large, evocative of a golden age of mini-series when you never knew who might show up in one. In the early episodes (six were available for review) we get the luxury of five minutes of J.K. Simmons, as a general presiding over the bioweapons facility from which the virus escapes. Lasting slightly longer are Heather Graham as a wealthy, suddenly widowed New Yorker and Hamish Linklater as a government epidemiologist, reprising his harried-company-man role from “Legion.”The main cast is led, capably, by James Marsden (“Dead to Me”) and Jovan Adepo as Stu and Larry, leaders of the peaceful camp in Boulder; Whoopi Goldberg plays the centenarian Mother Abagail, who drew them there by infiltrating their dreams. On the other side of the moral equation, Alexander Skarsgard is an insufficiently menacing Randall Flagg, the Vegas-based demon determined to destroy the Boulder group. (He isn’t helped by the cheesiness of the sets the production devised for Flagg’s own sessions of dream-walking.)If you’re looking for American-roots mythology on a large scale, there are other options available — Starz’s “American Gods,” for instance, and in the post-apocalyptic category, AMC’s “Walking Dead.” Both have their drawbacks, but “American Gods” gives you wild things to look at, and “The Walking Dead,” for all the aimlessness of its recent seasons, can still throw a good scare into you. “The Stand” doesn’t accomplish either of those through six episodes.The faithful may want to hang around until the finale, which King wrote, but as Stu tells himself as he heads to Las Vegas to confront Flagg in the novel, it might be a fool’s errand.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More