Late summer surprises in 'Bodyguard,' 'Logan Lucky'

While superhero movies take a (short) break at the box office, a couple of late August releases deliver blockbuster-level entertainment on a fraction of the budget.

“The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is a fascinating artifact to exist in 2017. The foul-mouthed, violent buddy action flick would be familiar to anyone who frequented the movies in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. It’s overlong and overstuffed with gun fights, dopey plot mechanics and profane quips. If it came out in 1993, one might think it was directed by Walter Hill or John McTiernan and written by Shane Black.

Since star Samuel L. Jackson essentially looks the same as he did 20 years ago, I have a theory that “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is actually a movie they forgot to release in 1995. When the studio uncovered it, they digitally replaced the face and dialogue of Nicolas Cage with Ryan Reynolds just to make it more millennial friendly.

I mean all of this as a compliment. As stupid and ridiculous as “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is, it knows how to utilize its stars to full comedic effect, and the action sequences are serviceable enough, especially when you consider the movie was made on a budget of under $30 million.

Jackson plays an infamous hitman asked to testify against a ruthless dictator (Gary Oldman in 90s, evil-Russian “Air Force One” mode). Reynolds plays the low-level bodyguard who must protect him from an army of faceless goons.

“Hitman’s Bodyguard” puts Reynolds squarely in wisecracking “Deadpool” mode and Jackson in his “mother******” -spouting mode, and it works to the degree in which you appreciate such shtick.

Even with its predictable plot and overreliance on loud banter, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” has a better rewatch quality than many serious-minded superhero movies. Audiences don’t tend to rush out to action movies anymore without some kind of gimmick (a guy in a cape, or a fancy car driving out of an airplane). Maybe the faux gun battles and terrorist-centered plots in movies like these seem like insensitive parodies of the real-world stuff that saturates other media.

Or maybe audiences really have seen enough “Die Hard” and “Midnight Run” knockoffs in their lifetime. I haven’t, so I’ll be the guy defending “The Hitman’s Bodyguard.”

While I may have to return my film critic credentials after praising “The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” I can at least settle back into my snobbery with my affection for “Logan Lucky,” a sophisticated and efficient heist movie masquerading as a hillbilly joke on the “Ocean’s 11” series.

The movie is the comeback project by Steven Soderbergh, the director of the “Ocean’s” trilogy, who claimed to be retiring from movies after his 2013 HBO effort, “Behind the Candelabra” (he made a television series in the down time and nobody believed he would retire anyway).

Soderbergh has always been a fascinating filmmaker – he’s bounced between prestige projects, glitzy remakes and small experimental efforts, and he often writes and shoots his own material. “Logan Lucky” relies on the structure of an “Ocean’s” film without succumbing to the series’ showboating tendencies, even with a star-filled cast that includes Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Hilary Swank and Seth MacFarlane.

Tatum and Driver play blue collar brothers who concoct an elaborate heist at the Charlotte Motor Speedway during a NASCAR race. Tatum’s Jimmy has a daughter to support and an old sports injury that keeps him from consistent work, and Driver’s Clyde, who lost part of his arm in Iraq, believes the Logan family is cursed by bad luck.

Driver continues to make distinct and fascinating choices in his performances, and Tatum is a strong emotional anchor here – there’s more soul and pathos in a couple of father-daughter scenes in “Logan Lucky” than any of the “Ocean’s” films. It was Soderbergh who helped turn Tatum into something more than a generic leading man onscreen (“Magic Mike” is much better than it gets credit for), and “Logan Lucky” continues Tatum’s ascension into a charismatic and versatile performer.

Daniel Craig, generally a stone-faced grump onscreen, also turns in a lively performance as Joe Bang, an imprisoned safecracker with an inconsistently hilarious Southern drawl. A quick glance at “Logan Lucky” and one might think Soderbergh and his performers are mocking the South and the culture, but there’s genuine affection in the character work, and these so-called hillbillies manage to be as clever or even more so than the glitzy trifecta of George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon.

The most impressive aspect of “Logan Lucky” is just how effortless it is. The movie doesn’t go out of its way to be clever or cool, and every scene is concise and serves a clear narrative purpose. It’s probably a better constructed film than Soderbergh’s best “Ocean’s” movie (that would be “11”), though it relies on audience knowledge of that film for its plot execution and best gags.

Unfortunately, “Logan Lucky” fumbled at the box office last weekend, in part because of an experimental marketing plan concocted by Soderbergh himself. Again, the movie may be a bit too familiar for modern audiences, but in a summer full of the same-old-same-old franchise efforts, I’d take conventional-but-well-made genre films over the flashy, CGI-laden and needlessly expensive event pictures that currently dominate the conversation.

- • •

Tyler Wilson can be reached at [email protected]