One of the hardest things to pull off in a movie is the minimalist "ship in a bottle" trick. Television shows do it often to try to save money on their seasons. Most of the time it doesn’t work. There are notable exceptions. The same is true for a movie. You have to limit your running time. You have to quickly set up a small group of characters, and you can't waste any time getting to the point. Ben Wheatley hits all of the right buttons in Free Fire, and he's promising to take you on a hell of a ride without ever changing locations. It looks so simple. You figure anybody can do it...and they can. But few can do it well. The entire action in the 85-minute film could have easily been a throwaway scene in another feature film. A lesser director could have done it in almost no time at all before moving on to set up their next shot. But then you'd have something... well... lesser, wouldn't you?

The plot couldn't be any simpler. It's set in the 1970's. We aren't told this, but the styles kind of give it away. Oh, and the John Denver 8-track tape likely really gives it away. We join a group of criminals at an abandoned warehouse in the dead of the night. Introductions are made, and they proceed to close an arms deal. Things get complicated when it comes out that one of the buyers sexually assaulted the cousin of one of the sellers the night before at a bar while he was high and drunk. He got beaten, and they never expected to see each other again. Now here they are. In the blink of an eye the tense deal breaks down, and the shooting starts. It pretty much turns into the titular free fire when a third group shows up with sniper rifles. Before long everyone is shooting at everyone. It's easy to lose count of who shoots who. The cast is crawling through the debris and trying to either get the money and get out or reach a phone that starts ringing so they can call for reinforcements. But here you fight for every inch, and it's amazing how many times a person can get shot without actually dying. There is some dying; it just takes a lot of bullets.

The best way to describe this film is epic; they really don’t make films like this anymore, and leave it to Amazon Studios to present us with such an ambitious film.  At one time Brad Pitt was set to star in the film, and then the lead role was offered up to Benedict Cumberbatch. Due to his conflicting schedule with Doctor Strange, he too had to drop out. Eventually Charlie Hunnam (Crimson Peak, Sons of Anarchy) was given the role, and to be honest, I don’t think there is another actor who is more suited for the role. Percy Fawcett (Hunnam) was a loyal soldier in the British army who seemed to never get the recognition that he deserved, and frankly this is something I feel Hunnam can relate to. He’s been in some great roles over the years, but somehow he’s a guy who’s been overlooked and hasn’t quite gotten the spotlight that he deserves.  Now he is poised to explore the wilds of the South American jungle in the new film from James Gray. Does the famous explorer find his lost city?  Climb aboard, and I’ll tell you all about it. I hope you’ve had all your shots and brought some bug repellent.

In 1906 Fawcett made his first journey into the Amazonian jungle with his partner Henry Costin (Robert Pattinson) for a mission that would have them mapping the borders of the country.  It’s at a time where there is a dispute over who controls the rubber that is being found in the jungle, and Fawcett has been hired by a neutral party to settle the border lines.  To continue their journey through the jungle it requires the men, along with some guides, to journey to the end of a river, a task that is believed to be impossible due to the natives and other natural threats that prowl about in the jungle.