It’s not fun being poor. It’s not fun being poor especially if you just everything you lost because your wife left you due to your inability to consummate your marriage to her. After Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) has this situation happen to him, he’s left sitting in the subway system in Paris, hoping that someone will give him enough coins to spend the night in a hotel. His barber shop diplomas are now worthless.

It’s a problem, as well, that he doesn’t speak French particularly well. This was another problem he had with his now ex-wife, Dominique (Julie Delpy). He’s from Poland, she’s from France, and while she seems to understand lots of what he says, the opposite is not true. She packs up all of his belongings into a suitcase and is seen from only scarcely afterward. Once getting to this metro station, Karol is met by his fellow countryman, Mikolaj (Janusz Gajos), who offers to pay for Karol’s transport back to Poland. However, without a passport to get on the plane, Karol initially declines. The two men decide that spending the rest of the day drinking and talking would be productive, so that’s what they do.

They eventually decide that Karol must come back to Poland, but since he is without a passport, he’ll have to get stuffed in a suitcase. This works, partially, and once back in his home country, the scheming begins. He has to somehow improve his life, both financially and personally, while also revenge on his ex-wife for putting him in this situation. He also maintains his friendship with Mikolaj, who offers Karol a job that he might not want to take: Kill a suicidal man who won’t pull the trigger.

Effectively, these few plot threads are what make up most of our time spent with these characters. Things get more complex later on, a couple of the plots intertwine, and the pacing really picks up, but it’s mostly a story about this one man’s potential rise to greatness after sinking as far as one can go. It’s not as easy as I might make it sound, but suffice to say that this man is very smart and knows how to work business deals.

There are a few very thrilling moments in White, which surprised me. While Blue was definitely engaging, I would never classify it as a thriller. White has moments of real tension. The point that stands out in particular was when Karol decides to eavesdrop on a business deal, beat the participants to the punch, and then has to fight for his life because the other people find out. This scene actually had my heart pounding, which is a departure from the serene nature of something like Blue.

But it’s also a very funny film. Not really laugh-out-loud, slap-your-knee kind of funny, but the type of dark comedy that you don’t see a whole lot. Some of these situations are ridiculous, and the deadpan delivery from the actors really sells it. There’s a time in the film where one of the characters needs to buy a corpse. I won’t explain why, but just imagine that situation for a second. Not a big deal is made out of it by anyone in the film, but it was really quite funny.

This doesn’t take away from the touching moments either. When the time finally comes for Karol to go through with the murder or decline it, I was very unprepared emotionally for what happens next. Tears might just very well roll down your cheeks in this scene, even if the attempted mystery regarding who the target is likely won’t surprise anyone. There are a few other touching points of the film, but that particular scene stood out the most.

White is a balancing act among all three of these elements, and it pulls that off marvelously. None of these things is neglected; they’re all introduced and included frequently enough for us to remember that they are there. Yet, they’re all also given enough time to stand out on their own. If you can pick out specific stand-out scenes with each different tone, you know that the film has done something right. It made these moments memorable for an audience, despite them all being quite different in nature.

Where White wavers is when it gives us scenes with the ex-wife character. Because it doesn’t focus on her often, it’s jarring when director Krzysztof Kieslowski decides to give us an entire scene or two dedicated to her. We get large gaps when we don’t even think about her character, and cutting to her after such an extended period doesn’t quite work. She plays a pivotal part late in the picture, but her character doesn’t quite work because of these absences from the screen. The main character is Karol, and the secondary character is Mikolaj. That’s all that this film has room for, and Dominique’s inclusion, while it kick-starts the plot, doesn’t work as the film progresses.

Three Colors: White is a great film that manages to properly balance drama, thrills and comedy. It tells a story worth telling with characters that are worth investing in. It has many memorable moments all with different tones, and it will manage to make you cry and laugh, while also getting the adrenaline flowing. It does everything so effortlessly, even if the director seemed to be trying too hard to get us interested in the ex-wife character. That’s just about the only thing that White does wrong, but that’s hardly a hindrance.

In a sequel almost nobody – save Nic Cage and some dudes at Marvel who like money – wanted, Johnny Blaze returns to the big screen for another fiery ride.  This time it’s called Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, and it’s a sequel that wants nothing to do with its big budget predecessor.  It brings back Cage – mostly because Cage is the biggest Ghost Rider fan alive AND likes money because he has to pay for his burial pyramid – but cuts all other ties to Mark Steven Johnson’s bland film.

This time the skullfire-on-wheels action is framed by the duo of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who previously brought their hyperactive flair to the Crank films and the muddled, yet strangely captivating Gamer (don’t hate, I dig it!).   The filmmakers left their mark on those films by featuring “balls-to-the-wall” action that feature no restraint, which made nudity, blood, random psychedelic cutscenes, and other acts of depravity the norm in their worlds.  A lot of people didn’t like that about them, but I thought it was a blast – their films are basically video games that were filmed instead of rendered – which makes it slightly frustrating when you realize that Ghost Rider 2 has been edited down for a PG-13 rating.

Without the ability to go all the way, Neveldine/Taylor’s film feels a little neutered.  It’s particularly baffling too, as this is the second film released under the Marvel Knights banner that previously accompanied the uberviolent, R-rated Punisher: War Zone – a film that featured more arterial spray than most horror movies made in the new millennium.  This Marvel Knights production features a lot more dark moments than the first film did, but there are moments when the film cuts away from what could have been a brutal moment.  Perhaps the studio was worried that the first film pandered to children – which is a strange truth despite the devil-based plot – but I don’t think this sequel will sell as well to the young crowd.

There’s certainly more grit to this film, as the Rider looks a bit darker and a lot less cartoon-y than he did in the 2007 film.  The action takes on a supernatural tone again – especially when that Ciaran Hinds dude turns one of the bad guys into a creepy undead thing who’s supposed to find a kid that might become the Antichrist – and there’s plenty of night time battling with the flaming headed antihero doing his thing.  Oh yeah, and you get to see Ghost Rider urinating a stream of flame – if you’re in to that kind of thing.

If there’s a reason to see Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, it’s certainly the star.  A lot of people are down on the overdramatic Mr. Cage, but he’s pretty much my favorite thing Hollywood could do to any movie.  Heck, I once kind of defended that piece of excrement Wicker Man remake because of Cage’s overacting.  Truthfully, I was a little disappointed by the lack of Cage Rage in this film.  There was one glorious mid-film scene that allowed Cage to go fully crazy, but there weren’t enough moments like it.  In fact, I kinda thought the film was a little backward – the early part of the film featured a lot of Rider and not enough Cage, while the final scenes feature a ton of subdued Cage and not enough Rider.

With the directors’ hands tied and Cage somewhat restrained, the whole movie just seems kinda pointless.  It was a fun ride – I’ll watch it again before I watch the first Ghost Rider film again – but it doesn’t have much going for it outside of the good-looking Eastern European setting and a decent cast (Idris Elba is a fun addition in a pivotal side role, and Violante Placido is nice to look at).  I’m not sure if it will please fans of the comic – I know next to nothing about Ghost Rider, except that Cage loves him – but it’s little more than a passable diversion in what is generally blockbuster cinema’s offseason.  You shouldn’t waste your money on a 3D ticket price, but if you’re interested you might have fun with the film as a rental if you really dig Cage Rage.  Even then, you’re probably better off watching the more violent and more ballistic Drive Angry anyway.

After waking up in a hospital following a car crash, Julie (Juliette Binoche) learns the terrible news: Her husband and young daughter have both been killed. He, a composer, had been working on a piece that would have been throughout Europe, something that will never be finished now. Upon finding herself once again able to walk, Julie heads to the medicine cabinet and attempts to swallow as many awkward-looking pills as possible, hoping that they’ll end her life. You don’t go through with it with those kinds of monstrosities, and Julie is forced back to her room. She won’t attempt suicide again. This is how Three Colors: Blue begins.

Eventually, she manages to recover enough to be released from the hospital that was holding her hostage. Or at least, it seemed that way to her. She had to watch the funeral on television. She could barely move. But now she’s free, and is going to move on with her life. The old Julie died, and the new Julie is going to work on self-improvement, get a new career, begin anew. At least, that’s what you hope she’ll do. Instead, she begins burning (both literally and figuratively) everything that reminds her of her past. Friendships ended, all of her and her husband’s work is gone, her mother is put into a day home, she moves to a new apartment without telling a soul, and effectively destroys everything she once loved.

And for what? She’s hurt, we get that, but what does she hope to accomplish by doing this? She becomes a reclusive person, not making any friends — nor hoping to — living alone, ignoring everyone she meets, and living a pretty sad life. She doesn’t cry, though; her emotions have been repressed. This is what she’s decided. She makes, perhaps, a friend, named Lucille (Charlotte Véry), an exotic dancer. But there’s little joy in this relationship, with the two characters coming to each other for comfort, nothing else.

Also there for consolation is one of Julie’s husband’s friends, another composer named Olivier (Benoît Régent). They spend one night together soon after Julie returns home, as she knows that Olivier loved her. But after that night, she tells him that he’ll forget her and that she’s just like any other woman. She even gets cavities, we’re told. And it’s after this point where he begins a search for her as, like I said, she’s effectively disappeared.

What follows isn’t all that complex, and yet it’s beautiful. You don’t go into this film expecting a complicated plot. There really isn’t much of a plot at all, really. “Woman tries to find her new place in the world while removing memories of her past” just about sums it up. It unfolds elegantly, and I can’t remember a moment when I was bored. The main character is so complex that it’s hard not to want to just watch her go about her daily life. And if that’s not enough for you, the imagery, symbolism, odd shot choices and other techniques used by director Krzysztof Kieslowski surely will be.

There’s a lot to look at with this film, and there’s a lot to follow even if you’re not paying attention to the plot. It would take multiple viewings to pick out most of the imagery used in Blue, and even then, you’re unlikely to get everything. I can see how that would frustrate more impatient viewers as they won’t get much out of the movie, but for those willing to give it the time and commitment, it’ll be very rewarding.

While watching the narrative, you’ll notice some key things. The main character, Julie, will frequently stare off into space, just like the camera will sometimes give us a close-up of something as mundane as a sugar cube. We’ll also experience blackouts before Julie makes a major — or sometimes minor — decision. The musical score appears to be not just played for the audience, but is also inside Julie’s head, playing randomly whenever the dialogue dies down or Julie spends time alone. She notices it and reacts to it, sometimes, and it usually follows and is followed by one of those blackouts.

The only real problem I had with the film was its ending, which went against the main theme that it seemed to be going for. Obviously, I won’t give away the ending, but everything about it screams “hypocrite.” Or maybe just “make up your mind.” But, effectively, it doesn’t match up with the rest of the film. It needed to be left more wide open, I thought, in order to bring proper closure to what we just sat through. The way it ended simply didn’t quite gel with everything else.

The actors in Blue are good, but unremarkable. Juliette Binoche carries the brunt of the weight, and while she’s good, the role didn’t appear to be much of a stretch. The supporting actors aren’t given much to really work with, and calling their characters developed would be a bit of an overstatement. This is a one-person show — as it really should be — and the supporting actors, while fine, don’t get to shine as a result.

Three Colors: Blue is a great film about a woman who needs to overcome her grief and realize what life is all about. While it doesn’t contain an engaging plot, its lead character is one that is so interesting that a complex plot might take away from her story. We care about her, and the film focuses on that as a result. The only problem comes from the ending, which didn’t quite fit in tone with the rest of the film.

We begin Saving Private Ryan with a scene that left me queasy and confused. It’s shot with a handheld camera, and it makes us feel like we’re in the action. The assault of Omaha Beach was a pretty important time, and it makes sense for a World War II film to open with it. This scene, which goes on for right around 30 minutes, feels incredibly realistic. You understand the confusion that the soldiers felt, and you feel what it’s like to have comrades dying all around you. There is only one character/actor that I could recognize in this scene, although I think that’s part of the point.

That has little to do with the plot of the film, which is focused almost solely on a rescue mission. It definitely helps set the mood though, as well as establishing the character of Captain Miller (Tom Hanks). We follow him for most of the beachfront assault, and we watch him lead a squad and end up taking a strategic position that was a pivotal turning point. So, it’s only fair that he has to get a squad together in order to rescue a single soldier that was dropped somewhere behind enemy lines, right? I don’t think so.

His squad doesn’t think it’s fair either. Neither does the Captain, but as he explains to them, you don’t gripe to people who are beneath you in rank. His squad can complain to him, but he can only complain to his commanding officer. And so on, he tells us. His fellow soldiers are made up of a bunch of people who have little discernible personality, although that might just have been because the dirt and grime covering their faces made it hard to tell them apart.

Their mission is to recover a man named Private James Ryan (Matt Damon). I suppose the title of the film makes more sense now, doesn’t it? Ryan had three brothers fighting in the war. All of them are dead now, so the decision was made to find the last remaining Ryan brother and send him home. After all, it’s better to bring news of three dead children to a mother if you can also bring one that’s still alive. At least, that’s about what I got out of the speech from the man who decided this.

I gave you an actor to portray Private Ryan, although that still doesn’t give anything away. For all you know, it’s a cameo role where all we see is Matt Damon lying there dead. That would certainly fit the theme of a depressing war movie. Or maybe we see him only through flashbacks. How are you supposed to know until you see this film? Make no mistake, this isn’t a happy film, and I for one was tearing up at the end.

Disregarding for a moment the 30 minute opening scene, there’s actually quite a lot of action in this film. More than I expected, actually. Enemies can pop out from behind a wall whenever they feel like it, and the film milks this to give us a few unexpected ambushes. Members of the squadron do die, and fairly quickly. I believe the first death involves a character played by Vin Diesel, although even that I wasn’t quite sure of. These deaths leave an impact only because of how tragically their presented, not because we have any connection to the characters.

The film concludes with another massive action scene, which I would guess is also somewhere around 30 minutes in length. It serves as a reminder just how terrible war really is. Most of the film shows this to us, but it’s only when soldiers are dying left and right, both German and Allied, when the point really hits home. Seeing so much death all around the characters is tragic, and once the scene ends, you’re completely spent emotionally. So spent, in fact, that at the time, I didn’t even notice how terribly and arbitrarily the scene concludes.

Without wanting to spoil it, this massive battle ends just because it wants to. Something happens that makes one side win, but it comes from the outside with little prior indication that it was a possibility. It’s like writer Robert Rodat and director Steven Spielberg couldn’t think of a way to end it, so they decided to just cut it short because something like that could have potentially happened, maybe. It just wreaks of laziness or indecisiveness, and while you might not realize it at the time (I didn’t), it just might hit you later on.

Performances are strong, at least, whenever the actor does something that is noteworthy. Tom Hanks carries Saving Private Ryan on his back, giving us a character to learn on when things get tough. Other actors are believable, but not being able to tell who they are meant that all they had to do was be a believable nameless solder. They all performed that task admirably, but looking through the cast list, I was shocked to see names like Paul Giamatti, Tom Sizemore, Ted Danson, or a few others, because I didn’t recognize any of them while watching the film.

Saving Private Ryan tells a simple story well, while also providing us with a ton of action meaning that we never get bored. Despite taking almost three hours, this is a film that is never boring. The characters grow on you — at least, the characters you can discern and remember do — and in the end, you’re bound to get emotional when you realize the turmoil they’ve all been put through. This isn’t a film that glorifies war. I wish the ending had been better constructed, but you’ll be unlikely to care while you’re watching it because of how invested you are by that point. This is a highly recommended film that is absolutely worth all 169 minutes it takes to watch.

Based on the non-fiction book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Green Zone is a fictional account of one soldier’s life in 2003 Iraq. Matt Damon plays this soldier, and the film opens up with him looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. He can’t find any, and questions the intelligence reports that are claiming they are there.

He tells us that this is the third time that this has happened. Already, there are seeds of doubt planted into both his head, and ours. Of course, if you’ve been watching the news over the last few years, you’ll have an opinion already formed as to if America was right in their decision to look for WMDs in Iraq. But that shouldn’t really matter in a fictional movie, should it?

The long answer is this: Yes, it does matter, just not as much as you might think. Since the people involved with this film have an opinion, it’s only fair if you have one going into it. But I don’t believe that your opinion will have any basis on how much you’ll enjoy the film while watching it; instead, it will impact how you view it in the long run.

Regardless of how you view the Iraq decision, Green Zone views it in one, specific, way. You’ll only find out near the end as to whether or not it believes there are WMD’s in Iraq or not, but you’ll likely be able to guess way earlier than that. After questioning if the Intel is correct, Damon’s character ends up looking for clues by himself, going against the army’s plans. At this point, he befriends some other people who think something’s up, led by Brendan Gleeson.

This is the point in the film where the plot picks a villain. In Green Zone’s case, the overall bad guy is played by Greg Kinnear. Damon suspects him of lying to people about the WMDs, and then later on we see that he as his own personal troop that will carry out whatever task he wants — it’s quite clear that something is amiss, and he will do whatever he can to cover it up.

There are points in Green Zone where you will probably feel lost — I did. Although I tried to pay attention throughout, some of the characters and some of the plot points got lost on me. I had to re-watch some scenes to makes sense of smaller plot points. I have no problem admitting this, however, because it is a flaw in the film; keeping the audience interested is something that needs to happen for a film to be any good. Green Zone isn’t always guilty of being boring, but it sometimes is, especially in key moments of plot.

But after paying more attention, I found out that the plot was actually very simple. There aren’t all that many characters that matter — those that are there are basic and have little characterization — and the double-crossing plot isn’t complex. But it’s somewhat hard to follow without reason to care. And there really is no reason. Damon’s character is boring, and so is the villain. The side characters follow orders, and nothing else.

At least the action scenes are fun, for what we can see of them. Director Paul Greengrass is well-known for his use of shaky-cam, and it’s no different in Green Zone. Although he decides to do something that makes it not work as well as it has in his prior films: He adds darkness to the mix. This means that an already difficult to see picture becomes even harder to see. It’s not always like this, but when it is, you can hardly tell what is going on.

But they are fairly exciting. There are explosions, gunfire and loud noises. That’s about all you need to break up the monotony of Matt Damon walking around and talking to people, so they serve their purpose. Green Zone isn’t really an action movie, and if you are expecting “Jason Bourne in Iraq,” you won’t get what you expected.

I wonder if Green Zone has any purpose. I mean, the vast majority of people, particularly the ones in its target audience, are already going to have formed an opinion on the Iraq invasion. The majority, I assume, fall on the side that Green Zone takes. It has come out too late to really make any difference or any point that hasn’t already been stated dozens of times over. It just feels like a pointless exercise.

I suppose that’s where I stand on Green Zone. It isn’t utterly boring, and I’m not going to say you won’t get any enjoyment from it, but it ends up being pointless because any point it tries to make has already been stated too many times to count. The action scenes where the shaky-cam doesn’t interfere with what’s being shown are the highlights, while some of the extended dialogue scenes are boring. Not a total waste, but not a recommended watch either.

I wanted more Liam Neeson. I suppose that is one of, if not the biggest, complaints I have about the film. I wonder how much the death of Neeson’s wife, Natasha Richardson had on his character’s involvement in the story. The script had to be changed due to his absence when her death occurred, and I’m assuming that cuts were made to what we saw his character get to do. Then again, I haven’t seen the French film Nathalie…, which Chloe is a remake of, so maybe that character just doesn’t get much time in either version. Regardless, I wanted more.

The film kicks off on professor David Stewart’s (Neeson) birthday. He’s out of town, and ends up missing his flight. His wife, Catherine (Julianne Moore) was throwing a surprise party, and while the party goes on, the guest of honor doesn’t arrive until after she’s in bed. Stupid flights! But the next day, she checks his phone and sees a photo of him and one of his college students, presumably taken the night before. The piques her curiosity, although she doesn’t say anything about it to him. At least, not right away.

She meets with a woman named Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), who works the streets of the downtown area. We learned in an opening monologue that Chloe is a very smart individual, having to learn exactly what her clients want and then figuring out the best way to satisfy those desires. It’s like a game to her. When she sits down to talk with Catherine, she says that she doesn’t usually meet with single women. Most of her clients are couples.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Is she going to hire this escort woman to get back at her husband for possibly cheating? No, that isn’t what’s going to happen, and you should be ashamed for thinking that about a character you know nothing about. Instead, she does something possibly worse: She hires Chloe to attempt a seduction of her husband. At first, all Catherine wants her to do is make small talk, but soon enough, Chloe has to get all of the proper tests to make sure she’s clean. Catherine still cares about things like that, you see.

All of the interactions between Chloe and the professor are explained by Chloe to Catherine. We see them, or at least, parts of them, but Chloe delivers all of the juicy details about what happens. Catherine never seems too angry — actually, she seems more interested and excited than enraged. It’s like listening to lunchroom gossip, except that gossip happens to be fairly sexually explicit. Oh, and it also involves her husband. That’s kind of an important point as well.

The plot eventually changes from this to something that you may or may not see coming. I won’t spoil it, but certain things happen, others don’t, and we eventually learn what everyone wants in, or out of, their lives. There are confrontations, discussions, a fight or two, and we realize that things we thought we knew earlier weren’t true, or weren’t presented in the correct way. It’s actually quite engaging and I can’t say I was bored very often with Chloe. It was quite a ride that delved more deeply into the characters’ psyche than I expected going in.

But then the ending comes. I was not a fan of the way that Chloe ended. Obviously I can’t tell you how, but it’s abrupt and feels like a cop-out to an even bigger climax. We get quite a lot of buildup that fizzles out instead of giving us the final thrill that we need. It’s also done in slow motion but then cuts away before the event fully transpires. In a film like this, I couldn’t believe the choice in ending. But then again, that’s probably how Nathalie… ended as well, so that’s where some of the blame lies. Not all of it, because I’m certain changes were made in the script at earlier points; rewriting the ending would have been a good idea as well.

Like I said, Liam Neeson’s character isn’t all that involved in the story here, which is almost always too bad. We end up spending most of our time in conversations between Chloe and Catherine, with some breaks for other conversations between Catherine and either her husband or son, Michael (Max Thieriot). The latter of those two wins the prize of “most annoying character” for this film, as he’s constantly disobeying or bugging his parents. I mean, it’s clear that he doesn’t get along with them, but making the point in every single scene is incredibly annoying, especially since the reason behind their fighting is never given. (A deleted scene gives us more insight, and in my opinion should have been left in the final cut, but since it wasn’t, it doesn’t count as proper motivation to me.)

That goes hand in hand with the rest of the film. We’re never quite sure why people are acting the way they do, or if they’re actually acting that way at all. This is what makes Chloe worth watching. It keeps a lot of things hidden until its final scenes, and when the reveals happened, you’re surprised just enough to make it a worthwhile surprise, but not enough that it’ll seem to have come out of nowhere. You’re thinking as the film progresses about alternative motivations, so when a character’s true intentions are revealed, they’re not quite as shocking as you might think.

Chloe is a fascinating film, although it isn’t a fantastic one. The ending felt off and Liam Neeson needed a larger role. But on the whole, it’s a solid experience that will possibly confuse you for some time, all the while revealing itself to be an engaging thriller that leaves you thinking about it long after it ends. It hides its characters well, but still allows you to care about what happens to them — all of them. It’s worth a watch in my eyes, even if some viewers might be turned off by the sexual content.

Nacho Libre

There’s always that part of you who thinks that you can be somebody special. As a little kid your parents tell you that you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up. The pessimist in me will tell you that is not true. For example when I was younger I thought there was a chance I could be a famous baseball star like my hero Ryne Sandberg of the lovable losers, the Chicago Cubs. I was about as gifted at using a ball glove as a boy with no arms. Needless to say, no matter how many times people told me I could do anything I wanted, I knew my limits. Nacho Libre is a film about such a tale on so many different levels. We have Nacho…(continue reading)

The first three words that come to mind when I think about Le Divorce are “awful,” “atrocious,” and “abhorrent.” Not only is alliteration a ton of fun — more fun than watching this film, actually — but these words almost perfectly sum up what I thought of this film. The only other word that captures my feelings is “overlong,” although if a film fits into the previous categories, being “overlong” is almost a given.

This is a film that has too much going on, except none of it is interesting. We’re overloaded with information that we don’t want to take in. I started drifting about 30 minutes in, after I realized that the plot wasn’t going to resolve itself anytime soon, and at the two hour point, when the credits finally began to roll, I had to try to make sense of what I just watched. It’s not that it’s overly complex, but since I didn’t care, I found it excruciatingly difficult to pay attention to everything that the film vomits our direction.

From what I could make out, there are two main plots, and then a ton of subplots. The first involves Roxy (Naomi Watts) being left by her husband (Melvil Poupaud). He loves some Russian girl who gets maybe 5 lines of dialogue throughout, but the reasoning doesn’t matter. He’s leaving his pregnant wife, and is bringing lawyers into the mix because he wants half of the things he’s entitled to. The prized possession is a painting that everyone spends an awful long time trying to determine whether it was painted by some famous artist.

The second plot involves Roxy’s sister, Isabel (Kate Hudson), who shows up in Paris just as Roxy’s husband is leaving. She’s there to take care of Roxy, she says at one point, but she spends such little time doing so that one could be mistaken for thinking she’s there just to go shopping and walk around the city. She eventually becomes the mistress for Roxy’s husband’s uncle, Edgar (Thierry Lhermitte), or at least, I think that’s what his relation was in regards to everyone else in the film. Otherwise, I’m unsure, because he just kind of shows up at one point, and then Isabel has his number. Like I said, I was definitely drifting by this point.

There are subplots abound, although none of them mattered much to me. The Russian girl’s husband is American, and he appears every now and then to cause havoc. We first meet him as he steals Isabel’s umbrella, and we last see him on the Eifel Tower, apologizing and claiming that he needs a therapist. No, I don’t consider that spoiling anything, because I haven’t given you the reason he’s apologizing, or why it means anything to the plot. This part, I did understand, considering he does something, on a whim, that sane people would view as wrong. None of the characters react negatively afterward, save for the scene it happens in.

There are other subplots too, like how Roxy’s husband’s family are fake, or bad, or something, and eventually we meet Roxy and Isabel’s family as well, because we needed even more characters to lose track of. No events seem to lead into the other, with individual scenes seemingly having little to do with the other ones. Individual scenes in this film do work, although without a connection between them or a reason to care, the film itself never comes together.

Oh, another subplot involves an American writer, Olivia (Glenn Close), who also, at one point, had an affair with Edgar. But we meet her before meeting Edgar, and she seems to be friends with Roxy. I guess we’re just supposed to assume that coincidence allows this to be, but without any payoff in her storyline, I must question her inclusion. She does nothing but sit and talk with characters, and the relationship with Edgar doesn’t even factor in. There’s too much going on, and I did not care about any of it.

Anyone going into this film expecting a nice romantic comedy is going to be disappointed; it fails in both aspects. It is not once funny, and it is only sporadically romantic — if you can call affairs, mistresses and divorce “romantic.” It may have been advertised as a funny, gentle romance film, but the ads are misleading. Instead, it wants to show us how the American and French cultures are so different from one another, but apart from a couple of situations and a few lines of dialogue, it fails to do even this.

What’s worst of all is that because there are so many plots that need to be tied up (most of them are, even if a couple are not), Le Divorce ends up taking up two hours of your life. I didn’t care about a single thing in this film, and it wants to make me spend two hours watching it struggle to do anything of importance, significance or interest. It ends up just wasting a ton of time meandering around because it feels the need to draw out a plot that should take 90 minutes maximum to finish, and then it ends abruptly and without much closure.

Le Divorce is a horrible film, devoid of life, joy, romance, wit, and a point. It needed to be trimmed down by at least 30 minutes, it needed to remove most of its trivial and needles subplots, and it needed characters we cared about. If it tried to do anything, it tried to contrast the American and French societies. But if that’s what it goal was, it needed to actually mention that more than a few times throughout, and have the characters experience that idea instead of having random people mention it offhand. This is a worthless film that wasted (what felt like 4) hours of my life.

Kick-Ass(Kick Ass)

2010     R     117 minutes
Inspired by his love of comic books, high school student Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) decides to transform himself into a masked crime fighter — a decision that eventually thrusts the teenager into Internet stardom. Soon, Dave’s antics inspire a wave of would-be heroes to don costumes and live out their superhero fantasies. Nicolas Cage, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Chloe Moretz also star in this comic book adaptation from director Matthew Vaughn.

2010     PG     109 minutes

While Horvath (Alfred Molina) and Drake (Toby Kebbell) plot to restore Morgana Le Fay (Alice Krige) to power, master sorcerer Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage) makes physics student Dave Stutle (Jay Baruchel) his apprentice, teaching him enough magic to save the world from sure ruin. Also featuring Monica Bellucci and Teresa Palmer, this whimsical fantasy is a live-action update of the beloved animated short from the 1940s, “Fantasia.”

Cast:

Nicolas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Teresa Palmer,Toby Kebbell, Omar Benson Miller, Monica Bellucci, Alice Krige, Jake Cherry, James A. Stephens

Director:Jon Turteltaub

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

2009     R     122 minutesCorrupt Det. Terence McDonaugh (Nicolas Cage) — whose bad habits include pain drugs, reckless sports gambling and accepting sexual bribes — investigates the murder of five Senegalese illegal immigrants in New Orleans. Co-starring Val Kilmer as McDonaugh’s partner, Xzibit as drug supplier Big Fade and Eva Mendes as prostitute Frankie Donnenfield, director Werner Herzog’s action drama is a loose update of Abel Ferrara’s 1992 film, Bad Lieutenant.

Cast:

Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, Xzibit, Fairuza Balk,Shawn Hatosy, Jennifer Coolidge, Brad Dourif, Shea Whigham, Denzel Whitaker

Director: Werner Herzog

After spending two years in a mental institute, Charlie (Michael Douglas) is released to go back home with his 16-year-old daughter, Miranda (Evan Rachel Wood). Through a series of confusing statements, she’s managed to live on her own for these years, convincing social services that she’s living with a parent, the parents that she’s living at a foster home, and managing to make the foster parents forget that she even exists. If ever there was a definition of “independent teenager,” she’d fit the bill.

Charlie (she refuses to call him “Dad”) has bipolar disorder, although replace that with “possibly crazy but maybe not” and you’ve got a better idea of what he acts like. He functions well, but he’s transfixed on a certain idea: Buried treasure. It exists, he believes, and instead of getting a job and supporting his daughter, he embarks on a quest to find it. Reluctantly, Miranda tags along. Why? Probably because she wants to make sure he doesn’t hurt himself or others. Secretly, she probably wants to find the treasure as well.

She still has to hold down her day job at McDonald’s, something that gets forgotten about later on in the film. At first, she goes to work and during her spare time, she helps with the hunt for gold. Eventually, that becomes the full-time dedication for both characters. They’re not good friends, and their verbal battles are intriguing, yet sad at the same time. Seeing the poor relationship between father and child is heartbreaking, or at least, I found it to be.

The plot moves briskly, taking us from location to location, before moving once again. In fact, I don’t think it spent enough time with each scene. As soon as we begin to settle in and begin enjoying this specific event, it ends. That is, except for the final major scene involving both characters, which meandered a bit. Trim that down and use the extra time to pad earlier scenes, and you cut out almost every problem I had with King of California.

For most of the film, I had a good time. Not only because it had an interesting story, but also because the characters grew on me. Off the bat, I wasn’t a big fan of either of these people. After about 15 minutes, I was. We begin in media res, with random stills with Miranda narrating for us. It sets itself up as a comedy, as her dialogue here is quite funny. This isn’t how the film turns out, even if it does have some humorous points scattered throughout. Instead, it’s more of a drama about an ill man and his daughter. The treasure is second, while the comedy is third.

I’ll explain what I mean. The treasure drives the plot; I’ve already explained that. But each scene is about the interaction between father and daughter, about how they treat one another and converse. Finding the treasure, or at least, the next step to finding it, while it’s the plot, isn’t what we’re focusing on. Making us laugh comes third in importance. You’ll laugh plenty, especially if you generally enjoy independent comedies, but the spotlight is still on these two characters.

This is Mike Cahill’s directorial debut, and I would call it a great success. He gets great performances from his primary cast, he tells a simple story that draws you in, and it’s an incredibly rewarding experience. You feel for these people, you want to see them succeed in their quest to find the buried treasure, and when petty things like laws, police or Charlie’s possible insanity begin to threaten this quest, you root even harder for them to find the gold.

I will mention that if you’re turned off by real life products appearing in movies, you’ll definitely want to avoid King of California. I don’t have any problem with this, especially for films that are supposed to take place in the real world, but I know that some people do. There are entire sections that take place in stores, like Costco, I already mentioned that McDonald’s is mentioned quite often, and the pair even runs past a Chuck E Cheese’s at one point, despite it not having any relation to the story. Like I said, it doesn’t bother me, but if it does grind your gears, you’ll want to stay away from this one.

The strength of the film comes from Michael Douglas’ performance as the enigmatic Charlie. We’re never sure what he’s thinking or what he’s going to do next, and this keeps us on the edge of our seats. Douglas provides most of the film’s energy, but he doesn’t exactly play his role over-the-top. Sure, he acts crazy for most of his time on-screen, but we can understand the idea that his character is going for, and we can figure out after he has acted what his motivation is — even if we’re not quite sure why he does these things in the moment.

King of California is a very good indie comedy. It’s touching, it has good actors in solid roles, and it does pretty much everything it needs to — if sometimes a little too briefly. Product placement is frequent, and there are times when I thought it needed to spend more time on certain scenes, but I had a great time with this film. It has funny moments, sweet times, and the ending is only possible because it’s an indie film. I’ll leave you to contemplate what that means and then you should go see this film.

I kid you not. They actually did make another one.

At one point of Into the Blue 2: The Reef, I thought it was going to be a commentary about how humans are destroying the oceans. In the first Into the Blue, the water was populated with all sorts of creatures, and the highlights of the film were the shots underwater. In this film, the ocean is such a drab and boring place, populated by the characters diving into it, and the shadow of a shark or fish every now and then.

It turns out that this isn’t the case, and instead, the oceans aren’t populated for another reason. What that reason is never gets explained. Maybe it’s because people are dramatically impacting the fish population. Maybe the director, Stephen Herek, decided to try to film without much wildlife so that we’d get to see the actors more. For whatever reason, the fish that were so much fun to spend time with from the first film are gone in its sequel. Actually, calling it a sequel is deceptive, because apart from the basic idea of “diving to find treasure,” nothing returns from the first Into the Blue. The locale is different, the actors didn’t return, and the plot contains no elements or references from earlier.

In fact, I’m not sure why this film is called a sequel. If it was to make money, well, just look at the box office receipts from the first film. It didn’t make a lot of money, and releasing this one directly to home video with no advertisement probably won’t make much either. I suppose giving it some sort of name recognition might help, and calling it a sequel might make completionists feel compelled to watch it (this would be why I am), but for the general public, I don’t quite understand the strategy here.

The plot: There is another couple, slightly resembling the main couple from the last film. Their names are Sebastian (Chris Carmack) and Dani (Laura Vandervoot). They’re approached one day by two tourists, Carlton (David Anders) and Azra (Marsha Thomason). It’s time to look for treasure, as our leads are hired for a week of diving, hoping to find the lost ship of the San Caristobal. We even get some exposition telling us the legend of this ship, because apparently that matters somehow. I understood why that happened in the last film, because the legend, which involved a tale of love vs. greed, was one of the central themes. This time, it’s a story for the sake of eating up time.

That’s fine, because it’s sometimes nice to know what we’re going after and why it’s important. However, the plot gets switched around when we learn that Carlton and Azra aren’t actually looking for this ship, and are instead looking for cargo which we learn was thrown overboard prior to us joining the story. We learned about the cargo in our first scene, which established villains, but Carlton and Azra seem trustworthy enough, and since they weren’t in the opening scene, they must be looking for the cargo to keep it away from the bad guys, right?

You get no prizes for guessing how the plot will pan out. If this was any less surprising, I might have been shocked at the sheer audacity of the filmmakers for playing it as safe as they did. But instead, we get a cookie-cutter plot that functions but is nothing special. There are twists, and if you don’t watch a lot of movies, you’ll be surprised. If you do, there will be one moment that will probably be unforeseen. It involves a certain character being killed off, although since that character wasn’t particularly important, it’s hard to care.

What might astonish you is that there’s also a subplot included in Into the Blue 2. It involves Sebatian and Dani’s friends, Mace (Michael Graziadei) and Kimi (Mircea Monroe). They fight a bunch; Mace always seems to be “misunderstood” but Kimi, which usually leads to these fights. So they fight, break up, reconcile, and get back together only to repeat the cycle. Wait, I said this was a subplot. My mistake. It doesn’t go anywhere and ends up wasting our time. Just like I did while describing it. Does that feel good? No? Well that’s what seeing this part of the film feels like.

The conflict between the main characters is gone as well. One of the bright spots of Into the Blue was how the characters would debate amongst themselves before choosing a course of action. Here, there’s no discourse; one character will say what’s going to happen, and then that’s what everyone does. Even if you don’t have well-developed characters, having this kind of dialogue gives off that illusion. Into the Blue 2 makes it apparent that there are no characters — there are only vessels that look good in swimsuits.

I didn’t have a lot of fun with Into the Blue 2: The Reef, even if it did accomplish its goal of getting attractive people into (and in this one, sometimes out of) their bathing suits. But the plot is routine, the characters have no depth, and even the once-plentiful fish have been taken away, making the ocean feel devoid of life. It also has a ton of unnecessary moments that do nothing but pad the runtime. The interesting conversations between the characters are also nonexistent, making you easily realize how lifeless these characters are. On the whole, it’s not a film that you have any reason to watch.

You go into this film wanting to see a bunch of attractive people in swimwear. You leave unsure of whether it was worth it. You get what you came for, but you also get more. More is not necessarily better when it takes away from the very basic desire you wanted when you watch a film like this. For me, I liked having a somewhat deep plot, even if it meant exposition and too many shots taking place on land.

The first thing I noticed was how long these characters could hold their breath for. They have to, at least at the beginning, as they don’t have the money for the equipment necessary to carry oxygen into the depths of the ocean. Our two leads are a couple, Jared and Sam (Paul Walker and Jessica Alba), who live on an island and hope to be treasure hunters someday. Sam works at the local aquarium, dealing with sharks, while Jared tries to fix their boat. That’s about all he does, which leads the somewhat creepy, yet generally friendly Bates (Josh Brolin) to taunt him.

The pair have friends coming, although the “why” behind the visit is overlooked. Bryce (Scott Caan) and his girlfriend-of-one-night, Amanda (Ashley Scott) show up and they go snorkeling. Apparently, responsibilities like Sam’s job can be forgotten about if you have friends coming to stay for a few days. Or weeks. Or months. I’m not sure what the time-frame is for this film, but it seemed like it took place over a long, long time. Maybe that’s just because of how frequently we go below the horizon line into the ocean, where you can’t tell whether it’s night or day on the surface thanks to the bright lights that always seem to be shining. And since the characters can spend as long as they want down there, unless the plot calls for them to have to breathe, time can pass as slowly or as quickly as the film wants.

Every time people go into the ocean, they find something. It makes me wonder if Jared or Sam ever actually looked for treasure before the film began. Not that it matters, but I’m unsure of why they find such important things so easily, without any equipment, when we’re told that dozens of other ships (that are well-financed) are out there looking as well. Regardless, they find millions of dollars worth of cocaine, while also finding some treasure also worth millions of dollars. See how lucky these people are?

You’re probably asking what they do with these two finds. Not much. They leave the cocaine, because taking it would be illegal and the Jared/Sam pairing wants nothing to do with that. Bryce and Amanda are the ones wanting to take at least one bag of the white powder, but they’re the guests so they don’t get their way. There’s an argument that takes place here, and there are other debates throughout, which are actually quite refreshing. Characters can have their minds changed, and they all bring reasoning to their points of view.

As for the treasure, it’s stowed away for a while. Why do the characters not sell it and take some time off? Well, I’m not sure. There’s more treasure, I guess, so they want to find it as well. But wouldn’t selling the earlier find be a good idea so that they could actually purchase the equipment required to bring the rest up to their ship? I’m not sure. Money becomes one of the main topics of conversation as the film progresses, even though I thought that it would have been pretty easy to get the money they needed.

Things don’t go as planned for most of the time. However, the problems that arise are not foreshadowed earlier, and instead pop up whenever director John Stockwell wants to throw them in. For example, we’re told earlier that sharks don’t attack people very often, and when they do, it’s because you’re bleeding or you provoke them. Of course, you know that a shark attack will happen later in the film. There end up being a few, but the first one does not meet any of the requirements listed earlier. It just swims up out of nowhere and attacks someone for no reason. There are more times when situations like this (although not necessarily involving a shark) occur, and they show up mostly just to move the plot along.

This eventually leads to a life-or-death situation involving drug dealers. Yes, they also come out of nowhere, but at least the cocaine was a tip-off to them. Still, some of the later twists were not hinted at, leaving us wondering what motivation there was for the characters. Not that there’s much “character” to speak of, because the personalities don’t have much depth and the actors don’t seem to have a clue who they’re supposed to be portraying, but since they all look good in their swimsuits, this doesn’t matter.

The best shots of Into the Blue are the underwater ones. Whether it was shot in an ocean or not doesn’t matter because it’s always convincing. There is a lot of wildlife as well which looked real, and there wasn’t a moment in the film where I didn’t believe that the location wasn’t real. In a film where the scenery is the highlight, this is a must, and I was glad that nothing took me out of the environment.

Into the Blue isn’t a great film by any stretch, but if all you want to do is look at eye-pleasing movie stars in bikinis and shorts for a couple of hours, you won’t be disappointed. The plot is slightly complex, although most of the complexity seems to be made up on the spot where problems arise seemingly out of nowhere. The characters are also weak, but the shots underwater — and some of them above it — still make it a somewhat enjoyable time.

(2012, Dir. by Josh Trank.)

When I start talking about Chronicle, I should first point out that the film is blatantly aimed toward a teenage audience.  While teen fiction comes with some negative connotations lately – especially teen fiction that’s filmed in gray and rainy Washington state – a lot of Chronicle’s teen qualities are good things. It would be easy to dress up this movie even more for teen audiences, but I really think the characters in Chronicle react to their predicament in a manner that’s pretty realistic compared to most modern teenagers on screen.

The film follows the path of three teenagers – one a charismatic candidate for class president; one a brooding, bullied loner; one a good-looking “normal” guy with eyes on a good-looking “normal” girl – who encounter a strange phenomenon outside a rave and suddenly realize they have telekinetic powers and maybe even the ability to fly.  The three form a bond based on their gift (or is it an affliction?), but things can only stay happy for so long.  If there’s no conflict, there’s no movie.

Speaking of the existence of the movie, Chronicle has been inexplicably made as a “found footage” film. The story is that angry young Andrew is filming everything because he’s been bullied by everyone from his alcoholic father to the drug dealers down the street and the tough guys at school.  Oh, and the “normal” girl is actually a blogger who films everything too, which means we get multiple angles on the action from all over the film’s universe.  But, really, there’s no good reason at all for the film to be filmed in this manner, and the gimmick only takes away from what could have been, especially when we learn that Andrew can conveniently control the camera and its perspective with his mind.  (I’m not sure if he edited the movie with his mind too, but if he did he liked to cut for random intervals of seconds to minutes within a scene.)

Back to the conflict: Director Josh Trank and writer Max (son of John) Landis really want the viewer to buy into Andrew’s plight.  The character has obviously been a victim most of his life, and they want us to believe that this tortured soul is a Frankenstein’s monster-esque victim in this teenage world.  The character is allowed control of the film and plays up the fact that he’s stronger than all of his oppressors as things roll toward the final act.  But the film’s presentation of his inner turmoil – including multiple references to famous philosophers and a ham-fisted monologue about apex predators – falls flat most of the time.  The relationship between Andrew and his “normal” cousin (I keep putting “normal” in quotations, because I’m using the Hollywood definition that allows an underwear model lookin’ dude to be “normal” in his film’s setting) is a bit more effective at selling the difference between Andrew and other kids, but the film rolls to its conclusion too quickly and doesn’t give this relationship enough time to bloom.

It’s all kind of sad that the film’s conflict is so disjointed, because Chronicle’s strength is definitely its teenage world.  The performers are pretty natural in the roles, particularly Alex Russell as that “normal” dude and Michael B. Jordan (of Friday Night Lights! Texas Forever!) as the cool dude.  Dane DeHaan isn’t bad as Andrew, but I think the film’s presentation of the character makes it a little harder for me to really appreciate him in the role.  Part of me thinks it’s the script’s fault, but part of me thinks the actor takes “I’m gonna be as angry as a ’90s grunge music video” too seriously.  (Hey, the movie’s set in Seattle, so maybe he’s on to something.)

The easy thing to say about Chronicle is that it’s a superhero film for the Twilight crowd, but I don’t think that’s a fair statement.  As much as I’ve nitpicked the movie so far, I liked most of what Chronicle had to offer.  The teenage world blends well with some simple special effects and decent actors, and the script has a few turns that keep us thinking as the plot moves forward.  I wish a few things were handled differently, but it’s a neat little action movie when it’s not trying to hard to be a statement on bullying and human nature.  Look, I know bullying is a real thing and is way important, but Chronicle could’ve pumped the brakes a few times and had more fun with its premise.  The tone is about the only thing that holds this one back from becoming a major early year sci-fi surprise.

I’m happy to say that our little boy is home and doing well but the journey to that point was a bit scary to say the least. Everyone around you says that they are praying for you and sharing encouraging words that are Bible inspired but words don’t always explain why things happen in the first place.  The phrases, “The Lord works in mysterious ways” and “It’s all part of God’s plan for you” frankly sound like the words of a desperate person trying to make the best out of a melancholy situation.  Perhaps that is why a film, The Adjustment Bureau, really resonated with me. Forgive me if it old news; this review is months after I missed it’s theatrical release—If you couldn’t tell by the sentences above I have been a bit overwhelmed since September.

The Adjustment Bureau is the tale of a politician, played by Matt Damon, who is on the fast track to the presidency.  By chance he meets the girl of his dreams, never to see her again.  However she becomes the inspiration he needs to carry on after a devastating loss.  As life carries on we learn of a mysterious force known as “The Adjustment Bureau” ; They are a group of men designed to keep his “life plan” in motion by creating elements of chance that put him in the right place at the right time.  Unfortunately The Bureau makes a mistake and Damon is exposed to their existence.  Now forced to choose between carrying on with his life or finding the love of his life that they have forbidden him to see, the film becomes a tale of fate and chance and a twisted tale about “God’s plan” for every human life.

Before I go any further, I should say that The Adjustment Bureau really doesn’t come out and say it is a Christian film.  In fact, one of the members of the Bureau tells Matt Damon that “The Chairman” of the Bureau has many names to humans, and to some the adjusters themselves have been called angels among other names.   He doesn’t confirm or deny our belief in a higher power but simply brings to light that in this case there is someone watching over you with a master plan.  The film delves into the thought of fate and free will and how sometimes “chance” happenings are created by The Chairman to keep you on track and sometimes other people are just the victim of random chance that inevitably cause adjustments to the plan but yield similar results.  It is how the world works, and how we as humans must accept this.

Part of me was intrigued with the fact that a film was bold enough to point out the works of a divine creator in our lives, but another part of me questioned if the film took it far enough.  The longer I have let the film marinate in my mind the more I think that this is a case where less is more.  One of my problems with films such as Fireproof, Courageous and Faith Like Potatoes is that it beats us over the head with a Bible.  The Adjustment Bureau challenged me in the same ways some of those films do but let me draw my own conclusions.  It took me on a thrill ride of suspense and intrigue with a sci-fi twist to it but still challenged me to think about my own faith at the same time.  The even better part of it was it is a film that non-Christians can find entertaining as well.   A believer gets what they put into it; a non-believer the same.  The only difference with this film is it is general enough to be seen by audiences of all beliefs and opens the door to conversation.  I will take a conversation starting film any day over one that tries to spell out every bullet point of the Bible to people.

What the film really challenged me to do is take a look at past experiences and question if they were really “adjustments” as the film calls it or just chance.  A lot of good has happened in my life and a lot of bad things have happened too.  However, as I look back on how the bad things have effected me it usually makes me realize that without “x” I never would have had “Y” happen.  My life plan was always supposed to have me end up with my wonderful wife and son.  I was supposed to meet an overtly shy kid in college who had a greater passion for movies than I  (we now all lovingly know this shy kid as “The Mike”) and eventually start sharing my own opinions on film with others.  The list could go on and on. But the point is none of this would have happened if I hadn’t had life experiences that made me approach things differently.  Without break-ups, lost friendships, hurtful words said by all parties involved and even the pain of learning I would never have the athletic ability I so wanted led me to where I am today.  It’s a path that is filled with joy and embarrassment, pleasures, pain and sorrow.  What is even scarier is the amount of things I will never know that were tiny “adjustments” to my life.  For all I know a spilled cup of coffee could be free will clumsiness or God’s way of putting me on path to my career and meeting my wife.  You just don’t know.  That is why it is called faith.

As The Adjustment Bureau teaches us, the plan can always deviate and eventually may be able to be changed, but there is someone greater than us that is working hard to carry out the best for us and others around us.  When they are good at their job we don’t even know they are there.  Sometimes bad things happen to good people and when people chalk it up to part of God’s plan they are not totally wrong.  There is a plan involved but sometimes these hardships are “adjustments” to our life and sometimes are just the consequences of ourselves or others trying to escape these adjustments; think of it as a “ripple” effect if you will.

As a film, The Adjustment Bureau would have been one of those films that were on my year end favorites list had I actually seen it in 2011.  It takes a very heavy handed subject matter and condenses it into a very palatable serving size.  You’re intrigued with the action and suspense and your brain gets engaged in the psychology of it all.  It causes you to reflect on the way you view every day coincidence and will make you wonder if that next time you bend over to pick up a quarter off the sidewalk if it was to keep you from something bigger like walking in front of a bus, or keeping the girl of your dreams a mystery for just a bit longer.  It’s a film that helps reassure the answers, but doesn’t give them to you.

In fact, the more I think about The Adjustment Bureau the more questions I have.  It is a conversation piece and maybe even a podcast worthy piece some day.  I encourage you to check it out.  Perhaps it will lead you in a way that spiritually God wants you to go;  perhaps you’re a non-believer who just wants to see a good flick with some Christian undertones that aren’t going to be beating you over the head with miraculous conversion scenes.  Or perhaps it is a combo of both; that film that starts the dialogue between two friends of opposing beliefs.  Regardless of how you view the film, I know in my case my experience with The Adjustment Bureau was not just random chance.  I saw it as an “adjustment” to my life plan reminding me God does have a plan for everyone and even if we don’t like how we got from point A to point B,  God is going to lead us to that end result regardless without us ever knowing it and giving him the thanks that he deserves.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a film without a plot or purpose. It relies solely on its visuals, which are a mess — the result of a bad drug trip. The characters are supposed to be stoned out of their mind for the entire time, and we are supposed to see what they see, although only some of the time. Other times, we watch from a greater distance, shaking our heads as these people chase the “American Dream.”

Or at least, that’s what they say they’re doing. They go to Las Vegas for a reason that is forgotten about right after it occurs. It turns out, that was just an excuse to travel. Their real goal is to take whatever drugs they can and meander around Vegas for a while. I guess you can call that the “American Dream” if you want, although actually accomplishing something might be good too. I think that one of the characters is supposed to be writing a story for a magazine, although if he actually has to or if he just thinks he has to is never made clear.

That’s true about a lot of the things that happen in this film; we’re never actually sure whether what they’re seeing is a hallucination or not. That works well for a while, but eventually we realize that nothing that happens will matter because it’s entirely possible that none of it is occurring outside of the characters’ minds. It’s entirely possible, for example, that the characters make it to their hotel room, and then spend several days just imagining everything we see from that point out. Or maybe they don’t even make it to Vegas. I’d believe that, considering they rarely seem capable of even the most basic tasks.

Our lead, and narrator, is Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp), who we first meet while he’s terrified of invisible bats. His sidekick is his “attorney” Gonzo (Benicio del Toro), who at times seems the more sensible of the two, but we later find out that sensibilities don’t matter after you do enough drugs. They’re carrying all sorts of drugs, ranging from weed to cocaine, ether to adrenochrome. I don’t think there’s a single moment in the film when either one isn’t under the influence of something, which at the very least provides a unique moviegoing experience, even if it isn’t always interesting.

One of the problems that comes from drug use in real life is a lack of productivity. The film fully embodies this, as the two characters don’t do anything during their two hours on-screen. They go from scene to scene without purpose, and after they arrive, they’re too stoned to use their time effectively. They even acknowledge this at one point, although their solution to using too many drugs is to simply use more and overcome that realization.

The best parts of the film do not come from the plot, but from Duke’s narration. In perhaps the only soberly-delivered lines of the entire film, the narration is both sharp, witty, and actually provides some insight into what the character is feeling during those times. That’s beneficial because we would never get that depth from the character on-screen, who is too numb to the outside world to provide us with silly things like feelings.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is based on the Hunter S. Thompson novel of the same name. The novel is mostly autobiographical, which means that the film, assuming few liberties were taken in its production, is also that way. I imagine that Thompson would have been an interesting person to meet and talk with in real life, although if the film is to be believed, he wasted a large portion of his life doing absolutely nothing. Maybe reading about these experiences in a book would be fun, but watching two stoners walk (or stumble) around Las Vegas didn’t make an enjoyable or even all that interesting.

I’m not going to just outright hate on a film portraying a couple of guys getting stoned and wandering around Las Vegas. But at least make the trip enjoyable for me as well! I was bored for the majority of the film, largely because its gimmick, the way everything looks because the film is trying to replicate what being on drugs looks like, wears thin fairly early on, leaving a couple of adventures that are simply uninteresting. Add that onto boring characters and a lack of plot, and you don’t make a film that’s worth watching.

You’d expect the lives of people who break every rule that Vegas has to offer (at least, that’s what the narration tells us happened) would be more interesting. It does get slightly intriguing later on with the introduction of Lucy (Christina Ricci) and the consequences that could be doled out for what the two end up doing to her, but that’s just overlooked and ends up being something that could have been fun, but is just another idea that’s only partially explored.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas isn’t a bad film, but it’s one that I couldn’t get invested in at all. Visually, it’s unique,and you’re unlikely to see many films like it, but that’s all it had going for it. The characters have little depth, they don’t do much of anything which means there’s not really a plot, and their lives are simply uninteresting once you get past the drug-infused gimmick. Watching this film is like trying to console someone on a trip gone wrong; it’s interesting, maybe even funny, at the beginning, but tedious, repetitive and even a little heartbreaking after a while.

I’d be tempted to call 127 Hours a one-of-a-kind film, but considering the fact that Buried came out a couple of months before this one, I can’t exactly say that. The latter film had Ryan Reynolds trapped in a box for 90 minutes. 127 Hours has James Franco trapped underneath a rock for 90 minutes. One was based on a true story, one that you’ve probably heard about, which also makes it slightly less thrilling. Unfortunately, the one that’s less exciting is 127 Hours.

We begin by watching Aron Ralston (Franco) preparing for his day. He fills up a water bottle, gets his hiking/climbing gear, and tries to find his Swiss Army Knife, although he isn’t successful in that regard. He then sets off, ignoring his phone and deciding that he’s too amazing to tell anyone where he’s going. He sets off on a trek where we watch him bike and later hike around a National Park in Utah, where he meets two young female hikers (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn), who he spends some time exploring with, before going on his way.

It’s at this point when our real story kicks into high-gear. While trying to descend a canyon, he falls when a boulder gives way. He lands on his feet, much to his shock, although we soon realize that his look of surprise isn’t just due to his smooth landing. His right arm has been crushed by the boulder that forced his fall, and despite his best efforts, he is unable to move it. This all apparently happened, as Aron Ralston is a real person who wrote an autobiography about the incident. Of course, you know at this point that he’s going to be okay, unless director Danny Boyle and his co-writer Simon Beaufoy decide to drastically alter the ending during their translation to film.

So, here’s the set-up for the vast majority of the film: There’s a man who has limited mobility, while also only having usage of one of his arms; he has approximately 500 milliliters of water, and only a couple of items of food; and he has a flashlight, some rope, and a handheld camera. I’d say that’s quite the predicament, wouldn’t you? Anyway, that’s the situation and he estimates that he has possibly a few days at the most to live until his supplies run out. What should he do? What would you do?

If you’ve read the story in the news over the last few years, you know what happens. If you’re blissfully ignorant about how Aron’s story ends, I’ll leave you be until you either read about it or watch 127 Hours. If you choose the latter, you’ll have a thrilling time that will probably stick with you for quite a long time. If you choose the former, then you are going to miss out on a pretty good film, and that’s a shame.

Of course, I’m such a well-read (I’m not really) person that I already knew about Aron’s story and what he did to escape. When it’s shown on-screen, it’s a terrifying watch and is one of the least pleasant experiences I can remember viewing. If your reasoning skills are up to snuff, you will probably have already figured out what he does, and yet, I have to wonder if that makes you want to see the film more or less. Regardless, he does certain things to survive and escape that I wouldn’t want to see anyone go through.

Not wanting to see anyone go through these things is in the film’s favor, because Aron isn’t set-up as a sympathetic character. Really, he’s kind of a jerk, relying on his skill and cockiness to get by in life. He hallucinates frequently throughout, which results in flashbacks for us, showing us how he lived before he became trapped. He’s not really a fun person to be around, although being put through such terrible conditions during his entrapment means that I still wanted to see him escape, and winced when he had to do something excruciating in order to stay alive.

It’s during these hallucinations that he begins to grow as a character. Granted, it’s your general “I was a bad person and I shouldn’t be one any more” type growth, but at least he was trying. And if that’s what happened to the real Aron Ralston, then I’ll take the film’s word for it. I can see how a situation like this one could make one rethink one’s priorities in life.

That’s something that 127 Hours does impressively: Everything that happens within it feels like it could actually happen. Well, I’m not sure how he landed so gently on his feet when he first falls, but apart from that, everything felt so real. Because of this feeling, we fear even more for the life of this adventurer, and we want to see his suffering — and trust me, it really does feel like he’s suffering — end as quickly as possible.

Some of these flashbacks make the film drag, and they introduce characters that not much is done with apart from these specific scenes. They take away from Franco’s one-man-show, which truly is heartbreaking. As a result, these scene mark the low points of the film, as they mark a departure from what makes the film work: Franco’s performance. Relegating him to an omniscient role watching other people do nothing of interest disrupts the flow that we get into while watching the man trapped beneath the boulder.

Nonetheless, 127 Hours is a haunting experience that, if you watch all the way through, will stick in your mind for as long as you can envision the final escape attempt made by Mr. Ralston. Some of the thrills will be taken away if you already know too much about this specific incident, while some of the flashbacks also don’t properly gel with the rest of the film. Still, it’s a film well worth your time, especially if you didn’t previously know about the man who had his arm sandwiched in between a rock and a hard place.

Of the 135 minutes of my life that The Lovely Bones robbed, somewhere around 30 minutes actually weren’t too bad. The rest almost felt like torture. But in these 30 minutes, our narrator stopped talking, the plot actually seemed as if it was nearing a conclusion, and I actually found myself getting involved in the story. But in those other 100 or so minutes, I found myself nodding off, laughing at unintentionally hilarious scenes, or wishing that people would just move on with their lives. No such luck.

We begin with narration. Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) informs us that she’s in the unfortunate predicament of being dead. Too bad for her. We’re told that, since this takes place in the 1970’s, child abductions weren’t reported on or even thought about. Apparently ignorance in this matter was rampant. She tells us who the murderer is, we see how he lures her, although we don’t actually see the murder. The Lovely Bones is a PG-13 film, although the subject matter didn’t seem family friendly to me. I mean, this 14-year-old girl is killed and it’s implied that she’s raped as well, but the film just skirts over this because that would keep it from being available for children to watch.

This is a mistake anyway, as I don’t see many children wanting to sit through this. Everything wreaks of being an adult film: It’s longer than two hours long, it deals with heavy themes and subject matter, and it’s not a fun time watching the movies. I’m not sure how many kids would want to watch this film in the first place. Toning its content down so that it doesn’t actually touch on the events that drive it ends up dramatically changing what we end up seeing, and also changes the effect this content has on the viewer.

Regardless, Susie is killed. Her father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg) is torn up by this. He spends most of the film’s runtime either disappearing completely for whatever reason, or being the most determined man on Earth in trying to track down the killer. Her mother, Abigail (Rachel Weisz) also disappears for a lot of the film, although she makes her departure via a taxi cab en route to an orchard. Susie also had a sister, Lindsey (Rose McIver), who plays a large role later on, and a brother, Buckley (Christian Thomas Ashdale), who does absolutely nothing of importance.

There’s also an alcoholic grandmother played by Susan Sarandon, who spends most of her time in a comic relief role. She’s played in such an over-the-top manner that it’s difficult not to laugh at the antics that she gets up to. And yet, there’s also something sad about seeing the way she “copes” with the loss of a granddaughter. Or at least, there would be if I cared at all about these people, which would require them to be real characters with personalities, feelings, motivations, and things that us organic lifeforms have.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case except in regards to two characters. The first is Susie, but she’s dead and on her way to Heaven, so there’s not much more depth she can get. She is our narrator, so at least we understand what’s going on in her head. the second is from a man named George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), our killer, and the only true constant of the film. When all other characters decide to be more or less important at whatever arbitrary point in time that is, he remains, always lurking in the shadows and being a generally creepy man. So, we understand his character because of this, and because of how wonderfully — if incredibly scarily — by Tucci.

This is the character who would be the primary reason behind the film working, even if that’s not what happens. Other characters, including the one that we’re supposed to be focusing on — Susie, if you’ve forgotten — come and go as they please, or at least as easily as the story forgets about them. I have no idea if the novel this film was adapted from has this same problem, but it seemed like the characters we were supposed to care about went away for great portions of the film, meaning we didn’t have enough time with them to build that meaningful relationship.

What results is a drama that doesn’t have any depth, a fantasy that gets little focus, characters that don’t do things that make a lot of sense, an annoying narrator who intervenes at the least opportune moments meaning tense scenes are reduced to tedium, and nothing actually seems to hold any weight to it. Not even murders of young women make you feel anything because of how the film skips around them and what they mean to people. In the end, I felt as if Susie’s murder was more beneficial than anything else, and that’s definitely not what I want to take from something that should be a tragedy.

I mentioned approximately thirty minutes that worked well. This time came near the middle, although it seemed like it would have made a fitting conclusion. It involved Susie sitting by and watching life on Earth, meaning she stopped talking and interrupting potentially interesting moments. It also had Jack learning more about the murder of his daughter, while also thinking about confronting who he believes is the killer. I actually felt thrilled at this time, although thirty good minutes out of a 135 minutes film does not make it a worthwhile endeavor.

The Lovely Bones is an overlong, inconsistent, poorly characterized film that also left me confused about what it felt about the murder of a 14-year-old girl. Is it worth your time? I don’t believe it is whatsoever, save for thirty minutes where it gets kind of tense and a genuinely creepy performance from Stanley Tucci. But most of the film is a mess and doesn’t deserve your 135 minutes. The PG-13 rating means that possibly heavy material is dumbed down, leaving the film without much weight. Save your time, as I felt robbed of mine.

Like you’d expect from a title with the word “safe” within it, Safe House plays it as safe as you can in regards to its plot. If you’ve seen one government/CIA conspiracy thriller before, you’ve seen this film. The good guys might not necessarily be good, the guys on the run from the good guys might actually be the people to root for, and so on. The government is pretty much always evil, anyway, or at least some aspect of it is.

The only thing I can see to possibly differentiate Safe House from other films using this basic premise is the way that it was shot and put together. In most of these films, you always have a pretty good idea about what’s going on. The characters are engaged in a gunfight? Okay, we’re going to see them shoot at each other. This film tries to be special by obscuring every single action scene in one way or another (or in every way possible, in some scenes).

Let’s give you an example. Two fights are going on simultaneously. The first involves a one-on-one fistfight, while the other is a two-on-one battle with guns involved. These scenes are cross-cut against one another, often with much rapidity. They are both lit in a way so that they are as dark as possible with you still being able to tell that there are bodies and they are moving. When not cutting from one scene to another, we’re having cuts within one fight every 1-2 seconds, if that. And we have the shakiest handicam imaginable, because that’s “immersive.”

If you’ve followed along so far, then congratulations. If not, then imagine what you’re feeling now, and then imagine feeling that while watching the movie. What Safe House wants to be is a Bourne film, except those movies worked because they weren’t as darkly lit, the shakycam wasn’t too much of a burden, and while the editing was quick, it wasn’t too quick so as to confuse the audience. We always knew who was kicking whom, or who was in front during the car chase. The same is not true with this movie. All throughout the scene I just mentioned (I didn’t just make it up — this is an actual scene in this movie), I was trying to figure out exactly what was happening, and if the film had ended right after the fight, I wouldn’t have known who won.

There is a plot, and it’s as predictable as you might expect. We begin with the tedium that comes from not being trusted by the CIA. Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is tasked with being a “housekeeper” of a safe house located in South Africa. He has a girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder), whom he loves, and his boss is played by Brendan Gleeson. He also gets to sit around all day with no real danger or trouble. He seems to have it all, but still complains that it’s not enough. Perhaps Safe House is really a cautionary tale about what happens when you’re not satisfied with having everything.

That’s giving it more thought than is deserving. Eventually, a man named Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is brought to the safe house, it gets attacked by some random group of soldiers, and Matt and Tobin have to escape while the rest of the people inside the safe house are slaughtered. Matt and Tobin go on the run — the latter is generally in handcuffs — and while they’re not exactly friendly, Tobin, a rogue CIA agent, understands what Matt is going through, and gives him all sorts of important advice, and also tells him that the safe house location had to be given away by someone on the inside.

So, the suspects are basically narrowed down to three people: Brendan Gleeson’s character, the man who trusts Matt; Vera Farmiga’s, who believes that Matt and Tobin might have teamed up; or maybe Sam Shepard’s, as he’s the highest-ranking character we get to see. It turns into a two-person race as we progress, as Shepard disappears and leaves Glesson and Varmiga to duke it out. That’s almost a literal statement, as they’re constantly in disagreement with one another and I thought that punches might eventually be thrown. No luck, I’m afraid, although that might have spiced things up.

We can’t suspect Tobin, even after he escapes from Matt’s custody. It’s just too hard to believe that Denzel Washington would be a bad guy, especially with the way he’s played here. Now, Denzel has proven himself a great actor, but every single line he delivers in this film is in the most monotonous voice I believe he can use. He has no emotion, and seems neither sinister nor like a villain. It seemed as if here was half asleep during filming. Reynolds at least brings energy to the role, and the supporting cast, while underused, was just fine.

Safe House is a film that’s edited too frenetically, shot with too much shaky camerawork, and often set in dark locations so as to make sure we don’t see what’s really going on. It’s a combination of the three things you don’t want to do if you want your audience to be able to follow along with the action scenes, and this film decides to ignore logic and utilize all three. The plot is as basic as these things come, right up to the last twist, and Denzel Washington seemed as if he was asleep throughout the entire film. This is a film without a shred of creativity or originality, and it’s shot and put together so poorly that you can’t even follow the action.

The Boys Are Back

2009 PG-13 103 minutes

Following the sudden death of his wife, Australian sportswriter Joe Warr (Clive Owen) struggles to cope with his grief and comfort his young son (Nicholas McAnulty). Being a single father gets even trickier when Joe’s rebellious teenage son from a previous marriage (George MacKay) moves in. Director Scott Hicks helms this touching — and often hilarious — tale of a family in flux, based on a memoir by Simon Carr.

Cast:Clive Owen, Emma Booth, Laura Fraser, George MacKay, Nicholas McAnulty, Julia Blake, Chris Haywood, Erik Thomson, Natasha Little, Emma Lung

Director:Scott Hicks

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

2010      R      88 minutes

Expecting to enjoy a relaxing vacation at their rundown mountain cabin, backwoods boys Tucker and Dale see their peaceful trip turn into a nightmare when college kids camping nearby accuse the duo of being psychotic killers.

Cast:Tyler Labine, Alan Tudyk, Katrina Bowden, Jesse Moss, Philip Granger, Brandon Jay McLaren, Christie Laing, Chelan Simmons, Alex Arsenault, Travis Nelson, Karen Reigh

Director:Eli Craig

A film like The Open Road isn’t one that you watch for the beginning or conclusion. The beginning is there to set up some reason for the characters to hit the road, while the ending is something that you are going to be able to figure out after about 15 minutes have passed. You’re watching a film like this one for two reasons: The characters, and the situations in the middle of the film that the characters get into.

There are three main characters in The Open Road. The first is Justin Timberlake playing minor-league baseball player Carlton Garrett. His father is played by Jeff Bridges, and acts as the antagonist of the film. He’s not a villain, but he antagonizes everyone else. The final major character of the film is Carlton’s ex-girlfriend Lucy, played by Kate Mara.

The beginning of the film sets up the plot. Carlton’s mother (Mary Steenburgen) is in hospital with some illness, and requires surgery. She is refusing to sign the necessary forms that will allow the doctor’s to perform the surgery. She tells Carlton to find his father — a man he hasn’t seen in years — and bring him to her; she’ll sign the forms when this happens. Carlton and Lucy take off to find Kyle Garrett, a retired professional baseball player.

They find him fast enough, many states away, but after losing his wallet, they trio have to drive back to Carlton’s ailing mother. Kyle doesn’t want to go, for numerous reasons, while Carlton and Lucy are determined to get him there. And if you think you know exactly how the story ends just from reading the review so far, you are probably correct. But that doesn’t really matter.

What does matter is the interactions the characters have with one another, and also the events that occur in-between these interactions. If both are interesting, the movie will be more or less just as entertaining, because you won’t be thinking about the plot. You’ll be living in the moment, and if you enjoy that, any predictability will fail to matter. Unfortunately, the latter part of this isn’t really present in The Open Road.

I did enjoy the interactions between the characters though. Each character has numerous problems with the others, and these problems each get explored in-depth. However, the events that occur while on the road are less interesting. They primarily consist of Kyle attempting to ditch Carlton and Lucy, often resulting with him ending up in a bar or hotel. It gets tiring quickly, especially with the lack of variation given.

Performances in this film were mixed, and not just with the differing actors. Timberlake does a decent job in some parts of the film, but in others he seemed out of his element. Jeff Bridges also suffers from this, and while he isn’t as inconsistent as Timberlake, there are scenes where he didn’t seem to care about the production. The supporting cast is better, possibly due to us not getting to see them as often.

Something that I believe I should make clear is that I do not view this as a comedy — not one bit. There was not a single moment in the film that made me laugh, and I’m someone who really enjoys independent comedies. It’s a road film, yes, and that often makes it seem like a comedy right off the bat, but don’t go into the film expecting a comedy, despite what it might claim. You do get your typical awkward dialogue, but it doesn’t result in much, and it isn’t funny.

If I do have one major complaint about The Open Road, it’s the fact that it is highly predictable. Now, this doesn’t detract from how enjoyable it is, but it does make it just another run-of-the-mill road films. Had it decided to go a different route with its conclusion, it would have ended up being more memorable and recommendable, just because it has that surprise factor. But yes, you are likely to guess exactly how it ends, and how certain character arcs are resolved.

The Open Road is a film where you know how the overall plot is going to turn out — or at least, you can make a pretty solid guess — but the journey, not the destination, makes the film. In this case, the characters and their interactions are fun, but the situations that they get themselves into are not. It’s uninspired, and frankly somewhat boring. It’s not a bad film by any means, but not one that you need to rush out and see either. It’s decent, but lacking in entertainment or enjoyment, and contains average acting and an unfunny script.

In El Mariachi, the title character spoke Spanish, was played by a largely unknown actor and played the guitar. It was also made for somewhere around $7,000. In its sequel, Desperado, the lead character — we’re to believe it’s the same unnamed character as before — speaks English, is played by Antonio Banderas and no longer plays guitar, except in his dreams. Since the first film was a success, director Robert Rodriguez was given a studio budget and more famous actors, something that I think works in the film’s favor.

If you’ve seen El Mariachi, you know that our hero was a wandering mariachi who ended up fighting against all odds thanks to a misunderstanding. In this one, he goes around killing people because it’s fun for him. Well, he also wants revenge because the love of his life was killed near the end of El Mariachi, but since the person that he’s blaming wasn’t directly involved in the murder, I’m not entirely sure of his reasoning. I think that he got revenge in his mind and decided to run with it until he gets killed or everyone else dies first.

Nevertheless, he plans to kill a man named Bucho (Joaquim de Almeida), who was the big boss of the drug dealers in the previous film. He has made friends with Steve Buscemi, who enters bars and tries to locate where this Bucho might be. He eventually finds one, and this is where the action starts. He tells a story where the mariachi takes down a bunch of people, and while he’s telling it, we get to watch the action on-screen. This is either the best or second bast action scene in the film, I’m not sure.

That’s as deep as the plot gets. Everything that happens after that point is directly related to the mariachi’s quest for revenge. There’s also another woman, Carolina (Salma Hayek), who hides him while Bucho and his gang members search for him. Then they become friends, and soon, lovers. She also shoots a couple of people throughout, because every single character in this film seems to have a desire to spill blood. Well, there is one kid who never picks up a gun, but I think that might have been the only character not to have one (and even he carries drugs at one point).

Like El Mariachi before it, Desperado contains a ton of action scenes. Every ten minutes or so, you’ll get a shootout of some sort. Unfortunately, that’s the only type of action scene there is. On one hand, that’s a good thing, as it means there’s no obligatory chase scene or what have you, but on the other hand, you lack variety when you only have gunfights. My mistake, there’s also one character who uses throwing knives too, but he doesn’t last very long considering he’s fighting against people who use guns.

There are only two memorable scenes in the film. The first is the aforementioned story scene while Steve Buscemi narrates. The second involves our lead shooting up a bad, in which he fears no bullet, and decides to do everything with as much style as possible. He knows that he’s the protagonist, which means that lackeys aren’t going to take him out, so he puts as much pizzazz into this fight as possible. This makes you appreciate it, while also allowing it to stick in your mind after Desperado ends.

There’s one more memorable scene, although it’s this way for the wrong reasons. At the end of the film, you expect a large shootout involving the bad guys and our hero. That’s how these things work; it’s been built up for the previous 90 minutes, after all. We don’t get one. As soon as the shootout starts, we fade to white. I remember this because I felt cheated out of what could have been an amazing scene. Robert Rodriguez showed us in El Mariachi that he knows how to direct action, and he proves it here as well. As a result, I wanted to see the final showdown, but we never do.

The most entertaining parts of Desperado — after those two action scenes — are the cameos that are scattered throughout. Actors like Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, as well as director Quentin Tarantino appear throughout, while Steve Buscemi also doesn’t play as large a role as we initially expect. Even the first mariachi, Carlos Gallardo, gets an appearance at the end, although seeing him standing beside Banderas, who was playing his former character, did seem quite odd.

Just like El Mariachi, plot and characters are largely ignored in favor of the action scenes. The plot, as I mentioned earlier, doesn’t get any deeper than a man wanting to kill another man, and that’s also as much depth as the characters are given. Our lead is a steely-eyed killer with about as much emotion as a tumbleweed, and neither of the other characters get development either. They all serve the purpose of shooting guns and nothing else, which works for the action parts, but when the pace slows down, we get bored because the characters aren’t deep enough to keep us interested.

I think that Desperado is a better film than El Mariachi is, simply because it’s more memorable. I could actually recall two of the shootouts in this film, while I couldn’t remember any in its predecessor. I was only bored when the action came to a halt, which wasn’t all that often. Still, cheating me out of the scene we spend the entire film building up to is a great misstep, while ignoring development of characters made it hard to care about everything that was going on, even if the artistry is still there, and you can appreciate that.

El Mariachi was shot for somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000. As a result, almost all praise about it is comparative, and despite it being quite fun, there’s always the asterisk that reads that it’s good “for its budget.” Whether or not that’s true praise or just enjoying seeing a solid action film given how cheaply it was made, I’m not sure. But solid it remains.

The film begins with a man named Azul (Reinol Martinez) killing a bunch of people who were sent to kill him. There’s a man named Moco (Peter Marquardt) who was the man who sent the hitmen, but he’s back at his home, only accessible by phone call. Azul and Moco talk a bit, before Azul tells him that he’s going to kill him, just like he killed those other men. At this point, I expected a revenge film, and that the reason that Azul is so mad, and why Moco wants Azul dead would be fleshed out through their dialogue and/or flashbacks.

I was wrong. It turns out, neither of these characters is our lead. He’s a wandering mariachi (Carlos Gallardo), who stops into a small town in hopes to find work. He carries his guitar case, goes from bar to bar and hopes that someone will hire him. He’s unsuccessful, but I think that’s due to him not trying all that hard. At one point, we hear him play and sing, and it’s quite good. He never shows potential employers what he has to offer them, which I think was a misstep on his behalf.

Azul turns up, and we learn that most of the town is employed by Moco. Since Azul wants revenge, he shoots up one of the numerous bars in town. He keeps his weapons, conveniently, in a guitar case. Yes, it looks exactly like the one that our mariachi carries. Oh, and their outfits are very similar too, as they both wear black pants and a black coat. You probably know where this is going.

If you don’t, I’ll fill you in. The mariachi is mistaken for the killer, so he’s hunted down instead, while Azul just kind of disappears for a while. The two alternate a bit, there’s a humorous dialogue exchange between Moco and Azul regarding the number of people who have been slain, and there are a bunch of action scenes after the main plot gets going. All in all, it’s a lot of fun.

But the kicker is that El Mariachi was made for only $7,000, and as a result, it’s bound to get a lot of praise because a few cheap tricks kept the costs down and still allowed it to look quite good and be pretty entertaining. Is it great in my eyes? No, I don’t think so. But it’s a great example of how a smart, passionate director can create something for what most Hollywood productions would be fine just tossing out to get their budget to a round number.

El Mariachi ends up being more or less a pure action film. The action scenes are somewhat creative, never boring, and, once again, given the budget, very well-crafted. There’s a b-movie feel in terms of how the blood works (if you get shot, blood will fly out of the wound) and considering there’s not much time spent with silly things like a plot or character development, you basically get action scene after action scene.

Unfortunately — and yes, I believe this goes for action films too — plot and character development are important. If I don’t care about the people involved in the shootouts or chase sequences, then I won’t become involved in them. I’ll appreciate that there is some artistry happening in terms of how they’re created, but in terms of providing me an unforgettable experience, you’ll fall short. That’s what happens here, as there wasn’t anything driving these scenes apart from a very loose premise that gives us minimum reason for things to occur.

I say this, but I’m actually overstating how the plot is advanced. It would be so simple for the mariachi to avoid all of these action scenes. All he would have to do is change clothes. He takes off his jacket at one point, and he walks right by the people who were just shooting at him. Why he doesn’t do this after he realizes that the hitmen have the wrong person isn’t explained, and even once he finds a place to hide, he decides to venture once more into town just to get shot at.

There’s also the argument that we only appreciate the action scenes as much as we do because of the low budget. There’s that asterisk again. We sit and watch them, and then we look at the budget, and we wonder why Hollywood productions can’t consistently give us this type of quality, at the very least. Millions of dollars more are spent with sub-par action, and this is a film that shows us you don’t need to spend that type of cash to put out great entertainment. We get some high quality stuff here, although because our expectations are somewhat lowered, it might just seem that way. Regardless, you still get a ton of exhilarating moments scattered throughout, budget notwithstanding.

El Mariachi is a film that was made for such a cheap amount that it’s hard to hate it even if it wasn’t all that good. Thankfully, it’s a fun action film that will give you a great deal of entertainment, even if characters and a real plot are forgotten about. Maybe this was a situation where you could only have one of the three, and since the most enthralling by itself is pure action, that’s what was chosen. Whether that’s the case or not, this is a film that’s a ball to watch.

Ten years after a man’s wife and daughter are murdered, one of the murderers is finally about to be put to death. The death penalty is being put to use in this case, and now justice being served. However, what was supposed to be a painless death, turns into a horrific scene. The chemicals used to put the man to sleep have been switched. Who’s the prime suspect? The man who had his family murdered right in front of his own face.

There was another man who murdered this man’s wife and child, and because of a plea bargain taken ten years prior, he went to jail for a short time, and was released. This man is contacted, and is then kidnapped. The kidnapper is the same person who is the prime suspect in the death row murder. This man is Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler).

He’s got a motive, as the plea bargain wasn’t his idea. It was his lawyer’s, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx). He is still upset about the one man getting off scott-free, and has decided to do something about it. We see him do this, but when he is arrested, there is no evidence tying him to either crime. He tells them he’ll cut a deal with them: if they bring him a nice bed for his prison cell, he’ll confess to the crimes.

These games continue throughout the film, with different deals being cut for different crimes. Shelton seems to have people outside the prison, meaning he can continue to threaten the safety of the public, and governement officials, despite being held in prison. He’s a real threat, and he’s also the character that director F. Gary Gray wants us to sympathize with.

The film opens up with us witnessing the mudrder of Shelton’s immediate family. We are put into his corner right off the bat, and despite the fact that the majority of the film frames him as the bad guy — not Rice — we still want to root for him. This technique works well in giving us a different perspective from the clear-cut good and bad presented in many films.

Also different from many films is the gruesome portrayal of violence. Apart from one scene that gets cut away from right before anything happens — and later gets described in great detail anyway — the film shows its murder scenes in unflinching glory. They are difficult to watch, and each one is felt by the audience.

Not in this film’s favor is how implausible the entire plot is. While I can’t give away why it is implausible, for fear of spoiling some of the odd things that occur later on in the film, I’ll say that a great deal of suspending your belief has to occur in order for you to get full enjoyment out of Law Abiding Citizen.

Thankfully, not paying close enough attention to the various plot holes is easy enough to do. The film is enjoyable, with enough edge-of-your-seat action to keep you from thinking too hard about the plot. At its very core, it is quite an entertaining film, one that will keep you fixated on it, regardless of whether or not it makes complete sense.

If it does have a major problem, it’s the fact that it loses severe steam towards its finale. Law Abiding Citizen starts off strong, really strong in fact. The first 40 or so minutes were fabulous. Where the plot was going to take us was a mystery. Then things started slowing down, and the next hour was spent trying to figure out a way to kill the film.

And “kill it” is something that the filmmakers do. The final scenes of the film make it really apparent that they couldn’t figure out a proper way to conclude. The ending feels like a cop-out, one that really disappointed me. It worked in only one way: to let the last bit of air out of the slowly leaking balloon.

Performance-wise, there is good and bad. The good comes from the supporting cast, but this is sadly overshadowed by the bad. Butler (whom I’m convinced cannot do an American accent), doesn’t show the kind of emotion one would expect by a man who had such a terrible thing happen to him. Foxx isn’t much better, also showing little emotion, despite having many of his collegues murdered right in front of him. He doesn’t seem mad, upset or frustrated, and is only focused on doing his job.

Law Abiding Citizen is a film that has fun with what it does. Its plot is not all that plausible, having a few plot holes that are quite noticeable. Despite this, its a film that wants you to enjoy yourself while watching it. The acting isn’t great, but it doesn’t really need to be. The film will keep you on the edge of your seat, with the film staying interesting throughout. Not having clear-cut good and bad characters works well, and if the ending hadn’t felt like such a cop-out, it would be a film recommended without thought. As it is, Law Abiding Citizen is a fun film that will keep you engaged, and that’s about all you can ask of it.

It makes sense for the plot of a stoner comedy to get lost somewhere in the middle, right? That’s what happens with Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, which brings us an idea of what our lead characters should be doing, but gives them a lot of diversions that are largely unrelated to this main quest just so that (1) director/writer Kevin Smith can tell more jokes and (2) the film can make it 90 minutes and call itself a feature length film. (It actually ends up being significantly longer than that, but that just further goes to show how far it travels from the main plot.)

The basic idea of the film has the character of the title, Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith) wanting to travel to Hollywood to shut down the production of a movie. Why? Well, it’s going to be based on a comic book that supposedly used their likeness, and instead of taking the money that would come from the production, they want to shut it down so that the people in the internet will stop saying mean things about their fictional characters. Does that make sense? I’m no quite sure it does, but that’s their goal.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Jay and Silent Bob characters, you probably haven’t watched any of the Kevin Smith films that lead up to this one. They appear as pot-smoking slackers who spend a lot of time hanging outside of a convenience store. Jay does almost all of the talking, and if I were to count how many lines of dialogue Silent Bob gets, I could do so on one hand. That’s why he’s called “Silent Bob,” after all. Other characters from other Smith films also appear, but since he uses the same actor in multiple roles in multiple movies, it gets confusing.

Here’s an example. We first see Ben Affleck playing his Chasing Amy character. Affleck also appeared in earlier Smith films like Dogma and Mallrats. Jason Lee appears as Brodie Bruce, his Mallrats character, although also later appears as a different character. Affleck later appears as himself. Chris Rock also has an appearance, although he’s playing a new character instead of the one he was in Dogma. Or maybe I’m starting to get the Kevin Smith universe(s?) mixed up, and they’re not playing who I said at all. Die-hard fans will probably make sense of them all. I wasn’t quite able to.

Let’s get back to the plot. One of the hindrances the stoner duo faces are a bunch of young women who want them to steal a monkey. It ends up being an orangutan, although this is a cover so that the women can steal diamonds in a building right beside where the animals are kept. Another distraction brings an incompetent Federal Wildlife Marshal played by Will Ferrell into the equation, although like most of Ferrell’s roles, I was simply annoyed by his inclusion.

There are a lot of moments when I laughed, like when Jay and Silent Bob are shown the internet by Ben Affleck (or was it his character?). We learn that the internet is a place where people who will never be happy get to whine about things that upset them. I didn’t think I would be able to fully censor the exact phrasing while still getting the point across, but I did it. The point is, their vulgar expressions when they learn that people are talking trash about them online are priceless, especially Bob’s, which remain funny as the film progresses.

Other things to take note of are the parodies. Scooby-Doo gets a chance to be made fun of, as does Hollywood, internet message board posters, Planet of the Apes, homosexuals, heterosexuals, action films, the stoner culture, the human race, Earth itself, and more or less everything that can be fit into the 105 minutes that the film spends insulting everything that exists, and even some things that don’t.

Is this a movie for everyone? The simple truth is that it is not. If you don’t like your jokes laced with certain censorable four-letter words, then you’ll really dislike Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. I’m also not sure how much you’ll enjoy this film if you’re not already enamored with previous Kevin Smith films, considering this one plays out like a long love-letter to them. There are tons of cameos and references that only the Smith faithful will really get, leaving the rest of the audience wondering what they just saw or heard. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely limits your audience.

With that said, I enjoyed Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. It was funny, and that is by far the most important thing to me while watching a comedy. Truthfully, it only had a handful of laugh-out-loud moments for me, but I snickered a few times and came away from it with a grin. Who cares if it’s a self-indulgent, reference-laden, poorly paced film if you’re enjoying it for most of the time it’s playing? That’s how I feel about this one. Deeply flawed, but since I laughed, I can’t not recommend it.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is a funny movie that will definitely make Kevin Smith fans laugh. Will it make non-fans laugh? Maybe, but they’ll miss a lot of the fun. Regardless, I had a fun time with it, even if things like pacing and plot were largely ignored so that more jokes could be told and humorous situations could be shown. We want to laugh, and this film delivers, even if it fails in more than one way when looking at it afterward.

Take one part generic story, another part uninspired characters and two parts beautiful scenery, and you’ve got a pretty good description of How to Train Your Dragon. Here is a film that gets a pass from me almost solely because of its imagery. On a narrative level, it’s mundane, and when looking at its action scenes, you can’t help but wonder why you’re supposed to care, especially because one of them occurs before we know who anyone is.

Said scene occurs while we’re listening to a random teenager explain the setting to us. His name is Hiccup (voice of Jay Baruchel), a terrible name that he hates, but accepts it because his parents explained that it would help protect him from the evils of the world. He then tells us that he lives on the island of Berk, and that he lives among vikings. The island is nice, and the vikings are nice enough, but the island has one problem: Its pests. Dragons are constantly coming around to mess up the vikings’ days.

The action scene has vikings fighting against the dragons. It’s a well-crafted battle, although we’re more interested in this kid’s dialogue than we are in the action. See, this opening monologue is funny, and we’re focused so intently on him that we fail to notice a lot of what’s happening in regards to the dragons and the vikings. It does help establish a setting and reinforce the point (which doesn’t need reinforcing once the film reaches the mid-way point) that the vikings downright loathe the dragons.

This proves problematic when our lead doesn’t hate them. Or at least, he grows into not hating them — or maybe he never really did at all; it’s not quite clear. For the first half of the film, two things happen. The first involves Hiccup learning (alongside his fellow teenagers) how to kill dragons. They’re taught by a man voiced by Craig Ferguson, and everyone makes fun of Hiccup because he’s incompetent when it comes to combat. Being the shortest, weakest and most docile of the group makes him an easy target, I guess. Regardless, the teenagers fight a bunch of dragons over and over again. Craig Ferguson’s character doesn’t do much teaching.

The second story, which is where we get our title from, involves Hiccup attempting to befriend an injured dragon that he names Toothless. Yes, this dragon is cute, endearing, and all of those other words which means that we like it. We like it because of its appearance, but also because of how it interacts with our protagonist. It taunts him, it acts somewhat human, although it seems to do so for our benefit. Children will love this, but it was sometimes annoying to me, especially because the humans were said to be the smart ones. But that’s fine.

We spend a lot of our time in either the arena, watching Hiccup and his gang of vikings-to-be fighting against dragons, or Hiccup playing, riding on, or otherwise spending time with his new best friend. At this point in the film, I was having a great time. The writing was sharp, the parallels between the situations were great, and the dragon in question was adorable. Everyone is having a good time. Hiccup even used knowledge he learned while bonding with Toothless in the arena, and figured ways to peacefully incapacitate them.

But then the film decides that it needs a plot, and we get a cookie-cutter finale about the most unlikely of heroes becoming one, and a war happens. Then there’s the whole disapproving father (Gerard Butler), who doesn’t like his son at the beginning because he’s weak, but when he starts doing well in the arena, they become closer. Oh, there’s also the romantic angle in which the girl also doesn’t initially like him, but also eventually warms to him. I can’t even make the final half of this film sound interesting; it’s just so generic. It’s not bad, and since this is primarily a children’s film, it will fit for that audience, but the plot left me disappointed.

The final action scene, while somewhat thrilling, also left me disappointed. It goes on for too long, for starters, and I also didn’t care a whole lot about what happens. It’s initiated because of stupidity, and because one character makes a stupid decision, we get a 20 minute long scene where dragons fly around and breathe fire a whole bunch. Again, this is fun for the kids, who are the target audience, but I needed to care about the characters in order for them to matter.

There isn’t any character development that you won’t see coming or expect as soon as the basic plot is established. As a result, it almost seems to you that the characters have already reached that point, and then you don’t seem them grow at all. The plot doesn’t provide any insight into their characters, and most of the time, they just go along with the plot based on the personalities they’ve already established. If you want deep characters, look elsewhere.

“Looking” is something that you will probably be doing a lot of while watching this film. It’s gorgeous, and if there’s one thing that will hold your attention, it’s how the film looks. Animations, character animations, the environment — it all looks incredible. You’d got to hand it to Dreamworks here, as they’ve created a visual spectacle.

How to Train Your Dragon is a good film that will likely be great in the eyes of children. But it moves from special territory into generic in its second half, and by the end, I was tired of spending time with every person involved. I was sick of watching them progress exactly like I’d expect, and I was hoping for one surprise to make me remember that I had never seen this film before. But in the end, it still has a lot of action with outstanding visuals, so it’s not a waste of time ot watch it.

While watching A Mighty Wind, I couldn’t help but be taken back to memories of the great and powerful Spinal Tap. Of course, the fact that one of the three bands followed by Christopher Guest’s newest mockumentary, The Folksmen, is made up of the three primary men who are recognized as Spinal Tap’s core makes the comparison a simple one. Maybe this is why I never truly was enveloped by A Mighty Wind.  (continue reading)

There are two brothers. One of them, Ian (Ewan McGregor), is a hardworking man who has just met a wonderful woman, Angela (Hayley Atwell). The other is Terry (Colin Farrell), who is a chain-smoking, hard-drinking, pill-popping man who somehow managed to get a girlfriend (Sally Hawkins) who loves him dearly. The brothers come from a family that isn’t all that well off, except for their uncle, who more or less supported them as they grew up. Generous uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson), he’s called.

The first 30 minutes or so of Cassandra’s Dream focus on the brothers getting themselves into trouble. They begin by purchasing a boat with money that Terry won at the track. Then they get into debt (£90,000, if you can believe this) from a single poker game gone wrong. Again, this is Terry’s fault, but he’s dragging Ian down with him. Ian wants to invest in hotels and move to California with Angela, although his father and the restaurant that they own — not to mention Terry’s debt — permits him from doing so.

But generous uncle Howard is coming to town in a couple of days. I believe it is said that he’s a millionaire, and he could easily lend them the money. Then they could move on with their lives. “Hey,” one says, “let’s get the money from uncle Howard!” (Note: This is not actual dialogue from the film.) If I’m making the characters seem childish, it’s because, in a way, they are. They figure that this will solve all of their problems and that they’ll finally be able to dig themselves out of the hole they’ve gambled into.

However, after supporting their family for what must seem like a lifetime, Howard requires something from the two boys. In becoming a millionaire, certain tactics had to be used. Some of these tactics weren’t exactly legal, and there’s a hearing coming up in which a former colleague is going to testify against him. If somehow, some way, this man was unable to testify, that would make Howard the happiest man on the block. He’d also pay off the debts, help them invest in Californian hotels, or whatever else they’d like. All they need to do is kill this man.

The rest of the film deals with the brothers and their decisions relating to this murder. One of the taglines of Cassandra’s Dream is “How far will you go to make your dreams come true?”, and I think that’s an apt description of what this film features. Talking about anything else would be spoiling, but suffice to say that this is a film that deals with the psyche of its characters, as well as the ramifications of their decisions.

If Cassandra’s Dream has a problem, it comes in the form of its ending. I’m not going to say that the ending comes from out of nowhere or that it doesn’t make sense, because the events that take place at its conclusion are hinted at several times throughout. I’m more concerned with the way the ending was executed. Instead of giving us the type of conclusion that we desire, we get about halfway through, and it feels like the film just gives up. Oh, things happen, but they’re explained to us in a quick chat right before the credits roll. We don’t actually see what happens, and it felt as if writer/director Woody Allen couldn’t think of a proper way to end it, so he copped out on us.

The final five minutes, instead of giving us closure and a beautiful ending that will stick in our memories as a perfect finish to a great film, instead serve to undermine what comes before it. There’s a whole lot of good things that happen in this film, but what’s left in your mind is a rushed ending that left you unsatisfied. We explore the minds of these characters for 90 minutes, and then that’s just thrown out the window right before we fade to black.

It’s a shame that this is what gets imprinted in your mind after you finish, as there is a lot of greatness packed within this film. Most important in my eyes is the acting, especially on the part of Colin Farrell. His Terry is an abuser in every sense of the word, and yet for the final half of the film, we watch his mental state deteriorate and we really do feel for him. Farrell manages to keep himself from seeming too whiny, even if a heavy dose of “get over yourself” might do him some good. His situation starts out well and quickly turns awful, and he does a great job of portraying this to us, even if he isn’t our lead character.

The plot we’re taken through isn’t all that complicated, but it remains interesting throughout. It starts out fairly slow, only showing us how our characters live their lives, but once we’re introduced to Wilkinson’s character and given the idea of a potential murder, it picks up steam quickly. Once it gets rolling, like a boulder in a rock slide, it gains momentum until it hits the ground. It’s just unfortunate that in this case, the ground was foam, and the boulder came to far an abrupt end that didn’t do the journey it took justice.

In the end, Cassandra’s Dream is absolutely a worthwhile watch, even if the ending comes as a great disappointment. There are moments of brilliance, the plot is executed wonderfully right up until the finale, and the cast is strong. It doesn’t begin like a thriller that will analyze its characters, but that’s certainly where most of the plot spends its time. Regardless, it’s a film that’s definitely worth a watch.

On a Clear Day

2005     PG-13         98 minutes

When Frank (Peter Mullan) loses his job at the docks, he quickly realizes that, at age 55, he’s too old to start a new career but too young to simply stop working. So he decides to take on the ultimate challenge: swim the English Channel. With the support of friends and family, Frank thinks he can rise to the occasion and bear the physical pain it will bring. But is he ready to come to terms with his emotional scars?

Cast:Peter Mullan, Brenda Blethyn, Sean McGinley, Jamie Sives,Billy Boyd, Ron Cook, Jodhi May, Benedict Wong, Anne Marie Timoney, Shaun Dingwall, Tony Roper, Paul Ritter

Director:Gaby Dellal

(2012, Dir. by Joe Carnahan.)

Almost three years to the day after Taken opened in the US and made us all turn our heads in surprise, Liam Neeson is still laying claim to his new found role as a bonafide action hero.  Though his 60th birthday is coming up this summer, Neeson has re-established himself as a star through a series of tough guy roles, a trend that continued with this weekend’s release of The Grey.

Re-uniting Neeson with The A-Team director, Joe Carnahan, The Grey lets Neeson take charge as a hired gun whose job is to eliminate wolves at an Alaskan outpost.  That job lasts for about two scenes – long enough to establish via voice over and a shot of him preparing to kill himself – setting up the character’s depressed mental state just before he’s involved in a freak plane explosion/crash that leaves him and a handful of less hero-esque survivors stranded in the middle of a frozen wasteland.

The biggest problem that Neeson and his followers have to deal with? Wolves, naturally.  Many will argue about the use of wolves in the film – some think the director and his crew were abusive toward animals, some think it’s silly to assume that wolves would hunt a pack of humans who stand up to them repeatedly – but there are wolves in the movie nonetheless.  I’m not an animalologist or a crazy PETA person (You guys: MEAT TASTES AWESOME!), so I’m not gonna comment on any of those speculations.  I’ll just say that the wolves look incredibly real and are pretty intimidating foes, and they serve their purpose as a plot device in Carnahan’s film.

You see, the movie isn’t about the wolves.  It’s about the men and their struggle to survive.  You’re probably groaning at how cliche that comment is, and you have every right to – most every movie ever made is about the characters’ struggle, and a focused “survival” movie like this is nothing new.  The most interesting thing about the struggle is the mental state of Neeson’s character, whose depression at times makes the viewer wonder if he’s a liability to the others on this journey.

The film gets a little heavy handed at times – I particularly groaned at a scene in which Neeson stands up to a challenge from a follower right after the group hears Neeson explain the idea of “Alpha and Omega” wolves to the men – but there are some really interesting moments peppered throughout the film.  Moments when the characters reflect upon what they have to live for really hit home, and the opposing viewpoints of Neeson’s jaded commentary help strengthen the story.  The supporting performances are serviceable, most notably veteran character actor Dermot Mulroney in an almost unrecognizable role as one of the men, and his comments throughout the journey are a welcome addition to the film.

(The most interesting thing I learned after reading about the film today was that the producers advertised the film directly to Christian viewers, which boggles my mind when I consider the main character’s vocal disdain toward religion throughout the film.  I’d absolutely love to see the ‘film companion’ that was distributed to religious groups, because I seriously can’t fathom what Carnahan and his producers intended to say to Christians.)

The tone of the film is most endearing to me when I look at the director, Carnahan, whose bombastic last two films (Smokin’ Aces and The A-Team) lacked the focus on character that was present in his breathtaking debut film, Narc.  The fact that I’m talking about the film’s attempts to carry a deeper message and to be a character-driven action film is a huge improvement on those fun-but-pointless films.  I’m just not sure I think everything about The Grey works.  The proceedings become pretty repetitive in the second act – deal with attack, philosophize, argue, repeat – and the momentum that the director and the star bring to the film kind of stalls out at times. I’m usually the last person to use the dreaded “boring” word about a film, but I can’t deny that The Grey had me on the edge of sleep a few times.

In the end, I’m really not sure what I think about The Grey.  Some of what it offers is incredibly effective, and some of it had me tired and ready for more.  It’s definitely not a movie for the masses like Taken was three years ago, and an ambiguous ending (Make sure you stay till after the credits!) will probably divide audiences too.  I liked the ending, I just wasn’t wild about the path the film took to get there.  Is it a good film? For the most part, yes.  But I’m not ready to proclaim it a must-see addition to the new year just yet.  Perhaps you’ll disagree.

Dorian Gray centers on a man who shouldn’t be the lead of a film. His name is also Dorian, and he is played by Ben Barnes. Here is an actor that could not carry this film, and because all of the supporting actors managed to outshine him, we are left disappointed. The supporting cast includes Colin Firth, Rebecca Hall and Ben Chaplin, among others, and a film about any of their lives, supernatural or not, probably would have been better.

But that’s not what we get, and considering this is based on Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, I guess it makes sense that my proposal for a better film wouldn’t be used. Dorian is a character who has a painting done of himself, sees the painting, wishes that he always looked as young and healthy as he does in the painting, and then says he’d give his soul for the opportunity to have this happen. In this universe, making a vague claim like that allows one to become immortal.

Dorian is a man who has recently come to London, and he quickly befriends both the artist, Basil (Chaplin) and Lord Henry (Firth), who are both gracious yet very different people. Basil is a more conservative character, unwilling to take risks and loving a traditional lifestyle. Henry wishes to satisfy all his desires, at one point claiming that the only way to get rid of an impulse is to act upon it. Dorian is introduced to cigarettes and alcohol by Henry, and eventually finds himself quite enamored with these potentially damaging substances.

Of course, they don’t do anything bad to him, thanks to the magical painting. Unaware of this at first, Dorian cuts himself one day, and it’s said that the cut might scar. However, the next day, he is completely healed. He notices this while looking at the painting, which has acquired a scar on its hand and seems to be crying. The painting changed and took the damage that Dorian did to his body. It’s at this point when he realizes that he had might as well enjoy life because he has no reason not to follow Henry’s desire and do whatever makes him feel good about himself.

That’s what happens for the majority of the film: Dorian abuses his body, the painting suffers. Dorian spends most of his time getting drunk, high, and having promiscuous sex with as many people as he can. In one scene, he has sex with a young woman, and when the mother comes in looking for her, he has sex with her too — while the daughter is under the bed. He also kills one person, although by my count, that was the only law he broke. It’s more about what’s right or wrong in a moral sense, and the painting is allowed to decide.

I wish I could just spoil how the film ends so that you wouldn’t have to sit through it in order to find out how it ends. I suppose you could also read the novel, although there are enough changes to set the two works apart. But it concludes exactly how you’d expect, all the while watching a bland Ben Barnes go through the motions of getting tired of life. Oh, I guess I just did ruin part of the ending. What a faux pas on my part.

I’m not completely spoiling what happens at the end, but that takes you up through a good portion of the plot. Don’t worry, as you’ll see this coming from a mile away if you choose to watch Dorian Gray. However, I am glad that the film told me when Dorian was no longer enjoying his lifestyle, as Ben Barnes certainly didn’t tell me. He keeps the same expression throughout, never showing any real emotion and never allowing me to realize what his character was feeling. Even during the murder scene, I couldn’t tell if he was mad at the person he was killing, or if he was happy, mad with power, or anything else. His face is like a blank slate in this film, which sounds funnier than it should be since the painting continues to change as we progress through his story.

What’s supposed to be a critique on the way people live their lives ends up being muddled to the point where, if I didn’t know what the novel was about, I might not have gotten what the film was trying to achieve. Oh, you can tell that we’re supposed to think Dorian is living his life improperly, but feeling anything because of it doesn’t happen. It all comes back to how Dorian is portrayed in both the acting and the dialogue. Neither is sharp or even all that adequate, and because of this, we feel nothing throughout — just like the character.

Dorian Gray is stylishly directed and has some flashy scenes, but they serve little purpose when there’s nothing to care about. It gets slightly more lively when Henry’s daughter, Emily (Rebecca Hall) gets involved, but it’s too little, too late. At that point, we’ve endured too much to be convinced that we had fun, and without anything to care about previously, I had all but had it. Dorian may stay eternally young while all the other characters get gray in their hair (and the males all get longer facial hair too), but I felt I was aging years as the film was going on.

I didn’t enjoy Dorian Gray, and I didn’t think it did a good job of translating Oscar Wilde’s novel to the big screen. It falls mostly on the acting of Ben Barnes in the lead role, who is outshined by the supporting cast and doesn’t bring any emotion to his role. Maybe that’s the point later on, but early in the film, he’s supposed to be enjoying himself. Instead, he — and by extension, I — was stone-faced throughout the film, leading to a boring experience.

Profile:

Steven Robert Guttenberg was born in 1958 in a Jewish family of five.  His father was an electrical engineer but it became obvious that Steve wasn’t going to follow in his father’s footsteps.  He headed off to Julliard after high school and never looked back.

Guttenberg found his niche early on Broadway comedies and improv comedy before venturing into television in the late 70’s.   He found himself in a some successful TV movies like Miracle on Ice (1981), To Race the Wind (1980), Something for Joey (1977) and The Day After (1983).  Guttenberg even wound up in a Coca-Cola commercial where he was helping a lady with a stalled car and shared with her the a passionate love for Coke.  –Yes, we mean Coca-Cola here, there is no evidence that they actually shared a love for cocaine even though it is entirely possible.  (Note: We have no evidence that supports the previous statement).

Guttenberg finally got noticed for his work on the film Diner, but is probably best known for his work in 3 franchises in the 1980’s, those of course being Short Circuit, Police Academy and Three Men and  a Baby (Directed by by Leonard Nimoy).  Side Note:  I’ve always liked to think about “Spock” directing Three Men and A Baby and the thought process he put behind deciding to take on the project.  I always assumed it went something like this:  ”Three men….and ….A Baby?  Highly Illogical–yet intriguing.” The point is Guttenberg became known probably best for his work on Police Academy in the 80’s as Mahoney and it catapulted the comedian into 80’s superstardom.  Oddly enough,  Police Academy was a film his agent suggested he pass on because he thought it was going to be a huge flop.

However once 1990 rolled around, The “Gutt” [pronounced G-oooo-t] was seen less and less in Hollywood.  He found himself along side Kirstie Alley and the Olsen twins in It Takes Two and a few minor TV roles but never really kept the traction going that he gained in the 80’s.  In fact, it was hard to take a look at Guttenberg in the 90’s and think he was a box office draw the decade before.  His most noteable work was a re-occuring bit part on Veronica Mars a few years back and continues to pop up on TV and indie works but generally has become a Hollywood “D List” star in the 2000 and beyond.   He even found himself on an episode of Dancing With The Stars which was probably the thing that catapaulted The Gutt back into the spotlight.  Mind you it was a very dim spot light (or perhaps maybe just a very bright incandescent light bulb) but a light none the less.

Where Are They? Now

Guttenberg’s name has popped up in a few different projects as Hollywood is looking to reboot and re-kindle anything that might have a breath of life left in it.  Guttenberg claims that Hollywood is interested in Three Men and A Bride with the returning cast of Ted Danson, Steve Guttenberg and Tom Selleck.  However, I will admit this is hard to believe as none of these once A list actors really have box office bank written all over them anymore.   Guttenberg has been suggesting that they reboot the Police Academy franchise for quite sometime and it looks like Hollywood has finally taken notice.   They announced a reboot in the works, but there is no word of Guttenberg taking part in the project.  However, it would be very hard to believe that he wouldn’t at least have a cameo.   In October of last year, Guttenberg starred on Broadway in “Relatively Speaking,” one of  the trio of one-acts written by Elaine May, Ethan Coen and Woody Allen. Guttenberg appeared  in “Honeymoon Motel,” the segment written by Allen; he plays the father of a groom who falls in love with the bride.   He is quoted as saying that sometimes people mistake his kindness for weakness which is why he hasn’t been a successful in Hollywood as he would have liked and still hopes that he can get back into the big leagues of Hollywood.  Unfortunately for The Gutt, it has been 20 years since he has really seen any box office glitz and glitter.

Off screen The Gutt has been active in charitable organizations and created Guttenhouse, an apartment for graduated foster children and works with Sight For Students, a program that works to donate eye wear to kids in need.  His passion for helping others and entertaining others hasn’t left him even though the Hollywood cameras pointed in his direction are dwindling.  Behind the Hollywood scenes he has worked as an executive producer and a director on a few after school special like projects that have garnered some critical acclaim in their respective circles, once again showing his passion for child welfare.

In early November 2008, allegedly Guttenberg was filmed jogging semi-naked through Central Park, New York Guttenberg responded by appearing on The Paul O’Grady Show, where announced that he made the video for Will Ferrell’s Funny or Die website, but then decided to release it virally “as if it were real”.    In a even stranger turn of events, he then finished off the show by earning a spot in the Guinness World Records by preparing the most hot-dogs in one minute.

In May 2012, Guttenberg will release his memior, a book that called, The Guttenberg Bible.  In this honest, charming memoir, Guttenberg tells the story of how he became the star of some of the ’80s most successful blockbusters, how he spent his early days sneaking onto the Paramount lot (he pretended to be Michael Eisner’s son), meeting more celebrities and casting agents than most aspiring actors ever would and gaining a stalker or two along the way.

I know that you don’t have to make your lead character in a movie completely loveable, but making them interesting is generally a must, especially if you’re going to include them in every single shot you take. In the case of Confessions of a Sociopathic Social Climber, we don’t get an interesting protagonist, and as a result, the film isn’t enjoyable. Well, it’s also that way because it’s a standard, clichéd romantic comedy, but that almost comes with the territory.

The film stars Jennifer Love Hewitt as Katya Livingston. She works in advertising, although the amount of work she accomplishes is debatable. Apparently she’s quite good at her job, as she is always claiming so while nobody says anything to the contrary. However, we only see her take long breaks, talk on the phone about personal business, and kill her boss’ pets. That’s a running gag in the film, although it’s a sadistic one if you ask me. She ends up getting an assistant at one point, but apart from a late game decision, he’s more or less a pointless character. Then again, her boss and friends also fit into the category.

The only other person that matters is a man we don’t actually get to properly meet until nearly the end of the film. His name ends up being Charles (Colin Ferguson), although he also goes by the name “Chuck.” Remember that, as it’s quite important (no, it’s not actually, although if you want to be “in” on one of the gags before the film tells you, it’ll serve you well). She first sees him walking into the building that her office is in, before envisioning him walking up and kissing her. Of course, that doesn’t happen. But this vision makes her decide that trying to win his affection would be in her best interest, even if she doesn’t make much of an effort over the course of the film.

There’s also a major party coming up. You need a golden key in order to get into the party, and those keys (it seems everyone but Ms. Livingston has one) act as our MacGuffins. She isn’t invited, but is determined to get one. Most of her actions over the course of the film are driven to either get a key or win the heart of Charles, although which one is more important isn’t made particularly clear.

At the end, we end up getting a slapdash romantic comedy. It doesn’t seem that way throughout; for most of the film, we just watch Katya go about her daily life while trying to procure a key for herself. And then at the end, well, I’m sure you can guess what happens. Picture a generic romantic comedy, and you’ve probably figured out how Confessions of a Sociopathic Social Climber. If you want a hint, just look at the title.

There are a few reasons why this isn’t a good film. The first is that it doesn’t stay true to itself. If it wanted to go the romantic comedy way — and I generally don’t particularly mind the formula rom-com — then it needed to do that the entire time. Let us get to know the love interest before two-thirds of the film are over. Show us that the lead character has some sort of inkling to change herself. Actually allow for the romance to be built so that if/when it falls apart, it’ll matter. We don’t get any of this, so the attempt at the end to turn the film into a romantic comedy falls flat, especially because it relies on genre clichés.

The second reason is one that I mentioned earlier: The main character. She’s a one-note character whose sole characteristic is that she’s self-centered. That’s as deep as she gets, save for one turn that happens late in the film that you will expect and won’t surprise you at all. That turn also comes out of nowhere, which is why I stated earlier that having hints regarding how she’s feeling about herself would have improved the film. Unfortunately, none of that happens, and were are left with a character that doesn’t make sense despite being incredibly simplistic.

Finally, it simply isn’t funny. I think that I might have laughed once, although that might have been a pity laugh — I’m not sure. I can’t remember any of the jokes or lines throughout, and I sat there most of the time just having a lousy time. It’s entirely possible that other people will find this film funny, and if that’s the case, they might have a good time. I just didn’t see the humor in this one, leading to an unenjoyable experience.

Is there anything to like here? In short: No. I can’t think of a single moment when I enjoyed watching this film. I guess having the camera always focused on Jennifer Love Hewitt is a good idea, despite her not being a particularly good actress. (Just look at the roles she picks; how can we really know if she can act?) Anyway, the opening title sequence has her bouncing around in her underwear for a couple of minutes, which comes close to being something I could call a highlight.

Confessions of a Sociopathic Social Climber is a mess. It doesn’t stick to a genre, which makes the ending come out of nowhere, it doesn’t allow any development for its characters, and it isn’t funny. When the opening title scene is the best part of the film, you know you’re not in for a good time. If you’ve heard of this movie, and you were curious about it, stay far away. If you hadn’t heard about it, forget I said anything and continue your ignorance — it’ll be better for you than wasting 90 minutes with this eyesore.

A man named Truman (Jim Carrey) has lived his entire life in the same town. He has a wife, Meryl (Laura Linney), a best friend, Marlon (Noah Emmerich), a mother, Angela (Holland Taylor), and a job working in an office. His day to day activities are largely the same, he says goodbye to the neighbors the same way every day (“In case I don’t see you: Good afternoon, good evening, and good night”), and his life is pretty good.

Unfortunately, his father drowned when he was younger, and as a result, Truman hates the water — this is the reason he’s never moved, I suppose. He’s now 30 years old, an important birthday for some people. He starts to notice that his life isn’t quite the utopia he believed it to be. For instance, he hears people talking about his commute to work on the radio, and notices that people seem to appear in the same place at set times. Maybe he’s crazy, and nobody has diagnosed him? He’s not quite sure, but he knows that something is wrong.

It turns out that he’s part of an experiment. That experiment involves more than 5,000 hidden cameras, hundreds of paid actors and a giant dome. Truman lives inside of that dome, although he’s unaware of that. It turns out, Truman is part of a reality show run by a man named Christof (Ed Harris). We figure this out far earlier than Truman does. This show, which shares the same title as the film does, is the most watched show on television. It’s broadcast 24 hours each day, and features no commercials. How does it make money? Well, there’s product placement where an actor turns to the camera and advertises whatever product they’re using. Truman has had that happen his entire life, so it seems natural to him. We start to question this practice right away.

The majority of The Truman Show deals with Truman trying to determine what is real and what isn’t. Does his wife really love him? Is his mother actually his mother? Did his father really die? Are his memories actually his, or where they things he was simply told? Once he comes to the realization that he’s being filmed at every instance, his entire world view is shattered. You can see why; I’m not sure how I’d react if I found out I was living and being manipulated just for the amusement of others, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be a good reaction.

I wonder how a situation like this would be reacted to in real life. Would the government let it happen? Would viewers actually tune in to see how a life would be led in such an artificial environment? I really don’t know. I don’t really see why it was the most watched show at the beginning of the film, as Truman’s life didn’t seem any more interesting than the average Joe’s. You go about living your life and then you come home and watch someone else live their boring life too?

It’s a good thing that’s not just what The Truman Show was about, because I would have been really bored. It only really gets interesting once Truman begins questioning his reality, which thankfully happens quite early on. It begins with simple questions and a little wonder, which is actually quite funny. Watching him try to figure out where cameras are hidden or attempting to change his life is hilarious, and it’s times like these when you realize why Jim Carrey was cast.

The surprise comes from the more dramatic sections — usually in the later moments of the film — where Carrey has to act with sincerity and gravitas. He does well in these scenes, which is a bonus. He gives it all for this role, and there’s a good chance you’ll be rooting for him to escape mid-way through the movie. He’s a likable person who, for better or worse, has been essentially robbed of 30 years of his life. We want to see him escape so that he can move on with his life, find a girl he truly loves (one of the extras who is promptly removed from the show) and maybe even raise a family outside of the public eye. At least, we hope for this, even if it might not all be possible.

Watching Truman trying to discover what his life has been about, while also watching every other character try to cover it up is both hilarious and compelling. It actually becomes quite thrilling by the time Truman is trying to escape, and because there’s the emotional backing from the audience, we become involved in his attempt to get away from this island paradise.

The best part of the film for me came at the very end, which involves a dialogue exchange between Harris and Carrey. Harris opens it up with “I am the creator,” before taking a brief pause which he follows with “of a television show.” That entire conversation, the final realization that Truman is given, is absolutely perfect. If ever I was to applaud this film — literally clap for it — it would be at this point. You’re drawn so deeply into the story that when this conversation takes place, you’re in awe just as much as Truman is.

The Truman Show is a great film because it gives us a character to empathize with, strong performances and some thing to think about. This review featured a lot of questions, and I mean every single one of them. When you finish watching, you might just want to watch it again. You’ll want to experience this film more than once — it’s just such a fun journey to take part in. And you do feel like you’re going along with Truman on his quest to discover the truth about his life. Definitely give The Truman Show a watch.

Rango is the family tale of a lizard who lives his life behind a the walls of glass fish bowl.  He entertains himself by acting out his favorite fantasies with his make believe friends but thanks to a tragic roadside accident he is left in the middle of the desert.  The hot sun leads him to a small old west town of lizards and critters where water is scarce and treated like gold.  Rango, trying to show off to his new found audience finds himself earning the spot as town sheriff and is dropped right in the middle of conspiracy to dry up the town and make it a ghost town.

What I like about Rango is that it is a kids western.  Despite the animation and the cast of critters in various roles, Rango plays out like a  classic Eastwood or John Wayne film.  It’s hard to make a western that is enjoyed by adults and kids but director Gore Verbinski of Pirates of the Caribbean fame leads this flick down the right track.  Casting Johnny Depp as Rango and giving it the look of an emulated Tim Burton feel should have actual deterred this film but somehow enhances it instead.  You fall in love with Depp voicing Rango and he seems to be the perfect fit for the role.  Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Abigail Breslin, Bill Nighy, Alfred Molina, Stephen Root and more round out the voice cast for this fun little flick.

Perhaps my favorite part of Rango was the villainous rattlesnake Jake, a hired gunslinger who was known to be the baddest in the land.  His gattling gun tail and ominous approach as he slithers into town made for wonderful screen time.  He was the perfect villain for kids and just creepy enough to make the adults attention as well.  In fact, parts of Rango are just all out a little intense for some youngins.  Yet despite the content, Verbinski keeps things in check so it doesn’t go over board and give the little ones night mares.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know a ton about rendering graphics and computer based animation but I really though the makers of Rango had it together on this film.  Things looked great, set pieces were constructed wonderfully.  They were lit just right and were pleasing to the eye while setting the tone for the entire film.  Characters looked like they matched the voices and were convincing set pieces for their roles in the movie.  All in all, Rango is a film that makes a perfect use of muted colors and tones mixed with a bit of bright pastels at just the right moment.  The animation sets the tone for the entire film, and in the case of Rango I feel that they hit the nail right on the head.  Dreamworks may actually be giving Pixar a run for their money and actually deserve top honors at the Oscars this year for this film.

Rango really doesn’t bring anything new to the table in the story department, but you really don’t care.  It’s the classic western tale about troubled town with an evil rich man trying to buy up all the land and forcing people out of town.  Along comes a drifter and cleans things up with a high noon show down.  The reason this one works so well is the way that they took this tale and twisted it to adapt to their needs and goals.  Rango reintroduces the classic western to a whole new audience- kids and their fathers. It’s fun for the whole family, it’s vibrant and worth a watch.  If you get a chance, check it out.

Set in 1988, Ken Kwapis’ Big Miracle starts off with a basic premise (trapped whales), adds in a great deal of colorful characters all at each other’s throats, and tops it all off with the worst possible things happening at the worst possible moments. Here is a movie about rescuing animals that becomes far more political than one might expect, while also including real human beings for characters instead of genre archetypes.

We begin in the Arctic, shooting in the town of Barrow. Our lead is Adam Carlson (John Krasinski), a likable man whom we first meet doing a news story on a Mexican restaurant. Way up in one of the northernmost cities in the world, it takes four plane rides to acquire an avocado. Adam’s sidekick is a young boy named Nathan (Ahmaogak Sweeney), a kid who isn’t too fond of his native heritage and traditions. Adam is planning on leaving the town before the week is up, but after being coerced into doing one more story, he soon discovers that whales have become trapped in the ice.

What is there to do? The natives have an idea: Harpoon the whales and eat them. Adam’s ex-girlfriend, a Greenpeace activist, hears about the story and flies up there — after berating Adam for not telling her himself, despite her orders to never call her for anything. “This is different,” she exclaims. There’s some tension between them, we learn, and instantly we know that they shouldn’t be together. She wants to figure out a way to save the whales, most notably by mobilizing the National Guard.

Soon enough, Adam’s story essentially goes viral (if such a thing could realistically happen in 1988). It plays on national television, and soon enough, every major network is sending reporters to cover the whale story. One of these reporters is Jill (Kristen Bell), whom Adam has had a crush on for some time. They hit it off after meeting, and spend a great deal of the film together, even though the character of Jill vanishes for a thirty minute stretch, eventually leading to her becoming unnecessary.

Meanwhile, the whale story has become a worldwide phenomenon. Everyone tunes into their television sets in order to bear witness to the events that are happening in northern Alaska. Even President Reagan gets involved at one point. The decision is made to haul an oil drill to break through the ice surrounding the whales so that they can swim to the sea. But currently, they’re trapped with only a patch of visible water to breathe out of, and it’s closing up fast.

Much of Big Miracle is concerned with keeping these whales alive. Taking place in a subzero climate makes it difficult to keep the ice from freezing, although various methods are tried. The whales’ condition eventually worsens, other things go wrong, and a lot of improvisation takes place. Some of the tactics work, while others fail. It’s surprising just how much tension can be generated when you put a few animals in a perilous situation, and Big Miracle milks that for all it’s worth.

Despite the ever-present whale situation whose news sweeps across nations, there is also a human element to this production. It’s refreshing to see your typical bad guys (the uncaring profit-driven oil driller, the Russians, and so on), put aside their differences in order to help these poor creatures. But they don’t do this by completely switching around their characters, either. The businessman still doesn’t like the Greenpeace activist, for example. Differences are put aside for these whales, but the whole situation doesn’t define, nor is it the sole motivating factor, for these people. They’re all very human characters, filled with flaws and strengths just like anyone watching the movie.

It’s difficult to set a movie in the arctic and not make it atmospheric, so it should come to no surprise that Big Miracle is just that. You feel cold while watching this film, even if it’s a little difficult to believe that the characters would be able to perform just fine in -50C weather without something to cover their faces. This is a movie that felt authentic and that everything that happened, no matter how crazy, really could (and did) take place. When you base your film on true events, this is important.

Part of what makes this film successful is the amazing job done with creating lifelike whales. While we rarely see the full creature (usually one will just come up for air and we’ll see its head for a couple of seconds), one could be mistaken for thinking that real whales were used. All three of them are given different bodies so that we can tell them apart, and they function well enough as their own characters.

Where Big Miracle falters is in its actors and in its story, although the latter is less of a fault and says more about a potential viewer than it does of the film. Firstly, the acting is all over the place, although it gets better as the film progresses. In the first half, most of the actors seemed to struggle with their delivery, and nobody was terribly convincing. As it progressed, the acting go better. Secondly, it would be nigh impossible to tell this story without it coming across as cheesy. If you can’t handle a cheesy story, then you’ll want to skip this movie. This is more of a way to narrow down a target audience than a real fault, but it bears mentioning.

When it comes right down to it, Big Miracle is an enjoyable movie. It manages to overcome spotty acting and a corny script to become a smart film with deep-enough characters and some tension thanks to everything that just has to go wrong at exactly the worst time it can. It’s worth watching if you don’t mind a corny story and can handle some poorly acted scenes, especially if you want to see some very lifelike whales and learn about the real story that took place in 1988.

Poor Will Burton (Gaelan Connell). His school sucks, he’s constantly bullied, he has no friends, and he writes daily emails to David Bowie (which serve as our voice-over narration), but is never given a response. The day we join him, he’s knocked down by one of the jocks, called “Dewey” and then has a water balloon dropped on him while he was on the ground. After getting home, his mother (Lisa Kudrow) asks him what she can say to make it better. He tells her that he wants her to quit her job and have them move. So that’s what happens, as she had already quit her job (for whatever reason).

They move, and he gets to a new school. A fresh start could do him some good, we figure. At lunch, a band begins playing, and we’re told that in 3,600 hours, an event called “Bandslam” will take place. Everyone but Will and a girl named Sa5m (Vanessa Hudgens) go up to the stage and cheer. She explains that the “5″ in her name is silent, and that they have one class together. They partner up for a project, and their friendship begins. They both hate the mall, they’re both largely antisocial, and they seem to get along quite well.

The next day, Will is approached by the popular Charlotte (Aly Michalka). She’s in a band, and has him tag along to rehearsal. Before he knows it, he’s making suggestions and is told that he’s the new manager. They’re going to try to compete in Bandslam, even though the high school is already entering one band, led by Charlotte’s ex-boyfriend Ben (Scott Porter). Will is more popular than he’s ever been before — he does have two whole friends now — and he’s having the time of his life. What could go wrong?

Well, for a lot of the time, not all that much. things go swimmingly up until the final half hour, or thereabouts at least. I won’t spoil what exactly happens, but characters switch around in ways you may or may not expect. Unfortunately, these changes don’t last all that long, usually reversed in the next scene or sometimes two scenes down the line, and they end up not amounting to much. That’s too bad, but it allows the characters to grow without expanding the runtime a great deal, which means that Bandslam doesn’t feel too bloated.

So, yeah, it’s a coming-of-age comedy involving two former Disney stars and a largely unknown actor. It feels a lot life a Disney film, except that the dialogue isn’t as frothy as you’d expect from that type of film. For instance, Sa5m thinks that “emotion is overrated,” while Will asks David Bowie “how do you tell Pinocchio he’ll never be a real boy?” after first seeing Charlotte’s band. the dialogue was actually quite well-written, and for the most part, I enjoyed listening to these characters interact with one another.

It should be noted that there are some musical numbers within the film, although apart from the Bandslam at the end, they only occur during practice, and they don’t last particularly long. It isn’t a musical where characters burst into song whenever they feel like it, but those of you who dislike singing in movies will get annoyed by Bandslam. At least the two singers (Michalka and Hudgens) actually are singers in real life, and that actually helps lend some credibility and believability to their roles.

Eventually, things degenerate into melodrama without much actual reason for it. A blown-off date (to see Evil Dead II, I might add), a death in the family, and suddenly Will has messed everything up. But, like I mentioned earlier, things seem to fix themselves too quickly for it to make much of an impact. I get that it helps the pacing, but sometimes time needs to be spent in solving the problems instead of just allowing them to arbitrarily solve themselves. Although, since it became a problem without much reason, I guess solving it that way sticks with that idea.

Maybe their sudden turns would have made more sense if their characters were more developed. Will is the loner kid, the one that nobody should like, and I understood why. Even when he was hanging out with two of the prettiest girls in school, he was still complaining — although the “why” to his complaints was overlooked. Charlotte is just really nice for most of the time, but then has a turn later that makes little sense. Sa5m’s switch around kind of makes sense, as she’s not one to sing to sky to begin with, but the turnaround afterward doesn’t ring true to the note she was playing. We needed more depth to these characters, and while there’s ample opportunity to give it, that never happens.

For a large portion of the film’s second act, nothing of importance happens. Relationships develop, sure, but in terms of plot, there isn’t anything. We could have been given hints regarding these characters or been told something about them that would make later actions make sense. But nothing of the sort happens, and we meander around for more than half of the film, not accomplishing anything. We still enjoy the time because the dialogue is funny and these people are likable, but their surface-level in terms of depth.

Bandslam is a watchable, family-friendly experience that will actually be watchable for most of the adults as well. Or, it will be unless you hate musical numbers in films, because there are a few here. At the very least, it has likable — albeit shallow — characters and some intelligent dialogue. Oh, and there’s also a David Bowie cameo. If nothing else, you might giggle with glee when that happens.

Ghost Rider fans, tell me that this film isn’t the pinnacle of the franchise. Reinforce the fact that this is a character that deserves a film that does him justice. This is supposed to be a “cool” character, isn’t it? Why has it been given such a terrible film? I got a headache after watching Ghost Rider. This is a mess of a movie that tells a story that could be contained to a 15-minute Saturday cartoon if it didn’t have so much pointlessness.

We open with such an overlong introductory sequence that I feel bad for even having to describe it. Essentially, a kid named Johnny Blaze (he grows up to be played by Nicolas Cage) and his father do stunts on their motorcycles at a carnival. His father has cancer, but the Devil (Peter Fonda) shows up and tells us that Johnny can sell his soul and have his father’s cancer cured. Johnny does this, but the next day his dad dies. Not from the cancer, but because of an accident. Johnny blames the Devil, but the Devil says that he cured the cancer, so the deal is still solid. Johnny’s soul now belongs to him.

Clearly traumatized by the event, Johnny rides off, leaving the love of his life, Roxanne (Eva Mendes) at the carnival. He then grows up to be a professional stunt rider. Like I said, his father’s accident clearly had an effect on his mental stability. He’s the best in the world, somehow, and even after he fails at one of his stunts that would likely kill a normal man, he survives. Why? The Devil is keeping him alive, that’s why! Meanwhile, Roxanne is a news reporter and is in-town for the current stunt show. The two, after not having talked in years, make plans for dinner.

Mr. Blaze isn’t going to make it to dinner. See, the Devil kept him alive for one purpose: Turning him into the comic book character “Ghost Rider” in order to track down a contract containing 1,000 souls in order to stop a man named Blackheart (Wes Bentley) from getting it first. Or something like that. I hope that summarizes it well enough. It’s ridiculous, but this is a comic book movie involving the Devil and a man who turns into a flaming-skull-dude at night. Of course, this is only revealed on the night of his big date, and because he has no control over his body while in this “Ghost Rider” state, he doesn’t make it.

Of course, I wouldn’t want to show up to a date with the flaming-skull-head that Johnny ends up acquiring. Not because of the potential fire hazard that comes from such a thing, nor because everyone would be terrified to even come near me. No, I would be ashamed because of the terrible CGI used to give me such a head. To call this the worst big-budget rendering of a character in the 21st century might not be exaggerating. It looks awful. I’ve seen better-looking computer graphics in PlayStation 2 games! This is a 2007 film, and it looks worse than something like Spawn, which came out a decade earlier!

Moving on from the terrible CGI-head, the other special effects are not quite as terrible, but they come close. It seems that Ghost Rider can’t go five minutes without shoving CGI in our face. The only thing that looks all right is the fire effects used on Johnny’s bike, but considering how often poor/lazy CGI is used in this film, this is hardly a saving grace.

The police also get involved at one point, attempting to pin a murder on Johnny Blaze. We saw his “Ghost Rider” persona kill the guy (although he was a criminal, so it’s okay), but Johnny denies it. The cops actually go to Roxanne at one point and try to get information from her. At this point, I said out loud that once Johnny inevitably escapes from the cops, we’ll never see them again. I was, unfortunately, right, and it turns out that subplot was just a waste of our time.

So is Roxanne’s. There’s supposed to be a lot of tension between the two, especially considering Johnny left her while they were in love and then later stood her up after getting his second chance, but that’s resolved in a matter of moments without any prior motivation. It’s then when Roxanne becomes Generic Love Interest and we lose any reason to care about what happens to her because she’s now a stock character. Worse, in fact, as she has no personality and is played by Eva Mendes.

Oh, yes, there’s also another pointless addition in the form of the “Caretaker” (Sam Elliott), who knows way more about being a “Ghost Rider” — there have been more in the past and presumably will be more in the future, we learn — than Johnny does. So, he acts like a mentor except he only appears about four times, one of which has him get on a horse, ride with Johnny for some of the distance they have to travel, and then stop and say: “Good luck, kid, but I’m not going any farther. That’s dangerous!” Or at least that’s what it seemed like. I’m not sure anymore. I’m still hoping I dreamt the entire thing and that my subconscious isn’t a very good storyteller.

Ghost Rider is an absolute mess. It has no coherency, little clarity, is without a single point or purpose, and contains terrible special effects that it seems very proud of despite being worse than films a decade earlier. You can usually rely on these superhero films to at the very least look good, but Ghost Rider doesn’t even satisfy my desire to see good special effects. This is one of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen, and I can’t recommend it to anyone, even if you’re a die-hard fan of the character. You’ll just wind up disappointed and crying, wondering what you and other Ghost Rider fans did to deserve this atrocity.

Anyone who has been a fan of BoxOfficeBoredom.com over any portion of the last 10 years of it’s existence knows that The Mike and I have never been shy about proclaiming our love for Nicolas Cage. Nic Cage has always been that quirky actor that just didn’t seem to have all of his marbles lined up in quite the right order, but we love him anyway. The last few years have been rough on Cage, and after Season of The Witch, who can really blame people for associating him with terrible cinema. So in order to prove to you that Nic Cage is awesome, we continue our quest to prove by rehashing the early Cage we all know and love. (Read More)

From Léon: The Professional, I learned a few things about becoming a hitman. First, you need to drink milk instead of alcohol. It’s a rule, apparently, although it gets broken once in this film to hilarious results. Secondly, being a hitman is not difficult. In fact, a twelve-year-old girl can become one if she’s trained for a few days. All you need to do is know where to shoot a gun, and do a few situps every day. Finally, you don’t need to know how to read to become a hitman, although it does occasionally help your cause.

As you’ve no doubt figured out, Léon: The Professional has a hitman in it. They’re referred to as “cleaners” in the film, and our “professional” from the title is named Léon (Jean Reno). He only drinks milk, he cares deeply for a plant that he carries around with him, and he has a heart, although how big the heart is will be tested over the course of the film. He’s neighbors with Mathilda (Natalie Portman), the twelve-year-old I mentioned earlier. She lives in an abusive household, and he feels sorry for her. She’s beaten quite frequently, and he takes note of this, despite not doing anything about it. He’s too reserved for that.

One day, thanks to her father’s idiocy in messing with drug dealers, her entire family is murdered. Luckily for her, she was sent to get groceries. Léon takes her in for the night, but she ends up staying longer than that. The murderers were led by a corrupt DEA officer (Gary Oldman), who loves his classical music, even if it does get a little boring after the introduction. Or so he tells her father before killing the man. He’s not only just corrupt, he’s crazy. Of course, you expect this since Gary Oldman is playing him, but that type of cartoon character almost doesn’t fit in a film like this. I say “almost” because it still ends up working, but a more down-to-Earth portrayal probably would have been better.

After taking Mathilda in, Léon is forced into teaching her how to become a hitman. She claims that she’ll kill herself if he doesn’t, and she actually comes very close to doing so. She wants revenge, and since she doesn’t have the money to pay Léon, she’s going to learn how to kill so that she can do it herself. How much training the foul-mouthed girl needs is another story, as she earlier shows that she knows how to handle a gun. Regardless, the plot concerns the training of Mathilda, as well as the budding relationship between her and her mentor.

Yes, I said “relationship.” What of it? While it’s not made especially clear what extents this relationship grows to, and exactly how Léon feels about Mathilda, she claims multiple times to be in love with him. It often seems more like a father/daughter relationship to me, although maybe not to her. It almost gets to the point where her dialogue is somewhat creepy, in that she says things we don’t expect her to understand, let alone say. I can see how this can be off-putting, and while I was put off occasionally, I was also curious as to how far writer/director Luc Besson would take this, which kept me watching.

The best parts of Léon: The Professional are the scenes in which Léon is allowed to act like a hitman instead of a father. Watching him silently eliminating many men at one time is fascinating, even if he does seem to move faster than is possible. He plans these murders, and then he follows through with them in the most efficient way that he’s capable of. It’s a shame that there are only a couple of these moments, although the first scene includes one which gives us an instant hook.

The worst moments come near the end, which is a loud shootout involving a bunch of faceless police officers who are somehow coaxed into trying to kill Léon and Mathilda. It’s such a departure from the smooth, calm demeanor of the rest of the film, and it also forces the film to conclude in a far more abrupt manner than it deserved. I’m not going to spoil how it ends, although it’s unlikely to surprise you, even if when it finished might.

Since we spend most of the film’s runtime with these two characters, they need to be well-acted. Thankfully, they are. Jean Reno is the more quiet, reserved character, although he’s capable of some high-energy action scenes. Natalie Portman is more obnoxious and outspoken, likely due to her age. But when they get to know one another, they begin to start sharing personality traits and developing as characters. There are character arcs here, even if the villain sings one note throughout, never changing his tune, pitch or melody. He may take inspiration from Beethoven, but he has nowhere near as much depth.

Actually, when I think about it, a weak antagonist is the biggest issue I have with Léon: The Professional. Granted, it’s not exactly a film that’s about good guys and bad guys doing battle, but had there been a stronger villain, we’d have a more interesting climax. Instead, we have this cartoon character who we simply cannot take seriously. Improve the villain — give us a credible threat — and you have an exceptional film. As it is, we just have a very good one.

Léon: The Professional is a great film that needed a better villain to propel it into the upper echelon of films. But it has interesting, deep and well-acted characters, as well as some very fun action scenes. The ending action scene needed to be changed, and the finale didn’t need to come as quickly as it did, but on the whole, I had a really fun time with it. I can see some people getting creeped out by the relationship between the two main characters, but it intrigued me more than it put me off watching the film. This is a film you should definitely give a chance.

White Collar

Well, it so happens that Alien Vs. Ninja is not as exciting as one would think it would be.  The film revolves around two great ninja warriors and their ninja counterparts as they investigate a large fireball that fell from the sky and landed in the forest next to their village. What they discover is an alien life form that is sent to earth to destroy man kind and life as they know it.  In order to try and stop the slaughter of their own village and simply to stay alive, the ninjas must find a way to stop their new unstoppable foe.

I’ve seen a lot of low budget flicks in my time. Alien Vs. Ninja certainly is one of them.  However, it handles it’s budget issues with a bit of class.  It spends money on some special effects where needed and backs its mediocre product up with some “decent” cinematography and camera work for the caliber of film it is.  Make no mistake- the makers of this film are not going for any high goals and trying to achieve Oscar dreams.  They are simply trying to make a fun movie with Aliens and Ninjas meeting up.

Action sequences in Alien Vs. Ninja actually are better than I expected once the movie started rolling.  With that being said, the film had its moments of uber cheese and some scenes that were down right ridiculous.  There is a fight scene in this movie between an alien and a female ninja that is so overtly sexual that it is creepy (and worthy to be posted in the video to the left).  While the makers of the film were trying to be humorous and action packed at the same time, this move comes off as slightly inappropriate and kind of awkward to watch.  It’s so terrible you chuckle the first time you see it; You find yourself slightly embarrassed for all involved the second time you watch it. The fight scenes between the male leads take a much more serious tone.  While they certainly also have their moments that force you to stretch the imagination they don’t seem as “stupid” as any sequence that stars the female ninja.

Where Alien Vs. Ninja goes wrong is that the film tries too hard to be funny.  I kept feeling like I was watching an inside joke amongst the film makers .   One of the supporting cast was an aging ninja who I guess was a weapons expert and an all around doofus.  His dubbed voice made him sound like a buffoon; but it equally matched his actions as well.  I guess the makers of this film wanted him to be comic relief.  The problem is- it didn’t really work in this film.

I somehow found myself over looking gaping plot holes, a man in a rubber alien suit that looked like a dolphin head with a few extra blow holes and some grey vinyl pants as well as some stunt work that was beyond laughable.  I quickly learned I  was watching a film with a production quality that was slightly better than an episode of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers for a mature audience mixed with a hint of bad dubbing and comedy from Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. Once I settled into that reality, I realized I actually had fun Alien Vs. Ninja.  It’s terrible in all the ways you want an awesomely bad movie to be.  I laughed,  I groaned, I questioned why I was watching it and I settled into a movie that really shouldn’t have been on my radar in the first place.  If you’re looking for Alien movies for an all time great “Alien Invasion” movie list I will be the first to say that Alien Vs Ninja shouldn’t even be on your list.  However as much as I want to mock this film for all its faults, I found my way to the credits of this 80 minute flick with a love/hate relationship with it.  I wouldn’t suggest it to anyone; but then again I wouldn’t run screaming from it if someone I know suggested it as a late night, bad movie get together film.

A long, long time ago, unicorns, goblins and fairies roamed the Earth. Legend wants to tell as story about Light vs. Dark, evil vs. good, and all that awesome stuff. It wants to, and it largely succeeds. This is a rather fun fairy tale, even if it is fairly dark at times. And even if the story isn’t necessarily the freshest thing out there, at least the film’s visuals will enchant you and make you want to see more.

We begin with a problem, or perhaps it isn’t a problem depending on which side of the light spectrum you’re on. If you’re a human, elf or fairy, you’re going to be disheartened by this news. Conversely, goblins or even the Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) himself, you’ll be happy. Unicorns are dying out. There are only two remaining on the planet, and if they go extinct, darkness will consume the Earth. The Lord of Darkness instructs one of his minions (who speaks almost solely in rhymes, for some reason) to go kill the remaining unicorns. The bait: Two idyllic young lovers who haven’t a care in the world.

We then head to a forest, where Jack (Tom Cruise) and Lily (Mia Sara) are prancing around like the innocents they are. Jack decides to take Lily to see the unicorns, because that’s a good way to show that you love someone. She decides to ignore the rule of “don’t touch the unicorns,” and before you know it, one of them has lost a horn, the sky has darkened, snow begins falling in heavy quantities, and chaos is everywhere. Lily runs away and Jack begins to search for her. (I use the term “run” very loosely when describing Lily’s method of moving quickly from place to place, as she doesn’t move her arms and never seems to be in too much of a hurry.)

Before you know it, Lily and the remaining horned-unicorn have been captured, Jack is found by a few elves (the most prominent one is played by David Bennent), and we have ourselves a save-the-princess quest. You wouldn’t initially think that Jack would be capable of defeating the Lord of Darkness, but you’d be surprised what acrobatic stunts he can pull.

Legend plays out like an adventure film located in a place that wants to look like a dream. There’s so much snow, glitter or bubbles floating around everywhere that it’s sometimes hard to make out just where we are. I wanted to appreciate the set designs, but I couldn’t because most of the time, they looked too similar to one another to seem different. The forest looks great before it’s overtaken by snow, but afterward it looks like the budget didn’t have room for it. Darkness hides shoddy production values, right?

Anyway, apart from a couple of less-than-spectacular action scenes, we’re mostly just here to watch Jack and his friends try to find and rescue the woman. She, on the other hand, has become the main desire of the Lord of Darkness, explained away because her soul is pure. His plan: Make her join the dark side. Seemed flawed to me, as the reason he has such a lust in the first place is because of her purity. If he converts her and makes her do things like kill the unicorn, won’t that purity, and his reason for affection, be lost? Regardless, it provides solid reason to care about her, and we really hope Jack will save her. They’re both just so sweet!

Despite the different sets being hard to discern from one another, the costuming is top-notch. I can only imagine just how much work went into the costume design and makeup for this film. Every time a character not named Jack or Lily was on-screen, I had to do a double take to make sure I wasn’t seeing things. Tim Curry’s Lord of Darkness is especially impressive, although the work done on the goblins and elves was also stunning. Like I said, even if the story doesn’t particularly fascinate you, there’s something else to keep you engaged or interested.

I liked the story. I thought it was sweet, charming, and dark enough to not seem too much like your generic “everyone’s happy all the time” fairy tale. Tone and atmosphere are both set — sometimes almost too well; seriously, we get the time-lapse shot of clouds rolling by so often that calling it “redundant” would not be strong enough of a word — well, while the pacing of the film is quick and rarely gives you time to catch your breath. Legend enchanted me.

Actors got lost in this film. It wouldn’t matter if Tom Cruise was in it, as he doesn’t really stand out. Tim Curry is buried beneath so many gorgeous prosthetics that it’s difficult to tell that it’s even him. The elves are all just background characters, while Mia Sara (in her first major role) is just sweet enough to make her character work, even though she doesn’t get a lot of time either. The pacing is so quick, in fact, that Legend feels over well before it needed to be. I wanted to see more from everyone in the production, as I felt their characters had more to offer us.

I had a really fun time with Legend. While it feels more like a passing dream than a staple in the adventure genre, I can’t deny that it was really enjoyable to watch. When you can see the sets, they’re gorgeous. The costuming and makeup are both top-notch, and the story, while not being very original, is enjoyable and quite sweet when you think about the characters within it. It likely could have used more character moments, and on the whole felt a bit short, but it’s still a great film that I would recommend to anyone.

However, in looking at the site statistics, it’s obvious that people like to know where others are.  People really like to know where Joe Lando is as well as Chad Michael Murray.  (I have a hint for you– at the time of this posting it is not on an A list movie set that’s for sure).  Joe Lando and Chad Michael Murray’s Where Are They? Wednesday still is one of the most clicked on links on the site for some reason.  What started off as me doing my part as a space filling joke turned into some of the most searched content on the site.  It’s funny how that happens.  I need your ideas guys and dolls.  I need some where are they nows? to track down.  You can help.  Fill out our contact form on the site or let us know who you want me to find on our Facebook Fan Page .

As for me, Nate Grenbeck- let me tell you where I am.  I’m right here.—and going to be here in 2012.  Deal with it!  Read it-or don’t.  Comment- or don’t.  I’m gonna keep rounding up the washed up stars of yesteryear whether you want me to or not.

The characters of Ocean’s Thirteen have a purpose, and the plot is one of revenge this time. One of the original eleven, Reuben (Elliott Gould), is trying to get into the casino and hotel business. He starts one up with his partner, Willy Bank (Al Pacino). To his surprise, even though he claims that he knew Willy does this to all of his “partners,” he is betrayed and put in a vegetative state.

The rest of the group swears revenge, and decides to sabotage the opening night of the new casino/hotel “The Bank,” which I figured was a clever name. “Hey, honey, I’m going to The Bank.” The spouse would never know. It’s brilliant! If you’re reading at this point, you should already know the cast. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and others. Notably absent are Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones, with their absence explained to us as “not their fight.” That’s a shame, because it would have meant we’d have a strong female character, something missing from this flick.

Ocean’s Thirteen follows the general heist movie formula, with very few deviations. It’s much like the first movie in this regard, except that there isn’t any time spent introducing the characters; since we’ve already seen them for two movies, this would be redundant in my eyes anyway. We get time to set-up the caper, and then we watch it getting pulled off. This time, it’s personal, and the man they’re targeting is a genuine villain. This made me happy, because these movies often target people who haven’t done anything wrong. This time, Willy Bank has done something wrong: He put Reuben in the hospital.

If you’ve seen the first Ocean’s movie, you’ve basically seen this one, except you’ve seen a better version of this one. The first movie, which is still the best of the series, had a focus on the characters, and we enjoyed spending time in their company. This time, although the plot is similar, the characters don’t get much focus at all, with the filmmakers banking on the fact that we care about them from the previous movies.

The dialogue has improved this time around, which I’m happy about because it wasn’t great last time around. Oh, most of it is explaining exactly what’s going to happen when the actual heist occurs, but when we don’t focus on that, and instead get the characters to talk with one another about whatever is on their mind, it’s both clever and interesting. There’s not enough of it, but at least it is there, and an effort was made in this regard.

As with many of these films, there are severe logical problems. This time around, the main one I think about is how the group manages to get a gigantic drill into Las Vegas, and get it all the way to the casino so that it can create a fake Earthquake to try to put the security system offline, but it only lasts that way for just over three minutes. This security system, called “Greco,” can even determine if casino wins are legitimate, something that nobody ever doubts. A woman wins millions of dollars at the slots, and doesn’t even get an interview. It is an infallible system, and more importantly, I want one.

One the actual heist starts to happen, I was entertained. The set-up, which takes more than the first hour to finish, certainly builds it up to be something great. It is, with one last minute switch around being one of the funnies parts, just because you get to see one character’s face after finding out that he’s been duped. There are actually quite a few funny moments, most of which you might not get if you haven’t seen the previous films. Some, you might not get even if you have, because this is a series that loves its inside jokes.

I’d love to see how the budget for this, and the previous films of the series, has been used. This film, like Ocean’s Eleven, had $85 million to spend. Considering how big many of the stars are, I’m curious as to how much was spent on the stars, and how much was left for everything else. There aren’t many special effects, nor is there much need for them, but I certainly am curious. Maybe they spent to the limit, which meant there couldn’t be a Topher Grace cameo.

Some of the running gags from the previous movies were brought back here. One element that didn’t recur was one of the cast members trying to gain back a loved one. I figure that would have been a fairly easy thing to include, with Matt Damon’s character being the obvious one to go through this scenario. I was actually quite surprised at how nobody went in this direction, especially with how many similar things came back from the previous movies of this trilogy.

It’s still good entertainment, and it’s a step up from Ocean’s Twelve. At least this time, the plot isn’t moving at such an accelerated speed that it forgets its earlier moments. We can follow along this time, and while it’s still missing the special something from Ocean’s Eleven, I still had fun. The actors are still, well, high profile actors for a reason, and there is actually a good reason to pull off one big heist this time, which I was very glad about. Had the characters been better developed, this would probably be the best Ocean’s movie so far. As it is, it’s a solid heist movie that’s quite a bit of fun.

Very strange film this one. Imagine a sophisticated Robot Wars world, where basically the public want to see fights to the death, but without people dying, so what about huge mecha robots instead of humans? Well in this future world thats based on a novella from Richard Matheson (I Am Legend) is Hugh Jackman, a retired boxer who is stubborn, selfish and basically a bit of an idiot. His ex has died leaving him having to sign over the son he’s never seen to his ex’s rich sister. However, part of the deal is to take his son for the Summer while they enjoy a long holiday. Cue uplifting music …

This isn’t a film that’s going to add anything new, but it takes a well tried formula and shows how something cheesy can still work. Jackman gives something which could easily have become quite stupid into something that actually has an emotion pull behind it. You can come away from this film thinking it’s just a stupid action film, but I’d argue it’s much more of a drama. Which doesn’t help by being called ‘Real Steel’ – but then the title has a bit more meaning behind it. It’s saying that you might be tough and think you have balls of steel, but it takes real balls to do something like look after a kid – to become in a way, selfless, that is real steel. Not that Jackman ever completely goes that far, but his transition from lone wolf to Dad is a good one – and it helps that there are massive robots along the way.

As for the robot, director Shawn Levy, known for some far from funny fodder like Night At The Museum, gives their scrapyard robot a heart. Hard for something that basically shows no emotion. However the robot is actually a metaphor for the heart and soul of Jackman. They find him as he is literally holding onto his son, saving his life. He is covered in dirt and memories of old robot boxers (much like Jackman’s own past) and the son cleans him up, cares for him, makes him grow. The robot’s child like innocence is also apparent in the way it copies actions, it’s simple eyes, it’s bowl-cut like hair/helmet, his ability to take a knock but not good at fighting back. His weakness is actually his strength. There is some hint that the robot can understand the son, but doesn’t want to admit it, much like the way Jackman takes a while to admit to himself that he does indeed care about the son he’s never seen. The robot is the true inner strength of Jackman and it’s nice that this is acknowledged rather than a Michael Bay slugfest.

The most poignant scene for me was when the robot was left by himself, staring into the mirror – an extended shot that leaves the audience wondering if there is anything behind those blue eyes, be it fear or courage, it’s hard to tell, it’s literally a blank canvas for the audience to paint their own feelings on, if any. The robot becomes not only a sign for Jackman, but also a very real connection, albeit hobby, for him and his son to connect over. It’s quite a touching film that’s less about fighting and about their relationship, Jackman turning in front of everyone’s eyes from irresponsible to responsible, all the while making it believable that this kid could be his own son. The end becoming literally him fighting for him.

Of course there are stupid moments, there’s some awkward dancing, some one-dimensional enemies, a rather predictable and ridiculous Rocky plot – even for robot boxing, in addition to some unnecessary sub-plots. Also the fact you see the robot in the poster and trailers, you’re just tapping your foot waiting for him to start using the robot you know he’s going to use, which doesn’t really happen until halfway through. But that just might be me. The robots actually look quite good and not too cartoony, still quite like Transformers, but in a good way.

Overall, I really enjoyed it and with something that could have easily gone so wrong, it’s refreshing to see something that families can enjoy and that doesn’t have the gooey syrup of family fodder poured all over it. At the same time, as much as I love robots and watching them fight, I’d rather just watch Rocky.

In its third October, the Paranormal Activity series is certainly going strong. Since it’s interested in going into the past, it’s only fair that I remind you all how far back the PA movies and I go. The first movie, for lack of a better explanation, shook me to the core when I saw it in theaters, despite some concerns that arose when I actually stopped to think about it. When it hit home video I checked it out again, and was surprised to find that it still held much of the chill I had seen before. The first sequel, which served as an immediate prequel to the first film AND a follow up to its ending, hit just over a year later, and left me a little less pleased than the original. But revisits to that film have made me feel a little better about it, and left me excited to check out the third film in the series, which is another prequel.

After a brief opening with original star Katie Featherston and her on-screen sequel sister Kristy (played by Sprauge Grayden) that precedes the events of PA2, we’re taken back in time (thanks to a box of old VHS tapes) to the totally tubular 1980s, where childhood versions of Katie and Kristy first begin to experience the activity we’ve come to expect from these films. We’re joined by their mother and her live-in boyfriend, the latter of whom shoots wedding videos as a job and thus really likes using camcorders around the house. (These camcorders also appear to take HD Widescreen video of all the film’s events despite being in 6 hour EP mode, but I think we’re supposed to ignore that.)

The film that follows is certainly the most playful entry in this young series – which is sure to add a fourth film next year after this one broke box office records this weekend – thanks to a little more comedy and some unique tricks to keep things interesting. Christopher Nicholas Smith takes the skeptical lead role as the girls’ father figure, and his interactions with his friends and the girls add for a little bit humor in the otherwise tense film. Smith fits well alongside directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, who helmed last year’s faux-documentary hit Catfish, who seem to have an knack for teasing the viewer like the first film’s helmer, Oren Peli did. Their film is less physically assaulting – particularly with a friendly sound design which doesn’t overuse LOUD NOISES to scare – than the first two PA films, but maintains the same unease that filled them.

One of the new tricks that adds to the film’s tension, as silly as it sounds, comes when Smith’s character figures out that he can rig a camera on the base of an oscillating fan to view two rooms at once. This slow panning shot of the family’s living room and kitchen is one of the film’s most lasting images, and really does a great job of taking control out of the viewer’s hands. For me, the first film was so effective because I didn’t know what to expect, and much of the second film lost its effectiveness by pushing the same vision as its predecessor. This simple trick to keep the camera mobile and build tension as the fan slowly turns from one room to the next had me back on the edge, because I wasn’t just looking at the same spot waiting for something to pop out. This little trick forced me out of my comfort zone, which was a strong achievement for Joost & Schulman’s film.

PA3 moves at a very brisk pace, and the script ties together most of – but certainly not all of – the major events from the first two films in unique ways. If there’s one thing we’ve learned through the two pre/sequels to the first film, it’s that creator/producer Oren Peli and the filmmakers he’s working with have some unique ideas for how to keep this franchise going. I wouldn’t dream of telling you where this film ends up – you’ll probably guess it due to a few hints that tie in to revelations from PA2 – but the final act gave me some serious chills.

PA3 feels like a more polished film than the first two flicks, but I think I like that about it. I dig Joost & Schulman’s willingness to toy with the viewer, and their touch leaves PA3 feeling like a more fun production than the earlier films in the series. Since they’re able to add levity to the film without dropping the chills – especially in the final scenes – PA3 feels like a complete horror film. I don’t think it reaches the heights that the original did for me – I doubt I’ll ever be as vulnerable to this activity as I was two years ago – but it’s a fun experience that has me interested in seeing how the fourth film will continue to tie things together.

As I near an end, it’s worth noting that many scenes that were shown in advertisements for the film (about 60% of the trailer linked below, for example) are completely missing from the film that ended up on the screen. I chalked this up to the tricky nature of the filmmakers – who are still claiming Catfish wasn’t fictional – and wasn’t bothered, but folks who paid attention to the film’s marketing will probably be as surprised by what’s not in the film as they are by what’s in the film.

Still, I don’t think that trickery takes anything away from PA3. If anything I think it – like that silly oscillating camera gag that works about 5 or 6 times – just adds to the charm of this chapter in the Paranormal story. And that charm has me sure that I’ll be ready to dig in to another chapter of that story if it hits screens next October.

There are some films that I consider undeniably good, despite not being a particular fan of them. These are films that I’ll watch once, possibly giving a second look down the road, but never really having a strong desire to watch them over and over again. The Runaways is one of these films.

The reason why I didn’t fall in love with the film was largely due to the fact that I don’t care all that much for the music involved in it. See, the music plays a large part of the film, given the fact that it is a biopic on the band “The Runaways,” and to be honest, that distanced the film from me. Despite this, the film wasn’t bad, I can see this even without being a big fan of it.

The main reason that the film doesn’t end up being a failure is due to its lead actresses (who actually performed their own vocal tracks for the film). “The Runaways” was a rock band formed in the 1970’s, and had many members. The two most prominently featured members, if the film is to believed, were Joan Jett and Cherie Currie. Jett is played by Kristen Stewart, and is a rebellious teenager. She plays guitar and performs backing vocals. The lead singer is Currie (Dakota Fanning).

Fanning’s performance is definitely the most memorable thing to remember about The Runaways, and is definitely the highlight of the film. Her performance is almost too mature for words, with her giving her character far more depth than is required, or even demanded by the screenplay.

The main problem with the film is that it doesn’t really get all that deep into the band. It is more of an overview of the band’s history, rather than an in-depth character piece. The characters are interesting, we get that much, but we don’t get to learn enough about them to feel completely satisfied by the end of the movie.

While they are interesting, they are anything but likable characters. This actually works out, but is something I feel like mentioning. Characters — all teenagers or “young adults” — smoke, drink and do drugs, cussing at anyone who angers them. This does help to make them interesting, and acts as a good contrast with how teenagers are expected to act.

But that’s kind of the point, is it not? The Runaways were rebels, and it is only fitting that they are portrayed as such. It is a biopic after all. I expect that The Runaways is at least mostly true to the real story of their creation, career and destruction. While I’m sure some liberties in the story were taken, but the story still seemed to be true enough, at least for me to believe.

Also to be praised are the vocal performances by Stewart and Fanning. They sung their own songs (except for one song where Fanning lip-syncs to David Bowie), and they are actually quite good. The real Joan Jett apparently heard Stewart singing, and believed it was her. The duo is good on stage together, and are also quite convincing off-stage.

The pair of Stewart and Fanning have a lot of chemistry together, and when they appear on-screen together, the film brightens up. Not in tone, but in terms of excitement. They bring something special to the screen, and it is enjoyable watching them together. It would have been nice to see them get a better script to work with, as their characters don’t get enough development, or at least, not as much as I would have liked to see.

I’ll admit that the film did give me an interest into The Runaways as a band. By the end of the film, my interest piqued for both the band and their music. It started to grow on me, and I was getting into the musical performances near the middle of the film. The film did give me enough about the characters to make me want to learn more about the band, and if that was its goal, it accomplished that.

The story is one that, despite not seeing many films based on bands, isn’t all that hard to predict. The band comes together, things are good. They rise to fame, but soon begin to fall out with one another. Even if this was the real story, it didn’t feel original at all. Maybe other films were influenced by The Runaways’ story, and that’s why this one didn’t feel original? I don’t, but it felt really predictable to me.

As a film, The Runaways doesn’t do anything special, except featuring excellent acting by two young actresses in particular. Their performances lift it to an above average film, biopic or not. The vocal performances are great, and the characters are interesting, despite us not getting enough of them. The film felt more like an overview than an in-depth look into the band, and the characters get less development as a result. Still, The Runaways is a good film, and while it isn’t a film I fell in love with, it was still one that I can appreciate.

I’ve addressed many of my issues with surrounding projects like the Sherwood Film’s pictures in our Fireproof The Giants like Potatoes (Our Christian Movie Themed) Podcast.  For those who haven’t heard it, I encourage you to check out a great discussion between myself and a Christian Pastor on faith in films.    During that podcast, we spoke of Sherwood Films upcoming project, Courageous, which is now on DVD.  Sherwood films has turned into a true David and Goliath story;  It’s the tale of two Pastors Alex and Stephen Kendrick who decided to write, direct and star in Christian themed films for theatrical release.  Their pictures, Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof and now Courageous all boast a lower budget with a huge return on investment for the studios.  Sherwood films may not be pulling in A list stars and making summer blockbuster profits, but they are highly successful for the original investment by all parties.

Courageous is their latest attempt at film making staring co-writer Alex Kendrick and some other familiar unknown faces from their previous films.  The film is about police officers who all take an oath to become better fathers after tragedy strikes close to home.  It’s a noble attempt at the subject and is somewhat inspirational.  However, I think like all of Sherwood’s attempt they miss the mark at broad appeal.  I love the fact that these guys aren’t afraid to outwardly show their faith and have characters consulting their Bibles or mentioning God in their films.  However, the film becomes so heavy handed with it’s attempt that it actually becomes  way too preachy.  In fact, Courageous is probably the most preachy of all of their films to date.

I always feel that Sherwood films is making self serving films for a self serving audience.   The phrase “preaching to the choir” comes to mind when watching one of their films.  The fathers and families going to Courageous are already light years ahead of the absentee fathers that this film is trying to encourage.  In fact, I doubt the people that could use the message are ever really going to see the film because it preaches to them for 2 plus hours.  While it is a nice message, I always feel like the makers of these films are sitting around slapping each other on the back and boasting how they are doing God’s will and reaching millions with their films.  In reality, they are rallying the base with heavy handed miraculous conversion speeches  and in the case of Courageous beating you over the head with the bible by ending with an inspirational call to action sermon.

What I can say about Courageous is that the Sherwood Films crew are starting to find their way around the camera.  The film is actually fairly well put together for the budget.   We still have plenty of issues with poorly lit scenes and over blown, stereotyped villains but things have much improved since Facing the Giants.  Some of this has to do with more financial backing, but I accredit much of this to Sherwood just finally getting into the groove of making a Hollywood film.    Even acting has gotten much better.  Kendrick is a likable character and his co-stars and fellow members of his parish have all vastly honed their skills since their debut.  Now I wouldn’t be expecting Kendrick to be up for an Academy Award for achievement in acting any time soon but anyone who has followed his filmography can see the improvement with each film under his belt.  Kendrick and company even found a couple of ways of injecting sucessful comedy scenes into the film such as the mix up with  hiring the wrong “Javier” to build his garden shed.  Scenes like this work well; they pointing out how certain situations and mistakes can be God’s way of interjecting in our daily lives to make lasting friendships and providing hope while still mixing in some great laughs. The problem is, I wanted more of them. You got the point, had a great laugh and it worked in sharing the message. Less is more, and in Courageous I think we needed more of less.

I liked Courageous and what it was trying to achieve, but I still have huge problems with these films.  They are too heavy handed and are never going to reach a non-believer audience because of their seemingly, preachy, standoffish approach at Christianity.  Subtlety is a word that the Kendricks have either never heard of or attempted and a lesson they could stand to learn.   For some reason the Kendricks feel you can’t make it 5 minutes without a reference to God, the bible, a Third Day song montage or a sermon attempt.  I admire them for their love of the Lord, and their desire to share everything that he has done in their lives with others but I still feel they are going after non-believers with a metaphorical sledge hammer rather than a Bible and out pourings of love.  I’ve actually championed Facing the Giants as a good film.  It suffers some of the same troubles as Courageous, but it seems to be a more complete and inspiring film meant for the masses.  Courageous feels like the Kendricks pat on the back for rounding up the budget to give the base a rousing sermon and a thematic performance.

I certainly didn’t hate Courageous.  In fact there are moments I really liked. However the end result for me was that Courageous was one of the worst films in Sherwood’s repertoire.  I just don’t see any forward progress in storytelling to go with the increased technical achievements that company has made.  The message is good; the product is getting better.  The problem now is instead of trying to find new ways to reign in more people to hear the message, Sherwood is trying hard to keep tossing in all the Biblical buzzwords and scenes that rally the base and drive the new comers away from the product all together.

The Kingdom only really gets going in its final act. This fact begs the question, “Is the first and second act worth sitting through?” Or, to phrase it another way: “Is the payoff worth it?” For my money, no, it isn’t worth it. Sitting through what equates to the vast majority of the film is not worth the time commitment just for some exciting action scenes at the end.

However, the first portion of the film isn’t terrible, but it is just about average. Not much is bad about it, but there isn’t anything to praise either, except for some clever dialogue and exposition on the Saudi Arabian culture. That’s about all there is to keep you interested for most of the film, which is a shame, because there are a lot of semi-interesting characters, some of which almost warrant sympathy.

The story goes a little something like this: There is a bombing in Saudi Arabia. The Americans want to find out who is behind it. They send four FBI agents, consisting of Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. Foxx is the determined and rational one, Cooper is the intelligent one, Garner is the moping one, and Bateman is the one that makes jokes at both opportune and inappropriate times.

These four people are sent into Saudi Arabia to determine exactly what went on, and to look for clues as to who performed the bombings. They are met with hostility, not only from civilians, but from the people they are working with. It seems that the native customs do not allow foreigners to perform certain actions — ones that would be easily accepted in America. The culture clash here is somewhat interesting, and serves as the glue to hold the film together until really interesting things happen. Well, the different cultures, and the interactions between the main characters.

Or at least, the interactions would be interesting if we got a decent look at the characters. From memory, I can think of exactly one scene in which the camera was not moving around like the cameraman had a desperate need to go to the bathroom. That scene takes place in an office, and the characters are not moving. The rest of the film, the camera is constantly in motion, never letting us catch a clear shot of anything. Tripods, it would seem, were not a part of the production budget.

Complaining about the camerawork would seem foolish of me had the entire film been executed like the final 30 or so minutes — which is almost all action and is actually entertaining. Having constantly moving cameras makes sense in this case. However, when characters are sitting around talking, or walking slowly around, you don’t need their body constantly going out of frame. It takes away from the focus of the film, distracting rather than engaging its audience.

On top of this, it felt like The Kingdom was trying to do too much. Its opening leads you to believe that it will have a lot to do with politics, but in reality, they are there just as a backdrop. After an unknown enemy is introduced, the film takes two paths: A character study that you won’t care about, and an action route, in which you will be excited for a short while, but still feel like nothing really mattered.

I mean, this is a film that’s big ideas are as follows: Terrorism, the oil conflict and different cultures. How does this get mostly overlooked, and instead we just get bored from characters walking around, trying to discover who ordered someone to set off explosions? These are big issues — topical ones as well — and we’re left wondering what the film’s stance is on any of them. There are some contradictions thrown in as well, but it mostly sidesteps saying anything.

While there is an attempt at a character study, I don’t believe the characters to be quite interesting enough to base most of the film around them. They’re mostly one-note, with my descriptions early on holding true right up until the end. The acting from Foxx and Cooper is good, and their characters are interesting, but Garner and Bateman — please get them off the screen. Garner pouts about a fallen comrade for the entire film, while Bateman makes random jokes that are not funny or intelligent. Their characters are a waste, and there was little reason to include them. Once character I haven’t mentioned yet is a member of the Saudi State Police, played by Ashraf Barhom. He actually turns out to be the most charismatic and likable member of the cast. Funny how things like that work out, isn’t it?

I can’t say that The Kingdom is worth watching. It’s too boring to be called “entertaining,” and the camerawork will make you lose focus on whatever it is the film is trying to get across. The final act is quite entertaining, it’s just too bad the first two will make you want to turn off the film before you get that far. Decent acting on the whole, but the characters are too one-note to hold your attention, while the story can’t decided which direction it wants to take. On the whole, definitely not worth it.

Steven Soderbergh has been one of Hollywood’s most reliable directors throughout his career, with hits like Traffic,Ocean’s Eleven, and last year’sContagion to his credit.  But he’s also reserved a reputation as a director who loves to experiment with other ideas.  For example, he cast small-town workers as small-town workers in 2005’s Bubble, and he cast pornographic actress Sasha Grey to headline his 2009 call girl drama The Girlfriend Experience.  Soderbergh’s outside-the-box approach to casting has become a pattern over more than 15 years, which made it less of a surprise when he cast female MMA fighter Gina Carano as the lead in his latest thriller, Haywire.

Carano – who I first knew as “the cute one” from the American Gladiators reboot with Hulk Hogan – headlines the action-packed flick as Mallory Kane, an ex-Marine who works for a “private contractor” and does odd jobs like extracting hostages from Barcelona or investigating a shady businessman in Dublin.  She’s surrounded by a cast of powerful Hollywood males – Ewen McGregor, Antonio Banderas, and Michael Douglas as the men in power, Bill Paxton as her concerned father, Michael Fassbender as a British agent, and Channing Tatum as a coworker-turned-opponent – but I really don’t think any viewer will leave this film and not realize that this is entirely Carano’s film.

You’ve no doubt seen the plot before – skilled professional is set-up, escapes, seeks to clear name and get vindication – but the script by Lem Dobbs (who wrote one of my favorite Soderbergh flicks, The Limey) and Soderbergh’s framing of the action sequences play to the strengths of the star.  That means that Carano is free to use plenty of hand-to-hand combat when faced with danger, throwing adversaries with her own momentum, using the walls as springboards when necessary, and focusing on weakening limbs and immobilizing others to control the fight.  The film isn’t as action-packed as the ads would have you believe and some viewers might complain of lapses between action, but I felt Soderbergh balanced the drama of Mallory’s plight with more than enough fast-paced fighting and car chases.

Carano is naturally a little green as an actress – I kept thinking that she was overdoing it with facial expressions to denote every thought or concern – but she does a pretty wonderful job when you consider how little acting she’s done.  There’s a definite Kill Bill vibe to the character, but – unlike Uma Thurman – there’s not even a doubt in the viewer’s mind that Carano is capable of the things she does on screen.  The way she carries herself in the role goes a long way to making the film work, because you can see her confidence in herself shining through in almost every scene.

Much will be made of the fact that Haywire empowers a female action star – though I love the quote in the film that warns “You shouldn’t think of her as a woman.  That would be a mistake” – and rightfully so.  This plays like a tribute to Carano and the abilities that women like her posses.  I can’t think of a Hollywood actress who could have jumped into this film and brought the same combination of skill and intensity, which makes the minor quirks in her acting style irrelevant.  Haywire simply could not be what it is without a woman like Carano.

January is generally a dumping ground for movies that studios don’t want, so the release of a well-made action thriller from Soderbergh and a Grade A cast is like found gold.  When you look at all the talent that surrounds her – both behind and in front of the camera – it’s easy to see that Carano was set up for success here.  Her particular set of skills does a lot of the work for the film, and the polish that’s provided by Soderbergh and company ensures that few will be disappointed by her or the film.  Haywire isn’t gonna win Soderbergh another Oscar, but it’s a completely entertaining action/thriller that signals the potential birth of a star.  If she keeps working with the right people, Carano could be the female action hero that Hollywood’s craved for decades.