The Hurt Locker

Jeremy Renner delivers a tour de force performance in this intense narration of the haunting, constant presence of potential death as a bomb disposal technician working for the US Army in Iraq. Receiving relatively little attention amidst the seasonal blockbusters, this is the first genuine Oscar-worthy film of 2009.

Renner plays James, the team leader of a 3 man group sent in to identify and disable improvised explosive devices. Their job is not glamorized, as is the case with so many of the other recent war-inspired films. In fact, this film gives the opposite impression; there is no explanation of the how or why each of the individuals ended up where they are, they are just desperately trying to survive in their own way while maintaining their sanity in the chaos of a hostile land.

James is more than a little unorthodox in his approach to his craft. His external bravado is his coping mechanism for a job that has no room for error. It is hard to determine whether his views are out of some sense of pride, or fear, and that is why the performance is so riveting. The uncertainty of safety permeates the universe that Katheryn Bigelow has created. Katheryn Bigelow has been mostly irrelevant since
she directed Point Break in 1991, but she has been working semi-regularly since then. This film starts and ends in her typical fashion; fast-paced and appealing to the action junkie.

What sticks with me the most is how horrific scenes become mundane routine for the brave men in uniform. Charred corpses, death, dismemberment, even justifiable homicide are all part of a random day's work. The visions and experiences are so unimaginable that they seem almost surreal. It is a torturous hell on earth, and they proceed day by day to cope in whichever way they can.

Cinematically speaking, it is well done. Not great, but definitely good. Slow-motion shots are integrated at an appropriate rate and the rest is conducted in real-time. There is a good mix of camera angles and modes. Bigelow makes good use of different methods and the film flows smoothly from beginning to end.

In the end, the sense of futility of modern-day combat is conveyed beautifully. Death does not choose when, it is an ongoing obstacle that just randomly chooses who and how. Although the film could have ended with a more realistic climax, the point is well received. Combat changes people and affects each individual in a distinctly different way. Each soldier has a story and a purpose, but that purpose may not be discovered until the moment of combat arrives.

I liked this film for what it was. It had a suspenseful story that wasn't too cliche, but it never quite delivered what I expected. I was impressed with the acting and the story, and with the quality direction that has won Bigelow multiple awards already this year. Renner makes a good choice with this one, and will move up as a solid leading man in the next few years. 8/10.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Anyone who follows film knows about Transformers and the legacy that Michael Bay created with Steven Spielberg two summers ago. After grossing (and netting) hundreds of millions of dollars, a sequel was as inevitable as its hot, young star getting a DUI. Now it's 2009 and we find that both eventualities have come to fruition. You would think that coming up with a feasible story about alien robots with two young, attractive leads and a military unit with state of the art weaponry would be fairly simple when coupled with a virtually unlimited budget, right?

This is not so much the case. Bay did listen to fans and delivered bigger, badder robots and flashier special effects and even an Audi R8 (Thanks Mike). What he must have forgotten, however, was to hire someone to write cohesive dialogue and a simple storyline that was not too far into the realm of absurdity. Simply put, as awesome as the effects were (and they were awesome), the film suffered due to its human actors and their weak lines and characters.

Bay boasted that Steven Spielberg was quoted as saying that this was the best of Bay's films so far. I would wholeheartedly disagree. There is some sort of fanatical obsession with cutting edge and sometimes top secret military equipment, and Bay has found a way to infiltrate the US Military inventory and show off some very impressive equipment. However, what he presents in this sequel flashes numerous instances of recycled material from his collection of other films - particularly the first Transformers. I was more than a little disappointed in how much material had been done before, in a remarkably similar manner.

Is he a great action director? Yes. That's where his kudos end. The characters in this sequel seem to be stuck in a perpetual state of frenetic motion. There is an excitement and energized element to the human characters - each scene is caffeinated and sped up, much to the chagrin of this viewer. Knowing that this short attention span method is Bay's bread and butter, I can overlook it. Also knowing that Bay relies on the big bangs for his bucks, the actors are not really the point of this film, instead they are story-moving filler. That said, there should have been less of an attempt (and it was noticeable) to personalize the connection with the characters.

The visual effects were astonishing. Nothing short of captivating and completely fulfilling. I appreciate that there were more action sequences and the battles were larger and longer than the first film. It just seemed that there were too many eye-roll inspiring interludes without the robots that made the run time seem far longer than 2 hours and 27 minutes.

Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox do their best to take their roles seriously, but Fox confirms what we've all long suspected - she is not an actress. The film crew should have used her more for what she is; eye candy, and they get an F- for costume design. LeBeouf on the other hand has a bright future in film, but he is going through his box office superstar phase, and should start showing his true talents in the next decade with some more selective roles. I would expect that he will have an Oscar nomination within 7-8 years.

The robots this time around are given a little more personality, which actually takes away from the visually stunning appeal of the movie. There are too many cliche urban hip-hop references that just make you ask "why?" and make you lose focus on the excitement of the action.

Would I recommend this film? Absolutely. It is your summer popcorn action blockbuster all the way. I just wish there was a little more emphasis put on the story and the dialogue. 7/10

Terminator: Salvation

By its very definition, salvation implies saving from harm, but there is little salvation for movie-goers this weekend. In its fourth time around, the franchise made credible by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jim Cameron is resurrected with a pair of fresh faces, and a director who is holding his breath for an A-list action nod after the joke that is his resume, and his name.

McG introduces us to the adult John Connor, the enigmatic leader of the resistance against the machines in the near future in the form of Christian Bale. A remarkable upgrade over Edward Furlong and Nick Stahl, but not quite fitting of the moniker and here's why: John Connor has always been a savvy and strong character, yet physically weak and vulnerable. He never was supposed to be the macho, physically dominant brute that Bale brings to the film. Frankly, Bale lacks personality as he did in the Batman movies, and drops a few notches in my book as an actor.

I am reminded of the Matrix in many ways, only without the intrigue aspect of the film and the innovative story that captivated sci-fi audiences; There is the post-apocalyptic gloom, where machines are the dominant "species" and the humans are fighting for territory and authority. The first couple of Terminator movies were so much more original, and set in a modern day world, there was more at risk, and therefore more emotional investment.

This film tries to jump start a visual-effects heavy trilogy but fails to get off the ground as there is no compelling storyline to drive the drama. The world is a forsaken landscape of desolation, yet somehow these disconnected pockets of resistance are all synced in strategy and abundant resources and military training? I don't buy it for a minute.

The second character is the "mysterious" Marcus Wright. I use the quotations because the mystery is shattered via the previews as well as the first 10 minutes of the film. Had this line of intrigue been preserved, the climax may have been a little more fulfilling.

McG is really hoping to capitalize on this film, and he very well may, but it is not deserved. He has some large project lined up in the next few years, but I would be surprised if this franchise makes it to the third in the trilogy. He is simply not very good, and therefore neither is this movie.

Anton Yelchin, a young promising actor is both miscast and awful as Connor's father, Kyle Reese. The rest of the cast is simply average. Sam Worthington's Marcus Wright is the brightest spot among the group, and he will jump to stardom in this December's Avatar. He has the rough look of the next Russell Crowe, and plays off of Christian Bale brilliantly.

The film has many tragic flaws. First is the dialogue - simply shallow and cheesy. The second is the lack of logic. If all of human civilization depends on the survival of two individuals, why don't the machines just kill them when given the chance? It is beyond absurd. Finally, and this is the most tragic thing of all - the previews make the movie look good. Great music, edits and just the right amount of action. Unfortunately, the film is relegated to the depths of disappointing blockbusters.

The various homages to the originals are out of place and misguided. This film has the same type of renewal energy that the new Star Trek does, but this new Terminator franchise has been kicked off with simply bad film making. 5/10.

Angels and Demons

The Dan Brown adaptation that follows up the mega-hit Davinci Code reteams Ron Howard with Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon doing battle against the mysterious and evil forces of the religious underworld. This particular battle pits him against the ancient anti-Catholic group, the Illuminati.

Our story begins at the CERN nuclear research laboratory in Geneva. The pope has just died and anti-matter has just been stabilized. These two plot lines intersect in a cat and mouse game of beat the clock where only Robert Langdon can decipher the ancient coded messages to save the Vatican, as well as the future of all Catholics in the world. Pretty heavy, and unrealistic, right? Not as much as you would think.

Howard took a goldmine opportunity in Davinci Code and turned it into a cinematic joke that didn't do the literary rendition justice at all. Brown found a niche in his works that the public has voraciously consumed, and for good reason; everyone loves conspiracy theories. Secret societies who control like puppet-masters while providing hidden clues in plain sight only to be decoded by ivy league educated professors - sounds like a Nicholas Cage movie, right? Wrong. Ron Howard and Tom Hanks are class acts, and they took the mistakes made in Davinci Code and put thoughtful changes into the follow-up.

I was very impressed with how much better this adaptation was than the first. It may have been because the source material is even more compelling, and it may have been because there was a more frenetic pace to the story - a more linear path from the initial dilemma to the climactic conclusion, but either way, it worked in ways that Davinci Code failed miserably.

Tom Hanks got a haircut for starters. He also was given a more noticeable sense of humor which is a more natural bond between the actor and the character, therefore creating more believability. There was also more action and violence, which was one of the more captivating elements of the novel. The story does delve into absurd territory in more ways than I can count, but the entertainment value is high. Ron Howard hit the mark, and corrects and absolves himself of any lingering Davinci stigma.

Ewan McGregor shines in a supporting role as the Camerlengo, the custodian of papal duties in absence of an active pope. The rest of the cast is remarkably... European, and effective in their respective roles.

Although the story takes some strange turns, the symbology and decoding is far more realistic than the shots in the dark that move along Davinci. This is the redemption piece by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, and should do well at the box office because it is a well made film based on an extremely entertaining book.

I would recommend this one for a brief escape from reality, albeit, not as cool as adamantium claws or traverses through the space-time continuum, but it holds its own as the summer blockbuster lineup draws closer. The scenery is also very impressive - a whirlwind tour of the Vatican and Rome and all of the religious art and sculptures that inhabit its proverbial walls.

Don't judge this one based on the first attempt, this one has made all of the necessary corrections, and even the unbelievable parts of the novel have been downplayed so that they don't overwhelm the flow and pace. 8/10.

Star Trek

The resurrected and reinvented Star Trek hits theatres today with a young, mostly unknown cast and a turbo-charged injection of JJ Abrams behind the camera. The story is sharp, but not dense. It takes the space-time continuum and quantum mechanics and delivers it in a way that us non-Trekkies can understand and appreciate. It also doesn't dwell on the specifics of the story as much as the novelty and the set-up for the next big action franchise.

The writers found the appropriate balance of homage to the original, and 2009 special effects laden action porn. Abrams continues to amaze me with his delivery of seamless visual effects and quality storylines. He is truly the George Lucas of the 21st century. This film shirks the stigma of the 70's and 80's renditions and goes straight into territory where no Star Trek has gone before - mainstream hipness.

The cast assembled could have been more convincing. I don't take issue with any of the choices, as none are A-list stars, but some of the supporters were odd choices - most particularly Scotty, Bones, Chekov and Sulu. They just didn't quite fit, even as a younger generation of themselves. Where the film struck gold was with the two leads. Kirk and Spock were both exceptional choices, and Chris Pine as Kirk opened doors for him that he probably never knew existed. He carries the role with confidence fitting of the man who dethrones Shatner. He is an underdog and a rebel, and is convincing as both.

As the story progresses, there is a distinct familiarity to the universe that the characters live in, and that creates some nostalgia, but there is also a very exciting and palpable freshness to it as well. This version is what Gene Roddenberry envisioned it would be like in the future. It is worthy of carrying on the Star Trek torch.

I would recommend this movie to Trek fans and film fans alike. It walks the line between a gratuitous sci-fi action film and a serious attempt at art. Nothing nerdy about it. This is the first great film of the year, and hopefully the hits will keep on coming. 9/10.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Marvel Studios continues its calculated rise as a bankable production company with the first and most fan-friendly of the X-Men spin offs: Wolverine. Hugh Jackman again dons the adamantium claws and the lumberjack muttonchops as we are shown the back story that led him to become one of the most beloved and feared superheroes in the comic book universe.

Much like last summer's Iron Man and the Hulk, Wolverine doesn't waste any time explaining the back story by the end of the opening credits. This pace is much appreciated, although it allows for more downtime midway through the film, which leads to a less than exciting climax. The thing that works in this model is the simplicity of the expectation of viewer knowledge. One can walk into Wolverine (or Iron Man, or Hulk) without any previous exposure to the story or characters, and not be left behind by inside jokes or complex character innuendo. This is a smashing success for the first 3 films, and I hope that they continue this trend.

The progression of Wolverine's life leads from his 19th century roots to the transition to the original X-Men film. Along the way he is teamed up with some of the brand's more popular characters who fill the voids in lives of many comic fanatics. There is a bit of predictability to the story, and many questions are answered, but more importantly there are some great action sequences along the way, and mutant superpowers are displayed throughout.

Jackman has the role down, and he clearly enjoys it as well. He is given a good deal of time to show off close-ups of the veins in his biceps and walk around either in a tank top or shirtless snarling like an animal. Liev Schreiber plays the half-brother, Victor with a convincing sense of resentment and social angst. With the exception of Danny Huston as Colonel Stryker, the other cast members seem a little too contrived and assembled for the purpose of low budget fan appeal.

I have to say overall that this film lacked much of the excitement and energy that was seen in Iron Man, and even the Hulk, but it still was entertaining, and an exciting start to the summer blockbuster parade. I am salivating over Star Trek, Terminator, Transformers and GI Joe, so we will see what the rest of 2009's popcorn season brings. 7/10.

Oscar 2009

The day is almost here, and there have been some very interesting nominations this year; some deserving, and some perhaps nominated out of some sense of transference. Here is my rundown of the best in the main 8 categories for Sunday:

Best Picture - the best film of the year was the Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire, but the story was not epic or memorable enough (or the cast) to deserve a Best Picture statue. Benjamin Button was the culmination of Fincher's 15 years directing underrated and critically unrecognized films. He wins it this year for his body of work and what is undeniably the best film of 2008.

Best Director - Typically this award goes hand in hand with the Best Picture, and this year Fincher deserves it for his visionary and mind-blowing creation. I've followed his work since Alien 3 and his unique style should finally be recognized on Sunday.

Best Actor - This was a tough call for me, but Frank Langella edges out Rourke and Penn in the most deserving, yet unexpected award of the evening. His portrayal of Richard Nixon was riveting, and truly made Frost/Nixon a quality film. Ron Howard is A-list, but this one was overhyped and uninteresting without the lead.

Best Actress - Again, I had a hard time with this one, but I'm going with Kate Winslett for the Reader. In a surprise turn, she wasn't nominated for her best performance of the year (Revolutionary Road), but she has cranked out more Oscar worthy performances over the past decade than any other actress not to have won one. She wins on principle.

Best Supporting Actor - For the second year in a row, this is the most talent-loaded category of the evening. Heath Ledger wins, and it's not for a posthumous homage. He owns the screen in the Dark Knight, which was honestly snubbed for Best Picture and Director. I am glad Shannon was recognized - he is a name to watch in the future.

Best Supporting Actress - Undoubtedly the weakest category of the year. I can honestly see any of the five nominees receiving the award, although none of them delivered a truly remarkable performance. Most deserving is Taraji Henson, and I hope she wins. Her character had the most emotional investment in the film.

Best Original Screenplay - Milk. No contest, this was a great movie with an incredible production team, and the competition in this category demands a double take. Wall-E? In Bruges? Let's just give it to Milk now.

Best Adapted Screenplay - Slumdog Millionaire. This was a fantastic adaptation worthy of the award. It is this year's diamond in the rough, and will open the floodgates for international independent films to receive serious award consideration (which I have some issue with - there are foreign film categories for a reason).

We'll see how my picks do. Some are underdogs, but these are the truly deserving of the bunch. Stay tuned for an update on my success rate -

DD

Gran Torino

Clint Eastwood's latest has him portraying a crotchety curmudgeon of a war veteran living in a Hmong area of Detroit. Hardly a stretch for him considering his past body of work. Gran Torino had some potential, but the uncreative emotional manipulation that Eastwood has used in the past backfires here with a shallow story that is driven primarily by his gravelly voice and disapproving glare.

I have long admired the simplicity of Eastwood's creations - Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, even Mystic River (a little more complex than the others), but his formula for success hits a brick wall here as there is little more than clever insults that seem almost charming coming from the old man.

The family is almost comic relief, and although the film is good for a few laughs via good lines, it detracts entirely from the point of the film, and the deeper themes of morality, and the old Eastwood favorite - street justice.

The build-up is slow, although there is some enjoyment getting to know the old man who bides his time sitting on the porch smoking, chewing and drinking with his dog, just watching the neighbors and using antiquated racial insults.

The problem is that there is no real hook. Why is this bigot going out of his way to save the neighbor boy? Why does he care? Maybe it is some sense of lifelong regret or a need for atonement, but it doesn't fit with the rotten nature of his character, so it is a little unbelievable.

I enjoy Eastwood films for the most part, and this one makes a genuine attempt to tug at the heart strings, but the facade is transparent, and ineffective. I wouldn't expect to see any nominations for this one besides original song (which there are typically few enough to warrant absurd nominations). 6/10.