The Savages

The Savages is a bleak, introspective look at the aging process in our society, and the physical and mental decline that ride along, unable to do anything to change the course. The impact on loved ones as well as estranged is significant, but the question is posed, "is this really how it's supposed to end?" So undignified and impersonal. Our culture has regressed into an age where the elderly are virtually put out to pasture in retirement homes, and the weight of the guilty children who are charged with selecting those final places of unrest is often an emotional mixture of confusion and helplessness.

Fortunately, there is levity thrown into the mix. Despite the serious subject matter, these two miserable siblings manage to come together one final time to choose a proper place for their dementia-plagued father to spend his final days. There isn't much else to say about the story, as this is a character study and social commentary of sorts regarding our treatment of the elderly, particularly our own families. Phillip Seymour Hoffman (when will he just go by Phil Hoffman?) and Laura Linney are perfectly cast as the siblings who reluctantly take on this necessary, but very uncomfortable task. They decide on a place near Hoffman's home in Buffalo, and are torn between their true feelings for the man and what they feel is their responsibility. Both are highly educated, self-absorbed neurotic losers who share their flaws to the viewer one at a time throughout the movie. The banter between the siblings is authentic in every way possible. From the conversations on the phone to the sad reality check in the parking lot. It is made clear from the start that this was not a happy home in which they lived. It is this detail that makes the story all the more stirring.

The performances strike a very personal chord, not because of any familial dysfunction, but because of the inevitable decisions that will have to be made someday, and the regret, guilt, and pain that are inherently associated with those looming decisions. Hoffman serves up a trifecta this year with his performances (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Charlie Wilson's War) and will undoubtedly see his name on the Oscar ballot in one role or another. The dialogue and writing is remarkable, but the direction and editing was not. It was a little unrefined and some of the angles were a frankly awkward. Tamara Jenkins (not to be confused with the Olympic kayaker from my high school class) is one to watch in the future (as a writer). No doubt there was a bit of her own life rolled into this story, but it was refreshing and thought-provoking. The cast didn't hurt this film at all either. Overall, 7/10.

Walk Hard

Aside from the gratuitous full frontal male nudity, and perhaps the unsettling machete fight scenes, this was a mildly entertaining movie with some gut busting sequences. Walk Hard follows Dewey Cox, a fictitious Johnny Cash doppleganger from his rural upbringing in 1940's Alabama to a present day lifetime achievement award concert. The story mirrors 2005's Walk the Line in many ways; from his brushes with musical legends to the drug abuse, to his unhappy and dysfunctional family life. The caveat is that this is a comedic story with original music, created by the guy who directed Knocked up and the 40 Year Old Virgin, and who has had his hands in every successful comedy over the past 2 years (as well as 2008's slated comedies). Judd Apatow was recently named the top entertainer of the year, and that honor is deserved. As a director, writer and producer, he is bringing stardom to his laundry list of friends, who each seem to be finding starring roles out of virtually nowhere.

The film brings to the screen a familiar theme of a rags to riches story with the speed bumps of fame and unhappiness, and it does it through John C. Reilly. One of the most recognizable and memorable supporting actors of the past 15 years, he finally gets to headline a film, and he brilliantly shows off his comedic chops. On display is also his performing ability, and voice. He sings the cheesy and lyrically riotous songs with a straight face, and makes you develop a soft spot for this character that is so over the top ridiculous and ignorant that it actually works. Had it been another actor, the intended effect of homage through comedy may have turned out to be more insulting. He deserves his Golden Globe nomination, but has stiff competition this year and may lose out to Depp or Hoffman.

What kept the film afloat for lack of a real story was the plethora of cameos. In a great scene taking place somewhere in India or Tibet, Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Jason Schwartzman and Justin Long play the Beatles and none are listed in the credits. Jenna Fischer plays the second wife of Cox (June Carter), and her performance is uplifting and proves that she can handle comedy with the big boys, and not just on television. Worthy of mention also is Tim Meadows, who has been out of the spotlight for quite some time, and although I've always kind of considered him a lightweight, he made for a delightful supporting character. Playing the drummer in Cox's band, he had some of the best lines of the movie, and his timing was right on.

Some of the jokes got a little old (the wrong son died!), and I wish that there was a little more musically, but all of the songs (performed) were original and captured the essence of Cox in the changing world of pop music. Heavily influenced by current trends, his sound shifts into the Bob Dylan, Punk, David Bowie and Brian Wilson forms of music, ultimately coming back to his Johnny Cash roots at the end. A good story, but there are some segments that slow down a bit too much. It would have benefited from more musical interludes and less of an attempt at pseudo-drama in the home-life. For the record, the song "Let's Duet" should have been nominated for the Golden Globe, not "Walk Hard". It is absolutely hilarious, full of double entendres and innuendo. If you're in a cheerful mood, this is a good movie, but you have to truly be in the mood for silliness. 7/10.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Let me preface the following by saying that I am a huge fan of the franchises, particularly Aliens. I got excited to see this flick when I first saw the preview back in October. However, with directors Ridley Scott, James Cameron and David Fincher creating the first three installments, it is hard if not impossible to fill those shoes with any relative success. Predator on the other hand is an interesting concept, but perhaps should have been retired after Arnold Schwarzenegger did the first movie. That said, the critical reviews that I've seen thus far are much too hard on the first-time directors. This genre is science-fiction, and yes, the special and visual effects and creatures themselves are the main characters. So, to say that inadequate character development occurred is a misnomer in that there isn't enough time in the day to develop the humans' characters who ultimately are going to be alien or predator fodder.

The story begins where the abysmal AVP left off, with a predator returning home on his spaceship only to have an alien burst through his chest. The hybrid predator/alien is far more convincing than in past films (Alien Resurrection = ruined the franchise) due to the subtlety of the anatomical differences. This alien of course kills the predators on board and causes the spaceship to crash back on earth, and while the facehuggers escape looking for new hosts, the baddest of the predators is called and sent to earth to clean up the mess.

Still with me? As this is occurring, we are given brief glimpses into concurrent story lines, none of which are all that interesting. It is the obligatory back story and critically panned character development, but really it's a "get to know the victims" sequence. The commendable thing about this is that there is no hero established from the start. Many different characters could be a survivor, although you could probably guess who makes it and who doesn't. There is a bit of nostalgia in what other critics call an homage, but I would call it conformity to the aliens paradigm. A young child, a strong woman, a man who has a sordid past, etc. I can't blame the directors for this, but overall there isn't too much of a concern for anyone's well-being.

Alien 3 was originally going to take place on earth, but the logistics and budget didn't fit very well, so they did the traditional desolate planet scenario. I found AVPR to be refreshing in its attempt. There wasn't a memorable sequence like there was in each of the other films; an elaborate build up for some gruesome or special-effects laden pay off. There also wasn't a lot of escape. The confrontations usually ended the way they would in reality, which is also unfortunately one of the downfalls of the film.

Where Alien and Aliens, and even Predator to some extent succeeded was in the lingering suspense. The knowledge that there is a terrible creature right around the corner, or lurking somewhere in the jungle. This film had virtually no suspense. Predictability prevailed, and with so many people running around and no real vested interest in their safety, it became a bloody gore-fest. This is the directors' specialty however, having been behind the scenes of many of the action films shot over the past decade. They beautifully maintained the integrity of the creatures' idiosyncrasies and personas, and all the while had some stunning visual sequences.

This was not a scary movie, or even a great movie, but it did deliver entertainment, which is seemingly more difficult than ever with the science-fiction genre. The bar has been raised so high that critics often forget the context in which the film has been made in the first place. Mission accomplished, I found it to be an enjoyable treat, and although there were some flaws (the Sheriff was terrible, and the townsfolk were a bunch of sheep) it was a fun trip. I would slide it somewhere between Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection on the all-time list for the franchise collaboration. I also have to give this one 2 ratings; one from the sci-fi fan boy that I am; 7/10 and one from the critic in me; 5/10. If you happen to be new to the franchise, see Alien and Aliens and you won't be disappointed.

Juno

Juno is a guilty pleasure of a black comedy with endearing characters and thoroughly entertaining dialogue. Ellen Page stars as the titular star, and she is just that. Occupying the screen for the majority of the film's run time, the 20 year old masterfully plays a 16 year old with an innocent lack of social grace. At times, the writing is a little above the level of a typical 16 year old, but it is brought back down every time by the serious subject matter and the quick scene cuts. I think what makes this film successful where others in the genre have failed is that it is witty and funny, but is done without farcical fanfare by staying true to the character and the story.

Juno finds herself pregnant after her first sexual experience with her BFF Paulie Bleaker (Michael Cera), an avid runner and tic-tac addict. The story follows her dilemma as she contemplates her options and she ultimately decides to give the baby up to a couple that has advertised in the local want-ads. Broken into trimesters, the film moves at a steady pace with no scene seeming out of place and although it is difficult to call the ending "happy", it ends realistically and satisfying.

The supporting cast is excellent, consisting of JK Simmons, Allison Janney, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman and Michael Cera. They all have memorable lines, most serving as comedic punchlines, and their cohesion is great. The centerpiece of the film is Juno however, and Page plays her with maturity rarely seen by an actress her age. Her deadpan deliveries and sharp tongue almost excuses her rude juvenile comments where others would be held accountable. Her talent is amplified by her youthful appearance, but that youthfulness fits perfectly into this particular story. She is entirely deserving of the barrage of awards she has already received, including the Golden Globe nomination, and potential Oscar nomination in a few months.

The story has a unique, different feel, keeping light and funny amidst such serious subject matter. There is a section in the middle that leads to a potential uncomfortable sub-plot, and the writer and director wisely avert that scenario. Otherwise, it is a great piece of work all around. Page will be around for a long time, and if you want more of the jail bait role, check her out in Hard Candy. It is an uncomfortable film, but well done. Michael Cera is another up and comer who has unlimited potential in the comedy department. As long as he chooses roles wisely, the sky is the limit. 8/10.

Atonement

Atonement is poised to do for James McAvoy what the Notebook did for Ryan Gosling. It is a sharply written and heart-wrenching love story set in late 1930's England that separates two lovers by deception, war and circumstance. The striking thing about the execution of the story on film is that for a period piece, it maintained a remarkably modern feel. Typically this would have a negative effect on the credibility of the movie, but for this particular story, it meshed well and gave it a somewhat more hip feel. Aside from that, the musical integration was unique in using a rhythmic typewriter sound as the young sister's theme music. Ironic because she is a writer and the tangled web of fate all begins with the imaginative mind of a young and naive girl.

Knightley plays the older sister who loses her lover due to a horrible misunderstanding that lands McAvoy in prison and subsequently in France as the British are beginning their fight with the Germans. The story then follows the three intertwining lives of the two sisters and McAvoy as they all cope with this life-shattering event. The story climaxes in a flash forward and a heartbreaking revelation that proves that the past can never be changed, and atonement is unfortunately an impossibility, no matter how repentant or remorseful one is.

The director captures the essence of the film with innuendo and scenes being replayed through varying character perspectives. The events leading up to the cataclysmic incident are innocent enough, and there are numerous single frame shots that seer images into the viewer's mind; works of moving art. The second act taking place in France takes a dark and bleak turn, showing much more war-related material than expected, but each character's involvement in the war is emblematic of the internal struggle and damage that they have experienced. That fateful evening was the end of innocence for all of them.

In the end, the film is wrapped up nicely in a manner reminiscent of the Notebook, but much less fulfilling. It is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, and the cast does an excellent job working together, conveying their stirring emotions with their eyes. The two actresses who played the younger sister carry much of the emotional burden of the film, but as a viewer, you can't help but feel the hopelessness and futility that McAvoy exudes. A particular scene five years later in which he confronts the younger sister, is charged with anger and resentment. She stole a life of happiness and love away from him and he displays that with the poise and confidence of a much more experienced actor.

Great story, well acted and directed with a unique and effective style. Definitely deserving of the many accolades and Golden Globe nominations. A love story, but much deeper than that. It truly explores the deep core of loss and regret, love and atonement. 8/10.

Charlie Wilson's War

This fascinating true story about a Texas legislator who finds himself behind one of the most successful covert wars in American history is witty and just humorous enough to suspend the thought of the gravity and repercussions of the ordeal. Wilson is a refreshingly honest and charismatic man, unapologetic for his many character flaws, which include alcoholism, womanizing and drug use. Despite these morally ambivalent traits, he finds a worthy cause and calls in favors and uses his baffling likability to align all of the necessary parties to make a lasting global difference, the result of which remains to be seen even today. His motivation of course, is the welfare of his constituents and a powerful woman who seems to be able to use her sex appeal to make Wilson do whatever she wants.

The characters seem sleazy and immoral on the surface, but Aaron Sorkin delivers a wonderful screenplay that masks the political heaviness with witty dialogue and great character portrayals. Hanks plays the part wonderfully, with just enough non-nonchalance to be believable. The summation of his debaucheries are shown through a lavish Vegas hot tub party with cocaine and strippers, an incident that follows him throughout the film, but one which he seems to care very little about. This side story has all of the earmarkings of modern day political scandal, with a very similar conclusion.

As he begins to find himself involved in the conflict between the former Soviet Union and Afghanistan, while coordinating allies Pakistan, Israel and Saudi Arabia, there is a visible sense of pride and accomplishment that is conveyed through Hanks' performance. Also visible is a sense of nostalgia or regret in the life that he has led. There is a stirring scene in which he calls Roberts drunk from his apartment late at night, and the tears stream down his face as they discuss their accomplishments. It is hard for the viewer not to forgive him for all of his miscalculated decisions as that one moment shows his true remorse and shame in the midst of doing something truly monumental.

Of the supporting cast, Hoffman brilliantly plays the CIA case worker who is displaced by his boss, so he decides to help Hanks out of boredom. It is the details in the performance that make it so authentic; The huge belly that conveys years of desk work in an unrewarding dark basement somewhere, the mustache and dark glasses that are so often intertwined with the world of cold war espionage, and the constant cup of coffee and cigarette that he's carrying around. He is a jaded, and misused resource of the government in the twilight of his career, and he finds a kinship with Wilson in their affinity for women and booze. The dialogue is executed with such subtle comedic timing, that his performance is deserving of an Oscar nomination at the very least.

Roberts on the other hand, shows little range as the wealthy Texas socialite with a peculiar interest in helping the Afghani cause. She is on screen for a total of maybe 12 minutes, and does little more than offer her trademark smirk and add some well-written lines to the conversation. Her performance was over-rated and she is not deserving of the accolades she is being bestowed (Golden Globes). Amy Adams on the other hand, plays Wilson's personal assistant with charm. You can sense disapproval of his lifestyle, but she is eager to please and lights up the room with her smile. The other assistants add another dimension to the film, consisting of four beautiful young women nicknamed "jailbait" by Wilson. They are the epitome of 1980's pre-workplace harassment and play the subservient administrative assistants in stereotypical fashion. It is another detail that makes the main character more likable or despicable.

Overall, I was impressed by the story more than anything else. It is fascinating to think that a nobody congressman can pull off such a large scale global effort with nothing more than the help of some of his "good old boy" contacts and some innovative thinking. What he accomplished changed the world forever, and it was terribly interesting to watch. Sorkin is the premier political screenwriter of this generation and his work should not go unnoticed. I enjoyed this film quite a bit. Great performances, particularly in the scenes between Hanks and Hoffman. The writing was top-notch and detail in direction and story were spot on. 8/10.

Enchanted

I saw this film a couple of weeks ago and just hadn't thought about doing a review, but the more I think about it, the more I think it deserves some critical acclaim. A lighthearted piece blending fairy tale with the harsh stereotype of the tough city of New York. Genre-bending, yet comical, this movie excels at self-deprecating humor. The actors for the most part do a fine job, and the cartoon intro really lightens the mood and makes for an enjoyable journey.

Amy Adams and James Marsden are the Cinderella/Snow White and Prince Valiant characters, and their naivetés and strange customs make them stick out like a sore thumb in the otherwise "normal" New York City. Patrick Dempsey is the cliche wealthy single father divorce lawyer who is in a moderately unhappy relationship. Kudos to Adams for convincingly playing the princess, singing to birds and making dresses out of window treatments while always maintaining an optimistic and ignorant smile. She makes the movie what it is, and without her, it would just be average fare.

The story lacks any real creativity except for the untraditional take on mixing media, which it does successfully. There is something refreshing about the cartoon sequences, they are done almost with excessive mocking of the fairy tale existence, and it makes the film work. The song and dance routines are not my cup of tea, but they are cute, and get the point across. The storyline doesn't stray far from what would be expected, and everyone of course lives happily ever after.

Adams deserves a nomination for this one, and I would say that it is a great family-friendly film worthy of checking out. 6/10.

I Am Legend

This interesting story about the last man on earth due to a global epidemic has some good and some bad. Contrary to the scathing reviews bestowed by local critics, it was a very entertaining film, and well done. The flaws reside mainly in some of the director's visions and liberties taken regarding the story originally written in 1954 by Richard Matheson. Cinematic interpretations have been attempted before, as this is the third remake, but this one delves into a darker, more sinister empty world, and it causes a sort of claustrophobic introspection, which is surely the intent.

Will Smith plays Robert Neville, who spends most of the film alone, walking or driving the barren streets of Manhattan with his trusty sidekick, a German Shepherd named Sam. Being a dog-lover, I thought the performance by the canine was fantastic, and an emotionally charged fight scene with the "dark seekers" (aka, the super-human mutant zombies) left me with a little lump in my throat. In the midst of his seemingly bleak existence of hunting, gathering, watching DVD's and pilfering canned goods and gas, he fortifies his townhouse each night at sundown so that the dark seekers can't infiltrate his life. Did I mention that they are susceptible to severe burns if they encounter ultra-violet light? And that Neville is a brilliant virologist and retired military officer? A perfect combination for someone trying to find the anti-virus.

The scenery is depressing, but accurate in a world of plant overgrowth and abandoned cars lining the streets. Neville has flashbacks in the form of nightly dreams (or nightmares) that paints the picture as to how he found himself in such a grim predicament. I appreciated the back story, and it adds a human touch to an otherwise characterless endeavor. Smith carries the film in the way that Hanks did with Castaway. He plays a believable poor soul on the brink of some sort of psychotic breakdown. However, he survives day to day, with the weight of the world resting squarely on his shoulders.

The dark seekers are hairless animals formerly known as people or dogs who seem to enjoy making lots of noise and baring their teeth. With the special and visual effects of recent films, I was quite a bit disappointed with the way they were presented, and with the continuity in that they are evolving over the course of the film enough to set a trap that Neville falls for, but they still bang their heads against doors and windows instead of opening them. They are scary from the isolated perspective, but they still just aren't convincing.

Overall, this was an entertaining movie that takes you down fantasy lane with the question "what would you do?" Smith does a great job, the Shepherd does even better, and ultimately there is some disappointment with the ending. I would recommend this for holiday entertainment, but don't expect anything more than some building suspense and a big letdown at the end. 6/10.

No Country for Old Men

This film by the Coen brothers is sheer brilliance. By far the best movie I've seen this year, and the hype did not exceed the delivery. Where to begin with a movie this exceptional? I'll begin with the story, because that is the glue that holds the other pieces together. The story is based on a novel by Cormack McCarthy. This means nothing to me other than he won the Pulitzer for fiction in 2007 for The Road and his book was picked once by Oprah. It is a truly compelling story set in 1980 rural Texas about a simple man who finds a bag of money that turns out to be Pandora's Box.

The Coen brothers deliver this story to the screen in one of the most indescribably genius examples of camera work in recent film memory. The detail offered to each scene overshadows the characters and the story itself building a cinematic landscape of suspicion and intrigue. Even characterless stills of fences or gas stations have an air of building tension simply because of the angles and placement of the camera, or the prolonged hesitance of a shot. They had an intelligent, yet humorous and human dialogue to deal with, but what is far more memorable is the silence that dominates much of the film. The desired effect is perfectly achieved with audibly emphasized footsteps in dirt, or the sound of a truck coming to a stop, or a metal air tank being gently set down on concrete. Their vision comes to life in a way few directors know how to achieve. Their attention to detail is meticulous, and their delivery is flawless.

The acting group take this challenging piece to the next level with stellar performances all around. With the exception of Harrelson, who I have never really cared for, they all rise to the occasion, particularly Brolin and Bardem. If they aren't nominated this year it will be a shame. Bardem's psycho killer is the most riveting antagonist to come to the screen in recent memory, and he absolutely commands the viewer's attention leaving nothing more than a guilty sense of blood lust in his wake. Brolin is masterful as the everyman who finds the satchel of money, knowing all along the trouble that it will bring.

As the conclusion nears, you can't help wanting more. More action, more suspense, more death and more beautiful cinematography. But that just wouldn't be the Coen brothers' style. They end it in the perfect place for this impressively simple yet suspenseful and entertaining ride. Easily the best movie of the year. 10/10.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

This is a great tale of greed, family and a simple plan gone horribly awry. Hoffman is excellent as the older brother who sets the plan in motion with the help of his half-wit younger brother (Hawke). Lumet uses an interesting direction technique starting the story at the climax and moving backwards showing the days leading up to the robbery through the various characters' perspectives. Then we move forward and see Hoffman and Hawke try to pick up the pieces, although we know that it is simply too late.

Hoffman exudes emotion, and as I was watching him, I could see and feel the stress and angst in his face. He draws the viewer into his world, and as it begins to come crashing in around him, you feel like you're right in the thick of it. His performance reminds me of one of his lesser known films; Owning Mahowny, and his characters plights are very similar in both films. There is an outward appearance of calm confidence, but through the eyes you can see nervous uncertainty and fear.

The pace of the film went smoothly, and the suspense began to build about half way through, but the shaky cuts when the perspective changed were a little overly dramatic. Finney and Tomei both do a fine job, but my complaint is with the resemblance between Hoffman and Hawke. There could have been a more convincing player than Hawke to play the little brother, and I'm normally a fan of his work.

As events begin to spiral out of control, we see that there is no such thing as a perfect crime, and the repercussions are disastrous and inescapable. The tension holds until the final frame and a lesson in greed and trust is learned too late. I have a feeling that this one will escape the mainstream audiences' radar, but I would expect Hoffman and Lumet to receive recognition from the Academy. 9/10.

Lions for Lambs

Lions for lambs is an allusion to a German poem written during World War I about the British. The Germans saw great courage and determination in the British soldiers being wasted by the ignorance and arrogance of the brass. This is a spot on revelation of the political perspective of this well-written and acted, but mostly unimpressive film.

The political overtones run deep, but this is not as liberal as it may be made out to be. Redford does a great job of showing the war on terror as a global quagmire that has no easy solution (while offering numerous comparisons to Vietnam). His motives are more introspective in that he shows both sides to the age old debate of peace versus righteousness. Where the film falters is in its delivery. The dialogue is entertaining enough, but there is very little substance beyond the three converging storylines.

The film begins with various people reading their relevant reports; Cruise's ambitious GOP senator reading approval ratings, Redford's "A California University" political science professor reading his class attendance logs, and Berg's special forces colonel reading situation reports from Afghanistan. These three stories intertwine simultaneously for a one hour period of time, with a few flashbacks as character development of the two soldiers who find themselves shot down in the Taliban infested mountains of Afghanistan.

The dialogue between Cruise and Streep is really nothing more than a venting of foreign policy errors and pessimist predictions for global annihilation. Everybody knows that this war won't end in a tidy manner, but Cruise's political ambitions seem to cloud his own moral judgment. Redford as the tired professor trying to inspire his intelligent but lazy student seems incredibly far-fetched. They meet as if it were a regular thing, and discuss how he's squandering his potential. Redford then gets on his soapbox and tells a story about a couple of his most promising former students, who happen to be the same two who are currently sitting on an Afghani mountain ledge. It all seems a little too convenient and connected.

I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, but I am getting tired of political conspiracy theories and combat scenarios that conveniently produce martyrs for the film's cause. I could rant and rave about my own political beliefs, but I'll leave it at this: The film poses an interesting question to the viewers without exerting too much of an influence toward any one side. I felt a little let down by the film, I think it could have been a lot more powerful with the cast and the subject matter. I am not expecting any Oscar nominations from this one. 6/10.

American Gangster

This highly anticipated biopic did not disappoint. Denzel was brilliant, as always and as great of an actor as he is playing the protagonist, he's so much better when he's a ruthless, despicable criminal. The true story follows Frank Lucas' rise and fall during the twilight years of the Vietnam war as he uses his family military connections in Asia to smuggle heroin into Harlem. Crowe plays Richie Roberts, seemingly the only honest cop in New York (but with plenty of personal problems) who finds himself heading up the drug task force. His performance was well done, but was understated. He draws considerable comparison in my mind to Pacino in Serpico, fighting crime and the corrupt brotherhood at the same time, but doing so without much flamboyance or self-pity. There's even a scene when he's calling for backup and the dispatcher asks "who is this?" He identifies himself and is informed that "there are no units in the area, Detective Roberts."

My favorite comeback player of the year, Josh Brolin (Planet Terror, In the Valley of Elah, No Country for Old Men), delivers a scorching performance as the hotshot New York detective on the take. I would expect at least one nomination for him this year, if not two. The rest of the cast does well, and the direction was as expected from Ridley Scott, who has produced some of the most entertaining films of the last 30 years. The attention to detail of the early 1970's clothes, guns, cars, phones and even the massive recording device that a nervous informant taped to his chest made it a truly believable throwback crime drama. The reviewer for Entertainment Weekly hit it right on calling it a blend of Serpico, Scarface, Godfather and the French Connection. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The excitement of corruption mixed with the uncertainty of procedure in the run and gun police work really lets the viewer believe that dirty cops get away with murder and criminals can do whatever they want. This was a great, truly epic story that ends with an exciting shootout, and then an anti-climactic obligatory explanation of what happened next. The film was a little long at 2 hr. 40 mins., but it worked well and didn't drag out any unnecessary scenes or character development or linger in any one area too long. I would expect this one to be a heavy hitter come Oscar time (see the Departed, 2006). 9/10.

Dan in Real Life

Steve Carell strikes comedy gold again with his latest about an advice columnist whose own life is in disarray. He is a widower who takes his three girls to the annual family reunion only to meet a woman who strikes his fancy. Unfortunately that woman is also his brother's girlfriend and together they must deal with the quirks and idiosyncrasies of each family member over the course of a long weekend. During that time, they learn more about each other and more importantly, the viewer gets an inside glimpse at a slightly disfunctional, but loving family. The journey has its ups and downs, but at the heart of this story is love and the different forms it takes.

Carell shows quite a bit of range in this movie, and although there are moments when he is comic genius, there are also more subtle times when he lets down his guard and you can really feel his emotional sadness. The scene where he serenades the family in the annual talent show with his brother almost brought a tear to my eye, and just is an indicator that he will be around for a long time doing more than just comedy.

The rest of the cast does fine, I originally thought Juliette Binoche was an odd choice for the girlfriend, what with her French accent, but she kept up with Carell just fine. Dane Cook plays the brother, and surprisingly held his own without putting off the aura that he's just a pretty-boy stand-up comedian.

This film reminded me of Little Miss Sunshine, which I didn't particularly care for (I know, blasphemy). It is a feel-good family comedy with some serious issues, but overall more of a comedy than a drama. Films like this seem to be a rarity when done properly. They are character driven and the focus is not as much on the story.

I would strongly recommend this for an entertaining getaway. 8/10.

Gone Baby Gone

With all of the criticism that Ben Affleck has hailed over the past decade, you would expect that his directing debut would fall in line with those sentiments. He pulls through on this one, with the help of a strong story by the writer of Mystic River and a solid group of performers, one of whom happens to be his little brother.

The story is eerily similar to Mystic River in that a residential working class Boston neighborhood falls victim to a terrible crime only to find the criminal elements band together to put things in their proper place. This story deviates slightly with the protagonist as a street-tough Bostonian private detective who finds himself in over his head taking on a missing persons case. Affleck plays the lead fairly well with his authentic accent and his tough guy demeanor, but there is something a little odd about seeing him in the lead, particularly with heavyweights Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman carrying such strong supporting roles.

Midway through the film, I thought the movie was over without any significant action or suspense, but then the second act began and it really kicked things up a notch. The intensity was subdued after a great shootout sequence, but the story took a clever turn that led to the morally ambiguous ending.

I find myself making comparisons often, and this was no Mystic River. That said, this was not directed by Eastwood either. It was however a good movie. A good story and good acting. Especially impressive was Ed Harris as the hardened detective working with Casey Affleck on the case. Dennis Lehane certainly writes a good tale and I will check out some of his other works after seeing this. 8/10.

Rendition

The basis of the film is "extraordinary rendition", what basically equates to an anti-terrorist loophole in the constitution where suspects are taken out of the country for interrogation and/or detainment. The story unfolds in a flash, with a highly regarded chemical engineer abducted from a Washington, DC airport and taken to an undisclosed location in "North Africa".

Seemingly parallel plots converge in a twist of flashbacks and different vantage points, but a major continuity flaw left me unsatisfied in the end. Rendition is not your typical patriotic anti-terrorist film, instead it is a reflection of the gray area that surrounds the constant struggle with the war on terror and the thin line between security and liberty.

I also found myself thinking during the film that Reese Witherspoon is the most over-rated actress in the industry. She has only three emotions; happy, angry and confused/sad. I don't find her appealing in the slightest. The added detail that she was 9 months pregnant did nothing to help the story, and although I was sympathetic to the situation, her character evoked nothing from me.

Jake Gyllenhall did a fine job as the CIA liason observing the interrogation. The role was understated and worthy of recognition. I have enjoyed his work in his past few movies, particularly Brokeback Mountain, Jarhead and Zodiac. The other standout performance was the interrogated Omar Metwally, who keeps you suspicious and sympathetic at the same time up until the very end.

The great thing about this movie is the cautionary moral tale. In today's society almost anything can happen, and there is adequate justification for it on either side of lady liberty's scale of justice. It is just too bad that Hollywood has been so entranced with the Muslim Jihad angle lately. It is frankly getting a little old.

Good performances by Gyllenhall and Metwally, mediocre from the other stars; Arkin, Streep and Saarsgaard. Reese Witherspoon continues to rub me the wrong way. Good story, but the continuity flaw ruined it just enough for me to ding it a couple of points. 7/10.

Lars and the Real Girl

You would think that a movie with the premise of a young emotionally distraught man who seeks solace in the arms of a blow-up doll would be a recipe for disaster. It's actually not. Surprisingly this film had just enough comedy, just enough community kindness and just enough good acting to pull it off.

The story is simple; Lars has had hang-ups since his mother died during his childbirth and left him to live with his emotionally vapid father. This experience has left him a bit deprived, and consequently he has issues dealing with people in his simple life. This is not necessarily a bad thing however, because he lives in a small town in Wisconsin, and he is a nice enough guy, so the town folk understand him and make a genuine effort to befriend him.

He reaches a breaking point and buys a lifelike silicon doll which he believes is real due to a delusional illness. His caring sister-in-law and his brother take control of the matter in the only logical way; they make everyone in the town play along with Lars to show their support and help him get through his issues.

I have to say, I had heard that Ryan Gosling portrays Lars in a brilliant manner, and I agree that there are few actors that could have pulled off this role in such a genuine way. He does a great job, but it is still a strange role in a very simple film and likely one that will fall short of most awards' radars. Also worthy of mention was Emily Mortimer, as the altruistic sister-in-law who only wants to see Lars happy. It is almost painful to see her failed attempts to invite him to meals with the family throughout the first half hour.

The film is really all about Lars, and the power of help from community. This character is the type that really gets to you, makes you feel sorry for him, and you root for him in the end. I feel that was the intent by both Gosling and the director, Craig Gillespie.

Go see this movie if you're feeling down, or if you want a good laugh, or if you just feel like losing yourself in a simple entertaining story for a couple of hours. It's just good fun. There are too few movies this original and this good natured. 7/10.

Michael Clayton

In his directorial debut, Tony Gilroy (also the writer) is fantastic. The writing and acting moves the movie seamlessly through the four day flashback of Clooney's titular character. The story is simple, corrupt litigators and moral and ethical dilemmas that result from a health related class action lawsuit. Where the story strikes gold is in its lack of detail regarding the case itself. Too many legal dramas spend an unnecessary amount of time setting up the payoff, but what that tends to do is complicate the heart of the story, which is simply justice. Clooney delivers his best performance since Syriana, but the scene stealer here is Tom Wilkinson. At this point, I expect him to win the supporting actor Oscar in the same way I expected Nicholson to win last year for the Departed. He is absolutely brilliant. His character's dialogue doesn't hurt much either. Tilda Swinton and Sydney Pollack also deliver great performances, which leads one to believe that this may be a film full of nominations this year.

Clooney is a lawyer who has a mysterious role within a large firm, labeled simply as "special counsel". He is in fact a problem solver, a self-described janitor of sorts. He finds himself in a moral and ethical pickle as one of the firm's pending cases has some complications and his services become required. He finds his role of janitor turn to investigator and back to janitor before the film is through, and he does it with an understated performance. Not the Clooney we're all used to, but the one that will win him awards.

I would expect a Wilkinson nod, perhaps Clooney and even possibly Swinton when the nominations are announced. Don't be surprised if this is up for best picture or best director as well. This is a smart film that is carried by the story and the acting from beginning to end. 9/10.

We Own the Night

We Own the Night, a motto of the New York Police Department in the early 1980's in their failing attempt to clean up the streets, is a story about a family of cops and the black sheep son who is a night club manager and drug user. The setting works well and credit has to go to a very inexperienced Gray for writing and directing a pretty decent story.

Based on the previews, this film had the feel of the Departed to me, which was my favorite of 2006, and also had Joaquin Phoenix, one of the most underrated actors around. He should have won the Oscar for Walk the Line in 2005. What it didn't have was supporting players or a satisfactory ending. Mark Wahlberg had a meaty role, but just didn't perform up to his potential. His character lacked any emotional depth and he played the disapproving brother a little too blindly. Robert Duvall, on the other hand, who is a classic actor who just hasn't had a decent role in a decade, just didn't seem to fit as the police chief and father of the two boys.

Over the course of the movie, the line between family and justice becomes blurred over and over, and ethical obligations are questioned by nearly everyone. I will say that there is a good deal of suspense, and the turn of events in the film are more realistic than they could have been if the intent was more for audience approval. The high point for me was the car chase scene, which was absolutely brilliant. No music, no explosions, just an obscured view out of a rain-drenched windshield. I was very impressed with the scene, it was just flat-out cool. Not the way Jason Bourne car chase scenes are cool, but the way that you envision it would actually go down if it were to happen in front of you.

Overall, Phoenix delivered in another great performance, putting him right up there with Christian Bale as one of the most talented leading men around. The ending warranted comparison with Heat, a great movie, but it just didn't seem to satisfy me. The realism was commendable, but overall the whole thing was a little disappointing. 7/10.

3:10 to Yuma

I wasn't going to do a review of this movie until I saw the original (1957) On Demand last night. The similarities are interesting, but what really interested me were the striking differences. The film follows Dan Evans, a poor drought-stricken rancher struggling to feed his family and keep his home. His life is forever changed by a chance meeting with Ben Wade and his criminal gang. The new version of this film portrays a much more in-depth character study than the 1957 version, which focuses on the story and the wild west hero cliche.

Dan takes on the job of escorting Ben to Contention, AZ mostly because he is offered money but also because he feels a sense of failure in his life, and shame in the eyes of his two boys. This journey and general theme remains consistent in both versions of the film, as does much of the dialogue.

Where the two films are surprisingly different is in the violence and resolution. The bad guys are far more sinister and heartless in the newer version, which is a sign of the times, as audiences have become much more bloodthirsty (to steal an observation from Steven King). The ending of the original version was surprising to me in its formulaic good triumphing over evil theme, probably because I saw the updated version first.

The new version lost some of its effectiveness to me because it stuck with most of the original storyline, but threw in the new and questionably improved ending with more entertaining violent sequences, and far more lead slinging.

Audiences seem to have an insatiable desire for new and shocking changes to old Hollywood film standards. This is very evident in the disparities between the two versions of this film. I would recommend seeing both. The updated version is a great Western, one that is rare in today's day and age. I would go as far as to put it up there with Unforgiven and Tombstone, however, I did not appreciate the ending for various reasons.

Overall, entertaining and a great, timeless story. 1957 version - 5/10, 2007 version - 7/10.

Into the Wild

About halfway through the film, I started thinking about the reviews I'd read and how there was criticism regarding the portrayal of Chris/Alex and his family. Primarily, critics either vilified the parents for driving him to this irrational fate, or skewered his own personal character for alienating everyone in his life and ultimately hurting them all.

I saw neither in the film. It was a heartfelt recount of an innocent and passionate young man who only wanted to find truth and meaning in life. Clearly influenced by the allure of solidarity and bonding with nature via London or Kerouac, he sets off for an adventure without the constraints of material things or interpersonal relationships. Along the way, he makes friends then abruptly leaves them. He works a few odd jobs, but only as a purely sociological experiment and to save up enough to make his way to Fairbanks, Alaska and buy the necessary supplies for his survival quest into the Yukon.

The emphasis of the film is on the carefree journey, escaping the rat race and bucking the system. It could have gone down a much different path from a cinematic standpoint, but Sean Penn does a great job of managing the story so that the viewer believes in the journey for its beauty and spirit.

Although a little on the long side at nearly 3 hours, the adventure is accompanied by refreshingly melodic music by Eddie Vedder, and fortunately for the viewer there is not much time spent on the back story or the aftermath.

Some may say he was crazy to abandon his future for a 2 year hiatus. I say he was following his heart and found his nirvana. Chris makes a crucial realization when his demise is near, and it is almost heartbreaking to see him die, but it was inevitable, and was the only way that this story could end with dignity. Not to call him a martyr, but there is something beautiful about the story. Overall I was moved by this film, and enjoyed the introspection that it inspired. 9/10.

Eastern Promises

This film blew me away. It was ultra-violent, but told a wonderful story about the dark underbelly of the Russian mob in present day London. It follows David Cronenberg's recent template of a very simple story with a twist at the end (See A History of Violence). I admit, I didn't exactly see it coming because there was a curveball right before the twist that took the form of one of the most realistic and brutal fight scenes in recent memory. Viggo Mortenson is the star power, and carries his character well as a driver working his way up the proverbial ladder within a powerful family. Tattoos play a central role within the film, acting as the identifier of experiences and rank among the mobsters, however, this sub-plot would have been better left in the background. It was more of a distraction than an additive, and the story and dialogue was certainly strong enough to hold an audience's attention.

This film took the grand prize at the Toronto Film Festival this year, and is expected to be a serious contender come Oscar time. I would expect nods to go to Cronenberg (snubbed last year) and Mortenson on this one, and as of early October, it is my personal front-runner for best picture. I would highly recommend checking this one out, but it's definitely not for the squeamish. 9/10.

In the Valley of Elah

I was impressed with bits and pieces of this film, but the emotional manipulation seemed a little contrived and I am sure that Paul Haggis knows it. Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron did a fine job acting, but their characters were a little too stereotypical. Jones is a retired army NCO and his attitude conveys stoicism and emotional absence. His wife is dutiful and committed, although I have had a problem with Susan Sarandon ever since Bull Durham. Jones loses his second son to a military mishap, but the twist is that it happened upon return stateside. The rest of the movie follows Jones as he conducts the investigation that the Army and local police (Theron) are neglecting. There are flashbacks via cameraphone that add little substance to the inevitable heartbreak ending, which is as predictable as it is disappointing. Overall a valiant effort from a great writer, and good acting by the principals.

I was expecting Oscar-caliber writing, but this picture will only receive acting nods (if that). I am very much looking forward to Jones' other potential Oscar contender, No Country for Old Men, which comes out in November.

Entertaining enough, better than some, but the content is very disheartening. I expected more from the team behind the film. 7/10.

The Kingdom

Alright, so I went to see this highly anticipated Peter Berg action-drama on Friday night, and frankly I was a little disappointed. The casting was fine, of course I am a huge Jason Bateman fan. The storyline however was a little predictable and formulaic. In an NPR radio interview, Berg mentioned that the original ending was a twist on the cliche good guys ride off into the sunset after killing all the bad guys, in which all four protagonists are blown up in a suicide bombing and then the credits role. I truly think this would have been more realistic as (SPOILER ALERT) none of the main characters die. There is quite a bit of patriotism attached to this film, and the back story of Saudi Arabia as the real harbor for terrorists is intriguing, however, the genre mixture of action with realistic political global issues is a little too blurry. Fortunately, the action film comes out of top. The final shootout is intense (although not as great as anticipated) and the action and special effects are top-notch. Two complaints; Jennifer Garner is a great action star, but her character's attitude and ignorance regarding the culture in Saudi Arabia was almost annoying. Second, the camera work should have been a little more stable. Granted, many of the explosions and action sequences were complicated and benefited from the jerky motion, but it got a little old.

I may have had unrealistic expectations going in, and was fully entertained, but it wasn't as good as it could have been.
7/10