the Spirit

All I can say about this disaster is that it is a polished turd, and the polish is simply beautiful women.

The Spirit is based on a comic book (or graphic novel - I don't know the difference) of the same name about a resurrected crime fighter who is a womanizer and is sometimes impervious to pain (I know, it confuses me too). It is shot in a style blatantly stolen from Robert Rodriguez. The director, Frank Miller, was the author of 300 and Sin City - both of which made wonderful film adaptations (by talented directors might I add), but his ambition to foray into the film industry may have hit a brick wall with this one.

Eva Mendes and Scarlett Johansson for my money steal the show with their looks and curves. Sam Jackson is wasted talent as the antagonist, the Octopus (which really is never quite explained except for the 8 tentacle tattoos he has running down from his eyes).

There is never really any direction. It's convoluted and more importantly, uninspiring. Even the special-effects sequences seem just a bit too amateur; rough around the edges and cheap.

Finally, I had absolutely no comprehension of why the Nazi theme was introduced. Although Johansson looked incredible in her SS uniform, the whole thing came out of nowhere and really didn't contribute to any resolution or progress in the story.

I guess you could say I wouldn't recommend this, even to fans of superheroes, comic books, Robert Rodriguez, Zack Snyder or even gorgeous women. OK - maybe for the women, as there is plenty of eye candy. However, a polished turd is still a turd. 3/10.

Doubt

Written and directed by the playwright John Patrick Shanley, Doubt is a fairly cut and dry story of suspected pedophilia within the Catholic church in 1964. From the onset, there is a sense of contrived emotional manipulation, and it never subsides. An A-list cast led by Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the head sister and the priest respectively, there is little more than Mamet-inspired dialogue and innuendo. Each character has a precise role, and there is predictability up until the final confrontation.

One of the problems is that there is no mystery here. Streep's nun is the old-school disciplinarian who is feared and respected by all - including the other sisters. Hoffman's priest is a more hip, new generation father who sees a more friendly and progressive education as what the kids need. Is that due to his true educational philosophy, or is there an ulterior motive? I'll never tell. Amy Adams is the fresh faced, ignorant girl who seemingly came from under a rock in the Midwest, and Viola Davis is the mother of the boy who may or may not have been abused by the priest.

A truly great assembly of actors, but overacting is all of their downfall. With the exception of Davis, I never for a minute forgot who I was seeing on screen. It was Hoffman and Streep giving their all for an Oscar nomination, never a sister or a priest. The dialogue is sharp, but there is always a sense that this adaptation should have stayed on the stage. It doesn't make the transition to film very smoothly.

There is a lot of buzz about Viola Davis' performance, and she does a wonderful job for the 5 minutes that she's on the screen, but it is not the runny nose and tears that has won over critics as much as what her character says. It is shocking and jolting, but not particularly unique or indicative of a seasoned thespian. What I mean is that the dialogue and character gives her the edge here. Any actress in that role would have received the recognition based solely on the character's slightly simple perspective.

The story itself lacks any real conviction (no pun intended) and has very little depth regarding the plot, or the character development. I never saw the stage version, but I could see how it would be a very compelling play. Unfortunately, it should have stayed that way.

I have become skeptical of individuals who write, direct, adapt, etc. their own work for the screen. More often than not, it just lacks a fresh perspective that would add more weight to the final product. Very few can do it successfully on a regular basis, and John Patrick Shanley is not one of them. Just a side note - this is his second directorial film - the first being Joe Versus the Volcano in 1990 (which coincidentally holds a spot on my all-time worst movies list).

Hoffman and Streep are wonderful - don't get me wrong. They always are. Davis and Adams, I'm not so sure are deserving of their Golden Globe nominations, but I haven't seen all of the movies for comparison, so it would be presumptuous to conclude that.

Bottom line - this is an intriguing story, but falls flat on the big screen. I was disappointed to say the least. 6/10.

Frost/Nixon

In the aftermath of the Richard Nixon resignation of 1974, English television personality David Frost saw an opportunity to conduct a candid interview with the 37th president, and perhaps gain some American notoriety as well as raise some much needed income. Things didn't quite work out the way he intended.

Nixon's advisers encouraged him to take the interview, as it would be easier than confronting Mike Wallace, and Frost offered up a substantial fee that Nixon was naturally drawn to. The unconventional thing was that Frost did so without the networks, and without any pending corporate sponsorship. Essentially, he put up $600,000 out of his own pocket confidently expecting revenue and fame.

The agreement was to be four 90 minute television interview segments contractually broken into Nixon's life, domestic affairs, foreign policy, and finally - Watergate.

What drives this story is Nixon's Frank Langella. My pick (so far) for best actor of the year honors. He conveys the larger than life Nixon with such professionalism, that at times you forget he is acting and become absorbed in the man's intelligent, yet obviously sinister visage.

The story hinges on the tense and successful game of cat and mouse. An ignorantly over matched Frost gets into a verbal spar with the silver-tongued Nixon, and from the opening question, you can see the look of fear and regret in his face. Over the next few sessions, the ball is entirely in Nixon's court, and his advisers couldn't be more pleased. The climax leads Frost to solicit a confession and apology about Watergate, and Langella's prolongued close up shows the pain and loneliness of a man burdened by his transgressions. It is a truly stirring and riveting finale.

The supporting cast does a great job of staying in the background - they are collectively memorable, but there are intentionally no standout performances so that the emphasis and attention can be focused on the interaction between Frost and Nixon. Very nice subtle job done by Ron Howard as well with the direction. There was little ancillary information - just enough in the intro about the impeachment and resignation so as not to bog down the story with political theories or obvious liberal Hollywood motives. Likewise with Frost's character. He was a well known English and Australian talk show host and entertainer, but his celebrity wasn't as well known in America, and that fact wasn't glorified or belittled.

It is difficult to describe why this film won't win many awards despite its deserved nominations. Langella may very well walk out with Best Actor, but this frankly wasn't the best film of the year. Like Milk, it contains an incontrovertibly amazing lead performance, but the story may be a little too serious (biopic), and not imaginative enough to coax the votes out of the academy members.

The story is something I knew little about (alright - nothing) and although it is monumental in its own right, I have personally become a little desensitized to many of the cinematic recreations of important moments in history - I am more of a fan of realistic fiction or historical fiction. I suppose I see little creativity in the process of recreating transcripts and personal accounts of events and conversations.

Either way, this film was well done, and Langella shines in ways that he never has before. He is Richard Nixon, and his delivery of dialogue and facial tics, posturing and other nuances of tricky Dick are awe-inspiring. This film is worth it to see him alone. 8/10.

the Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Benjamin Button is a social pariah, abandoned by his father shortly after childbirth in 1918 and taken in by a loving New Orleans couple who run a convelescent home. He is born with the body of an 80 year old man and ages backwards.

This concept poses a myriad of potential logical flaws, but David Fincher does a wonderful job of maintaining the humanity, the mystery and the realism despite the absurd scenario. Benjamin's life unfolds not unlike Forest Gump; he is raised with his kindred spirits - learns life's lessons through his experiences with the old and dying, and even falls in love with the granddaughter of one of his fellow residents. At the age of 18, he succumbs to his curiosity and begins an adventure at sea. He takes a job as a deckhand on a tugboat, and meets a variety of interesting people as he discovers passion and tries to make his way through life knowing that he is a unique and lonely soul.

There are numerous remarkable aspects to this film - the direction, acting, the story, but most engaging of all is the visual effects and the makeup. As Benjamin (Brad Pitt) ages backwards, it is not done with the traditional actor substitution, but by making Pitt appear as an old man all the way back to a man in his late teens. The effects are astounding, and will certainly win awards hands down.

Pitt does a fantastic job as the lead, and conveys the silent pain of the character through his brooding eyes and soft southern-drawl voice. I have thought for years that Pitt is a great actor who has made many outstanding choices of roles throughout the years to work with some of the more innovative directors in the industry. He plays Benjamin with convincing confidence from death to birth.

The supporting cast is mostly unknowns, but Cate Blanchett and a brief encounter with Tilda Swinton add to the star power, and showcase the talents of both. As mesmerizing as Pitt's transformation from old to young is, Blanchett's is almost as captivating from young to old.

David Fincher is one of the most visionary directors in the business, and he follows up the most underrated film of 2007 (Zodiac) with a masterpiece that will quite possibly be named the best picture of the year. His body of work continues to impress and grow, and he has me hooked as an undiscriminating fan.

The film is tied together by the backdrop of an unrequited love story of two proverbial ships passing in the night. One is growing older and the other younger, but their chemistry is undeniable. Much like Forest Gump, they take advantage of their window of opportuniy but it is destined for heartbreak.

The film ends leaving the viewer with a feeling much like the beginning - curiosity. The acting, direction, story are all incredibly moving, and there is a sense of grounded fantasy that moves it toward a satisfying conclusion. There are brilliant details, and the dialogue and interaction is done with appropriate humor as well as emotional sincerity. I would strongly recommend this film to any fan of quality cinema - it is a wonderful journey and will find itself among the favorites for many awards come March. 9/10.

Slumdog Millionaire

A story this original only comes around about once a year. Like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine, this will be the blindside indie favorite going into award season.

Slumdog is a coming of age story told in flashbacks via the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The main character, Jamal is being held on the charge of cheating his way to the million dollar question, and his validation of each answer takes us back to one of his pivotal life lessons. This film may sound formulaic, and as predictable as it is, its originality and earnestness drives the story forward with a sense of purpose and sincerity.

Shot in the style owned by Danny Boyle, the film has a mysterious foreign flavor, quick shot cuts fueled by beat-driven techno music, and even an odd sequence involving human feces. This one is a step up from some of his earlier work however - in terms of taste and quality. This story is believable, and the basic humanistic qualities of hope and goodness shine through.

Admittedly, the star of the film for me was the setting - the slums of Mumbai (Bombay), India and the poverty-stricken youth that happily roam the garbage-strewn cities filled with over-crowded tin roof shacks. The flashbacks in particular really conveyed the claustrophobic feel of the hot, dirty landscapes.

I got a nostalgic feeling of the Usual Suspects as the story was unfolding - a young man being interrogated in a police station regarding his winnings, and the pivotal question: is he lucky, cheating, genius, or "it is written"? We don't find out until near the end, and I found myself getting caught up in the anticipation of the million dollar question (which is predictable given his life story) and wondering how this would all turn out.

In the midst of this arc is a subtle love story that epitomizes the Indian lower class and the struggle to move up and in most cases, out.

The cast is comprised of unknowns to Americans, and there is a co-director - Loveleen Tandan who presumably had a major influence on the cast/customs. What I am curious to find out however, is what drew Boyle to this project, as it is more Bollywood than Hollywood (see closing credits) and is a little tame for his typical style of filmmaking.

Whatever the reason, it is extremely well done, and will likely receive nominations for its feelgood spirit, and its out-of-nowhere originality and completeness - including perfect musical selections. I was thoroughly entertained, and would be surprised if there weren't at least 3 major nominations (picture, director, screenplay). Best picture I've seen this year that didn't have a superhero. 9/10.

Milk

Milk follows the political rise and tragic fall of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to win a major public office in the United States. Taking place in the mid to late 1970's, Harvey runs for district supervisor (city council) in San Francisco during a time of bigotry, social confusion, religious intolerance and surprisingly, above all else; hope. Sean Penn portrays Milk with such a convincing performance, that the legitimacy of his sexual orientation is incontrovertible, and therefore never compromises the integrity of the story. Beyond that, his performance is so subtle and heartfelt that his orientation falls into the background early on, adding even more depth and emotion to the tragic conclusion.

Milk was assassinated alongside San Francisco mayor Moscone by fellow district supervisor Dan White. White, played by Josh Brolin is the antithesis of the civil rights movement. He is a former police officer and fire fighter, a traditional fundamental christian family man who finds himself trying to play the political game with Milk, only to feel slighted when his ideas are not supported.

Gus Van Sant tackles an obviously controversial subject, but from the opening scenes, there is little discomfort or gratuitous politicking. Blended shots of actual historical footage creates a sense of familiarity and continuity, and the characters are introduced without any flash of insincerity or embellishment.

The supporting cast does a fine job for the most part - I had a slight problem with the choice of actors for Milk's boyfriends - James Franco and Diego Luna. Franco is just too much of a James Dean clone - handsome stares with little substance behind his eyes. Luna was just plain annoying. Perhaps those were the realities of the individuals, but neither seemed to fit what Milk stood for as a person - he was a principled, yet pragmatic individual with a heart for the greater good of society. Of course his main cause was the gay civil rights movement, but Franco and Luna just didn't seem right.

The ripples of Milk's life and death are clearly understated, but there are subtle hints at the impact that he and his band of supporters had on the infamous Briggs Initiative of 1978. The proposition, supported by senator Briggs and Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusaders would have allowed discrimination against homosexuals in employment practices - particularly in public schools.

For those who skipped Brokeback Mountain because of the content, you needn't be worried about this one. There are a few kissing scenes, but the lifestyles and relationships are very tastefully portrayed. This is a bit of a surprise given Van Sant's past films and the graphic shock-value tendencies he has from time to time. This film is more a vehicle for award hunting, and the nominations are well deserved. Expect Penn to receive a nomination for certain. He is currently my front-runner for Academy gold, edging Smith (seven pounds) as the only other worthy recipient.

A good film, uplifting to the spirit, but emotionally depressing at the same time. The pacing maintains a solid balance of that polarity. 8/10

Australia

Australia is the ultimate Oscar film via previews - an foreign period epic love tale with dramatic war themes and two A-list stars, as well as a critically acclaimed director who has his own style. What you get after nearly 3 hours of viewing is a disarray of incomplete mixed messages and wildly intersecting plot points that leave you disappointed and confused.

It's not quite as bad as I make it out to be. Typically I am a Kidman hater. I don't think she's attractive, or that great of an actress, but in this film, she hits her character right on the money. She plays an uppity British aristocrat who heads to Australia when she thinks her husband is cheating on her, only to find him dead. From there she learns on the run how to manage a cattle ranch with the help of Jackman and some unfortunately misplaced aborigines.

Jackman does fine, but there are far too many prolongued camera shots of his swarthy, concerned face. He is too Hollywood to play a real cattle driver, and the cliche that he has no name except "Drover" makes my eyes roll (and my eyelids heavy).

The story progresses quickly for an epic period piece, but there are far too many areas of focus to keep your attention on any one general problem. The film covers the entire gamut of serious topics; racism, sexism, war, class differences, cultural differences, poverty, industrial competition, love and loss, the list goes on and on. This is my primary problem with this film. There is no focus, and by the end, there are so many scattered emotions that there is no sense of lesson learned or moral victory.

I was reminiscent of There Will be Blood, but only on a surface level. There were also many overt references and allusions to the Wizard of Oz, so Baz Luhrmann clearly has a personal affinity to the story (he is directing Wicked in 2010...) Unfortunately, as original as the story was, the characters and developments were not compelling in the slightest.

I was a big fan of Moulin Rouge, and deeply respect Luhrmann's abilities as a writer and director, but Australia missed the mark. Perhaps too ambitious, perhaps the wrong timing for this particular story. Whatever the case, I won't give up on him in the cinematic world, but I would be as surprised to see any Oscar nominations for this as I would for Tom Cruise as Colonel Von Stauffenberg. The scenery is beautiful and the cinematography well done, but this is not a Best Picture candidate. 5/10.

Quantum of Solace

The 22nd foray into the twisted and convoluted life of cinema's favorite British spy, Quantum of Solace displays the aftermath of Casino Royale with a frenetic journey across continents that pits Bond against his own MI6 as well as the man behind the death of his love, Vesper.

Quantum does well within the Bond family, particularly with the evolving feel that Daniel Craig has lent to the franchise. He brings more of a physical presence to the screen that hasn't been felt before, and some of the tongue-in-cheek dialogue and extravagantly entertaining, yet innocuous scenarios have fallen by the wayside in deference to a more terse and realistic tone.

The only problem with this 21st century spy paradigm (see the Bourne movies) is that the fantasy aspect all but dies as the realism becomes more prevalent. The most noticeable exception to this is still the seemingly invincible Bond. He gets cuts and scrapes, but what bothers me is that there is never any doubt that he will beat the villain, and do it in a new and cinematically appealing way. He confronts dozens of men, and walks away after beating all of them in hand to hand combat. He takes down three of MI6's best in an elevator, in handcuffs with not a scratch or a bit of trouble.

Missing are the gimmicky gadgets, and the trademark car (with the exception of the opening scene, which is breathtaking, but far too short). Bond is getting darker and more physical, but also is beginning to convey superhuman strength and decision making skills. This is exactly what he is supposed to be, but it should be subtle and admirable.

The fast paced action in the beginning matches that near the end, but the middle lacks real substance and drones on for just a bit too long before bringing us back full-circle. Bond is an icon for the ages, and with Craig, it is a more noticeable transition or changing of the guard than there has ever been in the past. He does the character great justice in all the right ways, but there needs to be a little bit more originality tied to this new darker and brutish tone. Audiences clearly are interested in seeing some of the old and some of the new, but the mix threw me off a little.

Good action, weak story, Craig is great. The infamous "Bond Girls" were contrived and cute, but nothing memorable in this outing. I will continue to see Bond, but will expect more from the next one. 6/10.

W

Having not read the reviews, I approached W with an open mind. After all, I have enjoyed many of Oliver Stone's films in the past, and I think Josh Brolin is on the type of acting roll that creates Oscar winners. However, I also have a bit of apprehension about any politically motivated skewering of one of the most controversial presidents in the history of our country, not to mention the current leader of the free world.

I was surprised and pleased that the film focused less on the mistakes that George Bush has made (although those were certainly incorporated) and more on the growth and path that led him to the white house. Perhaps the most interesting and entertaining aspect of the film was the supporting cast of players, who all did an exceptional job with the exception of Thandie Newton, who I can't tell if she intentionally made Condoleeza Rice look like an ignorant puppet, or if that's just how it turned out. Anyway, from Dick Cheney, to George Bush, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, the actors hit the characters with stellar accuracy.

Especially remarkable were the performances of Jeffrey Wright playing Colin Powell, and Josh Brolin playing W himself. I fully expect Oscar nominations for Brolin as well as either Cromwell or Dreyfuss based on the pivotal scenes and likenesses of character. The story is compelling if not a bit uncomfortable, but the personal perspectives of the director are subtle and restrained. I fully enjoyed the ride, although it did start to slow down a little bit toward the end.

Where the film missed the mark is in the absence of critical information to the development of the story. For example, Bush's campaign for governor of Texas breezed through the process without a hint of how he found himself in the position. Likewise, with flashes back and forward from his prolongued adolescence to the aftermath of 9/11, there is no time spent dealing with the event that polarized our country forever. Additionally, for a man who has difficulty holding down a job, how exactly does he find himself as the owner of a major league baseball team? The business sense he gained from Harvard's business school should have been more than mentioned in passing, as that accomplishment alone warrants some attention.

We, as viewers do achieve a sense of the motivation and political influence of the prestigious Bush name, and to Stone's credit, it is quite well done. The acclaim belongs to the players though.

A very interesting story; it makes you think about the changes in the political world over the past 20 years, and that although many things have changed for the better or worse, the old school wealthy grey-haired Ivy league politicians still rule undisputably. Worth seeing whether you are a supporter or not. 7/10.

Body of Lies

I read David Ignatious' book in 2007 and thought it was a riveting CIA story about an operative who finds himself torn between the real-time intelligence that he receives in the volatile Middle East, and the bureaucratic red tape in Washington that dictates his rules of engagement.

Ridley Scott's adaptation is an exciting thrill-a-minute action movie, but too much of the mystique of covert operations is wasted behind an absurd power struggle between the man on the ground (DiCaprio) and his supervisor in the safety of an air conditioned office (Crowe). The interaction between these two is cool, but Crowe's character is despicable and callous not to mention ignorant of Middle Eastern customs and language. Qualities that certainly do not qualify someone to head a division even in the black ops realm of the CIA.

The film belongs to DiCaprio. He displays his inner action star, but does so with a bit of nobility. Films like Blood Diamond and the Departed showed a glimmer of his potential in this arena, and he brings quality acting to the table as well as a believable character. Crowe simply brings a second big name to the mix. He could have played this part in his sleep, and it's obvious.

Ridley Scott accentuates the technological capabilities as well as the ethical grey areas as it concerns the global war on terror. There are no boundaries or rules when dealing with extremist groups who want nothing more than to punish the infidels. Scott makes sure that the viewer realizes this, and it helps the film.

What does not help the film however, is that it is far too long. At 2 hours and 8 minutes, it seems more like 3 hours, and the multitude of plot twists that made Ignatious' book so entertaining have found themselves on the cutting room floor save one mildly unexpected twist.

The film comes and goes, and there is no real satisfaction or resolution. The climax comes far too quickly during the pivotal scenes near the end, and although the intent is to be a smart, realistic, spy thriller, Ridley Scott should have milked the action angle a little more for entertainment value since he scrapped major plot points.

Some of the action is commendable - particularly with regard to the military and intelligence scenes, but the action is dulled by interludes of nonsensical romantic tension that is seemingly only placed in the film because there was nothing else to put in it.

I loved the book, but only moderately enjoyed the film. Perhaps my standards are skewed and a comparison is unfair. If you have no basis for comparison, this would be one of the better films in recent years to tackle the subject of terrorism, but in many ways it is still just a waste of talented actors, writers and director. By the way - William Monahan (the Departed) wrote the screenplay for this one, and fails in my book. I'm looking forward to more of DiCaprio's films in the near future. 7/10.

Eagle Eye

This cautionary tale derives much of its influence from 2001 and 1984, both exceptional stories, yet very much unrealistic. The film begins with a special operations group targeting a terrorist Muslim group somewhere in the Middle East using the latest and greatest computer assimilating technology, dubbed Eagle Eye. From there the story flashes to Chicago where we find out unlikely protagonist, Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf) leading a remarkably unremarkable life as a copy clerk. He is chosen by a mysterious voice and is paired up with Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan) to complete a series of tasks that put them both in constant jeopardy. Will they escape? Who is behind this mysterious omnipotent voice? Who cares?

What begins as an intriguing story begins its inevitable demise far too early in the film to be taken seriously. There are good sequences of action (those which don't have so much shaky camera work that the screen is a blur of twisted metal and explosions) and some of the technological aspects of the story are interesting, but the characters never fully convince the viewer that they are worthy of these tasks, or that they deserve to survive.

After many red herrings and unwarranted tension-filled scenes, the elaborate puzzle pieces come together in a cacophony of absurdity. Is there anyone within the Department of Defense who knows what they are doing? Will Jerry and Rachel complete their tasks? What are their tasks? Again - who cares? The film does a terrible job compelling the viewer to invest emotion in these characters.

Billy Bob Thornton is in his element as the FBI Special Agent in Charge of Anti-Terrorism, and adds some dry humor as well as some star talent to the picture. Michael Chiklis on the other hand, is entirely out of place as the Secretary of Defense. Perhaps it's difficult to see him playing anything except for a morally corrupt cop who is out for street justice, but just about anyone would have been a better choice for this particular role.

DJ Caruso seems to have a template for his films, attempting to manipulate the viewer by giving the protagonist a tragedy that somehow affects the outcome of the story. This paradigm gets old, and the story would have been better off had this not happened (of course, the story gets so ridiculous that I'm not sure if it would have actually been better off).

Shia is a very affable actor, good screen presence and witty. He plays a good action/comedy lead, but Monaghan doesn't do anything for me. Bottom line - this film has some good action, but is ridiculous and lets the viewer down at the end. 6/10.

Seven Pounds

I had the distinguished privilege of being at a test screening of Seven Pounds over three months before its scheduled release date in late December. It has already begun generating Oscar buzz, but I will give you the straight scoop.

Seven Pounds follows an IRS agent named Ben (Will Smith) who is trying to atone for a tragic accident that he feels personally responsible for, by committing random acts of kindness to strangers who happen to be on his caseload. The story is a little more complicated than that, but without spoiling anything crucial, that is the premise.

Will Smith will be nominated for an Oscar for his performance, without a doubt. The filmmaker (Gabriele Muccino - the Pursuit of Happyness) and film are another story altogether. Granted, I viewed a rough cut, and with the audience response, I am sure that some major cuts will be made including some of the more pivotal scenes in spoiling the twist. Smith is harrowing in his performance, no humor at all - just the shell of a broken man trying to find his personal salvation through others. The dark undertones of the story take a little bit away from the performance, but despite what you think of the film itself, Smith is still a beacon of brilliance.

Rosario Dawson is the love interest, and although she holds her own, there is something that doesn't seem quite right about her playing this role. A conversation about her heart condition came up afterward and there were some lingering questions. Woody Harrelson is a bright spot among an otherwise unremarkable supporting cast (Barry Pepper was awful and should be cut altogether). He receives a minimal amount of screen time, but it is powerful, particularly the seemingly out of place phone conversation with Smith near the beginning of the film.

There are a few minor flaws, which may still be addressed before the film is rolled out for general audience. The first is that there are a couple of plot twists that the viewer suspects way too early on and are simply anti-climactic when they come to fruition. The second is the ending. Once the pivotal climax occurs, there is too much reflection and the final sequence drags out unnecessarily. On a brighter note, the choice of pet that Will Smith owns is probably the most original and interesting seen in film in recent memory. There is one image that stays in my mind even after the plot of the film and the dialogue fade.

It is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, with some surgical editing, it could be a very good one. I just think that the themes and story are too dark and depressing to end up winning statues in March. Smith is exceptional (again) and I look forward to seeing the final cut on DVD next year. 8/10 (with optimism for some final editing).

Burn After Reading

The much anticipated follow up to the best film of 2007 by two of the most creatively innovative filmmakers of our time takes the form of a silly spy comedy, but it works. Star power and Coen movie regulars carry witty dialogue and character development despite the lack of a compelling story. There are clearly trademark Coen comedy staples, such as the long loud wingtip-clacking walk down a government agency hallway. There is something about the camera behind the shoes angle that never gets old to me. There is also the slightly morbid twist of gratuitous violence that shakes up the comedic vibe, something that has turned off many other critics, but which works just fine with this film.

George Clooney headlines as a sex-addicted Treasury Department agent (although the Marshals fall under the Justice Department, but that's a technicality). He finds himself involved in a tangled web of players ranging from CIA spooks to a trio of "Hardbodies" gym employees, to Russian emissaries when a classified file is discovered and used as an instrument of blackmail. The character is a bit of a schmuck, but played well by Clooney who has a wonderful comedic presence and was probably in his element filming this role.

Brad Pitt (who I honestly believe is a great actor) is the likable but not-so-bright gym employee who orchestrates the debacle with the secret disk. His performance is a far cry from the cool Tyler Durden or Detective Mills of the 90's, he exudes self-effacing confidence and is hilarious in the process.

John Malkovich (excellent performance), Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton round out the A-list cast, but it is JK Simmons, David Rasche and Richard Jenkins that give the film its Coen brothers feel. The dialogue between Simmons and Rasche is worth the price of admission alone, and their final conversation left me laughing out loud.

Cleverly written, well acted all around, and worth checking out to any fan of the Coens, Pitt, Clooney, or Malkovich. It does not have the serious feel of Fargo or No Country, but the premise of the film is intriguing enough, and the closure is exceptional. I felt that the pace was slowing near the middle, and there were probably some unnecessary scenes, but as it comes to a close, every loose end is tied up and it is done quickly and with hilarity. JK Simmons has to be one of the funniest straight-faced actors around, and he was given some great lines.

Overall, a thoroughly entertaining movie, but perhaps a slight disappointment considering the talent involved. 7/10.

The Rocker

The Rocker follows a washed up forty-something drummer named Fish (Rainn Wilson) who does a Pete Best impression and gets kicked out of his band just prior to them making it big back in 1986. Vesuvius becomes the metal sensation ruling the 80's and 90's like Metallica, Motley Crue, Guns n' Roses and Poison all rolled into one monstrous supergroup. With Spinal Tap flair, the band is comprised of barely recognizable comic veterans Will Arnett, Bradley Cooper and Fred Armisen.

Flash to the present. Fish is desperately trying to leave the pain behind, but the reminders of Vesuvius' mega success pervades his every thought, and he just can't escape the personal hell of what might have been. From this point forward, what we get is a more mature and good-natured version of School of Rock, but Wilson is not nearly as annoying as Jack Black despite his character's many deficiencies, and the kids are a little older. What sets the film apart is that you root for Fish to succeed. There is something intangible about the positive way that this film was created. There is something counter intuitive about the character. You keep expecting some horrible quality to come out, but there is simply an excess of sloth and a love for banging the skins. Wilson is almost endearing even as he shamelessly doffs his clothes in a Will Ferrell-esque jam session. Separating Fish from the Dwight Schrute that we all know and love is nearly impossible, but that is alright.

The kids pull their weight as well, especially Fish's nephew (Josh Gad) who is the socially retarded keyboardist who conjures a less brash Jonah Hill. Their journey takes them to unprecedented heights of success, and there is even some satisfaction in the end. What is missing however is the raunchy humor and Apatow wit that we've seen in recent years, but it works as a kid-friendly film.

One knock in my opinion (although small) is the choice of original music. There is a bit of misrepresentation as the kids band is more Emo and less Rock, and although it plays into the plot a little smoother (and makes it more believable), I was really craving some bad 80's metal a la Spinal Tap, or... Vesuvius.

Alas, I left the theatre both impressed and feeling good. Rainn Wilson can carry a film, and apparently some great comedians stand behind him as well (most of the SNL cast). I would recommend this for a good time. Definitely not going to win any awards, but some good laughs nonetheless. 7/10.

Tropic Thunder

The premise sounds hilarious on paper; a motley crew of pompous Hollywood actors find themselves filming a blockbuster Vietnam War movie that turns out more real than they bargained for. The actors involved had to lobby for their roles in the film (including some excellent cameos), and Ben Stiller put together a pretty decent action comedy in the end.

The main characters are introduced in hilarious fashion through mock trailers that clearly show their personalities, the best of which is Satan's Alley with Robert Downey Jr. and a surprising cameo by Tobey Maguire. From there, we are taken into the jungle where the shallow and vice-ridden actors are on set of their most recent film, Tropic Thunder which is experiencing problem after problem and whose budget is skyrocketing, much to the chagrin of the studio head (Tom Cruise).

The story becomes both predictable and dull, but the character interaction keeps it afloat with eccentric personalities and some great dialogue. There are bright spots in the mix - including Cruise, Downey Jr. and the film's explosives expert Danny McBride. Jack Black has some great lines as well, but his performance is a little over the top and the fat comedian/drug addict cliche overshadows some of the enjoyability.

The sub-par performances include Nick Nolte, who plays the Vietnam Vet with his typical gravelly voice, but there is little life behind the voice. I've long thought he is blessed with one of the more unique voices in film, but his acting is suspect at times. This is one of those times. Additionally, Ben Stiller is a little too Zoolander in this one. Granted, he is the action star of the bunch, but does he really have to be a complete idiot? He is a great writer and director, and is hilarious at times, but when he crosses over into the outlandish comedic zone (Zoolander, Dodgeball, Anchorman), it gets a little absurd.

Overall, this is a surprisingly fitting blend of action and comedy with some gross-out visual effects, but what stands out is the great ensemble cast and the A-list cameo performances. A bit of a sidebar, but keep an eye out for Jay Baruchel, who plays a member of the military team. He has comedic presence reminiscent of Michael Cera. Very natural and innocent. His most significant previous performance was as Danger in Million Dollar Baby.

With regard to complaints about the offensiveness of some of the content, it is simply hypersensitive activist groups attempting to draw attention to their cause. It bothers me to no end when entertainment is targeted as offensive for whatever reason. The best way to avoid being offended is to avoid the content in the first place. This movie is not for everyone, but it is quite funny.

I have always thought that Tom Cruise is an exceptional actor. Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men, Magnolia, and Collateral being some of his better works. He impressed me in last year's Lions for Lambs as well. The problem with him is both the public perception and he is too often typecast as the good looking action star. He isn't given ample opportunity to show his range - particularly his comedic range. I am looking forward to his next few movies, as it appears that his choice of roles are less commercial and dictated by the studios, and more appealing to his own taste.

It is an entertaining movie, not likely to be remembered for more than Downey Jr. playing the black guy or Cruise playing the fat, bald studio head. Worth a look though. 7/10.

The Dark Knight

The hype has been established. Ledger for a posthumous Oscar nomination buzzing around the Internet. Single day and weekend sales records shattered by what absolutely must be called the cinematic event of the summer, if not the entire year. I settle into my seat in the IMAX theatre and await what many are calling the best superhero film ever, and one of the best movies of the decade. Richard Roeper (one of my most respected sources) even commented that "Ledger doesn't have to steal every scene he's in because he walks in and owns it from the get-go. This is one of the funniest, creepiest, darkest, most interesting and most amazing performances I've seen in any movie this decade." If that isn't praise coming from an expert, I don't know what is. The lights dim, and after an amazing look at next year's Watchmen, the film begins.

From the opening scene, there is a feeling that this is something different. Not your run-of-the-mill action film, or superhero film for that matter. Maybe it is the knowledge that Chris Nolan has revived a franchise from the depths of comic book purgatory (see Joel Schumacher's mid 1990's debacles). Maybe it is the strangely darker tone that is taken from the opening bank robbery. My personal feeling is that it is a superbly well-rounded feature; from the music, to the old fashioned stunt work (as opposed to CGI), the acting and perhaps best of all, the writing.

Nolan wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan, and manufactured the heart behind what will certainly be the most talked about performance of the year - Ledger's Joker. As great and interesting a character as the Joker is, he is only a layer of this complex story that ponders morality and justice amidst a chaotic world consumed with uncertainty and fear. The emergence of District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt) takes center stage as the focal point of the story and shines as a beacon of fragile hope for the city, but also accentuates the nefarious nature of the criminal elements that plague the notorious Gotham City.

The Dark Knight is filled with excellent actors who must have been clamoring for their roles, and most impress even with minimal screen time. A noted upgrade over the most recent incarnation is Maggie Gyllenhaal who replaced Katie Holmes as the eye candy/love interest Rachel Dawes, and adds a dimension of humanity and acting ability beyond that of a tree. Gary Oldman gets more screen time on this time around as well as the incorruptible police Lieutenant Gordon.

Acting and story aside (as if that weren't enough), the score is amazing and the stunts are reminiscent of the times before computers made things like transforming cars a reality. The explosions are real, and although some of the fight scenes are a little hard to see due to the dark night, they are impressive nonetheless.

Heath Ledger must be mentioned, as he is the reason for much of the buzz, and it is fully deserved. It is tragic what happened, but he will forever be remembered for his final and finest role of a short yet distinguished career. He portrayed the Joker with undeniable emotion and terror. He conveys his sociopathic tendencies with such nonchalance that it is eerily believable. From the awkward walk to the eccentric talk to the creepy lip-smacking, he brings an intrigue and intensity to the screen that I haven't seen from a character in a long time. His body language and posturing alone is worthy of praise that even the most experienced and respected actors around have taken decades to earn. It is unfortunate that he won't be around to accept his Oscar next year. Excellent film, a true must-see for the summer and the year. IMAX optional. 10/10.

Hellboy 2

Guillermo del Toro's fantastical vision of a world inhabited by creepy crawlers, goblins, beasts, the unwanted spawn of Satan, and a man made entirely of a smoky gas (as well as others) leaves the viewer dazzled by the creativity and outstanding visual effects. The story is nothing new; kind of a mesh between the Lord of the Rings, X-Men, and Ghostbusters, but the delivery is spot-on action comedy at its finest.

Ron Perlman is the quintessential misunderstood superhero who loves cats and candy, and just wants to be loved by the people who he secretly protects from the creatures of the dark. He plays Hellboy with such blase frankness that it is impossible to imagine anyone else delivering his understated lines. Aside from his machismo, there is a detectable shred of humanity, as evidenced in his Barry Manilow duet with the fish man Abe, which is not quite as awkward as it sounds, but somewhat fitting and endearing.

The story unfolds quickly and with wild action sequences involving CGI creatures such as tooth fairies, a giant tree creature, and a walrus-looking beast with a retractable metal fist. The compelling thing about this film is not the story or even the creatures, but the sheer imagination and detail that is put into each and every special effect-filled scene. Del Toro has been building a reputation in this arena since he directed Blade 2, since which time he has done Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth. He has stepped into both writer and producer roles as well and is working on both the Hobbit and the Hobbit 2, which should both be amazing if his inventive style continues to evolve.

It is difficult to credit the film with an interesting story, or even great acting, but what is truly original is the characters and the world in which they live. Even things as innocuous as a flashback to when Hellboy was a young boy are brilliantly done, complete with intentionally antiquated claymation technology depicting the story within the story. The pace moves swiftly and there is noticeable meticulous attention paid to every detail within this film. Truly an enjoyable piece, I have to give it high marks for the originality and direction. 8/10.

Hancock

Hancock is the story of a reluctant superhero who has feelings of isolation and loneliness due to his unique superhuman speed and strength. His major character flaw however, is the emotional barrier that he has created after unsuccessfully trying to be the hero that the people of LA desperately want him to be. That, and he is an alcoholic.

This is truly a different take on the typical superhero genre, with an added element of compassion and humanity. There is still the suspended disbelief, good comedic scenes and excellent special effects (although a little shaky at times), but this is something we haven't seen before. The tight leather outfit is openly mocked, and Hancock's slovenly drunkard for all intents and purposes creates a visual antithesis of a traditional superhero.

Hancock woke up at a hospital with no memory of how he got there and upon signing out was told to put his John Hancock on the release papers. Thus, his identity was created. Will Smith plays the character wonderfully with exceptional physical presence and attitude. He is a master of comedic timing, and coupled with Jason Bateman, this film kept a smile on my face...until the end.

It's a great idea and story, a brilliant cast (I can't say enough about how great Bateman is - he may be the funniest actor alive) with the addition of Charlize Theron, it has all the makings of a true summer blockbuster, and the eventual box office gross will corroborate that statement. There was a feeling in my gut that I couldn't quite get over near the end though. Peter Berg is a great filmmaker, but he bucks the system with his non-conformist approach. He did that with Very Bad Things, and he did it with the Kingdom. I think the problem is that he is trying to create a comedy, a drama, a bit of suspense and some audience-shocking tragedy all at the same time. It is an unfamiliar feeling, and I kind of wish that he had stayed on the course before the plot twist.

The plot twist. I won't spoil, but it changes the direction of the film completely and even though there has to be the formulaic protagonist personal growth through conflict and resolution, this particular one didn't seem to fit the mold that the first 3/4 of the film created.

Although the title suggests that Smith is the main character, I would argue that it is more of a buddy picture with he and Bateman adding value and reassurance to each others lives from start to finish. I can't complain about that though, the two of them had a very natural dialogue and interaction and made it entertaining and watchable.

I have to give Berg credit for the originality aspect of the story and for landing an outstanding cast and using them wonderfully. I just had some minor issues with the way that the climax played out. Excellent acting all around, great idea and story, and the effects were pretty good (a little shaky and at times on the cheap side). 7/10

Wanted

Every boy's secret fantasy; you're living through a boring and monotonous life when out of the blue you are told that you are the heir to the greatest assassin who ever lived and your destiny is to avenge his death. James McAvoy was perhaps a perfect choice to play the part of Wesley, evoking Ed Norton's narrator character in Fight Club. His inner monologue describes in comedic detail just how miserable of an existence he leads. The transformation that takes place is a little bit too much like the Matrix, but the special effects are excellent, and the pacing is fast and smooth, so it is acceptable.

Timur Bekmambetov brings a unique style of direction that works perfectly for this fantastical comic book adaptation. The visual and special effects are top notch, and as with his previous Russian films - Nightwatch and Daywatch, he is showing his dominance in his respective genre.

The cast left a little to be desired. Although it is fun to watch Morgan Freeman drop F-bombs, he coasted through this role. Angelina Jolie simply used her sexuality to play the appropriately named Fox. Longing gazes at McAvoy and pouty lips only go so far before it gets kind of annoying (in this context). The rest of the assassins weren't utilized nearly enough, as the rag-tag band of secret fraternity members could have been a bit more eclectic and important to the story.

There were some minor details that actually detracted from my enjoyment of the film. The back story of the assassins being descendants of weavers was both weak and unnecessary. There was a little too much time spent on the historical angle, and it was wasted time that could have been spent flipping cars and sending bullets through windows and people. The training of the freshly anointed chosen one could have been a little more relevant as well, and as cool as curving bullets is in theory, getting beat up and working on specific skills as opposed to more practical exercises just seemed unfitting.

The action sequences were excellent. From the opening scene it is clear that this director pulls no punches, and conveys the story on the screen in a way in which no director has before. Truly unique film making. A slight plot twist near the end keeps the story going and leads to a rampaging Matrix-style shootout that is both ridiculous and awesome at the same time.

I really enjoyed this film despite having not read the graphic novel/comic book and having some slight qualms with a few of the details. I bet it was fun to make, and the pacing and action makes it highly watchable. 8/10.

The Incredible Hulk

Marvel Studios has really impressed me with its first two films, but more importantly, its marketing and vision for future franchises and spin offs. The subtle integration of characters is delicately and deliberately placed in the first two films as just a slight tease of things to come. This strategy plays well, creating openings for limitless opportunities, and with the successes of Iron Man and the Hulk, the foreseeable future looks good for Marvel.

The Hulk of 2003 was decent, but still a disappointing artistic endeavor by Ang Lee that was viewed as nothing more than a long, muddled mess of a story with dazzling special effects. The updated version, which for all intents and purposes is the sequel, is much more concise and true to its purpose and audience. Even from the beginning, the entire back story is shown through snippets of newspaper clippings and flashbacks over the course of the opening credits. Too many films of this type (an extensive back story) spend too much time getting the audience up to speed, but this version handles it over the course of just a few minutes.

From there, the story builds with the help of some great actors, and although it is nothing more than a misunderstood science experiment gone wrong, it is an entertaining and reasonable story nonetheless. I think what makes it work is that there isn't a false sense of tension or emotional crescendo, it's just plain fun. The writer, Zak Penn (superhero films and video games are his specialty) does a great job of maintaining the levity with tongue-in-cheek dialogue, and inside jokes that make fans of the genre giddy.

Norton, Hurt, Roth and Tim Blake Nelson were all improvements over the original cast of characters from 2003, but unfortunately Liv Tyler was weak, and much less of a screen presence than Jennifer Connelly was as Betty Ross in 2003.

Some of the special/visual effects along the way were a little bit disappointing, but the final battle made up for that, and the length of the final battle was impressive as usually they seem to fizzle after just a few very deliberate scenes. The real kicker that kept the energy level up was the cameo at the end by Tony Stark (Iron Man) who blatantly set up buzz for a 2011 release of the Avengers (comprised of Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor and some lesser known super heroes). As mentioned earlier, Marvel has brilliantly marketed their first two movies, and if the global gross is any indicator of future films by the studio, they will be a major force in Hollywood for some time to come. Hulk good. 8/10.

The Happening

Let me preface this review by saying - I will not spoil anything. M. Night Shyamalan's latest thriller follows unsuspecting Northeasterners who fall victim to an unexplained and fatal phenomenon. Never before has a director followed his or her debut (Sixth Sense), which was one of the all time great thrillers with such a piece of garbage (Unbreakable). This alone is cause for suspicion in the actual quality of Shyamalan's body of work. I personally enjoyed both Signs and the Village, but Lady in the Water was absolutely awful, and actually worse than Unbreakable. Anyway, lowered expectations prevail, and I went to see the Happening on the off chance that Night has regained his magic touch.

For a director/writer/producer who typically shrouds his stories and twists in a mysterious web of secrecy, he must have given up on caring on this one. The entire plot from start to finish can be discerned simply by watching the previews. In fact, with the exception of one particular sequence, the most heightened level of tension resides in the first few minutes of the film. Night creates these fantasy worlds that suck the viewer in and make them temporarily believable, which to his credit is what really keeps his films afloat.

This brings me to my biggest concern: This movie is being advertised specifically on the platform that this is Night's first R-rated film. Why? The content rivals his other work, and the graphic sequences would be equally if not more effective if they were left to the imagination. Why make the step up now, knowing full well that an R-rated film will probably gross fewer dollars, when there is already a marketable and proven writer/director behind the project? It doesn't make sense to me, and I can't understand the logic except that Night must have taken some cues from the "gore porn" films of the past few years and wanted to see how his take would do on audiences.

Getting back to the film, the premise is quite intriguing, and elicits some deep thoughts early on, because the looming overtone is not "what is happening", but rather "why is it happening?" Unfortunately, the film somehow loses its grip on the viewer, and eventually the question becomes "who cares?" The end finally arrives, and the questions have only partially been answered, although the explanation is what would be expected. As anti-climactic as the would-be-ending is, the film continues, and actually regains some of its steam, leaving the viewer in the middle of a political current events debate neatly guised as a cautionary tale.

There were some bright spots along the way. The premise alone evokes shudders, and the explanation is somewhat plausible although highly unlikely on so many levels. Many of the scenes are comprised of trademark Shyamalan camera work - lingering and deliberate shots of either irrelevant or foreshadowing people or objects. Blending the eerie music with the mundane makes his movies the thrill rides that they are, and for me, the anticipation of something fresh, new and revealing makes it worthwhile. Perhaps the magic is gone, but the journey is fun. I enjoyed this movie for nothing more than an original story with some good tension.

Wahlberg is pretty good as the easy-going science teacher on the run, but he used his "wrinkled brow, confused and a little bit anxious" expression a little bit too often. Of course, that is his bread and butter, so we can't blame him for that, can we? The rest of the cast is mostly forgettable except for the old recluse, who made for some good seat-edge moments. Overall, it's worth checking out. Definitely creepy and fun. 7/10.

You Don't Mess With the Zohan

I normally don't let reviews sway my opinion, but in this case, they caught me off guard and I'm going to skip the Zohan. It looked funny based on the previews... I'll let you know when it's on Netflix.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

I watched this movie tonight, nearly two years after its initial release, and I felt absolutely compelled to pontificate or spout my environmentally liberal side about how absolutely ludicrous this government has become in its approach to the protection of wealth and the wealthy. I am not usually one to show my true colors, this my friends can attest to. When I saw Sicko, I was politically moved, but regarded it as another Michael Moore ultra-liberal plot to make the current administration look foolish (bravo Moore, you have compounded the damage done by Farenheit 9/11 to make our country seem almost third-world in its treatment of citizens).

Who Killed the Electric Car is a maddening look at the auto/oil consortium that controls our free market economy enough to sway state government officials to overlook the greater good in deference to corporate financial gains.
General Motors, which I am ashamed to admit is the producer of my current car, created the EV-1 (Electric Vehicle 1) in the late 1990's, and it was wildly successful among is lessees. Unfortunately, the company (and competitors) began to see the financial disincentives attached to the ownership of such an efficient vehicle (no gas, no internal combustion engine = no oil/parts service) and scrapped the whole concept despite no recorded consumer complaints or compliance issues. It was simply too advanced for its time.

GM disallowed continuation of contracts with its lessees, despite numerous offers to purchase the vehicles. The consumers were met with hostile legal threats and the cars were confiscated. Further investigation showed that these vehicles were destroyed with no apparent paper trail or reason.

Only money could be behind the absurd decision to move forward into hybrid technology which (surprise) isn't much better than regular internal combustion engines, or for car companies to explore an undetermined time line of hydrogen cell technology which has significant obstacles to its own viability. The answer is the electric car, and the technology is available for an affordable vehicle with a 100 mile daily charge. As battery technology advances (better, smaller) that number will increase as the cost decreases, but as it stands today, it would still be disturbingly reasonable.

There is only one reason for the national conspiracy to suppress technology, and that is money. I would highly recommend this documentary as required viewing for anyone falling victim to the raping that is currently taking place at the gas pumps. There are few conspiracy theories to which I am a subscriber, but oil/auto company conspiracies is one of them. Anyone who has a genuine concern for the environment and the future needs to be aware of this film and the lies that have been told and the truths that have been buried. With rising fuel costs and greater awareness about the state of the global environment, this is going to be the most anticipated change in consumer behavior since the advent of indoor plumbing or central heating/air conditioning.

By no means is this a great film. In fact, it is quite the contrary. On a scale of 1-10 I would probably give it a 4-5 for its cinematic appeal. The content however is something that is absolutely magnetic. Further fueling the skepticism of this country's collective leadership conscience, I can only shake my head at the utter waste of potential that is on display. Maintaining the status quo is certainly a beneficial business model, but when contrasted with the sustainability of our environment, or on a greater scale, our civilization, it is a small price to pay, right?

I highly recommend this film for the message and the information that the American public needs to be made aware of. Hybrids and Hydrogen cars are not the future, they are a way for the auto makers and oil companies to continue posting record profits. Electric cars are the future of clean fuel transportation technology. Take a look at Tesla motors in California as a pioneer in the clean fuel industry. I rarely find a documentary that sparks my passion, but this one is a tribute to true American technological innovation (and a bit of an outlet for pent up frustration) 7/10.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The familiar feeling of impending adventure. The now rare Lucasfilm logo flashing on the screen with its glimmering green aura. The Paramount Pictures mountain morphed into a lowly prairie dog mound in the Nevada desert in the 1950's. Such is the irony of anticipation and expectation that rides the coattails of the unprecedented success that two of the action film pioneers; George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, have created over the past three decades. They have reached the top of the mountain, and everything they do from here forward is a blank canvass of self-effacing work that in no way can be compared to their classics. Take the new trilogy of Star Wars for example. Disappointing to the millions of fans, it still grossed in the billions, and was Lucas' personal project for decades. I feel the same way about the resurrection of Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones is as iconic a franchise as James Bond, with a hero as timeless as Harrison Ford himself. Millions of today's generation will be exposed to the childhood hero of every man in his late 20's to mid 40's. Raiders of the Lost Ark was one of the great action adventures that spawned hundreds of copycat protagonists throughout the 1980's, but none had quite the mystique or charisma that Indy had.

Jones is quintessential Ford, played this time with a bit of "I'm getting too old for this s*%t" sarcasm, and there is a refreshing blend of aging heroes, and franchise spin-off youth. The story begins in Nevada in the early 1950's and Jones is dragged into the hunt for an elusive artifact called the Crystal Skull by a band of Soviet military baddies led by Cate Blanchett. Her face looked every bit the part of the Russian masochist, but her accent was pretty awful. Not to pass judgment, she made the journey fun until the bitter end, but Russian? A little predictable.

Indy meets up with LaBeouf and they head to Peru to find the artifact. There are lots of dangerous near misses, many ludicrous escapes from peril and some pretty good action scenes. There are also some plot twists that have probably already been spoiled all over the Internet, and the obligatory creepy crawlers. For sentimental reasons, it just isn't quite the same as the first three. I fully appreciate the cinematic vision of Lucus and Spielberg, and Ford does a great job reprising his role at the ripe age of 65 (gray hair notwithstanding, he could easily pass for 50).

It must have been a wonderful treat to work on this film, but the filmmakers show their age a bit with some of the editing, special effects, and most importantly, the speed of our aging hero's actions. Everything seems to have been slowed down a pace or two, and the running and jumping that used to be so suspenseful is now elaborate schemes that lack the death-defying element. Spielberg seemed to be going through the motions a little bit. Of course, I could just be 20 years older with a less child-like imagination.

Channeling the young, adventurous archaeologist in all of us, this film satisfies on the level of the character and the world that Indiana lives in. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the gold standard, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is in contention for the silver with the Last Crusade. Temple of Doom falls to fourth, no contest.

Ever entertaining, but impossible to reach the level of expectation from those of us who were raised on Indy. 8/10.

Iron Man

The level of expectation for this flick is on par with the other superhero movies of the past few years; Spider Man, the Hulk, X-Men, Batman, Superman and even the Punisher. There is something distinctly different about Iron Man however. The protagonist does not have superpowers, and there is not a fictitious world that is dealing with calamities and despondence. The energy of the film is not dark, like Batman, or reliant upon vengeance as a primary motivator. Iron Man is a reluctant super hero who is created out of self-preservation and necessity.

Tony Stark is the rock music loving, hard drinking, womanizing billionaire CEO of a cutting edge defense technology corporation, and his self-absorbed attitude and arrogant demeanor becomes evident within the first few minutes of the film as he is conversing with his military escort in Afghanistan. There is something very likable about his character however, and it may be his honesty and the quick-witted, silver-tongued delivery of his flirtatious comments. He knows that he is brilliant, powerful and wealthy, and he pulls no punches in letting the audience know that he has the perfect life.

His world is turned upside-down when he is captured and forced to build a replica of his latest weapon of mass destruction, but the revelation of the extent of his own contribution to world disorder gives him the motivation to escape and change his ways.

What makes this film better than your run-of-the-mill superhero film is the humanity and dependence on technology as opposed to unexplainable natural powers or a far-fetched back story. Not that there is a shred of realism in the concept of electromagnetic arc energy, or that a man alone could create a suit enabling him to fly and fight crime, but in the context of this film, it all adds up and makes perfect sense.

Jon Favreau has tinkered with directing over the past decade, and did a fine job with 2003's Elf, but this film will propel him to a higher level as an action director. It was very well executed and the visual effects were top notch. There were the obligatory moments of levity interspersed with the high-tech action sequences, but they were done tastefully with quick dialogue and a minimal amount of forced humor.

Downey has resurrected his stalled career, and with this summer's Tropic Thunder, he will again take his place among the biggest names in Hollywood. He was perfect for this part and his supporting cast did great in very subtle roles. The only exception was Paltrow who plays the assistant/unrequited love interest Pepper Potts the way that she was meant to be played, along the lines of Lois Lane, Rachel Dawes and Betty Ross. They have ridiculous alliterative names, and are too cute and devoted to either their man or their work be taken seriously.

Bridges plays Stark's mentor with his trademark gravelly voice, and avoids the trap of being too eccentric as the villain. He is a wonderful actor who has not received ample credit for his body of work. Howard gives an understated performance as Stark's best friend and military liaison. Even one of Favreau's entourage, Peter Billingsley (also executive producer - remember him from A Christmas Story?) makes a cameo appearance with the greatest fake balding haircut on screen this year (or maybe ever). It must have been as result of a bet or some sort of inside joke.

There has been some criticism that the action takes too long to develop, but in reality there is just enough back story to make the anticipation worth the wait. The climactic battle is textbook superhero fighting, but that can't be held against the film. The visual and special effects were outstanding in every way. The only complaint I have is that Stark should have died multiple times. For someone without any real superpowers, his body is incredibly resilient to trauma. Easy to overlook with all of the positive aspects of this film. I couldn't think of a better way to kick off the blockbuster season, Iron Man is going to be a top 5 grossing film this year. I highly recommend this wildly entertaining action flick - 9/10.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

I greatly respect Richard Roeper's opinions when it comes to movies, so when he stated that Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of the best comedies of all time, I knew I had to check it out. Produced by Judd Apatow, and starring the writer/member of Apatow's crew - Jason Segel in a surprisingly strong performance, Sarah Marshall is a feel good comedy with some great roles and no self-deprecating cliches that would have absolutely spoiled the ambiance.

Segel is an unapologetic everyman who despite his character flaws, is quite funny and likable. His girlfriend (Kristin Bell) breaks up with him, and to deal with the pain, he takes a vacation to Hawaii where he runs into none other than... you guessed it; his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, played exceptionally by the relatively unknown British star Russell Brand, who is a pompous rock star with a narcissist complex.

The rest of the cast is typical of Apatow films, and hilarious. Bill Hader plays the brother-in-law, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd play hotel staff members with some good lines, Mila Kunis gives a compelling performance showing off range well beyond that of the one-liners she delivered on That 70's Show or the dreadful straight to video garbage that she's been in. The best supporting role however belongs to Jack McBrayer, aka "Kenneth" from 30 Rock. He adeptly plays a honeymooner with religious morality issues that interfere with his sexual abilities. The icing on the cake however (for me), was a cameo by none other than Jason Bateman. He is comedy perfection and the film couldn't have ended on a better note.

There were some trademark crude sexual references, some odd original music in the form of a rock opera, and Brand's pop music that is almost catchy in its double entendre-filled nonsense. The crudest gross-out attempt is the full-frontal male nudity that was really not as funny as it was probably intended. Overall it was not as offensive as Superbad, but was more on par with the 40 Year Old Virgin.

First time director Nicholas Stoller, who is undoubtedly a part of Apatow's crew, did a fine job, but really didn't show any remarkable skill. The majority of the film (which did run a bit too long) took place at a beautiful resort on a Hawaiian beach. To his credit, there were no flashy segues or fade-outs, and although music was an integral part of the film, it was not used as a comic device or substitute for the character development.

It was a very entertaining film for the most part. Admittedly, I got a little tired of it after about an hour and a half, it just went on for too long. Most of the jokes came in the first half of the film, and the star power carried the second half. There was a feeling of resolution at the end, but the rock opera thing just didn't jive with me. I disagree with Richard Roeper, this was not an exceptionally great film. It was unfortunately pretty average. Good acting all around, good comedy and story, and some nice scenery, 7/10.

Smart People

First Paul Giamatti in Sideways, and now Dennis Quaid in Smart People. Why does every intelligent yet cynical, self-deprecating writer/teacher with emotional detachment and women issues drive a Saab? Wait, I drive a Saab.

Smart People is a sharp dramedy by a first time writing and directing duo that combines a talented cast with great dialogue and a pragmatic view of dysfunctional relationships, even when the people are exceptionally gifted intellectually. There is not much more to the story than a character study of a widower college professor (Quaid) who is simultaneously striving for a department head position at the distinguished Carnegie Mellon University English Department, and trying to publish a book about some tremendously boring and pompous diatribe about the criticism of literature. His curmudgeon is endearing and respectable, but evokes sympathy because of the effect it has on his two children, played by the outstanding Ellen Page and the unassuming Ashton Holmes. Luckily, Quaid's adopted brother, the obligatory black sheep of the family, played by Thomas Haden Church is there to add levity to the mix.

Rounding out the cast is Sarah Jessica Parker as the former student and current love interest, but there was something important missing from her performance. I didn't buy her as a doctor, and there was never really any telling evidence to qualify her attraction to Quaid in the first place. Something just seemed out of place, but I can't put my finger on it.

Page filmed this prior to her hugely successful Juno, but the characters could be twins separated at birth, with one becoming the quick-witted rebel chick, and the other the academically overachieving, therefore quick-witted yet socially deprived symbol of unacknowledged teenage angst. Pretty much dopplegangers (I never tire of that word) without the sinister nature. Her performance is great, but as with Juno, she had great writing. Not to take anything away from her acting ability, but much of the allure has more to do with what she says and how it appears coming out of her sweet, innocent mouth than how she actually says it.

Thomas Haden Church is the glue that holds this film (and family) together. Although the story revolves around Quaid, without Church, it would have been far too dismal of a family situation and dysfunctional would have become tragic. He even evokes the spirit of Oscar 2007 and sports a hideous mustache that seems almost contrived even though it clearly isn't.

This is what I would call the first good film of 2008. Cloverfield was entertaining, but this one delivered more than just that. It was heartwarming, clever and well done. Quaid shows that he is truly one of the better actors around with a performance more on par with In Good Company, The Rookie, or Traffic than The Day After Tomorrow, or Flight of the Phoenix. He has made some questionable decisions over the past decade, but I have a feeling he is finding himself a niche as he rolls into his mid 50's.

Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page are continuing to impress me as actors, and Sarah Jessica Parker? I am not sure. She may stay in the business, but it wouldn't surprise me to see her fade gracefully after Sex and the City. She just doesn't seem right in many of her past few roles. That might just be me though. 8/10.

30 Days of Night

Isolated in the cold, dark northernmost city of Barrow, Alaska for 30 days during the winter, a group of 150 people prepare for the annual attack of the elements, but they never anticipate being attacked by vampires. The premise arouses more than one nostalgic thought of John Carpenter's brilliant 1982 remake of The Thing. Based on a graphic novel, this valiant attempt at a modern classic is directed by David Slade, a music video veteran whose only other feature length film was Hard Candy (which was actually very entertaining).

On the last day before the annual 30 day winter of darkness, a stranger comes upon this small Alaska town and strange things begin happening; Sled dogs are slaughtered, cell phones are stolen and burned, and the town's only helicopter is destroyed. Hmm, kind of seems like someone wants to cut off the means of escape and communication. Fortunately many of the townfolk have made their way south for the duration, so the population drops dramatically, but once the last plane leaves, the rest of the townies are stranded. Where the film admittedly succeeds is in the pacing. There is not a lot of time wasted getting to know characters who are obviously going to meet their end in a nasty if not highly entertaining way. The events begin unfolding, and carnage ensues.

This is when the pacing dies and the story becomes absurd. Most of the town is wiped out by the intelligent, strong and bloodthirsty vampires, and a small group bands together and finds a hiding place. All of a sudden, it is 17 days later. The problem with this scenario is that it is a very small town of a few dozen homes and shops. There are dozens of vampires ravaging the town, and with their super sense of smell, wouldn't they search for and find the hiding individuals? Or would they just move on to another town in the middle of nowhere? Apologies for ruining an otherwise entertaining horror flick. These vampires hang around for 30 days feeding on stragglers, and the stragglers continue to make bad decisions that lead to mostly disappointing and uninteresting deaths.

I've got to give Slade proper credit, he tried his best. But vampire flicks are a tough one. You can't make it too cheesy, and you can't take it too seriously. There are the typical rules to follow, and Slade did fine by that. He even succeeded in creating some pretty grizzly visual effects including decapitations, various dismemberments, burning, and the staple of what I believe to be a good fright flick - possessed children. The whole concept of a horror flick is to scare the viewer, and the characters make obviously bad decisions that lead to their debatable deserved fates. However, I have a hard time stepping out of the objective "what would I do" role and accepting that these people are simply fodder for my entertainment. Knowing that without that entertainment, it would simply be a boring film is what makes it so diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. Stepping outside of that conventional wisdom, this film was mediocre.

One thing that was never addressed was the looming questions where did they come from, how do they survive, and where will they go when the feasting is over? Although the answers may detract from vision of the graphic novel and subsequently the film, they remain nonetheless. I appreciated the strength of the ending, although the ambiguity was a bit unsettling. This genre is becoming more and more difficult to create quality works, and I have to give kudos for the effort. It was however, a less than satisfying film. 5/10.