"True Grit"

In an era of film that has been dominated by money grabbing sequels and unnecessary remakes, history teaches us that it’s tough to competently put together a new take on a story that’s been told previously. More often than not, the remake is of a lower quality than the original and comes across as pointless. Even when these are good films, fans of the first take tend to get Good Old Days Syndrome and refuse to acknowledge the merits of the new film. Every once in a while you strike gold (see: “Ocean’s Eleven”) but more often than not, the result is received well by neither critics nor audiences (“The Day the Earth Stood Still” comes to mind for the first time ever). “True Grit” is a particularly tough film to rethink because A.) It is considered a classic, having brought John Wayne his only Oscar; B.) The Western is a dying/dead genre of film that generally has a tough time finding an audience; and C.) Western fans display perhaps the highest form of Good Old Days Syndrome of any genre and rigidly deny the quality of most Westerns made post-1980. That makes for a challenge that only an INCREDIBLE group of filmmakers could measure up to. Enter the Coens.

“True Grit” opens on 14 year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a firecracker of a girl with a sharp tongue and a quick wit, who comes to Fort Smith, Arkansas to take possession of the body of her father who was killed by hired-hand Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). With her mind set on vengeance, Mattie hires US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down Chaney and bring him to justice. Cogburn is an unsophisticated drunk with a reputation for killing his targets over arresting them. Mattie insists on tagging along in the manhunt and soon finds herself riding through the Arkansas/Oklahoma wilderness with Cogburn and Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who has tracked Chaney from the Lone Star State and aims to bring him back there to hang for murdering a politician. Their situation quickly escalates when the trio becomes entangled with a group of outlaws who Chaney has joined, leading to a dramatic final showdown that any fan of the Old West would be proud of.

Very few names in film inspire confidence for me like Joel and Ethan Coen do. The writer/director team has proven themselves time and time again to be thoroughly trustworthy and dependable. They simply do not take any aspect of the filmmaking process for granted; from writing to casting, location to costume, every single detail is meticulously thought out and crafted. It’s not to say that every one of their films is perfect (“Ladykillers” anyone?), it’s that each one comes together seamlessly and hits a unified tone from beginning to end. And then there’s the signature, beautifully poetic dialogue that runs rampant through all Coen movies. It is, quite simply, sublime. “True Grit” is no exception in which every piece of the film hits the proper note. As always with the Coens, though, the real proof is in the characters.

Each of our heroes is magnificently crafted. LaBoeuf is cocky and overly proud of his position but like all good Texans (myself included) he doesn’t think he’s cocky. If this were a traditional comedy, LaBoeuf would be a perfect straight man to Cogburn’s jester. Cogburn on the other hand is pragmatic and up-front about his flaws. He makes no bones about his love for the drink or his penchant for firing upon his fugitives. At the same time, he genuinely cares about justice, he’s just not as self-righteous about it as LaBoeuf. The sarcastic and world-worn Cogburn and the high-minded LaBoeuf don’t exactly mesh and so more often than not it is left to the would-be-annoying-if-she-wasn’t-so-dang-entertaining Mattie Ross to be the voice of reason. By design, Ross is the driving force behind “True Grit” and it shows in the way she pushes her comrades. What makes her such a compelling heroine is that she is determined to track down her father’s killer, not desperate. In this setting, desperation would have made her a sympathetic figure but not an inspiring one. As it is, she strikes the perfect balance of vulnerability and (for lack of a better term) grit with just an ounce of naivety that makes her so likeable and accessible. Bridges, Damon, and newcomer Steinfeld are each brilliant in their roles. Like he always does, Damon fully embraces the psychology and the spirit of LaBoeuf. Steinfeld is an absolute natural who looks to have an extremely bright future. And Bridges continues his hot streak, giving a wily, witty edge to Cogburn that is utterly delightful. The differences between his take on Cogburn and Bad Blake from “Crazy Heart” (for which he won a Best Actor Academy Award) are astounding. Since both characters are essentially grizzled old country boys, it would have been so easy to play Cogburn and Blake the same and instead Bridges turns in dramatically different portrayals that could very easily bring him back-to-back Oscars.

Pulled together by fitting cinematography, strong supporting characters (including an appearance by Barry Pepper, a personal favorite), and a wicked sense of humor, “True Grit” provides an awesome film-going experience. Three years ago I called “No Country for Old Men” the Coen’s masterpiece and while I stand by that description, “True Grit” gives me hope that one day I’ll have to eat my words and pin that title on another film.

Grade: A+

We need more westerns these days,
Brian

Blu-Ray Review - "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole"

In an apparently human-free world, owls rule the sky. One young owl, Soren (Jim Sturgess), dreams of one day joining the ranks of the legendary Owls of Ga'Hoole, famed warriors and guardians of the owl race. When Soren and his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten) are kidnapped by a group of villainous owls who turn out to be the enemy of the Guardians from the stories Soren loves so much. When he escapes, Soren sets out to find the Guardians and warn them of the fight that is about to be at their door.

For reasons I still don't quite understand, I've really been wanting to see "Guardians" for some time now. Something about the trailer appealed to me, I guess, and I was quick to rent this when it hit the shelves. As such, I went in with relatively high hopes which may have been a mistake. The story is solid enough and the pace is good which makes for an entertaining viewing. Some of the animation, especially the battle scenes, displays extreme quality and you can definitely see the work director Zack Snyder ("300" and "Watchmen") put into the project. Two things, however, get in the way of "Guardians" reaching its full potential. One, a stop-down-for-a-song moment that makes absolutely no sense and completely destroys the rhythm of the story. It's a cheesy song by Owl City, no less, and it does not fit the overall tone of the movie whatsoever. Which leads me to the second issue: "The Guardians" doesn't know its identity. Is it a cartoon or an animated graphic novel? Is it targeting kids or teens and adults? I don't know the answer to these questions and it seems those behind the film didn't know, either. It jumps back and forth between kiddie fare that is wholly unimpressive to an adult and fairly gritty action scenes that can't possibly be geared toward the average 6 year old. This is a classic trap for modern animated features that want to measure up to Pixar but get lost in the process. The result is a mismatched movie that has its moments but ultimately fails to impress.

Grade: B-

"Tron: Legacy"

Once upon a time there was a movie called “Tron.” For all intents and purposes, “Tron” was at best mediocre and at worst relatively horrible. It did have amazing graphics for the time period, however, and a generation obsessed with arcade games came to embrace “Tron” despite its relative horribleness. For reasons no one can quite understand, Disney, the studio that owned “Tron,” decided to wait 28 years before releasing a sequel to the cult hit. “Tron: Legacy” cost about $300 million to produce and when it opened, a great number of fools (such as yours truly) went to see it. The end. That is easily the strangest intro I’ve ever written for a column but it seemed fitting.

“Legacy” opens with our introduction to Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the 26 year-old son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), the man who invented the technology to enter the digital world in the original film. Sam is a disenfranchised rich kid whose net worth is several hundred million dollars but who would rather break into his own company’s headquarters to release its new software to the general public for free. When a mysterious page comes from his father’s old arcade, Sam discovers a hidden room where he, too, is digitized and sent into the alternate universe of sorts that his father is trapped in. Sam enters a world that is ruled by Clu (young Jeff Bridges), who strives to break into our universe to rid the world of “imperfection” (aka: humans). Only Kevin and Quorra (Olivia Wilde) stand in his way, a duo that Sam joins in a fight to preserve humanity.

There is no questioning the visual brilliance of “Tron: Legacy.” Even in the 2D format I chose (as is my custom), the vehicles, costumes, and graphics jump off the screen. It is a beautiful if sterile world that “Legacy” operates in. Special effects and CGI took up the bulk of this movie’s budget and that truly shows in almost every frame. The action sequences are bold and dynamic, sometimes moving so fast as to seem a blur on the canvas. Clu is also a stunning achievement. Played by Jeff Bridges, CGI is used to create a drastically younger face. It is the most lifelike CGI I’ve ever seen and for all but the very briefest of moments here and there, I don’t think the average audience member could tell that his appearance had been digitally altered. I suspect the work on this aspect of the film will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole.

The other components of the film, however, lag behind the computer work. In truth, everything else takes a backseat to the FX department. Rookie director Joseph Kosinski shows his inexperience by allowing his film to rely almost exclusively on the work added in post-production instead of drawing the most out of his cast. Hedlund plays his part well-enough but my feeling is he didn’t have a whole lot to work with. Sam is a bit stale and primal, displaying only the most basic of emotions and behaviors. Bridges is almost wasted as Kevin, coming off too often like a futuristic knockoff of The Dude (“The Big Lebowski”). When you have Jeff Bridges at your disposal, you highlight Jeff Bridges, not the CGI copy of Jeff Bridges. Honestly, it’s a bit of a lazy effort from the guy who won an Academy Award last year (“Crazy Heart”) and should probably win another this year (“True Grit”). Then we come to Wilde who, quite simply, cannot act, or at least I have yet to see her act. Quorra is one of the most one-dimensional characters I have ever seen and Wilde does absolutely nothing to help that disability. Meanwhile the story is overly complex and yet at the same time horribly underdeveloped, a combination I didn’t think was possible until now. In short, “Tron: Legacy” is a Michael Bay fantasy: tremendous style, very little substance.

I went into “Legacy” with tempered expectations and to be honest, I wasn’t disappointed. It’s a fun, eye-pleasing ride that I really enjoyed. Obviously that’s the goal of the film’s backers and on some level, you have to applaud decision makers who know their target audience and go after them whole hog. Still, with a $300 million budget and a marketing campaign that has lasted the better part of two years, you’d like to think that a decent script and layered characters wouldn’t be too much to ask.

Grade: B-

Olivia Wilde is making me question “Cowboys and Aliens,”
Brian

DVD Review - The Boys Are Back

When his wife unexpectedly takes ill and dies, Australian sports writer Joe Warr (Clive Owen) is suddenly left to raise his young son (Nicholas McAnulty) on his own. His life is further turned upside down when Harry (George MacKay), his teenage son from a previous marriage, comes to live with them. Joe's easy-breezy brand of discipline comes into question as he attempts to balance fatherhood, his career, and a potential love with another single parent.

There's not just a whole lot to say about "The Boys Are Back" other than a whole hearted, "Meh." The thing about this plotline, the "widowed spouse tries to cope with loss and learn how to be a parent" concept, is that there isn't much of anywhere to go. If you don't have great acting or an intriguing addition twist (like "Sleepless in Seattle") then the audience pretty much knows the drill. Owen gives a satisfactory performance but it's far from inspired or heartfelt and he, like the film he's operating in, simply goes through the motions. It's not boring per se, it's just that nothing much happens. The scenes are a bit choppy and I never felt like the characters or the story itself had room for development. Save for a scene or two, Joe doesn't really deal with his grief and we don't get a whole lot of bonding between father and son. Joe's form of parenting seems to be to let his boys do pretty much whatever they want up to and including riding on the hood of his Land Rover while he drives down a beach. I think the movie wants us to see how a carefree, fun dad learns to be a more well-rounded father figure but again, there's not much of a transition. It's not that "Boys" is a bad film, it's just simply not that good.

Grade: C+

It's never a good sign when I use "just" that many times in one post,
Brian

"Tangled"

As a kid I was raised on two very crucial symbols of pop culture: “Star Wars” and Disney movies (with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles following close behind). My family didn’t really watch network TV, I was musically retarded until college, and sports didn’t take over my life until later on, so for a long time I knew a great deal about only two things and you certainly didn’t want to question my authority on those two subjects. We didn’t go to the movies that often so it was a big deal when a Disney movie debuted and subsequently when it came out on VHS. (VHS was a precursor to DVD. It was way bigger and much lower in quality and now I try to pretend they never existed.) I don’t think we ever missed a Disney movie between 1985 and 1995. My little brother’s first theater experience was a re-release of “Snow White.” We watched “The Sorcerer’s Stone,” “The Lion King,” and “Robin Hood” (still my all-time favorite animated feature) over and over again until our tapes were worn out. In short, a Disney movie used to mean something; its debut was significant. I’m not sure exactly when that allure disappeared but I think Pixar is more than partially to blame. Who cares about standard animation when Pixar can make a cartoon cowboy look so real and lifelike? The last Disney cartoon that made any sort of impact on me (and the rest of the world) was 2000’s “Emperor’s New Groove” and even that wavered at the Box Office. “Treasure Planet,” “Home on the Range,” “Meet the Robinsons,” etc. all came and went with little fanfare, leaving an entire generation that doesn’t know that a Disney animated feature used to be an important event. That all ends, however, with “Tangled.”

The re-imagining of the classic “Rapunzel” story, “Tangled” centers as much around the outlaw Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) as it does the princess (Mandy Moore). On the run after a high-priced theft, Rider climbs into a hidden tower where he is ambushed by Rapunzel. Locked away in the tower for 18 years by Gothel (Donna Murphy), the woman she believes to be her mother, Rapunzel is eager to get out and explore the world she has been denied access to. The two strike a deal in which Rider will take Rapunzel to see the thousands of floating lantern the king and queen release on the birthday of their missing princess and Rapunzel will return Rider’s stolen property. Needing Rapunzel to stay young/alive, Mother Gothel sets out to reclaim her prize resulting in a twist-and-turn sequence of events that brings the lost princess ever closer to her family.

From its first moments, you can tell that “Tangled” is a different kind of Disney movie, a return to the old ways that made the company what it is today. It isn’t just in the stronger-than-expected dialogue, the fitting musical numbers, or the much more meticulously crafted plot than their recent animated features. There’s a sort of confidence on display here and try as I might, I can’t think of a better way to term that. It’s like watching a basketball player who’s on fire and seeing him nail shot after shot when he knows he can’t miss. Recent Disney offerings have come across as a bit desperate, begging the audience to remember the good times when “Aladdin” was rocking their faces off and give the studio a pass on “Chicken Little.” In contrast, “Tangled” has a full-on swagger, with every detail controlled and passionately crafted. It’s a fast paced ride that contains a great deal of fun and an extra dose of heart without venturing into cheesy or cliché territory.

Levi and Moore work seamlessly together and if there’s one thing Disney has done right over the last decade it’s allowing their big name voices to work within the framework of the film instead of overshadowing it (unlike Dreamworks). Rider is the classic cartoon hero, the “outlaw with a heart of gold” whose makeup balances his suave outward appearance with a host of internal insecurities. Rapunzel is wide eyed and naïve but her unbridled enthusiasm and sunshiny outlook on the world is endearing to everyone, including the audience. These two carry the film but they are provided with outstanding work from a lesser-known-but-no-less-talented supporting cast including Murphy, Ron Pearlman, and Jeffrey Tambor. Mother Gothel takes a page out of Ursula’s (“The Little Mermaid”) villainous handbook and provides a strong antagonist to bind the story together. Add to this some of that classic Disney magic (such as the flight of the lanterns) and a few of the old standbys, including a witty and unexpected stop for a tough-guys-sing-a-song moment that was truly a nostalgic touch, and you have an inspired animated feature.

You would never guess that “Tangled” underwent an extreme makeover in the last two years as almost every aspect was shifted and recut to focus more on the male-friendly Rider. Perhaps that forced rethinking made “Tangled” what it is but regardless, it is a magnificent departure from what Disney has done lately and a reminder of how great these movies once were. In a year that featured “Toy Story 3” and Dreamworks’ breakthrough “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Tangled” is likely to get lost in the animated shuffle but its ability to regain the allure of Disney is a serious achievement in my book.

Grade: A

Hollywood needs more Zachary Levi,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"

In 1999, young Dave (Jay Baruchel) stumbles into an antique shop owned by the centuries-old wizard Balthazar (Nicholas Cage). In a moment of confusion, Dave accidentally frees Horvath (Alfred Molina), an evil warlock, and subsequently both magicians are (for reasons I didn't quite catch) get locked in a vase which doesn't open for 12 years. When it does reopen, both Balthazar and Horvath pursue Dave, looking for a lost article he took from the shop that holds unspeakable power. Balthazar tells Dave that he is (of course) this film's version of the ever-popular "chosen one" and quickly teaches Dave how to tap into his magical prowess. A showdown ensues, the events of which you can pretty much guess.

By now we all know what to expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer production, especially when he's paired with director Jon Turteltaub. You're going to get a lot of flair, some great special effects/stunts, a few well placed jokes, an inattention to anything that could be considered "acting," and a story that lacks all but the most basic of plot points. Consequently, there's really nothing wrong with a Bruckheimer action film while at the same time there's very little right about it. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" is what it is: mildly fun, reasonably enjoyable, and entirely forgettable. Cage long ago ceased to be a good actor but in his defense, he's found a niche with Bruckheimer wherein he doesn't have to stretch himself too far and as a result, the audience isn't subjected to anywhere near the amount of punch-in-the-stomach-terrible-acting moments that have plagued him over the last two decades. He actually doesn't suck the life out of this movie the way I've come to expect. Baruchel, who had a HUGE year, does a good-enough job performing in a magnificently limited, two-dimensional role. As usual, "Apprentice" delivers some FX-heavy scenes that are almost entirely overshadowed by miserably cliched twists and turns and one of the worst soundtracks a movie has ever had. Altogether it's another notch on the "Truly Average and Unmemorable" belt for Bruckheimer (and Cage) that's just right for late night background viewing.

Grade: B-

DVD Review - "I'm Still Here"

In 2008, Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix announced that he was retiring from acting and would be focusing on his rap career. The strange story took hold of the media and culminated in one of the weirdest interviews in the history of the medium with Phoenix appearing blitzed out of his mind and disinterested and a clearly perturbed David Letterman going out of his way to poke fun at his guest. Shortly thereafter it came to light to Phoenix's brother-in-law, Casey Affleck, was filming his career transition for a documentary that would come to be titled "I'm Still Here." The bumbling attempt at hip-hop, however, takes a backseat to the no-holds-barred depiction of the chaotic and drug-fueled lifestyle that Phoenix lives. Soon after its release, Affleck let slip the fact that "I'm Still Here" was actually not a documentary but instead an insanely personal look at method acting. Where the truth actually lies is anyone's guess but there's no denying how fascinating this film is in its best moments.

In some ways the prior knowledge gained from Affleck's admission takes away from the impact of the film. At the same time, however, it leads the viewer down a dark path as you find yourself wondering how much of this is real and how much is just for show. This is one of the most authentic performances I've ever seen and whether all of "I'm Still Here" was done just for the camera or if Affleck's statement itself was a lie to protect Phoenix, there is some measure of reality to Phoenix's behavior. Let's not forget that Phoenix's brother, River, had serious issues adjusting to life in the spotlight and ended up dead from a drug overdose in front of an LA nightclub. The most telling moment of the entire film comes early on when Phoenix admits that he's tired of playing his most tiring role, that being the actor Joaquin Phoenix. It's a statement that wreaks of honesty, a truly sober moment amidst a drug-addled rant that goes on for several minutes. I'm left feeling unsure as to which parts of "I'm Still Here" should be taken as fiction and which parts hit too close to the mark to be anything but truth. That question, along with a few scenes that probably should have been left on the cutting room floor, distract from the would-be power of the film. Ultimately, "I'm Still Here" is a flawed and profoundly sad film that is highlighted by one of the most engrossing but hard-to-watch performances you'll ever see.

Grade: B+

Blu Ray Review: "The Last Airbender"

The world of "The Last Airbender" is divided into clans that represent the elements: fire, water, earth, and air. Each clan has members who can manipulate one of the elements but since everyone knows fire is the dominant element and is symbolic of evil, the Fire Clan gets to be the bad guys. The only person who can maintain a balance between the clans is known as the Avatar who can use all four elements. Unfortunately, the Avatar has been gone for 100 years and so the Fire Clan rules the world and maintains an oppressive control over the other clans. When the Avatar suddenly reappears as a young boy with an understanding of only the Air element, he must master the others before the Fire Clan subjects his people to slavery.

Look, I knew that "The Last Airbender" was going to suck. I had no delusions of grandeur going in as this was definitely the type of crappy action movie I try desperately to avoid. I saw all the scathing reviews, I cringed throughout the trailer, and most importantly, I watched "The Happening" last year and confirmed that director M. Night Shyamalan has no idea what he's doing anymore. Still, though, I had to see for myself. Like Travis taking the musket to his beloved dog Ol' Yeller, I needed, on my own accord, to see that my old friend had indeed gone mad.

This was the first Shyamalan movie I didn't see in theaters. But after the abortion that was "The Happening," what other option did I really have? I love Shyamalan's first four films. "The Sixth Sense" may have ruined the suspense genre in the long run but wow, what a fantastic experience that movie was. "Unbreakable" is HIGHLY underrated in my book and I consider it to be one of the better superhero movies ever. "Signs" is one of my 25 favorite movies of all time and I still contend that if you don't like it, you're not watching it correctly. "The Village," while imperfect, is a more than reasonable thriller with a genius twist that gets a little lost in translation. Even "Lady in the Water" isn't horrible. But "The Happening" is, in fact, horrible. I'm still at a loss for words as to how that piece of crap ever saw the light of day. That movie confirmed to me, a hardened and stubborn Shyamalan fan and apologist, that the guy had lost it. When I saw the trailer for "Airbender" for the first time, I wanted to cry. There was never any question that this movie was going to kill his career once and for all. And darnit if I wasn't right.

On to the film. Terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE acting. Every time I see a movie that features child actors so prominently I'm reminded of just how good the "Harry Potter" series really is because, even in their worst early moments, none of those kids make you want to choke a puppy. Pretty much every kid in "Airbender" made me want to do just that. At times the action scenes are dynamic but more often than not, they're done just for the sake of showing the audience cool karate moves regardless of whether or not it fits into the story. And the story is a jumble of cliches and poorly developed plot points that takes the most painfully direct route to the inevitable sequel setup that you'll ever see. All in all, I would say there is about 15 minutes of a decent movie in here somewhere, surrounded by an hour and a half of truly painful moments. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen but it might have a place in the discussion.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put a figurative musket ball in M. Night Shyamalan's figurative head.

Grade: D

"Megamind"

I’ve made no bones about my disdain for the movie calendar of 2010. Week in and week out, I peruse the local show times on Moviefone and week in and week out, I come away disappointed. 2010 has been Hollywood’s dumping ground for lackluster, underperforming material that would be drowned out in a typical year but that must now be highlighted because, well, what the heck else are you going to see? One area, though, where 2010 has excelled is in the quality of its animated films. “How to Train Your Dragon” was a landmark film for Dreamworks. “Toy Story 3” will likely receive a nomination for Best Picture. Disney’s “Tangled” is currently taking the box office by storm. Even “Despicable Me,” which I didn’t love but certainly enjoyed, was a tremendous success both critically and monetarily. In short, it’s been a banner year for animated features and “Megamind” falls right in line.

When his galaxy collapses, Megamind (Will Ferrell), a blue skinned Martian baby with a giant head, is jettisoned to planet Earth at the same time as Metro Man (Brad Pitt), a Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman wannabe. Whereas Metro Man falls into the lap of luxury and is embraced by the city of Metro City, Megamind is an outcast and quickly learns that the only way to be noticed is to become Metro Man’s super villain rival. A battle wages between the two until the day that one of Megamind’s evil schemes actually works and Metro City is left without its hero. It’s a glorious but fleeting moment for Megamind who soon discovers that it’s no fun to run amok with no one to oppose you. With this thought in mind he turns a normal geek (Jonah Hill) into a would-be super hero named Titan and trains him to fight. Unfortunately his plan goes awry and Titan becomes more than he can handle, leading to a change of heart for Megamind and an epic fight that puts everyone in jeopardy, including his new love, Roxanne (Tina Fey).

“Megamind” is a smart comedy that is part-spoof, part-original concept but wholly entertaining from start to finish. The assembled voice talent is strong and for the most part the actors mesh well together. While Pitt is the biggest name on the bill, Metro Man is on screen for only a small portion of the run time, leaving the film in the capable hands of “Saturday Night Live” buddies Ferrell and Fey. I’m a huge fan of Ferrell and have always been quick to his defense. Like him or not, you cannot deny that the man understands comedy and what makes people laugh. He’s not perfect but his range as a comedian is much larger than he’s often given credit for. “Megamind” allows for the display of that range as he must rely on his voice talent and comedic timing instead of falling back on the physical humor he is known for. Fey, meanwhile, follows Ferrell’s lead and delivers a quality if unspectacular character whose chemistry with Megamind is undeniable. And when the two leads need a hand it is usually given them by David Cross (“Arrested Development”), one of the very best supporting men in the comedy game today.

“Megamind” strikes a similar tone to the standard Dreamworks animated production: fun premise, moments of adult humor, and a bit lacking in the heart department as compared to Pixar/Disney. It is playful and endearing but its more meaningful scenes come across as somewhat hollow. It does bring a solid chunk of wit to the table, however, and some devious moments of dark comedy that are sold beautifully by Ferrell and Cross. In the end, “Megamind” doesn’t match up to the near-impossibly high standard set by the Pixar Universe or “How to Train Your Dragon” but it is an overwhelmingly enjoyable, fun, and fast paced superhero romp that carries on the legacy of 2010 animation.

I don’t really get Jonah Hill,

Brian

HBO Special - "Adam"

Adam Raki (Hugh Dancy) is a 30 year old man with Asberger's Syndrome. Having recently lost his father and his job, Adam's life is thrown into the kind of flux anyone would struggle with. Things begin to change for Adam, however, when Beth (Rose Byrne), a socialite from a wealthy background, moves into his apartment building. The unlikely pair strike up a friendship that quickly evolves into a romance that neither of them (or Beth's family) are quite prepared for.

My life outside of The Soap Box, my real life if you will, has almost always involved working with kids in some capacity. Often times those kids fell somewhere on the Autism spectrum and I've taken a special interest in those kiddos. Some of them have been insanely difficult and frustrating to manage but many of the most memorable kids I've had ever the chance to work with. I have a special place in my heart for those with Autism, Asperger's, and the like. Very rarely, however, do you see the reality of these afflictions properly displayed in a movie. More often than not an autistic character just leaves me shaking my head.

Thankfully, "Adam" is one of those rare films. Dancy captures the essence of what it means to have high functioning Asperger's in his speech, mannerisms, and behaviors and gives the syndrome a likable if tortured face. Most importantly, Adam never crosses the line between Asperger's and retardation. Perhaps that's an indistinguishable difference for some people but anyone who's ever known an Aspy can tell you what a distinct difference it really is. Adam's affliction is more of a learning disability (really, more of a different way of learning for many) combined with severe social anxiety and an inability to read social cues. Dancy combines these traits wonderfully and his performance truly carries the film.

If the other characters surrounding Adam or the story in which he finds himself were half as well crafted as the title character, this movie would have soared into my "Favorites" list. But while Adam is a near perfect picture of a very complicated sect of the population, the rest of the characters are extremely two dimensional. Byrne and the rest of the cast all do a serviceable job of bringing life to the screen but unfortunately there just isn't a great deal to work with. The story starts out strong but as the film progresses, it begins to falter and finally finds itself trudging through the Land of Generic, resting on the obligatory "disapproving parent" plot line that's been done a million times. It's unfortunate that the surrounding parts of the movie can't match up to Dancy's brilliance but that said, it's still an outstanding look at an often misunderstood disability and more than worth a viewing.

Grade: B+

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I"

As with each of the previous “Harry Potter” films, I find myself having difficulty finding the proper words for my review. Oh, how I love the Harry Potter universe, both in book and film form. In fact, I would go so far as to say I love it more than any other realm (real or fictitious) that doesn’t involve wookiees or a galaxy far, far away. That fact combined with my propensity for hyperbole makes it nearly impossible to deliver to you, dear readers, a fair and unbiased review. Allow me my moment of wizard-oriented nerdiness and I promise to return to my standard formula next time around.

“Deathly Hallows” drops us rather firmly back into the Harry Potter world, a world that is at war. Having struck a critical blow to their enemies at the end of the preceding film, uber-baddie Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) force of dark wizards grows ever stronger. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), soon find themselves on the run, half hiding, half searching for horcruxs, magical items that allow Voldemort to remain virtually invincible. Meanwhile, Voldemort himself is searching for a set of magical items called the Deathly Hallows which would slant the balance of power even further toward him in his inevitable and final battle with Harry. There is no conclusion to the drama, however, as this is mostly a set up for the ultimate fight that is to come in part two of this film.

I have thought long and hard about this film since taking it in at midnight on opening day. (Nerd, I know.) I have tried to find holes in the finished product and to temper my enthusiasm but truthfully I think any issue a fan of these stories might have would be nitpicking at best. “Deathly Hallows” is, for my money, the best yet in a series of films that has brought me an enormous amount of enjoyment. Every aspect of this film is refined, as if producer David Heyman, director David Yates, and the rest have taken what is great about the first six installments and improved what was lacking.

In no area is this better highlighted than in the display of legitimate skill of the three lead actors. Even in the 2001 debut of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” you could tell Daniel Radcliffe had “it.” Allowing for the fact that he was, after all, an inexperienced child actor, I always felt he would end up being a capable actor if not more. Rupert Grint was somewhere below Radcliffe on the “bankable skill” chart but still, I felt fairly confident in his ability to act when it was all said and done. I had no such confidence, however, in Watson. While far from a bad child actor (see: Jake Lloyd), Watson was easily the leader in wince inducing moments among the trio. As the films progressed, so, too, the maturity and range of these three young stars but Watson still lagged behind the others. Well, no more. Much of the material and subject matter of “Deathly Hallows” requires strong, hardened performances from these actors and all three deliver time and time again. Watson holds her own in a way she never has before, truly illustrating the time and effort that has been put into this series from the very beginning. Though, if you spend 10 years hanging out with a cast that includes Gary Oldman, Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, and the rest of these outstanding actors, you’re bound to up your game.

“Deathly Hallows” also excels in bringing some of the, well, magic of the books back to the screen. As the films have gotten longer and more involved in the maturation and development of the characters (and their relationships), I’ve felt that some of the wonderment of the first few films has been lost. As a tremendous fan of J.K. Rowling’s books, part of the joy of these movies has been the personification of so many wonderful and inventive pieces of fantasy brought to life. That magic is somewhat buried beneath layers of story and drama (and rightly so) in the last two chapters of this series but is wholly recaptured here. Telling the story of the “Deathly Hallows” (a well-known fairytale in this world) through the use of animated shadow theater was an especially nice touch. The spirit of the book, both the ups and the tremendous downs, is gloriously encapsulated in this film and reminded me of why I fell in love with this story in the first place.

The end result is an engrossing, brilliant adaptation that does nothing if not whet the appetite of the viewer for the next and final installment. Breaking up the book into two parts is clearly the right way to go as it allows for a pace that the last few films just weren’t allowed to find. In fact, I was left to wonder how much better these already-strong films could have been if they’d been given the Peter Jackson treatment with an extended cut for DVD/blu-ray. Regardless, it’s a magnificent ride and leaves me hopeful that the last chapter will be the best one of the bunch.

Grade: A

I will now resume my traditional cynical and sarcastic nature,
Brian

DVD Review - "Winter's Bone"

At age 17, Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is the de facto head of her backwoods, Ozark mountains household. She hunts, cooks, and cares for her two younger siblings and her drugged out mother. Hard times get worse when Sheriff Baskin (Garrett Dillahunt) informs her that her meth head father has skipped bail for which he put up the family's house and property as collateral. If he doesn't show up for court, Ree and her family will be thrown out on the street. Being the provider that she is, Ree sets out across the county in search for her father, leading her down a dark, dangerous path.

"Winter's Bone" tore up the festival circuit earlier this year, garnering several award nominations and a few wins. It is hauntingly authentic and captures the desperate and sad reality of the the meth trade. Writer-director Debra Granik knows her subject matter and uses the harsh landscape to set her main character up beautifully. As Ree searches for her father, she uncovers layer after layer of secrecy and gets wrapped up in the unwritten rules of a drug society. Lawrence brings perfect balance to Ree. She is strengthened and prematurely hardened by her time as the bread winner and her determination is mixed with the hint of naivety that even the most world weary 17 year old would still exhibit. It is, for my money, the best female performance of the year. Her supporting actors all take on the attitudes, behaviors, and speech of an Ozark meth community with brilliance. Particular attention should be paid to John Hawkes ("Deadwood") whose turn as local enforcer Teardrop is magnificent. Hawkes (along with Dillahunt) is one of my very favorite character actors; a man who takes his craft extremely seriously and deeply invests himself in his character no matter how small the role. Teardrop would undoubtedly steal the show from Ree were Lawrence's performance not so strong. All in all this is a seriously depressing, dark film that is hard to watch. Still, however, it is exceedingly worthwhile and significant and should play a big part in Award Season this year.

Grade: A

HBO Special - "Ronin"

As the opening credits of this film reveal, a rogue or disgraced samurai in Japan is known as a "ronin" which is a polite term for "mercenary." That knowledge sort of sets the tone for "Ronin" and in a way tells you everything you need to know. Sam (Robert De Niro) is part of a team of mercenaries that works to track down a mysterious package that seems to be almost more trouble than it's worth. When the deal goes bad (over and over again), he forms a sort of partnership with Vincent (Jean Reno) and together the pair pursue agents from both Russia and Ireland on a mission that becomes more than just a job and begins to embody their respective efforts for redemption.

I've caught bits and pieces of "Ronin" a few times over the years but it never gripped me enough to track it down and finish the thing out. This is a well respected film among people that I generally trust when it comes to this sort of thing. For me, however, "Ronin" is more frustrating than anything else. Somewhere in here is a great movie. Not a good movie, a GREAT movie. I don't know that De Niro has given a better performance since this debuted in 1998 and watching him on screen when he's really invested is such a treat. Reno, meanwhile, provides an outstanding partner for De Niro and the two display excellent chemistry. Some of the action sequences, particularly those involving car chases (of which there are many), are reminiscent of vintage Hollywood action, a throwback to the days of Steve McQueen but with a touch of modern splash. And the story, while possibly excessively twisted, is entertaining and engrossing.

On the flip side, however...good gracious, what a horrific directorial effort by the late John Frankenheimer. While some of the action is powerful and exhilarating, other elements are horribly outdated and cheesy. The violence and fighting is often comical and plays out like a bad 80s action movie mixed with a touch of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." There are plot jumps left and right which seriously hinders the momentum of the storyline which could have been used to build tension but instead just left me wanting so, so much more. More bothersome to me is the complete lack of common sense by some of these so-called black ops mercenaries and their adversaries. Over and over again these hardened soldiers make dumb move after dumb move. They do things that I, having no military or counter intelligence knowledge other than the viewing of eight seasons of "24," would NEVER do! It's embarrassing, really, to the characters that deserve better and should be a bit offensive to the intelligence of the viewer. I've got no problem with these types of stupid plot holes show up in, say, "The A-Team" which is obviously intended to be entertainment and entertainment only. But when you're making a hardcore, serious action film with hardcore, serious characters (which is what "Ronin" is supposed to be), these issues are darn near inexcusable. And it's a real shame that this junk gets in the way of an incredible movie.

Grade: B

Blu-Ray Review: "Jonah Hex"

Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) is a Civil War veteran turned bounty hunter with a link to the afterlife that allows him to speak with the dead. When the safety of the newly reunited United States is threatened by a former Confederate general (John Malkovich) who happens to be the same man who killed Hex's family, President Grant (Aidan Quinn) calls on Hex to stop the attack and exact some revenge for good measure. A lot of stuff blows up.

First and foremost, "Jonah Hex" is by no means what I would call a good movie. There are too many plot holes, wasted moments, and editing screw ups to ever confuse this with good. The pitifully short 81 minute run time jumps from place to place with no foundation to hold it together. Screenwriters Neveldine and Taylor (that's what they go by, sadly) reportedly feuded with director Jimmy Hayward and ended up distancing from the finished product before it even hit theaters. And then there's the much maligned Megan Fox who's complete lack of acting ability could single-handedly sink just about any movie. I almost feel bad for Ms. Fox. Because of her extreme level of attractiveness she will never be asked to learn her craft in order to get roles and yet at the same time will always be cast in the same one dimension roles. She's got absolutely nowhere to go in this business and I think "Hex" is the starting point for her rapid decline.

With all that said, however, this movie is not nearly as bad as the scathing reviews it received would make it out to be. "Hex" has been painted as the worst movie of the year and may very well win the infamous Razzie Award for Worst Picture at year's end. Maybe it's because my expectations were completely nonexistent going in but I darn near enjoyed about half of this thing. That enjoyment is due in large part to the work of Josh Brolin who seems to bring his A game no matter what's going on around him. This movie reeks of "give up," as if everyone realized midway through production that this thing was headed South in a hurry and mailed in their performances. But not Brolin. He seems hell bent on making Jonah Hex a viable franchise super hero and makes the most out of every limited opportunity his surrounding cast and crew give him to work with. As a result of Brolin's work (with a little help from Michael Fassbender who does an admirable job in his short screen time as a maniacal sidekick-baddie) you get about 35 minutes of a decent-enough comic book movie distributed through and overshadowed by the crap the rest of the film has to offer.

Grade: C+

Netflix Review - "Wonderful World"

Ben Singer (Matthew Broderick) is a cynical, depressed copywriter who used to be a famous children's musician. He hates his job and most of the people in his life, save for his daughter, Sandra (Jodelle Ferland), and his roommate, Ibu (Michael K. Williams), whom he plays chess with. When Ibu falls into a diabetic coma, his sister, Khadi (Sanaa Lathan), comes from Senegal and ends up crashing with Ben. As the world around him begins to grow darker, Ben finds himself reawakening and rediscovering his life and finds that the world isn't quite as bad as he thought it was.

I am pleasantly surprised by the quality of "Wonderful World." A lot of these "the world sucks but our hero prevails" indie movies wallow in despair, making them almost unwatchable. "Wonderful" more than touches on the harsh parts of life but paints with a broad brush rather than a fine point, which I personally appreciated. It's a well-told story and writer-director Joshua Golden keeps the movie moving without drowning me in the sorrow. That's not to say this is an easy movie to watch. It's 70 percent sadness and that makes for a tough viewing but one that I found worthwhile. Broderick works hard to craft a sympathetic curmudgeon, a different role than his usual cheery if understated hero. The supporting cast compliments him well though Williams, one of the very best character actors the business has to offer, was severely underutilized. "Wonderful World" is far from a great movie; it's a bit bumpy and at times the emotion feels forced. Still, it's a strong-enough indie offering and it's always good to see Broderick on the screen.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "The Karate Kid"

When his mother is transferred to China, Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) finds himself in a strange place with no friends and no sense of belonging. When he befriends a girl at his school (Wenwen Han), he draws the ire of a group of bullies who train at a disreputable kung fu studio. Things begin to change, however, when he meets and begins to train with Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the building's maintenance man. Soon he enrolls in a kung fu tournament, setting up the inevitable confrontation between himself and his tormentors.

First, the very brief positives. "Karate Kid" has solid action and some pretty cool fight scenes. Jackie Chan gives an admirable and quite believable performance as the pseudo Mr. Miyagi. In some ways this might be the perfect role for Chan as it combines his likability in an element he is comfortable in without exposing and/or exasperating his numerous flaws as an actor. And there are a few humorous lines (emphasis on the "few").

Now, the negative. I've got a lot of problems with this thing but I'm going to keep it to three short points.

1. "The Karate Kid" is not about karate; it's about kung fu. On numerous occasions the characters make references to Dre learning kung fu and yet it never seemed to dawn on anyone involved in the filmmaking process that maybe a movie called "The Karate Kid" should be about karate. Call me crazy but doesn't that kind-of-sort-of make sense?

2. Jaden Smith and the rest of the kiddie cast are WAY too young for this film. Dre is a 12 year old played by a kid who looks like an 8 year old but operating in situations that are suited for a 14 or 15 year old. News flash, Hollywood: no one wants to see 12 year olds kissing. It's weird and creepy and terribly off-putting. And it's not just the awkward romance. There's extensive training that no pre-adolescent could handle, some "witty" repartee that doesn't land, and at one point Jackie Chan puts a beat down on a group of 11 year olds. There's something wrong with that, isn't there? All told, it comes across as if Will Smith (whom I love, but still...) bought a script and cast his son regardless of whether it was a good fit or not.

3. This is just BARELY a remake. Remakes are always a risky proposition because if you get too close to the original thing it feels unnecessary and if you stray too far away from a beloved inspiration, people feel it's an insult to the original. "Karate Kid" takes a bit from the original and adds some new elements but the mix just isn't right. Ultimately it comes off as a cheesy parody of a classic film that is treasured by most Americans born between 1975 and 1990. "Jacket on, jacket off" is embarrassingly feeble compared to "Wax on, wax off" and Dre Parker would crumble at the hands of Daniel Son. What I mean to say is, this feels like someone wrote a script and someone else thought, "If we titled this "The Karate Kid" and made some vague references to the original, we could make a ton of cash off this thing!" And that's exactly what happened.

When you put all of that together, you get a below average film that fails to inspire. Not a terrible experience but certainly not the enjoyable trip down memory lane I was hoping for.

Grade: C

HBO Special - "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian"

Things have changed in the years since Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) left the New York museum where he was once the night guard. Daley himself has flourished, founding a successful business that sells made-for-TV products while the museum is struggling. When he finally visits his old stomping ground, he finds that many of the exhibits are being packed up and sent to Smithsonian storage without the ancient Egyptian tablet that allows them to come to life at night (in case you haven't seen the first "Night at the Museum" that's pretty much the entire plot). Soon, however, he gets an urgent call from his friend/miniature Cowboy exhibition item Jedediah (Owen Wilson), who informs him that the tablet has come with them into storage and that they are under attack from all the various items packed away in the nation's capital.

That is a lot of summarizing for such a simple kid's movie. As far as these movies go, "Museum 2" isn't all bad. There are a few laughs, Stiller is invested in his character (no matter how shallow it may be), and it all comes together fairly concisely. So it's not bad, it's just not necessary. This is the kind of movie that SCREAMS, "We know we can make a ton of money on this no matter what kind of crap we throw on screen." The first "Museum" was a surprising success and a movie that really had some fun, valuable moments. I actually quite enjoyed the first film, though I admit my expectations were virtually nil going in. The sequel, however, is clearly stretched for quality content and is hampered by a plot that doesn't really leave much room for growth or development. Even supporting actors like the multi-talented Hank Azaria and Soap Box Office-favorite Amy Adams can't find much of a groove to work in as the whole movie just seems to be spinning its wheels. I know, I know, it's a kid's movie, it's not supposed to be inherently complex or layered. But we live in a world in which movies like "How to Train Your Dragon" and everything Pixar has ever done have set a standard for making smart, dynamic children's movies. By contrast, "Night at the Museum 2" fails to produce much of anything you could expect me to recommend.

Grade: C+

"The Social Network"

Mark Zuckerberg is a douche bag. I was pretty well solidified in this opinion before seeing “The Social Network” and the viewing did nothing to sway that thought. Like so many “Creatives”, whether actor, musician, artist, or inventor as the case may be, Zuckerberg doesn’t understand or perhaps doesn’t have time for people he considers to be less significant than him. You probably know or have known one of these guys. The type of person who can’t conform to social conventions, doesn’t seem to value your portion of the conversation, and simply can’t figure out a way to bridge the gap between himself and the “regular” people. This guy is usually extremely talented but more often than not, he’s almost unbearable. It’s why bands break up and wide receivers get traded. At some point, the “Creative” turns from “misunderstood genius” to just plain “jerk” and either breaks off on his own or gets left behind by people who can’t deal with him anymore. In Zuckerberg’s case, what transpired is the former and that’s where “The Social Network” comes in.

Set in 2003, Harvard sophomore Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), both angry and drunk, hacks the school’s system and creates a crude website that compares the year book photos of two girls on campus, allowing viewers to choose who is hotter. Within a few hours the website crashes the network and makes Zuckerberg a legend. Soon after, he is approached by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer), the school’s star crew rowers and the definition of a legacy, who hire him to program a site which ultimately amounts to a Harvard-only dating site. Zuckerberg accepts the offer but performs no work on the project (setting up the first of two lawsuits). Instead, he begins working on a new adaptation of his previous website, an effort that requires some capital investment. With this in mind, he turns to his best (and perhaps only) friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) gives him the $1000 he needs to make the site operational in exchange for a thirty percent stake in the company (setting the stage for the second lawsuit). When “The Facebook” becomes an overnight success, Zuckerberg embarks on a whirlwind 18 month journey that involves the previously mentioned lawsuits, the betrayal of his best friend, and the development of his dorm room creation into a multi-billion dollar business that reaches over 500 million people worldwide.

From top to bottom, I can’t remember a recent drama, let alone a biopic, that is better than “The Social Network.” I confess I find myself a little bit obsessed with this film so please bear with me as I try to compartmentalize its merits. It is so well put together that you almost overlook the acting which is quite strong across the board. Eisenberg truly encapsulates all of the facets that make a guy like Zuckerberg both successful in his field and an utter failure in most everything else. He is egotistic, narcissistic, and brash while at the same time completely insecure and low on self-esteem. Insecurity is the key to this role. Insecurity is what drives a guy like Zuckerberg (at least as portrayed in this film) and it taints every other aspect of his being. If Eisenberg misses the mark on this “quality” then the entire movie falls flat. He doesn’t miss, however; rather, he nails this vital portion of the Zuckerberg mentality.

Garfield delivers a similarly deep performance. At his core, Saverin is a good person and that is ultimately what dooms him. There’s a hint of suspicion in every move he makes along the Zuckerberg Path but he still chooses to take the walk. Garfield uses facial expressions, body language, and the briefest of hesitations to convey the understanding that, deep down, Saverin knows that eventually his best friend will stab him in the back. Hammer also performs admirably as the scene-stealing Winklevoss twins. The dual vision of Hammer is a commanding presence and he uses that perfectly to convey both a slight sense of intimidation and a touch of helplessness that plays sympathetically to the audience. And then there’s Justin Timberlake, who’s Sean Parker (the creator of Napster) provides the intrepid spirit of adventure and recklessness that Zuckerberg needs to push himself beyond small-time notoriety and into the realm of world renowned (and full-on jackass mode). It’ll be a surprise if Timberlake doesn’t pull a Best Supporting Actor nod when Oscar nominations are released.

But the excellence of “The Social Network” goes far beyond the strength of its actors. Literally every aspect of this film is perfect or darn close to it. Director David Fincher assembled a tremendous group of talented individuals to add to his own enormous level of skill. The casting is magnificent and Fincher masterfully uses that, putting each actor in a position to succeed and pulling the very best effort out of every one of them. Aaron Sorkin (probably best known for “The West Wing”) wrote a brilliantly worded, wonderfully paced script that pretty much falls right in line with his other works. His style is unmistakable to the degree that, without any knowledge of his involvement in the film, I could peg the dialogue as Sorkin’s about one minute into the opening scene. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails delivers a powerful, edgy score that drives the film and subtly builds the drama. It is without question the best score in recent memory and one that is SURE to garner a few awards. Even the sound mix, a facet of filmmaking that you almost never notice, is perfectly balanced in a way that makes you feel as if you are in the movie. Every tiny detail of “The Social Network” is painstakingly thought out and exquisitely put together.

Being the fan of hyperbole that I am, it would be easy for me to call “The Social Network” the best movie of the year. I’m going to avoid that statement but I have no doubt that it will absolutely clean up when award season rolls around. The real stroke of genius, and what sets it apart from so many other biopics, is its treatment of its muse. Zuckerberg is not painted in a favorable light and there’s no sugarcoating of his actions despite his considerable brilliance. By going that route, Fincher shows the four billion dollar man to be quite a sad character, a symbol of what the combination of greed and insecurity can get you in the extreme.

This has to be the first Fincher film in which no one dies,
Brian

"The Town"

Like every other regular, straight, American male, I hate Ben Affleck. It’s like a genetic mutation we all went through sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s. Maybe that’s what the real Y2K bug was: a fervent hatred of all things Affleck. Simply muttering his name at a party is likely to bring about reactions ranging somewhere between facial expressions similar to the ones you might see if a wet dog entered the room and loud cursing in a tone usually reserved for Tarantino flicks. He brought it upon himself with retched film choices and a complete disregard for the craft in which he worked but still, it’s uncanny how unanimously hated this guy really is. Well, friends, after taking in “The Town,” I’m about ready to throw my hat into the “Let’s Stop Hating on Poor Ol’ Ben” ring. I never thought this day would come but I’m willing to defend my position. Please hold your questions until after the review.

“The Town” centers around a section of Boston called Charlestown, an area that sees more bank robberies per year than any other place in the world. We open on a well-planned, well-executed bank heist as four heavily armed bandits, disguised in freakish orc-like Halloween masks, methodically grab a bag full of cash and take bank manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage. Once safely away, the crew releases Claire with the promise of repercussions if she talks to the cops. Crew leader Doug McRay (Ben Affleck) takes on the task of keeping an eye on Claire, in part because he’s afraid the wild card of the group, James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), might murder her as a precaution. Before long, Doug and Claire become romantically involved, a pairing that leads to some tense moments given the fact that Doug put Claire through the worst experience of her life. Soon an FBI special operations team, led by Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm,) gets on the case and drives hard toward bringing in the thieves who’ve made quite a name for themselves. As his relationship with Claire deepens, McRay and his crew continue to take scores while the FBI gets ever closer to putting them away, setting the stage for a head-on collision between the three parties.

Going into this movie I had seen a lot of comparisons between “The Town” and “Heat”, the 1995 cops-and-robbers drama that pitted Al Pacino and Robert De Niro against each other. The problem with that comparison is that it sets an almost impossible expectation that can’t possibly be met. “Heat” is a masterpiece which manages to hit a home run in virtually every aspect of filmmaking. Casting, writing, acting, directing, sound mix, conclusion, cinematography, and on down the list, every single part of the movie is perfect. It’s completely unfair to put that kind of pressure on any film. It’s the Michael Jordan of gritty cop dramas. But in all truth, “The Town” might be the closest thing to “Heat” that I have yet to see. It’s not Michael Jordan but it might be Dominique Wilkins.

The cast of “The Town” provides some outstanding support for the main character. Hall plays the vulnerable yet resilient Claire sufficiently and gives depth to what could have been a one-dimensional character. John Hamm continues to prove his strength and versatility as Frawley provides a worthy opponent for McRay highlighted by a few powerful, headlining moments. Titus Welliver, Chris Cooper, and the great Pete Postlethwaite all deliver in limited roles. Even Blake Lively, best known for the awfulness that is “Gossip Girl”, gives a quality performance as a junkie whom McCray has been involved with in the past. And then there’s Jeremy Renner, whose Oscar-nominated turn as Sergeant First Class William James in “The Hurt Locker” catapulted him to stardom. What an absolute talent that guy is. Coughlin is a troubled cat who’s bordering on becoming an all-out sociopath and yet he is a fiercely loyal friend who would (and does) drop anything to stand by his friends. Renner hits the mark perfectly, bringing the proper amount of edge and dark humor to the role which allows Coughlin to be both the driving force of recklessness that eventually destroys the crew and a sympathetic figure at the same time. Renner is quickly turning into one of my favorite actors in the business.

And so we come to Mr. Affleck. The resume this guy put together between “Good Will Hunting” and today is atrocious. Jump over to IMDB, have a look at that list, and try to defend his work, especially the collection of crap between “Armageddon” and “Hollywoodland.” I’ll give you “The Sum of All Fears” as a defensible choice because no one turns down that role at the time. But “Gigli”, “Surviving Christmas”, “Reindeer Games”, “Changing Lanes”, “Jersey Girls”, and the aptly named “Paycheck”…that’s a vile list of films that John Travolta himself would be ashamed of. Affleck took a promising career and buried it in a pile of ill-gotten cash, creating a particularly nasty reputation in the process. What kept Affleck from following in the footsteps of the once great Val Kilmer and the like is a simple yet rare characteristic: humility. Affleck took his medicine so to speak and listened to the criticism. I’ve read numerous interviews with Affleck over the last few weeks in which he basically admitted to taking horrible film roles and expressing a lack of respect for his craft. Instead of continuing on that path, he first got behind the camera, turning himself into a very good director (“Gone Baby Gone”) and then got serious about acting again. The results are on display in “The Town” and as a card carrying member of the Ben Affleck Haters Association (see: straight American male), I feel the need to commend his performance. Affleck nails McCray from start to finish, combining that classic Boston swagger with a bit of fear and a pinch of regret. He delivers his lines with poised power, drawing more than one audible “wow” from this writer. Altogether, I feel it’s safe to say this is the best performance of the man’s career and should serve as his re-introduction to the industry.

“Gone Baby Gone” taught me that Affleck could direct but I wasn’t sure he ever had much talent as an actor. I’m sure now. All told, “The Town” easily jumps into my top ten list for the year and ranks as one of the better cop dramas of the recent past. The ending is a bail-out, a cookie-cutter conclusion to a movie that deserves better, and I think Hamm’s Frawley is underused. So while it isn’t “Heat”, nothing really is. “The Town” is a well-made, strongly written, brilliantly acted film that should find a place to belong during award season.

Grade: A

Jon Hamm is “Superman”, Brian

"The Pacific"

"The Pacific" is the third part in the history of World War II, as brought to you by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. "Saving Private Ryan" is one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time and I would argue that "Band of Brothers" is the best mini-series I've ever seen. So, "Pacific" had some big shoes to fill. This installment follows three Marines in various stages of their tours in the Pacific and the horrors they had to deal with. One is a war hero, one an idealist whose beliefs are brought into question, and one a disillusioned veteran who has a harder time than most adjusting. Each sees a terrible slice of action that indelibly affects the course of their lives.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, thrusting America into the throes of World War II, the country undertook a two front war, fighting one war in Europe and a much less heralded war that spanned the Pacific ocean. Though both fronts brought their own unique hazards, in many ways the fight in the Pacific was a more difficult battle, yet for some reason it always seems to be the forgotten war. When we studied WWII in school, almost all the focus seemed to drift toward D-Day, the Battle of Normandy, etc. and very little time was put into the Pacific beyond Iwo Jima. To this day, when I think of WWII, I think of the European front.

Unfortunately, "The Pacific," didn't do much to help the disparity. It's really not its fault. How do you follow up one, let alone two, of the best productions of the last quarter century? The answer in this case is you really don't. Don't misunderstand. As far as war movies/shows go, "The Pacific" is still very good and completely worth seeing. It just doesn't measure up to its big brothers. It doesn't transcend the way "Ryan" and "Brothers" did. The stories are still just as real, the cinematography and shot selection are astounding, and the dialogue is great.

Two things hold "Pacific" back. One, for the first time in this franchise, the realism went a step too far. Despite all of the horrible events and details depicted in "Ryan" and "Brothers," never once did I feel like they were anything but authentic. "Pacific" at times almost seems gratuitous, like it wants to be shocking, which is the opposite of what I've come to expect from this collaborative group. Two, there is a distinct lack of brotherhood among this group of soldiers. For me, the predecessors of "Pacific" are what they are because of the bond shared and exquisitely displayed by the cast and the characters they portray. The emotional connection of the audience to the characters is rooted in the fact that there is an even stronger emotional connection between those on screen. The very idea behind "The Pacific," three tales of three different Marines, leads to a disconnect that lessens the impact that the series could have. It still tells a tremendous story and one that desperately needs to be told, but it just isn't as engrossing as the other installments.

Grade: B+