"Fast Five"

I went into “Fast Five” in the company of two guys who had never seen any of the previous films in the series. After giving them a brief primer on the extensive storyline that they were about to walk into, we sat down for what proved to be a gloriously absurd open that fits beautifully. Only a minute or two in, one of my friends gave me the, “that’s not possible” look and began to register an appropriate complaint. I quickly cut him off and said simply, “Either set your sense of reality aside for the next two hours or leave right now.” He obliged and darnit if he didn’t have himself a stinking good time. And that’s the key to “Fast Five” or any action film like it: either get on board for the fast paced ridiculousness that’s about to unfold or stay out of its path altogether. If you do that, you’re almost bound to enjoy yourself because man, this movie is a blast.

Starting where its predecessor left off, “Fast Five” opens on Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) breaking Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) out of a prison bus and immediately going on the run to Rio De Janeiro. Soon the trio has joined a crew undertaking a risky heist at the behest of Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), a crime boss with a vast influence in Brazil. Inevitably, the job goes awry and garners the attention of the American feds who send special agent Hobbs (The Rock) and his team to track our heroes down. While being pursued by both Reyes and Hobbs, O’Connor and the Torettos assemble a crack team of fellow thieves to take on a huge job which has very little chance of success.

At times “Fast Five” plays out more like a sequel to “The Italian Job” than another entry in the “FF” series. The fact that it’s set in Brazil only adds to that “Italian Job” feel. (For the uninitiated, the oft-rumored, oft-denied “Italian Job” sequel was supposed to be set in Brazil and would be titled, obviously, “The Brazilian Job.”) There are far fewer car races and chases than in the other “FF” movies and much more attention is made to the story element, something that this franchise has been known to ignore at times in the past. “Fast Five” is a heist movie first, car movie second and for me, the combination works. It isn’t a great story, mind you; rather, it’s not a perfectly executed story. There are an ABUNDANCE of plot holes that are covered over by one character or another saying something to the effect of, “Just trust me” or “You don’t want to know.” The first time this happened I was annoyed but the subsequent instances just added to the “yes, we know this is ridiculous” vibe that the entire movie (and really the entire franchise) relishes in. “Fast Five” embraces the spirit of “Italian Job” and the “Ocean’s” movies but lacks some of the wit and intelligence that those films displayed.

On the flip side, whereas those movies tread lightly (relatively speaking) on the more ridiculous elements of their storylines, “Fast Five” throws the throttle back and runs right through all rules of realism. In short, I feel like the makers of “Italian Job” would have you believe that most of the events of that movie could happen whereas the geniuses behind “Fast Five” want to make sure you know that they know that none of this could ever happen. This fact gives the viewer complete freedom to ignore the laws of physics and gravity and simply enjoy the ride. I, for one, really appreciate this because the action sequences are dynamic and wholly entertaining and it would be a shame to take away from these with the restrictions of reality. The final sequence alone is one of the most insane, ridiculous, and deliciously satisfying action scenes I’ve ever seen and demonstrates exactly why director Justin Lin is fast becoming a go-to guy in the industry.

Performance wise, “Fast Five” gives you exactly what you expect. Walker is kind of an awful actor in my book but he fits O’Conner well, a quality that allows him a comfort zone wherein you don’t notice how bad he sucks (like Keanu Reeves with Ted Logan). Diesel, meanwhile, is his usual menacing, baller self. I’m a big fan of Diesel and if I’m being honest, I would wish for him more meaningful roles that Dom Toretto. But at the end of the day, you have to take what work you can get and if he’s not going to get superstar roles, I would much prefer to see Diesel at his cool and head-cracking best here than in “Babylon A.D.” or the like. In an action movie, the next best thing to hiring great actors is hiring actors who have great chemistry and this cast has that in bunches. The supporting actors, including Tyrese Gibson and Chris (Ludacris) Bridges, all work seamlessly within the framework of the movie. In all honesty, The Rock is the only actor who doesn’t quite fit in with the others, at least in the beginning. Granted, he is given next to nothing to work with from a dialogue standpoint. But while Diesel and Walker thrive in the tongue-in-cheek, fun atmosphere that Lin creates, The Rock struggles mightily to find his tone. He seems to take his role too seriously and as a result, his lines are painfully flat. As the movie progresses, he works his way into a groove but seriously, some of his early scenes are ROUGH.

As I said in the opening paragraph, chances are your level of enjoyment when it comes to “Fast Five” will depend directly on your ability (see: “willingness”) to ignore that nagging voice that says, “you can’t jump out of a fast moving car into a river 100 feet below and live to tell the tale.” Again I say, if you can’t do that, there are other movies for you to see. I myself, though, had no qualms about leaving the baggage of reality at the door and what a rockin’ awesome time I had because of it. The heist plotline, even if it is done a bit shoddily, adds an exciting element to “Fast Five” and makes it perhaps the best of the franchise.

Grade: B+

Vin Diesel has to be the best stage name ever,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "Faster"

Immediately following his release from prison, a convict (The Rock) known only as "Driver" walks into an office building and shoots a cubicle-dwelling employee (Courtney Gains). When a detective named Cicero (Carla Gugino) and an aging officer referred to as "Cop" (Billy Bob Thornton) pick up the case, they soon discover that Driver was once the driver (shocking, I know) for a crew led by his brother (Matt Gerald). After their last heist, which put Driver in jail, they were ambushed by another group who stole their ill-gotten goods, slit the brother's throat, and put a bullet in the back of Driver's head, an injury from which he miraculously lived through. Now armed with a list of all those involved with his brother's death, Driver is out for vengeance, two steps ahead of the cops and only one step ahead of a hired killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) intent on bringing him down.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of The Rock. I'm learning, however, that my dislike for the guy has more to do with the roles that he gets shoehorned into. If he's asked to be just an action star, I can dig him. If he's asked to make me laugh, however, I want out immediately. So in essence, "Faster" is the perfect movie for him. I mean, his character doesn't even have a name! How could he not excel in that setting? The result is a perfectly reasonable, "It's late and I still have some work to do and I've already watched Sportscenter twice so I'll watch this" action movie. I actually enjoyed it and I didn't really expect to. It's absurd, of course, and contains a fair number of action movie cliches that were beaten into the ground long before 2010 rolled around. But as far as action sequences go, "Faster" brings the goods and even implements a few unexpected touches (Killer, in particular, is a cool concept in theory) that add to the experience.

What keeps this from being a "B" or "B-" in my book is the use of the aforementioned Killer. An exceedingly interesting character who has made billions in the technology industry and takes only $1 for each of his hits, Killer is never developed properly. He and his girlfriend, Lily (Maggie Grace), take up a prominent side plot in "Faster" but ultimately do nothing but allow time for Driver to get from one victim to the next, like a bad "SNL" bit that sits between two elaborate (and better) sketches. I was left to want either more or less of Killer; either leave him in the shadows and allow him to stay a mysterious figure or fully flesh out his character in a manner that is more fitting of his potential awesomeness. Instead we get the middle ground which was a real bummer for me. Still, though, if you're looking for an adrenaline-filled 98 minutes, you could do a lot worse than "Faster."

Grade: C+

Blu Ray Review - "Hereafter"

Following the "Crash" method, "Hereafter" tells its story in three parts, three vignettes about death that ultimately tie together. The first story concerns a French reporter named Marie (Cecile De France). While on vacation on a tropical island, Marie very nearly dies during a tsunami. After being rescued at the very last possible moment, she remembers the visions that she had while underwater and believes that she has touched the void, an experience that obviously changes her. The second story follows Jason and Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren), twin boys with a drugged-out mother. After being sent on an errand, Jason is chased by a gang of teenagers and ends up running into traffic where a truck hits and kills him. The loss throws Marcus into a tail spin and he spends the majority of his subsequent screen time looking for answers about death. The third story revolves around George (Matt Damon), a man blessed (or cursed) with a genuine psychic ability. After years of dealing with death, George has abandoned his calling and works at a factory to the chagrin of his brother, Billy (Jay Mohr). After Billy talks him into rediscovering his ability, George skips town and comes in contact with our other two protagonists, bringing the stories together.

While it positions itself as part character study, part exploration into the realm of spirituality, "Hereafter" leans much more heavily upon the character side of that equation, requiring a lot of its actors. I'm not sure the majority of the cast was up for this. Damon is strong as always. George's battle between his own desire to keep his talent hidden and the constant push to the contrary of almost everyone around him is the most emotionally relevant portion of the movie. I was far more invested in Damon's vignette than I was the others, though I am an unabashed Damon fan and may not be entirely unbiased. For her part, France provides a fairly compelling performance but one that doesn't truly connect with the viewer. Perhaps she wasn't given a lot to work with as I found Peter Morgan's script to be lacking, but regardless, Marie comes across as somewhat hollow. And then we have the McLaren twins. I doubt you will ever see me bash on a child actor for being a bad actor. They're kids, most of them aren't so great as of yet. That said, I will never understand a seasoned, established director casting children who simply cannot act to play important roles. These poor kids are kind of awful and they suck the momentum out of every scene that they're in. Near the conclusion, what should be the most riveting and touching scene of the movie is instead cut down by a kid trying to be an actor and falling miserably short. The McLarens try hard, bless them, but in all honesty, their involvement robs "Hereafter" of its best storyline.

"Hereafter" is a strange departure from the norm for director Clint Eastwood and it kind of leaves you wondering what was going on in his own life when he decided to make this film. There's a definite sense of questioning within the very fabric of the movie's makeup which could have been drawn upon with more intensity and significance than it ultimately is. The special effects are good, the shot selection and use of color is excellent, resulting in what is, at times, a technically beautiful film, yet it lacks the heart needed to live up to its promise. "Hereafter" is a bit shallow when it's all said and done. It is a surface exploration into the Unknown that leaves the viewer feeling dissatisfied.

Grade: B-

Netflix Instant Review - "Eight Met Out"

The concept of cheating in sports is nothing new or even that shocking anymore. Point shaving scandals pop up in basketball every now and then, baseball was riddled with steroids for a decade, and you basically can't run a clean college football program anymore. But in an era that has been desensitized by revelations of athletic misconduct, the idea of throwing games, and more importantly, almost an entire team participating in the throw, is shocking and almost unheard of in American professional sports. That is, with the exception of the infamous Black Sox scandal, the events of which are illustrated in "Eight Men Out." 1n 1919, at least eight members of the Chicago White Sox, disgruntled by the unfair treatment they received from the team's owner and money being scarse, took $10,000 apiece to do the unthinkable. Led by Chick Gandil (Michael Rooker) and Eddie Cicotte (David Straithairn), the Sox threw the World Series, allowing the Cincinnati Reds to take home the title and prompting an investigation that in some ways would revolutionize the game of baseball and all other professional sports leagues in America.

The real heart (and tragedy) of "Eight Men Out" lies in the stories of Shoeless Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney) and Buck Weaver (John Cusack). The film (and the book upon which it is based) shows Weaver taking part in the initial meeting with his teammates but reneging on his decision to help throw the games. Weaver, in fact, had an outstanding World Series for himself. Jackson, meanwhile, is depicted as having never participated in the fix, though he knew what his teammates were up to. A simple man who couldn't even read, Jackson seemed an unlikely type to throw a game and historically speaking, each of the players involved in the Black Sox scandal professed Jackson's innocense. Still, however, Jackson and Weaver were grouped with the rest of the cheaters and while a jury found the White Sox innocent, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis (John Anderson), the first commissioner of baseball, eventually handed out lifetime bans to all of the players involved, including Jackson and Weaver. To this day, Jackson, considered to be one of the greatest players of all time, is not in the Hall of Fame because of the events of "Eight Men Out."

That's a longer summary than I usually like to give but I actually knew a bit about this story to begin with and have always been slightly enamored with these events. I'm not sure why it's taken me so long to see this film for myself. From a movie standpoint, you could do a LOT worse than "Eight Men Out." The cast is excellent with a number of recognizable faces playing even small parts throughout. Cusack and Sweeney are both convincing in their sympathetic positions (even if I am weirded out by how similar those two looked in 1988; seriously, they could be brothers). Maybe more importantly, though, the rest of the cast do an excellent job of conveying the various emotions and situations that led to the players' decisions to throw the Series. Some are natural gamblers, some know their time on the field is nearing its conclusion, some, like Straithairn's Cicotte, just need some financial stability that the franchise isn't providing. This isn't a black-and-white issue as it seems at first glance and the John Sayles script allows the actors a lot of room to operate within the gray. (Sayles also directed and plays a very important part.)

There is a definite hint of over-the-top ridiculousness that plagued the 80s and the baseball action itself is, at times, somewhat lame. I also have no idea how accurate the movie is (though it is based on the 1965 book that is considered to be the definitive authority on the events) and I think you can certainly pick out some moments that have the Hollywood feel to them. But none of this takes away from the overall entertaining and thoroughly engrossing tale of "Eight Men Out."

Grade: B+

Blu Ray Review - "Skyline"

In Los Angeles for his best friend's (Donald Faison) birthday party, Jarrod (Eric Balfour) and his girlfriend Elaine (Scottie Thompson) awaken to a whole new world. Aliens have come to earth, dropping floating beams of electric blue lights that draws humans in like a moth to flame. They watch as people in the streets are literally sucked up into the light and disappear inside the various alien craft that now litter the skies of Los Angeles. Foiled in their attempts to escape (and losing members of their group along the way), the friends hole up inside a luxury condo and watch as the world they knew comes crashing down.

If that summary made "Skyline" sound even remotely appealing, please accept my profuse apology and give serious attention to the following paragraph.

I see a lot of movies, dear readers. Way more than the average person. And my love for science fiction has been well documented. I've willingly rewatched "Starship Troopers" and recently at that. So take that into consideration when I say "Skyline" is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Under no circumstances should ANYONE see this movie and I feel like the cast of this atrocity would probably agree with me. When trying to decide whether a bad movie is simply that or if it belongs in the "worst I've ever seen" category, I look for only one thing: were there ten good/enjoyable minutes somewhere in said movie's runtime? Just ten short minutes that didn't make me want to scratch my own eyeballs out. The answer here is a resounding "no". Every single aspect of "Skyline" is abysmal.

Let's start with the casting. What is Donald Faison doing in this movie?! His scenes (which are SPOILER ALERT mercifully cut short) play out as if he thought he was working on a sci-fi spoof and no one on set had the heart to tell him otherwise. I'm a Faison fan but gracious, his screen time is almost unbearable. The other actors, while more fitting of their characters, do not, for one scene, give you the feeling that any of them have acted before. Ever. ANYWHERE. Like Faison, I actually quite like Balfour and think he's got something to offer as a supporting actor. But I would hope he doesn't even put this on his resume. He appears lost and unconvincing, though I guess I can't really blame him (or anyone else) given the source material they had to work with. Directing partners the Brothers Strauss continually put their characters in dumb, cliche, and even at times boring situations that do little to impress. The dialogue is oppressive, the character interactions are meaningless, and the special effects are clunky and super CGI-y.

Then we come to the aliens that, for lack of a better term, suck. Their major weapon is bascially a human-sized bug zapper. Weaksauce. There's no backstory as to why they're here, setting the stage for what I can only guess was supposed to be a shocking reveal that (SPOILER ALERT) they're only here to harvest our brains. I think. Honestly, I'm not even sure that's the point, that was just what I could glean in between sticking forks in my eyes and ears. I completely checked out when our hero, full of adrenaline, punches an alien to death. Mind you, this scene came after we witnessed aliens not only surviving but thriving while being hacked with an axe, rammed with a Cadillac Escalade, and thumped with a NUCLEAR BOMB. So, yeah, of course they would be susceptible to fisticuffs. It absolutely shocks me that trustworthy critics went so fervently after "Battle: Los Angeles" and for all intents and purposes, left this train wreck alone by just calling it a bad movie. It's not a bad movie. It's a TERRIBLE movie! I would rather watch "The Last Airbender" again over sitting through another viewing of this heap of garbage, which is without question the worst movie I've seen from 2010. I implore all of you to stay away from "Skyline."

Grade: F

"Hanna"

There are times in life when it becomes readily apparent that your opinion is not the widely held view. Whether it is politics and religion or something less serious but no less important like sports or movies, you know that, for good or bad, when you speak your opinion, it will be unpopular. I’m not unfamiliar with this phenomenon (I’m a born and raised Texan and I hate the Cowboys) but it’s rare that it happens to me in the movie realm. That is, after all, the point of The Soap Box Office: to deliver movie reviews for the average movie fan, written by the average movie fan. Sure, I often disagree with the hardened, disillusioned critics but I usually expect, relatively speaking, to agree with the majority of my friends around the blogosphere and the average moviegoer who comes across this platform. That is not the case this time around. But I believe that there’s no point in having an opinion if you’re not going to defend it (and isn’t that what blogging is all about, anyway?) so let’s just go ahead and get everything out in the open: I hated “Hanna.”

Up to the outset of “Hanna”, the title character (Saoirse Ronan) has spent her entire life living an amenity-free lifestyle in a shack near the Arctic Circle with her father, ex-superspy Erik Heller (Eric Bana). Hanna is just your typical 16 year old girl. Her hobbies include speaking multiple languages, hunting elk with a bow, and learning new ways to kill a man. Heller has been preparing her for a fight with CIA bigwig Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett) who is responsible for the little family’s forced hibernation. Soon, Hanna feels she is ready for her challenge and Heller allows Wiegler to be alerted to her presence. After being captured, Hanna’s true abilities are put on display when she kills a Wiegler impersonator and escapes from a high-security holding facility, going on the run to meet back up with Heller. Wiegler pursues and her goon, Isaacs (Tom Hollander), pursue, however, and the result is a tension-filled chase through some of the seedier areas across Eurasia.

I can’t ever remember fighting with more vigor to like a movie I ended up not liking than I did with “Hanna.” Going in, I expected to come out with a positive review and I tried really, really hard to make that happen. Alas, it just wasn’t to be. I should note, first of all, that Ronan gives a tremendous performance. A fine actress to begin with, this could be one of those defining roles that dictates a higher-quality of offers as her career progresses. She brings the appropriate mix of creepiness and naïve curiosity that you would expect from a teenage killing machine who, for the first time, has been given an ounce of freedom. Her portrayal is award worthy. I also appreciate what director Joe Wright is trying to do here and there’s no denying he knows how to create a scene. Some of the scenes in “Hanna” are magnificent, particularly the action sequences which mesh a bit of the stylized flash of the “Bourne” series with the more traditional look of older action flicks.

But those great scenes are part of my problem with “Hanna.” For me, they are almost stand-alone moments of greatness that don’t connect; there’s no fluidity from one scene to the next. In fact, I often felt that each sequence had a completely different tone than the next, almost like reading a book by two different authors who took turns penning alternating chapters. I get that Wright and his screenwriters (Seth Lochhead and David Farr) tried to capture the conflict between Hanna’s training and the undeniable desire to just be a teenage girl but there’s a real struggle to establish the balance between those two concepts, creating an identity crisis or at least an unsteady tone. It comes across as if Jason Bourne and Nell had a socially retarded love child which is frustrating given, again, how much Ronan gives to the role. In addition, I had a great deal of trouble connecting with any of the characters (outside of Hanna). They weren’t so much caricatures as they were simply inhuman. The hippie parents Hanna comes across during her escape, the strange ally who resides inside a defunct amusement park, and the vicious bad guy who is certainly creepy but only to the extent of a CBS procedural…none of them are relatable. Wright brings to the audience’s attention more creeps and weirdos than have been seen on screen since “Freaks.” That would be fine if they were compelling or even disturbing characters. Instead, they are just confusing and distracting, which brings me to the score.

Never in my life have I been more distracted by a score than I was throughout “Hanna.” Let me clarify: I quite liked the score and I’m generally a fan of the techno/progressive score that has become popular lately. When used correctly, I think there’s no questioning the asset a score like this one (done by the Chemical Brothers) can be for a film. It’s just used horribly. Really, it’s not just the score. It’s the shot selection, lighting, and various production elements combined with the score that completely ruined “Hanna” for me. Wright doesn’t use the score to drive his film; instead, he blows your eardrums out with it and even makes a point of highlighting it. One scene in particular, when Hanna escapes from her prison, feels like it was designed with the specific intention of playing to the score rather than the other way around. The overwhelmingly loud sound mix is obnoxious and the flashing lights/scene cuts are to the level of inducing a seizure. Maybe I’m just getting old but I’m not kidding when I say my head was pounding upon leaving the theater. These were huge missteps in my opinions, not to mention exceedingly distracting.

In the end, “Hanna” is, to quote the Bard, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” I can’t call it a bad movie; not with Ronan’s fine acting performance and some truly awesome scenes (not to mention the positive reviews of many people whom I trust). I just hate it. It has a strong story and an excellent concept, to be sure, but the execution is porous in my book and I could not get over the potholes in the road it travels.

Grade: C

I’m a little ticked at myself for not liking this,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out Cinema Slants much more positive (and probably more accurate, given the buzz around my favorite blogs) review here.

The Documentary Project - Volume 6: "Exit Through the Gift Shop"

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is sort of a documentary within a documentary. Or at least that's what it positions itself as, which is indeed a big part of its intrigue. We begin with Thierry Guetta, a French businessman whose feels his Los Angeles lifestyle isn't complete without a video camera in his hands. He films everything from normal, every day occurrences to the big events of his family. Upon a visit to France, Thierry meets a cousin of his who goes by the name Space Invader and is a well known figure in the underground street art world (read: "graffiti"). Fascinated by Invader's work, Thierry begins following him and his compatriots around at night, filming their exploits and soon becomes a fixture of the street art world himself. Thierry sets his sights higher, though, and uses his connections to get an introduction to Banksy, the world's preeminent street artist. Thierry does several projects with Banksy, all the while shooting footage for a film that doesn't really exist. When Banksy asks Thierry to show him his documentary, Theirry puts together a hasty, haphazard film that alerts Banksy to the fact that his would-be biographer (as it were) is simply a determined fan. Intrigued, Banksy flips the script and turns the camera on Thierry, tasking him with developing his own brand of street art and documenting the results for the viewer.

I can hardly think of a film that has caused me more writer's block than "Gift Shop." I've had a devil of a time trying to frame my thoughts into words and more importantly, to pinpoint what exactly there is to analyze. In truth, there's not a whole lot of content in this movie to critique or discuss. That's not to say it's a bad movie. In fact it is extremely well made and wholly compelling. I rarely sit and watch a movie without at least flipping through Twitter on my phone or doing a bit of work on my laptop. That's just what I do. Otherwise the ADD takes over and I can't concentrate on the film. With "Gift Shop", however, I sat staring at the screen for 87 minutes, my brow furrowed and my arms crossed, trying to decipher what in the world I was watching. It is clear (whether you've followed the movie's backstory to this point or simply come across it on Netflix Instant) that the goal of "Gift Shop" is to mess with your head first and inform (read: "advertise") second.

Banksy is a shrouded figure, his face un-shown and his voice auto tuned. Yet it becomes readily apparent that the relationship between himself and Thierry is much closer than documenter and subject (even after they switch places). I'm not sure exactly what that relationship is and I suppose that's the point. It seems easy to me to say that Banksy and Thierry are the same person or at least are working together to display Banksy's work and heighten his notoriety. But that feels overly simple and the presentation is so obvious as to leave me wondering if that isn't exactly what Banksy/Thierry/whoever the freak this guy is wanted me to think. The mind game would be quite annoying, honestly, if it weren't so darn interesting. In the days following my "Gift Shop" viewing, I routinely found myself absentmindedly thinking about the film, trying to figure out what my own personal conclusion is. And to be frank, dear readers, I'm still not sure. It's a weird, twisted, even frustrating documentary (if it can even be called a documentary which I'm not sure it really qualifies for) that you should honestly just see for yourself so that you, too, can be confused and maddeningly intrigued.

Grade: B+

"Source Code"

I came by my love for science fiction honestly. My dad was a part-time sci-fi writer for the first few years of my life and took me to his writer’s club meetings once a week. My parents spent weekends playing Dungeons and Dragons with their group of friends and I was running my own adventures by age 7. In the month prior to my birth, “Star Wars” made its cable debut and my mom, laid up on bed rest, claims to have watched it two dozen times. I didn’t stand a chance; I was born to love sci-fi. I will be the first to admit, however, that good sci-fi has proven hard to come by. For every “Star Wars” there are three “Starship Troopers” (seriously, there are at least three of them); for every “Firefly”, there’s the Friday night movie on the SyFy channel. There is some cheesy, absurd fun to be had with this type of offerings, sure, but no one will argue they’re good movies. It can be hard to defend sci-fi as a whole when non-fans have so much ammunition from which to choose. So when a visionary, smart sci-fi director jumps onto the scene the way Duncan Jones did with 2009’s “Moon,” you can bet I’m touting the guy’s genius as long as he keeps putting out smart sci-fi, which is exactly what “Source Code” is.

When Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) awakens, he finds himself aboard a commuter train in the company of a beautiful woman named Christina (Michelle Moynahan) whom he doesn’t know but seems to know him. His disorientation is cut short, though, when a bomb goes off, eviscerating everything around him. He wakes up again, however, this time strapped into an odd seat inside of a metal capsule surrounded by electronic equipment. His confusion is only deepened when Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears on a monitor and informs him that he is in the Source Code. Through a complicated equation of quantum physics (or mechanics or something that I didn’t really understand because I dropped out of high school) and in-depth neurology, Source Code allows someone else (namely, Captain Stevens) to inhabit the mind and body of a person in his last eight minutes of life. In this case, that person is Sean Fentress, a teacher who died in the train explosion which turned out to be only the lead up to a much bigger terrorist attack on Chicago. It isn’t exactly time travel that he’s been gifted with but rather a glance into the past that could allow him to pinpoint the bomber and therefore prevent future attacks. Bewildered and certain that he isn’t being given all the information about his situation, Stevens undertakes the task at hand with tenacity but takes it upon himself to change not only the future but also the past.

From a sci-fi perspective, “Source Code” isn’t quite to the level of “Moon” which is, for my money, the best true sci-fi film of the last decade (if not more). On the flip side, however, it’s much more across-the-board accessible than its predecessor. Whereas my wife would attempt to destroy our TV if I forced her to watch “Moon”, Sci-fi fans and haters alike should be able to find a great deal worth celebrating here. From the casting choices on down to the very layout of the narrative, every aspect of “Source Code” is expertly crafted. Gyllenhaal (whom I’ve never been a fan of) was a stumbling block for me in the beginning but as the film progresses, Stevens proves to be tougher, smarter, and more determined than either his superiors or the audience would have imagined at the outset. His on-screen presence grows as the tension rushes toward its peak which leaves the viewer with a feeling of authenticity. It is a fine performance that could be put up against any of his other roles (though again, I’ve never been much of a fan). The other actors, namely Moynahan, Farmiga, and Jeffrey Wright, aren’t given much opportunity to develop into anything more than Gyllenhaal’s backup band, but each fills their respective role admirably.

Meanwhile, Jones and screenwriter Ben Ripley don’t waste a single scene, the starting point for any potentially great film. Each minute, each scene, does nothing but add fuel to the fire of the film’s momentum. Likewise, virtually no time at all is spent on explaining the science of Source Code, nor its origins. We are told what Stevens is experiencing but not how. That’s a brilliant stroke, in my opinion, because it keeps the film from bogging down in convoluted and hypothetical (read: “bull crap”) science that the average Friday night moviegoer isn’t going to understand, anyway (read: “me”). Instead, we are presented with the concept and simply asked to buy in while simultaneously providing such a lively film as to make it almost impossible to remain un-invested.

The sheer length of my summary paragraph should give you a hint into just how complicated the concepts behind “Source Code” truly are. But like Christopher Nolan, Jones treats his audience with respect. In that I mean, he accepts that those who sit down to watch his movies are, in fact, capable of following a complex, intelligent plot line and used special effects and explosions as a side dish, not the main course. That is a refreshing attitude in the action movie/sci-fi industry that is overrun by the Michael Bays and Jerry Bruckheimers of the world. Mindless explosions and stereotypical alien invasions can be fun and entertaining but I’m not an idiot and it’s nice to have a filmmaker treat me accordingly without stepping into an art house theater. It also doesn’t hurt Jones’ love for significant science fiction is clearly evident in just about every scene. The combination of traditional sci-fi sentimentalities along with an adult-approved atmosphere, some classic action film elements, and a hint of romance creates an intense and highly enjoyable thrill ride.

Grade: A-

Curse you SyFy channel,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out A Life in Equinox's take, which highlights a small flaw I didn't have room for.

Blu Ray Review: "Unstoppable"

"Unstoppable" begins innocently enough when a bumbling railroad employee (Ethan Suplee) jumps out of a half-mile long train to throw a rail switch, only to discover that he hadn't properly applied the brake. Soon this train, with cars packed with a highly explosive chemical, is roaring unmanned down the tracks at speeds approaching 70 miles per hour. When all attempts to derail what one railway employee (Rosario Dawson) describes as "a missile the size of the Chrysler building" come up short, the job is left two a young conductor (Chris Pine) and his veteran engineer (Denzel Washington) to pull off a desperate gambit to save a lot of lives and money.

Loosely based on real life events from a 2001 incident, "Unstoppable" is almost exactly what we've all come to expect from director Tony Scott. His special effects, settings, grainy imagery, and action sequences are awesome; the rest of the movie...well, it's kind of up to you as to whether or not you're going to get on board. Sometimes the concept draws me in ("Deja Vu"), sometimes not so much ("Pelham 123"). He's nowhere near the all-style-no-substance level of Michael Bay but "Unstoppable" brings him a step closer.

Considering that my recent review for "Battle: Los Angeles" I made a case for allowing an action movie to be nothing more than entertainment, I'm not going to turn around and cast stones here for the same thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with "Unstoppable." It is what it is. But that doesn't mean there's just a whole lot that's right, either. Quite frankly, I was bored throughout much of the run time. With no real villain (an unmanned train doesn't really count, does it?) you need compelling heroes or at least hard-hitting, continuous action to keep you from thinking about the fact that there are no compelling heroes. Washington and Pine are both excellent actors but they are both put into limited, supporting roles opposite The Train as the leading man. This simply didn't work for me. Pine, in particular, could have been anyone which leads me to ask, why cast Chris Pine (or any Hollywood rising star) if you're going to give him a marginal back story and minimal screen time with which to work with? The rest of the movie is straight out of the Jerry Bruckheimer handbook which is fine, I guess, but uninspiring. In an effort to find a villain, Scott resorts to beating you across the head with corporate executive Oscar Galvin (Kevin Dunn), whose "all I care about is money!!!" mantra is so threadbare as to become painful. All of this I could have handled, I think, if not for the constant reliance on TV news reports to further the story and, I guess, add "real drama" to the action. It is incessant, over-the-top, and irritating. I swear that if I had to sit through one more "how will these brave men make it out of this terrible situation?!" moment, I would have put my foot through the TV. An AWFUL finishing touch that, for me, tainted the entire production. "Unstoppable" plays out with great predictability and very little to get excited about.

Grade: C+

As a quick side note, I'd like to take a moment to talk directly to Denzel Washington because I know he's reading. Denzel, you're awesome. Seriously, one of the best actors to ever grace the screen. But your movie choices of late have been lackluster. Not bad, just safe and boring. Please, I beg you, take some chances. Go after roles that will actually allow you to showcase your incredible abilities, to stretch yourself. Look at what's happened to Robert De Niro and learn from his mistakes! No more Tony Scott movies. I'm just looking out for you.

"Paul"

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but at some point in the last few years, Fanboys have taken over the world. It used to be (or it seemed like it, at least) that nerd-friendly movies and TV shows were being made by suits just looking for an audience to cash in on. That’s different now. An entire generation of nerds grew up to be Head Nerds or Nerds with Power and they’ve created a catalog of films made by nerds, for nerds. Because of this, Fanboys have gone from the target audience to the focus of several films themselves. Whether it’s a character sporting a “Star Wars” t-shirt or an entire TV episode revolving around the music of Rush, nerd culture has become a viable market in and of itself. With that in mind, let us turn our attention to “Paul,” a movie written by and starring two well-known nerds (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) and directed by an even bigger nerd (Greg Mottola).

At the open, we find Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost), a sci-fi writer-illustrator team, making the rounds at Comic Con. After meeting their hero, Adam Shadowchild (Jeffrey Tambor), the pair sets out on an RV road trip to visit the UFO hotspots across the southwestern United States. Things get a bit too real, however, when a car crash brings them into contact with Paul (Seth Rogen), a crass alien who asks for their help in avoiding recapture. Paul has been on Earth since a crash landing 60 years ago and has stayed willingly, providing technological insight for the government and advice for sci-fi loving filmmakers (including Spielberg himself). He broke out of his prison, however, when he discovers that “The Big Guy” (no spoiler) planned to have him killed so that his alien skills, including the ability to heal, could be further examined. With a ship on its way to rescue him, Paul persuades Graeme and Clive to escort him to the rendezvous point, all the while remaining one small step ahead of an FBI agent (Jason Bateman) intent on bringing Paul back in.

The first half of “Paul” is nerdy genius at its best. What you can expect in Fanboy-made movies are inside jokes, a litany of movie references, and a genuine connection to the subject matter with which they work within. “Paul” is ripe with each of these characteristics, at times to the point of overkill. It starts strong, bringing us into the world of two extremely likeable characters. Graeme and Clive are everynerds, so to speak, the type of guy that any nerd would want to hang out with. They are endearing and the chemistry between Pegg and Frost, which has been illustrated so well in their other joint ventures (“Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”), shines through yet again here. Paul himself is quite funny, if crude and immature, and in the beginning the pieces of pop culture he is attached to, from the traditional look of extra-terrestrials to the use of his ideas in movies, are smart and easily accepted. Some of the sci-fi references are brilliant, peaking when the crew enters a Wyoming bar in which the band is playing the theme from the Mos Eisley Cantina.

After a while, though, the allure wears off. The rest of the characters are less enjoyable and more one dimensional than I would have liked. Each supporting actor, including Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, and Blythe Danner in addition to the aforementioned Bateman, have their moments and certainly provide a laugh (or three) but none are as well refined as Graeme, Clive, or Paul (to a lesser extent). I found this to be a detriment to the movie as a whole, as if these characters held the protagonists back. The writing as a whole isn’t as solid as the Pegg/Frost scripts for “Shaun” or “Fuzz.” And while the references seem fresh and fun in the beginning, after a while they become heavy-handed. Not everything needs to be a tribute to another film and the sheer number of pop culture items that are attributed to Paul is astounding. “Paul” starts to feel like a nerd version of “Forrest Gump” and I don’t mean that as a compliment. It’s all a bit tiresome, really. Mottola has a problem with ending his films, in my opinion, as I found myself once again ready for the conclusion about 20 minutes before it rolled around. All of this takes away from the overall strength of the movie and dampers the fun. I still enjoyed the majority of my time spent with “Paul” and if you’re a sci-fi/comic book nerd, there is no questioning this film’s appeal. But a tweak here and there, a shorter runtime, and fewer forced references could have made it a Fanboy smash.

Grade: B-

Quick side note: In the row in front of my viewing party and I, there sat a single twenty-something co-ed. After approximately 50 minutes of the movie, during which she almost never stopped looking at her smart phone, one of my buddies leaned over, I assumed, to ask her to kindly stop blinding us. He pulled up short, however, and the phone use continued. After the movie ended and the girl left, my friend told us that when he had leaned over to ask her to knock it off, he noticed that she was surfing eHarmony. So here sat a reasonably attractive young female, alone, on a Friday night, at a showing of a nerdy movie, rolling through eHarmony on her phone. At this moment I was griped with both a genuine sense of “ah, sad” for the girl and an IMMEDIATE need to bust my friend’s chops for not seizing the moment and hitting on said girl. He will never live this moment down. Ever.

I could not make that story up,
Brian

Care for another opinion? Check out Film Girl Interrupted's less-annoyed take on the fun that is "Paul."

"Battle: Los Angeles"

Every once in a while I feel like the mainstream critics get caught up in mob mentality regarding a given movie. While most popcorn flicks come and go with little more than a “meh” from the average critic, occasionally said movie receives such a vehemently vicious as to become the proverbial ginger stepchild. One critic voices a strong disdain and is soon joined by another and another until you get the feeling that a blood thirsty band of Roger Eberts might be roving around theater parking lots, bullying anyone who would dare to enjoy this movie. 2011’s early leader to become the unassuming wimp to the critic’s ‘roided up jock is “Battle: Los Angeles.”

There’s very little build up in “BLA.” We are introduced to Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), a career Marine whose last tour of duty resulted in some casualties. Nantz has filed his discharge paperwork and is essentially on his way out the door when the invasion begins. Landing offshore all around the world, what were at first thought to be meteorites turn out to be alien spacecraft and soon our shores are swarming with hostiles. Assigned to a new squadron, Nantz is forced to rally his young troops when it becomes clear that they are America’s last line of defense.

I won’t sit here and tell you that “BLA” is a great action movie. It isn’t. There’s almost no storyline, most of the characters often come across as caricatures of other war/action movie characters, and the aliens themselves are fairly mundane. You won’t find a well-developed backstory or any social commentary here and if you’re expecting that, just go rent “District 9” again. Some reviews I’ve ready would have you believe this entire movie is a metaphor for the United States’ attitude toward immigration. To those people I say, either stop watching CNN or stop watching cheesy action flicks; you’re giving the makers of “BLA” way too much credit. There’s no depth to “BLA” and there doesn’t need to be. There’s no identity crisis, no bloated sense of importance, and no ambition to become anything more than it is. And I, for one, appreciate that.

“BLA” knows its place in the world and it is better for that. It’s all action, all the time and for my money, there’s some merit in that. The Marines are under constant attack and director Jonathan Liebesman does an excellent job of creating an atmosphere of tension. These Marines are faced with an unknown enemy and the confusion and chaos that causes comes screaming through as they scramble to develop a strategy. The dialogue, though cliché, isn’t bad and the inevitable moments of artificial emotion/sentimentality work relatively well. There’s something about a group of soldiers marching stoically into the face of certain death for the betterment of the masses that gets me even when it’s done in such an obvious and over-the-top manner as it is in “BLA.” There is definitely a video game feel to “BLA.” In fact, as we walked out, my viewing partner and I both expressed a desire to play a game based on what we’d just seen. I completely understand if that turns some viewers off. More often than not I use “video game feel” as a criticism. This time around, however, it worked for me. It might be mindless entertainment but it’s still fun and at the end of the day, that’s all I wanted it to be.

All that brings me back around to the critical backlash that “BLA” has taken over the last couple of weeks and has been met with a slew of “D” and “F” grades. It has been described as “noisy and violent” to which my response is, uh, DUUUUHHH. Have you ever seen an action/war movie before? Even Roger Ebert himself, usually less harsh in his criticism than most, essentially called any fan of this movie an idiot and encouraged all friends and family members to disassociate from said idiot. It’s odd to me, with all the terrible action movies that have opened in the last couple of years, that Ebert (and everyone else) picked this one to get all hot and bothered about. It’s not great by any means and I’m not running out to see “BLA” again but I’m certainly not complaining, either. There’s something to be said for an action flick that sticks to its guns and doesn’t stray from the identity it creates for itself and you could do a heck of a lot worse with your movie dollar.

Grade: B-

I should have worked “lambasted” into this review somewhere,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out John Likes Movies.

The Documentary Project: Volume 5 - "The Fab Five"

Note: Most of the documentaries I will be watching for this project revolve around subject matter that I don't know just a whole lot about. Because of my love for sports (and basketball in particular) and my knowledge of these events, however, I cannot write a review that sticks exclusively to the content of the film without dipping a toe into the sports side of this movie-sports equation. My apologies in advance. I'm also a Duke fan, so...

In 1991, the University of Michigan changed the face of college basketball. A program with a proud tradition, Michigan at the time was in a down period despite having recently won a national title. In an effort to rejuvenate his squad, head coach Steve Fischer hit the recruiting trails harder than ever before and managed to secure commitments from 5 highly touted players from across the country. Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson all made their way to Ann Arbor in the fall of 1991, nicknaming themselves "The Fab Five." While Webber was the prize recruit, it was Rose who galvanized the young group, bringing with him the brash swagger that he picked up playing in the projects of Detroit. As a group, the Fab Five was a shock to the sensibilities of the average college basketball fan. They wore baggy shorts and black shoes, talked trash the entire game, and finished off dramatic plays with screams and taunts. They also experienced an incredible amount of success for such a young squad and this factor, combined with their appearance, made them a cultural sensation. "The Fab Five," an ESPN documentary produced by Rose, explores the impact of the group, both on and off the court, and the eventual letdown that this era was to the university.

There's no questioning the entertainment value of "The Fab Five." The follow up to ESPN's acclaimed 30 for 30 series from last year (HIGHLY recommended for any sports fan, by the way), very few full length sports documentaries can hold your attention the way this one does. Shots and recaps of those two "magical" years are interspersed with interviews with the members of the squad (minus Webber). From a personal standpoint, it was great fun to relive the moments of those seasons because these were the formative years for my love of basketball and particularly for the hated Duke Blue Devils (a Michigan rival of sorts).

That said, this isn't in any way, shape, or form what you'd call a "fair and balanced" documentary. There's no questioning the impact of the Fab Five; they were a cultural phenomenon. But Jalen Rose would have you believe they were THE cultural phenomenon in sports, THE group that changed everything from fashion to style of play. That's simply untrue. In many ways the Fab Five were the little brothers of the University of Miami's football team in the 80s, a squad that polarized a nation of sports fans. Even more current to the rise of the Fab Five, the UNLV Runnin' Rebels had won a title only the year before this crew took to the floor and had garnered extensive attention while playing with the same style and swagger that the Fab Five "invented." Even the baggy shorts look (a style I'm extremely grateful for as a skinny white kid with a less than formidable lower body that would look terrible in the short-shorts of the 70s and 80s), which Rose takes credit for, had already been brought to the forefront by none other than Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player ever. College basketball may have been lagging behind the playground but the insinuation that the Fab Five started the baggy shorts trend is absurd.

In addition, the on court success of the Fab Five was, quite frankly, a bit of a disappointment considering the end result. They reached two Championship games in their first two seasons together but got crushed by Duke in 92 and watched Chris Webber call a timeout his team did not have in 93, costing his team a shot at the win. The next year, after Webber left for the NBA, Rose and Howard led them back to the Elite 8 but again they lost to the eventual champion, Arkansas. Not a bad run by any means but when you consider the attention the group brought upon themselves as they entered college, you have to feel that anything short of a title is a letdown. And at the end of the day, Chris Webber's involvement with a less than reputable "business man" during this time ultimately led to Michigan vacating the wins accumulated during the Fab Five run and cost coach Fisher his job. "The Fab Five" touches on these subjects but, as you might imagine, paints the events in a much more favorable light that they appear to outsiders. The result is the feeling that this group of guys, while significant, is much more important in their own minds than they are to the rest of the world.

We are also treated to what amounts to jealousy and name calling, as Rose and King call out their Duke counterparts, referring to vaunted Duke hero Grant Hill as an "uncle Tom." Coming from a tough background, Rose tells the camera that he felt any black man who went to Duke was selling out his race. Looking past the extremely offensive and unfair terminology, I found it more than slightly ironic that Rose and King attacked Duke though they went to Michigan, which is essentially the Duke of the Big 10, an upper class school full of upper class kids. Rose has since attempted to clarify his statement by saying this was how he felt as a teenager but wouldn't go so far as to say he didn't feel that way now. I would take great umbrage with this statement but I feel Grant Hill settled the matter much more eloquently than I ever could.

The documentary fails to touch on the most important part of the Fab Five's impact on college basketball. Their real significance was the way in which their success changed recruiting. Up until that point, very few freshmen were expected to do much in their first year on campus. Freshmen, no matter how highly recruited, generally rode the bench along with the walk-ons and were expected to wait their turn. The Fab Five forced college basketball coaches across the country to change their tactics. The ante was raised, essentially, and coaches soon found themselves working harder to bring in not one or two player but an entire class of highly touted recruits and doing anything they could to see that through. Already a dirty game in college football, recruiting became a big, nasty business in basketball and that is due in large part to the Fab Five. This part of the equation was bypassed in the film in favor of the sexy, flashy half-truths that dominate the narrative. The absence of Webber, too, takes some punch out of "The Fab Five." He comes across as petty and false, a middle class kid who preened and posed and played a thug on TV but was really much more spoiled than he'd ever have you believe. His side of the events displayed in this movie could have brought some real substance. But then again, his refusal to participate is a microcosm of his entire basketball career: disappointing. Very few players did less with more than Webber and in a way, that sums up the era of the Fab Five and the documentary about them: lots of style, very little true substance.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "Buried"

When Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) awakens, he finds himself in total darkness. Frantic, he locates a Zippo and, lighting it, discovers that he is trapped inside a coffin. An American truck driver in Iraq, Conroy realizes that his convoy was attacked and that he has been imprisoned by insurgents. Shortly thereafter, a phone rings and a dark voice on the other end informs him that he has only a few hours to secure a $10 million ransom or he will be left to die. What follows is an intense race to determine his own whereabouts and those of his captors before his grave becomes permanent.

"Buried" is an outstanding concept that depends half on the atmosphere of the coffin and half on the performance of the man trapped within it. Shot entirely in one location (a coffin) with essentially only one actor on screen (Reynolds), it's easy to understand why the film's production budget ($3 million) was so low. The shots are tight, giving the viewer the appropriate feel for the claustrophobic conditions. Reynolds fulfills his part of the bargain admirably. Conroy fluctuates between moments of panic and those of decided action, making every call he can think of to try to bring aid. Reynolds excels in this role, displaying a brilliant mix of frustration, fear, and determination. As usual, he brings a certain charisma to his character and that is what makes the difference for "Buried." The situation in and of itself, while tragic, is not necessarily enough to keep an audience invested for the 95 minute run time; you need a compelling and sympathetic character to root for and Reynolds provides it.

Some films, though, don't translate as well from the big screen to a living room TV set and "Buried" is one of them. I think some of the power of "Buried" was probably stripped away because I didn't see it in a theater and the drama of the film's environment was watered down a bit for me. That said, the back and forth between hope and failure (not to mention a twist that works well) creates palpable tension and a movie that is well worth a viewing.

Grade: B+

DVD Review - "It's Kind of a Funny Story"

When his depression deepens and casual suicidal thoughts turn to near-action, teen-aged Craig (Keir Gilcrest) decides to take the situation out of his own hands and checks himself into a mental institute. Hoping for a quick fix to his problems, he soon finds himself locked away for a week inside the adult wing of the hospital while the teen side is remodeled. While undergoing the therapy he hoped to avoid, Craig begins to make new friends, including Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), a gentle soul who can't seem to adjust to the realities of the outside world, and Noelle (Emma Roberts), another teen whose suicidal thoughts have taken on more drastic measures than his own. Through these new bonds, Craig seems to bloom, to become a real person instead of the obligatory well behaved, overachieving adolescent he's always felt he had to be. Confronting the expectations that have been innocently placed upon him by his parents, his friends, and his own mind, Craig fights to discover his real identity.

I cannot recommend "It's Kind of a Funny Story" highly enough. Writer, director, and cast all come together for a near seamless coming-of-age comedy that dwells in the quirky but never heavy handedly. It is a pleasant mix of "Garden State" and "500 Days of Summer" centered around a slightly younger crowd. Writer/director team Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck penned a brilliant script that puts each of the cast in a position to shine. The film moves well, never lingering excessively but also without passing anything over. Each issue is handled with grace, which prevents "Funny Story" from becoming bitter or sad. Craig's parents (Lauren Graham and Jim Gaffigan) are shown to be caring, loving people who share in the blame for their son's current situation only through accident, instead laying the blame at the feet of a society that expects too much of its children. Gilcrist, meanwhile, is exceedingly likable, an actor/character you immediately and genuinely gravitate toward. And while each of the supporting cast have their moments, Galifianakis shines the brightest, delivering an honest portrayal that gives the story an added layer of depth. Though perhaps a bit shallow at times, "Funny Story" is a huge success, a warm, heartfelt, and even fun movie that holds its own with the very best quirky comedies.

Grade: A

Blu Ray Review - "127 Hours"

Note: I usually do my very best to avoid any sort of spoiler in my reviews, even, at times, softening or weakening my statements to steer clear of anything that might ruin the suspense of a film. In this circumstance, however, I find it impossible to write a proper review without alluding to the conclusion. As this is based on real events that many people followed when they happened, I feel like I'm in the clear in terms of "to spoil or not to spoil." With that said, if you've never heard of Aron Ralston or his story, I'd advise you to move on to something else.

At the outset of "127 Hours," Aron Ralston (James Franco), an adventurous young mountaineer, sets out for a weekend climb through a well known canyon in Utah. Ralston is what you would call an amateur-expert, a weekender who knows a lot more than the average thrill seeker. This knowledge and his comfort level with the task at hand probably works against him, however, as it makes him a bit cocky and allows him to break the number one rule of wilderness adventure: always tell someone where you're going and when you'll be back. Skipping this important step becomes a serious issue when Ralston takes a bad step and finds himself trapped in a crevice with his arm pinned between the rough rock wall and a boulder. Based on real life events, "127 Hours" focuses on the days that follow as Ralston's will is pushed to the limits, leading him to make a gut wrenching decision.

I avoided "Hours" for some time for two reasons: 1.) having followed these events when they were brought to life in 2003, I knew the eventual outcome. I'm fine with biographical films or the "based on a true story" tag line but at times events that are as fresh as these make it tough for me to enjoy the movie. 2.) more importantly, I was not sure I could take the visualization of the gruesome choices Ralston was forced to make. I'm not overly squeamish; I can handle battle scenes, even graphic ones, without pause but anything surgical gets to me. For example: I'm fine with the opening 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" but when the squad tries to fix up Giovanni Ribisi after he takes a bullet storming the machine gun turret...I nearly pass out every time. Inevitably, however, the power of Danny Boyle won me over.

Boyle's pulsating, frenetic style runs through the very heart of "Hours." The splashes of color and quick cuts bring flash to a narrative that quite frankly could have become boring without it. Flashbacks and hallucinations allow for a break from the potential monotony of a guy hanging alone in a desert cave and add depth to the Ralston character. Still, though, "Hours" rests almost entirely on the shoulders of Franco. The "solitary man" role is extremely risky for even the best actors in the world. Tom Hanks himself, perhaps the most likable actor of his generation, had a hard time conquering this role in "Cast Away." (Yes, that film made a ton of money but no, it was not nearly as universally appealing as most of Hanks' work was.) Franco, though, handles the pressure wonderfully, giving the performance of his life (naturally, given his Oscar nomination) and displaying an immense range that I personally wasn't sure he had. A scene in which he films himself essentially saying goodbye to his parents is sobering, heartbreaking, and perfectly genuine. Rumor has it that Franco got hold of the actual tape Ralston filmed while stuck and this scene in particular speaks to that idea. It's a palpable portrayal that carries the film.

And that brings us to the cringe-worthy finale, as Ralston is forced to choose between cutting his own arm off with a dull stocking stuffer utility knife or dying alone and dehydrated. If you have knowledge of the events, you know the choice he makes. And let me say, this is one of the most painful moments in film history. Boyle pulls no punches and in fact calls attention to Ralston's actions through the score and aforementioned shot selections. It is gruesome and bloody and I confess I had to turn away from the screen on multiple occasions. But by the same token, I didn't find it to be gratuitous. I mean, the dude is forced to cut his own arm off. It would be an injustice to Ralston and his story to shy away from the gory details. And because of the tension that Boyle and Franco build throughout the minutes that lead up to this event, the final cut feels less like a horrific loss and more like the attainment of freedom, as you would imagine it did in real life. It isn't easy to watch and I wouldn't recommend "127 Hours" to everyone but it is unquestionably an excellent film that showcases the ability of its lead beautifully.

Grade: A

"The Adjustment Bureau"

I have a theory that Matt Damon and I would be friends. Like if I was hanging out in Boston one day and I bumped into the guy, we’d hit it off and before long you’d see me sitting with him courtside at a basketball game and the paparazzi would be wondering, “Who is the mystery man who’s always hanging out with Damon?” I base this theory on several factors. First, you always get the impression that Damon is a cool dude. Maybe more than any other A-lister, Damon gives off an air of genuine coolness. Second, in keeping with the cool factor, Damon doesn’t take himself too seriously. He takes his craft seriously, of course, but you have to love a guy who’s willing to show up as Tina Fey’s boyfriend on “30 Rock” or a punk rocker in “Eurotrip.” Third, his sense of humor comes out through his characters and it falls in line with my own. Just trust me, Matt and I would be tight if he knew me. I tell you all of this because I lost my notes on “The Adjustment Bureau” and I had some space to fill. Sue me.

Based on a short story by the esteemed Philip K. Dick, “The Adjustment Bureau” drops us into the life of David Norris (Damon), a brash, young politician running for the New York senate. When a late-breaking tabloid report ruins his chances, his disappointment is quickly squashed when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a charming dancer who inspires him to make a charismatic and honest concession speech. (I swear I would vote for this guy.) A month later he bumps into Elise again and is immediately reminded of the oddly strong attraction he felt toward her. He soon discovers, however, that this budding relationship isn’t the in the cards as he is made aware of the Adjustment Bureau, a group of beings (perhaps angels) who are tasked with the job of keeping everyone on the right path. He is told that in order for his political ambitions to come to fruition, he can never see Elise again. Saddened, he moves on with his life but never stops a quiet search for the girl who so impressed him. When he finally does find her, the Adjustment Bureau jumps into action in an effort to push the pair apart, causing a city wide cat-and-mouse game that pits love against reason.

Given my love for smart science fiction and Matt Damon, I’m sure no one will be shocked to hear that I highly enjoyed “Bureau.” It plays out as one part “Serendipity,” one part “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and one part “The Matrix” and the final combination works well. That may seem a bit complicated but the presentation is simple and to the point. This is a love story and all the surrounding complexity is used solely to drive our two stars together. It is antiquated in a way and at times hokey but I found this combination to be quite charming. There’s a certain nostalgic value to “Bureau,” a throwback to the cinematic endeavors of the 50s and 60s.

As it is a romance, the film’s success rests squarely on the chemistry between Damon and Blunt, neither of whom shy away from the pressure. The pair works wonderfully together, exhibiting a natural, enjoyable relationship that doesn’t take itself too seriously but at the same time proves to be worth fighting for. I can’t say this is Damon’s best work ever but then again, Damon’s B+ game is better than most people’s A+. I always find Blunt to be magnificent and her work here is no exception. Much like her role in “Sunshine Cleaning,” she demonstrates a certain indescribable quality that draws your attention and glues your eyes to every scene. It takes a supreme talent to match up with Damon and Blunt holds her own. The supporting actors, notably John Slattery and Anthony Mackie, all have their moments but as I said, “Bureau” depends entirely on Damon and Blunt.

For all the endearing charm of the first 97 minutes of “Bureau,” the final two minutes are a let-down. It’s a safe, moralistic ending that drops in on you much quicker than expected. It is, quite frankly, a cop-out. I will say, however, that while my distaste for this was palpable, I can’t for the life of me think of a stronger conclusion that isn’t overly dark. “Bureau” is at no time dark or gritty. In fact, the contrast between the harsh landscape and the light, vulnerable relationship the leads display is a point of strength for the film. To end on a dark note would have been a betrayal of the rest of the movie. Still, though, it’s a weak finale that could have used a reworking. This flaw, though, doesn’t keep “Bureau” from being very good. I would venture to call this my favorite romance since "500 Days of Summer," an excellent date movie with a smart concept and old school sentimentalities.

Grade: A-

If anyone knows Matt Damon, have him email me,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out John Likes Movies review, which includes some excellent points that I had forgotten due to the cursed loss of my notes. I'm getting old.

"Rango"

I’m not very easily offended. When it comes to content in film, there are things I don’t like, things I don’t approve of, things I won’t watch but there’s not just a whole lot that literally offends me. I have strong moral sensibilities but I don’t expect filmmakers and more importantly, film characters, to fall in line with my beliefs or preferences. One of the things that does grind my gears, however, are children’s movies, cartoons, that load up on adult content and innuendo. It bugs me. An adult-oriented joke here and there is fine; you have to give the grown-ups in the audience something to hold on to. But a steady stream of inappropriate statements, curse words, and the like in a PG cartoon is unacceptable to me. Maybe that’s because of my background or the fact that I work with kids but regardless, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes it difficult for me to be unbiased in my review. So keep that in mind as we delve into “Rango.”

“Rango” opens on our title character (Johnny Depp), a pet lizard with visions of grandeur whose existence is thrown out of whack when he is unceremoniously dropped into the Mohave Desert. Wondering through the desolate landscape, he stumbles upon Beans (Isla Fisher), a fellow reptile who takes him to an Old West-style town inhabited by turtles, rabbits, moles, and the like. Like any good college freshman, Rango realizes that this is a chance for a new identity and a fresh start; he can be anyone he wants to be in a town where no one knows him. He quickly develops for himself a rough and tumble background story and paints himself to be quite the gunslinger. His reputation in town only grows when he kills a menacing hawk through a series of fortunate events similar to those that helped Buzz Lightyear demonstrate his ability to fly. He is quickly made sheriff and even quicker, his mettle is put to the test when he stumbles into a conspiracy that threatens to rid the land of its water and force the townspeople to leave.

The animated debut of director Gore Verbinski (“Pirates of the Caribbean”), “Rango” is visually STUNNING. The depth to the detail of each character is magnificent and use of color is exquisite. Verbinski had his cast act out the scenes from the movie and used their movements to map out the characters. The result is an incredibly lifelike, realistic feel. You almost forget, in some ways, that you’re watching a collection of desert creatures because of how human the characters seem. The animation is to the quality of Pixar which is unquestionably the best compliment one could possibly give. I also quite enjoyed the Western elements of “Rango.” You won’t find many Westerns in my personal DVD collection but I greatly appreciate the western influence. It is richly represented here which makes the film’s shortcomings all the more frustrating.

To be short, “Rango” is inappropriate for children. Far too much of the content is aimed at the adults in the audience and so many of these lines of dialogue and actions are too thinly veiled as to go over the head of most seven year olds. The argument could be (and has been) made that “Rango”s target audience is, in fact, the adults it so keenly panders to throughout. If this was indeed Verbinski’s goal (which would be perfectly acceptable), then in my opinion he should have gone full bore and taken aim at the PG-13 rating. Some parents will have no problem with the content and that’s fine; I cast no judgment in their direction. But those who will (and I think these parents will be greater in number) are being put into a bad position. If they don’t read a review going in, they’re likely to believe “Rango” is family friendly, kid’s fare and why shouldn’t they given its rating and marketing campaign aimed at children? And while I know so many of the family movies from my youth were packed with content I didn’t understand until later in life, animated features should be held to a different standard in my book. . While none of the content was anywhere near as rough or potentially objectionable as, say, the average episode of “Family Guy,” the difference is the little box at the top of the screen that says, “TV14.” Parents can choose whether or not to put any stock into that warning but at least the warning has been laid out.

“Rango” also suffers from an overall lack of humor. The dialogue is well written and fairly quick witted but to be honest, I very rarely laughed. The jokes seemed heavy handed at times while at other times they simply weren’t funny. So while much of the content is overly adult-themed, the humor didn't really work for this adult. This leaves “Rango” with an identity crisis that it struggles with throughout. There are some truly fun moments and as I said the visuals are unmatched in quality. But the lack of flow or identity left me feeling as if my time had been wasted, something I very rarely experience in a theater.

Grade: C+

I fear I sound super conservative today,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out Cinema Slant's slightly more glowing review.

Blu Ray Review - "Predators"

"Predators" opens up on Royce (Adrien Brody), a soldier of fortune who awakens to find himself falling from the sky and only just manages to pull a parachute. His fellow refugees, including a death row inmate (Walton Goggins), a KGB agent (Oleg Taktarov), and a Colombian guerrilla (Alice Braga) seem to be just as dangerous as he is. Banding together out of necessity, the group soon discovers they are on an alien planet, a game preserve of sorts, and that they are not alone. The famed aliens that once pushed Arnold Schwarzenegger to the limit are now tracking them down and picking them off one by one, pushing each of the human killers to their limits.

"Predators" is about 2/3rds of a really solid sci-fi action flick. It has an excellent premise and a fun concept, even if it has been done about 100 billion times. It's good to see the Predator universe returned to normalcy, too, after the disastrous "Alien Versus Predator" series. For anyone my age, there's something cool about the reappearance of the Predator on screen, a bit of nostalgia that allows you to forget that "Predator" really doesn't hold up very well these days because dude, was it AWESOME in its day. The action is well-paced and exciting and the 107 minute runtime is just about right for a movie like this. Sure, the scenes play out like a check list of Action Movie Musts (a traitor: check; someone who knows more than they should: check; someone who sacrifices himself for the group: check; an anti-hero who changes his stripes: check) but what did you really expect from "Predators," anyway?

My only real problem with this movie is casting and the use of said cast. Goggins is a magnificent actor who plays a villain beautifully. He, along with Braga and a few others, are relegated to one-dimensional supporting roles that don't have an ounce of depth. And then there's Adrien Brody, who I just don't buy as a tough guy. When you consider that the Predator took Arnie to his limit at the height of his power, the dude from "The Pianist" doesn't seem to stand much of a chance. Perhaps that's an idiotic way to look at things but that thought kept running through my mind throughout this movie. Likewise, another actor/character (who shall remain nameless to avoid a spoiler) seems so out of place that you KNOW a twist is bound to come. Yet when it does, you're left wondering what there was for this character to gain at that point. A few tweaks and some better casting choices could have made "Predators" a sci-fi flick to remember but these issues don't stop it from being a perfectly acceptable piece of entertainment that should work for any fan of this franchise.

Grade: B-

Blu Ray Review: "The Princess and the Frog"

During the Jazz Age, a young New Orleans waitress Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) finds herself caught up in a battle between a voodoo witch doctor, Facilier (Keith David), and a foreign prince, Naveen (Bruno Campos). When both Tiana and Naveen are turned into frogs, they must fight through the dangers of the bayou and reclaim their true forms before the clock runs out and they are stuck in their amphibian bodies.

Once such a proud American tradition, Disney movies had completely lost their appeal to me over the last decade. As I've said before, that has very little to do with my age. I love animated films and am unashamed to sit in on a kid's movie on opening day if it interests me enough. My disinterest in Disney has everything to do with quality. Between 2000's "Emperor's New Groove" and last year's "Tangled", not a single Disney cartoon held any sort of appeal to me, with the minor exception of "Lilo and Stitch" which I only mildly enjoyed. For all intents and purposes, the studio completely lost its way and stopped living up to the standard it set for itself over the previous 60 years. Disney animation regained my attention with the aforementioned "Tangled." Put simply, I loved it. it was one of the more fun experiences of 2010 and resembled some of the magic Disney used to be so famous for. With that in mind, I decided to give "Princess and the Frog" a try.

Let's just say I'm hoping this is less a sign of things to come and more an example of just how far the studio had fallen before "Tangled." A decent-enough story and great music aren't nearly enough to save "Princess" from a host of problems. The script is weak and the voice actors don't do much to flesh it out. You don't have to have big names to make an animated feature work but you do need talent and while this group may be able to sing, the delivery of the non-musical lines is almost unanimously bland. Likewise, the animation itself seemed sloppy to me. Some of the characters looked like something from the Disney knockoffs that were so popular when I was a kid. But worst of all, "Princess" is just plain boring, a cardinal sin in a children's movie. Within 20 minutes of the opening credits, I found myself messing around on my laptop and later sorted my laundry and if not for those activities, I probably could have fallen asleep. There are some fun moments but overall "Princess" is a forgettable film that just feels like a waste of time.

Grade: C+

DVD Review: "Paper Man"

On the verge of separation from his wife and crippled by harrowing writer's block, Richard Dunn (Jeff Daniels) settles himself into a friend's summer cottage to work on his second novel. His only companion is Captain Excellent (Ryan Reynolds), a Superman-like superhero who exists only in Richard's mind. Solitude doesn't seem to do the trick, however, and he soon finds himself looking for ways to procrastinate. On a trip into town, he meets and befriends Abby (Emma Stone), a local teenager with a haunted past and only one real friend, a strange boy named Christopher (Kieran Culkin). The two become an unlikely pair and begin to spend more time with each other against the advice of both Captain Excellent and Christopher. Soon Richard is forced to question his life, his relationships, and his profession.

This is a difficult movie to sum up. In essence, "Paper Man" is all about relationships and human interaction, though that may seem difficult to comprehend given that one of the characters is a figment of another's imagination. And yet the interconnecting relationships of Richard and Excellent, Abby and Christopher, and Richard and Abby serve as an illustration of human needs and co-dependence. None of the main characters are complete persons and as such, each needs the other. Directors Kieran and Michele Mulroney give us carefully crafted, well-honed characters that rarely stray from their tendencies as they grow together and therefore, apart. Likewise, all of the leads give outstanding performances and fit their roles perfectly. Daniels and Stone display a natural chemistry that embraces the oddness of their relationship. For perhaps the first time ever, Richard and Abby are allowed to be themselves in each other's company and that comes through beautifully. Stone, in particular, is perhaps more vulnerable and authentic here than in any other movie she's been a part of. Only Lisa Kudrow feels out of place as Richard's overachieving wife, a one-dimensional character who at times fits a tired cliché than she does embrace real humanity. That's more than a bit of a disappointment given than none of the other characters or their interactions stray into the cliché abyss. "Paper Man" is quirky and original with dark overtones that give it depth and edge and a tremendous collection of talent that doesn't go to waste. Quite frankly, I loved this movie and found myself drawn to it with more intensity than just about any film I've seen recently.

Grade: A