"Date Night"

Hollywood is an unpredictable old booger. You never know quite what to expect from its products or its stars. Just when you think you’ve got someone figured out, whether good or bad, they’ll throw out a game changer that leaves you questioning your previous commitment or lack thereof. (Unless we’re talking about John Travolta. That guy always sucks.) Sandra Bullock, for example, has been an instant “out” for me since the late 90s but her role in “The Blind Side” was excellent and put her back into tolerable territory. It does, however, work the other way as well, such as with the stars of “Date Night.”

I love Steve Carell and I love Tina Fey even more. They are two of the funniest humans in the entertainment industry today and I am always excited for their involvement in any project. But both have disappointed me lately. Carell was the star of the incredibly mediocre “Get Smart” and Fey was most unfortunately involved with “The Invention of Lying” which was entirely unfunny. Both movies just served as reminders that you can’t trust the name. As such, my thoughts going into “Date Night” were divided. I was stoked about the concept of this film from the get go, especially considering the stars. But as more and more advertising made its way into my mindgrape, I started focusing on “Smart” and “Lying” and wondering if this was going to be one of those times where all the good parts are in the trailers. Thankfully this was not the case and star power prevailed.

“Date Night” drops us into the sadly average lives of Phil and Claire Foster who have found themselves in the classic relationship rut. Work, kids, book club, and once a week Date Night at the same restaurant for the same food form the base of their everyday lives. Sparked by another couple’s recent divorce, the Fosters decide to change it up and bring Date Night to Manhattan where, upon being denied a table at a posh restaurant, they take the reservation of a missing couple called the Triplehorns. Things are going well until two thugs, mistaking them for the Triplehorns, drag them outside at gun point and demand the merchandise that was stolen from a local mob boss. What ensues is one crazy night of shenanigans as the Fosters dodge cops and crooks alike with the aid of Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg), a former client of Claire’s. Their adventures take them deep into the seedy underbelly of New York where they discover their vanilla boring lives are actually pretty darn good.

Carell and Fey make the perfect comedic couple. Their talents and attributes compliment each other brilliantly, bringing out the best in one another. Both of these actors are so natural in their roles that at times it feels like they are a real life couple who just happen to be really, really funny. There are a few surprisingly real, candid moments that would not come to fruition without these two in the lead. Carell especially brings honesty to the film that it would seriously lack otherwise. As the movie progresses, the two take turns being the dunce and the hero, and while that might fall flat with other pairings, here it furthers their connection. The Fosters are a great team. A bit dramatic and prone to inane plans, sure, but a great team nonetheless.

On screen support for the stars is strong for the most part, though Academy Award nominee Taraij P. Henson is horribly miscast as the police detective in charge of the Foster investigation. A quick confession: I'm a huge fan of Mark Wahlberg. I know I shouldn’t be and I certainly can’t defend some of his acting choices (“The Happening”, anyone?). But he seems to have a good time with each role and that makes it hard for me to dislike him. Holbrooke is a throw away character in many ways but Wahlberg makes the role bigger than it really is. Likewise, James Franco (as one half of the real Triplehorns) is rapidly becoming one of my favorite supporting actors. His five minutes on the screen are, for me, the funniest of the entire movie. Franco doesn’t seem to care about whether or not a part is too small for him, instead choosing his roles based solely on how much he’ll enjoy the filming (“30 Rock” and “General Hospital,” for example).

The behind the camera work is solid if unspectacular. Director Shawn Levy (“Night at the Museum”) seems to know where his bread is buttered, allowing Carell and Fey to do their thing without too much interference. He doesn’t let the film stretch itself too far and I mean that in a good way. There’s only so much that can be done with this story and it would be very easy to let it get off the rails. The script (written by John Klausner) is perhaps the weak link, though it isn’t bad, just a bit lacking. Some of the laughs are cheap and ultimately unnecessary given the comedic genius of the collective cast. The second act wanes a little and suffers from a bit of laziness but again, not in such a way that causes the audience to tune out. If nothing else it’s certainly a step up from Klausner’s last script, “Shrek the Third.”

“Date Night” is exactly what you can reasonably expect from a spring comedy. The laughs are abundant and the story is fun and entertaining. Without Carell and Fey, the movie probably comes off as fairly generic and mediocre but don’t you have to give some credit for securing the right cast? If you’re a fan of the two stars you won’t be disappointed. Overall it’s a very enjoyable experience and it goes a long way to making me forget the transgressions mentioned above.

Grade: B+

I already regret my Wahlberg statements,
Brian

"Clash of the Titans"

I am not often willing to spend the money to see a movie in theaters when I feel the movie is likely to suck. I’ve written before that “it’s all about expectations” and if I expect a movie to be bad, why would I put my $10 (or $15, as the case may be these days) into helping said bad movie make bank? But there are rare occasions when common sense is trumped by a Voice and the Voice leads me into the lion’s den, so to speak. Sometimes the Voice is that of my wife. Did I think “Bride Wars” would be terrible? Yes. Did I see it anyway? Yes. Did I want to kill myself afterward or halfway through? A little bit, yes. But the Voice took me there anyway. Sometimes the Voice is that of The Nerd Inside. Did I see all the terrible signs leading up to “Terminator: Salvation?” Yup. Did I let that stop me? No, I was there at Midnight and yes, the warning signs were correct.

Sometimes, however, the Voice takes on the form of Childishness. Full of precociousness and wonderment, the Voice of Childishness calls out, “Come on…come on…come on…” until I give in and find myself doing something stupid. In this case, Childishness sparked when a Thursday email reminded me that the next day was Good Friday and I didn’t have to go to work. What shall I do with my new found freedom, I asked myself. Immediately I realized what I must do: assemble a group to recreate the magical Summer of the Nerd and see a sure-to-be-terrible nerdy movie. And so, at 10:45 (because there were no Midnight showings that weren’t in 3D and weren’t at the Rave where even Childishness couldn’t drag me), two friends and I found ourselves in a theater watching “Clash of the Titans.”

“Titans” is a remake of the 1980 cult classic of the same name. I’ve never seen the original but everything I’ve heard suggests it’s about on par with the review I’m about to give for this version. “Titans” follows Persues (Sam Worthington) as he wages war against some of the gods and monsters of Greek mythology in an effort to…well, I’m not really sure. I guess to save this princess of some random human city that he just met 10 minutes prior to taking on this challenge and to avenge the death of his human father. The setup isn’t really a big part of the “plot” here. Perseus is actually the fun-baby of Zeus and so there are some conflicts of interest here as you can imagine. Zeus wants to crush the spirit of the rebellious humans so he unleashes his brother Hades on the world but he also doesn’t want his son to perish. Meanwhile Perseus wants to put a beat down on the gods but isn’t completely sure how he feels about Zeus. Add into the equation the guy who would have been Perseus’ Earthly father had he not cast him and his mother into the sea plus some ridiculous monsters and a weird demi-god who’s been watching Perseus since he was born (creepy) and you’ve got yourself a movie! Sort of.

I will say three things in “Titans” defense. One, the action sequences are pretty solid. Not great, mind you, but solid. If you like sword fights, giant monsters, and primal screams, this could be the movie for you. Worthington does an admirable job in exhibiting the looks, behaviors, and actions of an action star and the supporting cast don’t make fools of themselves in the action shots. Two, the dialogue isn’t atrocious. It’s not good, you understand, but it’s not teeth-grinding awful which is what I fully expected. There were only a couple of lines that made me wince and getting through a movie of this nature without really drawing attention to the dialogue is a good thing. Third, the movie doesn’t take itself seriously at all, which is a stroke of genius, considering the weak content.

Now I will say three things NOT in “Titans” defense. One, the “plot,” as noted, is just horrendous. The movie honestly feels like a video game in which you jump from one Level Boss to the next, only there’s really not any work to get to the next Boss. Two, the acting is predictably rough. While no single performance stands out among the rest as truly terrible, that’s more indicative of how mediocre the entire cast’s work is than anything else. I guess that’s not a huge surprise given that the majority of the cast is made up the type of actor you’d expect to get a mailed-in stinker from (even Liam Neeson is guilty of this). But Ralph Fiennes?! Ralph Fiennes?! Et tu, Brute?! I’ve always felt I could trust Fiennes but that trust is now in question. Three, the post production 3D installation was a huge disaster, and this has drawn my ire.

I get the appeal of 3D, I really do. It’s retro-new, it’s exciting, and it allows theaters to charge $5 extra to borrow their Buddy Holly glasses. If people are willing to pay for it, more power to you. My issue, however, is the hasty post production retro fitting that I fear we’re going to see a lot of in the next year or two. “Titans” was not shot in 3D, it was instead turned into a 3D film after the crazy success of “Avatar.” As a result, the print looks blurry and out of focus. Even the film’s director has thrown a fit regarding the 3D treatment. In truth, the shoddy nature of this feature just exemplifies the sloppiness that runs amok throughout the film’s mercifully short run time.

Now, all that’s not to say I didn’t have a good time. Childishness had come ‘a callin’ and darnit if I wasn’t going to have fun when Childishness was in charge. While I usually remain as quiet as possible in a crowded theater, I soon found I could not keep the Urge to Joke trapped inside for very long. After my nerds and I had cracked a couple of quiet jokes, the rows around us murmured their approval and before long the three of us had reinvented Mystery Science Theater 3000. The jokes were quick, easy, and plentiful. And really, given the less than serious tone “Titans” takes with itself, maybe that’s the whole point. Maybe that should even be the movie’s tagline: “Have fun! Make some jokes! Let Childishness take over for 83 minutes! Give us 10 bucks!” To that I say: “I accepted your invitation, “Titans.” In spite of your ridiculousness, I had some fun, I made some jokes, and I did let Childishness reign for 83 blessedly brief minutes. You may keep my ten dollars, but don’t push your luck looking for a good grade.”
Grade: C-.

Release the Kraken,

Brian

"Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief"

Here’s the problem with being a movie nerd. When you make a point of going to the theater as often as I do, you often run out of viable viewing options for those celebratory moments when you might want to see a movie with friends or loved ones. It was my birthday recently and my wonderful wife, knowing my love for the silver screen, thought it would be a great idea to check out a movie on said birthday. The idea was solid, clearly, but the choices…yikes. The first couple months of the year are pretty barren movie wise and I’ve already seen most anything that really interests me. Hence, we ended up in a Sunday afternoon showing of “Percy Jackson.”

“Percy Jackson” is based on the first book in a series written by Rick Riordan. The books and the movie follow young Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) as he discovers his ancestry and the abilities he owes to that ancestry. All in one day, Jackson learns he is the son of Poseidon, the Greek god of the seas, and he is in great danger. He is transported to Camp Half Blood by his caretaker Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) who turns out to be a satyr. At Camp he is reacquainted with his former teacher Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) who turns out to be a centaur. As you can tell, it’s quite an exciting day for Percy. Before he knows what has hit him he is thrown into a world in which the stories of mythology are very real. He, Grover, and his new friend Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) soon set out on a quest to track down the god Zeus’s stolen lightning bolt.

I give these books a whole hearted “eh.” The stories are interesting enough but the writing is marginal at best. In truth they come across as yet another attempt to replicate the magic of the Harry Potter series. But whereas the Potter books are written for children but sophisticated enough for adults, most of the knock offs are childish and immature. They only become popular because Potter fans are always attempting to find that next fix to fill the void left by the ending of the Potter world. So what happens, you may ask, when you take sloppy and average source material and attempt to hastily turn it into a feature film? Well, you get crap like this movie.

“Percy Jackson” was, for all intents and purposes, worthless. I tried to will myself to ignore the inane dialogue and witless comedic relief. I tried to pretend like the early special effects weren’t pathetic. I even tried to convince myself it wasn’t that bad and I was in fact enjoying my movie going experience. But within about 15 minutes I was contemplating whether or not I could get a refund for this mess. The acting of Lerman and Daddario is bad but truthfully I expected that. Both are fairly inexperienced and usually your first turn as a leading character is rough. The rest of the cast, however, have no such excuse. Pierce Brosnan, Joe Pantoliano, Catherin Keener, etc. all feel as if they’re here only to collect a paycheck. (Joey Pants! What the heck happened, man?! You haven’t been in a real movie in years and THIS is your triumphant return? You were in “The Matrix” dude, come on!) Uma Thurman, Rosario Dawson, and Steve Coogan all stop in for cameos and all sleepwalk through their respective scenes. Jackson, however, is the worst of the worst. And I don’t just mean this film in particular; I mean in all of Hollywood, this is my least favorite kind of acting. When comic relief isn’t comical, it makes a decent movie seem bad and a bad movie seem miserable. This is the latter. Jackson is AWFUL and every cliché line he speaks only serves to highlight the low quality writing and acting you are currently subjecting your brain to.

Writing and direction are even worse in “Jackson” than the acting. Screenwriter Craig Titley truly lives up to his IMDB resume that is “highlighted” by his writing of the story (not the script) for “Cheaper by the Dozen.” Dialogue, scene structure, you name it, it’s bad. And then there’s Chris Columbus and his sloppy work behind the camera. There was a time when Columbus was one of the premier family-movie-makers in the industry. “Mrs. Doubtfire,” the first two “Harry Potter” films, and of course, one of my all time favorites, “Home Alone” were all excellent works of kid-friendly fare that had at least some adult appeal as well. Then came “Rent,” “I Love You, Beth Cooper,” and now this. Suddenly he’s looking like a guy who’s on his last legs. The actors don’t seem as if they’ve been challenged in any way and the plot lines are laughable. “Jackson” doesn’t even have the decency to come across as desperate. Instead it seems uncaring and haphazard, like Columbus knew he had a pile of trash on his hands and there was no way to make it look like anything but a pile of trash so he just threw it on the screen and hoped enough fans of the book would show up to break even. The best comparison I can make about this would be to call it “High School Musical” without the musical. It is of that quality or lower.

The final act of “Jackson” has some decent action sequences which keep this movie from being a complete and total loss. But it’s pretty darn close. This is lazy, sloppy, and careless filmmaking based on source material of the same ilk. Like the books, it doesn’t fill the void left by the soon-to-be-concluded “Potter” films but rather leaves the viewer wishing those “Potter” films could just keep going.

Grade: D.

A lovely cheese pizza just for me,
Brian

"Shutter Island"

If there’s anything I’ve learned about the movie industry over the years it’s that the studios haven’t learned anything. If they can screw up a project, they will, even one with a pedigree like that of “Shutter Island.” This movie was supposed to be released back in November, right in the middle of Award Season. Apparently it didn’t test well or Paramount didn’t feel it was Oscar caliber and as a result it was pushed back. That’s not the end of the world, it happens all the time, and it’s not necessarily cause for concern. What is cause for concern, however, is the new release date (mid February, a dumping ground for Hollywood) and the new trailer. I have see the “Island” trailer approximately 128 times in the last six months and suddenly, a few weeks before the release, we got a different trailer cut to play up the “scary” factor and make you forget that this was supposed to be an award winning movie. Therefore, my excitement going into “Shutter Island” was only equaled by my nervousness.

Opening in 1954 New England, “Shutter Island” is set an isolated mental institute (found on, coincidentally, Shutter Island) for the criminally insane. The institute is equally dark, depressing, and creepy, a place no one would ever want to stumble into even if it didn’t contain the worst of the worst nut cases. It is in this world that US Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) finds himself, summoned to the island to find an inmate who has escaped. Daniels is the definition of a flawed hero, struggling with both the ghost of his murdered wife and flashbacks of his actions in The War, but he is nevertheless extremely tough and determined. He has his own agenda for taking this case, namely that he wants to expose the acts of Shutter Island’s front man Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). Before too long, however, Daniels becomes acutely aware that Cawley is on to his little game and is working diligently to lock him away with the crazies. The film is filled with mind games, fantastic twists, and extremely intense sequences, culminating in a final act that is both heavy and thrilling.

Though it is a departure from the type of movie director Marin Scorsese usually brings us, “Island” is nonetheless exquisite in its craftsmanship. It kind of made me wonder if Scorsese could have revolutionized the suspense/thriller/horror genre if he had dedicated himself to it so many years ago. The pacing is SPECTACULAR, never quick to move until the very end and yet I never once felt as if it was dragging or became even slightly disinterested. The tension and suspense builds throughout the film while using none of the typical gags and bits you expect to get in a thriller. Music, sound effects, and the like are used to heighten the suspense, not cause the suspense, adding ambiance to the feel of the movie. Likewise, there are some action sequences here and there but unlike so many other thrillers, the action doesn’t allow for release of the suspense, rather allowing it to plays further on the tension of the subject matter as well as your own emotions.

The technical aspects of “Island” are equally magnificent (though that’s what I expect from Scorsese). Shutter Island is a frightening place and the use of color, sound, and shot selection left me feeling as almost a bit claustrophobic, as if I myself was trapped inside the asylum. I am a big fan of a director allowing the actual sounds of the film’s setting and environment to provide the soundtrack. “No Country for Old Men,” for example, is soundtracked (not a word, I know) almost exclusively by the action of the film and the dusty plains on which it takes place. “Island” often does the same. One scene in particular in which Daniels lights match after match to guide his way is amazing in its use of sound. My wife jumped EVERY SINGLE TIME he lit a match. (Though maybe that’s more about her than the film but I’m going to spin it in favor of the film.)

I wouldn’t say the on screen performances are quite as good as the behind the camera work, but in all honesty, I don’t know how it could be. I was (clearly) blown away by the direction. However, DiCaprio is as strong as ever, continuing his work toward a lifetime achievement award for making me look like an idiot for calling him a crappy actor who’s only made it in life because he’s good looking. “Island,” “The Departed,” “Catch Me If You Can,” and “Blood Diamond” have all gone a long way in forcing me to forgive him for his part in “Titanic.” Teddy Daniels is rough, gritty, and haunted and DiCaprio pulls it off well. His support, including Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, and Jackie Earle Haley, are all strong characters requiring strong performances. All of them come through admirably, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo. I just don’t know what to do with Ruffalo. I want to like him and I have nothing against him. It just seems to me that he is the exact same character in every single movie, whether it be a thriller like “Shutter Island” or a throwaway RomCom like “Rumor Has It.” He just bores me at this point and as he is perhaps the second biggest player in this film, I felt like he held the whole thing back a bit.

“Shutter Island’s” closing act is tremendous and the final words should, for my money, be added into the lexicon of memorable movie lines. My only real complaint about “Island” is that it often feels too self important. The script is based on a book by Dennis Lehane, who also penned the books that “Mystic River” and “Gone Baby Gone” are based upon. Those books cover hard, important subject matters that lend themselves to significant adaptations. “Shutter Island,” on the other hand, isn’t significant in terms of the topics and issues therein. It’s a straight thriller. An excellent, compelling thriller to be sure, but still not quite on the level of Lehane’s other works. At times it feels like Scorsese (or perhaps screen writer Laeta Kalogridis) is trying to make “Island” more important, more impactful than it really should be instead of just allowing it to be one of the better thrillers of the last few years. This forced significance by no means overshadows “Island’s” strong points but it does keep it from reaching its fullest potential.

Grade: A-

I have no idea how to pronounce that screenwriter’s name,
Brian

"Valentine's Day"

Because of what you are about to read and the opinion expertly crafted within, I have been accused of being a Movie Snob. I fervently disagree with this diagnosis and think the perpetrator should be forced to read the work of Owen Gleiberman (or any number of mainstream critics, for that matter) for a week so she can see what a true Movie Snob sounds like. But I’ll have to let you be the judge. Personally I think I’m the anti-movie snob. Sure, I call out the truly terrible movies but I also find good in movies that get seriously panned by the rest of the known universe. I mean, come on, I gave a B- to “Transformers 2” for goodness sakes! I ask a movie to do just two things: set a goal as to what type of movie it wants to be and work towards that goal as strongly as possible. For the most part it’s all about entertainment for me. Quite simply, I love movies. I did not love this movie.

“Valentine’s Day” is an ensemble set on a particular Memorial Day. No, wait, I mean Valentine’s Day. My bad. From a doctor to a football player, a florist to a soldier, the lives (and particularly their love lives) of a dozen or so Los Angelinos are examined for a brief moment in the effort to remind us about what love is all about. Whether successful in love or otherwise, these people are, I guess, supposed to represent the wide range of emotions we experience on Valentine’s Day. And, as always, all of their lives interconnect in one way or another. The best way to describe this movie would be to compare it to “Crash” but annoyingly upbeat or “Love Actually” without a competent writer.

My guess is we’ve all, at one time or another, come in contact with that relative who’s gotten a little older and started to lose it. You know, the one who used to be of major influence in the family, the guy who made decisions. Now he’s not quite all there but he doesn’t want to admit it and no one has the heart to tell him. You know the type, yes? That’s the feeling you get watching “Valentine’s Day.” You know director Garry Marshall used to be good at his craft but the longer this film drags on, the more you think the guy has lost his movie marbles. I will not for one minute argue that I, as a twentysomething male, am the primary audience for “Valentine” or any other Marshall film. But I have appreciated (some of) Marshall’s past work and I am not diametrically opposed to the Chick Flick. “Pretty Woman,” for what it is, is a classic and “Runaway Bride” is solid (though both would be better without a hack like Richard Gere involved). Even “The Princess Diaries” had redeeming qualities for me until I was stuck in a waiting room for six hours a few years back and had to watch it three times. But “Valentine’s Day” is the type of thing that happens when a big name starts to lose it and no one around him has the heart to tell him no.

It isn’t all bad directing, though. The writing, while not atrocious, is certainly far from good and leaves an all star caliber cast with very little to work with. It’s cheesy and laughable but not in such a sophisticated manner as to become tongue-in-cheek or campy. There are several things that immediately identify poor writing but the one that drives me the craziest is when a set of characters have a conversation that shouldn’t take place on screen. If two characters have been sitting next to each other on an air plane for somewhere between ten and twelve hours, they would not introduce themselves when the movie starts. Period. Stuff like this denotes half-hearted storytelling.

And then we get into the issue of the ensemble. Ensembles are, for me, almost always very good or very bad. There isn’t much middle ground. If your actors are invested and your source material is strong, you can produce fantastic results. On the flip side of that, poor writing and direction allows an ensemble cast to give lazy, mailed in performances that do nothing to bring the material to life. The result seems, for lack of a better term, sloppy. Plot holes and bad dialogue look and sound worse when they’re happening to and being spoken by characters that are undeveloped and uncommitted. It is never a good sign when Ashton Kutcher gives the best performance in any movie, let alone one with this much talent. Too many characters are miscast and/or misused. Jamie Foxx is so uninspired that it makes one wonder what could have happened for this guy if he’d used his Best Actor Oscar for good instead of evil. And Patrick Dempsey continues to amaze me and by that I mean I’m amazed that he has any sort of career resembling the one he’s carved out for himself. That dude has some incriminating evidence against somebody who is very important in Hollywood. Even Taylor Swift is better in this than these guys were.

There are some nice moments in “Valentine’s Day” and some humor. As mentioned, Kutcher is quite funny and even George Lopez provides a laugh or two. Up to this point I’d always thought it was illegal for him to tell a funny joke. It’s always a personal joy to see Julia Roberts on screen (even if she is horribly miscast) and there’s a solid scene here and there. The overall product, however, is mindless, lazy, and lacking in execution. It is overly sappy without connection or relevance and rendered me completely uninterested. And if that takes me into the realm of movie snobbery, then I guess so be it.

Grade: D

I can’t believe I laughed with George Lopez,
Brian

"Edge of Darkness"

Imagine for a moment that you are one of today’s teenagers, say eighteen years old. Imagine that you’re a big film fan who hits the theater every weekend and tries to stay up to date with the current releases. Imagine, however, that you’re not big on “old” movies, like, for example, anything made prior to 2004 when you first starting taking notice of movies that didn’t have talking squirrels. Now imagine sitting in on “Edge of Darkness” last Friday and wondering who in the world this Mel Gibson character is and where exactly he’s been for your entire film-going lifetime.

Maybe that sounds a bit ridiculous to anyone who isn’t eighteen, but consider that Gibson’s last star turn was in 2002’s criminally underrated “Signs.” A planned hiatus to work on directing combined with the infamous drunken rants that made the rounds a few years ago have kept Gibson out of the movie spotlight for eight years. Eight years. For all intents and purposes that’s an entire movie going generation that hasn’t had any big screen contact with a man who used to be a bankable, $20 million-a-film superstar. And that’s a shame, no matter the fact that Mel made the bed that he’s found himself in.

“Edge of Darkness” is based on a British mini-series of the same name. In a very rare Hollywood twist it is directed by Martin Campbell, who actually oversaw the original in 1985. Boston cop Thomas Craven (Gibson) welcomes his beloved daughter, Emma, home only to have her gunned down on his doorstep a few hours later. What follows for the rest of the film involves Craven trying to figure out who killed his daughter, digging deeper and deeper into the sordid political mess she found herself in prior to her death. Craven’s hunt takes him into contact with corporate villains, crooked lawyers, environmental activists, dirty senators, and a British bagman named Jedburgh, played exquisitely by Ray Winstone.

Craven is a hard cop, a guy who you wouldn’t be surprised to learn had roughed up a criminal or two. But his daughter’s death sets him free from any bureaucratic chains that might have inhibited him before. He is out for the truth of Emma’s death, revenge for that death, and to expose the political cover-up he’s investigating, but he’ll settle for the first two if that’s all he has time for. What sets Craven apart from many other tough-movie-cops is his ability to switch tactics to get what he wants. He threatens one man, outsmarts the next, and simply outtalks the one after that. He fights when he has to but he waits for the game to come to him. His moves are calculated. Again, however, when it comes time to stop talking and start shooting, he’s up to the task.

While the lead character is a fine example of an action movie hero, the whole of “Edge of Darkness” is a mixed bag. Campbell’s wildly inconsistent directing career (the man is responsible for both the saving of James Bond with “Casino Royale” and the absurdity that is “Vertical Limit”) shows up here as it seems he’s not sure whether “Edge” should be a political thriller or a “Taken” knock off. In truth it often feels like a foreign director is trying to pack his movie with the type of action he thinks the average American moviegoer wants to see. So what you get is an odd combination of outstanding, methodical dialogue built around slightly over the top action sequences. The result left me a little off balance, not completely sure what the film was actually going for. I came away feeling that the film had some failed award aspirations and compensated by adding some cliché action movie fodder. I am left to wonder if this wouldn’t have been better if Campbell and crew had just made this a darker, grittier version of “Taken.”

Acting wise, this is the Gibson Show through and through, with strong support from Winstone. Everyone else, even veteran character actors like Jay O. Sanders, seem out of their depth with Gibson. The normally powerful Danny Huston in particular seemed off his game. His corporate villain Jack Bennett is, for the most part, simply off putting and not in the way that you might expect a good villain to be. Comments and actions that are meant to come across as cold instead feel just plan weird. Winstone, on the other hand, is magnificent, the perfect compliment to Gibson. Jedburgh is a philosophical bad guy, a man who goes out of his way to respect those he is sent to “deter.” He gives you the feeling that he would be a “good guy” if only the good guys got paid a little better, while his cockney accent makes him simultaneously more menacing and appealing. The scenes he and Gibson share and the conversations therein are superb, especially their first encounter which brings forth memories of the diner conversation between Pacino and DeNiro in “Heat.”

Overall “Edge of Darkness” is a slightly bumpy ride that rests almost entirely on its leading man. Gibson delivers better than you might expect for someone who’s been out of the game for so long. He looks quite a bit older and more worn since last we saw him. Yet he still displays the same characteristics and mannerisms that made William Wallace, Martin Riggs, and the rest jump off the screen the way his characters have over the last 30 years. This is, for me at least, a triumphant return for a great actor, even if the movie isn’t up to par with the performance of its star. Will this resurrect his career and work to earn him back his place with the Hollywood elite? Who knows, but if nothing else, at least a generation of eighteen years can finally have the opportunity to get to know who the heck this Mel Gibson guy really is.

Grade: B.

If you don’t like “Signs” you’re not watching it right,
Brian

"The Book of Eli"

I am a big believer in a film owning its place in the world and being true to itself; sticking to its guns so to speak. If the goal of a film is to educate then it should strive to be educational. If the goal is to be funny it should darn sure make me laugh and laugh a lot. If the goal is to entertain then it should truly be entertaining. Obviously those movies that choose to handle tough subject matters are usually the ones that garner critical acclaim, but award nominations isn’t what it’s all about, at least not for every film. On the whole I think the first goal of the average film should be to entertain; to provide escape or release from the daily grind of real life. And if it’s done that then really I feel that’s all we should ask of it. So it is with “The Book of Eli.”

“Eli” drops us in the relatively near future, 30 years since “the war” tore a hole in the sky and the sun scorched the earth. What’s left behind is a desolate and bleak Earth on which an ever decreasing number of humans remain. Law, government, and the like are of the past, as are education and literacy. Everyone wears sunglasses in this scorched world and there is the obligatory lack of water as well as a large number of cannibals. (Though cannibalism is apparently frowned upon here, as opposed to the “everyone is doing it” position taken in “The Road.”) It is not a pretty world that “The Walker” aka Eli travels.

Eli (Denzel Washington) is a guy who knows how to take care of himself, as I imagine you would have to become to survive 30 years in this world. He’s heavily armed (including a wicked sword) though you get the impression that he could probably handle himself just fine without any weaponry. Along with a sack full of weapons and a rechargeable MP3 player, Eli also carries a leather bound book from which he reads every day. That book, as it turns out, is the last remaining copy of the Bible on the planet. Having discovered this copy sometime after the hole-in-the-sky thing, Eli wanders the path set before him, looking for a place where the Bible can be at rest. The majority of this movie deals with the happenings after Eli stops in a “town” lorded over by a slumlord named Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Carnegie realizes what is in Eli’s possession and begins a relentless pursuit to take the book from him, waging an all out war against the man.

“The Book of Eli” is far from perfect as far as action movies go. It is filled with clichés and is a bit “color by numbers.” This is one of those movies where you wonder, “Okay, what’s the twist going to be?” throughout the entire back half because you’ve seen this type of thing before so you know there’s going to be a twist. It is also, of course, highly unrealistic but seriously, has there ever been a realistic post-apocalyptic movie? The entire premise of this type of film is built on fantasy. The characters are pretty typical: virtuous hero, sly bad guy, bad guy’s right hand man, and helpless female who brings nothing to the story. Seriously, the female lead, played by Mila Kunis, is simply unnecessary. She is asked to do next to nothing and delivers appropriately. There are a lot of plot holes in what is a fairly jumpy plot line to begin with and I found there to be several wasted scenes which drives me crazy.

The biggest issue for me, however, was the seeming attempt to draw an R rating. A couple of edits here and there would have easily trimmed “Eli” down to a PG-13 rating but instead it feels like the directors (the Hughes brothers) went out of their way to ensure the R. That’s quite disappointing because in doing so they have alienated a large portion of the would-be audience. “Eli” is unashamedly Christian in nature. In fact I would say it is the most openly Christian film done by the mainstream that I have seen in quite some time, and maybe ever. It’s not just the whole “power of the Bible” thing or “screen religiousity” as I like to call it (meaning, cliché “this is how Christians would behave” acting). I’m talking very Christian ideas, quoting of fairly obscure Scripture, and open prayers that go far beyond the normal “movie prayer.” This is a film that the Christian community could have potentially rallied around but the R rating erased that opportunity, which is a shame.

Still, if the goal of “Eli” is to entertain the viewer, then it has succeeded. It is a very slick, (possibly overly) stylized portrayal of this potential future with strong action sequences that use very little CGI (something to be commended). The Hughes brothers do an excellent job of allowing the ominous landscape to become a focal point. More importantly, they hold to the world that they created and that’s a real key here. One of the biggest mistakes a director can make when he takes on a post-apocalyptic or sci-fi setting is to fall away from the reality he has created. The Hughes brothers don’t try to answer too many questions about why or how the world became this way and they tend to hold to what they have set forth as true in the world Eli inhabits. Gary Oldman is good, though perhaps a bit underused, and Denzel Washington is excellent. Eli is, clearly, a deeply religious, spiritual man and you can feel the connection Denzel had to his character. When he quotes Scripture it flows from his mouth not in the way a great actor would deliver it but the way a believer would and that makes a serious impact on the film. And the twist provides a great payoff and gives depth to the film as a whole. It does, however, make the films weaknesses stand out even more as you start to wonder if it could have been a great film instead of just a pretty good one.

Grade: B.

I can’t spell apocalyptic,
Brian

"Fantastic Mr. Fox"

It’s an interesting thing seeing a movie during the middle of a work day. You can expect a much different environment during this time than any other. The staff is always either much friendlier or give off the impression that the previous night was a rough one. The popcorn tastes a little fresher and the bathrooms seem a little cleaner. Even the tickets are cheaper, reason enough to hit the mid-day showing whenever possible. But the real difference is the audience. If I see a movie on an average weekend evening, I can expect a large crowd of diverse people. If I see a mid-day movie on say, a Wednesday however, I know almost exactly what to expect.

The mid-day audience is made up of four standard groups:
a.) The Elders - I have found that no matter what the movie, there is almost ALWAYS an elderly couple in the theater;
b.) The Housewife - sometimes with kids, sometimes without, the mid-day movie is a big player for the housewife;
c.) The Student - sometimes it’s a college student who was smart enough to get all his/her classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, sometimes it’s the high school student who’s skipping class, but you can always count a student in the audience. These often comes in pairs;
d.) The Professional - you can always count on at least one “9-5er” showing up for the mid-day movie. Maybe he’s got the day off, maybe he doesn’t, but he’s there regardless. My attention today rests here.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the latest film from director Wes Anderson, maker of such oddball comedies as “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore.” Based on a story by famed children’s author Roald Dahl, “Mr. Fox” is the tale of a talking Fox, his fox family, and his animal friends. Mr. Fox is a thief by trade and a darn good one. He steals chickens, apple cider, and turkeys from human villains Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. After almost getting caught, he promises his wife he won’t steak again. However, as he enters the twilight of his life (he is seven fox years old, you know), he returns to his old ways and plots a great caper that throws his life and the life of all those around him into disarray.

As is the case with all Anderson films, “Fox” is an ensemble that is built on the strength of all characters involved. The voice work here is exquisite. Anderson assembled the usual suspects, such as Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, and added more A-list talent to the equation. George Clooney and Meryl Streep provide the voices for Mr. and Mrs. Fox and both bring the exact kind of quality you would expect. Clooney in particular makes you feel as if he is the only guy who could voice Mr. Fox, just as he does with every role he takes. The script is witty, intelligent, and original. It’s never “I nearly died laughing” with Anderson but “Mr. Fox” delivers fun and entertaining scenes throughout. The real attention grabber, however, is the use of stop motion animation. It was a daring move for Anderson to film this way and a huge departure from what he’s done in the past. The film is, for lack of a better term, fantastic to the eye. Each shot is as dynamic as the one before. The longer the movie ran, the more I found myself riveted to what played out on the screen. This was a daring move that paid off.

I’ve never been Wes Anderson’s biggest fan. I’ve found all of his films to be incredibly promising but ultimately incomplete. There have always been too many scenes that felt like they belonged only in a director’s cut that distracted from the overall point of his films. Unlike most others, I actually liked his latest release, “The Darjeeling Unlimited,” the most because I felt like it actually progressed from point A to point Z in the most direct route. It was a step forward from a filmmaking standpoint, even if the storyline wasn’t up to par. “Mr. Fox” takes that promise shown in “Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore” and adds the steps taken with “Darjeeling,” finally delivering a complete project.

But while I may not be Anderson’s biggest fan, the man has developed an amazing cult following. Which brings me back to The Professional. As I settled into my seat and the previews began to play, the last person into the theater was the day’s representation of The Professional. He snuck in wearing a suit and tie, bags under the eyes and a general attitude that said, “I kind of hate my life.” He came in nervous but when he sat down in the aisle in front of me, you could almost feel the tension rush out of the dude as the opening credits rolled. As the film progressed The Professional got more and more into the movie. At times we were the only two in the theater laughing at the witty banter between a fox and a badger. I figured him for an Anderson fan when he started chuckling over bits that only someone who’d seen his other films would appreciate, like he was in on a joke that the rest of us weren’t privy to. When “Mr. Fox” came to an end and the lights came on, The Professional was the first out of his seat. Back to the grind I assume. But there was a slight difference in him. A pep in the step, if you will.

I don’t know the guy’s story, though I could guess. I would bet he’s a twenty-something in a job he doesn’t like who feels like a sellout every time he looks in the mirror. He just had that air about him. On this day, however, he got to remember what life was like before we had to grow up. Maybe he got off early that day or maybe his boss thought he was on a sales call. Either way, he was there and the 87 minutes spent in Anderson-land were enough to get The Professional through the day. “Mr. Fox” was fun and bright throughout, a truly enjoyable work that served as a great distraction from the grown-up world. A-.

I still have Milk Duds stuck in my teeth,
Brian

"Avatar"

I hate “Titanic.” HATE it. I’m not against the Chick Flick or the romance movie in general. Those movies have their place and some of them I actually quite like. Heck, I would probably name at least two Chick Flicks (“When Harry Met Sally” and “Serendipity”) on my list of all time favorites. So that’s not my problem with “Titanic.” My problem is that James Cameron turned it into a romance in the first place. I was obsessed with the story of the Titanic as a kid. There was a book in my school library about the Titanic and I bet I checked it out once or twice a month. So you can imagine how excited the 13 year old version of myself was when he learned there was a movie about the Titanic and it was being made by the man who gave us “Terminator” and “Aliens,” only to find out it was a romance starring Leonardo Dicaprio. That Cameron could turn one of the most fascinating stories in history into a romance still makes me angry. Clearly it was the right choice considering how much money it made. But still, the sting of having a favorite childhood story ripped away and replaced with some old lady throwing a dumb diamond into the ocean is ever present. Boo.

And so it was with great fear and trepidation that I entered a theater for a 3-D showing of Cameron’s latest, “Avatar.” The movie follows wheelchair-bound Marine Jack Sully and his pals as he explores an alien world known as Pandora. Sully is entrusted with endearing himself to the indigenous people of Pandora, called the Na’vi. To do this, Sully (along with several others) essentially transfers his mind into the body of an Avatar, a combination of Na’vi and human DNA that looks like a Na’vi. Sully quickly finds himself caught between the love for the alien planet he is quickly developing and the mission he has been charged with by the military. Inevitably the two worlds clash and he is forced to choose which side he is really on.

Since I’ve bored you with my tale of why I hate “Titanic,” I’m going to skip right to the point: I loved this movie. It is a magnificent piece of work that certainly makes you understand why it took Cameron so long to bring his vision to the screen. “Avatar” is expertly crafted from start to finish and it is the single most beautiful and stunning film I have seen in a long, long time. Not a single scene is wasted, which is no small feat considering its 160 minute run time. In fact I think the case could be made for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of development (looking forward to the director’s cut). The world, the creatures, and the weaponry are all spectacular and the effects are amazing. And whereas I usually find 3-D to be a distraction at best, for this movie it does nothing but add to the spectacle. Cameron uses the 3-D technology, along with the tremendous sound editing, to bring you into the world of Pandora rather than going the standard route of bringing the action out to you. This to me makes a huge difference not only from an enjoyment standpoint but also in regards to respectability. No matter how good a movie this turned out to be, if Cameron packed it with cheesy shots designed to do nothing more than show off 3-D, there is no way it would get the critical respect it has thus far received.

It should be noted that, while he is a great director, Cameron isn’t a great writer. The actors in “Avatar” do an admirable job and at times the cast, Zoe Saldana in particular, step up as the driving force behind the movie. But they aren’t asked to do that much. As far as the story goes, there isn’t much that hasn’t been told before. One review I read criticized Cameron for taking the best parts of his other movies and throwing them altogether for “Avatar.” To that I say, so what? Sure, the story isn’t all that original but truth be told, it’s hard to come up with something that hasn’t been done before in some way or another. We’re approaching 100 years of the spoken word in film and complete originality is hard to produce. I have always been of the opinion that it doesn’t really matter if you’re retelling parts of a story as long as you’re retelling it well. And this story, while secondary to the stunning visuals, is well told.

I love movies. Whether in the theater or on Blu-Ray/DVD, I see a lot of films every year. Because of that, sometimes I get a little jaded and get caught up in catching as many reasonably interesting movies as I can. Sometimes even good movies start to blend together for me. But there are a few movies that I wish I could see again for the first time. “Star Wars” is one. “Jurassic Park” is another. “Avatar” now takes a prominent place on that list. I saw this movie almost a month ago now and I have thought about it over and over ever since. It is a landmark achievement in film, the kind of movie that you have to believe will have a ripple effect on the rest of the industry. Maybe more importantly, “Avatar” made me feel like a kid again, taking in a fantastic world that I truly did not want to see end when my 160 minutes was up. It reminds me of the magic and the majesty of the silver screen in a way that I haven’t experienced in many years. A+.

I’m still mad about “Titanic,”
Brian

Top 10 Anticipated Movies of 2010

My annual Movie Rankings column is about ready to go, but I've got to catch two of this week's Blu-ray releases before I'll feel like I have a good handle on the year. In the meantime, after an exhaustive search, I've put together a list of my top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2010. All around it seems like we're in for a pretty average year at the box office and certainly not one that is up to the standard of 2009, which was for me a very strong year for film. Yet as always there are some highlights.

10. The Book of Eli (January 15)
I'm purposely trying not to know much about this before I see it. What I do know is Denzel has never done a straight action/fighting movie like this before and I'm excited to see it. And it doesn't get any better than Gary Oldman in the role of the villain.

9. Shutter Island (February 19)
I was a lot more excited about this Scorsese pic when it was supposed to come out last November. The newly cut second trailer is making it seem like it's going to be closer to a horror movie than I want it to be. Still, pedigree is a big thing and "Shutter" has that along with an insanely intriguing story line.

8. Stone (May)
As you will be able to tell from my list, my movie choices are often actor-driven. Edward Norton plus a potential career saving turn for Robert DeNiro is enough to get me in the theater, even if I'm not really sure what this is all about.

7. Alice in Wonderland (March 5)
2009 was the year of the visually stunning film ("Avatar," "The Road," "Fantastic Mr. Fox") and "Alice" looks to follow that up this year. Tim Burton tends to polarize audiences: you love him or you hate him. I guess I'm one of the few who can pick and choose depending on the project. This one looks fascinating.

6. Green Zone (March 12)
Matt Damon is my favorite actor right now and a guy who delivers time and time again. Seriously, the last poor movie he took a starring turn in was "Brothers Grimm" and even that you could see why he took the role. Pair him with "Bourne" director Paul Greengrass and I'm there.

5. Inception (July 16)
Of all the movies on the list, this is the one that I know the least about. The trailer doesn't really tell me much of anything. But it looks amazing and director Chris Nolan has proven to be a trustworthy name many times over even before his success with the "Batman" reboot.

4. Robin Hood (May 14)
What can I say, I love the Robin Hood story and pretty much every film version. I love the Errol Flynn film, the one with Costner is a guilty pleasure, and the Disney cartoon is my favorite Disney movie of all time. So the story line alone is enough to get me interested. Adding in Ridley Scott and his best buddy Russell Crowe is just overkill.

3. Iron Man 2 (May 7)
The first "Iron Man" was slightly surprising in its awesomeness and that surprise factor has me a little worried about the sequel. It's really easy to fill a sequel with a ton of big names (Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell) and get lazy on the storyline (see: "Ocean's 12"). Still, if Damon is my favorite actor at the moment, Downey is right up there and the first "Iron Man" was incredible.

2. Toy Story 3 (June 18)
Pixar made its glorious debut 15 years ago with the first "Toy Story." I'm a huge Pixar fan and I have a deep attachment to the "Toy Story" movies.

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (November 19)
Ya, I'm a nerd, what about it? The Harry Potter books are phenomenal and the movies are tremendously fun for me. I have enjoyed the Harry Potter world so much that, as much as I look forward to its on-screen conclusion, I will be sad to see it come to an end.

No Will Smith movie this year,
Brian

"Invictus"

I know a lot about sports. I know a lot about a lot of different sports. I know the most about basketball, followed by football, followed by some combination of baseball, tennis, soccer, and hockey, depending on the situation. I know a bit about ping pong and billiards, if you consider those to be sports. I know more than I’d like to admit about gymnastics thanks to the tremendous crush I had on Dominique Moceanu as a kid. I even know a thing or two about cricket due to a paper I had to write in college. I do not, however, know a lot about rugby. I vaguely understand the concepts (one of which appears to be, “Don’t die”) and the scoring is similar to football. But prior to Saturday, if you asked this recreation director to set up an impromptu game of rugby, the outcome would have likely been quite disappointing. (Unless, of course, you yourself didn’t know a lot about rugby in which case it might turn into quite a fun game, who knows.) I know a bit more about it now.

“Invictus” is the true-life tale of the South African Springboks rugby team that won the sport’s World Cup in 1995. Well, sort of. Ostensibly I think it’s about the rugby team. And at points the rugby action takes to the forefront of the film. But really “Invictus” is about Nelson Mandela’s early presidential years and his use of the rugby team to unite a bitterly fractured nation, told in three acts. Act One centers around Mandela (played, of course, by Morgan Freeman) and his attempts to figure out how to do the job that has been set before him. The relationship that Mandela develops with Boks captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) takes center stage for Act Two as the two serve as a bridge between their two cultures. And the sport of rugby is given its glorious stage during Act Three, as the underdog group of hardheads battles its way to a tremendously significant title. (I don’t feel bad, by the way, about spoiling the end of this movie. This event happened 15 years ago. I also don’t feel bad about telling you that Bruce Willis was dead for the entirety of “The Sixth Sense.” It’s been out there for a while now.)

The performances here are, as expected, quite strong. Freeman is one of the five or ten best actors we have going today and his pedigree shines through yet again. This was clearly a very personal role for Freeman, who initially got the ball rolling on the project and served as producer. He wraps himself into Mandela, as it were, capturing the man’s spirit and mannerisms in what is perhaps his best performance since “The Shawshank Redemption.” Likewise, Damon (probably my favorite actor these days), provides great support to Freeman’s undeniable leading man. Sure, Damon isn’t asked to do as much as he has been in the past, but he more than holds his own. I expect both to receive Oscar nominations in the upcoming weeks. In addition, director Clint Eastwood is masterful behind the camera. Look, I’m not a huge fan of Eastwood’s recent work. “Million Dollar Baby” is one of the most overrated films of the past decade and “Gran Torino” is really not good at all. But there’s no question that the guy knows what he’s doing, especially the way in which he makes the most out of very simple shots.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the shrewd way in which the two stories (one of Mandela’s presidency, the other of the rugby team) are blended together. I don’t know who made this decision, whether it was Freeman, Eastwood, the studio, or some combination of the three, but it was a stroke of genius. Both of these stories are important and need to be told, but I’m not sure either could command an audience if told separately. Mandela has led an amazing life but his persona doesn’t exactly lend itself to fantastic storytelling. Act One of “Invictus” is great but borders on the boring. If the entire film had continued as it started, the audience would have been lost. At the same time, while the Springboks' improbable victory is a great story, I’m not sure you can package a rugby movie to the American movie-goer. By combining the two and focusing the story on how the two parts intertwine, Eastwood is able to shed some light on two stories that need to be told without risking the alienation of the crowds. (Though I guess box office figures would suggest no one wanted to see the film, anyway.)

I do not recommend “Invictus” if you’re looking for a sports movie. The rugby action has its moment and I personally picked up a bit of knowledge about the sport. But it’s far from being the focus of the film. I really don’t even consider this to be a sports movie. It isn’t like the sporting part of the movie serves only as a break from the rest of the action like, say, the very uncomfortable volleyball scene in “Top Gun.” It’s just not the intention of the film to be to rugby what “Hoosiers” is to basketball or what “Miracle” is to hockey. But the blend of these two huge historical stories is superb and the final product is excellent. A.

I typed “rubgy” instead of “rugby” about a billion times,
Brian

"The Road"

It was just a little over two years ago that “No Country for Old Men” started its brilliant run toward Best Picture status. At the time I knew of Cormac McCarthy, who wrote the book on which “Country” is based, but wasn’t really in touch with his work. So after walking out of “Country,” convinced I’d just seen the best movie of the decade, I started looking into McCarthy’s other works. That’s when I first became aware of a project called “The Road.”

I readily admit that I came late to this party as by this time I’m pretty sure “The Road” was already on Oprah’s Book List (the Mecca of trendiness) and pre-production on the film version was well underway. Still, my interest was piqued and I (like many others) kept tabs on its status. For a while I thought this film might never see the light of day. It was scheduled for a Holiday release last year but was inexplicably pushed back to 2009. At some point I started seeing trailers advertising a mid-October release date. That date came and went and still there was no “Road.” Then November 25th was set as its official release date but when Thanksgiving rolled around I was quite frustrated to see that none of the local theaters were showing it. Eventually I ended up driving an hour away to take this in. This should tell you how badly I wanted to see this movie, considering how much I despise driving in Dallas traffic.

I knew going in that “The Road” was going to be one of those movies that I would not be able to recommend to just anyone, no matter how good it might turn out. Viggo Mortensen plays the aptly named “Man” who is attempting to get his son (“Boy”) down the coast and across the post-Apocalyptic wasteland that the country has become. It is, without question, the most desolate and harsh future-world I have ever seen in a film. Nothing I’ve seen even compares. There is no food, there is plant life, and there is no color: everything is just gray. It is a bleak, grim life that Man and Boy lead as they wonder the country side, hoping to avoid gangs of cannibals almost as much as to avoid starvation. Like I said, it’s not for everyone.

If you can handle the immense depression that “The Road” portrays, however, the payoff is…well, it would be a lie to say it all evens out in the end. It doesn’t. It is a screwed up world that Man and Boy live in and there’s not a lot of big happy endings to go around. It is, however, an astounding example of what a father will do for his son and the extremes to which he will go to ensure not his happiness but his survival. The relationship between the two is profound, though I guess that’s how it would have to be if you were literally the only one or thing the other has.

What I love about McCarthy’s works, what makes his stories so genius is their amazing simplicity. “No Country for Old Men” is just about good and evil and the people who run between the two. “The Road” wastes no time on understanding what has happened to turn the world into such a miserable place or why or how to fix it. It simply IS and the sooner you adjust, the better. There are only two themes here: survival and hope. The survival aspect is easily seen; it is the overriding theme for the movie. “Hope,” on the other hand, hides in “Survival’s” shadow and plants its seeds simply and subtly. There aren’t many overtly hopeful scenes because, whereas some stories use hope as the driving force to a positive outcome, hope is the outcome here; it is the end of “The Road,” as it were. By the end of the movie, however, you know, no matter how dark and depressing it may have been, the point was always “hope.” It is audaciously simple.

Though visually stunning and compelling, “The Road” can only go as far as its lead character can take it. When you’ve only got two real characters and one is a kid, obviously the other one is going to be pretty important. And truthfully, if you’re going to hang your entire performance hat on one guy, there are few better qualified actors than Mortensen. As is almost always the case, he takes on a very challenging, vulnerable role and shines brilliantly. It would be difficult to argue with anyone who would hold him up as the best actor of his generation and his performance here does nothing to tarnish that image.

As I had guessed going in, “The Road” is not a movie I could comfortably recommend to everyone. It is, for lack of a better term, haunting and I never want to see it again. But it may be the best movie I’ve ever seen that I never want to see again. A.

The Plano Cinemark is the biggest theater I’ve ever seen,
Brian

"The Blind Side"

When I see a movie, I try to go in without predetermined expectations. Of course there are some movies I’m more excited about than others. But I try hard not to expect a movie to be great, or even good. Over the years I’ve gotten pretty good at this little song and dance, but sometimes it just isn’t possible. “Where the Wild Things Are,” for example, was so pumped up in my own head that there’s no way it could have met my expectations. (It didn’t, by the way.) And so it is with “The Blind Side.” I want nothing more than to write today about how great this movie is. Truthfully I had half this review written in my head before I even set foot in the theater, a classic critical no-no. Alas, I am resigned to a “good-not-great” review and that disappoints me immensely.

“The Blind Side” is the true-life story of Michael Oher, a poor Memphis boy who was taken in and subsequently adopted by the wealthy Tuohy family. With the support of his new family, Oher improved his grades, took to the football field, and eventually went on to a superb college career (both academically and athletically). He was the first round pick of the Baltimore Ravens in last year’s NFL Draft and has become quite the inspirational story.

On the bright side, “The Blind Side’s” main characters are excellent. Sandra Bullock has long been on my, “Do not see (insert name) in a movie ever, under any circumstances” list for some years now. I just can’t stand her. But as Leigh Ann Tuohy, the driving force behind the family and their adoption of Oher, Bullock is strong and likeable. Sure, she’s a serious nuisance to anyone who stands in her way, but she portrays the mother looking out for her kids to a tee and I can definitely see why Bullock has received some Oscar buzz. And it’ll be hard for most to resist Jae Head, the youngest Tuohy who, in the vein of Hayden Panettiere in “Remember the Titans,” provides some honest comic relief in a film that would sorely miss it otherwise.

Likewise, I imagine somewhere around 15 million people came out of this film saying, “Wow, who knew Tim McGraw could actually act a little?” As Tuohy patriarch Sean, McGraw holds his own and brings some balance to Bullock’s intensity. I’m willing to give Quinton Aaron (Oher) and Lily Collins (sister Collins Tuohy) a pass in the acting department as both are extremely inexperienced actors who do an admirable job here. Aaron in particular is asked to carry the film on numerous occasions and truly shines in most of said scenes. A refined actor he is not, as of yet, and there are a couple of cringe-inducing moments here and there, but overall Aaron steps up to the plate and delivers.

The rest of the cast, however, are another story. Director John Lee Hancock is a guy who likes to put relatively unknown actors into important parts and draw something more out of them. There’s nothing wrong with that; in fact, that’s the way the movie business works, really. Obviously you can’t cast well known stars for every role, but a good movie usually has better to work with than “Blind Side.” Sure, you’ve got two well-respected actresses in Kathy Bates and Kim Dickens but both seem to float through weak performances. Most of this supporting cast comes across as a bunch of extras that were inexplicably given speaking parts. Coach Cotton (Ray McKinnon), in particular, is atrocious. ATROCIOUS. McKinnon should have his SAG card revoked IMMEDIATELY.

Too often I see the budget for a film and think, “How in the world did THAT cost 70 million dollars to make?” Rarely, however, will you hear me say a studio should have spent more than it did to complete a film. This is one of those rare times. “The Blind Side” reportedly cost a meager 30 million dollars to make. Unfortunately I feel like you can see where the studio cut costs. Whether it’s the shoddy state of the supporting actors or the lack of road jerseys for Oher’s high school teams, the film is littered with what I would consider corner-cutters that hamper its overall impact. They are small issues, to be sure, but in the end I think that’s even more frustrating than major issues. It leaves me feeling that, with just a little more support from the studio, this could have been a GREAT film. I am left to wonder how much better this would be had the studio spent a little more money, which would have been well-justified given the remarkable reception the public has given this movie (and it truly is REMARKABLE for a movie to gross more in its third week of release than in its first).

All told, “The Blind Side” is a good movie that people should see. It is an incredible story and Hancock (for better or worse) never allows it to be anything but positive and upbeat. (Again, because of how shallow Hancock takes the subject matter, I am left to wonder how much better it would be had he taken on a little more depth.) It is entertaining and touching and illustrates what a difference being a good person can make in a way that few Hollywood movies do these days. It just could have been a lot better and leaves me with that disappointing feeling of “what could have been.” B.

On a personal note, there is a lesson here for Sherwood Pictures, the makers of such films as “Facing the Giants” and “Fireproof,” on how to make a Christian-themed movie that still holds up in quality to the rest of the mainstream releases. I have, at times, waged an unspoken war against these films because while their intentions are good, their end product is embarrassing compared to what Hollywood has to offer. It bothers me that we as Christians (which the majority of my would-be readers are) rush out to support these films even though, from a quality standpoint, they are at best mediocre and at worst, terrible. I don’t know John Lee Hancock’s background but as a Christian, I would say there are undeniably Christian ideas being presented here in a way that is more example-driven as opposed to cramming God down the viewer’s throats. It isn’t watered down, it isn’t empty, it’s just not so explicit as to draw the “safe for the whole family,” Christian tag that our little community seems to treasure so dearly. I hope that the enormous success of “The Blind Side” (having so far grossed $150 million dollars domestically) will push Sherwood and their contemporaries to reach for new, quality heights that will bring in audiences outside of the Lifeway Christian Bookstore crowd.

That last paragraph may draw some flak,
Brian

"This Is It"

(Note: If you don’t know, “Michael Jackson’s This Is It” is a collection of footage shot on the set of a tour that Michael was preparing for just before his death.)

In my life long quest to always be a contrarian, there have been a few times when I just couldn’t make myself stay away from something. “Napoleon Dynamite” is a great example. “Dynamite” got so popular so fast that I absolutely refused to see it and called everyone who did see it a sheep. But curiosity got the better of me and I eventually rented it, loved it, and secretly hate myself every time I watch and enjoy the Jamiroquai “Canned Heat” scene. But what the heck am I going to do? You can’t fight a power like “Napoleon.” So I sacrifice my integrity and reference Uncle Rico whenever the opportunity presents itself.

To be honest, my “This Has Become So Popular That I May Have to Abandon It” meter is going crazy with this Michael Jackson business. I just haven’t been able to follow through. It’s like Spiderman feeling his Spidey-sense going street rat crazy, knowing that The Green Goblin is standing right behind him with an arm full of pumpkin bombs, and doing nothing to stop him. (Nerds unite!) I know, I know, Michael was always insanely popular. But not Death Popular. Death Popular is a whole different kind of thing. Death Popular allows people to do things like sell Rest In Peace t-shirts at Walmart, print the person’s likeness on a backpack, and put out movies about said dead person in hasty fashion. Usually Death Popular sends me running away from the person’s legacy like Will Ferrell streaking through the quad. It took me 10 years to get back on board with Nirvana after Kurt Cobain’s death and I stinking LOVED Nirvana.

Suffice it to say, it was a weird place I found myself in as the credits rolled for “Michael Jackson’s This Is It.” I kind of hated myself for following along with approximately 50 million people who watched this movie over the last week. But there I sat, having been riveted by what the last two hours brought to the screen.

“This Is It” is an incredible look into the mind of a legend that I don’t think anyone really understood. Here’s this guy who absolutely captivated the freaking world for 40 years but he was such a weirdo that most of us aren’t sure how to handle his legacy. On the one hand he was possibly if not probably the greatest entertainer the world has ever seen. His genius is undeniable even to a wannabe writer who knows nothing about dance. On the other hand, you get the feeling that you are watching a man who is only a man in the physical sense. His actions here are often that of a 7 year old child. He says things that are educated in a sense but come across as so infantile that I seriously have to remind myself that it was Michael Jackson speaking, not a kid saying a prayer during an Upward flag football practice. At one point during rehearsals for “Beat It” he literally lays stomach-down on the ground and pounds his fists and stomps his feet like a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

The choreography and the artistry displayed here are, obviously, amazing. The precision with which the man worked is something special and even the band and members of the crew comment on how rare it is for an artist of Jackson’s caliber to really care about the tiny details of a tour. Each segment of the film covers a different Jackson song and each one is engrossing. The arrangement on “The Way You Make Me Feel” (possibly my favorite Jackson cut) is incredible. There is a “Bad/They Don’t Really Care About Us” medley that, when combined with the green screen effects that were planned, delivers on an extremely high level. You get the feeling that this tour was going to bring things to the stage that we’ve never seen before.

At the same time, this film shows Jackson in a much more vulnerable state than normal. He knew the cameras were rolling but this wasn’t intended to be a public release until the Death Popularity kicked in. Because of this, you see some of the weirder aspects of the man. He looks so incredibly frail and sickly and yet it doesn’t seem to affect what he puts into the performance. A couple of the song segments and the videos that were being worked into them were just weird and you knew it had to be Michael’s brainchild. The man is wearing a Popeye t-shirt for about a third of the shots. Seeing as I still wear a “Goonies” shirt every once in a while, maybe I shouldn’t find this weird...But no, it’s weird for a megajillionaire to be wearing a Popeye shirt. And yet he was still brilliant to the very end.

“This Is It” is a strange film to watch. Lindsey said she had to fight back tears for the first 20 minutes and I totally get that. There are three dozen people shown in these tapes, all of whom put months of their time into making this the greatest show the world has ever seen, but they, like the rest of Michael’s fans, will never see it come to fruition. I’m personally bummed that another one of my top five “I Would Pay Just About Anything to See Them in Concert” performers (along with Zeppelin, The Eagles, Nirvana, and (gulp) Garth Brooks) will never happen. Yet it is so cool to see the King of Pop getting ready to do what he did best, which was completely fascinate his fans. As the opening credits told me, “This Is It” is much less a tribute to the man and more a tribute to his fans. And a solid tribute it is. A-.

I bet you I can throw a football over them mountains,
Brian

"G.I. Joe"/The Summer of the Nerd

Back in March, three friends (Jason, Elijah, and Ryan) and I made the sparking decision to go see “Watchmen” at a midnight premiere. It was a fun night filled with all kinds of exciting revelations such as what happens when someone brings a baby to a violent, 3 hour movie at midnight. It had been several years since I’d done a midnight premiere of a film and it got us all talking.

As most of you know, I’m a huge, huge, HUGE movie nerd. At the beginning of each calendar year (and then again sometime in the middle) I go through the IMDB calendar for the next 6 months to a year and make a list of all the movies I’m going to want to see in the theater. (Side note: I don’t really remember what my life was like before IMDB became a part of it. It’s the greatest movie industry innovation since color film.) When I made that list this year, my nerd radar went crazy over the absurd number of summer films that could be considered Nerd Fodder. It started the first week in May with “X-Men: Wolverine” and continued through this week with “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.” Naturally, I deemed this three month period The Summer of the Nerd.

After the success of the “Watchmen” premiere (screaming baby aside), I decided this was a prime opportunity to form a club. The principals of the Summer of the Nerd club were threefold:

1.) We would see every nerd movie that made its way to theaters;
2.) We would see each of these movies at midnight;
3.) We would make t-shirts.

That’s really all there was to it. A group of loyal nerds was assembled and the principals were agreed upon. Seven films were to be considered eligible for official Summer of the Nerd viewings: “Wolverine,” “Star Trek,” “Terminator: Salvation,” “Land of the Lost,” “Transformers 2,” “Harry Potter 6,” and “G.I. Joe.” (Note: both “Up” and “Public Enemies” would have made this list as well had the theater owners allowed for a midnight release. Their loss.) With the schedule and the participants in place, LB designed a shirt and the rest was history.

Seven times the group gathered between 10 and 11 pm at United Artist Fossil Creek Stadium 11 to take place in the nerdiness. Sometimes the group was small (only four of us for “Terminator”) and sometimes huge (even Stephen’s mom came to “Harry Potter”). Sometimes the movies were great (“Star Trek”), sometimes not so great (more to come on the atrocity that was “G.I. Joe.”). Sometimes it was hotter than the first level of the underworld in the theater and once we even got refund passes due to the heat stroke many of us endured. One time we even got “an exclusive in depth look” at the movie we were about to see during the pre-preview commercials.

But always the night was fun. The hours before each film actually began were filled with ridiculous hypotheticals, the sharing of nerdy videos (like this one), and relentless mocking of the nerds around us. Each viewing brought a couple of hours hanging out with friends and engaging in nerdy, witty banter that likely annoyed everyone around us. In what other time of life could you take bets on the length of the loop of trivia slides shown before the movie starts (never longer than 2 minutes, 37 seconds)? A great time was had by all and if nothing else we each came away with a t-shirt. What else can you really ask for in life?

Unfortunately all good things must come to an end. As the last week approached, my nerdy friends and I grew wary of what we were about to endure with “Joe.” The warning signs were as follows:

1.) The trailers gave us numerous shots of the Joes wearing “accelerator suits” that made them faster, stronger, etc. This went against everything G.I. Joe stood for;
2.) Aside from Dennis Quaid, the top-billed actors in this film are Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, and (gulp) Marlon Wayans;
3.) The studio did not screen it for critics. (Note: this is probably the worst sign of all. Over the years, the ONLY movie I can think of that didn’t screen for the critics and turned out even passably good is “Tombstone.” That’s it.) The only place you could find a real review of this movie prior to its release was from Ain’t It Cool News;
4.) Again, Marlon Wayans is one of the four “name” actors. Marlon Wayans.

The best way I can describe my feelings towards “G.I. Joe” is to repeat what I told one of my friends as we watched the disaster unfold on the screen: this movie gave me a new appreciation for Michael Bay. If you’re unfamiliar with Michael Bay, just check out his IMDB page. (Seriously, what the heck did we do before IMDB?) Bay has became synonymous with big budget, high octane, special effects driven summer blockbusters that are heavy on action and low on trivial little things like competent acting and writing. Still, he makes money and for all his flaws (which are immense) he is a wizard with the camera. He does amazing things that keep the audience from fully realizing or focusing in on the TREMENDOUS plot holes and TERRIBLE dialogue that plague his films. I’ve bashed on Bay quite a bit in the past and I cringe each time I see his name attached to a film I have any interest in because every single time, I know that coming out of the theater I will say one thing: “Well, it was another Michael Bay film.”

Michael Bay represents everything is wrong with the movie industry and yet I longed for him to be at the helm of “Joe.” Please understand how much it pains me to say that. Instead Stephen Sommers, whose best credit to this point is as director of “The Mummy” (seriously), was in charge of “Joe” and the results are lacking. Sommers attempts to do what Bay does with each of his films but as it turns out he’s just as bad of an actual director as Bay with none of the camera wizardry to keep him afloat. In addition, he writes most of his own films and continues to prove himself to be one of the world’s worst writers. Ever. And I don’t just mean screenwriters; I mean all writers in the history of the world. When you combine all of this with truly a cast that, as a whole, can’t act and CGI that is truly abysmal, you get a disastrous result.

I imagine the development of this film went something like this:

Day 1 - Stephen Sommers is tabbed as director;
Day 2 - Sommers finishes an all night party (at which he was reportedly heard yelling, “I got another film! Can you believe it?! Those morons gave me another film!”) at 4 a.m. and begins writing;
Day 3 - Sommers wakes up from a nap at noon, realizes his script is only 10 pages long, and fills in the rest with some summaries of scenes from “Star Wars” and the words, “BIG EXPLOSION” after every third line of dialogue;
Day 4 - A casting meeting is held at which Sommers says, “I don’t care how well they can act, just make sure they look good.” Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller are cast on the spot;
Day 5 - Shooting begins;
Day 6 - Sommers realizes his cast is stale and lacking in depth so the decision is made to bring in a well respected veteran actor to “anchor the kids”;
Day 7 - Dennis Quaid receives a script for “Joe” and thinks, “What the heck, I’m 55, I don’t get that many opportunities to make a million dollars for 2 days of work” and takes the gig;
Day 8 - Sommers realizes his cast needs some comedic release and acts the studio, “who can we get for fifty thousand dollars?” Marlon Wayans starts immediately;
Day 9 - Shooting finishes and CGI production begins;
Day 10 - Instead of hiring a real effects company to take care of the massive number of CGI shots the film has, Sommers gives the job to two former roommates, his wife’s nephew, and the son of a casino owner whom he owes a favor;
Day 11 - “Joe” is delivered to the studio and the decision is made to keep it away from the critics as long as possible.

And that’s how you make a Stephen Sommers film. I could be quite content with “Joe” as a “Transformers” knock off and from the moment this film was announced I fully expected it to be more about the action than the acting. I can handle that. Summer blockbusters are supposed to be about fun and entertainment, not awards. But when your actors are bad, your script is rotten, and your shots are lacking, you sure as heck better have amazing effects to counter it all. “Joe” misses the mark on all four counts. This movie is attempting to be too big. It wants to be “Transformers” when really it should be shooting for something more along the lines of “The Island.” There’s nothing wrong with being a throwaway action film, as long as you’re not trying to be THE throwaway action film. But most importantly, no one (audience and critics alike) is going to overlook huge flaws when the action sequences aren’t spectacular.

Still, as several of my fellow nerds said, sometimes it’s less about the film and more about the company. I think all of us would have preferred a different final film to close out the Summer of the Nerd. But in the end, we all gathered with our matching shirts for one last Nerdout before the summer came to a close. It was a good time with good friends and maybe that’s really all you can ask for from a summer movie.

“G.I. Joe:” D. Summer of the Nerd: A+.

Brendan Fraser makes a random appearance in this film,
Brian

"It Might Get Loud"

Imagine you’re at a party with a small group of friends, three of whom happen to be “musicians.” (By “musicians” I mean in college they could usually be found sitting in front of a tree, sporting a goatee, plucking out four chords and singing “Hey There Delilah.”) Say these three people discover that they all know how to play a certain song and say those people find a guitar or three at said party. Maybe they all keep a guitar in the car for such an occasion, who knows, just go with it. We’ve all been to this party at some point or another. How long would you guess it would take before these three start “jamming” to the tune of R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion?” In my experience, this usually takes about 1.2 minutes.

Now imagine the three guys are Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin), The Edge (U2), and Jack White (White Stripes).

“It Might Get Loud” is a documentary that centers on the electric guitar and three of its biggest proponents. Half of the film follows Page, The Edge, and White around in their home life to get a feel for the genesis of their musical upbringings. In the other half, director Davis Guggenheim lets the three guitar legends into a room, turns a camera on, and allows the viewer to watch the action unfold with great anticipation. Altogether it is a phenomenally brilliant undertaking that should garner the attention of ANY music fan, young or old.

“Loud” gives the audience an insight into the mind and creative processes of these men, exploring the differences therein. Jack White is the mad scientist of the group in that he kind of throws things together on the spur of the moment and takes what he gets, good or bad. He’s a guy who relishes the challenge of playing a crappy plastic guitar, of mastering his opponent. The Edge, on the other hand, is methodical and deliberate. He practices and experiments for hours before defining a single line of notes. Jimmy Page just simply plays the electric guitar better than anyone else and in ways that no one else can. Like their processes, their sounds are dramatically different. White’s music is extremely raw and unpredictable. U2’s is much more dominated by effects and comes across much more refined. Zeppelin was, of course, much harder than their contemporaries but Page almost seems like a classical player compared to the other two.

Still the similarities and unity between the three is quite apparent. There are heavy punk and blues undertones rooted in the styles of all three and that aspect of their respective developments is deeply explored. All three are great students of their craft. One of the best sections of “It Might Get Loud” is a segment that gives each artist an opportunity to discuss their greatest influences. It’s not every day that you get to see Jimmy Page play someone else’s record and talk about how great it is and what kind of impact it had on him. Or to see the emotional and almost physical attachment Jack White has to the music of Son House.

In addition, it is fascinating to see the level of respect these three have for each other and their willingness to learn from each other, even at their advanced level of ability. These are not “good” guitarists or even “famous” guitarists. These are three guitar gods who you half expect to display polite niceties with each other but remain egotistically distanced. But as the documentary illustrates, nothing could be further from the truth. On his way to the studio, White says, “My plan is to trick them into telling me all their secrets.” You might expect this from White, who is by far the youngest of the three and (I would imagine) the least well known. However, while White played, both Page and The Edge were keenly watching his movements, attempting to pick up a trick or two of their own. Each seems to view the other with the highest regard and the conversation that flows between them is fantastic.

It’s no secret that I am likely biased towards liking this film. I love U2, I love The White Stripes, and I love Zeppelin. Were I to make my own list of living guitar legends, all three of these men would probably make the top five. But even I was not prepared for the magnificence of “Loud.” For me, this is the best documentary I’ve ever seen and, so far, the best film of 2009. Brilliantly shot and edited, this is an absolute masterpiece that only left me wanting more when the 90 minute run time sadly came to an end. A+.

I used to play “Kashmir” during warm ups for my P.E. class,
Brian

"Star Trek"

There are certain lines from the endless collection of great films from the last 80 years that, when uttered, invoke strong feelings and memories of, “the first time I saw…” While certain films define generations, these films, and these lines, transcend generations, becoming fixtures of history instead of just the current pop culture. They are the blockbusters, the masterpieces, and the cult classics that tend to embed themselves in our minds. Darth Vader’s often misquoted, “I am your father” brings forth a whole litany of tremendous film achievements and fond memories of a galaxy far, far away. “We’re gonna need a bigger boat” reminds many of us of the sheer terror of the ocean and how much damage a 20 foot great white shark can do. The words, “Get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’” serve not only as a pretty solid motto for life in general but also as memento of the, well, redemption that Red and Andy found while imprisoned at “Shawshank.” In the same way, it is impossible to hear the words, “Space, the final frontier…” without thinking of the crew of the USS Enterprise and their exploits.

Recently the Star Trek franchise has been in dire straits. No one seemed to care about the last two films and the overexpansion of the TV show (are you listening “C.S.I.” creators?) ran any ingenuity the show had into the ground. The final edition of Star Trek (“Enterprise”) went off the air in 2005 with hardly a whisper. The once vibrant powerhouse has been relegated to a fond memory to be relived only through DVDs and syndication.

Enter J.J. Abrams. With the success of the TV show, “Lost,” which he created and writes for, Abrams has fast become one of the biggest names in Hollywood. His work with “Mission Impossible III” was quietly heralded and gave that franchise a bit of legitimacy it had lost. His eye for talent is notorious and he generally manages to get the absolute most out of unknown actors in a way that M. Night Shyamalan dreams about. Abrams initially wasn’t interested in this project but was inevitably talked into and the franchise as a whole is much better for it.

“Star Trek” is the telling of how the original crew of the Enterprise (Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Sulu, et al) came together. This is a new angle as the original series never tackled this material, instead just giving basic background information throughout. Because of this, Abrams and his team were allowed to completely make it their own, whereas previous editions of the show and the movies were given a more rigid path to take. Abrams was essentially given the keys to the car and told to take it wherever it pleased him to go. And go he did!

From the opening sequence, “Star Trek” moves a mile a minute, pausing between explosions for genius writing and character building. This film falls directly in line with the new brand of action movie (see: “Iron Man”) that substitutes one liners and terrible dialogue with actual plot points, however far fetched, and phenomenal discourse. The crew of the USS Enterprise is bright and witty and they plan to display it at every opportunity. Mix in a surprise appearance by one of the original cast, a Beastie Boys soundtrack cut, and a “blink and you’ll miss it” glimpse of a tribble and what you have is, without question, the best Star Trek film to date.

Casting wise, the decisions made here are near perfect. Each actor brings a piece of himself to the character he or she plays while channeling the original cast member and paying homage to those cult heroes. Chris Pine takes on the vaunted role of Captain James Tiberius Kirk with brilliant success. He’s a bit less dramatic than William Shatner ever was but come on, even the biggest Shatner fan has to admit that the film is better for that. Zachary Quinto, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin play Spock, Sulu, and Checkov, respectively, give admirable performances. Simon Pegg is provides more direct jokes than James Doohan ever did as Montgomery Scott but he manages to steal the scene almost every time he makes an appearance. (Expect the Scotty character to take a much larger role in future Star Trek films.) Karl Urban in particular gives a spot on interpretation on Bones McCoy but for the most part, the film doesn’t allow itself to become a mere replica of its predecessors. And therein lies the true genius of the movie. Whatever hardcore Trekkies want to say, there is no mistaking that this film stays in keeping with the original series and films. The ships are bigger, the action more intense, and the jokes less hammy (and therefore funnier), but the backbone of the show is there.

This is only the beginning for the new branch of the “Star Trek” franchise and in a sheer stroke of genius, certain plot points have given Abrams an immense freedom to do what he wants and go wherever he feels the Enterprise should go. Regardless of the future, “Star Trek” is joyous and straight-up FUN. Even in the moments that drop below spectacular action and fall into typical sci-fi potholes, the audience cannot help but be entertained and they are more than rewarded for their patience as the film continues to develop. There is an adventurous beckoning inherent to the Star Trek brand and this film brings that spirit in a fresh new form. The cast, the direction, the style, cry out, asking you to take part in “the voyages of the Starship Enterprise” as they “boldly go where no one has gone before.” This film is so good that I almost hate it because it is EXACTLY what all Star Wars fans wish Episodes 1 through 3 had been. Whether a hardened Star Trek fan or not, I would dare just about anyone to see “Star Trek” and not be completely entertained.

Grade: A

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine"

At the beginning of each year I go through a few websites and try to get a feel for the movies that will be made available to me over the next twelve months. When I began this process for the 2009 movies, I have to confess my nerd radar went a little bit crazy. Sure, 2008 provided a couple of Fanboy fantasies (“Dark Knight” and “Iron Man” in particular) but overall, the Nerd Film Quota was way down last year. 2009 is sure to make up for this, however. With the upcoming releases of nerd fodder such as “Star Trek,” “Transformers 2,” “Terminator: Salvation,” and a ton of others, I have deemed the next few months the Summer of the Nerd. And what a summer it will be!

The SOTN got off to its official start this week with the premiere of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” The prequel to the X-Men trilogy of the early 2000s, “Wolverine” is designed to give us the back story of future X-Man Wolverine (duh), who has long been one of the more popular X-Men. The film begins with little-boy-Wolverine also known as Jimmy and later known as Logan (you pick which one you like best) tragically activating his mutant powers while simultaneously discovering he has a brother, Victor Creed, who also has mutant powers. The two begin a 120 year trek through time fighting in every war this country has ever seen because after all, being impervious to bullets makes one a pretty valuable soldier. All of this comes to an end when the powers go to Victor’s head and he exhibits the evil inside. After a fairly comical execution attempt, the brothers are put into the charge of William Stryker, a military man who is putting together a special task force, so to speak, of mutant mercenaries.

Soon after Logan and his team are kicking butt and taking names all over the world on shady missions that usually translate into more death than Logan cares for. He walks away from the job and his team, hoping to leave them behind for good. Years later he is living a normal life (or as normal as anyone with claws inside his skin can expect to find), complete with cabin in the mountains, manly job, and beautiful woman. Unfortunately for him, Victor is on the loose killing off the members of his old team and Stryker comes in town to recruit him. Before long, Logan finds his beloved dead and calls on Stryker to turn him into a weapon strong enough to take down his brother. Because of Logan’s ability to heal himself, Stryker is able to graft adamantium (a made up metal) onto his bones, essentially giving him a steel skeleton. Thus we learn how Logan became Wolverine.

Inevitably Logan learns that Stryker has double crossed him and goes into a berserker rage that even Animal from The Muppets would be proud of and runs naked through the country side before being taken in by Ma and Pa Kent. (Wait, that last part is another story. But really, there’s very little difference here.) Quickly thereafter he begins his pursuit of Stryker, Victor, and anyone else who might have been involved in his tragedy. This brings him into contact with future X-Men Scott Summers, who will become Cyclops, and Remy Lebeau, also known as Gambit. He launches his final attack against this crew which turns into his saving of a host of caged mutants, a battle with super-mutant Deadpool, and his getting shot in the head with an adamantium bullet, which explains why he has no memory when the X-Men discover him later down the line.

If that last paragraph sounds a bit thrown together and unbalanced it’s because the end of the film is quite similar. The first hour and a half of “Wolverine” is a straight up adrenaline roller coaster. It’s highly enjoyable and entertaining and for many fans of the comics or the cartoon from the early 90s, it is extremely exciting to see some of these characters brought to life. As a kid I was always interested in what Wolverine’s back story was above all the rest of the vaunted X-Men and I felt like this movie did a pretty good job of answering those questions. But the final 10 minutes or so are incredibly rushed and flimsily tied together. The movie gives answers but some of them seem very shallow and poorly thought out. Even some of the special effects, a highlight of the movie for the majority of the time, seem sloppy in the finale. It’s as if director Gavin Hood, with three months left in the schedule, had vacation plans and decided it would be a good idea to go ahead and wrap this sucker up before he left. Perhaps he was so eager to start working on the inevitable sequel that he just couldn’t figure out a way to finish this one up. It’s like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

This fact doesn’t make “Wolverine” a bad film. It’s a ton of fun and the action is tremendous. More importantly, the cast is spot on. Hugh Jackman, though somewhat useless in just about every other role he’s played, takes to the Wolverine part well as he did in the original “X-Men” trilogy. Danny Huston plays William Stryker with a suave demeanor that suits the character. I’m a huge fan of Liev Schreiber and his commanding performance as Creed (later known as Sabretooth) almost makes one forget the dreadful showing that wrestler Taylor Mane gave as the same character in the first “X-Men” movie. (Shudder.) Schreiber is one of the more underrated actors of his generation and he brings an instant credibility to just about anything he does, including “Scream 3.” (Shudder.) The script which deteriorates so rapidly toward the end is otherwise very well put together and brings a great deal of humor to the table, something that should never be missing in a good superhero film.

SPOILER ALERT – I’m about to disclose information concerning the end of this film. I usually refrain from doing this but in this situation I cannot fully cover this film without going to this. If you have not sent this movie and wish to keep the suspense, STOP READING NOW.

Where the film really screws up is in the treatment of one of its biggest and brightest characters. I call this the “Darth Maul Treatment.” When “The Phantom Menace” came out in 1999, a good chunk of the marketing campaign revolved around new super-villain Darth Maul. When that awful film finally hit theaters, Maul got almost no screen time and in the end was killed off, never to be seen again. This is played out with horrible precision in “Wolverine.” As excited as the Fanboys were about the whole “Wolverine” movie, a lot of that excitement was directed towards Deadpool, one of the most smooth and sarcastic bad guys in history. Deadpool is one of those rare villains that garner almost as much attention as the hero he opposes. He is to Wolverine what Boba Fett is to Han Solo. The decision to cast funny-and-ripped Ryan Reynolds in this role was brilliant and brought even more fanfare.

Here’s the problem: Reynolds gets about 10 lines in the whole film (probably the best lines in the whole thing) and then is unceremoniously disposed of in a way that will be almost impossible to explain away should he ever make another appearance. So in essence, Hollywood finally put a great villain on the screen and placed the perfect actor in position to play the part…and then quickly killed him off and threw him to the curb, along with the hopes for repeat appearances of the fans. In a world that is often completely and utterly dictated by leaving every possibility open for sequels and cliffhangers, why in the world would you so freely dispatch a crowd favorite that could have realistically warranted his own film? A truly terrible decision.

I have a feeling there are going to be some angry Fanboys out there and clearly I believe the whole film would have been bettered by some attention to the close. But hurried ending aside, “Wolverine” did the job of filling in some back story and opening us up to another superhero franchise. It is extremely enjoyable and fast paced albeit easy on the brain. But with the number of “Action Movies with a Moral” on the rise, perhaps it isn’t such a bad thing to have one that simply asks you to sit there and be entertained.

Grade: B-

"Sunshine Cleaning"

It seems too easy to compare “Sunshine Cleaning” to “Little Miss Sunshine,” the award-show darling from 2006. If the similarities in the title weren’t enough, perhaps the supporting role by Alan Arkin, an adorable yet quite strange child, and the surrounding themes of death would also do the trick. Indeed, the comparison seems too easy but compare I must.

If you liked “Little Miss Sunshine,” you will likely enjoy “Sunshine Cleaning” as well. If you weren’t in love with “LMS” (like me), you will likely still enjoy “Sunshine Cleaning” as it manages to tackle its subject matter with a little more, well, sunshine than the former film. “Cleaning” revolves around single mom Rose (Amy Adams) who, along with her sister Norah (Emily Blunt) takes up crime scene cleanup as a way of making ends meet. They start their own business and slowly but surely learn the ends and outs of what it takes to clean up a trailer after, say, a murder-suicide. It’s a dirty and often gruesome job and both women find themselves attempting to provide comfort and peace for the loved ones left behind, while dealing with their own troubled pasts.

The wonderful thing about a small budget, independent film like “Cleaning” is that it allows for true, genuine character development and exploration that often goes missing in bigger movies. The characters here are brilliant. Even when the story line seems potentially lacking and unquestionably rushed, I loved the characters and was truly interested to see what would happen for each of them. Arkin plays the haunted grandfather to a tee, one part loving and well intentioned, one part having never recovered from where his life has taken him. Rose’s son Oscar (Jason Spevack) is a likeable and sympathetic little weirdo who brings the audience in subtly rather than dramatically. Clifton Collins, Jr. gives a very steady performance as a janitorial supply store manager who serves as a confidant (and occasional babysitter) for Rose.

The real stars, of course, are Adams and Blunt. As is often the case, Blunt’s younger sister Norah is the perfect opposite to Adams’ Rose; fragile and weaker on the surface but stronger than even she gives herself credit for compared to tougher and harder on the outside but hurting and tired inside. I would challenge any moviegoer to sit through a scene in which Norah climbs up a train trestle to “stare into the face of God” without feeling emotionally attached to her character. Likewise, it is hard to take in Adams’ performance without feeling, in some small way, moved. Her shortcomings as a mother, sister, or whatever else are less worthy of condemnation and more marks of true authenticity. She is on the verge of breaking when she starts her company and it seems that bringing this small service, however unappreciated it may be, into people’s lives gives her a bit of hope if nothing else. What I love most about Adams, particularly in this role, is the way she acts and engages both the audience and her on screen surroundings with her eyes. Here her eyes are almost pleading with you, with her family, with the universe to just give her a break. Being that “Cleaning” was released in March, it’s unlikely that Adams will see any attention come award season but her performance here is better than any female role I saw all of last year.

Where “Cleaning” truly excels is in its willingness to allow the emotion of the film to develop organically; to “let the game come to it,” so to speak. Far, far too often films such as this resort to trolling for emotion. That is, scenes that are supposed to be moving or emotionally engaging are played up with music or camera angles in an effort to MAKE the audience connect. More often than not this doesn’t work and many times when it does, the viewer feels kind of dumb for falling for the movie’s dirty little trick (see: just about any movie involving the death of a family pet). In essence, you feel forced or baited into crying or “feeling for” the character.

There is no such trickery with “Cleaning.” Director Christine Jeffs simply puts the material and the characters before the audience and allows them to make their own judgment of whether to get connected to what’s happening or not. And, for me at least, it worked. I truly enjoyed this film and maybe more importantly, I CARED about this film and about its characters. That is something that honestly doesn’t happen all that often and I hope to see the efforts put worth here rewarded come award season.

Grade: A-.

"Watchmen"/ Midnight Premiere

In my younger days I frequented the Midnight Premiere events that go hand-in-hand with big budget movies. I did this a couple of times in high school, several times in college, and a great many times right after I moved back to the Metroplex when I lived in an apartment that was virtually part of the Grapevine Mills Mall property. Since then these excursions have lessened in frequency to the point that, prior to yesterday, I couldn’t even remember the last Midnight Premiere I had been to.

Last week as the world prepared for the release of “Watchmen,” Jason and I began throwing around the idea of seeing it at midnight. I’m quite used to this conversation. It usually goes something like this:

Guy number 1: “Dude, we should go see that movie.”
Guy number 2, talking to girlfriend/wife/random girl he might have some level of interest in: “Do you want to see that?”
Girlfriend/Wife/Random girl: “Never in a million years.”
Guy number 2: “Ya man, we should make it a guys night.”
Guy number 1: “Dude, we should totally go see it at midnight.”
Guy number 2: “I’m in.”

Later one of the guys will reconsider this decision, then begin to waver, then drop out entirely. At this point the other guy says this is lame but is secretly happy that he doesn’t have to stay up that late and was able to save face by waiting on the first guy bailing out. I’ve been part of this conversation numerous times. This time around, however, it was different. I didn’t have to be into work at any given hour and Jason was closing. So we had at least two. Elijah jumped on board the day of the big event and Ryan was a late commitment, bringing our party to four. And so, in the name of Nerdom, we made our way to United Artist Fossil Creek 11, tickets pre-purchased and Red Bull in hand.

We arrived about an hour early because in the past, when I’ve done this sort of thing, the theater had everyone stand outside until 20 minutes before start time in a structure that usually resembles a sheep pen. To my surprise, we were one of the two small groups awaiting show time. We waited patiently, passing the time by not-so-quietly mocking one of the theater attendants who was attempting and failing to take down a sign by jumping and scaling a wall. Shortly thereafter we asked said attendant if he’d like a boost or if we could just go ahead into the theater. His response was “Sure, there’s already a bunch of people in there.” Blerg. Here we thought we were the first people in line! My first comment was, “Oh, it’s not going to smell good in there.”

I was correct.

As a group, nerds are not a great smelling people. I mean no disrespect by this. I’m a nerd myself, though a slightly lesser brand of nerd (because I like sports, too), and hopefully a bit better groomed. But let’s just be honest. The chances of a warm theater full of comic book nerds smelling like the perfume section of Dillards are pretty low. We took our seats and settled in for that awful 30 minutes before a movie in which the theater tries to entertain you with approximately 5 trivia slides that loop every 122 seconds. (Yep, we timed it.) At first we were all a bit annoyed by the group of girls sitting two rows behind us who, if not by birth date then by maturity level, were clearly not old enough to be at this movie and were jabbering incessantly.

Quickly, however, my attention was brought to something far more alarming. A young couple, somewhere in their late 20s I would guess, walked in sheepishly, carrying… wait for it… a baby! (Actually, I’m only assuming it was a baby. The subject was in a car seat, covered by a blanket. I guess it could have been a ferret or even an elaborate setup to illegally record the movie. Elijah thought it could possibly be a keg. I’m going to bet it was a baby, though.) Not only had this couple decided it was a great idea to bring a baby to what turned out to be one of the most loud, violent, and graphic films I’ve ever seen, this was, after all, a midnight showing (just in case you hadn’t picked up on that). Jason commented that he thought he was probably going to swear and I believe the majority of the theater agreed with this sentiment.

Soon after, the lights dimmed and the second stage of this adventure began. I must commend the people who chose the trailers to be shown prior to the movie, as they ran the Nerd Gamut, so to speak, with “Terminator,” “Star Trek,” and “Angels and Demons.” These only heightened the excitement in the room, which in turn, only made the smell slightly worse.

(On a side note, does anyone else remember the days when the movie theater was a cold environment? Even the most cold-inclined girl I know doesn’t feel the need to bring a jacket into the theater anymore. A cold room would have done a world of good on this night.)

Eventually, “Watchmen” began and proved itself relatively worthy of the idiotic lengths I had gone to in order to see it. Three hours later, the closing credits rolled and I made my way back to my car, fully satisfied by the movie-going experience, but perhaps a little more aware of my age. It was close to 3:45 before I made my way to bed and the 9 o’clock alarm I initially set for myself was quickly pushed back to 10. I have been paying the price all day for the war I waged against my body by keeping it out so late. I could have gone to bed at 7 this evening. But overall the experience was worthwhile, if not a much needed departure from the every day activities, and I consider myself lucky to have enough nerdy friends to make a small adventure like this possible.

Grade: B+.