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

"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

"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

"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+.

"17 Again"/Zac Efron

A few months back I wrote a column about people, places, and things that I feel I should strongly dislike but for some reason I can’t quite bring myself to do so. I’m a pretty opinionated person and so it’s quite disconcerting when I cannot bring myself to “hate” something when I know good and well I probably should. The focus of this particular column was Justin Timberlake, whom I have a slight man crush on despite desperately wanting to hate him. After watching this movie, I have a sinking suspicion I may have to add another person to that list.

“17 Again” is the story of the middle aged Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) who has lost sight of the good things in his life. As his marriage is coming to an end and his children seem to be less than concerned about spending time with him, Mike lives with his best friend Ned (predictable comic relief played by Thomas Lennon) and regrets the decisions he made in life that led him to this point. Soon, however, he finds himself turned into the teenage version of himself (Efron), enrolls at school, and starts to live his life over again. While part of him struggles to find a way to get back to his real self, part of him is excited about the opportunity for a re-do of sorts.

If you think that sounds similar to “Freaky Friday,” “Big,” “13 Going on 30,” or about 2,200 other films, you would be correct. This is not a unique formula by any means. The age-jumping concept is has been used time and time again and it seems like just about every generation has their own version of this film that sticks out. However, as I’ve said before, I really make an effort not to judge a film based on whether or not it’s been done before. Not every movie can be an original award contender. It’s about entertainment if nothing else. Still, I would be lying if I said my hopes were high going in. Formulaic teen film plus Zac Efron is not likely to equal success in my mind.

I’m pleased to say “17 Again” managed to surprise me. As expected there’s very little “new” here but there is a lot of fun. Best of all, there’s some very good (and very unexpected) acting. A teen flick is usually RIPE with terrible actors who have nothing but a pretty face to go with their complete and utter lack of anything resembling talent. Not so much with this film. Sure, there’s a very award Michelle Trachtenberg trying desperately to play a girl 6 years younger than she really is (awful casting on this one) and the extras are predictably bad. These gaffs are more than made up for, however, by Efron and his son/school mate, played by Sterling Knight. There’s a certain dynamic between the two that works very well and brings an authenticity to the movie that would have been otherwise missing.

Efron especially impressed me with his acting chops. I’ve never really seen this kid in action before. Once, while working, a coworker’s child was watching the original “High School Musical” in my office and I heard enough to know that I did not care to watch volumes two or three. I’ve not seen “Hairspray” because of my well known, long standing hatred of musicals. Until the last couple of weeks when Efron hosted “SNL” and then starred in this film, I hadn’t really seen much of him. I simply knew that, as a teen heart throb that stars in Disney produced musicals, he was to be disliked, sight unseen. I stand by this assessment because, let’s be honest, everything this dude is about is pretty much against what the majority of males are about. I mean, come on, the guy sings during basketball games. SINGS. Not good.

But there seems to be, at least on the surface, more to Efron than just the looks and INSANE popularity. Make no mistake about it, “17 Again” is a throw-away film. Without Efron as the headliner, the studio would be thrilled to make 20 million off of this thing. It is very easy, even for much better actors than Efron, to turn in a throw-away performance in a movie like this and it would be hard to fault him for doing so in his first starring role away from the “HSM” franchise. Instead, he plays the character straight and shows some real talent. You can tell that he really put effort into studying Matthew Perry’s mannerisms and brings those to the screen. At the same time, he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously, which is the other big issue a lot of young talents make in an effort to make sure they’re seen as real actors. This isn’t a film that calls for a dramatic, strong, impassioned leading performance. Efron hits the right chord here and the movie is genuinely pretty good because of that. Perhaps most importantly, I wasn’t constantly aware that I was watching Zac Efron on the screen. I was just watching an entertaining little movie that happened to have a couple of big names in it. Even some of the best actors in Hollywood struggle to play a character instead of playing themselves.

Overall “17 Again” wasn’t life altering and I didn’t come away feeling like I’d just witnessed the changing of the Hollywood guard as I’m sure Disney would like me to feel. Perhaps my extremely low expectations going in influenced my thoughts as I left. But I was entertained, I was impressed by the acting, and unfortunately I think it’s going to be a little harder to dislike Zac Efron from now on. At least, that is, until he sings on the basketball court again. Seriously, that needs to stop.

Grade: B.

"Taken"

I wrote a blog a few months ago concerning things I feel like I should hate but find it hard to do so. The entry centered namely around Justin Timberlake, whom I feel I should hate with the fire of a thousand suns but find it impossible to do. And so it is with “Taken.”

So many things about this film stand for the many things I am so fervently against in the movie industry. The plot is lacking, the holes in the story gigantic, and much of the acting is atrocious. And I mean, seriously atrocious. It is a movie that is completely and totally action driven, something I generally hate in a movie. Yet I cannot keep myself from loving what I just saw.

There’s almost no plot to sum up here. If you’ve seen the trailer, you know what this movie is about. Former FBI/CIA/CTU/Something Government Related agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) has retired from said Government Related Agency job and is trying to be a civilian in an attempt to get closer to his 17 year old daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). When Kim is offered the opportunity to spend the summer abroad, Bryan reluctantly relents, on the condition that she stay in contact with him through the use of an international phone he buys her. Upon arriving in Paris, Kim and her friend immediately make all the dumb mistakes you hear about in kidnapping stories. Soon after, while on the phone with Bryan, Kim realizes there are intruders in the house and she is about to be abducted. Bryan promises to come for her and promptly jumps back into Government Related Agent mode. The rest of the film follows Bryan as he burns France to the ground in an effort to find his daughter.

If you’re looking for complex plot points, this isn’t the movie for you. The entire film is one attack-on-bad-guy after another. There is very little concern for international law or “conscience questions.” In most action movies, these things are at least mentioned or thought about, even if only for a moment or two. In “Taken” these things are discussed in about one sentence and then kicked to the curb where they belong. Bryan Mills has far too many Albanians to take down to think about things such as laws. His ONLY concern in life is finding his daughter and he will do anything and everything to make that happen. This includes, but is not limited to, breaking and entering, torture, impersonating a foreign official, and leaving anyone behind who is not his daughter. This is not “Dark Knight” or any other action movie in which the hero struggles to find the line between wrong and right. There is no gray in this film. Bryan Mills is RIGHT, everyone else is WRONG, and it is as simple as that, collateral damage be darned. “Taken” is very unapologetic in this stance and it works.

Here is why “Taken” works where other films fail. Too often, action movies try to bridge the gap between reality and fantasy and in doing so fall flat. Our hero cannot take out 37 bad guys with a single pistol clip then stop to reload a moment later. If you’re going to allow him to not reload for an entire battle, then go full out and toss out the reloading all together. Another one of the more tired clichés in action movies is for the hero to take somewhere between 2 and 41 bullets during the course of the film yet still manages to get by. “Taken” throws out the notion that the hero ever has to even be winged by an enemy’s bullet. The shooting displayed by everyone in this film who is not Liam Neeson would make a Stormtrooper proud. Bryan Mills seemingly walks through gun fire the way Wyatt Earp does to take down Curley Bill in “Tombstone.” And when a bullet won’t do the job, he’s more than capable of delivering a karate chop to the neck that immediately knocks a would-be attacker out.

On the flip side of that coin, too many action films take absolutely preposterous ideas and turn the whole thing into a special effects collage surrounded by the “Oh yeah, this is supposed to have some sort of story” plot line. A wonderful example of this would be “Crank 2: High Voltage” which I was so lucky to see a trailer for prior to “Taken.” (If you can’t tell that this sentence is OOZING sarcasm please stop reading now.) This movie selects a subject (the abduction of a family member) that audiences can relate to or at least imagine what they would do in the situation and then seemingly allows the imagination to run free. It’s a brilliant mix because while the on screen happenings are often ridiculous, the story in which it happens is very real and easily related to. When the fairly predictable final scene comes into reality, it is less anti-climatic and more justifying.

It should be noted once more that the acting (outside of Neeson) in this movie is absolutely horrendous. Maggie Grace, in particular, is laughable as a 26 year old trying desperately to cling to the ideas of what a 17 year old should behave like. My comment to those sitting near me was that it felt like Neeson was acting in a major motion picture and the rest of the cast was participating in a drama class at Santa Monica Junior College. (Very similar, in fact, to “The Phantom Menace.”) But in a way this seems to work for “Taken” as crazy as this may sound. While Mills has no time to mess with the intricacies of diplomacy, neither does director Pierre Morel have time to mess with the motivation of his actors. I would be very skeptical of any future Morel films. But in the end, “Taken” is a highly enjoyable “man’s movie” and Mills is a subtly clever and witty “man’s man.” In the spirit of “Die Hard” I was able to revel in the absurdity rather than be turned off by it and that is where this film hits its mark.

GRADE: A-

"The Wrestler"

Since I’m not a professional film critic, I often don’t get to see the Award Caliber movies until long after they’ve been reviewed a million times. Most movies that are shooting for Oscars aren’t released until just before the end of the year and many of them don’t go into wide release until the middle of January. This has positive and negative effects. For one thing, if a movie is bad and falls far short of its Oscar goals, I hear it in advance and can avoid wasting my time. But the flip side of that is if a film is getting a lot of critical praise, there’s always a chance that I’m going to expect far too much by the time I get the opportunity to see it. I confess that, going in, I was concerned that “The Wrestler” was going to fall into the latter category.

“The Wrestler” is the story of Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke), a former WWF wrestling superstar who’s hanging on to the glory days by the thinnest of threads. Living in a trailer that he can’t always pay the rent for and working as a stocker at a grocery store, Randy is 20 years removed from his prime. His body bears the marks of years and years of abuse. “The Ram” lived fast and loose, snorting coke and injecting insane amounts of steroids while taking a beating each night in the ring. He is broken, bruised, and scarred.

Unlike many of his compatriots, Randy hasn’t given up on The Ring. His weekends are spent competing in the lower levels of “professional” wrestling, fighting up and down the Northeast coast. These matches are often held in veteran’s halls and elementary school gyms and feature alarming violence and equipment. While the fights are planned out ahead of time, the stunts are painful and many of the fights involve very real weapons. One fighter uses a staple gun to subdue and intimidate his opponent. Another litters the mat with barbed wire. Randy himself cuts his forehead with a razorblade to sell a stunt to the crowd. It’s a very brutal, desperate world that “The Ram” finds himself in. Yet the crowds love him and for however short the moment lasts, Randy needs the spotlight.

Whatever money Randy has, he spends on Cassidy, an aging stripper (Marisa Tomei) whose time he craves far more than her services. Cassidy will not allow Randy to get any closer than her other customers but it’s clear that part of her wants to. Randy would probably like to take Cassidy out of the situation she’s in but knows he wouldn’t be able to offer her much. The film takes us through a few months in Randy’s life as he struggles with becoming an average person, his health, and his severely strained relationship with a daughter he left behind.

“The Wrestler” isn’t an easy movie to take in. But some of the best movies in history aren’t easy to watch. Mickey Rourke is brilliant in what is almost a semi-autobiographical role. Director Darren Aronofsky had to fight tooth and nail with the studio to get Rourke in the film but in hindsight there isn’t anyone better suited to play “The Ram.” Rourke has in many ways lived the life of Randy “The Ram” and has the scars to prove it. He destroyed his career with drugs, steroids, and hard living and without this role would almost certainly be un-hirable, a waste of one of the more talented actors in his generation. This is more than his comeback film, this is his legacy, the role which will define his career no matter what great things may come his way in the future.

This film is not about professional wrestling, nor is it truly about Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Rather, it is a film about MAN and his eternal struggles. Everyone knows the man who can’t let go of the past. Whether it’s the former high school quarterback, the guy who’s paid the price for not finishing college, or a professional wrestler far past his prime, this is a familiar story, only highlighted with barbed wire and steroids. How does a man so used to being a superstar adapt to working a deli counter? And what does a man do when a doctor tells him he isn’t physically capable of doing the one thing that he finds affirmation in? These are the types of questions Aranofsky attempts to ask. He simply chooses professional wrestling to be his platform.

My one complaint about this film is the way it has been promoted. “The Wrestler” is being sold as tale of redemption or a comeback story but I think that’s misleading and the critics that have reviewed it so have missed the mark. This isn’t “Rocky Balboa” or any other sports movie in which the hero is getting one last shot at glory. Leading up to the inevitable “Last Big Fight” no one, including Randy, realistically believes that this is his chance to get back into the Big Time. Even if that were to happen and the movie were to end with “The Ram” jumping back into the ring with WWF (or WWE, or whatever it’s called these days), this movie wouldn’t be about that. Randy isn’t so much interested in a comeback as he is in going out on his terms. He wants to be Michael Jordan hitting the championship winning shot for the Bulls, not Patrick Ewing wearing number 6 for the Orlando Magic, barely making it up and down the floor. As he says toward the end of the film, this is where he belongs and he doesn’t want to let anyone or anything force him away from his place in life.

From a humanistic perspective, “The Wrestler” is heartbreaking because despite its over-the-top action, it is shockingly real. Yet despite the fact that there isn’t a traditional happy ending, it is a film that is more than worthwhile for its phenomenal study of LIFE, if not for the spectacular performance of its star.

Grade: A

"Slumdog Millionaire"

It always drives me crazy when a human, be they movie critic or just a lay movie lover like myself, discredits a film by citing the “already been done” clause. Meaning, if the movie resembles another film in writing, acting, directing, storyline, cinematography, music, catering crew, or anything else, it is essentially worthless should the reviewer decide to deem it so. I myself fall into the trap from time to time but at least in most of these cases I follow up the “already been done” clause with the “and it was awful the first time” clause.

The truth is, after 100 something years of major motion pictures, just about everything has been covered. Every movie is borrowing something in some way from some movie from the past. The better movies twist the ground which has already been covered or offer fresh perspectives. But just because a given topic has already been covered doesn’t mean it can’t be covered again. It’s all entertainment. So what if one movie of today borrows from a movie of the 70s? The truth is, the latter movie probably borrowed from a movie of the 60s and that one a movie of the 40s and that one a book from the 19th century.

I say all that to say this: when a movie comes along that IS truly unique, it sticks out. In a sense the film emblazons itself on your memory and you never quite let go of it. A filmmaker that can come up with this unique concept is ahead of the game because it will be favorably compared to any movie that resembles it for the next 30 years. “Slumdog Millionaire” is that movie.

“Slumdog” follows the life of Jamal Malik, a boy who comes from the worst part of India. The footage of life in these slums is sobering and far worse than anything you will ever see in the States. The tiny box homes covered with tin roofs are literally stacked on top of each other and the squalor is painfully obvious in every way. Jamal has come within one correct answer of winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” but is now in custody of the Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating to get to this point. After torture, the investigator goes over each question with Jamal and asks him to explain how he knew the answer. Each question results in a flashback to a period of Jamal’s life as a “slumdog” and brings together a snapshot of his life through ten different stories.

I’m not going to say another word about the content of the film. Because this is such a unique film it should be experienced by the viewer with the minimal amount of information possible going in. It is a refreshing and sobering piece that should be a “must-see” for any movie lover.

The acting, done by an entirely Indian cast, is phenomenal. From Dev Patel who plays the role of Jamal as a young man, to the work of game show host Anil Kapoor (think an Indian Regis Philbin), the actors display the type of discipline and dedication to the profession that is sometimes lacking in Hollywood. Even the children who play the youngest versions of Jamal and his brother are engaging, talented, and endearing while giving the kind of work that most directors would kill to have from their American child actors. Despite the spectacular filmmaking it has produced over the last few years, Bollywood (the Indian film industry) has been fairly unsuccessful in its attempts to breakthrough into the consciousness of the mainstream public. “Slumdog” is, in a sense, a proclamation of arrival. If the public won’t come to Bollywood, perhaps Bollywood will just come to us.

Danny Boyle, one of the most underrated and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, has crafted a magnificent film that manages to touch just about every emotion within the spectrum. It is funny at times, touching at others, poignant for a moment and then heartbreaking, but thoroughly entertaining and genuine throughout. Boyle made a name for himself in the early 90s with “Trainspotting” and became a big name with 2002’s “28 Days Later” but has never quite gotten the respect he deserves until now. This is his masterpiece, his shining moment. And if the success of his film brings new audiences to his work the whole of “Movieland” has been bettered.

“Slumdog” is not for the faint of heart. There are some tough, gruesome scenes and this movie is, after all, primarily about the life of abject poverty in a foreign country. But the viewer who can handle a few hard moments will be rewarded with an extremely good and genuinely powerful film that is sure to be copied a hundred times over the next 30 years.

Grade: A+

"Marley and Me"

Let me preface this by telling you I am one of the biggest babies in America. There were four or five major male influences in my life growing up and all of them were big babies so I really didn’t stand a chance. I’m apt to cry during all of the appropriate guy (aka war and sports) movies, such as the final scene of “Saving Private Ryan” and the moment that Mike Winchell narrowly misses the end zone at the end of “Friday Night Lights.” But beyond these themes, the one thing that is guaranteed to force me to cry is that of a person and his/her dog.

I read John Grogan’s “Marley and Me” last year, some time after it had already reached “Bestseller” status on just about every list imaginable. Sitting in an airport, I begrudgingly pulled this book from my collection of reading material and began reading to pass the time of my seven hour layover. Six hours later the book was finished and the people sitting around me must have been wondering if I had some sort of emotional disorder due to all the ridiculous weeping I had done. I looked like death to be sure. Mothers were shooing their children away from me and a hobo, sensing I might be in distress, offered me a sip of his whiskey (I made that last part up).

I’m typically a bit skeptical of the movie based on a book. This is true partially because if it’s popular enough to spawn a book it’s too popular for me to handle and partially because if I actually like the book, the movie usually falls short. So when I heard that “Marley and Me” was being turned into a major motion picture I was somewhat short of optimistic. The additions of Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston, as well as my natural curiosity concerning how well the book could be translated to screen eventually won me over.

“Marley and Me” is the story of a young couple (Owen and Aniston), their careers, their children, and the dog that comes along for the ride. As the story begins, the Grogans have just moved to Miami. One is a reporter, the other a columnist for rival newspapers. In order to keep Jennifer’s (Aniston) maternal instinct at bay, the un-ready-for-parenthood John (Owen) buys her a yellow lab, a runt puppy named Marley who turns out to be the “world’s worst dog.”

Marley is a pain, a nuisance, a hassle to deal with. He destroys the garage when a thunderstorm rolls in. He eats the couch cushions. He humps legs. He swallows a brand new necklace, resulting in the inevitable Poop Exploration known all too well to dog lovers everywhere. Marley disrupts a dog obedience class. He tries to climb out a car window. He causes mayhem in a variety of ways only believable because they did in fact actually happen.

Marley becomes notorious as John transitions from full time reporter to part time columnist and finds it hard to write about anything but the world’s worst dog. As Marley’s exploits become more outrageous, John’s column becomes more popular and soon he finds himself with a daily column. At the same time, his family is going from a young couple with dreams to a family of five (plus a monstrous dog) while his closest friend Sebastian, the eternal bachelor, travels the world writing the pieces John wishes he could. A prevailing theme within this film is the sacrifices both John and Jennifer make as they realize the importance of family over that of career.

“Marley and Me” follows the path of the Grogans for some fifteen years and truly captures the essence of real life. There’s very little sugarcoating here, though the film manages to keep its “family movie” tag. Both of the main characters go through ups and downs, both separately and together. They experience the issues that come with trying to start a family and then trying to manage the family you did start. Through it all their lives are shadowed by the ever-present Marley and the shenanigans he pulls along the way.

Director David Frankel does a wonderful job of allowing the movie to be about the dog without allowing the dog to become the all-encompassing focus of the movie. Too often a Family Pet movie falls into the trap of ignoring the human characters and forcing emotion upon the viewer. Not so with “Marley.” Marley is very much a part of the family rather than having the family revolve around him. This seems simple enough and yet I can scarcely remember a movie that manages to show family life with the dog as well as this one. You never forget that this movie is about a dog and his family but what we have here is enough strong material to support a good movie even without the dog. That is a rare quality. In addition, Wilson and Aniston, along with Eric Dane (Sebastian) and Alan Arkin (editor Arnie Klein) are near perfect casting choices and all deliver strong performances. But make no mistake, the true stars are all the dogs who take turns as Marley in his various times of life.

I’d like to tell you I held it together, manned up, and didn’t shed a tear during the inevitable end of this film. But the truth is I was lucky to make it half way through before the sniffles began. It has never ceased to amaze me the impact that a terrible dog can have on one’s life, whether it is over the course of fifteen years or that of a two hour movie. “Marley” sums up what it’s like to have a dog as part of one’s family, even if he is the “world’s worst dog.”

Grade: A

"I Am Legend"

I am a sucker for an action movie. I mean, I REALLY like action movies. Every guy likes action movies. “Live Free or Die Hard,” “Transformers,” and “300” were all huge hits this summer, not to mention “The Bourne Ultimatum.” All four of those movies, by the way, made it into my top 15 of the year. But my love of action movies goes even deeper than the average American male. (Somewhere some snooty French dude is sipping a vanilla laced, watered down coffee and making a witty remark about how ridiculous Americans are.) I really liked “Shooter,” a movie that at best elicited a halfhearted “Eh” from most movie critics. I am the only person in the world who thought “Ghost Rider” wasn’t that bad, including Nicholas Cage who apparently wept during the screening of this film. I own a copy of “The Island” and I actually do not regret purchasing it. Basically, if it has a half interesting plot, some explosions and/or firefighting, and actors who can sort of make me believe they are in fact paid, professional actors, I will probably enjoy it on some level.

Seldom, however, do I see a true, certifiable action movie that is worthy of not only a top notch review, but also award consideration. Very rarely has an action film come along that is riveting in its drama and its character development in addition to the obligatory action sequences. “I Am Legend” is that film.

The story, based on a Richard Matheson novella of the same title, has been modernized and set in New York City, circa 2012. A virus that initiated as a cure for cancer has mutated and turned the world’s population (those who lived through the outbreak) into a species of cave dwelling zombies. Matheson’s work portrayed the creatures as vampires but the film stops short of this declaration, though they exhibit classic vampire like characteristics. Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith), at one time the world’s best hope for survival, is, for all intents and purposes, the last man on earth. He is isolated on Manhattan Island with only his dog and the infected for company. Neville spends his days hunting deer in the streets, alphabetically working his way through every DVD in the electronic store, and meticulously searching for a cure for the virus. At night, however, he locks metal shutters on every door and window and hunkers down with Sam (the dog) as the infected roam the night.

As Neville comes closer and closer to a cure, he also comes closer and closer to the edge. He experiences breaks from reality and flashes back to memories of the night his family died while trying to flee the island. He is driven to the point of breaking by his desire, his need to cure the virus. During an uncharacteristic moment of sloppiness he comes within an inch of his life at the hands of the infected, and loses his companion in the process. The loss nearly pushes him to assisted suicide, so to speak, before he is pulled from the brink of death by a pair of survivors. The arrival of survivors, the first he has seen in 3 years, is a shock to Neville and he has a difficult time adjusting to his new found allies. During a particularly dramatic scene, Neville screams at Anna about the absence of God, as she attempts to talk him into leaving with her for a supposed safe haven in Vermont. The argument ends abruptly, however, when the house is stormed by the infected who have finally traced Neville back to his lair.

While making what will be his last stand, Neville discovers he has finally found the cure he devoted his life to. The final confrontation culminates in Neville’s self sacrifice to save Anna and Ethan, but only after passing on the cure and rediscovering his faith. It is a fairly poignant moment that could have been that much more with a little more development. The point still hits home, however and we are allowed to catch a brief glimpse of the colony Neville’s work made possible.

There are elements of “Legend” that are cliché. Plenty of films have focused on viral outbreaks and zombie filled streets. This film could have easily slipped into the usual post-apocalyptic world that so many of its predecessors have created before it. But the stroke of genius here is that the infected and the fight against them take a back seat to the isolation, the lonely and haunting world in which Neville finds himself. What would you do if you were the only person on earth? What measures would you take to stay sane? Neville sets up mannequins at his usual visits. He watches Tivoed recordings of “Good Morning America.” He talks to and treats Sam like a child, methodically bathing her and forcing her to eat her vegetables. In effect, he does anything that seems “normal” in an effort to remain normal.

Will Smith delivers what is without question the best performance of his spectacular career. In the minds of many, Smith has long been a summer blockbuster kind of actor: a guy who could deliver big money for entertaining yet less than thought provoking films that are never talked about during award season. (See: “Men in Black” and “Independence Day.”) This role could and should push him into the very rare category of actors who can earn both big money and golden statues. It takes a very, VERY talented and versatile actor to stand alone on the screen for the majority of a film and not become annoying or boring. Tom Hanks was nominated for an Oscar for doing just this in “Castaway” though quite frankly, I and many other were both annoyed and bored by Hanks. Smith strikes the perfect chord between vulnerability and strength, both bordering on the breaking point and remaining steadfast in his quest. He is less a flawed hero and more a broken one, a man who expects to succeed, to be the hero he knows the world needs him to be, and yet his loss and his loneliness weighs on him heavily. Smith plays the role perfectly and it is hard to imagine many other actors who could have done the job as effectively.

The direction of Francis Lawrence deserves mention as well. His work to avoid falling into the traps of making an average zombie movie is quite apparent throughout, to the point that I felt he was almost reluctant to move away from Neville’s story of solidarity and into his fight with the infected. It is a social commentary as much as it is an action movie. There are several brilliantly shot scenes, none so powerful as the moment in which Neville must put down his only companion after she is infected. “Old Yeller” has nothing on this scene which is almost too tough to watch for a dog lover like myself. Nonetheless, it firmly drives home the point once more that Neville is completely and utterly alone and further illustrates his brokenness. If I had to complain, I would point out that I was unimpressed by the CGI infected. They are less than inspired and painfully brought back memories of Mr. Hyde in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” (*Shutter*) I do believe, however, this may have been done in an effort to avoid an “R” rating. A more intense creature would have very likely ensured this. In addition, the film runs short at 100 minutes and there is clearly room for further development. I hope to see a “Director’s Cut” on DVD before too long.

I am in no way insinuating that “Legend” will receive any mention come Oscar season. Film critics have proven that they take themselves far too seriously to truly consider the merits of a comedy or action movie, no matter how deserving they might be. I am insinuating, however, that “Legend” and Smith in particular deserve consideration, if not nomination when the Academy get together in a few months. It is, without question, the best film I have seen this year and far more significant than the average action film.

Grade: A.

"Dan in Real Life"


A note to all you Steve Carell fans out there, especially the large group of 14 year olds who happened to be in the same theater as I was: “Dan in Real Life” does not contain the raunchy humor of “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” the outrageous, laugh-out-loud humor of “Anchorman,” or the over the top yet subtle humor of “The Office.” If you want to see Steve Carell at his wacky best, go rent “Bruce Almighty” or set your Tivo for Thursday, 9/8 Central and enjoy the greatness of Michael Scott. If, however, you can handle Steve Carell in a serious role, “Dan” is the film for you.

“Dan” is the story of a parenting advice columnist Dan Burns and his three girls, ranging in age from 6 to 16. The Burns have a meager lifestyle, a cluttered house, an old station wagon, and a great deal of conflict and turmoil. Dan’s wife and mother of his children died three years previously which lends itself to a number of problems. At first glance the most glaring issue is the difficulty Dan has in dealing with his daughters, particularly the middle child Cara, perfectly played by Brittany Robertson. Understandably, Dan is a bit over protective and seems to have difficulty allowing for the growth of his children. Below the surface and beautifully illustrated with care and precision throughout the movie, Dan also struggles with moving on with his life and ultimately, missing his wife.

The film centers around a family reunion of sorts which Dan and his girls attend, along with Dan’s parents, his three siblings, and their families. The house is packed and because Mitch, his younger brother (Dane Cook), is expecting his girlfriend to stay with the family, Dan is relegated to sleeping in the laundry room, running dryer and all. This may seem a small point of contention but the sleeping arrangement serves to illustrate Dan’s loneliness and awkwardness within the family in a “subtle, no obvious, no subtle” kind of way.

On a morning trip into town, Dan runs into Marie (Juliette Binoche) and the two immediately hit it off. In this scene the audience gets a true feel for how Dan might have been in a past life: shy but charming, unsure but carefree. Upon returning home he begins to tell his brothers about the mysterious woman in the book shop in a boyish, giggly way until he is interrupted by the introduction of his brother’s girlfriend, Marie. An awkward exchange follows and Dan immediately shrinks back into his shell. Throughout the weekend Dan and Marie come only closer to each other all the while attempting to not only keep their secret but also, for Dan in particular, to ignore the new found feelings. This tension culminates in Dan singing during the family talent show, something he has not done since the death of his wife. Confrontations ensue and after a truly touching meeting with his kids, Dan is able to grasp hold of the happy ending he so badly deserves.

Most of the humor of the film is based in sadness and loss and as such, “Dan In Real Life” is not a true romantic comedy it may be perceived as. There are a few “laugh out loud” moments but even these, I believe, hold a deeper meaning than a cheap laugh (though the “murder of love” scene is “slap your knee” hilarious). Even a dance scene that would be sure to break the audience into hysterics in most films comes across as awkward, even sad. Yet just as “Dan” is not an inherently funny movie, neither is it inherently sad. The film, and more importantly its characters, never dwell on the loss for long enough to drift into the dismal, depressing affair that so many dramas of the same ilk often become.

Steve Carell gives (are you ready for this?) an Oscar caliber performance, though it will undoubtedly be dismissed as insignificant by the idiots of the Academy. As big a fan of his as I am, I could have never imagined Carell could nail this role as well as he did. The viewer can see the fear and the hurt in Dan’s eyes but that he doesn’t want to allow the loss to control him. He neither ignores the past nor dwells on it. The love that Dan and his wife shared for each other is vividly displayed throughout the film despite the fact that she never once appears on screen. I challenge anyone to watch the talent show scene without FEELING the loss in Dan’s voice and mannerisms. There are other fine performances in this film. Binoche is excellent as always and Dane Cook is rapidly becoming a legitimate supporting actor of note with his work here and in this summer’s “Mr. Brooks.” But this film belongs to Steve Carell and should serve as a showcase of ability for anyone paying attention.

“Dan” is one of the more real and authentic films which I have ever seen. Dan’s (and his children’s) vulnerability allows the film to display loss, humor, hurt, love, and heartache in ways that are rarely shown. It is less a work of art and more a work of LIFE that makes a far stronger impression than most of the “touching” or “real” movies that Hollywood has put out recently. I hope that the Academy gives “Dan” the opportunity it deserves and before it gets bumped out of theaters, I would encourage anyone to see this film. (Anyone, that is, except the group of 14 year olds that were in my theater. You should probably go see “Fred Claus” instead. Trust me, many more fart jokes in that one.)

"American Gangster"

Denzel Washington. Russell Crowe. Ridley Scott. November. “Based on a true story.” Yep, that sounds like the recipe for a couple of Academy Awards.

It’s that time of year again. Every major film production and distribution company will be releasing its top notch drama in hopes of capturing the attention of the award show gurus. This is the first real “Oscar Hopeful” I’ve seen this season and I must say, I hope the rest of the field lives up to the standard set here.

“American Gangster” is the story of 1970’s drug pusher Frank Lucas (Washington) and Richie Roberts (Crowe), the cop who eventually brought him down. Lucas is an interesting figure in that up until this point, at least to white America, his story is mostly unknown. For a crime figure as big as he was, very few people knew much about his story until this film began making the rounds. Lucas imported heroin, and strong heroin at that, directly from Asia and sold it at such a low price anyone and everyone could (and did) buy it, turning Lucas into one of the richest men in the world. This was all done under the radar because, as pointed out in the film, the authorities could hardly believe that some “negro” could be making that much money; he was thought to be a middle man at best. Truth was, however, while the Feds chased the Italian Mafia, Lucas was busy putting the Mafia out of business.

Eventually, and really quite shortly when you consider his reign lasted only about 8 years, Lucas got too big to go unnoticed and was brought to justice through the work of Richie Roberts and his “Untouchable” like team. In the end, Lucas turned on just about every buyer, seller, and partner he ever had, most notably the corrupt cops of the day. According to the film, Lucas’ finger pointing led to approximately 80 percent of the NYPD’s Special Forces Unit, those most directly responsible for stomping out the drug trade, being convicted of some sort of charge related to Lucas’ operation.

“American Gangster” is a very strong film, if a bit too long. There are portions of the film that could have been cut without missing much but then again, whom I to question Mr. Scott? The movie flows without much bogging down and while it flirts with the boring side at times, it never quite jumps over that razor thin line.

This is one of Scott’s finer works and most certainly his best since “Gladiator.” Many directors might have been tempted to show the background for the inevitable clash between Lucas and Roberts in flashback and in my opinion that would have been a mistake. Rather, starting the story from the beginning and leading up to fore mentioned clash leaves the viewer feeling as if he has something invested in the movie and in the characters and builds the drama as we draw closer and closer to the moment when Lucas is finally stopped. That Washington and Crowe do not share the screen until the final 15 minutes is a stroke of genius. Because “American Gangster” moves so well, the viewer never really realizes this fact until the moment that they do meet and it makes the final confrontation that much more fresh and important.

Great credit for the success of “AG” should go to the actors, both acclaimed and lesser known. Denzel is Denzel. He is always strong and always COMMANDS the attention anytime he comes on screen. I believe you could have 20 naked, burning clowns riding unicorns on screen with Denzel only watching in the background and the audience’s attention would still be drawn to Denzel. He is a truly magnificent actor and films such as “Training Day” and “American Gangster” allow him to show off his depth and his presence. He is certainly worthy of the Oscar nod that will undoubtedly come his way.

Crowe is equally impressive, though for me, his stage presence doesn’t quite match that of Washington (but truthfully, not many can). Roberts is, of course, an imperfect hero. A womanizer, a drinker, and a bad father, his only real virtue is in the fact that he is not a dirty cop in an era devoid of honest police work. He refuses to take a bribe or file a false report even when these actions result in the death of his partner and his own exile from the rest of his department. But that which alienates him is what eventually leads him to his role as head of a team specifically designed for bringing down the drug trade. Crowe plays the vulnerable and afflicted Roberts well and could very well earn an Oscar nod himself.

Three other performances deserve special mention. Josh Brolin is spectacular as the dirtiest of dirty cops, Detective Trupo. Trupo wages war against Lucas because Lucas refuses to pay him off and the result is a battle that provides the upfront action the audience wants while distracting from the battle to come between Lucas and Roberts. Brolin is an excellent actor and between this film and the upcoming “No Country For Old Men,” he will hopefully have the opportunity to gain some well deserved respect in Hollywood.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, as always, gives a strong performance as one of Lucas’ brothers who is essentially the second in command. Ejiofor is a fantastic actor who never seems to get the credit he deserves. Whether it’s “Children of Men,” “Serenity,” or (cringe) “Melinda and Melinda,” Ejiofor seems to always steal the screen yet never reaps the benefit when it’s all said and done. Maybe casting directors are just unable to pronounce his name and so choose not to call him rather than risk the embarrassment of stumbling through “Chew-it-tell Edge-oh-for.” Regardless, Ejiofor is fantastic in this role and every other role he’s ever played and I hope that “American Gangster” will vault him to bigger things.

Lastly, I would like to point out the work of Ruby Dee, who plays Frank Lucas’ mother. According to imdb.com, Ms. Dee has 93 credits to her name and I’d be lying if I said I had ever noticed her before. I noticed her in “American Gangster.” Her lines are few, her screen time is sparse, but in one short monologue in which she rages against the ways of her drug pushing son, Ms. Dee owns the screen. She shows great power and desperation mixed with a little guilt at having profited off her sons’ illicit work. Ms. Dee may only have been on screen for 9 or 10 minutes but she, as much as Washington or Crowe, deserves a nomination as she made an impression on this writer and anyone else who was paying attention.

I would stop short of calling “American Gangster” a great movie. However, it is a very good, well structured movie that is deserving of the attention it garnered before its release and barring some serious surprises, I expect to see its contributors name’s mentioned once Oscar season rolls around.