DVD Review - "The Wolfman"

Upon learning of his brother's disappearance, Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns to the home he left many years before. When he arrives, he finds the house in shambles with his father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), teetering on the edge of insanity. When his brother's body is discovered, Lawrence stays around, in part to comfort his brother's former fiance Gwen (Emily Blunt), and in part to determine how his brother died. The story around town is that the death was at the hands of the Wolfman, a local legend. Soon Lawrence is himself attacked by the creature, setting up a brutal showdown with the demons of his past.

At one point, "Wolfman" was so respected as to garner award anticipation. Quite quickly, however, this attention waned as the movie was shifted all over the calendar until it finally settled into the Movie Dead Zone that is February. I held out a small measure of hope if for no other reason than the actors involved. I think Del Toro is an excellent talent who usually delivers and while Hopkins hasn't done anything of value in years (and years and years), I still want to believe he's got something left in the tank.

Unfortunately, "Wolfman" is a train wreck. The story is mediocre at best and seriously choppy throughout. There is little to no character development and the special effects are of low rent video game quality. Del Toro holds up his end of the bargain but he is left completely and totally alone on the acting front lines. Emily Blunt, whom I have a giant crush on, just doesn't get much of a chance to do anything as her part is basically pointless. And then there's Hopkins. Oh, Anthony Hopkins, how I miss you. Hopkins gives one of the most mailed-in performances I have ever seen. He is completely uninspired and uninterested in his role, the movie, and maybe even breathing. I equate the last 10 years of Hopkins' career to that of Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis in that both were GREAT in their day but now it's unclear if either is still alive. It's like Hopkins died years ago but his family, in need of some quick cash, has reanimated his body and run a scam on the whole of Hollywood, continuing to sign his name to awful movies. Del Toro and the occasional glimpse of inspired FX keep "Wolfman" from being a total loss but it's not far off.

Grade: D

"Robin Hood"

I think it's safe to say that of all the classic stories the world has ever known, the one of Robin Hood is my third favorite behind Jesus and "Star Wars." I've read a few books about the man and, of course, seen and loved all the movies. Disney’s "Robin Hood" is my favorite animated film of all time that does not involve Buzz Lightyear. My relationship with my mother was severely strained in 1991 when I was informed I would not be allowed to see the "Prince of Thieves" version due to its rating. It took quite some time to get over this insult. Errol Flynn's version of the man is one of the few pre-1977 films that would make it on to my Top 100 List were I to take the time to make one. Even the absurdity of "Men in Tights" doesn't deter my love for the Robin Hood character. So it was with great anticipation that I greeted the opening of the latest installment of the legendary robber-of-the-rich.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" starts us off in a different place than the traditional setting. Think of this is as a prequel to the story you already know. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), an archer in the king's army, is Crusading his was back to England when Richard the Lionheart is killed in battle. Seizing an opportunity to increase their fortunes, Robin and his men assume the identities of a group of knights, including Robert Loxley. Upon returning home, Robin finds the country in chaos. The new king, John (Oscar Isaac), rules with an incompetent iron fist, the people are taxed behind reasonable measure, and a rogue knight, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is in collusion with the French in a bid to stake his own claim to the throne. Robin and his men attempt to live a semi-peaceful life (with the occasional grain-heist thrown in to keep it interesting) as he fulfills the wishes of Robert's father Walter (Max von Sydow), taking up his dead son's place next to Marion (Cate Blanchett). Meanwhile, Godfrey is running amok through the countryside under the guise of collecting taxes for King John, bringing the nation ever closer to a full on French invasion.

To be fair, “Robin Hood” really isn’t a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It has some extremely strong moments and excellent battle scenes. It also displays some good ideas that could/should lead to a solid follow-up in the next installment and if nothing else it didn’t turn off from the franchise altogether. With that said, this isn’t what I’d necessarily call a good movie, either. The truth is, “Robin Hood” is just remarkably average. That might be acceptable for a run-of-the-mill-Summer-action-movie but not for a Scott-Crowe production with a 237 million dollar budget. Scott has developed a reputation for himself as a great filmmaker and the only problem with that is expectations are sky high for every single film, ESPECIALLY when you take on an iconic story like “Robin Hood.” It doesn’t feel like Scott ever really puts his stamp on this film. Likewise, Crowe very rarely makes a poor or even average film these days and I expect more from him because of that. Here he drifts from scene to scene and doesn’t feel completely invested. In all honesty, though, the problem with “Robin Hood” isn’t the direction or the performances. The problem is the script.

Brian Helgeland’s script, for lack of a better term, sucks. From beginning to end this movie finds its way into every pitfall you could possibly fall into in an action epic. To a man, the characters are weak and poorly developed. There is not a single moment of inspired or significant dialogue. The action sequences are solid but sprinkled in sparsely, leading to more than a few moments of boredom. I am all for a long run time and I’m not opposed to an action movie that doesn’t run straight from one piece of action to the next. In other words, I don’t need Michael Bay’s brand of action to have a good time. But if you are going the route of a longer, slower action piece, the rest of the script better be gangbusters and this one just isn’t. The biggest issue is there are way too many moving parts and not enough development of any of them. Somewhere between three and five villains take their turns being the alpha baddie and none of them are so strong as to demand any kind of respect, either from the heroes or the audience. With so many supporting actors who have “face value,” it feels like Helgeland tries too hard to get them all screen time and lines. Mark Strong is especially underused, though Cate Blanchett also gets the “could have been anyone” treatment. The result is a cluttered story line that doesn’t allow any one part to shine. In addition, “Hood” is full of clichés, rendering it not only a bit of a mess but an unoriginal mess to boot.

All told, “Robin Hood” is not a lost cause and, despite the unabashed setup, I’ve still got some excitement left in me for the franchise as a whole. It’s possible, however, that my love for this story and this character are overriding my actual feelings toward this film on its own. There are some gaping holes here that left my pining a bit for a giant rooster with a guitar or even (call me crazy) a Muslimed-up Morgan Freeman. And maybe that’s part of the problem: when you take on a story that brings forth so many fond memories for so many people, you better be able to deliver an outstanding, fresh take. In the wake of the success of the Christopher Nolan “Batman” series, J.J. Abrams “Star Trek,” and several other retellings that have taken the screen of late, the audience expects more and “Robin Hood” just doesn’t deliver.

Grade: B-

Cate Blanchett looks ridiculous with a sword,
Brian

Blu-Ray Review: "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus"

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" centers around the title character (Christopher Plummer) and his band of carnies that go from town to town setting up their side show. Truth be told, the side show is just a cover for a Battle of Souls between Dr. Parnassus and Satan. The two have made a bet (or a series of bets), the wager being the soul of Valentina (Lily Cole), Parnassus' daughter. With the end of the bet at hand, the group comes across Tony (Heath Ledger), a young man on the brink of death who has the gift of persuasion. Before long business is booming but the group begins to question Tony's motives. The deadline with the Devil draws near, however, which sets off a chain of events that pit Parnassus, Tony, and Satan against each other in a final showdown.

Let's just get this out of the way up front: "Parnassus" is a freaking weird film. It is NOT for everyone. I myself ignored it for a while, assuming it wasn't for me. Terry Gilliam is one of the best, most gifted directors in the industry and I really mean that. Very few people can take a vision to the screen the way he does. With that said, however, his films are SUPER weird. And if you haven't seen a Gilliam movie then you can't understand what I mean. He has a style completely all his own and more often than not, it's too weird even for my slightly strange tastes. So take my statement of this not being for everyone seriously when considering the next paragraph.

"Parnassus" is a magnificent film. Gilliam's script is inspired and pulls some original content from a story that's been told a number of times. The visuals are outlandish, of course, but fantastic and work with the story as opposed to overshadowing it. The performances, however, are the bread and butter here, especially those of Plummer, Ledger, and Tom Waits. Question: is Christopher Plummer the most underrated actor of our time? Answer: Yes, yes he is. The guy brings the noise to every single role. Dr. Parnassus is a doubtful, broken, and desperate man, yet good to his very core, and Plummer brings all of that and more. Likewise, Ledger shows some serious talent in what was to be his final performance. Waits is the equal, if not the superior, to them both, however. His version of Satan is smooth, debonair, and terrifyingly appealing. Waits steals every scene he's in and that's a serious compliment given who he's stacked up against.

In addition to all of this, the finishing of the film is a stroke of genius. As you may or may not know, Ledger died in the middle of production. Rather than starting over or scraping the project entirely, Gilliam cast Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Ferrell in Ledger's place. Gilliam weaves these faces and the changes into his story, making it a plot point within the movie rather than asking us to simply suspend reality and ignore the change in appearance given the circumstance. A masterful finishing touch in my opinion. In the end, "Parnassus" is that rare film that grows on you. While watching I thought it was solid, a day later I described it as very good, and now, a week or so removed, I feel it borders on great. A truly, truly special film.

Grade: A

Blu-Ray Review: "The Messenger"

When Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) returns to the US with a war injury, he assigned to a Casualty Notification Unit for the remainder of his service team. Along with his mentor, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), Will travels around the base delivering the news of soldier's death to loved ones. It is a horrible assignment that messes with the already fragile mentality of a wounded soldier. The relationship Will forms with Tony is deep but volatile and he begins to find himself becoming closer and closer to a woman he recently informed of her husband's death.

"The Messenger" is an excellent film that gives the viewer an honest look into the life of a soldier when he's not at war. As you might imagine, though, it is very difficult to watch. Will Montgomery is broken and delivering the notifications to families unwilling or unable to accept this news slowly breaks him down even further. Watching the scenes of Will and Tony talking to the families is a haunting experience and makes you wonder how anyone could do this job. However, it's a worthwhile investment if you can fight through the authentic, heart breaking tone of the film. Both Foster and Harrelson (who earned a Best Supporting Oscar nod for the role) are OUTSTANDING and the emotions contained within the film are genuinely human. "The Messenger" at its deepest level is about humanity and how that is personified through the results of war. There are some continuity issues here and there and a couple of unnecessary lulls, but these are only minor bumps in comparison to the strength finished product.

Grade: B+

DVD Review: "Gentelmen Broncos"

Home schooled would-be fantasy writer Benjamin (Michael Angarano) goes to a writer's convention where he meets his hero, Chevalier (Jermaine Clement). After entering Chevalier's writing contest, Benjamin is stunned to discover that Chevalier has stolen his ideas and published a new book without crediting the young writer. Meanwhile, Benjamin has already sold the rights to his book to a local filmmaker who butchers his work, leaving him a bit frustrated and volatile.

A few years ago, director Jared Hess caught lightning in a bottle with the cost-nothing-to-make blockbuster "Napoleon Dynamite." "Napoleon" was a weird piece of ridiculousness that you either loved or hated and I happened to love. To this day if I'm flipping channels and come across the "Canned Heat" dance scene, I stop down to watch it no matter what. Since then, however, Hess has been chasing that success like an Indian casino poker player dumping his paycheck into the flop (not the best analogy I've ever put together, I admit). "Nacho Libre" drew in a big name (Jack Black) and made a little money but flopped critically. "Broncos" takes flopping to a whole new level. With a production budget of around $10 million, this stinker has brought in approximately $200,000 total. It's really hard these days for a movie to not at least break even when it's all said and done, but "Broncos" has made that feat look easy.

This movie has absolutely no flow and very, very few laughs. The script is thin and the story just not worth telling, at least the way it's told here. The whole thing is just uninspired and that immature quirkiness that made "Napoleon" work so well is completely absent here, replaced only with cringe-inducing moments of utter stupidity. In all seriousness, the epic failure of "Broncos" may very well make it the last mainstream movie Hess ever directs, which is sad considering where he started.

Grade: F

DVD Review - "Pirate Radio"

In 1960's Britain, no radio station would play rock 'n roll, leaving the youth of the country without a viable means to accessing their music of choice. Rock's only hope came in the form of ships anchored off the English coast that broadcast the genre 24/7. "Pirate Radio" centers around one of these ships and the DJs who man the airwaves, led by The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Their semi-legal exploits draw the ire of Sir Alistar Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), a stuffy government official who hates rock 'n roll and the influence it has on kids. As pirate radio gains listeners, Dormandy and his cronies increase their efforts to make the ships illegal, setting off a war between the rebels and the powers-that-be.

"Pirate Radio" has some solid performances. Bill Nighy, for example, is always enjoyable and seriously, there might not be a better Funny Angry actor in the world than Hoffman. I stinking love that guy. Unfortunately the story unfolds like a Michael Moore documentary: all shock value, little factuality. There's a very interesting story to be told here that I, being the ignorant American that I am, haven't heard. But even someone who knows nothing of the actual story can smell the bias that emanates from "Pirate Radio." I'm not saying I expected a completely fair and unbiased look at the intricate details that surround this story, but director Richard Curtis could have done a better job of disguising his "good guy, bad guy"  approach. The music for "Pirate" is excellent and there are some funny moments (especially those involving Hoffman, naturally). But the end product is unsatisfying and, quite frankly, irrelevant. The whole thing just made me want to watch "Almost Famous," a coming-of-age-in-the-music-business film that actually matters.

Grade: C+

Blu-ray Review: "The Men Who Stare at Goats"

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a journalist who, after being left by his wife, heads for Iraq to report on the war. While there, he comes in contact with Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a former "special ops" soldier in the Army whose training was in psychic warfare. He is, in his own words, a Jedi whose abilities include making himself invisible and killing goats with his mind. Sensing a story, Wilton follows Cassady on a mission only to be dragged through the desert into some crazy situations that eventually reunite Cassady with his mentor, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges).

"Goats" is apparently loosely based on a true story, though I have no idea how much of this is fact and how much is exaggeration. Regardless the whole thing is, quite frankly, pointless. "Goats" has an identity problem in that it cannot decide whether it wants to be a dark comedy, a drama, or a political satire. I think it has dreams of being the latter but that's certainly more an assumption on my part than it is anything I could really pick up from this poorly developed film. Meanwhile, the cast all give mailed in performances and make you feel like they all figured out this was a sinking ship early on and acted appropriately. There might be a story worth telling somewhere in here but it definitely doesn't show itself here.

Grade: C-

Blu-ray Review - "The Lovely Bones"

Based on the book by Alice Sebold, "The Lovely Bones" is told from the perspective of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14 year old girl who was murdered by her neighbor, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). Susie is "stuck in the in between": no longer alive but unable to move on to heaven as of yet. Meanwhile in the real world, Harvey carries on, having never been caught, and Susie's parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Susie's spirit runs wild in a dream world of her own imagining but always finds herself haunted by Harvey. As the psychopath gets closer and closer to her sister Lindsey (Rose McIver), Susie tries to communicate with her family to lead them to the right conclusions.

There are two reasons, in my opinion, as to why "Bones" did not do very well either with critics or audiences:

1.) It's too sci-fi/fantasy for the average movie goer but not enough so to reach a sci-fi audience;
2.) It reeks of Shattered Award Ambition, meaning it wants and even expects to be award worthy but it just isn't. That doesn't really bother me so much but I know it drives a lot of people stinkin' crazy and looks like a giant target for anyone who wants to take a shot.

Award ambitions aside, I found "Bones" to be a quality movie.The visuals are outstanding and as with all Peter Jackson films, the actors are put in position to succeed. Ronan does a very good job in a very difficult role. Wahlberg, Weisz, and Michael Imperioli are solid across the board and Stanley Tucci lives up to the Oscar nomination (Best Supporting Actor) he received. Creeeeppppy. What holds this movie back is the story, or rather, the conclusion of the story. Usually if a movie lulls or drops in quality, the drop comes in the second act; the bridge between beginning and end is usually the part that struggles and that's what I've come to expect more often than not. Here, however, the set up is good, the middle act pulls its weight, but then the wrap seems rushed and a little haphazard.

Think of this as the Saturday Night Live Effect: think of how many zany bits SNL put on over the years that ended so bizarrely that you wondered if they were running out of time or coming down from a high. Maybe we could call this the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" effect. The third act tries to wrap everything up in about five minutes and it is simply a bit lacking. I'm not someone who needs a tidy, happy, cliche ending to every story. Sometimes the bad guy needs to win or the girl needs to get away or the band needs to stay broken up because that's reality. SPOILER: What I don't like, however, is the middle ground ending, the one that says, "Well they never did catch the guy but oh by the way he died later anyway so it's all good." It's just a bit unsatisfying. For me, it doesn't keep it from being a solid movie but it does keep it from being one of great substance as I imagine it intends to be.

Grade: B.

Blu-ray Review: "Daybreakers"

It is the year 2019 and the vast majority of the population has been turned into vampires. Only five percent of the world are humans and that leaves the vampires without a sustainable food supply. Lower class vampires are wasting away and reverting into bat-like creatures while the upper class is looking for a blood substitute. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a leading hematologist who happens to come in contact with Elvis Cormac (Willem Defoe), a human who has been cured of the vampire virus. Dalton and Cormac work to create a mass cure while being hunted by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) and his army who don't want to be cured.

First off, I am not really a fan of horror movies, particularly those centered around vampires. They just don't do it for me. But I was suckered into "Daybreakers" because of the interesting plot line. And I have to say, there's a really good movie in here somewhere. The cast is strong all around and the story is solid with some new innovations into the vast catalog of vampire legend. In the end, however, there are just too many holes and wasteful, gratuitous scenes to call this "good." It's actually quite disappointing in that the directors (the Spierig brothers) come up with some truly original ideas concerning the story and then resort to B-movie rubbish to fill in the other 45 minutes of the film. All in all it's not a complete lost cause. Instead  "Daybreakers" has just enough good to make the bad all the more frustrating.

Grade: C+

"Iron Man 2"

Last year I started a phenomenon that took hold of the masses. And by the “masses” I mean the 8 or 12 nerdiest people I hang out with. It was called the Summer of the Nerd and it was awesome. We celebrated the large amount of nerd fare the summer had to offer and had a blast doing it. Recently, a friend and I just had a debate as to which year, 2011 or 2012, was the more appropriate summer for a sequel to the SOTN and ultimately decided that we might just have to make it a trilogy. Both ’11 and ’12 are rock solid with nerdy goodness. 2010, however, is the black sheep of the nerdy family. It is to the rest of the surrounding years what Timothy B. Schmidt is to the rest of The Eagles: odd, off putting, and completely unhip. Even Schmidt, though, had his moment in the sun, leaving hope for poor little 2010. “Iron Man 2” is destined to be to 2010 nerds what “Love Will Keep Us Alive” was for old Schmitty. (I’m pretty excited about the upcoming Eagles tour if you can’t tell.)

When we left Tony Stark in “Iron Man,” he had taken a route uncommon to super heroes and given away the secret part of his secret identity, announcing to the world that he was, in fact, Iron Man. “Iron Man 2” drops us right back into the snarky world of Stark as his self importance reaches an all time high. From the rebirth of the Stark Expo to his verbal destruction of a senator demanding possession of the Iron Man suit, Stark is publicly riding high and loving it. Behind the scenes, however, Tony is suffering. The technology he uses to keep himself alive is slowly poisoning him and his struggles to find a better alternative have proven useless. While he is at his reckless, self endangering worst, baddies Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) and Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) come out of the woodworks to challenge Iron Man’s power. Sarcasm, one liners, and action packed battles abound.

When Jon Favreau was announced as the director of this franchise in 2007, I was incredibly skeptical. I really enjoy Favreau’s work, mind you, but to ask a guy whose biggest accomplishment was “Elf” to take on a big time superhero action movie like “Iron Man” seemed quite a stretch. To his credit, however, Favs made it clear that he understood the task at hand. (I like to refer to him as Favs because I feel like, if I knew him in real life, he’d be cool with me calling him that.) He dug deep into the comic book mythology and worked extremely hard to make sure that the finished product bridged the gap between the Comic Purists and regular movie goers. “IM2” takes up where the first left off and makes it pretty easy for anyone, whether a comic junkie or not, to enjoy the ride.

Justin Theroux’s script is, for the most part, solid. He takes the elements that made Stark such a brash yet charismatic character in the first film and cranks them up a notch while managing to keep him from going over the top. While Stark is the meat, potatoes, and second vegetable choice of the whole shebang, Theroux and Favs do a pretty good job of developing the rest of the characters and the world in which they live. There are times when the story, at least for me, drifts a bit and I would suggest there are a couple of scenes that are unnecessary. But on the whole, you can deal with a few errant swings when your batter is slugging .500. The action sequences, meanwhile, are more backdrops to the cast rather than main characters. This is a rarity in a world that is dominated by Michael Bay and the like, though this was a principal upheld in the first “Iron Man” so perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. That does, however, put a lot of pressure on the talent which is where “IM2” truly shines.

Let’s just be open and honest here, friends. I have a huge man crush on Robert Downey, Jr. Always have. Even in the drug years when he was pulling roles that even John Travolta would turn down, his performances never felt flat or uninspired. The dude just exudes talent and I don’t think any role could suit Downey better than Tony Stark. It would be very easy for a guy of Downey’s abilities coming from where he’s come from to take the $20 million bucks he’s getting from a superhero action movie and mail in his performance. Instead he embraces Tony Stark (or maybe he IS Tony Stark) and brings a rocking A-game. Truth be told, I was worried going in that “IM2” was going to get the “Spiderman 3” treatment: too many known faces, too little screen time to go around. Instead, Rourke, Rockwell, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johannson, and the rest all actually provide support for Downey (shocker) instead of clogging up the screen. I particularly like Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts, a role that just seems much more lively than most of her other work.

I will say that I think the first “Iron Man” is a better film from a quality standpoint than the sequel. At times you can feel the pressure on “IM2” to live up to the standard of its predecessor, whereas the first one had no such stress. Sometimes that pressure comes across as strain in the story or even a scene or two of gratuitous action that I personally believe might not have been there in the first one. With all that said, however, “IM2” is an absolute riot. I LOLed (I like to use that phrase in jest because it drives me freaking nuts when people use it for real) more times in the first 30 minutes than I have in a lot of really good comedies. It’s all a bit absurd, of course, and at times the dialogue DEFINITELY crosses the line between tongue-in-cheek and overly campy. But overall the entertainment value is off the charts. “IM2” provides enough laughs to serve as a stellar comedy, enough explosions to work as a straight action film, and enough heroics to be a worthy comic book film. It is a good (if not great) piece of filmmaking that is a must see for any movie fan, nerd or otherwise.

Grade: B+

Man crushes are totally acceptable, right?
Brian

"The Losers"

I don’t mean to shock anybody with my following statement, but I must confess I am a nerd. In fact, I am such a nerd that there are different levels to my nerdiness. I am a Sports Nerd, a Movie and TV Nerd, a Super Hero Nerd, at times a Book Nerd, and a Joke Nerd (Conan voice: I love science). Perhaps the only kind of nerd I am not (not counting creepy nerds like the dudes on that toy trains show) is Comic Book Nerd. I never got into the comic book thing. Even as a kid I was far too busy collecting Star Wars figures, organizing basketball cards, and reading “The Hobbit” over and over again to concern myself with comics. So basically, anything that could be done to prevent girls from liking me EXCEPT reading comics. (I was this close to a perfect game, darnit.) This new wave of comic, the graphic novel, has always intrigued me but not quite enough to actually invest in the Time + Money = Knowledge equation. Now that so many of these books are being turned into movies, I’m pretty sure that it’s better for me just to see the movies to save myself from the inevitable, “that’s not faithful to the booooook!!!” comments that seem to be required from these situations. And yet, movies like “The Losers” often leave me wanting to catch up on all the great graphic novels I’m missing out on.

“The Losers” are your typical mercenaries with a conscience lead by Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) based on characters from the graphic novel of the same name by Andy Diggle. They might be out on a CIA endorsed mission of death but they’re sure not going to accept collateral damage. When one of these missions turns south, their handler, Max (Jason Patric), leaves them stranded in Bolivia. Considered dead and unable to return to their lives for the sake of their families, the Losers are left only to ponder their growing desire for revenge. When Aisha (Zoe Saldana), a mysterious woman of questionable integrity but unquestionable sex appeal, shows up with a plan of getting their lives back, the Losers jump on board and bring the war on Max to the U.S.

Each member brings their own skill set to the team. Roque (Idris Elba) is the muscle, Pooch (Columbus Short) is the munitions expert and driver, Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) is the sniper, Jensen (Chris Evans) is the computer geek, and of course Clay is the suave-but-rugged leader of the pack. This crew is the type that enjoys a good shoot out, especially when the odds are stacked against them. From office building invasions to full on fire fights in the streets of Miami (complete with a 50 millimeter cannon), the Losers provide an action junkie’s dream. These guys are ticked and the only time they take a break from stealing helicopters, blowing up Hummers, and taking down airplanes is when the occasion calls for witty banter and slightly camptastic one-liners.

“The Losers” is, quite simply, a fun piece of action throwback goodness. The writing is adequate enough to keep the audience from groaning or becoming disinterested. Sometimes the pacing is too fast and leaves you feeling like you’re jumping from frame to frame. But if you’re making an action movie, you can live with too fast over too slow. The acting, for the most part, is solid. Evans, who was recently cast as Captain America in a new franchise of films, is particularly and shockingly good. Best known for playing the Human Torch in the atrocious “Fantastic Four” movies, I’ve always thought Evans was a terrible actor. Here he is funny enough as to make me wonder if perhaps he brought somebody else’s A game instead of his own. Morgan is an underrated lead and he does a good job of bridging the gap between James Bond and Rambo. Elba, Short, and Jaenada all provide good support as well. The story is good enough, if underdeveloped, and did I mention a 50 millimeter machine gun? Hence, the action sequences are undeniably awesome.

Still, this is far from a perfect comic book hero action flick. Saldana’s character is unnecessary, similar to the female roles in many an action movie. She is underdeveloped and, judging by her work in “Star Trek” and “Avatar,” underutilized. Jason Patric, meanwhile, is terribly miscast. I have no problem with Patric and consider him to be a solid actor. But his Max is just not convincing. This script puts a lot of pressure on the villain to carry a heavy load and Patric just comes across as flat and uninspired. The biggest issue, however, is the film’s overall lack of emotion. Perhaps that’s just not the director’s intention, which I can understand, but I personally found it a bit lacking. The Losers don’t display any heart, even when they’re saving Bolivian orphans from a fast-approaching missile and that lends itself to a certain disconnect with the audience.

“The Losers” is pure entertainment that revels in its comic book nerdery and doesn’t trouble itself with such trivial concerns as reality. Though, I must say, reality is a relative term when it comes to the world of film. There’s much more authenticity here than, say, 2009’s “Taken,” a film I absolutely loved in spite of its complete detachment from reality. I wouldn’t call this any sort of crowing achievement in the comic book movie genre. Rather, it’s quite predictable, full of clichés, and displays a litany of holes. Still, I consider “The Losers” to be an all around good time that reaches out to the potential Comic Book Nerd inside and only strengthens its demands to be heard through all the other levels of nerdiness.

Grade: B-

Spell check tells me I invented three words in this review,
Brian

"How to Train Your Dragon"

I’ve always been a big fan of the well made animated feature. There’s something special about that rare cartoon that crosses the barrier between “fun kids movie” and “all around good movie.” Animation let’s the filmmaker do things that might not be possible otherwise and put you into worlds that are chalk full of imagination. It’s like a free pass to think like a kid for 90 minutes and get wrapped up in talking toys, foxes dressed like Robin Hood, or an old man flying his house to South America. The best-of-the-best from this genre make you forget you’re watching a cartoon as you get sucked in to their subject matter, outlandish as it may be. And so it is with “How to Train Your Dragon.”

“How to Train Your Dragon” drops the audience smack dab into the middle of a Viking village and the life of a scrawny kid named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel). These Vikings aren’t so much into plundering as they are dealing with dragons. Dragons infest their tiny island and all good Vikings devote their lives to the hunting of and defense against these sheep stealing beasts. This is where problems arise for Hiccup. Hiccup is less the Village Idiot, more the Village Misunderstood Visionary. His lack of size and strength prevents him from taking on the dragons head to head, but what he lacks in brute strength, he makes up for in technological advances. One of his inventions allows him to take down a dreaded Night Terror dragon, something no one else in the village has ever done. Unfortunately the beast lands somewhere in the distance and no one in the town, especially his father Stoick (Gerard Butler), believes him. Determined to prove his worth, Hiccup tracks down the dragon to finish him off. When the time comes, however, he finds himself unable to do so and eventually finds himself forming a very unlikely friendship.

Everything about “Dragon” is solid. The voice work is strong and I must say these characters are extremely well cast. Too often animated movies rely on “name” talent that is designed to get people into the theater but then forces you to focus on those well known voices. Here, however, the work done by Baruchel, Butler, and the rest feels genuine. You’re not distracted by the voices as they just seem like a bunch of real cartoon Vikings (as weird as that description may sound). In addition, the visuals are excellent even if the 3-D aspect is a bit unnecessary. The design of the dragons is an especially nice touch. Toothless, Hiccup’s dragon, is unlike any other dragon I’ve seen on screen. His movements are quite catlike and it has the desired effect of making the dragons seem more pet-quality than you might think.

The script, however, is “Dragon’s” real strong point. Writer William Davies gives the story proper pacing and allows for authentic emotion, something that is often lacking in any movie, let alone an animated one. The bond between Hiccup and Toothless is reminiscent of dog and owner, and that comes across naturally rather than relying on the cliché play-up that so many movies resort to. The two work together as Hiccup tries to fix Toothless’ broken wing and Toothless in turn teaches Hiccup about dragon psychology, something no Viking has bothered to study. It’s an authentic relationship that these two share not only with each other but with the audience as well. The dialogue is full of humor and wit, never leaving the viewer wanting for comedy on top of everything else. Overall, “Dragon” is an extremely original story that is brilliantly told.

“Dragon” is a major step forward for Dreamworks animation. Their previous films (“Shrek,” “Flushed Away,” etc.) have done well at the box office but have failed to garner the critical attention that the Pixar films have. For me, this has always been because where the Pixar movies connect on an emotional, relevant level, Dreamworks features simply aim to make the audience laugh. There’s nothing wrong with that, par se, but great movies connect, not just entertain. “Dragon” manages to connect and entertain along the same lines as some of the better Pixar films. It is 98 minutes of pure imagination in cartoon Viking form and leaves the viewer wanting more from the inevitable franchise that is to come.

Grade: A

My old dog is going to be Toothless pretty soon,
Brian

"Date Night"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: B+

I already regret my Wahlberg statements,
Brian

"Clash of the Titans"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release the Kraken,

Brian

"Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: D.

A lovely cheese pizza just for me,
Brian

"Shutter Island"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: A-

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

"Valentine's Day"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: D

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

"Edge of Darkness"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: B.

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

"The Book of Eli"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: B.

I can’t spell apocalyptic,
Brian

"Fantastic Mr. Fox"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still have Milk Duds stuck in my teeth,
Brian