devcybiko Reviews

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

It's Charlize Theron's movie

[4/10 · 3 June 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

MINI REVIEW: It's Charlize Theron's movie

RATING: Don't Waste Your Time (Rating System: See it in theaters, Wait for the instant download, Don't waste your time)

Queen Ravena (Charlize Theron) is enchanted with the ability to stay alive and beautiful, so long as she has beautiful young maidens from whom to steal their youth. But if she can steal the beating heart of young and beautiful Snow White (Kristen Stewart), she can become immortal. But Snow White has escaped into the Black Forrest where the Queen has no power. So, she sends a dashing Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to find Snow White and return her before the Queen's powers fade. And we're off...

"Snow White" is a mess. We spend the first 10 minutes of the movie in a back story prologue that tells us how Snow White came to be and how the Queen took the throne, etc... For some reason, the Queen has locked Snow White (then a child) into a tower, rather than having her killed. Fast-forward to the day when Snow is 18 years old and finally escapes - that's when the mirror on the wall informs the Queen that Snow is the key to immortality and the Huntsman must retrieve her.

This part of the film is all Theron's. And she is amazing as the evil Queen. The special effects they used on her allow her to grow old and young again right before our eyes. As an actress, this is pretty courageous work. As with her role in "Monster," she allows herself to be seen as something less (far less) than perfect. Many actors would never allow their "brand" to be tarnished in this fashion. Hats off to Theron for a powerful, if over-the-top, performance.

Not so for young Kristen Stewart. Stewart has hardly any lines in this story and her role is mainly to look both angelic and distressed at the same time. And she does it well. Likewise, Hemsworth speaks with a Scottish accent and does scant little talking in this film. He looks both buff and wet most of the time.

So, if there isn't a lot of dialog for the leads, what do these people do? They walk a lot. They walk through the dark forest, they walk through the Faery forest, they walk through the Snow forest. A lot. They also spend time in a small village of women whose huts get burned down - both for no apparent reason. Perhaps just because director Rupert Sanders thought would be interesting for it to happen.

Don't despair, there is comic relief in the form of seven dwarfs. These aren't the dwarfs of Disney fame. Alas, they are far less interesting.

Finally, Snow White becomes Joan of Arc. She dons chain mail and armor and leads a battle against the Queen.

One final note: Why are there so many archers in movies this summer? Since "The Hunger Games" we've seen archers in "The Avengers," "Snow White," and the upcoming "Brave."

Sadly, "Snow White and the Huntsman" won't put an arrow of love through your heart. If this was supposed to be Kristen Stewart's opportunity to shine outside the "Twilight" franchise, she failed. Also, this movie is strangely graphic - possibly too much so for younger children. Not so much for blood but for lots of people getting stabbed or killed. But nobody really ever dies, they usually turn into shards of black glass.

So, for a movie that is dull, plodding, and pointless. I recommend you don't waste your time.

The Avengers (2012)

Hulk Smash, Iron Man Fly, Thor Grimace, Humans Run!

[7/10 · 4 May 2012]

RATING: See it in theaters (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the half-brother of Thor has returned to Earth to pave the way for a wave of destruction at the hands of evil aliens. But secret agency S.H.E.I.L.D has been preparing by analyzing the mysterious Tesseract – an blue-glowing cube of unharnessed infinite power. Loki steals the Tesseract and it is up to Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), leader of S.H.I.E.L.D to pull together a team of the world's first super heroes to defeat Loki and return the Tesseract from whence it came. The heroes are known as The Avengers and they are Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner).

The Avengers is a recipe for disaster. It is an ensemble cast of players, each of whom is a third magnitude star in his (or her) own right. Whenever you get this many egos in the room at one time, there is bound to be in-fighting. And in fact, this is what happens in the movie. The heroes can't get along. They jockey for alpha-male status, only to find that they are equals, each with his own unique strength. And yet, both on the screen and in reality, they find a balance. Each actor brings his own ingredients to the mix. And each actor plays his (or her) character to perfection; as if it were their own film.

Another problem is backstory – there is a lot of it. Some of these characters have been brought to the collective consciousness in their own debut films of the last couple of years (Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America). If you've seen their films then you have an idea of who they are already. The other two needed a bit more introduction and it was skillfully interlaced with the action.

And then there's the problem of interaction – 6 main players plus Fury and Loki implies 28 different relationships. And that's a hard act to pull off in just 142 minutes.

Still, writer/director Joss Whedon ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Serenity") pulls it all off with apparent ease. The story is relentless in its pace and still fills us in on who the characters are and what they contribute. There's an amazing scene when the characters are at their lowest point (close friends are dead, the team is dispersed) and they expose each other's weaknesses. The souls of our heroes are left bare. This gives us nowhere to go but up.

And indeed, up we go. To beat their combined foe, the team must pull together: each member using their special gifts to turn back an invading force.

But as amazing as the film is, there are problems. The last climactic scenes are a series of improbable battles in the heart of New York City. Mind you, these battles are carried out with much more precision than the garbage whirlwind of the Transformers films. But, due to the PG-13 nature of the film, we find little bloodshed and a lot of tumbling skyscrapers.

Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with the film: just how strong are these super heroes? Hulk, besides being hulking, is apparently impervious to direct bullet and missile fire. Captain America can apparently withstand the full force of alien hand grenades. Iron Man takes a licking and keeps on ticking. And Thor, with his mighty hammer seems to be able to stop anything, but still goes flying when monsters whip their tails. And for the other two (who remind me of the Professor and Marianne from Gilligan's Island – "and the rest"), when there is a battle they are sent off to do reconnaissance or direct traffic lest they be trampled or crushed. They may be more of a liability than they are worth.

Finally, I want to talk about the unsung hero of the Marvel universe: Stan Lee. Lee has a cameo appearance in every Marvel action movie. He is held as sort of the progenitor of modern hero lore. As such, he is a special icon in the comic book (and now movie) realm. All legends spring from his fount. There is a name for that kind of hero – they are called gods.

So, for outstanding story, characters, special effects and an amazing "boot" (not even a reboot) of a new franchise, I recommend you see it in theaters.

The Three Stooges (2012)

See it if you love the Stooges

[6/10 · 15 April 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: THE THREE STOOGES

MINI-REVIEW: See it if you love the Stooges

RATING: Wait for the instant download (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Moe, Larry, and Curley (Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, Will Sasso) were left at at orphanage as babies. They grew up coddled by the nuns (Jane Lynch, Jennifer Hudson, Larry David) but were rambunctious and ill disciplined. After thirty-five years there, they grew up to be the handymen around the grounds.

One day, the Monsignor (Bryan Doyle-Murray) arrives and gives the nuns 30 days to come up with $830,000 or be evicted. All the orphans will be sent to foster homes. So our boys are off to the big city to raise the money. But they've never been out in the world and never interacted with anyone but nuns and children. Will they have the maturity and savvy to save the day?

"The Three Stooges" is the Farrelly brothers' attempt the rekindle the spark that was the classic comedy team from the 1930s – 1960s. And to my mind, they succeeded in spades. The movie is very true to the original in every way. The slapping, hitting, kicking, and yanking on virtually every body part is duplicated by Diamantopoulos, Hayes, and Sasso to perfection. Only a team who truly loved the Stooges could create such a faithful homage.

The curious thing about this film is that it is aimed at youngsters. The previews included several cartoons and Disney features soon to come. There were no swears and hardly any blue humor. (There were some very funny law firm names that only adults would appreciate.) There is a certain amount of gross out humor. And there is an appearance of the "Farelly Brothers" at the end, imploring children not to attempt Stooge antics at home. I was hoping for a more adult film, aimed at the audience that grew up with the Stooges.

There isn't much more to say about this film. If you love the Stooges, you will find an incredibly accurate recreation of the highly choreographed poking, prodding, and impaling you grew up with. If you have never seen the Stooges, you will probably find the film simplistic and sophomoric.

In either case, there is no good reason to rush out and see it on the big screen. So, for a Fine (sic) recreation of the original, but a tad on the kiddie side, I recommend you wait for the instant download.

American Reunion (2012)

A Collection of Every Reunion Cliché Ever Used In Cinema

[4/10 · 8 April 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: American REUNION

MINI-REVIEW: A Collection of Every Reunion Cliché Ever Used In Cinema

RATING: Don't waste your time. (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time.")

Jim Levenstein (Jason Biggs) and his bride Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) of 5 years have a two- year old son and the zip has gone out of their marriage. They vow to have some together time at an upcoming 13-year high-school reunion. When Jim arrives, he meets up with his buddies from high school: Kevin Myers (Tomas Ian Nicholas), Chris "Oz" Ostreicher (Chris Klein), and Paul Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas). They have all achieved some degree of success.

The couple are staying with Jim's father, Noah (Eugene Levy) who offers unwarranted marital advice.

The four buddies are enjoying a night out a few days before the reunion when an old, but unwanted friend appears: Steve Stifler (Seann Willam Scott). Stifler still lives life as though he were in high school and works as a temp at a major company. Later, Jim meets newly 18- year-old Kara (Ali Cobrin) who is hot for Jim, who was her babysitter all those years ago. Can Jim and Michelle rekindle their love life? Can Jim stave off the advances of young Kara? Will the other guys meet up with their old flames? Will Stifler cause more trouble with his high- school pranks?

Yes.

This is a wholly predictable and unimaginative retread of an American classic: "American Pie," which first hit theaters 13 years ago. THAT movie was original and took a fresh look at the coming of age story. And if you haven't seen "American Pie" recently (or ever) I recommend you go back and see it again. Because you'll have to do your homework to keep up with the plot in this sequel.

And be warned: there are plenty of boobs and penises to be seen in the film. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You should know that it is coming at you.

Everything you expect to see is telescoped in the first 20 minutes of the film. Jim has an encounter with the young girl, Stifler makes juvenile pranks, old flames kiss, someone isn't who he says he is, the married couple survive, and everyone realizes that high school is now behind them and the best of times are right now. And Eugene Levy is still one of the funniest men alive.

So for sophomoric comedy and a predictable plot line borrowed from Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion, Family Guy, and just about every sit com ever written, I recommend you don't waste your time.

Safe House (2012)

A fast-paced race against time featuring an experienced mentor and an up-and-comer.

[5/10 · 20 February 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: SAFE HOUSE

MINI-REVIEW: A fast-paced race against time featuring an experienced mentor and an up-and-comer.

RATING: Wait for the instant download (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time."

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a green CIA agent looking to make his transition from ordinary agent to field agent. He is stuck with the boring job of sitting in a "safe house" - a secret location for detaining prisoners ("house guests") until they can be moved to a more secure location.

Things are pretty boring until Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is brought it. Frost is a notorious double agent known for his ability to evade capture. No sooner is Frost secured in Weston's safe house than a bunch of bad guys storm the place to capture Frost. Weston takes charge and ushers Frost out of the building. Weston wants to get Frost to a new safe house but he is nagged by the question of how the bad guys knew where to find Frost – there must be a mole in the CIA. Now Weston must deliver Frost, discover Frost's secret, and expose the CIA mole before they find him. And we're off…

"Safe House" uses the device of the mature, older, agent as mentor to push the Weston character to look at himself and ask hard questions: Is this the life I want? Will I ever have a decent relationship? Who can I ever really trust?

Denzel Washington walks effortlessly through the role of Tobin Frost. He manipulates Weston by forcing him to think about things that, as a younger man, Frost had to confront himself. I haven't seen Washington in a movie in a long time. I was pleasantly surprised to see the actor that I remembered from such fine movies as "Philadelphia" and "Crimson Tide." He was just as good as ever, and had mellowed with age.

Ryan Reynolds held his own against Washington, playing the younger, inexperienced agent who learns fast. Reynolds has had a lot of screen time recently in such movies as "Green Lantern," "The Proposal," and "The Change Up." He usually plays a comic character – which is appropriate as he holds a comic resume ("Van Wilder," and TV's "Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pizza Place.") Here, he plays a full-on action hero to Washington's more experienced mentor.

The dynamic between these two players is exciting to watch. There is no apparent competition on-screen (which is so often the case when mega- personalities come together). Instead, there is a wonderful creative collaboration that results in an entertaining action flick.

Sadly, the surrounding plot is pretty predictable and does not support the two players. The action is acceptable, but the real movie is about the older, wiser man guiding the younger man. Perhaps it isn't just the characters who are playing out the mentor/mentee relationship, but the actors as well.

So, for a predictable action/spy plot with two fine actors playing their roles perfectly, I can only recommend that you wait for the instant download.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

An enjoyable comic book adventure despite Nicholas Cage's weak performance

[5/10 · 18 February 2012]

THE WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: GHOST RIDER – SPIRIT OF Vengeance

MINI-REVIEW: An enjoyable comic book adventure despite Nicholas Cage's weak performance

RATING: Wait for the instant download

(Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) is a motor cycle daredevil who's made a deal with the devil. Only the devil being what he is didn't play fair. And now Johnny is cursed with a demon inside him who comes out whenever it sniffs an evil soul which is in need of being reaped. The Ghost Rider is a fiery skeleton who rides a mean-ass fiery motorcycle. When Johnny transforms into the Ghost Rider, he dispatches bad guys with long fiery chains, or by staring deep into their eyes and sucks the soul right out of them.

Young Danny (Fergus Riordan) is a 12-year-old boy who is the love child of beautiful Nadya (Violante Placido) and the devil incarnate, Roarke (Ciarán Hinds). Roarke is such a powerful demon that he is slowly burning up the human body he inhabits. With Danny's young body built from the stuff of demons, Rourke plans to take it over thus killing Danny and ushering in a new age of hell on earth.

However, Johnny's old friend Moreau (Idris Elba), who is friends with a secluded sect of monks, makes a deal with Johnny: Prevent Roarke from making the transfer before Johnny's 13th birthday (a mere 2 days away) and Johnny will be freed from the Ghost Rider. And we're off…

This is not my typical movie attraction. I avoided the first Ghost Rider movie (2007) because it sounded ridiculous (a flaming skeleton riding a flaming motorcycle wielding flaming chains of death) - and because it starred my second-least-favorite actor, Nicholas Cage.

What attracted me to this sequel was the proposition: A hero who was cursed with an evil demon could redeem himself by saving a young boy from another evil demon. So, we have an anti-hero who has to fight a villain to save mankind. That is a pretty unique hero's journey.

I was very concerned that I hadn't seen the first movie. I actually had found the film on Amazon Instant Video and my finger hovered over the "Purchase with 1-click" button, but I could not bring myself to purchase the movie. These comic-book-based movies have a lot of backstory and if you don't know where these guys come from, you can be quite lost. But the writers and directors were mindful of folks like me and included a nice prologue with a decent amount of explanation so I knew who everyone was and could follow along. Although the presentation was clumsy, I was very gratified to be "in the know."

I've never understood the appeal of Nicholas Cage. He is a very monotone actor with delusions of grandeur. His every performance resembles every other one and he engages in what my sister calls "bad smell" acting. When a dramatic moment is needed, he wriggles his face in disgust as though encountering a horrid smell. On the other hand, my daughter liked him in "National Treasure." Cage didn't disappoint. He still smelled a lot of bad things in the air.

In the end I was entertained by the story. There were a number of confusing if not ridiculous plot devices. But the amazing motorcycle chase scenes drove the story forward and were worth the price of admission. So, for an entertaining story with great chase scenes but smelling acting, I recommend you wait for the instant download.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Amazing special effects, flat story.

[7/10 · 12 February 2012]

STAR WARS MOVIE REVIEW : STAR WARS I - THE PHANTOM MENACE IN 3D

(This is a special edition of the Weekly Movie Review. In this edition I will follow the upcoming series of remastered 3D Star Wars films. But I will be reviewing them as though I've never seen a Star Wars film and the films are being released for the very first time.)

MINI-REVIEW: Amazing special effects, flat story.

SPOILERS WITHIN!

RATING : See it in theaters (for the special effects and 3D)

Qui-Gon Jinn is Jedi Knight – a mystical and powerful fighter for the New Republic. His apprentice is young Obi-Wan Kenobi. The Jedi are aligned and imbued with the power of the Force – which is a power that permeates, controls, and is controlled by the wills of the Jedi. Together they are charged with negotiating an agreement between the Trade Federation who have blockaded the small planet of Naboo. Little do they know that the Trade Federation is but an extension of a dark figure who has designs to overthrow the Galactic Republic. But the Jedi are ambushed and they escape to Naboo below where they find that Queen Amidala has been taken captive and is being pressured to sign a treaty against her will.

On Naboo they meet Jar Jar Binks of the Gungan clan. Jar Jar is an amphibious being with a Jamaican accent. Together, they free Queen Amidala and the troupe escape to nearby desert planet of Tatooine. There, they meet a young boy (Anikan Skywalker) who is "strong with the force". The stage is set and we're off!

I've heard a lot of commotion about this new movie by veteran filmmaker George Lucas ("American Graffitti", "Red Tails"). So I was excited about what lay before me.

Overall I found the movie to be a sweeping, epic: A confusing tale of incomprehensible political intrigue, shoot-em-up action, and slap-stick comedy. It is full of characters to keep track of with no one character taking center stage. As such it is a tough film to follow. The scenes take place on three planets and at least two star ships.

Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) is played with an even keel and cool that betrays the wisdom and venerability of the character. Neeson strolls through this role effortlessly. He is also supposed to be something of a rebel among the Jedi (who are a pretty contemplative bunch).

Jar Jar Binks is a hapless, clumsy, CGI rendered, Jamaican amphibian who is adopted by Qui-Gon Jinn for reasons I can't understand. This is quite possible the most annoying character in all of film history. And the way he is played, borders on racist. His behavior is reminiscent of the old Amos and Andy radio and TV Shows of the 1950s.

The young boy Anikan Skywalker is played by cherubic Jake Lloyd. If this kid's job was to look cute and have no emotions, then he should get an Oscar. He's pretty much a doll baby with a nice coif. I suspect the actor was selected so as not to steal any scenes from Neeson. Mission accomplished. Even the other children in the movie are incredibly bad actors. I have no idea what the criteria were for choosing these kids – they would have been better as CGI.

SPOILER ALERT

The movie plods along with scene after scene of political intrigue. There is a wonderful speeder race that looks like a futuristic Ben Hur remake. And there's some amazing sword fighting with these things called "Light Sabers." Those fight scenes are worth waiting for. They hearken back to the days of swashbuckling stories of the 50's.

The climax is a four-way battle scene on Naboo that seems to be created to appeal to three different audiences. On the ground, the Gungans are fighting a sea of robot warriors. In the sky, fighter pilots are attacking a huge battle station in a scene that makes "Red Tails" look like a cocktail party. In the Queen's castle, Amidala leads her closes allies to overtake the Trade Federation leaders in a running gun battle. And finally, in the bowels of the castle's flight deck, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi are fighting the very scary-looking Sith Lord Darth Maul. Again, never has there been a more thrilling sword fight.

In the air, young Anikan has accidentally taken off in a space fighter and blown up the battle station. A more impossible sequence of accidents could not possibly have been imagined and it strains the limits of the willing suspension of disbelief. This again seems to be aimed at the kiddies in the audience.

At the end of the day (and at the end of this 3-hour film) it is best not to think too hard about what is going on here. "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace in 3D" is a classic serial action film. The reasons for the action are of no consequence. What is important is the action itself. The characters are put in positions of desperation that require acts of heroism that excite and thrill the audience. Just like the old serials of the 1950's. They just don't make them like that anymore. And maybe there is a reason for that.

I can't really recommend this movie based on its story. I recommend that you see it for the spectacle. Don't try to make sense of it. Just let it wash over you and enjoy the ride. So for a flimsy yet complicated story with the most amazing action scenes you'll ever see, I recommend you see it in theaters.

Underworld: Awakening (2012)

A train wreck of barely connectible scenes

[4/10 · 1 February 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : UNDERWORLD : AWAKENING

MINI REVIEW : A train wreck of barely connectible scenes

RATING : Don't waste your money (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your money")

Kate Beckinsale is back as Selene. She's been frozen for 12 years and when she awakes she finds she has a daughter. But not just any daughter, she's the daughter Selene had with Michael Corvine (the hybrid Lycan/Vampire). So that makes her a special non-bitten hybrid – and the Lycans want to capture her.

The whole movie is a chase scene with the daughter (who looks a lot like Regan in "The Exorcist") alternately getting nabbed or saved.

There is nothing interesting in this movie except for Beckinsale in tight PVC clothing (I often joke that the movie should be called "Underwear"). The fight scenes are choppy and unwatchable (I'm forever ruined by the amazing fight scenes from "The Matrix"). The plot is boring and unwatchable. The characters are empty and unwatchable. Do you see a trend here?

I would say "Awakening" has put a wooden stake in the heart of an otherwise fine franchise. So, for an unwatchable, unremarkable, retread of a trilogy that should have stayed a trilogy, I recommend you don't waste your money.

Red Tails (2012)

It has amazing dogfight scenes, but the story will leave you wanting.

[7/10 · 22 January 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : RED TAILS

MINI-REVIEW : It has amazing dogfight scenes, but the story will leave you wanting.

RATING : See it in theaters – because you won't see dogfights like this again (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant downloads," "Don't waste your time")

This is the story of the Tuskegee Airmen – the all-black 332nd Fighter group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. The group is led by Marty "Easy" Julian (Nate Parker) who drinks too much. His bunkmate and best friend is wing-man Joe "Lightning" Little (David Oyelowo) who is a wild-card pilot.

This movie provides by far the most splendid dog fight scenes you will ever see. George Lucas's Industrial Lights and Magic pulled all the stops to create the most intimate and believable aerial combat scenes in film history. If you are at all interested in WWII fighter movies, then you certainly must see this film on the big screen. It is a shame the film was not made in 3D because it would have been spectacular.

Sadly, this is the only reason to see this film on the big screen.

The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one that is often overlooked by both fact and fictional retellings of the Second World War. Those men defied all the odds to deflect the prejudices of the time. It is only through the efforts and financial backing of Executive Producer George Lucas that the film was made. In interviews, Lucas points out that Hollywood would not back the project because it did not have a white leading man.

Lucas also says it took him 23 years to get the film made. If that is the case I'm not sure where the time went. The screenplay was lacking. The dialog was stilted and clichéd. The acting was average (even though veterans Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard put in good performances). The story was typical of B-flicks from the 1950's.

It is politically correct to turn a blind eye to race in our culture. However, the movie is about race and so it makes sense to discuss it here. The theater I saw Red Tails in was filled to capacity with 75% African Americans and the rest were White and Hispanic. This crowd loved this movie.

I have rarely been in a theater where a movie connected so well with its audience. When one of our heroes shot down a German jet aircraft, the theater erupted in shouts and applause. And when a pilot died, there were gasps. Lucas in interviews says that he made this film because he wanted to tell this story to inspire a new generation of teenagers (and depending on the interview he even breaches political correctness and admits he wants to inspire young black men). I believe he may have achieved that goal.

I am slowly coming to realize that the opening credits to a movie will tell you how much money has been put into a film. When I saw "Drive," for instance, it opened with neon pink lettering. And there wasn't much money dumped on that film. In contrast, the opening credits to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" were more elaborate than the opening to any Bond film. So, I was concerned when the opening credits to Red Tails opened with simple red lettering. And, with the exception of the dogfights, I was correct. The film is as low-budget as it could be. They should have spent much more time and money on the story – after all they had 23 years to get it right.

At Agile Writers we learn that reality does not make for a good story. And it appears that the writers of Red Tails do not know this fundamental truth of storytelling. When we see a story, we expect to see a hero who has a deep desire and an internal flaw that needs mending. It is the character's repair of that internal flaw that defines the hero's arc and makes for a satisfying story. Red Tails does not deliver a story – it delivers a set of realities. There is no strong desire for any of the pilots.

But there is one overarching desire – respect. As a group these men wanted to serve and be treated with respect by their country. Despite the fact that they were constantly told they were lesser men; they wanted to risk their lives to defend the very nation that felt they were not worthy to fly in the U.S. Army Air Corps. By the end of the film, they received that respect in the form of commendations.

And I think they are still not receiving the respect they deserve. Last December, filmmaker Steven Spielberg released "War Horse" which was an amazingly beautiful story of a horse in World War I. This film received Golden Globe and Academy Award nominations for Best Film.

How is it that a fictional horse can receive the full Hollywood treatment when actual American men who served and died for their country had to wait 23 years for the generosity of George Lucas before their story could be told? And then, why did they have to receive only the barest of treatment in the form of their screenplay? Why didn't they get a "War Horse?"

I wrestle with the answers to these questions. It is past time that the Tuskegee Airmen were recognized properly. I am thrilled with the film- going experience I shared with my audience mates today. And I hope that George Lucas succeeded in inspiring a new generation of young black men by this retelling of a true historical chapter in American history. I recommend everyone see this movie. But I really wish it had been better.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Sex, violence, and a great mystery

[8/10 · 9 January 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

MINI-REVIEW : Sex, violence, and a great mystery

RATING : Wait for the instant download (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig, "Cowboys and Aliens") is a journalist for the independent London magazine "Millennium." He has just lost a libel case where he exposed a Madoff-like villain, but could not prove his facts without revealing his sources. He is about to lose his life savings and his magazine.

Meanwhile, Swedish multimillionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plumber, "Priest") has hired a leather-clad, pierced, tattooed young woman (Lisbeth Salander played by Rooney Mara, "The Social Network") to investigate Blomkvist using her internet uber-hacking-powers. Vanger has a mystery he needs solving: His niece has gone missing and presumed dead for forty years. However, he receives an anonymous gift from her that only she would send. He wants Blomkvist to find out who is sending the gifts.

But Blomkvist cannot do it alone; he needs the help of the very person who did his background investigation - Lisbeth. Now, it is up to him and his unlikely companion to uncover the coldest of cold cases. And we're off…

I've never read the 800-page tome (by Stieg Larson) that inspired this movie, but I did see the original Scandinavian version. The Hollywood version is every bit as good as the original, and then some. The first difference is the amazingly complicated and detailed CGI opening credits. I felt as though I was watching a Bond movie intro. The other big difference is the longish aftermath. The ending goes into a good bit of detail about what happens to our characters after the thrilling climax. I have to say I enjoyed both additions.

I do have one complaint: The original film made Lisbeth appear to be the aggressor in her relationship with Blomkvist. She even appears to have manipulated him. This new version has changed that relationship. I preferred the original ending. Sadly, I cannot say which is more true to Larson's novel.

The plot had the potential to be incredibly complex. It involved at least a dozen members of Vanger's family. On top of that we had to constantly switch between 1960's Vanger-family and current-day Vanger- family. However, the director (David Fincher, "The Social Network") had Blomkvist post a family tree on his cabin wall with pictures of old- family and current-family. It was a very nice device which allowed the audience to keep all the players straight.

I have heard that some people thought the depiction of sexual violence was gratuitous. The rape scenes were not easy to watch. However, they were certainly no worse than the original Scandinavian version. I think there is no good way to portray rape. Panning to curtains blowing in an open window doesn't do justice to the violation of the victim. Whereas showing the details of the act may, by some, be seen as titillating. I felt that the director had the balance right. It was clear our victim was being hurt in a most personal way, without exploiting the act for entertainment. This was most clearly demonstrated as we saw the victim in the shower later that night with cuts and bruises over a third of her body. If any movie-goer experienced voyeuristic pleasure in the rape scene, then it should have been snuffed-out by the shower scene.

The movie clocked-in at about 2 hours and 40 minutes. And while it was longer than most movies, it didn't disappoint. The mystery, action, and unfolding lives of the protagonists made the time slip by. However, there is no good reason to rush out and see this movie in the theaters. In fact, it is a good one to curl up on the sofa with someone you find dear. So, for a good retelling of a now-classic tale, but a bit on the longish side, I recommend you wait for the instant download.

War Horse (2011)

They just don't make them like that anymore

[9/10 · 3 January 2012]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : WAR HORSE

MINI-REVIEW : They just don't make them like that anymore

RATING : See it in theaters (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

It's 1914 and young Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine, "Live Bites") is the son of turnip farmer Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan "The Fixer"). His father makes a fool-hardy purchase of a thoroughbred horse (Joey) to be used as a plow horse. The animal is spirited and clearly unique amongst its peers for its beauty and strength. The landlord threatens to foreclose on the farm unless Ted brings in the turnip crop in the spring. Albert and Joey defy all odds and plow the rocky field to the cheers of on-looking villagers. However, the crop fails and to pay the rent, Ted has to sell Joey to the British army as the onset of WWI requires horses for the cavalry. Albert volunteers, but at the tender age of 14 he is turned down. Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston, "Midnight in Paris") promises the boy he'll take care of Joey. But he can't keep his promise as he is killed in his first battle and Joey falls into the hands of the Germans. And we're off as Joey is passed from one owner to the next through the duration of the war.

If you've ever seen the classic epic films of the 1930's and 1940's you'll get a sense of what you're in for when you go to see "War Horse." Think of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in "The Quite Man," or "Gone With the Wind." The scenery is vast and lush. The story spans years. The characters grow through their interactions not only with each other but with the times they are in.

Spielberg has a lot of experience filming battle scenes ("Saving Private Ryan") and none of it is wasted here. The battle scenes, especially those involving the horses, are exquisite. One thing that is of interest is that we never see anyone actually killed. We see all the events leading up to the death, and the events immediately after, but I don't recall anyone being killed on-screen. Perhaps Spielberg was specifically trying to avoid a strong comparison to his earlier work.

Joey, the horse, is painted as a beast with immense heart. In some other director's hands the horse would be a mere vehicle to tell a story. It is too often that an animal turns into a caricature: Either drawn too thinly to be empathized with, or so broadly such that it is a cartoon (see most Disney features from the seventies). But here, Joey is a fully developed heroic character. Joey cares about his owners as they also care about him. We come to recognize the sacrifices Joey makes in favor of those around him and we cheer in his successes and wither in the face of his perils.

This is a coming-of-age story. In fact it is a collection of coming-of-age stories with Joey knitting them together as the thread of a quilt. We witness young Albert train Joey, then save the farm, then lose his beloved animal. Then Joey goes on to serve the Captain who puts too much trust in his friend and senior officer. Next he escapes with two German boys. And he tries to learn to jump fences with a little French girl. And so on.

It is also the story of a loss of innocence, not so much for Albert and the other young people Joey's life touches, but for Europe and the entire world. The war starts in 1914 with the British cavalry charging, swords drawn, only to be faced with automatic guns. Then, as the war progresses (and Joey's journey progresses), we see ever more advanced military armaments: machine guns, mustard gas, and long range artillery. By the time the war is over in 1918, the state of the world has gone from quiet, warm and organic to cacophonous, cold, and mechanized.

If I might have any complaint, and I have scarce few, it is that the ending to the story is also borrowed from the 1930's classics. Without spoiling it for you, I will only say that this part of the screenplay seemed to have been given the least amount of attention. I had a hard time suspending disbelief and accepting that these events could really have happened

So, for a movie filmed in the classic style with all the action of "Saving Private Ryan," and heartwarming animal love of "Old Yeller," yet told with a certain eye toward the innocence of those early movies, I heartily recommend you "see it in theaters."

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

An amazingly animated Sunday-morning cartoon serial.

[4/10 · 25 December 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW: THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

MINI-REVIEW : An amazingly animated Sunday-morning cartoon serial.

RATING : See it in theaters If you're under 12, otherwise wait for the instant download (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Tintin is a youthful reporter with lots of street cred. He purchases a replica of "The Unicorn" - a 17th century schooner (with three masts, double decks, and 50 guns). No sooner does he get it home when bad things begin happening. Someone steals the ship from his flat. Then they come back and ransack his rooms. Then a man comes to his door to warn him of impending danger, and the man is gunned down by machine gun fire. But before the man expires, he spells out a clue on a nearby newspaper in his own blood. Tintin deciphers the clue as a remote city in the Middle East. But before he can follow up on the clue, he is abducted and taken prisoner on a cargo ship. And we're off…

"The Adventures of Tintin" is the big-screen version of a series of comic books published from 1907-1983. Stephen Spielberg helms this recreation and his talents are evident on the screen. In many ways, the movie resembles an Indiana Jones adventure: it is set in the same time frame (the 1940s) and there are a number of thrilling chase and fight scenes.

The feature is animated with the same technology that brought us "Polar Express." However, a lot of the technical problems have been solved. The eyes in "Polar Express" were creepy as they didn't seem to track correctly and gave a sort of vacant zombie-like presentation. This problem has been solved exceedingly well in "Tintin." Not only does Tintin's eyes move in the direction you expect them to, you can see Tintin focus on a bit of writing and watch his eyes move subtly from left to write as he reads.

Also, the hair and skin in this feature is so realistic that at times you think you're looking at real people. This is especially true of Tintin's trademark shock of ginger hair. Tintin's dog Snowy stares down a Rottweiler whose features are so detailed that you might believe it was an actual dog and not computer graphic imagery. The humans were so realistic that only their cartoonish noses gave away the fact that they were rendered.

While we're on the subject of CGI, the physics in this movie is uncanny. Feathers float, people and objects in the water bob. In almost every situation in this film you would believe you were looking at real-life objects in real-world physical reactions. Almost – there is one chase scene that taxed the limits of the CGI physics and some things look unnatural. But you'll be willing to overlook it since it's an animation.

So let's talk about the problems with this film. Firstly, if you've never read the comic books "Tintin" is based upon you may be a bit lost. Tintin is introduced to us without any description of his age. He looks like he's about 12 but as a reporter has many credits (exposed through a pan-shot of his wall-adorned news clippings). He talks like a youngster, but fights like a prize fighter. In the early scenes, Tintin appears to be somewhat inept. His dog Snowy repeatedly finds the clues or saves his bacon. I began to think that this would be carried through the entire film. But no, Snowy becomes almost irrelevant, even an annoyance at certain points. So, Tintin's character is not well defined.

Another problem with this film is the "serial" feel to it. I felt as though we were looking at about 10 episodes of a series of cliffhangers. I have no doubt that Stephen Spielberg knows more about storytelling than I do, yet the concept of a clear goal for Tintin doesn't materialize until about halfway through the movie – and that caused me to feel bored at about the thirty-minute mark. Writer Steven Moffat (well-known for his work on the reboot of "Dr. Who") seems to have been ham-strung by keeping true to the original comics.

Finally, the target age of the audience was unclear to me. I didn't do any research on "Tintin" before going to the film so I was expecting something that would appeal to all ages. The level of sophistication of the plot and dialog was reminiscent of the old "Hardy Boys" mysteries. I asked a young man of about 12 years what he thought of the film and he was enthusiastic about it and wanted to see more. He especially like the swashbuckling sword fights. However, while my date enjoyed the film, we agreed that is seemed to lack a certain maturity that would appeal to adults. In an age where Disney and Pixar films are constructed to appeal to both adults and children, it is a definite negative that it was designed to appeal to only children. The film was produced in association with Nickelodeon which leads me to wonder if a "Tintin" animated series is in our future.

So, if you're a young person who likes adventure, or an adult who loves the original comic book, you need to see this in theaters in 3D. But if you're not, you might want to catch this in the summer on instant download to enjoy the animation. And if you are not that much into the leading, bleeding edge of computer animation, don't waste your time.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

The most amazing on-location sights; the most incomprehensible plot.

[5/10 · 17 December 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : MISSION IMPOSSIBLE (4) : GHOST PROTOCOL

MINI-REVIEW : The most amazing on-location sights; the most incomprehensible plot.

RATING : Don't waste your time – unless you love IMAX (Rating System: "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Ethan Hawke (Tom Cruise) is back and he's in big trouble. His mission went badly and evil enemy Cobalt/Hendriks (Michael Nyqvist) has the codes to fire the Russian missiles. Cobalt wants to start World War Three because… well, he's crazy like that. Hawke and the entire IMF have been disavowed because they were framed for blowing up the Kremlin. Now it's up to Hawke and his renegade team (Beautiful femme fatale Jane (Paula Patton), techno geek Benji (Simon Pegg), and rugged analyst Brandt (Jeremy Renner)) to set things right. And we're off . . .

There is so much wrong with this film it is hard to pick a starting point. Let me start by saying that I don't understand why this is a Christmas film. This is an action adventure that is great popcorn fare and appeals to the Transformers crowd. Usually such films come out in the summer and are gone with the first whiffs of the fall.

The plot is completely incomprehensible. Suffice it to say, Hawke and his team flail from one blunder to the next. However, this is a plot device that allows the movie to travel to exotic locations and exploit the IMAX camera (see below). And everywhere they go, there are chase scenes. Because, well, Tom Cruise looks good running.

And for the special effects and plot devices, I feel as though we've seen all of them in other Mission Impossible films. There's Tom Cruise blown across the screen by explosions. Tom Cruise barely escaping flying automobiles, and (this time) Jeremy Renner hovering above the floor of a computer facility while he manages tricky computer magic. There was even a "Red light, Blue light" moment reminiscent of the first film.

The film weighs in at 2 hours and 15 minutes – a bit long by Hollywood standards. I saw plenty of places where scenes could have been trimmed and a few that could have been completely eliminated as they didn't further the plot – but were cute bits of special effects.

And while we're talking about cute – a lot of the dialog was just adorable. That is to say, there were jokes interspersed that were supposed to lighten the tension and humanize the characters (especially with comedian Pegg). But they fell flat as they were largely forced humor and not well-placed in the film.

I get the feeling this was supposed to be some sort of "reboot" for the Mission Impossible franchise. Tom Cruise and JJ Abrams were producers. You may recall that JJ Abrams is the head of "Bad Robot" productions and he directed the reboot of the Star Trek franchise in 2009.

The one saving grace of this film is the on-location filming. I saw MI4 in IMAX and it was spectacular. We start off in Russia with wonderful shots of the Kremlin. Then we are whisked away to Dubai where Tom Cruise does amazing feats of wall crawling in front of IMAX cameras. If you have ever been to IMAX and seen the panoramic views that take your breath away, you can appreciate how impressive Tom Cruise hanging from a thread at the top of the tallest building in the world can be. It successfully engaged my vertigo. Then we are off to India for more adventure and wonderful sights.

I paid $16.50 in my theater to see this film and I balked. To be sure, it was not worth the price. The 30 minutes of IMAX views, while wonderful, are not enough to warrant a recommendation. If you want to get the full IMAX experience go see "IMAX: To Fly!" or some other IMAX offering. But there is absolutely no way you should spend even $5 to rent the instant download. So, for a meandering, incomprehensible plot and rehashed devices, I suggest you "don't waste your time."

J. Edgar (2011)

A thoughtful, respectful, if not disjointed account of a complex man.

[7/10 · 4 December 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : J. EDGAR

ONE-LINE REVIEW : A thoughtful, respectful, if not disjointed account of a complex man.

RATING : "Wait for the instant download" (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time"

J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio, "Titanic") was a complex character. He was paranoid, homophobic and a reported cross-dresser. In many ways a contradiction to his position as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In this Clint Eastwood directed film, we learn about Hoover through his exposition of personal files dictated to young agents over the years. It's an interesting story device. But Eastwood chose to tell the story in non-linear time. We jump from event to event not chronologically but thematically.

We see Hoover's relationship with his domineering mother, his awkward ways with women, his flirting with man-on-man love, and his long-term relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer, "The Social Network").

DiCaprio did a wonderful job playing Hoover through his different ages and phases. He was able to melt away his own persona and show us Hoover as a leader, a son, a man, and a black mailer. The makeup for him was perfect, not so for Hammer who looked very strange as an old man. DiCaprio will likely receive an Oscar nod for his performance.

The time-shifting in this movie confused me. I wasn't always aware of where I was in the time stream and I occasionally got lost as to the point that was to be made. So, for an interesting story of a complex man told with a jarring incongruous time sequence, I recommend you "wait for the instant download."

The Muppets (2011)

If you liked the Muppet Movies, you'll love "The Muppets"

[7/10 · 4 December 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : THE MUPPETS

ONE-LINE REVIEW : If you liked the Muppet Movies, you'll love "The Muppets"

RATING: "Wait for the instant download" (Rating System: "Watch it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

Gary (Jason Segel, "How I Met Your Mother") and Walter (a new Muppet voiced by Peter Linz) are brothers growing up in a small town. Gary grows but Walter stays the same size. Walter falls in love with the old "Muppet Show" and idolizes them. While Gary falls in love with Mary (Amy Adams, "Julie & Julia"). The three go on a trip to Hollywood to see the Muppet Theater where they learn that Tex Richman (Chris Cooper, "The Tempest") wants to tear down the Muppet Theater to get at oil beneath the building. Walter, Gary, and Mary have just 48 hours to round up the old Muppets and put on marathon show to raise the 10 million dollars to save the theater. And we're off. . .

If you're a fan of the original "Muppet Show" or the Muppet movies, then you're going to enjoy "The Muppets." The story is a cross between an old Mickey Rooney and Julie Garland film ("Hey kids, let's put on a show") and "The Blues Brothers" ("Hey, we're getting the band back together"). The plot is thin and is mainly a vehicle for all the characters from the original show to come back to the stage and put on a show as we remember it.

There are a number of cameos (including Alan Arkin, Mickey Rooney, Jack Black, Sarah Silverberg, and more). There are tons of puns. And lots of inside jokes. One nice thing about the plot is that there are opportunities for growth for just about every major character. Everyone learns something about themselves.

The movie is rated PG for reasons I don't understand. It is as clean cut as it gets. There may be some concern over explosions. But there is no swearing and nobody really gets hurt. Well, except the bad guy. I also noticed a complete absence of the Henson name in the movie (except a couple images of Jim Henson in pictures on the wall). Since Disney owns the Muppets I can see why this may be, however costumes were supplied by Jim Henson's Creature shop.

This is a very good movie for older fans of the Muppets and a very nice introduction to the Muppets for a younger generation. But there is no reason to rush out and see it on the big screen. So, for a simple story told with love and affection for classic characters I recommend you "wait for the instant download."

Hugo (2011)

Never was there a more beautiful movie

[10/10 · 2 December 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : HUGU

MINI-REVIEW : Never was there a more beautiful movie

RATING : See it in theaters and in 3D (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

Hugo (Asa Butterfield, "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas") is an orphan living in a Paris railway station in 1938. His father was a museum curator and watchmaker. Before his death, Hugo's father had found an automaton (mechanical man) which he and Hugo were attempting to fix.

By night, Hugo keeps the clocks in the railway station running. Hugo steals parts from a toymaker (Ben Kingsley) who catches on to Hugo and mentors him. The toymaker is godfather to young orphan Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz, "Kick-Ass") who befriends Hugo and insists on seeing his home. Hugo agrees and shows her the automaton and together they get it to work. The first thing it draws is a picture from a movie that Hugo used to watch with his father. And we're off. . .

This is without a doubt the most beautiful movie I have ever seen. Every detail of this film has been made with the utmost care and love. Even the snowflakes are amazing. I saw it in 3D and it is the first 3D movie I have seen that uses 3D artistically, not as a gimmick. There are scenes where the camera runs us through a crowd, and we feel as if we are there, brushing past bystanders. The sets look and sound real. The clockworks within the tower clock and automaton are as real as any wind up clock you know. If director Martin Scorsese had intended to create a masterpiece, then he has succeeded.

The children (Butterfield, Moretz) are heartbreakingly beautiful. They give performances that exude the innocence of youth and a constant sense of urgency. Butterfield in particular plays Hugo as a tortured youngster with a passion for fixing things. In Hollywood movies it is so easy to play young people as wise beyond their years and / or smart- alecky. Instead, these children are three-dimensional with purpose and wonder.

It turns out that this film is not so much the story of an orphan boy, but a wonderful homage to one of film's great pioneers. We get a retrospective of the early days of film and a film history lesson without even knowing it. Scorsese takes up the gauntlet of film innovators who came before and makes his mark in film history by crafting a 3-D movie others will aspire to match. This is clearly an Academy Award winner and instant classic.

So for wonderful acting, amazing effects, beautiful set design, creative storytelling, and a loving tribute to a historical film legend, you must "see it in the theater."

Immortals (2011)

Beautiful people in ridiculous costumes and a little Deus ex Machina.

[18 November 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : IMMORTALS

MINI REVIEW : Beautiful people in ridiculous costumes and a little Deus ex Machina.

RATING : Don't Waste Your Time (Rating System : "See it in theaters," "Wait for the instant download," "Don't waste your time")

Theseus (Henry Cavill "The Tudors") is a peasant man, born of a raped woman who was outcast by her clan as a whore. But Theseus is a devoted son. Zeus (Luke Evans "The Three Musketeers"), king of the gods, takes the form of a wizened old man and trains him in the art of warfare.

King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke "Iron Man 2") is the foulest of leaders, bent on the destruction of the Gods. To do this, he must retrieve the Epirus Bow which has the power to release the Titans : godlike creatures who have been trapped by Zeus in a previous war and have the power to dispatch the Olympians. Theseus has befriended the beautiful virgin Oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"). Hyperion wants Phaedra so that she will reveal the location of the bow and he can release the Titans. And we're off...

I'm no scholar of Greek mythology, but this story bore no resemblance to any Greek story I know. The characters are all named wrong and the events are not anything that was written by the Greeks. Okay, maybe some of it was. So, if you're looking for a great Greek myth told with modern zeal, keep looking.

The 3D effects in this movie were just annoying. In several scenes we are presented with a branch or twig that sits in the center of the screen and juts into our faces. Meanwhile, earnest actors are carrying on doing their best work walking behind the twig to show off its 3D- ness. Bad mojo.

However, the people are just beautiful. Cavill is a handsome man with a chiseled body. Freida Pinto is possibly the most beautiful woman in Hollywood, and we get a nice look at her naked backside (or is it a body double? In my reality it is Pinto). Luke Evans as Zeus is god-like and Kellan Lutz ("Twilight") as Poseidon was buff. Isabel Lucas ("Kin") was angelic in her portrayal of grey-eyed Athena, champion of the mortals.

The fight scenes were amazing. The 3D gore was impressive. There is an ending credit sequence that stands on its own as an awesome bit of 3D fight-rendering.

But none of that is good enough to warrant a recommendation. The first act was confusing with an undefined hero and unclear motivations for the characters. The secondary / sidekick characters were never developed. There is a "rouse the boys" scene (ala "Braveheart") that is impossible to believe. And this film definitely wants to be another "300" where a handful of fervent Greeks hold off a much larger army. "300" this is not.

So, for a meek story told with over-zealous technological wizardry I suggest you "Don't waste your time."

Tower Heist (2011)

Enjoyable hijinks from a trusted cast of veteran comedians.

[6 November 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW – TOWER HEIST

MINI-REVIEW : Enjoyable hijinks from a trusted cast of veteran comedians.

RATING : Wait for the instant download (Rating System – "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller "Night at the Museum") is the manager of a NYC high rise apartment building. He is chummy with Billionaire investor Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda "Diminished Capacity", "M*A*S*H"). Shaw is indicted for running a Ponzi scheme. But the bad news is that Kovacs had invested all the staff's pensions into Shaw's holdings. Kovacs feels responsible and confronts Shaw who feels no remorse and appears to have rigged the courts to get off scott free. So, Kovacs enlists the aid of childhood chum and ne'r- do-well Slide (Eddie Murphy "48 Hours"). Slide is a thief and instructs Kovacs and his buddies in the ways of thievery. They're all-in to rip off Shaw and get back what was stolen from them. And we're off…

This movie is filled with fine actors in pretty straightforward comic roles. It is a veritable who's who of 70s and 80s comic players. Stiller plays Kovacs as a smart young man trying to work his way up the corporate ladder by kissing ass, but also caring about the people in his building. He also cares about his staff. There's Charlie the concierge (Casey Affleck) who is married to Kovac's sister. Mr. Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick) who plays the evicted Wall Street investor who is down on his luck. Mr. Simon, the general manager (Judd Hirsch). Odessa, the maid (Gabourey Sidibe "Precious"). And the FBI agent with a heart of gold played by Tea Leoni.

Of course this is all pulled from the front pages of the Bernie Madoff scandal, and the recent economic downturn. The evil rich guys get their cum-uppance and the poor working stiffs pull a fast one over everyone's eyes. It's a feel-good movie.

There are a number of weak spots. Matthew Broderick just phones in his performance. Some would call it understated – I call it lazy. I don't even know why he did this film. Gabourey Sidibe as the "maid gone rogue" can't hold her Jamaican accent for even one sentence. I'm a little uncomfortable with the "hire the black guy to teach the white guys to break the law" theme. We saw this earlier in the summer in "Horrible Bosses" – only then it was Jamie Foxx who was the "mentor."

Overall I enjoyed myself for most of the movie and while the ending was no real surprise, it was satisfying. For a formulaic presentation and underplayed acting, I recommend you wait for the instant download.

In Time (2011)

It had a lot of unrealized potential.

[29 October 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW - IN TIME

MINI-REVIEW : It had a lot of unrealized potential.

RATING : Don't waste your "Time" (Rating System : "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

Spoilers INSIDE

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake "Bad Teacher") lives in the not-to-distant future where people are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25 years. At that time a green-glowing clock on their arms starts counting down Time - and when the Time gets to zero, you die. To get more Time you have to work in the factories. There is a wide gap between those who live day-to-day, earning just enough Time to get by, and those who live with thousands, even millions of years.

Will saves a man from getting killed because he is in the wrong part of town (Time zone) with too much "Time on his hands" (the movie is rife with these time-based clichés). The man, however, is really 150 years old and is ready to die. He gives his 105 remaining Tiime to will, and then publicly dies as his Time runs out. But not before revealing to Will that there is, in fact, plenty of Time to go around, if only those in high places would allow it.

The next day, Will's mother (Olivia Wilde "House") dies because her time runs out. This fills Will with a great resolve and he heads to the upper echelons of his world to find out how to set things right. He meets Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried "Red Riding Hood") who is the daughter of Time-millionaire Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser "Mad Men"). Will kidnaps Sylvia and is then chased by Time-Keeper Leon (Cillian Murphy "Tron: Legacy"). And we're off...

This movie starts out really strong and fritters away its opening, petering out into a confused ending. The concept of everyone aging only to 25 years is interesting. It also makes for a showcase of Hollywood's youngest and most exciting actors. The fact that people are constantly Timing-out makes for constant excitement as you have a multitude of "ticking clocks" running - so there should be lots of tension. And yet, the move drags awkwardly in several places. This movie seems like someone's great idea that simply didn't get thought through to completion.

(In fact, it could be someone else's idea as Harlen Ellison filed suit to have the movie held from release as it is similar to his short-story, ""Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman" which concerns a dystopian future in which people have a set amount of time to live which can be revoked by a Timekeeper.)

The movie quickly devolves into a sort of "Bonnie and Clyde" story as Will and Amanda rip off Time-banks and give away the Time to the "poor". It's unclear exactly what Will's goal is in this film. He seems to want to have everyone share the wealth, and at the same time wants to destabilize the "system". But it isn't clear what the result of this stabilization would be and whether it is any better than the world he lives in.

All of this comes at a time in our history when the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" have never been wider. The movie paints the "haves" as oblivious and evil greedy meanies. They are so evil that they are non-characters. Rather, just cardboard cut-outs that are easy to take shots at. The movie seems to want to say that if the fat cats would just share, then everyone would be better off.

But the movie doesn't offer this reward. Instead, the result of all this Robin-Hood-like behavior is a rise in the cost of living. So the poor- cum-rich are now the poor again. There are even allusions to a reverse- Atlas-Shrugged as the workers stop working in the factories. Again, the results of this are not shared. If "In Time" was trying to make any sort of social commentary, it failed utterly.

The movie is nice to look at. Lots of pretty faces and taut bodies. Everyone seems to run everywhere in this universe. Will takes his shirt off and puts it on a lot. Amanda has nice bras to show off. The cars are cool yet understated. The green-glowing numbers are a cool effect. And yet, without a strong plot and a coherent set of goals for our heroes, I can only recommend you "Don't waste your Time".

50/50 (2011)

It's not The Hangover with Cancer – it's more.

[10 October 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : 50/50

MINI REVIEW : It's not The Hangover with Cancer – it's more.

RATING : See it in theaters (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt – "Third Rock from the Sun", "10 Things I hate about you") works for a public radio station. His girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard – "The Help" & daughter to Ron Howard) is a self- absorbed abstract artist. When Adam is diagnosed with spinal cancer, she puts on a show of caring, but is otherwise distracted. Adam's best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen – "Pinapple Express", "Knocked Up") takes a different view of his buddy's situation – it's babe candy.

Adam goes to neophyte psychologist Katherine (Anna Kendrick – "Twilight", "Scott Pilgrim") for counseling. She is awkward and inexperienced but earnest in her concern for Adam. Adam is also smothered by his doting mother (Anjelica Huston – "The Postman Always Rings Twice") who is caring for his father (Serge Houde). The stage is set and we're off… The previews for this movie make it look like "The Hangover" but with cancer. But it is more. It's a true-life-inspired story about a young man (Adam) who is facing life-threatening cancer. It's approached with a sense of humor and sensitivity. We meet Adam, who is just getting started in life. He eats right, obeys all the rules (he doesn't even cross against a street light despite there being no traffic), and still receives the devastating news that he could die from cancer. The irony is he never learned to drive because it is the 5th leading cause of death in the United States.

Adam is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a very straight manner. We learn that he is a very giving, even forgiving man. Perhaps too much so as he has become a doormat for all the women in his life.

His best friend, Kyle, is played by Seth Rogen who is the obvious comic relief. Kyle seems to be an odds maker and when he learns that Adam's chances of Kyle can think of nothing more than getting laid and sees Adam's cancer as a way of improving their odds.

Both actors bring an honesty to their roles that is palpable. The film is less about cancer and more about how people respond to responsibility. We see the girlfriend who just goes through the motions. The mother who (already overwhelmed with taking care of her Alzheimer's husband) wants to move in. The best friend who relates to his buddy the only way he knows how – to get laid.

For a heartwarming story, told with sympathy and humor, I recommend you "see it in theaters."

Real Steel (2011)

It's Rock-em Sock-em Robots meets Rocky

[8 October 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : REAL STEEL

MINI-REVIEW : It's Rock-em Sock-em Robots meets Rocky

RATING : See it in theaters (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

In the not-to-distant future, Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is an ex- boxer who has turned to fighting remote-control robots. But these aren't robots like your Roomba or "Bot Wars" little bots. These are 1- ton, 8-foot tall behemoths. In this future, boxing has been outlawed and now only robots can fight in the big ring. Charlie is down on his luck and scrapes together spare robot parts and works his robots in small-town carnivals and flea markets.

Charlie has an 11-year-old son, Max (Dakota Goyo) whom he has never seen. Max's mother has died and his aunt wants custody. This is fine with Charlie who makes a deal with the rich uncle : Charlie will take the boy for the summer so aunt and uncle can vacation in Italy in peace. In return, Charlie receives a large chunk of change that he can use to pay off his seedy loan sharks.

Charlie and Max take up residence with Bailey Tallot (Evangelene Lilly) who is the daughter of Charlie's old trainer. She runs a training ring for new bots. On a trip to the robot junk yard, Max finds an old sparring bot (Atom) that still has some life in it. It turns out the robot can "shadow box" and can learn Charlie's ex-fighting skills. Max wants to enter Atom into the fights and convinces Charlie to take him on the circuit and win some fights. And we're off…

"Real Steel" is a very formulaic, predictable, and immensely fun sports story. And like any good sports story, it's not just about the sport, but about the relationships surrounding it. In a season with films like "The Fighter," and "Warrior," "Real Steal" (with its PG-13 rating) is clearly aimed at younger audiences. Still as an adult, I still found the movie very entertaining with its fine performances and fast pace.

Hugh Jackman plays the role of Charlie as an every-man, down on his luck and trying hard to make good. But he is impetuous. Max is played by Dakota Goyo and is intelligent and adorable. He walks the line between smart-alecky brat and wise-beyond-his-years. And he comes out very warm and endearing. Evangeline Lilly is little more than the dispenser of exposition and eye-candy. Which she does quite well.

If you've seen any of the movies I've mentioned or "Rocky" you'll recognize the formula. But it is played out with exceptional special effects and warm characters. You'll be rooting for the underdog and booing the bad guys and smiling all the way through the final scene. For good acting, great special effects, a story we all have seen before and can't seem to get enough of, I recommend you "See it in theaters."

Moneyball (2011)

A great sports movie that will appeal to a wide audience

[24 September 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : MONEYBALL

ONE LINE REVIEW : A great sports movie that will appeal to a wide audience.

RATING : See it in theaters (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time.")

NO SPOILERS

It's 2002 and Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) must find a way to replace three of his team's great players. The players were traded away to other teams, gutting Beane's team, and his chances of going to the playoffs. Billy's problem is that he can't afford to recruit quality players on the $41M in his budget - especially when he is competing with teams with budgets in the $120 million range.

While visiting a competing team's front office on a deal, Billy meets young Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). Brand has a degree in economics from Yale university and sees baseball strictly in statistical terms. He reasons that a player should be picked for his ability to get on base, not for how many home runs he hits. Billy does his research and realizes he may have found the solution to his problem and recruits Brand to help him reorganize the Oakland team.

But Billy is met with resistance on all fronts. The veteran recruiters are angry that Billy is listening to some young upstart with no experience in baseball. The team manager (Philip Seymour Hoffman) won't play the roster the way Billy wants, thus thwarting any mathematics that may improve their chances. Even the players don't believe Billy will last the season.

Also, Billy is facing some difficulties with his family. His ex-wife Sharon (Robin Wright) is married to a wimpish guy who doesn't understand sports, but tries to for Billy's sake. His adorable daughter Casey (Kerris Dorsey) is concerned he may lose his job. The way things are going, Billy secretly feels the same way. And we're off...

Those who know me know that I'm not a sports fan. I find most sports dull and avoid watching them as I think watching other people do something is a colossal waste of time - especially compared to actually doing it. However, watching Billy Bean resurrect the A's was a joy. The movie is structured nicely with elements of sports, relationships, and (especially if you are not a sports follower) suspense.

Brad Pitt seems to walk through this role effortlessly. I'm reminded of Robert Redford and his baseball movie "The Natural" (1984). While the roles are very different, they both require a kind of charisma that these actors bring to their roles. Pitt produced the film, which shows his commitment to it. We watch Beane exude confidence in front of his boss, sales savvy when making a deal,he reassures his daughter, and mentors Brand. But privately, we see his uncertainty when things are not going well.

Jonah Hill is best known for his comedic roles ("Superbad") but plays a very stoic, even stereotypical nerd here. His comic timing comes into good use in several scenes where Brand's naiveté serves as a contrast to Billy's bravado. However, the character is written very flatly. We don't see a lot of variation in Brand's emotions. Still, Hill does a good job of delivering the character that does the math, and still learns about baseball along the way.

The movie has some minor flaws. The relationships outside of the world of baseball are only lightly touched upon. There are really only 3 scenes with the daughter - one of which is delivered by CD. The relationship with the ex-wife is amounts to one awkward moment. But that's okay, as the movie is really about turning the team around and breaking with convention. Even so, Billy's relationships with the players is only lightly covered in a sort of montage. Without giving much away, we don't really see much growth in the man, only that he succeeds in what he set out to do.

As a non-sports fan, I was very entertained by this movie. I didn't know the outcome beforehand, as some baseball followers may have. We get to see a wonderful Rags-to-Riches story told very well. Most of the performances may have been underpowered, even flat. But that served to buoy the Brad Pitt character. For a suspenseful story that moved along at a comfortable pace, I recommend you "see it in theaters."

Drive (I) (2011)

Robot Zombie Ryan Gosling sleepwalks through snooze fest.

[3/10 · 16 September 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : DRIVE

ONE-LINE REVIEW : Robot Zombie Ryan Gosling sleepwalks through snooze fest.

RATING : Don't Waste Your Money (Rating Scale: "See it in the theater," "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time.")

A Hollywood stunt driver (Driver, Ryan Gosling) works as a mechanic by day and dabbles in getaway car action by night. He lives down the hall from very cute Irene (Carey Mulligan). She has an adorable son Benicio (Kaden Leos) who is befriended by Driver and Driver takes a keen interest in Irene as well. However, Irene's husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac) is released from jail and is being forced to rob a pawn shop to repay protection money from when he was in the slammer.

Meanwhile, back at the auto shop: Driver's boss is hapless shop owner Shannon (Bryan Cranston) who goes into business with local mob boss Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) and partner mob boss Nino (Ron Perlman). They want to employ Driver to race cars and make legitimate money.

Driver decides to help Standard and so becomes intwined in a twisted tale of bad guys and badder guys. And we're off...

I am always nervous when the title credits for a movie are in fluorescent pink. I believe "Cocktail" with Tom Cruise set the standard for me. And the harbinger of bad flicks still works as this movie was the dullest movie I've sat through, ever.

I saw Ryan Gosling for the first time in "Crazy Stupid Love." I guess he's some sort of heart-throb. I liked him in that movie as a sleazy lounge lizard who has a change of heart. However, the actor that performed that part was nowhere to be seen in "Drive." In fact, his performance was so bland anyone, even a cardboard cutout could have played the role. He literally never blinks an eye in this film. He never displays much more than the slighted bit of emotion.

And for a movie about a stunt driver, and named "Drive" for that matter, there is a shocking lack of automobile action. The movie opens with a car chase of sorts that never gets over 35 MPH. I've seen more car action in children's movies than in this.

I believe director Nicolas Winding Refn and writer Hossein Amini were shooting for something like "Taxi Driver." There, the lead was a complex character with delusions of grandeur. Driver is no such complex beast. He is as emotionless when driving as when kissing and killing.

This is such a non-movie with no substantial roles for any player in it that I recommend you "Don't waste your time."

Warrior (2011)

Cain and Able meet Rocky

[10 September 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : WARRIOR

ONE LINE REVIEW : Cain and Able meet Rocky

RATING : See it in theaters. (rating system: "see it in theaters", "wait for the instant download", "don't waste your time")

SPOILER FREE

Tommy Conlon (Tom Hardy) is a former marine who has returned home to ask his father Paddy (Nick Nolte) to help train him for the upcoming Spartan Mixed-Martial-Artist fighting match. It's a single elimination brawl between 16 fighters.

Meanwhile, Tommy's estranged brother, Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is facing bankruptcy and foreclosure. And to make matters worse, he is fired from his teaching job for moonlighting as a competitive fighter. Brendan enters into the Spartan competition despite his wife's opposition.

But there is friction in the Colonder family. Paddy was a lousy father and a drunk which forced Tommy to leave home with his mother. The mother died when Tommy was just 16, so he is only talking to his father so that he can get the training he used to get from him as a kid. Meanwhile, Brendan has disavowed his father and will not talk to him.

The characters are all in play... And we're off.

I really enjoyed this film. If you're a UCF fan you will enjoy it. However, the fight scenes leave a bit to be desired. There are frequent cutaways and people walking through the shots. No doubt this is due to the fact that the actors did not do a lot of the fighting . Compare this to "Rocky" where Sylvester Stallone and his actors were actually boxing in his movie.

But it's not all blood and punches. The pain in the hearts of the two brothers is evident in fine performances by Hardy and Edgerton. Nick Nolte as the recovering alcoholic father is believable and tortured. I was happy to see Jennifer Morrison ("House") as the wife in a more complicated role than we've seen in the past (although most of her scenes were underlit).

I did walk away with one nagging question ... Who is the Warrior in this film?

So, for great fight Scenes intercut with some sightly meaty relationships, I recommend you "see it in the theater."

The Debt (I) (2010)

An action film at the speed of two elderly people in hand-to-hand combat.

[3 September 2011]

WEEKLY MOVIE REVIEW : THE DEBT

ONE LINE REVIEW : An action film at the speed of two elderly people in hand-to-hand combat.

RATING : Don't waste your time (Rating System: "See it in theaters", "Wait for the instant download", "Don't waste your time")

SOME SPOILERS

Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren) is a retired Israeli spy with a secret. She went on a mission in 1965 behind the Berlin Wall to capture and bring to trial an evil Doctor Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) who was responsible for unspeakable crimes against Jews in the German concentration camps during the second world war. Her secret is that something went wrong and nobody's talking. Her ex-husband Stephen Gold (Tom Wilkonson) had gone on that mission with her along with David Pertez (Claren Hinds). At a celebration of a book written about her heroism, Rachel learns that David has killed himself, and now-head of Masaad Stephen knows why.

Back in 1965, Young Rachel (Jessica Chastain), Young Stephen (Martin Coskos), and Young David (Sam Worthington) capture the doctor and must keep him on ice for a couple of weeks. What ensues is a love triangle with all three members in a claustrophobic environment.

And we're off...

"The Debt" is a difficult film to review because it is two movies in one. On the one hand it is the story of an aging spy coming to grips with the lie she told to protect herself, her partners, and her country. On the other it is the story of three young spies in love carrying out a mission of the cold war - left over from the second world war. More over, it is the story of a love affair gone wrong. And the sacrifices that these people make.

This not only makes it a difficult movie to review, but it also makes it a difficult movie to watch. The majority of the action takes place in 1965 and is interesting to watch. Jessica Chastain and Sam Worthington deliver tense performances and Martin Coskos is the domineering force behind the team. I felt drawn into this world and was eager to see how it would all play out. As the evil doctor, Jesper Christensen delivers an understated and believable performance.

In contrast, however, the now-present-world is not so interesting. The opening 10 minutes of the film feature major characters entering and exiting automobiles to go places that we don't spend much time in. We finally return to the present-world at the end of the movie where Rachel must deal with the effects of her decisions in the past.

(BTW: haven't we just seen Helen Mirren in "Red" - a story about aging CIA agents kicking butt and taking names? Is this the only role for mature actors?)

IMHO, either of these stories would have made a riveting movie. But we spend more time in the past with Young Rachel than we do with Old Rachel. The problem with this is that all the stuff that happened in the past is merely the set-up to the problem Old Rachel has to solve. And she solves that in the last 10 minutes of the film. We don't get deeply invested in either Young or Old Rachel and it ultimately makes for a dull ending.

And the ending is dull. I won't spoil it for you here, but it is both slow and unbelievable.

So, for a divided story, slow motion action, and unbelievable climax, I recommend you "don't waste your time."