Pride and Glory

Good cop vs. Bad cop movies are a dime a dozen these days. Just a month ago we had one called Righteous Kill. The differences between the good cop movies and the bad cop movies are so sometimes so subtle that you cannot always think of exactly what made one specific one better than another one. All of the stories are somewhat derivative of each other, but whether it is the writing or the acting some just turn out better. Righteous Kill suffered from a myriad of problems, which was sad given the two leads are a pair of the best living actors we have. Pride and Glory (Which sound like the title of a war movie) has Edward Norton, who is considered a great talent and Colin Farrell, who is not considered a great talent. If Righteous Kill had two of the best and Pride and Glory only has one great one, does it even stand a chance?

We open on a football game, but it is quickly over and the movie quickly, intensely and dizzyingly jumps to the scene of a shoot out. 4 cops are dead and a few low level criminals are dead too. Someone got away. The police put a task force together and it is to be led by Ray Tierney(Norton). he does not want it at all because he is still on edge over something that happened months ago that left him with a scar on his cheek. However, it is the squad of his brother, Francis(Noah Emmerich) that got hit and the dead men were under the watch of Ray's brother-in-law, Jimmy(Colin Farrell) and Ray's alcoholic father, Francis senior(Jon Voight) has begged him to. Unfortunately, the reveal of Jimmy being actually guilty is ruined by the trailer, but from there this movie becomes not only a race of family and cop vs. cop, but towards the end, the scope of the picture gets much bigger as to include an almost riot over cop's treatment of a minority. Ray must figure out exactly what was happening and who knew about it, all the while confronting his own demons of a former bust gone wrong and dealings with his soon to be ex-wife. Francis meanwhile, is not really guilty, but feels guilty and is also dealing with a cancer stricken wife, Abby (Jennifer Ehle).

So, now we come back to that fine line between good cop movie and bad cop movie. Pride and Glory has all of the cliches of the cop movie and much of the dialog you'd expect from such a movie, so for all intents and purposes, it should not work. Yet, there is something fully engrossing about the whole thing. Pride and Glory strips itself of all the shine and polish on so many movies these days and gets to something down and dirty. The camera moves a little too much in the fashion of a Cops episode, Robbie stay away, but when the camera focuses and zooms in for extreme close ups of Edward Norton's damaged cheek and dead eyes, the movie sparkles. Not only does the movie sparkle but it cracks with fire and a frenzied intensity that is slowly boiling under the surface and then unleashes in the final act as consecutive scenes see a shooting, a fight, a near riot and then ultimately a blood bath of sorts. Through it all, director Gavin O' Connor finds a way to make it seem fresh, even when we know it is not. It is not an easy thing to do, just ask Jon Avnet (IMDB him). O' Connor is a confident, interesting director who is not as interested in telling the story of a good guy and a bad guy, but the story of two men doing what they think they have to do in order to survive. Norton's character is our moral center, but that is shaken when we realize he may have done something very bad at one point. At that point we are not sure what we can trust.

Speaking of trust, I think it is safe to say I can trust Colin Farrell and his acting choices again. Sure, he had a rough patch where he was doing his pretty boy thing, but this year he has redeemed himself. First he was in the savagely funny In Bruges and now, he is truly riveting as a New York City police officer who not only puts his personal gains over his oath and duty, he puts it over life and truth. There is a scene involving a baby and an iron that is about as crazy as I could expect from such a movie and Farrell never backs down from any of it. He is down in the dirt, using that Irish dialect to his full advantage. I am not sure how often Colin Farrell can be the villain, but he seems more at home in it. He is better suited and he and Norton spark a fire in their confrontation scene. They do not have many scenes together, but when they get together, it is a barn burner and we are all invited to watch. Another man worth mentioning is Noah Emmerich. He has done some pretty great work in his career, especially Little Children, but here he gets his shot to play with the big dogs and he does not disappoint. He is the most sympathetic character because he didn't do anything wrong, but he may have allowed some of it, and his wife is slowly dying. The scenes with his wife are the kinds of scenes the bad cop movies don't have.

Is Pride and Glory the most original or innovative movie ever? No, of course not. It takes what we know as familiar and does something interesting to it. I was hooked from the moment the movie took off until it finally closed. The turns it takes are curious and often offer us a point of view we may not have figured on. Instead of making Jimmy's crew a bunch of nothings, we spend a little time with them, therefore it gives a sense of meaning when they endanger themselves as greed takes hold. When you start to supplement your income with extra stolen money, you cannot always go back to how it was before, even if you want to. The hold is just too much and we see that in this film. Gavin O' Conor may rely a bit too much on the shaky camera thing that is so popular, but when he finally focuses on something, he always seems to be capturing the exact thing he was meant to catch and we were meant to see? Can we really ask much more than that?

Final Grade: A-

Saw V (Major spoilers!)

Since watching this movie on Thursday night, I have been trying to figure out how to best review it. My initial thought was to say that I was only going to write the good things about the movie and then just have a blank review. I also considered doing my usual review, but this movie isn't worth it. So instead I am going to talk about the tag line and the ending.

The tag line for this installment of the most popular torture porn series was "you won't believe how it ends." In the third Saw movie, Jigsaw died, but he had someone carry on his legacy. What follows is a list of things that would have shocked me:


Jigsaw was not really dead.
The good guys win and the Saw franchise ends
The guy we thought was the good guy is actually bad.
Saw V ends in a musical number featuring Zac Efron.
Batman saves the day.
An ending with no death or gore.


Here is the one thing that would not shock me in the Saw franchise: The good guy is killed and the bad guy gets away.

So how does Saw end? Sadly, it does not end with a musical number featuring Zac Efron, no it ends with the good guy dying and the bad guy getting away with it. Not only that, but the other good guys think our good guy was the bad guy, so the bad guy gets away even more. What kind of nonsense is that? Look, I get that anyone willingly paying money to watch these garbage "films" probably gets what they deserve but seriously, is there a way to sue the makers for false advertisement?

Final Grade: F (of course)

Quarantine

Typically when a movie is not screened for critics, it is a very bad sign. Quarantine was not screened for critics, but some of them paid their money, watched and reviewed it. Surprisingly many critics thought it was very scary and wondered why it was not screened for them. Then, 4 or 5 people in my horror film class started talking about how surprised they were by how scary and good Quarantine was, so I gave in and decided to watch it. Plus, when the whole hand-held shaky camera thing is done well, I really enjoy it. Before I begin, I will not bother using characters names because I never learned them while I was watching.

A female reporter and her cameraman are doing a human interest piece on fire fighters and so they are spending the night shift with them. It starts off with fire fighters teaching her how to slide down the pole, put on the clothes and just goofing off. They have no idea what is about to happen when they are called out to an apartment complex. When they get there they are told a woman screamed and fell, so there are 2 cops and 2 firemen in the complex, now. The woman who fell is foaming at the mouth and bites one of the cops. Then a fireman gets dropped off the balcony. Everyone involved freaks out, they call it in and when the cops show up, instead of helping, they shut all of the people in the building and soon people start turning into these rabid, foaming beasts.

For about the first hour Quarantine offers some pretty creepy and scary moments, utilizing the whole hand-held camera thing quite well. The first 3 or 4 instances where they run into one of those rabies infested people, the slow moving people with heavy breathing mixed with the camera bobbing up and down results in a very tense, cabin feverish mood for the audience as we are the cameraman. Sadly, the movie is not only an hour long. In the final 30 minutes the lead woman does nothing but hyperventilate and scream and it gets very annoying very fast. All of her whining crossed with her cameraman trying to calm her down bogs down the final act, when the final 30 minutes should be the most intense and crazy. It does not help that the final shot of the movie is not only given away int he trailer, but on the freaking poster! Anyone who watches horror movies could pick out that it was going to be the final shot.

The gimmick of shooting everything with a hand-held camera has been done better and it has been done worse, yet, this is the first time I was really annoyed by the cameraman continuing to film through it all, even though they gave a pretty good reason for it. The two remaining people-cameraman and reporter need the light offered by the camera to see in the pitch black. It makes sense, but still at some point do you not drop the camera and just attempt to survive? I get it, people have a right to know that law enforcement lies, but at what point does your own survival become more important? Is what they are doing the ultimate act of self sacrifice? Will their death force changes it how our law enforcement works? Will they stop lying to us as a nation if this tape is shown? Won't the tape ultimately end up in the hands of law enforcement anyway?

I don't know why I was conned into seeing this movie by a bunch of people. Maybe they wanted me to share in their headache. I will be giving them a talking to on in class, that is for sure. I was interesting for a while and there were some good creepy moments and one legitimate scare, but it is all nullified by a super obnoxious final 30 minutes. The shaky camera work doesn't really get overly annoying, but there were moments when a steady cam would have been helpful.

Final Grade: C-

Sex Drive

Teen sex comedies have been a staple of the movies for quite some time, but the trilogy of American Pie movies kind of killed the whole concept. How is it possible to beat having sex with a pie and having an instrument up the butt? I know people will try and say Superbad was a teen sex comedy, but I don't think it fits this category. It wasn't focused on getting virgins laid like Losin it, Porky's or American Pie. We have not seen a successful one in far too long and when Sex Drive opened to better reviews than these types of movies usually get, I thought maybe I finally found a movie to carry the American Pie torch.

Ian(Josh Zuckerman) is a loser virgin who pretends to be a big buff football player on-line to talk to girls. One in particular, Ms_Tasty, has been smitten by the on-line Josh and tells him he should take the 6 hour drive and she will make it worth it. Ian isn't really buff and he doesn't play football and he doesn't drive a 1969 "Judge" either. He is a loser who works at a doughnut store and the car belongs to his alpha male, homophobic brother(James Marsden). Ian's two best friends are a girl, Felicia(Amanda Crews)and a male slut, Lance(the oddly cast Clark Duke). Lance lives by the mantra of "if you are a dick to a girl, she will love you." It works always, besides the fact that Lance isn't really what you would think of as a heart throb. Lance convinces Ian to steal the car and take the trip. Lance and Felicia(Who is crushing on Lance) tag along, but Felicia thinks they are going to visit Ian's grandmother. Along the way they have all kinds of adventures and shenanigans, which include a stop in an Amish village where Lance meets, Mary(Alice Greczyn) and falls in love. If you saw Mary, you would understand.

American Pie opened up with a scene where the lead character is caught masturbating by his parents; in Sex Drive, the main character experiences a wet dream, wakes up, throws his wet and sticky underwear towards the hamper misses, and his new step mom slips on it, falls and lands on it. In American Pie, the lead kid is trying to figure out how to use a condom and his dad sits on one; In Sex Drive, the lead character accidentally flings a condom into his new step-mom's hair. In American Pie, the lead character is embarrassed when he broadcasts something on web-cam that was not meant for everyone; in Sex Drive characters are embarrassed when pictures of them end up in random blogs and fetish sites. The similarities do not end there, but those are the two most prominent. If you are going to copy a movie, why not copy the single best movie in the sub-genre you are in. It makes sense. They don't necessarily one up the concept of having sex with a pie, but we are nearly introduced to something called "The Rolling brown out." Yeah, get the picture? Sex Drive is brutally nasty at times, but it is also brutally funny at times. It does lack the certain charm of American Pie, but it fills that void with random hot girls all over the place.

The bulk of the comedy comes from the heroes' stop in an Amish village. The Amish are fixing their car for the night and our heroes are introduced to what is known as rumspringa. Rumspringa is a short period of time where young Amish people get to act a total fool. Fall out Boy comes to play a concert and Amish people get drunk high and naked. Plus, Seth Green's turn as Ezekiel is comic gold. He is a master of sarcasm and it is impossible to tell if he is joking around or being serious. He delivers the best and biggest laughs. But laughs are also mined from Ian accidental pledging abstinence and getting a hard-on on stage as a girl warns of the perils of sex. Also two side characters, Andy and Randy mine laughs as two guys who hit on everything. James Marsden as the macho brother is hilarious in breaking his recent string of nice guy roles. Of course, the big reveal at the end of the movie of his character shocks no one.

As far as performances from the 3 leads, they are all fine. None of them really seem to have break out star quality the way everyone thought the cast of American Pie would have, but since they all fizzled maybe that is a good thing. Clark Duke is an odd choice for the Lothario because he is pasty, flabby and isn't particularly hot, but maybe that was the idea. Perhaps the whole stunt was that girl will fall for any guy who acts like a dick. It is not exactly new material for movies, but they make it work. As Ian, Zuckerman provides a pretty stable and reliable protagonist. he is more earnest than the usual straight man in these movies. Bad things happen to him, but not overly embarrassing things, once the first 15 minutes are over.

I could dedicate a whole paragraph to the amount of insanely hot girls show up in various moments throughout the movie, but instead I will just say that Alice Greczyn stands out. She is sexy, but there is a sort of innocence to her. I am not saying I believe her as an Amish girl, but I believe she could be the love of the life of a guy who has never believed in love. I would probably lead the world behind for her.

While it is not going to change the sub-genre of teenage sex comedy the way American Pie did, Sex Drive offers plenty of laughs and a few gross out moments that these movies have to have. Plus, it has one tremendous doughnut costume. I am not sure how much further teen sex comedies can push the boundaries, but I am curious to see where they lead. Now if only there was a character in these movies pointing out the absurdity of going to such lengths just to have sex.

Final Grade: C

DVD round up

I have not quite got back into watching TV shows on DVD through Netflix because I have not found a good replacement for The X-Files, so recently I have been watching for movies on DVD. I do not typically do DVD reviews, but that is mostly because I do not watch too many movies on DVD. I am not sure how regular this type of thing will appear on the blog, but I know many people rent movies more often than go to the theater, so I thought I would some mini reviews and provide maybe something for someone to watch. Featured in these DVD round ups will be movies of all types- new releases and older films. It is just a place for me to write about all the DVDs I watch.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers- This is the original version of this story. It has had a few remakes, but I am not sure I prefer any of them to this original black and white film. It is not terribly scary, but it features some really cool visuals, like when the leads are all watching the pods start to grow. It is an intense 88 minutes and nothing ever fills like filler, at all. The underlying themes of the suburbanization of America still feels absolutely fresh as we are a race of people constantly trying to get what everyone else has. Good performances, interesting direction and a cool story make up for the forced ending that tries to turn the movie into a happier moments.

Hitman- I did not expect a damn thing from this movie and turned out to be pleasantly surprised. I turned it on as background noise and within 25 minutes I put my focus fully on the movie. Yes, it is bad and full of stupid dialog like "The organization is so secret no one knows it exists." obviously people know it exists, but what it lacks in intelligence, it makes up for by having a sword fight involving 4 people and 8 swords! Yes, 8 swords, SICK! Throw in 3 or 4 nicely shot gun fights, 2 hand to hand fights and one sexy almost always nearly naked Russian girl and you make up for Timothy Olyphant sucking in the role and the trite awful dialog. it is not for everyone, but it was pure trashy fun.

Sky High- I have been hearing for a while now that this was a great superhero movie. It is a kid movie, yes, but people were swearing by it. I now understand, what a treat of a movie. Set mostly in a high school for superhero teenagers, Sky High manages to cross the genre of Superhero with the genre of teen comedy and meld them perfectly into a special effects bonanza with heart, innocence, fun, morals and some entertaining superhero stuff. From having the side kick kids in side kick school, to a main kid not having his powers on the first day of school, Sky High is the perfect teenage parable of acceptance and awkwardness. I highly recommend it.

Finding Amanda- Matthew Broderick stars as a very rich Hollywood writer/producer with a bad addiction to gambling on horses. He is a former drug and alcohol addict as well and now he has a niece who is a hooker in Las Vegas. To impress his wife, he goes to Vegas to convince the niece to go to rehab. The Niece(The perfectly vulnerable and spunky Brittany Snow) has no desire to leave. She seems to love hooking. She has a the perfect house, but it may all be a lie. Don't get the wrong impression though, it is hilarious. The dialog pops out of the mouths of the two leads as they work their way through their own demons in a very frank way. I was very much taken in by the spectacular wordy dialog and stayed for the great characters and interesting morality spins.

Appaloosa

Westerns are not typically my thing. Last year we had some good ones, but for the most part, I think Westerns are for people who want people to think they love film. Westerns are like Radiohead: you are supposed to like them so show you are serious. When the trailer first came out for Appaloosa, I thought it looked pretty good and then the reviews reaffirmed that thought. Plus, Ed Harris directed Pollack beautifully and he was directing himself here, as well. But again, Westerns are not really my thing.

Virgil Cole(Harris) and Everett Hitch(Viggo Mortenson) travel the wild wild west enforcing law. They are paid to be "good" guys and in order to do it, they make the towns adhere to their brand of justice. Included in their brand of justice is killing people if they disobey the law. They are brought to Appaloosa because the town is being terrorized by the Bragg gang, led by Randall Bragg(Jeremy Irons). Bragg killed the town's sheriff and his two Marshalls and they town wants him and his gang brought to justice. Cole is an everyman who stumbles to speak in big words and Hitch is a smart man, but a man of few words. Cole tells Hitch he cannot be one of the greats because Hitch has feelings and "feelings get you killed." This theory will be tested for Coles himself because into town strolls Allison French(Rene Zellwegger) and Coles is quickly taken by her. Allison is a piano playing, intelligent and quick witted woman, but she needs to be the center of the world and when she starts to feel neglected she tries to turn to Hitch. Coles and Hitch finally get Bragg and get him to stand trial for his crimes. As he is being transferred to his death, circumstances free him and Coles and Hitch must chase him down again.

I can think of few westerns that feature a script as smart or full of wit as Appaloosa, which is probably the biggest saving grace. First off, this is not your shoot them up western. Guns are drawn and shot only 3 or 4 times and they are not long battles. In a brilliant exchange of dialog, Hitch, after a shoot out exclaims "well that was fast" and in rhythm Coles responds "Everyone was a good shot." It perfectly summarizes the movie in whole. It is a straight to the point film that doesn't take itself overly serious. Ed Harris seems to have a very good handle on the western genre, shooting in a way that is both dirty, sparce and beautifully poetic at times. However, the most important thing in the movie becomes the relationship between Harris and Zellwegger and because of that, the movie ultimately falters.

Zellwegger's appeal is lost on me, but she and Harris have hardly any romantic chemistry. It does not feel like an age thing, they just aren't compatible. Harris and Mortenson have so much more chemistry and I would have seen more focus on them. Mortenson's Hitch bookends the movie with some voice over narration, so we are witnessing this story through his eyes. We see Allison's need to be loved and her willingness to change men quickly to get it, through his eyes. We see Coles change from a hard edged lawman to a kinder, less focused lover boy through the steely cold eyes of Viggo Mortenson's Hitch. It works better that way, I think. It seems less a study in vanity for Ed Harris, by making the audience point of view, Mortenson's point of view.

I was hoping there would be a bit more to the idea of "Feelings get you killed" because it is the tagline of the movie and it is obviously a moment of importance for Coles but in the end, feelings got everyone exactly where they were supposed to go. The ending is not clean cut in terms of being happy or anything like that, but it could have been a more interesting ending. I think it would have required the movie to go deeper than it intended to go though. I was also hoping Jeremy Irons, the greatest voiced villain ever, would have just a bit more to do, but when the movie takes an unusual turn in the third act, the Irons character kind of loses his ability to instill fear in the hearts of men.

Final Grade: C+

W.

This whole thing sounded like a bad idea from the get-go. Why I went to see it was beyond me, really. I enjoy most of the actors and I have enjoyed plenty of Oliver Stone movies, especially his more off the wall crazy movies, which this one looked like. The concept was decided on in March, it was shot in 6 weeks, edited in two months, promoted semi quietly and now it is here. The whole process was only like 6 months, which is kind of exciting and very scary all at the same time. The trailers are all over the top which made me believe this would be something actually worth watching.

The story is straight forward. This is the story of George W. Bush starting in college and ending a few years ago. The movies switches between post-9/11 and Bush's life from his Yale time until he runs for President. We get the major events that are well documented and probably some that are less so. Throughout the whole thing, Bush is presented as a good-ole boy who seems to mean well and is likable but is led around by Cheney and others whom are smarter than he is. Josh Brolin, as Bush, presents a pretty complex character full of inner turmoil. A man with daddy issues, a lack of work ethic and who is unsure of what his future holds. Oliver Stone seems a little timid to go fully crazy. In fact, the whole movie seems a bit timid. I wanted something all over the place and some non-stop zaniness. Instead I got a boring movie that goes nowhere and brings up nothing inventive or interesting.

Some great performances get lost in the shuffle of this mess of a movie. Josh Brolin is excellent, James Cromwell as Bush Senior presents a great counter-point and Bush's staff is filled out with some great performances. Richard Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney is a conniving piece of garbage who plays on Bush' naive nature and Toby Jones' Karl Rove is played as an energetic little man-child who is a little keen on Bush. To round it out is Thandie Newton as Condelezza Rice, as a little girl with a big crush on Bush and in the best performance of the whole shindig is Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell. Wright gives Powell a nice sense of gravitas that raises above all of the silliness of it. However, enduring two hours of W. almost voids the whole thing.

The jokes almost all fall flat or are so easy, that it is surprising I paid for something that isn't even as good as a good SNL sketch about politics. And, how can you make a movie about W without any mention of the events of 9/11. I get a bit sad even thinking of the whole thing today. I know it is getting good reviews and I should like it because it takes shots at a conservative regime, but I was checking my watch throughout the entire movie.

Final Grade: D-
Performances: B+

Body of Lies

Yes, the title of this movie sounds like it should star Angie Everhart and Richard Greico and it should premiere late night on Cinemax. Yes, the movie is another movie about the war on terror in Iraq because that is really what we need or want right now. Yes, the movie pretty much bombed(excuse the pun) at the box office and yes, it is time for Russell Crowe to move on from being in Ridley Scott directed movies. Yet, it does have the nice combination of Russell Crowe and Leonado Decaprio and is directed by Ridley Scott, so it couldn't possibly be a bad movie.

I am going to keep the summary pretty basic so as to not ruin the few surprises or twists that are scattered throughout. Roger Farris(Decaprio) is a field operative for the C.I.A currently in Iran, trying to find the man responsible for a series of bombings. His mission goes horribly wrong and he ends up being responsible for the death of a friend and ends up with cuts all over. he gets transferred to Jordan where he will be working with Jordanian intelligence led by Hani(Mark Strong). Stateside, Ed Hoffman(Crowe) is running the operation from a cell phone while doing the mundane family tasks. He is consistently undermining Farris and putting Farri's job and trust at risk because he doesn't have the luxury of Patience. One night as Farris is chasing a guy he gets his leg torn up by some dogs and meets a nurse, Aisha(Golshifteh Farahani). They begin a friendship as Farris tries to find a sense of peace with what he does.

That is all I feel terribly comfortable giving out as Body of Lies, plays out in a series of possible double crosses and a few twists that vary in degrees of surprise. What Body of Lies lacks in originality it makes for in many other areas. Spy movies are rarely totally original, I mean how many different ways can people be double crossed? What Body of Lies brings to the table is confident direction, great performances, a script with some nice moments of relief and a few truly brutal moments. As I was watching Decaprio, I couldn't find that timid soft spoken actor from Titanic anywhere. He has fully transformed into a strong and confident actor. His Farris is a respectful, tolerant but wily and smart agent and Decaprio, as the movie's main focus really nails it. It isn't Oscar worthy material or anything, but he keeps you riveted, especially in the final act, where he ramps up the intensity. Crowe is also great, which is quite a feat considering the screen time and the kind of screen time he has. Most of his stuff is expository and kind of light and Crowe does wonders with it. He is so perfect at the subtlety of a line like "Well, I should probably pack." He handles the whole thing quite well. However, Mark Strong, as Hani the Jordanian intelligence leader, really steals the movie in a star making turn. He has an Andy Garcia quality to him and really falls into the role perfectly. He keeps us wondering if he can be trusted or not and he shows that ruthless can be played with class and style. The costumer puts him in these spectacular suits and it helps him fit the role perfectly. It makes me excited to see his villain turn in next year's Sherlock Holmes movie.

For his part, Scott keeps things moving along at a brisk pace. The movie never comes to a stop and even when it slows down, Scott manages to keep the intensity of every scene moving. Even in scenes with Decaprio and the lovely Iranian woman, we never get full sense of calm. I am not sure if it is because of how it was filmed or why, but I never felt a moment of sure rest, even in the lighter moments. One scene in particular balances the light and the heavy. Farris is invited to eat with Aisha and Aisha's sister and Farris has a light hearted and funny conversation with the children but follows it up by being grilled by the sister about the war. This movie kind of walks that line. Crowe and Decaprio have a few conversations that border on too silly for the movie, but it always pulls back in with some cool spy stuff.

It isn't exactly the movie you would hope it would be given the talent involved, but it is a nice addition to the espionage sub-genre and it features a whopper of a torture scene and a better than expected third act. Decaprio has transformed himself into a true star in terms of acting and Crowe seems perfectly comfortable taking the back seat. He is Scottie Pippen in this movie and it suits him. I went in with not terribly elevated expectations and was pleasantly surprised at how it all worked. Scott has directed better movies, even a better war movie (Black Hawk Down), but Body of Lie works way more often than it doesn't.

Final Grade: B-

Max Payne

I could be considered a pretty big fan of Mark Wahlberg. I think he works as an action star and actually works in odd comedies(His performance in I Heart Huckabees is classic). More than anything though, Wahlberg works when he has guns in his hand. He belongs in movies where he is shooting at people. I tried to play the Max Payne video games, but the controls didn't work for me, so I have no idea if Wahlberg is the fit for the character but the character carries guns and so Wahlberg is perfect for it in my eyes, and that is all that matters. My one worry going in was that the movie is only PG-13 and it looks like should be R.

In a dark and dank version of New York, Max Payne(Wahlberg) stalks to the streets looking for the guy who murdered his pregnant wife. He is a former murder detective who now works in the cold case unit. He uses old contacts to find the killer. One night he meets a sexy woman, Natasha(Olga Kurylenko), who has tattoos of wings, which intrigues Payne. Natasha wants sex, saying she'll pretend to be Payne's dead wife, which is a total turn off for Payne. She leaves and then is killed. Payne's old partner finds Payne because Natasha had his wallet on her. Payne doesn't talk but the old partner later notices Natasha's tattoo is the same as a tattoo on one of the people who killed Payne's wife, who was killed by Payne. The partner is promptly killed and Payne becomes a suspect. Meanwhile, Natasha's sister, Mona Sax(The very sexy, but very miscast Mila Kunis) is looking for Natasha's killer which leads her to Payne. Payne and Mona team up to try to find out what is happening. SO what is happening? There is a drug on the street, Valkeir, that causes some seriously wicked hallucinations leading to death. The drug was created by a pharacudical company, where Payne's wife used to work, and the idea of the drug was to make super soldiers because the drug makes users super strong. Unfortunately in 99% of users it causes those suicidal tendencies. Payne trusts the wrong people and gunfire ensues often.

In a case of style over substance, Max Payne is at times stunning and awesome and at times boring and tedious. John Moore, the director of such movies as The Omen(remake) and Flight of the Phoenix, directs Payne with a strong visual hand but not much else. Also, in showing the hypocrisy of the MPAA rating system, Max Payne has about the highest body count one could possibly have in a PG-13 movie because there is no blood. Instead of blood, we get striking red visuals throughout the movie as a possible substitute for the blood. It gives the movie a sort of Sin City light feeling because the movie is so dark and and drab, but these fiery reds streaking across the screen in letters or sets. The violence is paced well and choreographed well and of course,e Wahlberg with guns in his hand, rules the Earth. The gun blasts are so loud and vivid, you jump the first few times you hear them, especially in the public bathroom scene. In terms of the hallucinations, the visuals are truly intense and spectacular, in particular when Payne himself takes the drug. What we see are gigantic winged gargoyle looking Angels, that all look like shadow creatures and the loom over the city and tear roofs off of the building and make painful screeching sounds. They give the effects of the drug quite a nice visual kick for us. The camera, with quick jilted movements help emphasis what a strange drug trip it is for people.

The good kind of ends there though. The story is muddled and the writing quite terrible. Wahlberg is usually charismatic, but he is lifeless as Payne, some of that is the fact that the character is lifeless, sure, but he could have brought something to it. Kunis is sexy as hell wielding weapons, but she doesn't work as a bad ass, in my opinion. Her voice and body language don't really incite fear the way you want them too. Ludacris, as a cop, sets the rapper turned actor movement back a few years with his dreadful acting. he can't make any of his lines sound fluid or real. Beau Bridges as a confidant of Payne's doesn't really add anything whatsoever and while it was nice to see Chris O' Donnell on screen again, he doesn't get enough screen time to really give us anything worthwhile. In scenes where there isn't action the movie comes to a screeching halt and none of the actors have much chemistry.

Also, if you have a fear of drowning stay away from Max Payne. The movie opens on and comes back to, a scene of Payne struggling to survive in water and it is a violent, visceral experience of what it looks like to drown. The water loudly crashes against his struggling body and he dips under the water and he shoots up trying not to choke on the water. It is a loud, messy and scary moment that sets things in motion very well. The way the camera dips under the water really captured me and put me right in the water with Max. It is moments like this that make me believe there should have been a better movie here. I know movies shouldn't be all action all of the time, but when a director as such a vivid visual style, you kind of wish they could be. John Moore may not know what to do in times of story or character, but he certainly knows how to stage a drugged out high and because of that, I will rate this higher than it maybe deserves.

Final Grade: C+

Religulous

There was a span of about 5 years where Bill Maher and his show, Politically Incorrect, was appointment television for me. I thought that man was hilarious, polarizing, charismatic and asked interesting and thought provoking questions. Then, the show was cancelled and I lost my interest in the man. I think it was two years later when I stumbled on a stand up special of his and after about 3 minutes concluded he had lost it. Nothing was easier at the time than jokes about Priests and young boys, but the entire section I saw was full of those easy jokes. My other point of view going into this movie, is known to those who know me, but for anyone justs tumbling onto this review blog, I should fully disclose that I grew up Mormon (I no longer affiliate with it) and religion has long been an interest of mine.

As far as documentaries go this is a pretty straight forward one. Bill Maher hates religion and interviews people to find out why people buy into it. He talks to Christians, Muslims and Jews. He talks to a Catholic Cardinal, ex-Mormons, Ex-Jews for Jesus, Muslim leaders, a Muslim rapper, Jewish Rabbis and even a guy who believes he is the second coming of Jesus Christ. He talks to black ministers, reformed Gays, Gay Muslims, scientists and a guy who plays Jesus in a reenactment at the Jesus version of Disneyland. He also talks to random people on the street and gets kicked out of the Vatican and The Mormon Temple Square. Maher is a funny interviewer although very combative at times and yes, he is out to trick his interview subjects.

Religulous plays like Borat crossed with Michael Moore movies. Maher attacks easy marks like Borat and incorporates music, cartoons, subtitles and clips from existing sources to make his point in the way Moore does. If you go back and see my Borat review, or have had discussions with me about Borat, you would know, my biggest issue with the movie, aside from not being funny in any way, is that Borat attacked easy targets. We all knew that homophobia exists in the south and that frat boys are misogynistic. When Maher opened this movie talking to a group of Christian Truckers, I thought, "Oh great, here we go again." The fundamental issue with intelligent conversation or debate on religion is that religion is not based in intelligence. That is not to say that only idiots subscribe to religion, it is saying that people who have faith, are led by their faith and not facts trying to prove or not prove the existence of God. It is easy for Maher to make people who have faith look stupid and it is easy for "I have faith" to be a cop-out in a debate. This presents a problem for Maher's interview tactics. He does land some nice punches and he gets people to say stupid things like a U.S Senator saying "You don't have to takes an I.Q test to be a senator."

What Maher should have focused more energy on is the hypocrisy of the commercialization of religion. When he goes there he scores great laughs and great points. He confronts a minister who wears $2,000.00 dollar suits, has lizard skin boots and thousands of dollars worth of bling and wonders if Jesus would be happy about it. The highlight of the movie was the Catholic Cardinal who admitted he hated the excess of the Vatican. The guy was funny, honest and humble. He seemed to "get" his faith in a way so many do not. Maher does contradict himself in one moment though, that bugged me. Maher spends a lot of the movie trying to convince Christians that the bible is a dated book, that it contains things that no longer apply and that to believe 100% something from a book written so long ago maybe is not the best way to go. He makes the point "What else from those ages do we still use?" Well, nothing really. However, when a Muslim woman tells him that she believe the violence spouted by Muhammad was meant only for the days of Muhammad, Maher attacks her by saying, Well the book says it is to be. Maher tries to have it be both ways. Here is an intelligent and peaceful Muslim woman who buys into the theory he spouted to the Christians and he has to attack her. It doesn't work.

Of course, Maher is preaching to the choir in this movie because no real religious person is going to watch it. He makes the point repeatedly that the story of Jesus follows countless ancient myths, like Horus and that religion is man-made solely. Maher doesn't believe in God and he has problems with God because he asks those all too frequent questions "Why would God allow the Holocaust to happen" Or "Why would 9-11 happen?" These are important questions to non-believers and the only answer faith based people can give is that we can never understand God's will. For Maher, those kinds of answers are not even close to sufficient. Towards the end of the movie, Maher loses that sense of humor and goes for the jugular in two impressively written and even more impressively delivered rants aimed square at not just people of faith, but people who do not have faith, but refuse to challenge faith based people. Maher is angry and eloquent all at the same time and his message is clear: Religion, with its violence, intolerance and hypocrisy, is dangerous. If God was not involved any group who practiced such blatant homophobia, violence and monetary hypocrisy would be considered a blight on mankind.

I do want to mention that Religulous is a very funny and interesting movie. I did not mean for this to turn solely on religion, but I also want to say that Maher was not exactly fair and balanced here. He did get intelligent men to debate him and Maher did hold his own and at times best people, but Maher spends an awful long amount of time grouping religion into religious fanaticism. Not all people of faith are out for blood and not all people of faith are homophobic. The religions may have homophobia engraved in the tenets, but not all people who subscribe to religion are fanatics and I am not sure that group was represented well in Maher's skewering of religion. Bill Maher makes so many great points, but at times, he is does get lost in his own mission. Of course, there are times when he doesn't even have to make the jokes because the jokes just happen, like two theme parks- one based solely around the Crucifixion and another by a faith based group out to explain science and the bible co-existing by having animitronic dinosaurs right next to anamitronic children. Those jokes can't be written folks!

Final Grade: B

City of Ember

Books are always better than the movie on which they are based. The most annoying thin g a person can snidely say is "The book was better." Of course the book was better. The book typically has much more time, language and ideas it can get across. Also, the entire action takes place in our mind and no image on a movie screen can compare to the images that flicker in our own imaginations. It is just the way it is. Perhaps then, the best compliment a movie can receive is that the movie made me want to read the book. If a movie based on a book I have not read is a good movie, why wouldn't I want to read the book, if books are always better? I mention this for this movie because I now have a desire to read the book, and maybe even the others in the series.

Ember is an underground city that needs to exist for 200 years. It was built in hopes of maintaining the human race after some unexplained event that wipes out the above world. The city is supposed to last for 200 years and after 200 years a box will open with instructions on how to leave Ember. Each mayor holds onto the box, but something happens after one Mayor's death and the box disappears. I have never seen a movie that so quickly and effectively spanned 200 years. It is a manner of minutes before we are 200 years later in the story. Ember is starting to fall apart, the self sustaining artificial lights are starting to freak out because the generator was only meant to last 200 years, only no one seems to know. The Mayor, Cole(Bill Murray) is a clueless and mean Mayor, who has a giant pot belly, when the rest of Ember is barely scraping by. The story focuses on two young people, Lina Mayfleet(Saoirse Ronan) and Doon(Harry Treadway), who have just been assigned their jobs in Ember. Doon got messenger and Lina got pipeworker, but Doon trades her because he wants to be closer to the generator that he believes he can fix. Lina's younger sister finds the magical box and Lina begins to piece it together trying to figure out what it means. She and Doon quickly realize they are directions to leave Ember, which no one thought existed.

City of Ember is the kind of movie that everyone ignores, but shouldn't. Every year so many movies come out aimed at kids, based on books that have supernatural type flavor and some catch on and some get lost. City of Ember has gotten lost and it doesn't deserve to be lost. Ember moves quickly, features an amazing CGI city (Some of the other CGi miss the mark, admittedly), is thrilling, interesting and complex. Of course, it is also too dark and maybe a bit scary for kids. It is a PG movie in the vein of The Goonies or other adventure movies. I am not saying it is comparable to The Goonies, but it is similarly themed. The two young stars are both good here and Bill Murray and Tim Robbins add a nice adult presence. Murray doesn't deliver the laughs you might expect from him, but he facilitates the villain role well enough. Robbins has become a master at playing disaffected weirdos and here he adds another character to that genre of characters. Ember is a dark movie and doesn't offer the kind of escapism people are looking for as we watch Ember go through the hardships of an economic downturn and the citizens are in constant fear during the very scary blackout sequences. It seems that the soul or spirit of humanity has been lost as these underground citizens remain unsure of what is going on.

There are many unanswered questions that I think will annoy people, but I kind of enjoyed that aspect. We never find out what happened above ground that caused the demolition of the human race. Whatever it is, it may have been the cause of turning small animals into giant animals. We see a giant bee and a mole looking creature that is botrh impressive and very scary looking, with these weird tentacle looking things and a nasty appetite. The ending will also probably provoke questions, which I think is a good thing. Is the ending happy? One could make that argument, but there is still so much left about which to be curious. I know that a young person movie has to wrap up in time for kids not to get squirrelly, so I am sure some of the stuff got left on the cutting room floor. But I have so many questions. I want to know more. I need to know more. I was even hypnotized by the crisp sound in the movie. Throughout the whole movie you could hear the water dripping from the tiniest corner of the frame. It is mesmerizing for me.

It is not all that often that a movie aimed at young people gets me these days. Pixar being the exception of course. However, City of Ember has me interested. I want more time in that dark and dirty city. I want to know more about how the whole thing works. The movie leaves some to be desired, but it also has made me care enough to know more. I want to know why English hasn't seemed to change much in 200 years, but the names have gotten stranger. Maybe I am over-thinking it (Me, NO, NEVER!), but I am fully committed to this idea of an underground city that has a very cool and elaborate way out. And to me, that signals that the movie did its job of thrilling and entertaining me. I was never bored and when it was over, I felt relief, sort of. Oh and if you need more of a reason to see it, the woman who wrote Edward Scissorhands and Nightmare before Christmas wrote the script, so you know it is interesting.

Final Grade: B+

Ghost Town

I would not classify myself as a fan of Ricky Gervais. I never watched the British version of The Office, and what I watched of Extras was only funny due to the cameos(Check out Kate Winslett's episode) and what little I have seen of him in the movies- Night at the Museum- has left a bit to be desired. To be honest, if I was not working at a theater where I got to watch this movie for free, I probably never would have seen it. It received pretty good reviews, but my parents thought it was bland and my dad is probably the easiest person to please with a movie (Other than Shayne), so that didn't exactly make me want to run out and watch it. However, after studying for midterms I wanted an escape and it came in the form of Ghost Town.

Bertrum Pincus(Gervais) is a dentist who hates everything and everyone. Can you blame him, his name is Bertrum Pincus, after all. He is on schedule to undergo a colonoscopy but he refuses to get it without anesthesia. The next day he wakes up and heads home, but he starts to notice that people are following him. These people keep claiming "Wait, you can see me?" Pincus believes something happened that has left him with hallucinations and when he gets back to the hospital he find out he died for seven minutes, or a bit less. When he came back he could start seeing ghosts. These ghosts cannot leave Earth because they have unfinished business here. One in particular, Frank Herlihy(Greg Kinnear)buddies up to Pincus and promises him he will get the rest of the ghosts to leave him alone if Pincus can convince Herlihy's widow, Gwen( Tea Leoni), to break off her engagement to her new man. Frank is convinced the new man is just after her money. Pincus agrees to help by putting himself into Gwen's life. It turns out Gwen lives in his building and has tried to be nice to Pincus many times and was met with a bad attitude. Through a series of cute and pretty funny dates or meet-cute's Gwen starts to enjoy the company Pincus provides. Frank starts to get jealous and he is also feeling guilty for cheating on Gwen. It turns out though that Gwen's new man is actually a good guy and not a bad man like Frank convinced Pincus he was. Pincus tries to take himself out of Gwen's life. It is a romantic comedy so it is not hard to see the outcome, but with these kinds of movies it is not so much the destination that makes them.

Ghost Town is certainly in the upper echelon of romantic comedies. Neither Gervais or Leoni come across as typical RomCom type actors and that helps keep this movie more fresh than most. Gervais is an absolute riot as the curmudgeon, but he also does a pretty good job with the sweeter side of the character. he captures the loneliness perfectly and we feel sorry for Pincus even as he is a jerk to everyone. Leoni does a wonderful job with a more physical kind of comedy and she has a warm presence and it is easy to believe that she can fall in love with Pincus because she comes across as loving a guy who makes her laugh. Kinnear for his part glides effortlessly through a character that is essentially the villain of the story until the end. He is a self absorbed jerk and Kinnear, in his nice tuxedo plays the role perfectly. But, the biggest laughs are provided by Kristen Wiig as the doctor performing Pincus' colonscopy. This woman (Saturday Night Live) has probably the best comic timing I have ever seen from a woman in movies. I know that is bold, but she was in two scenes in Knocked up and was memorable and in this she has three scenes and they are the best moments in the movie. She is a shining comedic character actress and hopefully she will continue to build on these types of roles.

David Koepp, who wrote and directed this movie handles the director duties well, considering he usually writes and directs thrillers- Secret Window, Trigger Effect, Stir of Echoes. His dialog hits the cliches it is supposed to hit, but he also has a few nice gems in there that I wish I could have written down for this review. I would like to believe that Koepp wrote a majority of the great awkwardly comic moments, but my guess is Gervais had a big hand in shaping where the movie went. He lends himself to that style of comedy and it suits him. Gervais is probably more at home when he can contribute to the dialog because he seems to have a small niche of what he is capable of doing. Well, this is right in his wheel house.

Of course, there is the whole ghost thing. Anytime a movie exists where a guy talks to ghosts it opens itself up to that broad kind of comedy where everyone else sees this guy talking to himself and Ghost Town does not avoid that, but for some reason it came off as funny here when it usually just seems dated. Perhaps my mood going in made me like the movie more than I would have, because I just needed an escape, but there are some great laughs. Also, it is about ghosts, which is always cool. I think there is almost enough for two full movies here, but instead they crammed most of the ghost resolves into your easily digestible movie montage. It leaves a bit to be desired because we actually feel a bit invested with our ghostly characters and we don't get to see how much of it plays out.

I was not expecting much of Ghost Town and was pleasantly surprised. There are 4 or 5 scenes where the comedy is so excellent I could be heard laughing from outside of the theater. Gervais, while maybe not a diverse comedic actors, is excellent in this role and the movie avoids enough of thew romantic comedy cliches that it seems fresh enough. I don't do a whole lot of RomCom watching, but this is one I can recommend to people.

FInal Grade: B

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

Yesterday I was having a conversation with a former professor of mine about this movie. He thought that he was just too old for a movie like this and the whole thing would just annoy him. I thought it was an interesting statement, considering my professor loves the John Cusak 1980s comedies and make no mistake, Michael Cera is John Cusak. I mean see the point of view my professor has, the movie is chalk full of this too-cool-for-school hipster attitude and a soundtrack that is equal parts charming and annoyingly indie. However, if you want to see where young Hollywood is headed this is the movie to see because Cera and Kat Dennings are the two people to watch right now.

Nick(Cera) opens the movie leaving a message for Triss(Alexis Dziena) lamenting their break up. His attempts to win her back, creating mix Cd's, is a losing cause as Triss just tosses the Cd's, but they find their way into Norah's hands. Norah(Dennings) falls in love with the mixes and through a chance encounter she makes out with Nick before finding out who he is. This sets off a chain of events that are plotted around the search for a concert from a band that rarely plays live. Nick's friends, Thom and Dev, coax Norah into hanging out with Nick and try to get Nick over Triss because Triss is an evil she-witch. With Nick and Norah in the same car, Nick cannot stop talking about Triss, without ever realizing how cool the girl in the car with him is. Norah is a solid friend, always babying her drunk mess of a friend, Caroline(Ari Graynor) and Nick and Norah have the exact same taste in music. Nick and Norah seems perfect for each other and everyone seems to know it except Nick.

Nick and Norah is a movie that is probably funnier than it should be because, Michael Cera and Kat Dennings both have exceptional comic timing and find a way to make most of their banter funny, even if you aren't sure the dialog is funny. The soundtrack, full of Vampire Weekend type bands did bug the crap out of me, but the movie is so funny and full of so much earnest cuteness it is hard to fault it. Ari Graynor as the drunk mess friend gets an insane amount of laughs and gets many points from me for not being afraid of getting down and dirty, drooling, snoring and even putting her hand in dirty toilet water. The ongoing gum joke doesn't ever lose its comedy, which is rare for jokes that last so long. Cera and Dennings make such an amazing couple you kind of hope they star in all kinds of movies together. Cera really shines, in a role that is much more brooding than his other two big roles and he proves he can carry a movie. He is on screen in just about every scene and never looks overwhelmed. He really is one to watch.

Yes, at times it feels like the movie thinks it is more clever than it really is, but I tend to like movies like that so it works for me. I like that Nick's friends are gay without it being a big deal at all. I think it says something about where we are headed in the movies. The friends didn't have to be gay, but they are and it is just accepted without them being overly stereotypically gay. That is always a nice thing to see. The jokes about Nick's yellow Yugo being a cab are a bit lame, but all the other jokes about the Yugo hit pretty well for nice laughs. There is something here for anyone as the girls swoon over Cera's ridiculous sweetness and the guys have a handful of beautiful women to look at and the humor itself transcends gender. There is nothing particularly new about what happens in the movie, but it manages to seem fresh for the most part and I appreciated that about it.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist will not win any awards and it isn't even one of the funniest movies of the year, but it rises above so many romantic comedies revolving around young people because it actually got good actors to fill the roles. It sets the two stars on a nice path for stardom and really sets Cera up as the John Cusak of this new generation, which is never a bad thing to be.

Final Grade: B

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

There is a question posed in this movie that requires much thought: Would you give Megan Fox a cherished ring your dead mother left you, if Ms. Fox promised to have sex with you? Marinate on that for a bit, especially guys and lesbians.

Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) has always been obsessed with celebrity, but he lives to tear it down, mock it while wanting to be part of it. He runs a little magazine in England, where he tries to get into exclusive parties pretending to be the car taker for the pig who will star in Babe 3. One night he crashes the party of Sharps magazine and a big to do its made. The next morning, the man who runs Sharps, Clayton Harding(Jeff Bridges) offers Sidney a job on Sharps. Sidney shows up for day one in a t-shirt that reads "Young, dumb and full of come." He is not a brilliant guy. He desires to turn Sharps from celebrity worship to celebrity mocking. At Sharps he is the low man and answers to Alison Olsen(Kirsten Dunst). She appears to be the only one who can put up with Sidney's brand of obnoxious humor. Sidney is going nowhere int he magazine because he refuses to conform and give a celebrity publicist(Gillian Anderson looking amazing) final cut on his articles about her clients. However, when Sidney meets, a young and hot actress, Sophia Maes(Megan Fox), things change and he has to get next to her. Slapstick ensues and some love matches keep missing each other and Sidney finally makes it to the top, in a sad little montage that feels beneath the movie. He gets where he wants to get or does he?

So, were you thinking about the question posed because the movie kind of starts there and then the big climax happens as a result. Could you give up a family heirloom for a night of sex with Megan Fox? Sidney Young thinks so, and it is not difficult to see why. Megan Fox, all sexy pouty lips and that body, struts around this movie like the hottest thing ever. She always has some descent comic timing, although I suspect the dumb act wasn't difficult for her. Simon Pegg was kind of born to play roles like this as he has brilliantly subtle comic delivery, but is also adept at physical comedy and there are plenty of pratfalls for Pegg to do. He and Kirsten Dunst have a very nice easy chemistry which is good because the movie kind of revolves around the two of them becoming friends. Jeff Bridges doesn't have much to do, but he does a pretty good job and looks to be having fun with the role, which is nice in a movie like this.

"How to Lose" offers much in the way of laughs, especially in the first half, but it does lag in the final act, as we all know where it will eventually go. I think ti could have been shorter and perhaps tighter, but it still offers some great moments, unfortunately a few of the better laughs were blown in the trailer. There is a hilarious fight towards the end and Simon Pegg going on and on about this really sucky director never fails to make me laugh. With Hollywood being ripe for all kinds of satire or parody, I hoped this would be a bit more biting and maybe if I was in the magazine business, I would think it was biting, but it seemed a bit soft for my tastes in terms of satire. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and it never did. It kept one shoe on the entire movie. How uncomfortable!

Simon Pegg makes the movie worth my time because he is quite funny and he makes the most out of the material given to him and he proves he can carry a movie without the help of his usual co-workers, although he seems to work better with those guys. The movie is a little sweeter than I would have expected and not as biting. However, it has posed a question I will think about for eternity: What would I give up for the chance to have sex with Megan Fox?

Final Grade: C+

Flash of Genius

There is an inherent problem with this movie: it is about windshield wipers. There is no getting around that it presents a lack of interest from the get go. No matter what you do with the script or acting, it remains a movie whose focus is on the windshield wiper. It hardly seems like the kind of story worthy for the big screen. I mean we all use our windshield wipers, but we don't, as a collective, spend too much time pondering the windshield wiper and why should we? The wipers are like sporting referees, if they are doing their job we never notice them. However, here we are presented with a movie that takes the concept of the windshield wiper very seriously. So with that bias going in, how can a movie like this succeed?

On his way home from church on a rainy day, inventor/college professor Bob Kearns(Greg Kinnear) wonders out loud to his wife and 6 kids why there can't be speed changes on a windshield wiper. He thinks that wipers should work like eye lids, blink faster if needed and not much if not needed. Then a few minutes later in movie time, he has created a way for a windshield wiper to pause between wipes and even speed up. He puts together a business proposal and soon is taking the product to Ford to show them he did it. He wants to manufacture the product himself and sell it to Ford for them to put on cars, but after waiting a while Ford rejects the proposal and that was that. Well, until Kearns sees Ford cars using his technology. He needs to sue them. He needs validation for all of the (off screen) work he did on it. In doing so, he pushes his business partner/friend away. He ostracizes himself from his wife and his eldest child resents him. He spends time in a mental facility and reverts to stealing off of cars to try and prove his point. But, he does get his day in court.

So, can a movie about the windshield wiper be interesting, not really. The team of writers, directors and actors do their damnedest and should be applauded for their efforts, really, but in the end, there is something missing that is key to movies- the big event. I guess you could classify this as a character study, but whose character is being studied? The Kearns character? I guess, but there isn't a real character change there, except for aging, which deserves recognition- the make up and adding of pounds was quite exceptional. Kinnear gives a very winning performance, but the characters of Kearns character lacks a zany or wacky or fun personality. He feels like your uncle, your average every day uncle. As the wife, Lauren Graham, the picture of modern and classic beauty, does what she can, but it is a pretty typical character to be playing. I spent the entire movie waiting for something major to happen- something tragic, or interesting, or happy- but it never came. Every so often the movie would jump ahead a few years in time, but essentially the same stuff would continue to happen.

When Kearns finally gets his day in court, I will admit the movie perks up a little bit, but only because Kearns is representing himself because no lawyer will take on Ford. The awkward comedy that comes from a non-lawyer trying to be a lawyer works but the best scene is when Kearns has to call himself as a witness. I am not sure if he did it in real life, but on film it is funny to hear him ask and answer his own questions. The movie is trying to make a point about standing up for the voiceless or the little man against big companies and there is some passing mention to other inventors who were robbed of their inventions, and I believe it to be a worthy cause but it is only touched on without going into much detail about the whole thing.

I am glad I watched the movie because Kinnear is quite good with what he has, but ultimately this is a movie that did not need to be made. Yes, the verdict and everything else is a nice story, but it isn't really worthy of the big screen when it is all said and done. I doubt anyone will remember this story a few days after watching the movie. Maybe that is sad for us as we take these little inventions for granted, but it is the world in which we live.

Final Grade: C

Eagle Eye

Shia LaBeouf seems bullet proof. No matter what he does in his life, on screen he shines. He is the opposite of most child actors. He can get arrested for stupid shit, get in 2a.m car accidents and it just bounces off of him as he goes to shoot these big movies. He stars in summer blockbuster franchises and starred in one of 2007's biggest surprises, Disturbia, which in the words of Robbie, had no business being as good as it was. He is Speilberg's golden boy. The heir to the thrones once owned by Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise. In one year he went from the next big thing, to the now big thing. When Eagle Eye opened to nearly 30 million dollars in September he proved he can open a picture without robots or Indiana Jones. He is the new Will Smith. I mention all of this because your joy in Eagle Eye will probably rest upon what you think of the man who once was known as Louis Stevens.

Jerry Shaw is a man just barely scraping by in life. He is ducking rent and winning money at poker. He has less than 80 dollars to his name and to top it off, his brother has just died, his twin brother. After the funeral, he has a confrontation with his father that ends badly, but we find out Jerry was the black sheep and his twin brother was in the Air Force and the all American boy before being killed in a car accident. The next day Jerry has over $700,000.00 in his account and his apartment is chalk full of explosives and war equipment. He gets a phone call that tells him the F.B.I is on the way, and when he is captured by the F.B.I the voice tells him how to escape. He is ordered to go to a car. In that car is Rachel Holloman(Michelle Monaghan) who has been ordered by the same voice to follow orders or her child will be killed. Jerry and Rachel begin to drive everywhere doing what they are told. Their tasks include sticking up an armored truck all while being watched by someone. The F.B.I is still on their tails as is the Air Force. I cannot really say anything else for fear of giving too much away, but the twist certainly spins the movie in a whole other direction.

Eagle Eye has a summer movie sensibility in the end of September. I think the only thing that made this not a summer release is that it is so dark in tone and bleak in its cynicism. It is also trying to make a point, which is a typical no-no for summer fare. However, there is a bomb ass car chase, a few fights, more chases, explosions, crazy set pieces and Shia, which all point to summer. It is a movie that is a lot of fun and it movies along at such brisk pace that it doesn't allow you to stop and think about how ludicrous the whole thing is, which is a Good thing. Of course, it is utterly ridiculous how it all plays out, but who cares when you are on the edge of your seat during the thrills? Exactly, no one!

Shia has mastered the art of running in the movies. He runs from danger or towards danger than just about anyone ever has. He is flawlessly good in these types of action movies. Michelle Monaghan does her best job at keeping up and their chemistry is pretty good and the writers did a pretty good job with their dialog. I enjoyed getting to know the two characters and watching them get developed at least a little bit during the course of the movie. I enjoyed watching Jerry starts as a guy who lets things happen and then transform into a guy who makes things happen. I also enjoyed being in the dark through most of the movie as to why these two were picked. Maybe I should have picked up on it sooner, I don't know. Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson, Ethan Embry and Michael Chiklis are all good in their supporting roles and Thornton's scene of chasing Shia and Michelle through the airport is one of the standouts in my opinion.

Many movies are made about how technology so maybe Eagle Eye is not totally original, but what it does with the story is interesting, so at least it dealt with common territory in an interesting way. D.J Caruso (The director) is making a nice career for himself by directing Shia in movies produced by Steven Speilberg. Not a bad way to go about things, right? He also directed some great episodes of The Shield and he is still on the come up. He paces this movie perfectly, giving just enough for us to breathe in between chases or other action stunts. No, it is not a perfect movie, but it is an enjoyable thrill ride and sometimes that is all that matters.

There is this thought I see in reviews and on Message boards these days that say we aren't supposed to just have fun watching a movie anymore, but Eagle Eye bucks that notion. It is a fast, fun and thrilling movie that can take your mind away for two hours. Sure, Shia isn't quite ready for the beard thingy he is rockin in the movie, but he knows exactly how to maneuver through a movie like this and it takes a certain talent to do so. Yes, I would like him to try his hand at something a little meatier next time, to show he is an actual actor, but for now, sit back, strap yourself in and enjoy the ride. It really is a good time to be had.

Final Grade: B

Choke

I don't recall exactly how long ago it was when I read the book on which this movie is based. I also don't vividly recall the details of the book because I remember not loving it. I remember thinking the book fell apart in the final act, which is fairly common for books by Chuck Palahnuik, in my opinion. Of course, I am a hardcore believer in separating the source material from the movie. I think each has to be judged on their own merits. I was curious to see this movie mostly because it was written and directed by a first timer(Clark Gregg) whose day job is to be an actor. (I know him from Aaron Sorkin t.v. shows, but he was in Ironman this summer) I was curious how a first timer would handle such an odd movie topic. Would he be fresh and exciting, or would it overwhelm him?

Victor Mancini(Sam Rockwell) is a despicable kind of human being. He is a sex addict who cuts out of Sex addict anonymous meetings to have sex. In order to make extra money he goes to restaurants and pretends to choke on food and when someone saves him, the savior feels responsible for him and sends him money every year. In his day job, he is a performer in a reenactment of a old style village. He lives for the orgasm because it is the one moment of life where he feels nothing at all. He thinks it is bliss. He has sex with every female that walks. His best friend, Denny(Brad William Henke) is addicted to masturbation and together they live miserable lives. In his free time, Victor goes to visit his mother(Angelica Houston) who is living in a facility for sick old women and doesn't know Victor is Victor. She always thinks he is a lawyer or some other random person. In a series of flashbacks, we see that Victor and his mom had a rough relationship and he was in and out of Foster care because his mother was getting arrested all of the time. Victor is dying to know who his father is and finds her diary to figure it out. Victor gets close to a doctor on staff, Paige Marshall(Kelly McDonald)and he wants to have sex with her, but he cannot get it up for her. He thinks it means he is falling in love with her. Victor cannot read the diary because it is in Italian, but Dr. Marshall can read Italian and finds out that Victor may be a direct spawn of Jesus Christ himself.

In the movie sounds absolutely absurd it is. I didn't even mention the friend falling in love with a stripper and collecting rocks to beat his masturbation addiction. There is an interesting twist towards the end of the film that shakes things up but, to be honest I was expecting or hoping for more from Choke. It has all the elements but something was missing in the execution. It can be hilarious (any scene involving their day job at the village) and it can be serious, (Victor with his mother) but there is a disconnect somewhere for me. I wanted to love the movie and I only ended up liking it okay. It only runs 95 minutes long, but I was so sure it was about 2 hrs long when it was over. It just lags, especially in the flashbacks, which needed to be a lot more interesting considering how time we spend watching them.

That being said, Sam Rockwell is just phenomenal as Victor. He seems to have been born to play the part of the sexually immature character. He is smooth and fast talking and just the right amount of damaged for us to believe him in every moment. He comes off as vulnerable in the right moments and while I think the character is loathsome, he made it all partly endearing in moments. Houston does a great job as the senile mother, but I wish she had been given more to do with the flashbacks, instead of standard mean mother type stuff. Clark Gregg also playing the part of the lord of the old village provides some of the best laughs in the movie, hands down.

There are certainly interesting aspects to the story in regards to why Victor is the way he is. He believes if he just finds his father he will know why he is emotionally stunted. He thinks all of his problems could disappear if he knew why. Instead of actively working at changing, like his friend, Victor's quest to find out this information just makes the whole thing worse. His constant need for sex destroys his humanity, but in his mind it is the only thing that keeps him grounded. The script does a fairly good job at representing that, although I had hoped it would have a bit more bite to it.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to many people, except to watch Rockwell totally own the character and movie and maybe to anyone who likes to watch quick 5 second flashes of sex in the movies because this is full of those. Choke has flashes of great material, but it wanders around for far too long a time to make use of the great stuff it has.

Final Grade: B-

Towelhead

There was controversy surrounding this movie long before it ever came out because of the title. After watching it I was surprised the controversy did not come from what actually happens in the movie. When the movie started there were 9 people in the theater, by the time it was over I was the only one left. People just cannot handle this kind of subject matter. The title, though, is actually pretty fitting for the story being told.

Jasira(Summer Bishil) is a 13 year old girl experiencing her sexual awakening. While babysitting a neighbor boy, she catches the neighbor looking through dirty magazines; she is fascinated by them. One day while looking through one, she starts rocking back and forth and rubbing her legs and it gives her an orgasm. Soon, she is giving herself orgasms in class, at lunch and anywhere else she can get away with it. Jasira, a Lebanese girl, comes from a very strict household. Her father has turned to Christianity and loathes anything non American, but he is not willing to teach Jasira anything, just slap her around when she does something wrong, or wears something inappropriate. This leads to her turning to her neighbor, Travis(Aaron Eckhart). Travis is a father and a husband and unnervingly attracted to Jasira. He doesn't come off lecherous at first, but he is sexually drawn to the young girl. He lets Jasira take some of his magazines home with her and is looking to take advantage of her naivete in the ways of sex. One night he crosses the line, but Jasira doesn't know what to do with it. Instead she turns to a classmate to fulfill her sexual desires. However, she is still drawn to her elder Neighbor. She puts herself in the position to be alone with him, asking him out to dinner and things like that. Soon another neighbor, Melina(Toni Collette) catches on to what is going on and sees Jasira needs a mother figure. She also sees Jasira needs guidance in the ways of sexuality so she buys her a book. All hell starts to break loose when her father finds the magazines and it leads to quite a climatic final half hour.

Right after the opening credits, Jasira is standing in a shower in a bikini with her mother's boyfriend shaving her pubic area. Later there is a close up ona bloody tampon. The orgasms Jasira has are probably longer than is comfortable. The scene where she is manually raped is long and graphic and unsettling. These are all scenes that were followed by people walking out. I get it, I mean I get walking out when faced with something uncomfortable. However, the movie makes sense. While the movie is called Towelhead, so it leads one to believe it will be all about race, it is really about what happens when parents do not talk to their children about sex. If Jasira's parents had taught her things, there is a chance Jasira never would have wanted those magazines and the neighbor man wouldn't have seen her as sexual prey. Or, if they had taught her, maybe she would have spoken up about the rape and not have that kind of thing happen again. Yes, race factors in as Jasira is constantly called a towelhead or Camel Jockey and her father will not let her be with a black kid because he thinks it makes her look bad to American society, but be clear, this movie is about the startling sexual awakening of a young girl.

Towelhead is a very well made movie in terms of structure and performances. Aaron Eckhart is the perfect amount of slimy suburban dad and everyone else shines as well. However, in her very big screen debut is outstanding. She conveys the innocence and curiosity of Jasira perfectly. She lights up the screen with her presence and is certainly fearless in this movie. It would not work without such a strong lead performance and Summer does such a great job. Yes, it is a big messy movie and I do not blame anyone who wants to stay away and I do not blame anyone for walking out, it is meant to be that kind of movie. It is meant to be in our collective faces, but for the most part it works.

My only complaints about the movie are about writer/director Alan Ball. Ball who wrote a brilliant script for American Beauty seems a bit off his game here. He was comfortable writing from the Suburban dad perspective, but his usual wit and charm are mostly missing from Towelhead. Those elements would have made the pauses between shocking scenes a little easier to stomach, but maybe it was intentional to leave them out. Also, as a first time director, sometimes he seems overwhelmed by the material. At times it feels like he is so in love with his words, he just wants to point and shoot, but this doesn't seem like that kind of movie. I wanted a little more from the camera work.

Towelhead is a tough movie to sit through and it misses its mark at times, but a great breakout performance from Summer and an interesting story that should serve as a warning to non-communicative parents make it ultimately a good movie. I am sure the controversy will always overshadow the actual movie, which is too bad, but understandable.

Final Grade: B