I broke my personal record with that weekend with 5 films in one 3 day weekend. Beats the previous record of 4. I don’t know when that was. Couldn’t say. But I know this is a record. Rock on. Time for a blitz of film reviews.

9 – 4.5 stars

Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly, Martin Landau and John C. Reilly headline this animated fable of the end of the world. A literal rag-tag group of puppets attempt to salvage the last vestiges of humanity after the machines man created rose up and destroyed the world. Sounds like a great story for an animated film, right?

Well, it is. Engagingly directed by Shane Acker (based on his Oscar Nominated 2005 short film), this is one of the most beautifully and intricately animated films I have ever seen. It shows the big studios that animation is not just for kids, and stands a good chance to upset Pixar’s 2 year streak on Best Animated Feature.

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs – 3 stars

I was skeptical going into this one. I loved this book as a kid. And I didn’t quite know how they would adapt it into a full narrative film. But I ended up being pleasantly surprised. The film follows Flint Lockwood in the town of Swallow Falls, where food falls from the sky like weather.

You have a well written script with plenty of funny jokes for the kids and adults, and a supremely talented voice cast including Bill Hader, James Caan, Anna Faris and Bruce Campbell. This is the animated film to take the kids to.

Extract – 3.5 stars

Mike Judge returns to the workplace comedy in this very entertaining film with Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, Ben Affleck and Mila Kunis. Batman stars a factory owner/manager Joel who goes through a midlife crisis with his unsatisfactory marriage and stressful work environment.

Bateman, as always, delivers. You can’t go wrong with Jason Bateman. Same with Kristen Wiig. Affleck is enjoyable as the second fiddle stoner character. But what shines is the same thing that made Judge’s 1999 opus Office Space work, it’s the ability for the audience to relate to the characters. It’s not as tight, and nowhere near as funny as Office Space, but it’s still a decent enough flick.

The Informant! – 4 stars

Steven Soderbergh directs Matt Damon, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale in the true* story of corporate whistle blower Mark Whitacre, who exposed the international price fixing scheme of agri-business in the mid-90’s.

On the surface, it seems like the male version of Erin Brokovich, and it is. But it’s infinitely funnier due in no small part to the understated comedic brilliance of Matt Damon. Damon is routinely proving himself as one of the more versatile actors working today. And he makes the movie. So does Bakula, but I always dig Bakula.

Jennifer’s Body – 2 stars

Diablo Cody, fresh of her 2008 Oscar win, pen’s this high school horror flick about a teen queen played by Megan Fox who becomes possessed by a she-demon, and it’s up to Amanda Seyfried to bring an end to her murderous ways.

I’ve previously railed against the dreck passed off for modern horror, and this is no different, and couple that with the annoying dialogue of Cody and the talentless Fox, I’m left wondering exactly why this got so much advanced press. I also wonder why Seyfried doesn’t have the name recognition she so rightly deserves, as even in this film, she showcases infinitely more talent than Fox could ever hope to have.

I stayed away from writing full reviews for a good reason. I checked the forecast for movies following the great Inglourious Basterds, and it was a slew of crappy romantic comedies, crappy action flicks, and crappy horror flicks. If you saw the trailers, you knew they were destined to suck. September’s been kind of a dumping ground that’s good for bad films. The only one I had hopes for was Gamer, and as you’ll read in a few, that severely underwhelmed.

Halloween II – 1.5 stars – Rob Zombie (hopefully) completes his revisionist view of the saga of Michael Meyers. Not an improvement on the original franchise, or the first of Zombie’s remaking. It’s style over substance, and lacks style.

The Final Destination in 3D – 0 Stars – I have to give major props to the filmmakers on this one. They found a way to go down hill from rock bottom. The first one was mediocre at best. And it got worse from there. And kept getting worse.

Gamer – 0 stars – Gerard Butler and Michael C. Hall are great actors, but even they can’t rise above this drek. The nicest thing I can say about this film is that it’s stupid. It’s loud. No character or plot development.

All About Steve – 1 star – It has it’s charming quirks, but overall it was annoying. The message is forced on you. You’re beat over the head with it. Where’s that spark that gave Bradley Cooper and Sandra Bullock hits earlier this summer with The Hangover and The Proposal (respectively).

Whiteout – .5 stars – This movie is horrible. The thrills are boring, the acting is terrible. It gains half a star based on the merit of Tom Skerritt.

Sorority Row – 0 stars – It’s a completely unoriginal slasher flick devoid of any discernible social relevancy, other than killing off CW’s primetime lineup. It’s a slasher flick, but it doesn’t have a glimmer of the poignancy that it’s predecessor’s had. It doesn’t even try to. It’s all about the hot chicks. And about half way through, I kinda stopped caring about the hot chicks.

And that leads me to the commentary portion of the blog. And I will warn you, the language will get a little rough.

What the hell happened to American horror? Right up through the mid-late 90’s, American horror was great, and if not great, still good. That’s an overall statement. There are of course shitty horror flicks throughout the ages. But there have been great ones. And they run the gamut of sub-genres. But up there, you saw, that of the 4 horror films in the past 3 weeks, the highest rated one was a sequel to a remake (a special level of unoriginality). What we’re getting are cheap scares, remakes, sequels or bullshit “Based on a true story” ghost stories. Seriously. If you see “Based on a true story” attached to a horror flick, it’s bullshit.

I think it’s that the filmmakers aren’t trying anymore. They’re opting for cheap scares (person jumps around a corner/loud noise across the room/power going out, what have you). They rarely take the time to build the suspense. I find myself bored and annoyed more than I’m truly frightened. And I can’t go back and watch the classics that did scare me, because I know them now. They’re familiar to me.

Of the best examples of horror from the past 10 years, The Sixth Sense is the only one that was really, really good. Sure, M. Night Shayamalan has turned into a joke at this point, but in 1999, that was a very effective horror film. And it does still hold up. 2009’s The Collector Was good. It wasn’t great. But it was good. Effective is a good word to use for it.

While I usually hold disdain for the uninspired, cliche ridden borefests that are the remakes, this year’s remake of The Last House on The Left actually stayed true to the spirit of the original, and had big brass balls to the important, if highly disturbing, rape scene. It’s what set the tone for the film, and without it, couldn’t be the catalyst for the ensuing carnage. It’s what got the original banned in several countries for years (decades even), and they showed enormous respect for the source material by keeping it in. They kept with the spirit, so I do give it at least some credit for that.

P.S. on that… The Descent was British, as was 28 Days Later…, and we’re talking American horror.

The Saw franchise recalls the the 70’s/80’s hey day of franchising the horror, and bundling it with a pseudo-morality tale of “Value your life.” But like the great franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street), the quality decreases exponentially with each subsequent entry. We’re on the 6th this coming Halloween, by the way. They still deliver, don’t get me wrong. It’s just going stale. Still a guilty pleasure though.

But the downfall of American horror is traceable to one event. One day. One movie. One 1 hour and 51 minute piece. It hit the world 13 years ago, and so utterly destroyed the horror genre, that it can only be described as perfection. It’s one of my all time favourite films. Created by a horror master. I’m talking, of course, of the last frighteningly exquisite film- Scream.

Wes Craven is a master. Up there with his forefathers in greatness- Hitchcock, Murnau and Romero. He and John Carpenter carried the horror torch through the 70’s and 80’s, and defined the genre for subsequent generations.

And I think… I think Craven had a Victor Frankenstein moment in the mid-90’s. He saw what damage his creature had wrought. Or would bring. He saw the sensibilities of the general mainstream audiences shift. He knew that horror as it was wouldn’t last. That it would slowly degrade into terribleness. And rather than become a casualty, he became the perpetrator

Craven felt the best thing to do was go out in a blaze of glory. Enter Scream. It is at all times knowingly ironic, the most meta of meta. I think the term meta only had the vaguest of definitions until Scream arrived. The movie came out and Webster said “That’s it. That is fucking meta. Finally. Entry complete. Next word.”

Scream was, first and foremost, a satire. And it’s quite possibly the perfect parody. All the conventions of horror, specifically of the slasher sub-genre, where what Craven had created. He knew the ins and outs. It was his creation to destroy. But rather than make a silly, goofy, unwatchable Scary Movie, hinthintwinkwink, he played it straight. Craven went all out.

Get a few sorta popular TV stars, Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox, then of “Party of Five” and “Friends,” respectively. Add in a few more young, attractive stars with Drew Barrymore, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich. Round it out with David Arquette and Jamie Kennedy for comic relief, and he was on his way.

Again, the only way to do this, was to do it proper. Drew Barrymore’s been a star all her life. She was perhaps the biggest star in the film. And was heavily featured in the promotional materials. Craven did the unthinkable. Drew gets gutted 10 minutes in. What follows is an intense hour and a half of the leads discussing horror films, how the plot is playing out like a horror film, what would happen next if it was a horror film, what they would do if it was a horror film. The whole thing is ridiculously self-referential. But not only was it highlighting the cliches, but it was not only playing them out, but tweaking them ever so slightly.

It was still able to deliver on the scares, on the shocks. And you could really see the foresight Craven had for future horror. He went violent and gory, which led to the glut of “torture porn” in the 2000’s.

The biggest plus was that while the movie was in on it’s own joke, it never gave a wink and a nod. You never got that “See, we know it’s a joke, too. Get it?” The movie played it straight. Big plus.

And that’s what it did. The movie lived up to the cliches, but deconstructed them at the same time. You couldn’t take a horror film seriously after Scream. It’s like when a kid takes apart a vacuum cleaner to see what makes it work, and then puts it back together. Sure it works… just not quite the same as before.

And horror hasn’t been the same since. There hasn’t been a great one since Scream. And I’m waiting for the next great one to come along.

After sitting with District 9 for too long, and subsequently writing a lot about it, I realized I wouldn’t have room for all the reviews I needed to get done. Especially with Inglorious Basterds thrown in the mix (I could write pages on Tarantino. I have, before) So 3 mini-reviews, and the 2 full reviews.

The Time Travelers Wife: 2 stars – competent love story, well acted by the leads (Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana). But falls apart with the application of time travel. Creates too many unresolved paradoxes (paradoxi?).

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard: 2.5 stars – Oh, sure, it’s got it’s funny moments, beyond what’s in the trailer. But it takes a shotgun approach to the humour. Hope something, anything, will stick. Ed Helms shines.

Post Grad: 3 stars – Full of charm. Very topical. Carol Burnett was great, Michael Keaton steals every scene he’s in. Alexis Bledel needs to shake “Gilmore Girls”.

District 9

5 Stars

What do you get when you cross a compelling character study, race relation politics, and visitors from another world? The perfect sci-fi film. Neill Blomkamp’s District 9.

30 years after an alien ship mysteriously appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa, the E.T.s have been quarantined to District 9, a slum area. MNU official Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) has been charged with informing the Prawns (slang term for the aliens) of their forced relocation to District 10, only to unfortunately come in contact with a bio-weapon in the process. So as to not give away any spoilers on the film, I’ll just say that this sets off an chain of events that leads to Wikus aiding a Prawn in his attempt to get back to his home world.

I’ve long lamented that a problem with mainstream science fiction is that it’s too much on the comedy/action, not enough on the science or deeper, more probing issues that it could be. And don’t get me wrong, I love those kind, too. But the think piece sci-fi’s are much more compelling. And unfortunately they’re few and far between. This is one of those few times.

While several (good) films do tend to view alien visitors through rose coloured lenses, District 9 takes a much bleaker, more pragmatic view of the visitors. We, humans, round up the aliens, put them in slums, and treat them like second, nay, third class citizens. And it very rightly raises the question of, given today’s society and global political spectrum… is that not what we would do? And it’s disheartening to think that the answer could very well be yes.

History is littered with this sort of thing. Americans and the blacks. Americans and the Indians. Pretty much WASPs and non-WASPs in America. Apartheid in South Africa. Serbian ethnic cleansing. And of course the Holocaust, the extreme side. Turning this dark side of our history on it’s head, and forcing us to look at how we act, which is out of fear, and how we would treat these visitors. And it’s scathingly brilliant.

All due credit must go to star Sharlto Copley. The star of the film could have been the script, could have been the effects, could have been the action sequences. But Copley, who astonishingly is starring in his first full length feature, carries the film on his shoulders, and pulls you into his character and you get a connection the likes of which are rarely seen these days. Especially in sci-fi. His transformation from goofy bureaucrat with magnified character flaws to reluctant and sympathetic hero. He plays Wikus straight, the whole way through. There’s no wink and nod that this is a sci-fi flick. And to his credit, you forget that there are aliens, due to his commitment to the story and to the character.

And of course, writer/director Neill Blomkamp. His unflinching and uncompromising daring in his desire to make his movie, and leave his stamp on the world. He disregarded the norm and and made this wonderful think piece that taps into the audience’s desire to be challenged with something new and fresh, as well as their comfortable familiarity with the conventions of sci-fi/action. He fuses the two together, and walks away with the film of the year.

If you see one film in theatres this year, make it District 9, you won’t be disappointed. I will be if it doesn’t garner the recognition it so rightly deserves come award season.

Inglourious Basterds

4.5 Stars

It’s slick. It’s engrossing. It’s comical. It’s got gratuitous action. It’s got engaging dialogue. You’re drawn to characters you shouldn’t like. And above all else, it’s over the top. Yes, Quentin Tarantino has a new film out. And yes, it’s every bit as good as one could hope for (though I am a QT fanboy, so there is that).

Tarantino takes his unique vision and style all the way back to World War II, where the Basterds, a small military unit comprised of American Jews led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) are embedded in Nazi occupied France, and they do what they do best: Kill Nazis. They get a shot at the big dog himself, Adolf Hitler, when he decides to attend a movie premiere (several high ranking Nazi officials will also be in attendance). Little known fact to all involved, the theatre where the premiere is being held is owned and operated by a French Jew who saw her family slaughtered at the hands of a cold-hearted SS Colonel.

They say history is written by the winners. I’d rather it be written by Tarantino. His revisionist history is way more entertaining and satisfying than what actually happened. No other group of people represent the embodiment of evil more so than the Nazi’s. And pop culture pot shots at them are a guilty pleasure of most, whether they’re willing to admit it or not. And seeing them get their sweet, bloody, gory, gratuitous comeuppance satisfies the deep, internal, hidden bloodlust we all have.

The Basterds are so cavalier, so nonchalant that what they do, you can’t help but laugh, and get a sick glee out of watching them do what they do. Raine comments that they enjoy watching Donny (Eli Roth) beat Nazi’s, and there is a pleasure, a satisfaction in watching Lt. Donowitz go to town on a Nazi with a baseball bat.

Tarantino pulls no less than three amazing performances from his actors. First off, Brad Pitt. I’ve been touting the merits of Pitt for years. He really is quite good. And this exemplifies not only his ability to take on a character, but his comedic timing. While he doesn’t have the chameleon-like talents of some of his contemporaries, he does get into his character, and doesn’t let himself take over the character. He is a man who understands the craft. And he gives one of his career defining performances.

Melanie Laurent, virtually unknown to American audiences (myself included, I won’t be one of those snobs who pretends to be 100% versed in foreign cinema and holds nothing but feigned disdain for American works) gives a heartfelt yet brutal performance as the vengeance seeking Shosanna Dreyfus, a young French-Jewish girl hiding in plain sight who orchestrates a mass killing of the high ranking Nazi’s and the societal elite at her theatre. She takes the character template laid down by Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, a woman with laser-like focus on revenge, amplifies it, and pulls you into her own personal struggle.

But the most intriguing character, and the truly most brilliant performance of the year, hands down belongs to German actor Christoph Waltz as SS Col. Hans Landa. Waltz never plays him as over the top evil. Instead, he’s cold, calculating, and there’s a hint of sarcasm to him. To the character, not the portrayal. Waltz made the right choice in playing it straight. In a film filled with outlandish characters, someone has to be the straight man. And why can’t it be a Nazi. You don’t like him. You’re not sympathetic to him. But you are oddly drawn to him. There hasn’t been such an effective villain on film since that other famous Hans. Gruber, of course, from Die Hard. Waltz took the time to understand this character, and gave the performance of the year (up there with the previously mentioned Sharlto Copley in District 9).

No one writes dialogue like Tarantino. It’s almost lyrical. You’re fully engaged in every scene he writes. Every sentence. Every word. He’s not there to waste anyone’s time. In WWII revenge flick, you’ll go 20-30 minutes in between scenes of action, and that’s not really a problem. I sat enraptured by it.

That said, this leads to the one gripe that I had with this film, and it is similar to my frustration with Tarantino’s previous cinematic effort, Death Proof. If you remember, in cinemas, Death Proof was one half of the Grindhouse double feature, alongside his figurative brother Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror. DP showed second, and it really killed the flow. You had all this action with PT, then BAM 30 minutes of dialogue. It messed with the pacing. But I looked over it, knowing that they were two separate films, and I could watch them in whatever order I wanted at home on DVD. But with Inglourious Basterds, he’s suffering from pacing problems. He’ll hit you with a burst of fun action, then slam the brakes for dialogue. Rise up to the action, and hit the brakes again. It was frustrating. Tarantino, you didn’t used to have these problems. Maybe you’re slipping in your old age. Who knows?

But this is definitely one of the top films of the year. Thank you August for reaffirming my faith in ’09 cinema, after a pretty dismal year, thus far.

4 Full reviews and 2 brief ones

G-Force – 2 stars – When harmless is a bad thing. Kids may find this enjoyable, and if you find yourself being forced to see it, go the extra mile and see it in 3D.

The Collector – 4 stars – Great horror film that works on two levels. The shock and disgust of violence and gore, and the psychological fear of a cold, calculating unknown, unexplained villain. Reaffirms my faith in modern American horror.

The Ugly Truth

2.5 Stars

What do you get when you combine the cliches of a run of the mill romantic comedy and the bawdy humour of a boy’s night out? It’s still predictable, it’s still mediocre, but you get a few more unexpected laughs than normal.

Katherine Heigl stars as Abby, a romantically challenged TV show producer, forced to hire Gerard Butler’s Mike, a self-proclaimed relationship expert due to declining ratings, and the two instantly clash. But when Abby falls for her new neighbour, she seeks Mike’s advice for dating the guy, no matter how outlandish they become.

Fun, safe plot, huh? Well, it follows the usual trajectory, most recently seen in The Proposal just one short month ago. You can pretty much tell where it’s going to go from watching the trailer. So if you’re looking for a safe bet, a sure thing, this is the film to check out.

Heigl is making it really hard for audiences to like her. Off screen she decries the characters offered to women, yet routinely plays to the stereotype on screen. Butler really is the saving grace. Beneath his rugged good looks and action star physique lies a sharp wit and impeccable comedic timing. Think Scottish Brad Pitt.

But despite the funny jokes that will have you roaring with laughter and squirming at the over raunchiness for what you would expect to be a tame romantic comedy, the blending of the two may leave a weird after taste in your mouth. It works to a point, but you’re not really sure what kind of movie you just watched. I must refer you to Kevin Smith, the master of meshing frank dialogue with a relationship centric plot.

This one’s worth a rent, not a theatrical visit.

Funny People

4.5 Stars

Sure Judd Apatow has his name on just about everything these days. And sure, Seth Rogan is everywhere and it’s been easy to take shots at him for being overexposed. And sure, Adam Sandler has seen better days. But that all changes with Funny People.

Sandler plays George Simmons, a fictional version of himself, an actor/comedian who learns he has a rare form of lukemia, and decides to take Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) under his wing, and the two together re-evaluate George’s life.

The thing about Judd Apatow is that he has this ability to create characters he really cares about, and subsequently you really care about, and also make them really funny.

Adam Sandler finally finds that balance he’s been searching for in recent years between his comedic goofy persona and his serious work. You get a man who is faced with his own mortality, and is still able to crack jokes about it. And that is what still appeals to the everyman in the audience.

The only real gripe I have about this movie is that it is overly long and does drag at points. It feels like two films about the same thing. The first part is about a man dealing with his potential death, the second part is him reconciling with a former love. It could have been two movies had they done a little more with each. But each story was shortened and put into one film, causing it to drag a bit.

It’s still one of the best films of the year, and not one to be missed.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

.5 Stars

I said I’d give this film 5 stars if there was a PSA at the end. That was a joke. And there wasn’t. Good news is that there’s still a 5 star review for it. But as you can see, there’s a decimal point and nothing else in front of the 5. And that half a star is being generous.

After a failed mission to protect a highly volatile new warhead, Duke and Ripcord meet up with the covert-ops squad G.I. Joe (Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity) to recover the warhead, and stop a megalomaniacal arms manufacturer from causing chaos in the world.

I guess I should start with a positive thing or two about the film. Brendan Fraser’s brief cameo as who I can only assume is Beach-Head (possibly Sgt. Slaughter, but why not cast Sgt. Slaughter?) was a lot of fun, cause he’s in, he’s out, and it was kinda cool. I enjoyed Sienna Miller’s portrayal of the Baroness… to a point, possibly more on that later. Dennis Quaid was great as General Hawk. And then there was… umm….well… there was, wait no…. ok, I got nothing else.

Otherwise, holy crap what a tragedy! What an insult. At least the first Transformers film had respect for the source material. It seems director Stephen Sommers and his team of 6 writers (Sommers being one of them) got a character list and said “We’ll do whatever we want.” The comedy was ill timed, the characters were all over the place, and it just wasn’t G.I. Joe.

Since I am advising that you don’t even bother wasting your time with this, I am going to get into some spoilers. If you feel that you must endure this travesty of a film, then skip on down to the Julie & Julia review. What the hell was with The Baroness and Cobra Commander being brother and sister? What was with The Baroness and Duke having a romantic past? They couldn’t have possibly done a worse job with the Baroness (again, Miller’s portrayal was fine, and the problems I have with the character are purely the fault of the writers). They were setting up the film for potential sequels. But The Baroness is historically such a phenomenal villain, and they destroyed all that. How can she go back to being a villain after her realization that she wasn’t under her own control?

The action and special effects weren’t pulse pounding. They weren’t edge of your seat. They were slouch in your seat out of boredom, laughably bad. I was bored by the climactic chase sequence through the streets of Paris. You know what it reminded me of? Team America: World Police. In fact, this whole film was a psuedo-serious Team America that wasn’t in on the joke.

If you liked the show, if you liked the animated film, if you liked the action figures, don’t see this film. It will ruin your childhood. Even though Shia LaBeouf isn’t in it.

Julie & Julia

3.5 Stars

I recognize Meryl Streep as a great actress. She is. She’s phenomenal. I never got all “OMG! BEST ACTRESS EVER! I HEART MERYL STREEP!” But, yeah, I dig her work. And this, Julie & Julia, is some of her best, funniest work, and it doesn’t hurt that she has the great Amy Adams as her foil, and the equally great Stanley Tucci supporting her.

Julie & Julia is the tale of two true stories. Julia Child’s (Streep) as she masters the art of French cooking and attempts to make it accessable to American cooks, and Julie Powell’s (Adams) as she cooks her way through Child’s book in a year and blogs about it.

This is two great movies. Combined for one, it’s kind of a mess. It tries to correlate the parallels between Powell and Child, and what they discover on their respective journeys, jumping back and forth between the two stories. But it spends too much time on each. Just as you’re getting into the story, writer/director Nora Ephron violently pulls you away and thrusts you into the other one. And back and forth like that for two hours. I’m digging each story equally, but I’m also pissed off that I can’t fully follow them.

But the ADD like flip flopping aside, it is such a funny script. Streep is hilarious and Adams holds her own against the insurmountable force that is Streep. It never feels like they’re reaching for a joke. The comedy comes naturally, from these two women and their experiences and their characters. And it’s that humour that holds your attention through the film. And because of that humour, you’re with the characters when they do hit the serious points. You’re with them the whole way through. It’s great.

This is a film that everybody can enjoy. Fellas, skip the G.I. Joe this weekend, take your lady to Julie & Julia, you’ll thank me for it later.

I’ve got mini reviews for Terminator: Salvation, Night At The Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost, and The Hangover. So let’s jump right in, shall we?

Terminator: Salvation

3.5 Stars

It’s a franchise that has a longstanding place in the cannon of sci-fi/action. And McG decides to explore the future-history of Judgement day, focusing more on the action, less on the sci-fi. What made the first two so groundbreaking is that they dealt heavily with the consequences of technological evolutions, as well as the intricacies of time travel. Here we get a war movie, only instead of Allied troops vs. Nazis, it’s the Resistance vs. Robots. But I will give them this, the action was top notch and pulse pounding. And there is a great visual referance to The Great Escape, to more or less drive home the “war-action” point.

Christian Bale turns in a great performance, which are starting to become the standard for him. You also get interesting turns from Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Village) and Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Star Trek). I would have actually liked to see more of Anton as Kyle Reese in the movie. But the true powerhouse of the film was Sam Worthington (finally beign introduced to American audiences) as unaware Terminator Marcus Wright. Arguably the best scene in the film goes to him, when he finds out he’s not human. See the film for the action, and Worthington’s performance, but Terminator purists will be disappointed.

Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian

3.5 Stars

If you enjoyed the first one, you’ll definitely enjoy the second one. A bunch of very funny actors collaborate (and that’s the key word, they all collaborate) to bring historic characters to life in a very hilarious manner. Amy Adams shines by holding her own in a verible boys club of comedic actors, that includes Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader and Hank Azaria.

Unfortunately with all that does go on in the film, it is a bit scattered, and there’s a chaotic element to it that drags it down. But the film pulls out of the muddled mess to bring it home with a great third act. Definitely one to check out.

Up

5 stars

Pixar continues their hot streak. They’re now 10 for 10 (gonna go 11 for 11 next year with Toy Story 3). Where other animation houses (Dreamworks, Sony, even Pixar’s parent Disney) are more interested in being goofy, and making sure they can do product tie-ins, Pixar is ambitious. They want to tell a wonderful, emotional story, and present some of the most beautiful pieces of animation out there. And they do it. I will admit to getting a little misty eyed during Up. And no, not at the end. Within the first 10 minutes.

Ed Asner is pitch perfect as the curmodgeony Carl Frederickson. He’s lived in the same house for fifty years, and wants to honour his recently deceased wife by going on an adventure to South America, and takes the house along with him. It’s my second favourite Pixar film (behind Wall-E) and third favourite animated film (behind Beauty and the Beast and Wall-E).

Drag Me To Hell

4 stars

One thing director Sam Raimi knows is horror. He can scare the crap out of you, and make you laugh in the same scene. And with Drag Me To Hell, he returns to his Evil Dead/Army of Darkness roots. Not a scare is wasted in this tale of revenge and gypsy curses. It’s helped by the great performance of Alison Lohman in the principle role.

It does get admittedly cheesey at parts, but it’s hard to really call that a fault, since that’s Raimi’s style. And luckily for the audience, we’re given a completely satisfying ending. This is light-years beyond the normal drivel that passes for horror these days.

Land of the Lost

2.5 stars

It’s hard to figure out what they wanted to do with this film. Keep true to the spirit of the original show, or make a Will Ferrell movie (that also features the hilarious Danny McBride, currently batting a thousand). Unfortunately, they said ‘Screw it!’ and did both. And it just doesn’t work. It’s much more risque than I had expected. Not that I’m a prude or anything, far from it, I just expected a nice family film.

But, in taking it as what it is, it still offers up some good laughs, and keeps in the cheesey spirit of the show. Danny McBride is, as stated earlier, hilarious. His interactions with Cha-Ka provide for some of the best scenes. And Anna Friel provides a good balance to the macho humour of the two leads.

The Hangover

4 stars

In the grand tradition of Bachelor Party and Very Bad Things, we get a guys night out that goes horribly hay-wire, with hilarious consequences. What’s great is that we never see the night of debauchery. We’re left to piece together the night along with groomsmen, who are trying to locate the now missing groom. It’s full of raunch and ridiculous shenanigans, but anybody who’s taken part in a bachelor party (be it in Vegas or not) can relate to something these four do.

Bradley Cooper is funny, and, with his performance, reminds us to ask the question, “Why isn’t he a bigger star?” Comedian Zach Galafianakis finally gets the credit he is due with a starring role in this dark comedy. Definitley the comedy of the year, and for the first time in four years, it doesn’t feature Seth Rogan.

So about 3 weeks ago, my computer decided to take a crap and stop working. I had to completely reformat to get it up and running again. So here are 3 full reviews, plus a few mini-reviews.

Sunshine Cleaning – 3 stars – A solid dark comedy, but doesn’t live up to it’s stylistic predecessor, Little Miss Sunshine.
Obsessed – 0 Stars – There is nothing to like about this film… not even Idris Elba.
17 Again– 2.5 Stars – It was fun to watch Zac Efron be Matthew Perry for an hour and a half.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past – 1.5 Stars – It’s the same as every other Matthew McConaughey movie, only this time it’s Dickens-ian. So it still sucks.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

3 Stars

He’s a comic book character who is third only to Batman and Superman in popularity, yet has one of the most storied and intriguing backgrounds. Yet the film falls into the same traps that the source comics fell, too… good story, but poor storytelling. To fully and properly tell his story, you’d have to do at least two films, with this one being the second.

James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a child of privilege in the early 19th century Canada. After witnessing the murder of the man he believed to be his father, and subsequently revenge killing his real father, he and his now half brother Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Liev Schrieber) embark on a Gump-ian journey through time. Participating in every major war through Vietnam, before being executed and then brought into the Weapon X program. Wolverine then turns on his superiors, going rogue to regain and hold onto his humanity.

Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) returns to the role that made him famous. But it’s also a role that he made. The issue with many comic book characters is that they work entirely outside of the real world. Jackman brought that character into the real world for us in the previous X-Men films. This film would not have worked without Jackman. It is his character, and he of course does a fantastic job.

Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, Scream 2) is, in turn, a perfect foil in Victor to Jackman’s Logan. The humanity in Logan doesn’t exist in Victor. Victor is pure animal instinct, and Schrieber encapsulates that perfectly.

It all falls apart with the decent, yet ultimately forgettable turns from the supporting cast. Don’t get me wrong, they were good. And did add to the story. But the story was all Logan/Victor/Stryker (Danny Houston). You could have swapped out Bolt, The Blob, Deadpool and Gambit for just about anyone else in the Marvel cannon, and no one would have noticed. The movie would have been very similar. But they had to set up Deadpool for Ryan Reynolds ( Waiting…, Blade: Trinity) who did a good job. And they did have to include Gambit, finally. But really, it was all incidental.

Gavin Hood, you’re a competent enough director. I liked Tsotsi. But you either didn’t understand the material… Or you just didn’t care enough. This seemed like a throw away project for you. The fight scenes and special effects were cool, but that was how it was with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And we all know how that turned out.

All I’m saying is that this movie was good, and it should have been better. After Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen, you really have to step up your game when handling comic book franchises.

Star Trek

5 Stars

J.J. Abrams made it very clear that this was “not your father’s Star Trek,” and it isn’t. While maintaining the spirit of one of the longest running franchises in Sci-Fi fantasy, it gives it a face-lift, and brings it into the modern era.

We follow Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in their early days at Starfleet Academy, and their early clashes. But when Romulan Commander Nero (Eric Bana) threatens planet Vulcan, Starfleet snaps into action to ward off this enemy that haunts Kirk’s past and, through time warps, Spock’s future. This young, unruly band must come together when Cpt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the U.S.S. Enterprise is taken captive by Nero. Not only are we treated to some first class action, but also to the great political subtext we’ve come to know and love in the Star Trek franchise.

The Star Trek brand, and indeed the original cast of characters, are such cultural icons that it at first seems sacreligious to even attempt a recreation. But where several flim makers have ultimately failed, J.J. Abrams in recognizing the origins of the franchise, taking things in his own direction, but all the while never insulting the original, has succeeded. You sometimes get adaptations of beloved TV shows, and they clearly had no idea what the original was about, and it comes off as insulting to the spirit of the original. But Abrams knows his roots. He himself is a geek, and stepped carefully to create a great film that fit into the original story, but was clearly it’s own entity.

Try and follow this if you will, and you’ll see what Abrams was up against- To stay true the original blueprint of the series, Abrams had to refer to the 1966 version of the future, even though 2009 version of the future is now vastly different (especially considering all the technological advancements made since, you know, like man on the moon), than the 1966 version. So in order to present the current future, he had to use the past future, and update it to the present. All the while creating his own versions of classic characters.

Much could be said about the interaction of the two Spocks (Quinto/Leonard Nimoy), and don’t worry, I’ll get to that. But first, I want to talk Chris Pine (Bottle Shock, Smokin’ Aces), the relative unknown who had to step into William Shatner’s shoes. Say what you will about Shatner, Kirk wouldn’t have been nearly as great without Shatner back in the 60’s. So Pine had the daunting task of playing this icon, without reducing it to a charicature. Pine did the best thing he could do: forget the original. He created a whole new Kirk. And his Kirk is the cocky, reckless, rebelious, reluctant hero he should be. And he beds the green chick. Hat’s off to you, Pine. Admirably performed.

Quinto (“Heroes'” Sylar) makes his feature film debut, also tackling an iconic character. But Pine had it easy compared to Quinto. Quinto has to be in the movie with the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy. Quinto had to follow the rigidity of the character, but was able to take a few more liberties with the character, given the Vulcan’s relatively young age. And you’ll geek out when young and old Spocks share a scene.

Everybody else in the cast was perfect as the young counterparts to the originals. And the only one who I really had any reservations about, John Cho (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as Sulu, far surpassed what I could have hoped for the character.

I like the new direction Abrams is taking the franchise. He’s mixing bombastic action and special effects with the global policitically aware writing of the franchise. If this is just the start of it, I can’t wait to see where they take it. Count me in.

Angels & Demons

2.5 Stars

Well… it’s better than The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons suffers from a lot of the same pitfalls its predecessor did. Too much story trying to fit into too little time. An over the top religious conspiracy. A theme loftier than the movie generally warrants. Having been written by Dan Brown.

Harvard Symbologist (if that were a real thing, I’d care if it was spelled right) Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to the Vatican after the death of the Pope and the kidnapping of the four primary Cardinal nominees to become the new Pope. One of CERN’s top scientists, Vittoria Vetra, is also called in on the case as the group behind the kidnappings, claiming to be the long secret society “Iluminati,” had stolen a canister of anti-matter to use to blow up the Vatican if their demands are not met. It’s a race against the clock to save the Cardinals, stop the bomb and solve the mystery before midnight.

Unfortunately it’s not as pulse pounding as it wants to be. The end result is as human and fallible as anything, without the mythos and mystery that accompanied The Da Vinci Code. On the flipside, director Ron Howard created a tighter film, less convoluted film than the first. I’ve viewed the Langdon character as somewhat of a descendent of Indiana Jones (the similarities are there), and I’m more than happy to let him live in the realm where these conspiracies are true. They should have kept some of that in, instead of building it up, then tossing it aside with a “the bad guy lied” explanation. As long as the Vatican doesn’t turn into a UFO at the end, I’m happy.

The presentation of science vs. religion is a) handled poorly and b) a little too big for the film. This is a popcorn flick. Don’t go existential on me if you’re not going to follow through with it. They kind of half assed their way through it.

Hanks abely plays Langdon, but honestly, and this goes back to the first film, too, I don’t think he’s really right for the role. I’m thinking more Jeff Goldblum or David Duchovney. My friend Jenny even mentioned Bill Pullman. But Hanks just doesn’t click right with me on this role. He’s not bad. It’s just a bit off.

If you really must go see it, and really want to, then yeah, I guess I can recommend it. But this one is worth a rent. Maybe a viewing on ON-Demand.

Oh and one more thing… They say that if you lock up 500 monkeys in a room for 500 years with typewriters, they’ll eventually write Shakespeare. If you lock up about four, over a weekend, with grocery bag apiece full of cheesy bean and rice burritos from the Taco Bell value menu… they’ll crap out Dan Brown’s next book. I just wanted to point out that Dan Brown is a terrible writer.

I’ve got 5 films to review, so it’ll be 5 mini-reviews. Kinda like when “Rescue Me” did those “mini-sodes” after the 5th season got postponed due to the damn writer’s strike. Only there was no strike. I just fell behind.

It’s interesting… I knew at somepoint I would have to accept that I would eventually be reviewing Clint Eastwood’s last film as an actor. I just figured he’d be dead. But no, he’s retired. And his swan song, Gran Torino is caps off an overall wonderful, if at times curious and disappointing, career.

Eastwood is pitch perfect as an aging Korean War vet with an archaic (re: racist) view of the world. He’s stuck in his ways, but is forced to confront his evolving neighbourhood after he helps the kid next door out of a scuffle with a street gang. He even grows to respect and even grows fond of the next door neighbours, treating them as family. Actually, better than he treats his own family.

As director, Eastwood utilizes a great cast of Korean non-actors to further separate his character from theirs. And for never having done any professional screen work, the performances turned in by young actors Bee Vang as the wayward youth Thao, and Ahney Her as his older sister are remarkably impressive, and do well in holding their own against 50+ year veteran Eastwood.

I’d say this is one to watch come Awards season, but since I’m writing this on Oscar Nomination Day (it’s a Holiday for me), that’s a little anachronistic (it wasn’t nominated for anything). But this is definitely one worth viewing. It has the added bonus of Eastwood holding a shotgun and delivering the greatest version of every crazy old coot’s favourite phrase: “Get off my lawn!”

Oh, Anne Hathaway… I expect more out of you. Not so much out of Kate Hudson, this film is about on par with what I expect from her. But Anne, Anne, Anne…. You’re more talented than this. So is Kate, now that I think of it, but she hasn’t made a good career choice since Almost Famous, and that was 10 years ago.

A scheduling mix-up forces two best friends to duke it out over who gets to keep their dream wedding. With alledgedly hilarious results.

But the actual results are predictable, unfunny, forgetable and ultimately insulting.

I’ve seen some unfunny comedies in my day, but this one has to take the cake (no pun intended). Sure, maybe I cracked a smile every now and then, but was I laughing at the content, or the fact that the content exists? 99.9% of the time, the latter.

Every character except the two leads was expendable, and the writers seemed to make it that way. The only way I was able to tell which fiancee was which, was by which female lead happened to be on screen, and unfortunately that didn’t help in several scenes.

But it truley dives into the insulting pool by it’s portrayal of women. They’re sycophantic, shallow, and I wonder if they’re actually functionally retarded. There are no socially redeeming, or remotely admirable qualities in these two women. It pains me to say that Sex and the City was a more accurate representation of women, and they’re materialistic, sex crazed bimbos. If those two were really friends, and I’ve seen this in real life, one would have made a sacrifice. These are who little girls are looking up to. Seriously, Judd Apatow, Kevin Smith, Joss Wedon and Quentin Tarantino need to write more scripts, they’re the only ones writing great roles for females, it seems like. I’m saying that and Apatow’s been accused of sexism. So…. eat it Hudson.

Hudson says she wants jucier roles, so lets hope she makes better choices. Because she can be a great actress, she just needs to pick better roles. And Hathaway…. stay far away from material like this. If you hadn’t long ago proved yourself as a competant actress, I’d say this role is enough to get your recent Oscar Nomination revoked (she got it for Rachel Getting Married, a thankfully unrelated movie, review coming next week).

Valkyrie

3.5 stars

Valkyrie is the tale of how Tom Cruise and Eddie Izzard traveled through time to kill Hitler. Ok… it’s not, but that would have been a way funnier movie. But Valkyrie is the story of the final of 15 separate plots to assassinate Das Fuhrer. And while I’m glad they didn’t make it funny (good luck making Hitler funny, it’s not easy, just check this very short lived British sitcom). But Cruise and company made a damn compelling film.

Cruise (War of the Worlds, Scientology) portrays German Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, mastermind of the Valkyrie plan. The original Valkyrie plan was a government restructuring plan to be implemented in the event of Hitler’s death. After climbing the ranks of Germany’s military, Stauffenberg is able to redraft it so he and his cohorts would be in charge, effectively putting an end to Hitler’s Germany. The film follows the path from development to failed execution, and the risks each men take to see it through to the finish.

The first thing that piqued my interest in this project was the amazing cast assembeled. In addition to Cruise’s strong performance, we also get magnificent work from Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead), Tom Wilkinson (RocknRolla), Terrence Stamp (Get Smart) and Izzard (Ocean’s 13). While Cruise puts forth a great performance, the movie would be nothing without the supporting cast.

I kind of want to ask director Bryan Singer what his fascination with Nazi Germany is. First he did Apt Pupil, about an ex-Nazi. Then X-Men, with Magneto being a holocaust survivor. Now Valkyrie. Not that it’s led him astray. He’s just like…. the poor man’s Spielberg (and to further that connection, Spielberg was listed as a producer on NBC’s ER a full 10 years prior to Singer being listed as a producer on FOX’s House, MD).

But all that aside… he does a great job with the material. My main worry about this film going in was the direction. Singer could have dragged it out, run all sorts of circles around himself before he got to the point. But no. He kept the movie tight, and pace on a nice easy flow. It kicks right off with Stauffenberg being unhappy with Hitler’s vision for Germany, jumps to the plot to kill him, and doesn’t stop till the conspirators are rounded up and executed. It’s a very well paced thriller.

As far as historical political thrillers go, I would count this one on par with All The Presidents Men and JFK. Only… with Hitler.

Hey you know who else was in this movie…. nevermind.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

4 stars

Sometimes a 3 hour movie is overly long on time and overly short on actual reason for being 3 damn hours long. Benjamin Button is not like that. It’s a thoroughly engrossing story that keeps you in the moment and in the story for the entire run time. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett have never been better.

Benjamin Button is a man born old. I don’t mean he’s mature for his age. He was literally born an 80 year old man, and is aging backwards. After his parents abandon him at a New Orleans retirement home, Benjamin (Pitt) quickly bonds with the home’s residents and the caretakers (Taraji P. Henson and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) become his adopted parents. We get to watch him live his life… backwards. From a young-old man to an old-young man, and how his reverse aging affects his personal and professional life. He has affairs with much older women, he travels the world. But he always comes back to his one true love, Daisy (Blanchett), who has grown up (normally) alongside Benjamin.

In my opinion, Pitt (Snatch) is one of the most under-estimated actors of this generation. When looking not just at his body of work, but his performances in those films, you really can’t deny that he really is a damn fine actor, if not one of the best working right now. And this role as Button is another highlight in his career. He brings a subtlety, and a warmth to the character that I think we may have lost with some other actors.

And Blanchett (Babel) continues her reign as one of the best actresses in Hollywood. There’s a charm, and grace she brings to the film.

Director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) continues to bend your mind with his bold look at interesting stories. What I like about Fincher’s take on the story, is that he forces the audience to accept that Button ages backwards without explanation, by himself accepting it without explanation. A lesser director would have attempted a half assed explanation, or try to give some big grand explanation that ends up seeming ludicrous and taking you completely out of the story. But by diving into the story, we’re pulled along with him into it, and I ultimately didn’t care that I didn’t know why he aged backwards.

For an engaging life story, that’s light fun, but great story, definitly check out this flick.

Brodie Fanns!

I’ve been away, here’s a rundown of the movies I’ve seen recently and not given full reviews.

Yes Man- 3.5 stars
Seven Pounds – 2.5 stars
The Day The Earth Stood Still – 2 stars
Zack and Miri Make a Porno – 4.5 stars
Saw V – 2.5 Stars
RocknRolla- 3.5 stars
Twilight – 3 stars
Four Christmases – 2.5 stars
Australia – 3.5 stars
Transporter 3 – 3 stars
Punisher: War Zone – 3 stars
Nothing Like The Holidays – 4 stars

And now onto the reviews:

The Spirit

2 Stars

Comic book movies really came into their own as a legitimate genre this year with impressive critical and box office results from both Iron Man and The Dark Knight. But if there was one movie that could undo all the positive press those two did over the summer, it would have to be this years last entry of the genre, Frank Miller’s adaptation of Will Eisner’s The Spirit.

The Spirit is the tale of rookie cop Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) who is gunned down in the line of duty, only to rise from the grave (due to a medical experiment), only now he’s invincible. In order to truely rid Central City of the despicable criminal element, primarily from The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), he dons a mask, coat and hat to become The Spirit, with only Police Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) knowing his true identity. As the Spirit works to clean up Central City’s streets, he has passionate love affairs with nearly every woman he meets, including his childhood sweetheart Sand Saref (Eva Mendes), his ex-fiancee Ellen (Sarah Paulson) and even having a grand old time with Octopus croonie Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega). Even the angel of death (Jamie King) seems to have a thing for the Spirit.

It’s a hype-noirish tale in the fashion of Miller’s own Sin City, but more like a watered down, store brand version of Sin City. The comparisons are unfortunately inescapable. Eisner and Miller were contemporaries and friends (Eisner passed away 4 years ago). Miller created Sin City, Eisner, The Spirit (not at the same time, just giving you some background on the two). Here’s where I must call on the comparison of the two cinematic treatments. Miller was credited as a co-director on Sin City, but after watching this, it’s clear he took on a more advisory role, as Robert Rodriguez handled the actual execution of the craft. Rodriguez has had 10 years to work on his craft and warrented the visual experimentation he utilized on Sin City. And he created a beautiful piece of work.

For Miller, it seemed like he may have picked up a few things from Rodriguez, and when he got to helm his own film, at every turn he must have been thinking, “Well, that’s what Robert did…” But he never took the time to figure out why Rodriguez did what he did in his film. There was a reason for everything. Miller was just looking to follow suit. I hate to say this, because Miller is a legend in his field and I truely admire him as a graphic novelist, but it was reminiscent of late 90’s punk bands, the bands that sprung up from the ashes of the true 80’s punk bands. They were copying the sound, but not the emotion.

And the script he wrote wasn’t much better. The dialog, while with full intention of calling back to the days when the comic was written and set, seemed cheesy and full of camp. The actors struggled with it, though oddly, the only one who seemed at home was Lauria (The Wonder Years).

And that does bring us to the performances. They weren’t on a whole terrible. Just… not very good. Almost indifferent I suppose. I think Macht (Because I Said So) was looking to challenge himself with a different sort of role, but it fell flat. As did Mendes (We Own the Night) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation). Though Samuel L. Jackson, who is such a character in his own right, was able to rise above the material. Barely, as by my count he was only able to track a 20% success rate with his lines and actions in this film, but that’s still better than anyone else.

Sin City, this is not. Hell, it’s not even Spider-man 3. But fanboys may find it enjoyable. I like graphic novels, including the source book, but still found it hard to get into the movie. If you are looking for quality comic to film adaptations, re-watch The Dark Knight on DVD, or till April for Watchmen to come out.

Marley & Me

4 stars

When I originally presented this review on-air, I used three words I never thought I’d ever use for a film starring Jennifer Aniston AND Owen Wilson: emotional, evocative, effective. Ok, maybe Wilson, because he’s at least got some indie cred… but not Aniston. But they all work for Marley & Me.

Marley & Me is based on the bestselling memoir by John Grogan about his rascal of a dog, named Marley. Wilson plays Grogan, Aniston his wife, Jennifer. It follows their marriage, with the life of the dog as a plot template. As the dog grows up with the Grogan’s, their marriage grows. Grogan turns his life experiences as a young husband, dog owner, his subsequent fatherhood into fuel for his journalism career. It all culminates in an ending you know is coming, but is none the less effective, which is about all I can say without completely giving away the ending.

What makes this movie work, is the typecasting the two leads have built for themselves over the years, and the chemistry they create together. Wilson (Wedding Crashers) tends to come across as a directionless slacker, with Aniston (The Break-Up) as the neurotic love interest. But on this, the character types clash, and it works. I wouldn’t call the Grogan character a directionless slacker, but Wilson still brings a hint of that attitude to the character. The characters are almost written to their respective strengths and weaknesses. While they won’t win any major awards for their work, the two are certainly better than we’ve seen them in a while (if at all).

But the real accolade goes to Eric Dane (Grey’s Anatomy, I believe they call him McSteamy, not that I watch the show or anything), who was Grogan’s friend Sebastian. The character, and Dane’s portrayal of him, is a not to subtle, but not to obvious counter to Grogan. While Grogan’s dealing with married life, and the drudgery of his starter articles at the newspaper they work at, Sebastian is dating woman after woman, and jetting to Colombia to write articles on drug kingpins. And that foil continues through the entire film. Dane perfectly plays the guy Grogan wishes he could be, but also is glad he isn’t.

And that brings us to what I have yet to talk about. Marley. The dog. This isn’t a typical family film about a dog. I view it as a love story. Between a family and their dog. And that’s what it is. The dog loves the family. The family loves the dog. And it’s about the life they share together. And it’s beautiful.

I’m not ashamed one bit to admit this movie made me cry. It has joined the ranks of Field of Dreams and The Green Mile as one of the few movies to make me cry. But it’s that good, and that effective.

Coming soon… Valkyrie and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Hey Brodie Fanns,

I’ve got not one, but two reviews for you. It’s my October 23rd sales bonanza. Buy one get one free. This week it’s Gone Baby Gone and Rendition

Gone Baby Gone

4 Stars

Like most people who follow films, I’ve been wondering for the past several years when Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were going to follow through with that potential they showed with Good Will Hunting. Well, Damon’s been enjoying a damn fine acting career, so we’ll let that one slide. But Affleck… he’s Affleck, so I was beginning to think it was a fluke. And then along comes Gone Baby Gone.

Based on Dennis Lehane’s (Mystic River) novel of the same name, Gone Baby Gone stars Casey Affleck (the Ocean’s movies, The Last Kiss) as Patrick Kenzie, a private investigator hired to find the kidnapped daughter of an old high school friend. But the many twists and turns of the investigation soon catch up to Kenzie in both his professional life and his personal life.

I’ve gotta start off with what’s good about it, and it’s damn near everything. Ben Affleck makes up for his complete lack of charisma and talent in front the camera, by being a genius behind the camera. There’s only one way to really shoot a Lehane novel, and that’s in the gritty, raw manner in which he wrote it. Ben Affleck took a cue from Clint Eastwood’s previous adaptation of a Lehane novel (Mystic River) and didn’t get fancy with his camera work, just stuck to the basics, and that’s what made it a sight to see. Too often do we get rookie directors wanting to separate from the herd and be known as the “visual virtuoso.” But ultimately it’s obvious they’re trying too hard and the films look too stylish, without any substance to back it up.

Ben Affleck (I have to say the first name, since there are two Afflecks involved) stuck to the formula that works, yet kept it fresh enough to not be cliché and boring. And in case you’re wondering, Good Will Hunting was not a fluke. Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard (debut as a writer) created an interesting world that keeps the viewer guessing to the very end, and takes you to places you didn’t think he would.

Ed Harris (The Truman Show, A History Of Violence) gives an engrossing performance as a hard-edged, New Orleans born, but Boston bred Detective Remy Bressant. Harris has always been one of those actors who never seems to escape second lead status (save for a few projects), despite consistently stealing scenes from the lead. It’s most likely that he’s just that good of a foil for the lead characters. Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Bruce Almighty), who surprisingly doesn’t narrate, gives a unique spin on a conflicted police captain. Freeman’s always had this regal presence about him, with a goodly nature. To see him play this character who does the unfortunately wrong things for all the right reasons, it’s kind of a side step for him from what he’s used to, but still lying on the outer edges of his comfort zone, so as not to completely alienate his fan base.

And that brings us to the younger Affleck, Casey. He’s shown considerable promise as second, third and depending on the movie, 11^th fiddle to other stars, and I can’t tell if he got the lead in this movie on his own merit, or if it was the worst case of nepotism since an Aaron Spelling cast his daughter Tori in Beverly Hills, 90210. He’s got talent. I honestly can’t think of someone that could have played that character any better, as far as talent, looks, attitude. Unfortunately he’s got the stage presence of Hayden Christensen. He needs too loosen up, work with inflection and tone and anything else that goes into making one’s voice poly-tonal. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, since this was his first time carrying a major motion picture, and he had to stand up against some heavy hitters. But my plea to Casey is, loosen up. Don’t be your brother.

When it comes down to it, it was a thoroughly enjoyable flick, and entirely compelling. Don’t be thrown by Casey’s wooden acting. He’s just nervous. That’s my theory anyway.

Rendition

4 Stars

It’s topical, controversial, has some of the top stars of the day including two recent Oscar winners. Must be awards bait. Well, the fish are biting, but not hard for Gavin Hood’s new political thriller, Rendition.

After a suicide bombing in the Middle East kills an American CIA agent, Egyptian-American businessman Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is detained while changing flights in D.C. and brought to a secret US prison on foreign soil. Having disappeared mid-flight, Anwar’s wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) launches her own investigation into his disappearance, appealing to an old college friend (Peter Sarsgaard) who works for a powerful senator (Alan Arkin). Meanwhile, Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young CIA agent who was at the scene of the bombing, works with Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor), who was the intended target of the bombing, in the interrogation of El-Ibrahimi.

Now as I see it, that’s the multiple story lines that were being told, and the only worthwhile ones that needed to be told. Unfortunately, as what usually happens in a multiple plot line drama, one ends up being unnecessary to the main thrust of the film, and that was the sub-plot of Fawal’s daughter going missing. It all ties up in the end, but I still didn’t end up caring about her character anyway, because even after the end, where there’s the big revelation, I still fail to see what she brought to the table. She wasn’t even a deus ex machina, or a red herring. She was just there wasting time and space.

But really, what this movie comes down to is the exact same thing we saw last year in Babel and the year before in Syriana. Global politics, all coming together in the end so it all fits together like a puzzle. Granted the connections aren’t as grand or subtle or even clever as in Babel or Syriana, which is actually a plus in my book. You know everything is connected from the get-go, and they don’t try to blindside you with a “everything is connected” moral at the end of the movie. Except with that goddamn daughter plot, shit! They snuck it in with a silly superfluous plot that sucked anyway. I hate you Gavin Hood, you South African, Totsi directing bastard. And writer Kelley Shane. But he hasn’t really done anything else for me to turn into an insult.

It’s not that this is a bad film. It’s very well written, again, aside from that sub-plot. The acting is good all around. I can’t think of a bad performance. Witherspoon, Metwally and Gyllenhaal give the best performances, in my opinion (and we’re talking a movie with Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin). Amidst the politics of the flick, they all exude the human side of the issue at hand. And that’s torture of innocent people. Witherspoon’s the wife just looking for her husband. Metwally as the wrongfully incarcerated and tortured man. Gyllenhaal who goes through an existential quandary following said torture. It shows that it’s not just about what is right and wrong according to the law and the constitution. It’s about what’s wrong according to personal ethics and morals and how you treat a fellow human being.

I got a little lofty and soap box-ish towards the end, and I didn’t mean to, but it really humanizes the issue. And there are going to be things flung from either side. Liberals saying conservatives are cowboys who through out the constitution on a whim. Conservatives saying the flick is nothing but liberal propaganda. But it isn’t so much of a right vs. left issue. It’s not playing the blame game. The point of the movie is that it’s happening. There’s no denying that. It is happening. And that’s where this movie succeeds. It doesn’t take a political stance either way. It just wants to say “This is happening, and it’s wrong.” All politics aside.

So congratulations Gavin Hood. Well made flick. I applaud you. Just, in the director’s cut DVD, get the rid of that damn daughter plot. It sucks. I hate it.