Hey Brodie Fanns,

I hit up the theatre just once this past weekend. All my money was being focused on a trip to Monday Night RAW in Green Bay. Lots of fun. But like I said. I got to a movie. And here’s the reviw. Enjoy!

3:10 to Yuma

5 Stars

Every so often it seems that someone tries to resurrect the western genre which was once so dominant in American cinema. Most either aren’t that good, or are just homages to the style. But James Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma breathes new life into the genre that has yet to find a home in the spectacle laden modern cinema.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a poor Arizona rancher and Civil War vet with a bum foot and debt collectors harassing him. Then he gets a chance at financial redemption when he’s offered $200 ($2500 by today’s standards) to escort noted outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to Contention, AZ to catch the 3:10 train to Yuma (hence the title). Evans, along with a railroad representative (Dallas Roberts), a doctor (Alan Tudyk) and an old timer (Peter Fonda) embark on the journey, with Wade’s men hot on their trail, led by hot head Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). During the trek, Evans and Wade’s relationship changes from one of mutual distrust and dislike to one of mutual respect and admiration.

Bale (American Psycho, Batman Begins) continues to prove that he’s one of the most talented and versatile actors of our generation. There isn’t a single one of his films where he doesn’t completely immerse himself into his character and bring a powerhouse performance to each project he works on. He’s one of the few actors that I will watch anything he’s in, as it’s sure to be one of the better films of the year.

Crowe (Gladiator, Cinderella) plays against type as the antagonist, a pure embodiment of the classic Western outlaw who eventually gains redemption. In recent years he’s played more of the tragic hero, or the good guy type, and seeing him play the flip side is an interesting treat for Crowe fans specifically, movie fans in general.

A movie where it was just these two going back forth with each other would have been good enough, but it’s the supporting cast that really rounds out the emotional impact of the film. Foster (Hostage, Alpha Dog) keeps stealing scenes from his more famous co-stars, and he’s eventually going to make the leap from second fiddle to leading man. Fonda (Easy Rider, The Limey) adds a sense of gravitas to the film, but never overshadows the main characters, keeping the focus on them.

Mangold (Walk the Line, Identity) has always done very interesting character studies for films. And this one is no different. But he’s able to weave the study into the action and macho bravado of the classic western, staying true to the spirit of the only original American cinematic art form, while giving it a modern face-lift to keep up with the style of the times. While he has yet to separate his voice from those of other contemporary directors, he continues to make an impression, and will definitely launch into the rank of A-list directors.

Michael Brandt and Derek Haas’ adaptation of Halsted Welle’s original 1957 screenplay and Elmore Leonard’s short story is somewhat of a coup for the writing team, who have flopped recently with the family spy film Catch that Kid and adrenaline filled sequel 2 Fast, 2 Furious. It just proves that sometimes it takes a few misses to finally make a hit.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the only other western being released this year, Brad Pitt’s The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and indeed the genre in general. But I think it will only help, as it is clearly one of the stand-out films of the year (as of this writing, there’s still 4 months of films left to see). I’m now looking more and more forward to next year’s The Dark Knight, as Christian Bale is only getting better and more exciting as an actor.

Hey Brodie Fanns,

I know you all are just as excited over the release of the new Iron Man trailer as I am. For three reasons…

1) Iron Man is an awesome superhero.
2) It’s directed by Jon Favreau
3) It stars one of my favourite actors, Robert Downey, Jr.
4) Samuel L. Jackson plays Nick Fury.

I know that was 4, but come on, the fourth was about Sam Jackson. It was warranted.

So check out the trailer here, it’s only available in quicktime format for now. So you must have that. This is a clickable link by the way.

Enjoy, and no I don’t feel the least bit bad for making an entire post just for a movie trailer.

-Brodie Mann

A few new DVD’s came out this week, let me guide you through them-

To be honest… I’m not gonna do one, mainly because of the three big new releases, I didn’t see a damn one, because they all looked terrible. If you’re interested, it’s Factory Girl, Premonition and The Hills Have Eyes 2. All got bad reviews. Rent at own risk.

As for Wednesday’s Random Film Post… well, I kinda did that on Sunday. So just keep an eye out for Thursday’s.

I laboured long and hard over the intro, trying to figure out a way to best present this little idea of mine. They were all way too long, and I realized people would stop reading before they got to the point of the the blog entry. They included examples and shit and I kinda wrote circles around myself. So instead of a long diatribe, I’ll just keep it concise, any questions or comments, just send them to me and I’ll do my best to respond in due time.

This whole thing is a little project of mine. For the record I’m not advocating remakes of these films or film versions of these TV Shows. I enjoy speculating what it would be if the original had never been made, and it was being produced now, in 2007. Who would they cast? Scratch that, who would I cast?

Yes I do use the original as a point of reference on characterization only. Beyond that, I operate under the notion that the original was never made.

Just to restate, I am NOT advocating remakes for these flicks. This is just a fun game of speculation. I welcome comments, suggestions and criticism.

Without further ado… I present just a few of my favourite films, recast with today’s talent.

The Godfather

Michael Corleone- Sean Patrick Flanery (Boondock Saints)
Fredo Corleone- Adrien Brody (The Pianist)
Sonny Corleone- Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs)
Tom Hagan- Denis Leary (Rescue Me)
Don Vito Corleone- Christopher Walken (Poolhall Junkies)
Kay Adams- Naomi Watts (King Kong)
Pete Clemenza- James Gandolfini (The Sopranos)
Cpt. McCluskey- Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man)
Virgil Solozzo- Gary Oldman (Leon)
Connie Corleone- Michelle Monaghan (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)
Carlo Rizzi- Jared Leto (Requiem for a Dream)
Jack Woltz- Al Pacino (Heat)
Johnny Fontaine- John Travolta (Pulp Fiction)

I realize Flannery is Irish, but a good accent would hide it. The casting of Pacino as Woltz is not meant as some sly wink and a nod to the original. If you look at John Marley’s performance in the original, it’s similar to Pacino’s in films like Glengarry Glen Ross, Heat and Any Given Sunday. I think this would be a good project for Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake) or Joe Carnahan (Narc).

It’s A Wonderful Life

George Bailey- Jim Carrey (The Truman Show)
Mary Hatch Bailey- Hope Davis (The Matador)
Mr. Potter- Brian Cox (The Bourne Identity)
Uncle Billy- Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future)
Clarence- Ian Holm (Lord of the Rings)
Violet Bick- Rachel McAdams (Wedding Crashers)
Harry Bailey- Sean Patrick Flannery (Boondock Saints)
Pa Bailey- Alan Alda (M*A*S*H*)
Ma Bailey- Dianne Weist (Edward Scissorhands)
Mr. Gower- Bill Nighy (Love Actually)
Mr. Martini- Chazz Palmentari (The Usual Suspects)
Nick- Nicky Katt (Boston Public)
Officer Bert- Greg Kinnear (The Matador)
Ernie- Jason Lee (My Name Is Earl)
Sam Wainwright- Steve Carrell (The 40 Year Old Virgin)
Marty Hatch- Paul Rudd (Knocked Up)

I know I reused Flannery. And you know what? That will happen. He’s a decent enough actor. And I thought he’d fit this role really well. I went with taller, lankier actors in Carrey, Flannery, Alda and Lloyd for the Bailey boys. There’s a 10 year spread on the younger generation, mainly because they’d be playing characters from the age of 18 to mid 40’s. Some of the smaller roles (Bert, Ernie, Nick) I thought it would interesting to use as cameos for certain actors. I could offer speculation on the kids, but really, kid actors are everywhere, and unknowns would be the way to go. Though I would imagine they’d go for Elle Fanning for ZuZu. Richard Curtis (Love Actually) would be perfect to direct this.

Taxi Driver

Travis Bickle- Clive Owen (Inside Man)
Iris Steensma- Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen)
“Sport” Matthew- Heath Ledger (Lords of Dogtown)
Betsy- Hope Davis (The Matador)
Tom- Robert Downey, Jr. (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)

Smaller cast than my previous two. Clive Owen has that look about him, and the way he carries himself. He’s quiet, but definitely got a crazy streak to him. It was easy to cast the three leads. It was Sport and Tom that gave me trouble. Ledger really impressed me with his turn in Lords of Dogtown. He was playing a real person with a real character quirk, but he never seemed to be mimicking or imitating. So that proved to me that he actually can act. And Downey is just a fantastic actor in the midst of a career rebirth, following Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Zodiac. I think Christopher Nolan should take this.

The Dick Van Dyke Show
They’d have to change the title, cause it wouldn’t involve Dick Van Dyke, but it’s that show that I’m using.

Rob Petrie- Matthew Perry (Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip)
Laura Petrie- Felicity Huffman (Desperate Housewives)
Buddy Sorrell- Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs)
Sally Rogers- Jane Lynch (The 40 Year Old Virgin)
Richie- Go with an unknown here, says I
Alan Brady- William H. Macy (The Cooler)
Mel Cooley- George Carlin (Dogma)
Jerry Helper- Josh Charles (Sports Night)
Millie Helper- Jenna Fischer (The Office)

See, I’m using the TV show, as it’s such a great show that would translate well to modern times (Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is a good comparable show, hence I use Matthew Perry). It’s tough to use the title, as if it never happened, it wouldn’t be “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. But to use it as a point of reference, we’d have refer to it as “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. But the actual title could be one of the shows original working titles: “Head of the Family” or “All In A Day’s Work”, or you could come up with a new, original title. Aaron Sorkin could write the script. Stephen Soderbergh would be interesting in the director’s chair.

That’s it for now. Keep an eye out for more recasts (I have more ready to go) and more posts, as I do plan to use this blog more often now, for more than just reviews.

So for various reasons, I had to take a brief, 3 month hiatus from writing reviews. But I am back now. In thanks for being patient with me, I will offer you brief reviews of the Flicks I’ve seen since my last posted review. And in sort of a restructuring of my blog, this will no longer based solely on my reviews, I will post personal (yet still movie related) essays and musings, fun little things I’ve done (recasts) and anything else that strikes my fancy. More to come, but for now, reviews:

Disturbia: 2.5 stars

While it was an ultimately effective and uninsulting update of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window”, it’s neither smart enough nor clever enough to avoid drawing comparison to it’s classic predecessor. Mr. LaBeouf, though talented, doesn’t have the moxy to carry his own flick quite yet, which is why his next major project stars giant robots.

Fracture: 2 stars

Well, Anthony Hopkins plays Anthony Hopkins in a predictable thriller costarring the always charming Ryan Gosling, who’s playing a role that is more suited for Matthew McConaughey, than to Goslings understated talent. And raise your hand if you didn’t see the end coming a mile away.

Spider-Man 3: 2.5 stars

It pains me to give this film such a low rating, as I’ve loved the first two “Spider-Man” flicks. But this one was a disservice to fans of the franchise. It lacked any real emotional punch that the first two had. A major alteration to the character of Peter Parker occurred, that changed the essence of the character. And with all due respect to Sam Raimi, but does he even know Venom? I mean really know the character? 40 minutes of a 3 hour film on a character whose history is so storied, so ingrained with the heroes, so beloved by fans is just a slap in the face. This really should have been two films. Spider-Man 3 should have been the personal struggle he went through with Harry as Green Goblin 2 and the Sandman saga, while Parker deals with his newfound relationship with Mary Jane (or possibly even a wedding), introducing Venom at the very end, setting up the 4th movie to be just about Spider-Man vs. Venom, with requisite side plots.

28 Weeks Later…: 4.5 Stars

It’s such a rarity in the world of cinema, that I almost didn’t believe it when I first saw the film. A sequel that is legitimately better than it’s predecessor. I can’t say fully, as “28 Days Later…” is such an amazing film, and I love it so much, but “28 Weeks Later…” was just so damn good, too. Not as subtle (I know what you’re thinking, since when is a zombie flick subtle, but trust me, the Brits are fuckin’ subtle), but intensely moving, with more tormented characters than a Batman book.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End: 3 stars

Thankfully better than the second, but still worse than the first, At World’s End fortunately helps the “Pirates” trilogy do what the “Matrix” trilogy couldn’t 4 years ago: deliver a worthwhile ending. Though worthwhile isn’t the appropriate word as it’s two 3 hour long movies, a significant portion of said 6 hours are multiple long, unnecessary scenes (Keith Richards aside, the whole Council of Pirates thing- WTFuck?) But the end was nice, if completely foreseeable within in 10 minutes of the start.

Knocked Up: 5 Stars

People say that all Judd Apatow is making is a chick flick for guys. I disagree on the basis that chick flicks often revolve around the romanticized ideal. The ideal woman with the ideal job meets the ideal guy and hilarity/yawning ensues. But Apatow is creating the realistic view at relationships. Two averagely relateable people (not too relatable, one of them is Katherine Heigl, after all) hook up one night, and are thrust into a situation and make it work. On one level, it is romantically ideal, but the whole story, including the dynamics with friends and family could be ripped entirely from anyone’s life, only with a happy ending.

Ocean’s 13: 3.5 Stars

Of the threequels to come out this year, this one has been the most impressive thus far. A welcome return to the magic that was the original, but still just didn’t quite have it. Ocean’s 11 was more of a one shot type of deal, not an on-going saga. But it was a great apology for the disastrous second one

Live Free or Die Hard: 4 Stars

20 Years after the first one set the standard for action flicks, “Live Free” reminds us what action really is. That it’s about the alpha male making the heroic save. It’s not about some computer geek with high-powered software seeing exactly how high they can make the main character jump. It is an update for the franchise, this time fighting cyber-terrorists, who are just as dangerous as Hans Gruber and his crew, just not as menacing or evil. As villain Tom Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) says to hero John McClane (Bruce Willis) at one point, “You’re a Timex in a digital world, John.” The franchise shows it’s age by opting for a more low-tech approach to the stunts, but it’s all the more enjoyable for it. However, if you watch the movie and something feels a bit off, that would be the PG-13 rating crammed up your ass. No blood. No violence. And no Yippie-ky-yay, motherfucker! WTFuck!?

That’s all I’ve got for now. Like I said, more content coming soon.

Planet Terror

4.5 Stars

Robert Rodriguez pays homage to the B horror flicks of the 70’s, filled with gore, sex, violence and enough stars to make fanboys and casual admirers take notice and give it the proper due it deserves.

Bio-chemical engineer Abby (Naveen Andrews) double crosses Lt. Muldoon (Bruce Willis, in an uncredited cameo), a special ops leader, in the sale of a mysterious bio-weapon that turns most who come in contact with it into blood thirsty zombies. The survivors are to be used in experiments to find the antidote. When the bio-weapon is let loose on a small Texas town, those who survive have to fight off the undead and the cure thirsty military men. Mysterious super-fighter El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) and his go-go dancer girlfriend Cherry Darling (Rose McGowen) lead the fight to survive.

There is a sort of, tongue-in-cheek attitude to this film, and Rodriguez wants to make sure that it’s not to be taken too seriously, which is the magic of Rodriguez’s flicks. A lot of movies that are put out today are what producers, writers and directors think we want to see. But Rodriguez makes films that he wants to see, because he’s a fan too, just like us. And he makes his own films. Very few filmmakers have that much creative control over their films.

One thing that’s undeniable about Rodriguez is that the guy has a flair, a certain panache, for the visual. Since his breakout hit “Desperado” in 1995, through kiddie flick trilogy “Spy Kids” in the early 00’s, and into the stylistic tour de force “Sin City” in 2005, he’s always exercised that meticulous attention to detail, to presenting a visual appealing movie, while still delivering on substance.

As part of that throwback to the grind house horror flicks, his heroes and villains are very distinct. He’s got the bad ass, sexy girls, always looking completely glamorous even in the most perilous situations. Cherry still pulls off her go-go dancer moves, despite losing a leg and having it replaced with an assault rifle. The heroes are tough as nails. El Wray fights his way through an overrun hospital with nothing more than a pair of butterfly knifes and his hand to hand training. And the villains are so delectably evil, you love to hate them. Dr. William Block (Josh Brolin) and Muldoon (both sporting the demonic goatee) are the classic examples of evil, always keeping their cool.

If I were to pick two leads for this flick, it would be F. Rodriguez (“Bobby”) and Marley Shelton (“Sin City”) as Dr. Dakota Block, who is on the run from her now zombi-fied husband. They each helm their respective subplots with such immense talent that they could almost be seen as character studies, instead of a flashy horror flick.

But as with any zombie/survival flick, it’s more about the ensemble, than it is about the supposed leader of the group. “Planet Terror” gives R. Rodriguez a chance to show off one of his other filmmaking talents- assembling a perfect cast. You get great performances from everyone involved, because of how well they all fit into the movie, like pieces of a puzzle. Everyone is just top notch.

While it’s nowhere near a great, classic movie that will be a landmark in cinema, and I doubt anyone will think of it come awards season, it’s still such an enjoyable experience highlighted by stunning visuals, fantastic performances and such a delightfully intriguing script. It’s just good.

Death Proof

4 Stars

Quentin Tarantino brings his trademark flair for dialogue mixed with bombastic action to “Death Proof,” his contribution to the “Grindhouse” double feature. Kurt Russell and the bevy of beauties Tarantino cast highlight the flick.

Stuntman Mike (Russell) has modified his car to be completely 100 percent death proof- only if you’re sitting in the driver’s seat though. And this is how he kills people. He makes nice with them in the bar or something, then tracks them down and kills them. He first goes after radio host Jungle Julia (Sydney Poitier, daughter of Sidney Poitier) and her friends, after soliciting a lap dance from one. After succeeding with them, he tries his luck with movie make up artist Abby (Rosario Dawson) and her two stuntwomen companions, Zoe (Zoe Bell) and Kim (Tracie Thomas), who actually give Mike a run for his money.

Tarantino has always been strong on dialogue. He’s great at mixing wonderful, almost lyrical dialogue with intense drama and action. They’re conversations you wish you could be smart enough to hold with your friends. The opening of “Reservoir Dogs” around the table at the diner is fantastic, and the Superman monologue in “Kill Bill, Vol. 2” shows how he can slow down the action but still keep you interested. Unfortunately he slows it down right away with “Death Proof”, offering up an overly long car ride scene (for which he’s famous) with mostly pointless dialogue. About halfway through the scene I got tired and let my mind wander. It didn’t come back till a full introduction of Stuntman Mike was made, nearly 15 minutes later.

That’s out of character for Tarantino. He’s usually right on the money, and can keep his scenes nice and tight. But I guess after 15 years and six movies, he’s allowed to falter a bit, but it’s just hard watching such an admirable and capable filmmaker falter like that.

Once he gets to the action, the first attack on Jungle Julia and her cohorts, the movie really gets going. Seeing Russell playing such an insanely demonic character is interesting, after his recent string of good guy roles. And he handles the villain role with an ease that makes it seem like a perfect fit. He breathes a certain life into the role of Stuntman Mike that makes me wonder why he wasn’t the first pick (casting rumors state he was the last resort).

The thrust of the film is the back half, with the film crew members. I wondered why that wasn’t the whole movie, the first half seems superfluous, considering the amount of time Tarantino has us invest in it. It’s almost pure action from the get go on the back half, which makes up for the dialogue heavy first half.

Tarantino has an infatuation with strong willed women. Almost all of his films feature strong female leads, and he punctuates that sentiment with a slew of heroines to fight off the domineering male villain. Dawson (“Sin City”), new comer Bell and Thomas (“Rent”) take their characters to a whole new level. The whole ordeal could have been a woman vs. man metaphor, playing it simple and safe. But these actresses kept it strictly victim and aggressor, and give vengeance a whole new meaning.

I can say for certain that this is in fact one of Tarantino’s worst films. But with six (including “Death Proof”) under his belt, all of them completely stellar, that’s not necessarily a negative. Because when making a list of one through six, something has to be first, and something has to be last. And despite the slow start, it becomes watchable around the halfway point.

Shooter

3 Stars

Fresh off his Oscar nomination for “The Departed”, Marky Mark Wahlberg stars as a retired Marine sharpshooter framed for the attempted assassination of the president, and the successful one of an African Bishop in Antoine Fuqua’s new film, “Shooter.”

Bob Lee Swagger (Wahberg) lives in self-imposed exile in the Colorado mountains three years after a botched sharp shooting mission that resulted in the death of his spotter, Donnie Fenn. Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) goes to great lengths to find him, as Swagger is one of the very few sharpshooters who would be able to pull off a similar shot they believe will be used to kill the president (over a mile away). After being set up for the assassination attempt, Swagger’s only allies, disgraced FBI agent Nick Memphis (Michael Peña) and Fenn’s widow Sarah (Kate Mara), help him track down the organizers of the conspiracy and bring them to justice.

The film comes off as the second coming of “Die Hard.” Action flick centering on one man against the world with a somewhat interesting back story. And in that, it’s derivative. It’s an intriguing concept, and done well, but it’s the type of movie we’ve seen before in the action genre. It’s one of those flicks that you’ll be torn over. It’s good, but it’s familiar.

This film needed Wahlberg more than Wahlberg need this film. He can act, as he’s proven time and time again since “Boogie Nights” in 1997, right up to his aforementioned performance in “The Departed” last year. And he gives a fine performance in this flick. But he needs some career guidance. I mean really, Marky Mark, you’re so much better than this. You should do another comedy, like “I Heart Huckabees.”

Peña (“Crash”, “World Trade Center”) continues his rise to prominence as an actor. This isn’t exactly the best film to show off his talent, nor does he get to. But his talent is noticeable and being in a high profile flick will only help his career as a relatively unknown actor.

Fuqua became sort of a cinematic darling in 2001. He directed Denzel Washington to his Best Actor win in “Training Day” and the critics set the bar high for his next cinematic efforts. But unfortunately he fell victim to what I call the Shyamalan Syndrome. Fantastic film for their first major effort to get critical acclaim, and expectations were set too high and the following films, while good in their own right, just didn’t match those expectations. He can craft a good flick, but he has yet to really find his own voice, or stand out in anyway. But I’m rooting for him to do so.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad film that was given to us. It’s enjoyable, an entertaining way to spend a couple ours at the theatre. But you could really watch any other action flick and not really be missing out. It’s an ultimately forgettable movie that has little consequence. I can recommend it as a nice way to escape, but for serious cinema, you should look elsewhere.

Reign Over Me

4.5 stars

Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle give intense performances in Mike Binder’s beautiful and subtle ode to depression, “Reign Over Me”. And who would have thought that an Adam Sandler flick would bring a tear to my eye?

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) lost his family in the September 11 attacks, and has spent the last five and a half years grieving in his own way. One day his old college roommate, Alan Johnson (Cheadle), runs into him on the street and they start to reconnect. Though Charlie barely remembers Alan, they spend time together, with Alan using Charlie as an escape from his mundane life as a dentist and a married man. He eventually feels it necessary to get Charlie help, which he is reluctant to do. This culminates in a court case to determine what to do with Charlie.

Sandler has taken a crack at dramatic acting before in the little seen indie flick “Punch Drunk Love” and the even less seen major release film “Spanglish”, both to mixed reviews concerning his actual acting ability. But with “Reign Over Me”, he joins the ranks of fellow comedians turned dramatic actors, such as Jim Carrey, Jamie Foxx, Robin Williams and Bill Murray for turning out an engaging, dramatic and completely award worthy performance. His trademark goofiness is what enhanced the weight of his performance.

Sure Binder could have gone with a known dramatic actor to play a man barely living with grief, but it’s Sandler’s comfort with comedy and uneasiness in drama that really makes Charlie a relatable and sympathetic character. You can see the man he used to be aching to get out, but it’s repressed by the intense emotions he’s experiencing. Anyone can act. It’s tough to make it look easy. Sandler makes it look easy. He captures the spirit and the look of depression and you can tell he understands. And then you understand what he’s going through.

Cheadle and the rest of the cast all lend a different perspective to the essence of Charlie. Alan knew Charlie before the attacks, but didn’t know anything about his wife or daughters, aside from what he read in the papers following the attacks. This is why Charlie attached himself to Alan. Alan is Charlie’s most visible support system. The chemistry between Cheadle and Sandler makes for a great cinematic pairing, and I hope it’s not just a one hit wonder for the two.

Donald Sutherland, B.J. Novak (“The Office”) and Liv Tyler in their respective supporting roles are particularly engaging in their own ways, each giving something for Sandler to bounce off of.

I’m quite fond Binder’s recent cinematic offerings. “The Upside of Anger” in 2005 was a hidden gem, and this is just a beautiful peace of work. He has this way of crafting what could otherwise be a conventional, archetypal story and turn it into something new and intriguing.

As a critic, there are certain things you’re fairly certain you’ll never do. When I started out, I was certain I’d never sing the praises of an Adam Sandler flick, let alone his performance in particular. I’m routinely impressed by performers I had originally written off, but who would have thought Sandler would turn out to be one of those performers? I didn’t. That’ll teach me to write them off.

I Think I Love My Wife

1.5 Stars

Good romantic comedies are hard to make. Good romantic comedies geared toward a male audience are damn near impossible to make. I can think of one good one, and it is not Chris Rock’s latest vehicle, “I Think I Love My Wife” (it’s “High Fidelity”).

In “I Think I Love My Wife”, Rock stars as Richard Cooper, a bored investment banker whose relationship with his wife, Brenda (Gina Torres, “Serenity”) has come to a stand still. Enter old college friend Nikki (Kerry Washington, “Ray”), who has come to him looking for help, first in getting a job, then in getting an apartment and it just spirals out of control from there. Thoughts of infidelity swarm through Richard’s head as Nikki tempts him throughout the course of their newly reformed friendship.

Rock is without a doubt one of the funniest stand-up comedians working today. But he’s a terrible actor. His background in stand-up is evident, he tells a joke on screen, then holds for laughs. This permeates through to the rest of the cast, and it drags everybody’s performances down. Even the great Steve Buscemi can’t escape this fate.

While Rock and fellow comedian Louis C.K. were able to construct a mostly funny strain of jokes into a somewhat coherent plot, it wasn’t enough. The writing was too all over the place. It wasn’t consistent enough.

Rock as a director has yet to impress me. His first film “Head of State” was a disaster, and this flick wasn’t much better. And it’s unfortunate, because he’s one of my favorite comedians, so I like to support him in what he does, but his other projects just don’t work. If he finds the right project, and I don’t know what that would be, but if he finds the right project, he could have a great movie. He just needs to find and do the right one.

This flick failed where “High Fidelity” succeeded. “High Fidelity” was a romantic comedy geared towards a male audience, and it was a group of guys talking about what guys go through in their love lives and it was something that guys could relate to. Maybe it was John Cusack’s “average guy” appeal that propelled that movie to a higher level. But Rock doesn’t have that. All the characters were basically stereotypes. The gorgeous forbidden fruit tempts the bored businessman away from his overbearing yet sexually disinterested wife, and his cheating business partner is rooting him on, yet telling him to be careful.

The only thing that I thought was smart or clever about the flick was the development of the Nikki character. She was always representing the forbidden, the taboo of our modern culture. When Richard and Brenda go shopping, Brenda buys plain under garments, while Nikki buys more risqué lingerie. Nikki is always shown smoking, with someone telling her she can’t. Richard has grown up, has responsibilities, and Nikki invites him out to the clubs one night. So she’s not just a sexual temptress, there’s more to her that could be seen as forbidden to Richard. I found it to be the cleverest thing about the movie.

Now, it certainly isn’t the worst romantic comedy ever made, it’s not even the worst romantic comedy this year. But if you want to laugh at other people’s love lives, one of my favorite pastimes, you could do much better than “I Think I Love My Wife.” Because I know I hate this movie.

Zodiac

4.5 stars

More about the obsessive search for the killer than about the killer itself, “Zodiac” is a slow moving, subtle thriller from the mind of David Fincher (“Se7en”, “Fight Club”). Its strong cast and compelling script make this the first great movie of the year, and hopefully one to watch in the far off award season.

In the late 1960s into the early 70s, the self-proclaimed Zodiac killer terrorized much of Northern California with his seemingly random shootings and cryptic messages to the press. San Francisco Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) was assigned to the case and soon took cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) under his wing, after he offers a unique insight into the case. Working with Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards), the case consumes the men as they try to figure out who the mysterious Zodiac is.

Star studded cast lists can really go either way, it can make a film really good, or the clash of the egos mentality on set could destroy a film. And luckily for us it’s the former not the latter. Gyllenhaal keeps getting better and better since his breakout performance in “Donnie Darko” six years ago. I hesitate to say “performance of his career” since we have yet to see all he has to offer, but I wouldn’t be surprised that at the end of his career, this performance is listed among his best. Downey, Jr. has been slowly making a return since his legal and substance abuse troubles several years ago, and with this performance he says “I’m back.” He channels his checkered past to play the broken down, chain-smoking, alcoholic Avery, and adds an air of intrigue and mystery to what could have been an archetypal and stale reporter character.

Keep an eye on the rest of the cast, including Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as cops in charge of other Zodiac related cases, Chloe Sevigny as Graysmith’s doting but frustrated girlfriend turned wife, and John Carroll Lynch as the prime Zodiac suspect. They all turn out great performances that pump up the caliber of the flick.

The story the actors tell is just as compelling as the performances they give. Based on Graysmith’s non-fiction books about the hunt for the Zodiac, writer James Vanderbilt scores a hit after a string of critical flops (“Darkness Falls” and “The Rundown” come to mind), and delivers a unique thriller. Where others may have concocted a sweeping fictional story about who the Zodiac is, and why he did what he did, Vanderbilt stayed with the real fear of the story- we don’t know anything about the Zodiac. We don’t know who he is, or what his motives were. And there is nothing more terrifying to humans than the unknown, especially the unknown that can and will kill you.

And what is great is that it totally redefines the “period drama.” That’s usually a designation applied only to grand epics set against the Civil War, or something similar. But why can’t a movie set in the 70s about a uniquely 70s event that captures the essence of the time period be considered a period drama? As we grow further and further away from certain distinct periods of time, and expand our capabilities of capturing the time period on film, the definition of a “period drama” becomes more and more broad.

It gets a little slow at points, but the drawn out cat and mouse aspect is one of the things that make it such a gripping film. I want to see more from everyone involved, as this is fantastic work, but no where near the pinnacle, from the entire cast and crew.