Warrior (2011)

Director:  Gavin O'Connor

Warrior is the kind of movie that I wish had been made about 15 years ago so that it could have received the attention it deserved.  However, that would be impossible considering how the story draws from our current social and economic climates to create a tale of resurgence, redemption, and rebirth through an intimate look at brotherhood and father-son relationships (all centered around the world of Mixed Martial Arts fighting competitions, oddly enough). 

The movie works because the actors give 110%.  Tom Hardy (who will play Bane in Dark Knight Rises) has the showcase role of Tommy Reardon, a troubled ex-Marine.  He's like a literal raging bull in and out of the fighting ring.  For Hardy, this is truly a star-making role and the kind of performance I can imaging college-age guys watching and idolizing for years to come.  Joel Edgerton plays Tommy's estranged brother Brendan Conlon.  They haven't spoken in years either to each other or to their drunken father, played by Nick Nolte.  We don't know much about what happened in their past or why they have such seething resentment and hatred for their father, but we know that there must have been some major breaking point that caused the distance within the family.  The audience is never given details, but I didn't find the details necessary.  The real story isn't what has happened in the past but how these guys find the ability to get through the challenges they are currently facing. 

If you've seen the movie's trailer, you know that it all comes down to a face off in the ring between the two brothers with dad watching in the crowd.  The emotion is real.  Director Gavin O'Connor (he did the hockey movie Miracle, which is super) knows that a "sports" movie is nothing without the emotional attachment to the characters.  What drives people through execution of great performance in sports is usually what baggage they bring with them. 

Warrior gives you the viewer an interesting choice, which brother to root for.  By the end, I found it didn't really matter.  Either way, the actors driving these performances were so spot on that I felt like I was watching something a real event play out on screen.  Forgetting for a moment that this was only fiction...and loving it.  Check it out for yourself. 

Sucker Punch (2011)

Title, Year:  Sucker Punch (2011)

Director:  Zack Snyder

From the first trailer for this movie, I was certain it would be the kind of thing that you either love or hate.  I was right.  I’m wondering how Zack Snyder (director of such visual fare as Watchmen, 300, and Legend of the Guardians) was able to secure financing for such a long-shot premise.  It’s obvious that he has real friends at Warner Brothers, the distributors of all the above mentioned movies as well as Sucker Punch.  That backing extends to Warner Brothers handing over the directing reigns for the next Superman film to Snyder.  I, for one, believe the confidence in Snyder is warranted.  Although, I did cringe a bit when I found out about the Superman selection, merely because his style is so controlled and centered.  I don’t want Superman to feel like a cousin to 300.  Oddly enough, Sucker Punch gives me hope. 

With his name all over the credits, this film is obviously a labor of love for Snyder.  The storyline has holes and the ending leaves something to be desired. (Spoiler Alert!)  Snyder brings us the story of “Baby Doll”, a teen whose mother has just passed away and, in an effort to defend her sister from an abusive step-father, she accidentally slays her sister. Baby Doll is sent to an insane asylum where she takes refuge from further abusive situations by entering into a fantasy world within her mind.  It’s the fantasy scenes that drive the movie.  Teamed with four other girls at the asylum, they tour through war-time obstacles, dragons, monsters, and robots in order to survive.  The crux of the movie is this will to fight that the girls maintain, no matter what comes there way. 

Does the movie work entirely?  Not really.  Did I understand everything the film was attempting to do?  Possibly, but again some of what occurs is kind of unclear by the ending.  Was I amazed by the overall visual aspects of the film?  Absolutely, Snyder weaves together a string of scenes that mix thumping music with high octane action in a skilled manner.  I applaud the decision to use a Bjork song to score the Buddhist temple fight scene.  This was the high point of the film for me. 

In the end, I think the mark this film makes is to secure the fact that Snyder is a big-budget action force to reckon with behind the camera.  What makes him unique is that he has ideas for films such as this…that stretch the limits of an action film.  Even though it doesn’t always work, Sucker Punch is important for the hint of what’s to come from Zack Snyder.  I’ll be excited to see that. 

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Title, Year:  The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Director:  George Nolfi

I haven’t bothered writing a review in a while.  This is in part because time gets away from me.  Quite frankly, there just isn’t enough of time available these days for me to justify indulging myself.  That’s not the only reason though.  I’ve been watching movies of course.  Movies that just haven’t inspired me to say too much about them, I can tell you that for sure.  I’ve seen some decent comedies.   Adam Sandler’s Just Go With It was fun.  I’ve also seen some good dramas.  Jeff Bridges did a nice turn as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit, which was a very good movie indeed…as long as you could decipher what people were saying.  (If you see the movie you will know what I mean.)   Yet, even so, I have not been compelled to write a review.  Then I watched The Adjustment Bureau. 

 A great movie tells a story and tells it well.  I think The Adjustment Bureau is a great movie.  Based on a Philip K. Dick short story, this is science fiction done right.  My favorite sci-fi takes the wildest stretches of our imagination and factors them into our current world.  It gives you the sense that there really are mind-boggling things going on in our world, we just don’t know about it yet.  This film takes that sense of wonder and weaves it into a story about two people who find true love…the “meant to be” kind.  The narrative is quick and the pace is nearly perfect.  I was riveted to the screen waiting at each moment to find out what was going to come next.  I credit Matt Damon (as an up and coming politician) and Emily Blunt (as a ballet dancer who crosses paths with our politician) for having wonderful chemistry together.  They leave no doubt that these two really have a substantial connection.  This turns out to be integral to the story and if the relationship between the two didn’t come across as good as it does on screen I probably wouldn’t be writing this review.  However, I am writing this review because I thoroughly enjoyed their performances.  I enjoyed just about everything in this extremely interesting movie. 

As far as the plot, I really don’t want to give anything away.  I’ll just say that there is a secret organization that intervenes into the life of David Norris (Matt Damon) and that they underestimate his drive and passion to achieve what he sets out for.  After how he sold the Jason Bourne role, there’s no one I can think of who would have been a better choice for this role.  He has a very clean cut image and you never doubt that this guy is going to fight for what he believes in.  He takes the audience right with him on his mission.  Emily Blunt displays grace, a nice sense of humor, and frailty all within a few scenes.  In a much smaller role than Damon’s, she clearly makes the most of it. 

That’s it.  That’s all I’ll say about the movie.  I hope you’ll read this and give it a shot.  Wait…I’ll say a bit more.  It’s smart, mysterious, engaging, well made, and in the end feels complete.  With that said, what makes it great is the casting of Damon and Blunt.  They really made the movie for me.  Check it out and see for yourself. 

Thor (2011)

Title, Year:  Thor (2011)

Director:  Kenneth Branagh

Behold Thor, the mighty son of Odin, heir to the throne of Asgard and brother to the traitorous Loki! 

The summer movie season for 2011 kicks off with a fine adaptation of the Marvel Comics hero and future Avenger.  This may be just another way for Marvel to cash in on their decades old product and ride the wave of set up for next years The Avengers, but even so they have not taken the easy road.  Thor is a terrifically staged adventure that brings a lot of well-timed humor, theatrical drama, and action set pieces to the table.  I’m a big fan of comics based movies, and I admit I wasn’t expecting a movie centered on Thor to be very impressive.  After all, it has the kind of elements (Viking mythology meets modern day Earth, God of Thunder falls for Natalie Portman), that really could have been cheesy if not handled very carefully. 

Here’s my breakdown.  First, they hired Kenneth Branagh to direct the movie.  He brought the perfect feel of Shakespearian-level tragedy to the story of Thor (perfectly cast Chris Hemsworth), his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), and his brother Loki (a terrific Tom Hiddleston).  The story switches back and forth between Earth, where Thor is cast away for his arrogance, and Asgard, where Loki plots to gain control of the realm.  While on Earth, the fish-out-of-water story could have gone Crocodile Dundee silly, but they find a pitch-perfect balance of humor and subtle depth of character as Thor becomes humbled by his time with mere mortals such as Portman’s Jane (an astrophysicist who picked up on the worm hole that Thor channeled to Earth through).  The film has no dead space…it is entertaining the whole way through.  There is also a very nice cameo from a certain Marvel character that we will see more of in next year’s The Avengers.

The beginning of the film features a battle sequence with impressive visual effects.  I must say, it was a kick to see Thor use his hammer as a boomerang to take down enemies and then twirl it helicopter style to fly and create a tornado of destruction.  This is the stuff that makes kids (and men who grew up reading comics) keep coming to theaters in droves to see these movies. 

The Green Hornet (2011)

Title, Year:  The Green Hornet (2011)

Director:  Michell Gondry

Awkward…that’s the word that kept coming to mind while watching The Green Hornet.  Does that mean I didn’t like the movie?  No.  I actually enjoyed many moments where the actors in the film were just cutting loose and having fun.  Overall though, the movie has trouble finding its tone, which can be a problem when  filmmakers try to blend genres.  In this case, The Green Hornet attempts to be a knowingly comedic version of a hero origin story as well as a visual effects laden action movie. There’s also some pretty weak family drama thrown in. 

I think the “good” moments in this movie all involve the goofy, brotherly spats between the two lead characters played by Seth Rogen (as Britt Reid, aka the Green Hornet) and Jay Chou (as Hornet sidekick Kato!).  Kato is the role famously played by Bruce Lee on television.  As expected, Chou does his best to make Kato the cool, genius martial arts expert that he needs to be.  Rogen plays absurdly wealthy Britt Reid like a big nerd who has way too much money and isn’t very bright.  So much so that he actually thinks dressing up like a crime fighter and sporting around town in a revved up car for no reason at all is a great way to spend an evening.  In a funny bit of the script, Reid and Kato take direction from an un-witting accomplice secretary played by Cameron Diaz.  She feeds them research on the crime hot spots in Los Angeles and thereby leads them into uncovering a conspiracy involving the District Attorney, a local crime lord (played by Cristoph Waltz, looking lost an un-amused by his involvement), and possibly Britt’s deceased father. 

Here’s my breakdown.  The script and the lead actors brought together moments that made me chuckle.  The action is just average and there isn’t enough of the cool car and gadgets that Kato brings to life.  Some of the fun that the filmmakers appear to have had while making the movie does translate to the screen.  Some of the movie just falls flat.  Michell Gondry is an odd choice to direct a movie such as this.  He is the quirky director that so brilliantly wove together Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  With this movie, he is obviously out of his element. 

If you are feeling light and looking for a few decent laughs, give the movie a try.  It helps to enjoy comic-book based movies and the nostalgia for the Kato character along is appeal enough for many fans out there.  Overall though, I think the movie is about as good as we can expect in any movie about the Green Hornet.  After all, the character is really just a very campy joke version of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Key point though:  Kato could kick Robin’s *&@!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Title, Year:  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:  Part 1 (2010)

Director:  David Yates

Since taking over the directing reigns on the Harry Potter franchise for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, David Yates has elevated the Potter movies with his skill behind the camera, whether it involves navigating a wand bursting action sequence or guiding the Hogwarts kids through the tricky coming-of-age hurdles that they share with rest of us ‘muggles’.   As with the last three episodes in J. K. Rowling’s seven book series, the final films get a little bit bleaker each time around.   After all, growing up is hard to do.  If you throw in magical powers, family crisis, and well defined factions of good versus evil, you have a unique adventure on both the page and the screen.  What makes Harry Potter so special is the fact that Rowling has created a fully realized world.  One that feels complete, open for all to connect with, and yet very personal through how intimately it has been designed.  My wife says the Harry Potter saga will prove to be bigger than Star Wars over time.  I hate to say it, but she may be right…at least for our time.

Now back to DH Part 1.  I fully expected this to end up being my favorite Potter film going into it.  It didn’t achieve that status for me.  This is the first Potter movie since Goblet of Fire where I had actually read the book before seeing the movie.  That always creates a unique experience.  There were moments that were exactly as I expected the book-to-movie translation to occur, and quite a few where it didn’t meet my expectations.  Does this mean it was a bad movie?  Absolutely not!  Actually, I think I might appreciate it more on a second viewing, where I can focus on more than just my own vision and how well it is being represented.  As for the story, Part 1 is all about the set up to the big finale.  This is a dramatic chase film, with Harry, Ron, and Hermione doing their best to evade the ever approaching Voldemort and his band of gothic wannabe’s.  Both factions are after the same mysterious magical keys, the Deathly Hallows, as well as the Horcruxes which are so important to old snake snout himself.  Ralph Fiennes is terrific as ever as the nasally challenged version of Tom Riddle.  He’s the scariest thing since the Wicked Witch of the West in the original Wizard of Oz.  Daniel Radcliffe and crew have grown their acting chops with each film.  I was most impressed by Rupert Grint and his portrayal of Ron this time around.  He brought a maturity, sadness, and strength to his character that I haven’t seen him show before.  I thought the film could have used more of him.

In the end, after we have all seen the coming events in Part 2, I think this predecessor will feel just fine.  Most likely it will be overshadowed by the hugeness of what is coming, but necessary for the complete vision.  I fully expect Part 2 to be my favorite Potter film…and I really, really hope it lives up to it. 

Tron Legacy (2010)

Title, Year:  Tron Legacy (2010)

Director:  Joseph Kosinski

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Tron Legacy is one of the coolest movies I’ve ever seen.  It’s already a personal favorite of mine.  I grew up in the age of the blockbuster.  One of the first films I recall seeing in the theater was the rerelease of the original Star Wars.  I learned at an early age that movies could be transporting, huge spectacles of sound, sight, and emotion if done just right.  To me, Tron Legacy is done just right. 

The original Tron was a post-Star Wars attempt at bringing computer generated imagery into an epic format.  Tron turned out to be very limiting in its appeal and I recall it being the butt of more than a few jokes.   I’ll admit that I wasn’t overly thrilled when I first heard they were making a sequel (over 20 years later).  However, from the first trailer for Tron Legacy I was counting the days until this movie hit theaters. 

Tron Legacy contains a well thought out evolution of the story from the original.  It’s updated with modern pacing and makes the smart decision to create a father-son reunion to build the action around.  We find that Jeff Bridges character from the first film, Billy Flynn, vanished shortly after the first Tron left off, leaving behind a son, Sam, who is now grown.  Sam, who inherited the controlling stock interest of his dad’s company Encom, has become a misguided young man who performs acts of sabotage against the greedy corporate heads who are now in control.  I thought it was a very nice point to make Encom a future world Microsoft who dares to charge people for the latest version of their operating system.  It’s a nice wink to the Linux fans out there writing code and sharing updates for the benefit of a user community.  Flynn thinks the technology that makes people’s lives better should be free.  This is a philosophy that I found interesting to depict in a Disney film targeted to both geeks and families of geeks, and please don’t take this as an endorsement. 

That’s all I’ll say about the plot.  The meat of the movie is in the wonderful play of light, sound and very cool, heavily synthesized music provided by Daft Punk.  Everything blends so well together on screen.  The phrase “eye candy” is more than appropriate.  The movie should be watched on nothing less than Blu-Ray high definition to get the full effect.  The visual effects are a marvel to watch and certainly cutting edge.  The movie ends up coming off as The Matrix – lite.  Something you can bring your kids to and get a real kick out of yourself. 

Tron Legacy is a top notch production with state of the art technology pushing it to the highest levels of presentation.  It may not appeal to you, and you probably know before reading any review of a movie called Tron Legacy whether it has a shot or not, but I highly recommend it.

Black Swan (2010)

Title, Year:  Black Swan (2010)

Director:  Darren Aronofsky

I would like to share a bit of my history with Darren Aronofsky’s movies.  When I was in college, I remember reading all I could find about this exciting new filmmaker who, on a shoestring budget, had created Pi.  Pi tells the story of a brilliant, obsessive mathematician who believes he can and must solve the mysteries of the numerical sequence.  I recall finally finding the DVD (which was an emerging format back then) on a trip through New Orleans at the Virgin Records store in the Quarter (sadly no longer there).  Being the movie geek that I am, I snatched it up and without hesitation and paid retail price. Pi turned out to be everything I expected and more.  The film was visually inventive, briskly paced, and written with snappy, intelligent dialogue and plot lines.  I knew I would see Darren Aronofsky go off to do great things. 

Since then, Aronofsky has made several visually complex and emotionally challenging films, such as Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler, and now Black Swan.  To me, Black Swan is a very close cousin to Pi in terms of visual style, dramatic tone, and story.  Natalie Portman stars as Nina, a ballet dancer in New York City whose one goal in life, it seems, is to gain the lead role in the upcoming production of Swan Lake.  The film attempts to bring you into the life of a ballet dancer, complete with the rigorous training schedule, harsh diet, and fierce competition to land the “star” role.  After seeing this film, I can’t understand why anyone would want to be a dancer.  You really would have to love it to put yourself through this extremely tough lifestyle.  As Nina, Portman does a great job making you believe that she is this focused, determined person.  She has no trouble displaying Nina’s troubled soul.  SPOILER ALERT!:  Her best moment in the film comes right after Nina finds out she landed the lead role in Swan Lake.  Her excitement is more than that.   She plays the moment with a reaction comparable to a parent who just watched their child pass away and then miraculously come back to life.  I felt sad for her.

As a whole, I felt that the movie was vulgar when it really didn’t need to be.  The ballet scenes were of little interest to me, but the downward spiral of a character such as this is usually an interesting journey to take in a movie.  This was no different.  I thought the movie was really just ok.  Aronofsky didn’t really stretch much with this one.  He has done emotional strain in a variety of ways through the years and truthfully I’m ready for him to go down another path.  I’m glad both he and Natalie Portman got attention from this film and that it showcased their talents.  However, in the end, I feel that is really all the film is good for.  Ten years from now, no one will be watching Black Swan, but I would wager Darren Aronofsky and Natalie Portman will still be making movies.

For my final note, I say watch Black Swan and make your own opinion, and definitely add Pi to your list if you haven’t seen it already. 

The Tourist (2010)

Title, Year:  The Tourist (2010)

Director:  Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

I didn’t like The Tourist for many reasons. 

Reason # 1:  The film is set in London, Paris, and Venice and there is a cynical, anti-American subtext that is threaded throughout the film.  I normally enjoy watching Johnny Depp create his quirky characters on-screen, but his performance turns out to be a one-note, not so subtle commentary on “stupid Americans”.  This kind of prejudice, in an American studio-backed film no less, is thankfully rare. 

Reason # 2:  The constant, embarrassingly frequent reminders that Angelina Jolie is attractive and apparently makes every guy she comes into contact with weak at the knees was annoying and distracting.  I don’t know if it was a poor attempt at humor or if she is starting to have this kind of thing embedded in her contracts, but it was really unnecessary.

Reason # 3:  The script was poor.  The dialogue was amateurish.  The plot twists were able to be seen a mile away.  I won’t give it away, but the ending leaves quite a few holes in the story line.  For a film that garnered two of the most popular movie stars of our time, this was a very weak attempt at utilizing them. 

Reason # 4:  Johnny Depp’s hair and beard were awful.  I know this is not a good reason to dislike a movie.  However, for someone who has always been a very cool, idealistic movie star and talented actor, he just looked like he was sleep walking through the film.  He is known for using every bit of his personality and appearance to bring out a character.  Maybe this was another knowing wink that Americans have poor hygiene and don’t know how to use a comb properly or when to get a haircut, but if so it didn’t seem that way.  It just seemed like both Johnny and Angelina got paid for a pretty lengthy vacation in Venice and that Johnny probably did like the rest of us and let himself go while on vacation.  The audience, it seems, just got robbed. 

Skyline (2010)

Title, Year:  Skyline (2010)

Director:  The Brothers Strause

My wife and I have a running joke that Eric Balfour is something of a bad luck charm for TV and film projects.  The one exception being the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which went on to be a huge cult hit.  Eric Balfour’s character was actually killed off in this episode.  Lucky for them, had he stayed around it would have likely not seen a second season.

I’m not trying to be mean, but this guy shows up as secondary characters in many things and never seems to find a bit of success.  So, when a movie like Skyline comes out, gets a theatrical release, and promotes Eric Balfour as the lead actor, I’m thinking “this is going to be awful” and “it will be a terrifically bad movie that will no doubt be a ship I will enjoy watching sink”.  Really cheesy, bad movies are sometimes fantastic to watch.  They have to be done with the sense that the filmmakers involved, down to the actors starring in it, really seem to believe they are working on something special.  On that note, Skyline is a terrifically wonderful B-movie. 

Where do I begin?  This movie shamelessly takes key points from better films of the ‘aliens-attack’ genre and tries to blend those into something of a unique vision.  The opening credits steal the font and visual style directly from the Transformers films.  The rest contains very recognizable theft from films such as the 2005 War of the Worlds, Independence Day, and even the recent District 9.  The story gets so wonderfully ludicrous that my wife and I laughed out loud.  I can’t give the plot points away.  Seriously, if I was 12 years old and seeing this movie for the first time it would probably be my favorite film.  Just so you know that’s not a compliment.  When I was 12, I’m pretty sure I thought Jean Claude Van Damme’s Bloodsport was high art. 

I think Skyline is a little piece of B-movie perfection.  Does that mean I am telling you to go watch this movie?  Not really.  I think you’ll know whether or not you share a viewpoint with me on bad movies that mean well.  If you think you do, then I say run out and rent this film.  My 12 year old self says “it was AWESOMELY RAD MAN!”. 

The Fighter (2010)

Title, Year:  The Fighter (2010)

Director:  David O. Russell

It sounds cliché’ to say, but The Fighter is truly a film that sneaks up on you.  The dramatic momentum builds throughout the film and, as in the best sports-based dramas, inevitably overwhelms you with emotion.  To me, what sets this film apart from other sports films is that the family drama within, as well as the superb actors delivering the roles, makes you forget that you are even watching a “sports film”.  This film is in a class with the first Rocky and, one of my favorites, Miracle. 

The Fighter tells the true story of Dicky Ecklund and Micky Ward, two brothers who share a mother and a love for boxing.  Living in Lowell, Massachusetts, Dicky famously stood ten rounds with Sugar Ray Leonard in the seventies and has since become a drug-addled dreamer and a disappointment to everyone except himself and his mother, played by Melissa Leo.  Christian Bale delivers a truly great performance as Dicky.  Melissa and Christian create the kind of lived in, completely transformative performances that become legendary.  Seriously, they are that good at becoming these characters and making you “know” these characters as much as one possibly can within the constraints of a movie.  Mark Wahlberg plays Micky with a solid, stoic calm that largely went unrecognized in the press that this film received, but I feel he served the character well.  Amy Adams was also very good as Charlene, the only girl to dare to step between Micky and his family.  Amy portrays a strength that I’ve yet to see in her other films and she delivers on this opportunity to demonstrate her range. 

The family element is strong in this film.  Micky and Dicky have seven sisters, some who share a father with Dicky and some with Micky.  I’ve read that they cast ladies from the Lowell area to portray the sisters, they are all unrecognizable.  They do a fine job by adding to the atmosphere and helping to demonstrate the roots these brothers share.  These are people from a lower working class, struggling area of Massachusetts.  The year is 1993, but the economic conditions they face are timely to other areas of the country today.  The struggle that these people have is relevant. 

The only other piece of the story I will elaborate on is that the film centers on the relationship between the brothers, Dicky and Micky.  I won’t give anything else way.  The film is named The Fighter and I feel that this can be a term used to refer to any of the characters profiled in this film.  You will see what I mean when you watch it, and watch it you should. 

The Fighter was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and lost to The King’s Speech, a film I have yet to see.  It must be good though, because The Fighter is top-notch movie making. 

Rango (2011)

Title, Year:  Rango (2011)

Director:  Gore Verbinski

As a father, I’m a big believer in truth through marketing.  I like to understand via a trailer or promotional material whether or not the film will be suitable for my child.  As a consumer, I know I have a responsibility to research, Rango is rated PG – for language, rude humor, action and smoking - but that cautionary description doesn’t really tell you whether or not the film will be suitable for your child in my opinion.  Pixar has spoiled family audiences by providing fun, thoughtful entertainment that successfully weaves plotlines, dialogue, and characters into movies easily enjoyed by kids and adults alike.  I think it’s ok to say that what Pixar delivers on a current basis (whether you take any of the Toy Story films or The Incredibles as examples), is nothing short of magic and some of the best films Hollywood has to offer these days.

Now back to Rango.  Rango, the movie, tries really hard to be a thoughtful, almost existential examination on finding one’s purpose and strength in this life.  There are speckled moments of reference to spaghetti westerns of old as well as to the person providing the lead voice, Johnny Depp.  These feel like insider clips designed to make the adults attending the film feel good that they pick up on them.  Rango, the character, is a lizard who ends up stranded in an unnamed desert and stumbles onto a town of fellow animal inhabitants that is ruled by laws of the old west and a questionable tortoise as mayor.  The town has a severe water shortage and Rango, through a series of events, has to make a choice to believe in himself and work to unravel the mysteries plaguing the town. 

The movie is the first animated film by Industrial Light and Magic, and it does contain top notch visuals and sound.  The characters are cast with appropriate voices.  Johnny Depp is his usual quirky self as the lead lizard.  Isla Fisher is cast as a fellow lizard with issues controlling her reactions to fear.  Bill Nighy is the voice of Rattlesnake Jake, and a perfect piece of casting. 

Here are my issues with Rango.  I thought it was boring overall, which is a cardinal sin for an animated adventure.  The attempts at humor largely fall flat and the story is way too dense for children to really engage.  Also, I wasn’t bothered by the use of language in the film but more so by the dark nature and tone of the overall film.  Way too much for a movie clearly marketed as a children’s film.

You can keep Rango, I’ll wait for Cars 2.   

Review: Morning Glory (2010)

Title, Year:  Morning Glory (2010)

Director:  Roger Michell

Morning Glory is intended to be a frothy romantic comedy, a “chick flick” if you will, constructed around an expose’ of the current state of television news.  The movie didn’t drum up much box office during its theatrical release and the critical response was middling at best.  Yet I was intrigued enough to watch this film, as it seemed similar to movies like as Broadcast News and Working Girl, both from the 80’s and both biting commentaries of their time as well as successful films. 

This film is pretty entertaining, but it doesn’t dig deep enough into the more interesting issues and instead focuses on the entertainment factor.  I understand though, because movies for “adults” are becoming fewer and fewer in major Hollywood releases and from a business perspective it just makes more sense to go for some laughs, in hopes that people will flock to the theater to get away from the stresses of modern life.  The irony is that the more interesting aspects of this film skate around an argument troubling the news media today…“shall we entertain them or inform them?”  The movie begins to imply that good news can do both, but by the end of the film I felt like I had just been told all that really matters is to sit back and have a good time.  I think it was too much to layer into a film that the studio just really wants to use as a tent-pole romantic comedy.  Alternative programming built for date night!

I hope I don’t seem too negative, because I did find the film very entertaining, even if a bit disagreeable.  The basic set up involves Rachel McAdams as a workaholic morning news producer trying to save a failing morning show.  Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford play seasoned anchors with different philosophies.  Oh, and of course there is a love interest, played by Patrick Wilson (of Watchmen and Little Children).   Jeff Goldblum has a minor part as the boss of the failing news show and resigned to let it go.  Goldblum has a great way with words and he steals every scene he’s in.   The film gets really funny when the morning crew decides to go for broke and try to boost ratings by doing anything and everything to bring in viewers.  I won’t spoil anything, but there are some good laughs. 

Here’s a question, should a movie entertain or inform…or both?  I think some of the best films ever made have found a way to do both.  Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t place Morning Glory in that best film category, but it’s not a bad way to spend an evening.  After all, I was entertained and kept thinking about what it was trying to say afterwards.  That’s an accomplishment. 

Review: Cloverfield (2008)

Title, Year:  Cloverfield (2008)

Director:  Matt Reeves

The fictional film packaged and presented as “found film footage” has become an increasingly inventive way for filmmakers to capture audience interest since the granddaddy of them all, “The Blair Witch Project” sold-out shows back in 1999. In an interesting note, these films are almost always promoted primarily via a grass-roots Internet campaign.  They rely solely on buzz and word of mouth, taking full advantage of our 4G connected, faster than lightning world.  With films such as “Paranormal Activity” parts I and II making major coin at the box office, this has become a cool Hollywood cliché…really a fixture of the industry.   These films are usually cheap to produce, can survive without major stars, and are marketed with very little expense and effort.  I say…what’s not to love?  The audience gets a great cheap thrill and the movies really work from a business perspective. 

Now, about “Cloverfield”…this is a very good movie.  Everything works.  The film sets up the drama by introducing us to a group of friends in their mid-twenties.  Rob, the average guy with the not so average job (his apartment overlooks Central Park and must cost a fortune).  Hud, Rob’s best friend and slight comic relief.  Beth, Rob’s ex.  Marlena, the object of Hud’s affections.  Rob’s brother and his girlfriend also factor into the equation.  Basically, Rob misses Beth and regrets that they are not together so much so that he can’t focus on the fact that he has a job waiting for him out of the country.  They are all at Rob’s going away party on fine New York evening. 

Just when you start to forget what movie you are watching, tragedy strikes.  The city becomes engulfed in turmoil caused by some unknown “thing”.  The friends that we’ve been introduced to all ban together to help Rob get across Manhattan, through all the madness, to try and save Beth. 

The director, Matt Reeves, and screenwriter, Drew Goddard, use several visual devices to stir your emotions and keep the tensions at a high level.  The “thing” is at first only shown through glimpses that are captured via Hud’s camera.  This is the “less is more” method of unveiling the creature and this works wonders for the suspense in the film.  There is also a clever use of old film footage from when Beth and Rob were together that keeps popping up in the film.  This adds to the dramatic weight of the mission in a wonderful way.

I can easily say the “Cloverfield” is by far my favorite “found film footage” movie.  The running time clocks in at about 75 minutes, so it doesn’t overstay its welcome.  The run time may be short, but the filmmakers make use of every single minute.  I highly recommend you watch this movie. 

Review: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Title, Year:  Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director:  John Favreau

I’m writing this review after my third time viewing the film.  Does that mean I think it is one of the best movies of 2010 or any year? Absolutely not!  That’s just who I am…I LOVE super hero movies.  It’s only fair that I include that “disclosure” at the start of this review, so that you understand my bias. 

Ok, now about “Iron Man 2”.  It’s not as good as the first “Iron Man”.  I can’t tell you exactly why, other than to say the magic is just less.  It was such a kick watching the first “Iron Man”.  Seeing the origin of the character and getting introduced to Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark.  Downey plays Stark as a man-child whose possibly not as cool with the ladies as he likes to think he is and he gets by on his near super-human intelligence and wit.  The wit is all Downey, not really a trait that Stark exhibited in the comics, but a welcome one on-screen.  And let’s face it, “Iron Man” was really hyped because moviegoers were reintroduced to the formidable personality and comedic timing of Robert Downey Jr. 

“Iron Man 2” has moments of superb visual effects and action set pieces, such as the Expo showdown that sets up the finale.  Oddly, it also contains some poorly conceived action, as witnessed in the near laughable attack that Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash unleashes on an Italian racetrack.  I can take a lot of over the top things in movies, but someone please tell me why Whiplash would not take the opportunity to strike Tony down when he has a clear opportunity…instead allowing Stark to kick open a suitcase that explodes ever so perfectly into a form-fitting Iron Man suit???  Please!

To sum it up, Downey seems to be enjoying himself less in this film.  Since the movies really rest on his shoulders, that fact is bound to translate to down to the viewer. 

Review: Faster (2010)

Title, Year:  Faster (2010)

Director:  George Tillman Jr.

“Faster” is not a very good movie, no beating around the bush.  This is an action film with a lot of cool potential, but sadly the film (ironically titled) never quite kicks into gear. 

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson stars as Driver, a guy fresh out of prison with a major score to settle.  Let me say, I am a big fan of The Rock (as he will always be known to me).  The problem is the script doesn’t let him do much aside from strut around like a man possessed, showing off his extremely scary neck muscles, and hunting down the scoundrels who murdered his brother in cold blood.  The writing strips the personality away from the usually very charismatic Rock.  This movie is a cross between “The Crow” and “Pale Rider” in storyline and plot devices, however not nearly as good as either of those films. 

It’s really not worth anymore of my time documenting this sad case of a film.  The cinematography offers some decent landscape shots and I have a soft spot for any film that uses cool images of a Chevelle SS (I think it was a 1970 model), but alas that doesn’t a movie make. 

Review: 127 Hours (2010)

Title, Year:  127 Hours (2010)

Director:  Danny Boyle

One major problem with movies today is the lack of mystery and true emotional interaction.  The onslaught of viral information that is on the web “in your face” style would have seemed to be unimaginable just 10 to 15 years ago.  It is this hyper, plugged in mode of existence that the filmmaker Danny Boyle sprang from, having directed “Trainspotting” and “Slumdog Millionaire”.  He knows how to use music and visual images to provoke a thoughtful response.  He creates a sense that you are connected to what is going on on-screen because these elements are so powerful and resonant that you want to see what comes next. 

In ”127 Hours”, based on the life experience that Aaron Ralston chronicled in his book “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”, the outcome of the film is known before you begin – unless you have managed to avoid any and all film commentary over the course of the last year.  Aaron goes on a binge of biking and exploration through a beautiful Arizona canyon landscape and becomes trapped, his right arm pinned to a canyon wall by a bolder.  The next 127 hours of Aaron’s life are truncated to about 60 minutes on-screen. 

The film aims to paint Aaron has someone who needs no one else.  An independent spirit whose most enjoyable moments are spent alone, heading out on a hiking retreat, released from the fast food, fast moving ways of our current society.  For a brief time, Aaron comes across two young explorers, played by Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn.  Aaron uses his knowledge of the canyon area and experience to help guide and show them some of the secrets of this magical place.  He makes a connection then sets off once more to continue his journey, alone and free to roam.

Without sharing more detail than I have to about the rest of Aaron’s journey, I will say that James Franco shines in the remaining moments of the film.  When Aaron gets stuck, you see all the emotions that one would expect.  I found myself thinking…wondering if I would be this strong, if I would be able to handle this?  When Aaron is forced to make the toughest decision, either make a dramatic sacrifice or succumb to the event, there appears to be no real choice at all.  I was rooting for him to survive.  Boyle uses images of Aaron’s past and visions of what Aaron perceives to be his future to take you into his mind and show the audience a glimpse of the thoughts he had during his nightmarish ordeal.  The result is an interactive, exciting vision of human courage.

What is evoked more than anything in this story is that what matters most in life are the connections we make; to family, to friends, to everyone we meet.  These are connections that we often take for granted, as did Aaron, with a deep regret.  What looms over the story is the fact that Aaron did not bother to tell anyone where he was going.  He chose complete isolation and thus created no possible scenario for rescue. 

“127 Hours” is about the will to survive that exists in us all.  It is about the courage that we all have within ourselves.  It is about the experience of our personal lives and how that experience is not only enhanced by the connections we make with others, but the fact that those connections are essential to our existence.