GREEN LANTERN--MY REVIEW

The opening credits to Green Lantern list four writers responsible for the film. I believe that because there are four films going on here and none of them have anything to do with the other. There’s a Lifetime movie-of-the-week romance where the complete lack of chemistry between the two leads is okay because we’ll just believe what they say because they said it.

The second is a clunky and badly paced action film. The third film is a spectacle of a visual effects film with zero substance and the fourth a pieces and parts movie about uninteresting characters doing nothing of interest. So, what happened with Green Lantern that’s made it a three hundred million dollar mess?

Before getting into that, let me explain the film for those unaware. Ryan Reynolds plays sarcastic and flippant Air Force pilot Hal Jordan. Jordan receives a ring from a dying alien named Abin Sur and becomes part of the Green Lantern Corps, an ancient cosmic police force. Abin Sur had been mortally wounded fleeing Parallax, the power of fear possessed by one of the Guardians, an ancient race that oversees the Green Lantern Corps.

After giving the ring to Jordan the dead Sur is taken to a military base and examined by Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) a mild-mannered scientist with serious daddy issues. Hammond gets infected by the bits of Parallax left in Abin Sur’s wound and becomes possessed, creating a psychic link with Parallax who is out to destroy the world. Ok, so again I ask. Why is this movie such a mess?

Let’s start with the bad romance. The main culprit here is Blake Lively as Carol Ferris. I think we need to add how this Gossip Girl “actress” got the part to the Riddle Of The Sphinx, the success of Glee, Vanna White becoming famous and all the other great mysteries out there. Lively has exactly zero screen presence or acting ability. Her eyes are absolutely dead and she’s clearly there to look good in tight dresses.

When lively is angry you can tell because her voice goes a little higher, when she’s sad you can tell because her voice gets weepy and her eyes open wider, etc, etc. There was truer emoting from Number 5 in Short Circuit than Ms. Lively. Ryan Reynolds (as Hal Jordan) is not a very good actor but he can handle romantic scenes (rom-coms are his staple) so the complete lack of chemistry is all on the female side.

The clunky and badly paced action film is the fault of director Martin Campbell. It’s surprising because, while far from perfect, Campbell is usually a more competent director than this. Action works when there’s a build up to the action scenes. If you want a perfect idea of an action scene watch Superman rescue Lois Lane from the helicopter wreck in Richard Donner’s original film. Green Lantern has no build up, ever. The action scenes just happen, they kind of vomit out there and end up looking great but having no real excitement. Once the spectacle of the action is over there’s just another scene, it’s a lack of build up and then an anticlimactic let down. It doesn’t bode well for an action superhero movie to be boring.

Besides the lack of build up, the action also manages to discredit the continuity of the film itself. After receiving the ring Hal flies to OA, the planet of the Green Lanterns, to receive his training. There is a fifteen minute training scene where Hal is told by Green Lantern super solider Sinestro that’s he’s unworthy of the ring and he’s beaten to hell by Killawog, the training instructor for the Lanterns. This sets up that Jordan is going to have to strengthen his focus and overcome his fear to really be effective as a Green Lantern. This theme remains throughout the film yet whenever the action scenes come, Jordan is a master of the ring, wielding the power as if he’s had it for years. It completely derails the emotional core of the movie.

The special effects movie with no substance lands squarely at the feet of the writers and Ryan Reynolds. The character of Hal Jordan is sarcastic and childish but he also has depth and stoic sense of pride and honor. Reynolds can do the sarcastic but that’s about it. The boyish charm that makes Reynolds a cash cow in the world of romantic comedies isn’t enough to carry him through here. His Hal Jordan never rises above the sarcastic insincerity so we never believe Jordan has learned anything.

In one particularly gruesome scene, Jordan goes before the Guardians to plead for his planet. It’s supposed to be a pivotal scene in the film, the one where we see Hal Jordan finally accept the burden and responsibility of being a Green Lantern. Instead it feels like a kid begging the dean of students not to revoke the frat charter because of the kegger the night before.

On the script side, the writers never figure out exactly what to do with the other Green Lanterns. It reads as if the writers got overly excited at the possibility for amazing special effects so they just wrote in scenes they wanted to see. The other Green Lanterns come and go, mostly as plot devices to get the exposition across. In actuality they serve no other purpose besides to explain things. Instead of a solid script where discovery is made throughout the film, Green Lantern just brings in various characters to explain what’s going on and hides that cheap exposition behind big effects.

The fourth film is the mess of what the other characters are doing. There’s Hal’s best friend, who serves no purpose other than badly written comic relief. We have the wasted Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond. Sarsgaard does the best with what he has and proves how good an actor he is by rising above bad dialog that’s so cliché and silly I kept expecting Hammond to twist a fake mustache and laugh maniacally.

Let me be clear here, Sarsgaard is very good but he has zero to work with. At no point does the script make him a real threat or a credible villain. The final waste is Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett who are given parts and dialog better left to dinner theater. Everybody here just moves around, lost in a bad script and mediocre direction. The only other person who is effective here is Mark Strong as Sinestro. He nails the character across the board, even with the awful lines he’s expected to deliver.

Green Lantern also has no 2nd half. The first half sets up all of these roads that never go anywhere. We’re given this long pre-amble about how Jordan must focus and train but then suddenly Parallax shows up and Jordan has no problem kicking his ass. The end of the movie comes so quickly there’s not even a real battle, just some lofty special effects and an ending. What’s particularly troubling is the lack of basic structure. Mid-way through the film Hal Jordan isn’t very good at being a Lantern and the best Lantern warriors are picked off by Parallax like so much dandruff. When Parallax finally reaches earth, suddenly Jordan is the greatest Green Lantern ever. Really? Way to ignore basic plot progression structure guys.

These are the problems simply from a film perspective; I’ve ignored the massive liberties the film took with actual Green Lantern lore. Having been an avid reader of Green Lantern for over twenty years I was shocked by the complete lack of respect for the source material. The rumor on the farm is that this movie is a make or break for continued DC films, if it fails, then there might not be anymore after the next Batman. If this is the quality we can expect from DC and Warner Brothers, then that might be a good thing.

X-Men: First Class--My Review

As I walked out of X-Men: First Class I kept saying to myself “It would’ve been great if this had been good”. I don’t say that to infer the movie is bad, it isn’t bad, it just isn’t good. With so many elements going for it, and so many things that could’ve gone for it, watching X-Men First Class fall beneath it’s own weight is more sad then upsetting. This isn’t some glorified summer comic book film that just looks for the big effects and movie tie-ins. The people here seem like they were attempting to make a great film, it just didn’t come together at all.

To use a metaphor, X-Men First Class is like a gorgeous mirror with a several cracks in it. At first they seem insignificant but combined they shatter the glass and ruin the mirror. The first crack in the film is the length. This movie is easily half an hour too long and that extra thirty minutes drags so badly by the time you get to the final battle, you just want it to be over. Making a comic book movie is a fine line between story and action. In a comic book 2/3 story and 1/3 action work fine, on screen it only does if the story is strong. The story in X-Men: First Class isn’t strong enough to withstand the long bits between action.

The length of the film is made worse by the second big crack, which is pacing. Director Matthew Vaughn does not know how to pace a film. If you’re going to cram a lot into a story, you’d better have Christopher Nolan or younger Steve Spielberg chops at storytelling. Vaughn doesn’t, and it shows in the pacing. Scenes that should be short and sweet drag on for too long, plot points turn for no reason and other parts just rush into nothing. There’s also too much set up and not enough delivery. Part of this crack splinters off into the editing, which feels like it was done with a machete. The film is constantly jumping from place to place to place; you never have time to get settled. When the editor does settle you in, it’s for entirely too long. Imagine running as fast as you can for bursts of thirty seconds and then slowly jogging for twenty minutes and then doing it again over and over. Annoying doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Another massive crack is the script, which can never decide what it wants to be. Granted part of that is how Matthew Vaughn directed the film, but this script is patchwork that it never gels. Everything is a way to get to the next thing, there’s no sense of story arc at all. When the new mutants (no pun intended) are brought into the fold by Professor X, it’s a quick jump from mutant to mutant. We never get to know anybody; thusly we don’t care about them. For instance, when Angel (not the original Angel butAngel Salvadore known also as Tempest) turns against her new mutant buddies to join up with Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon) you don’t care. Why? Because you never got to know her, you have no idea who she is. Her turn is more of a plot device than anything else.

I think the script suffers as well from trying too hard to not be a typical comic book movie. Again it’s a fine line that not everybody can walk. In the Dark Knight, we got a good old-fashioned criminal caper flick only instead of Al Capone and Elliot Ness we had The Joker and Batman. It worked; the story was good enough to support itself. Here the attempt at political intrigue is just boring and slow. I think centering the whole of X-Men First Class on the Cuban Missile Crisis was an error in judgment. When a film tries to hard you can feel it trying to hard and that makes it difficult to watch.

The pacing problems align with the script during the third act. We’re set up for this climactic event that’s suddenly put on hold for a long-winded Rocky-style training scene for the X-Men. It comes out of nowhere and is so incredibly melodramatic it’s laughable. The final battle also feels like nothing but a trigger for Magneto. During the film Magneto is pretty much on the side of the Xavier’s team and by the end of the film there’s no reason for him to become Magneto. A great script would have left that alone, trusting that the next film could delve deeper into Magneto’s turn. This being a mediocre script suddenly the Russians and the Americans, who witnessed the mutants save the world, decide to unite and kill them. Out of nowhere, for no reason other than to piss Magneto off so he would turn into a villain.

The script also has a problem figuring out if it wants to be its own film or part of the franchise. There are cute little nods to the other three X-Men films but then the movie shreds the continuity of other parts of those same films. For example, In X-Men 3 Xavier and Magneto are still friends in their late forties, here they part ways in their twenties. I was also left wondering why the filmmakers chose the newer crop of mutants. None of them are very compelling, their powers are fairly feeble, so why not have Cyclops, Angel, Jean Gray, and Iceman join Beast instead of second stringers? I also hated the way they crippled Professor X, it was stupid and an unnecessary departure from the original story. Same with making Sebastian Shaw a Nazi sympathizer that kills Magneto’s mother. Shaw would’ve made a spectacular villain on his own merits, why weave him into something that never happened. I also don’t like when scripts force every little fan boy detail into the story and this one does it in spades, especially the final scene between Moira and Xavier.

The final crack is the acting, which is either sub-par or phoned in. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto are brilliant, they shine incredibly bright and do the same justice to the characters that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen did. The rest of the cast is just limp. The young X-Men have no personality, no charisma; they feel more like the cast of a bad teen drama. The more seasoned actors, like Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt just phone their parts in, as if they needed the check or just wanted to be associated with something young and hip.

Oddly, in the opening scene with Kevin Bacon, he’s wonderfully mean and cruel, a true villain. For the remainder of the movie he’s smarmy and flippant, like a grown up version of Ed Westwick’s character on Gossip Girls. I also have to question the casting of January Jones as Emma Frost. Jones must fuck like a demon or she’s able to suck the chrome off a bumper because outside of that I see no reason that she was cast for this role. Jones has a slamming body but is in no way pretty enough to be Emma Frost, not to mention she is now the heavy weight champion of one note acting.

I know it seems like I hated X-Men First Class, but I didn’t. There are things here that work, elements I really enjoyed. The idea of a more realistic mutant film, the muted style that really stands out against the shock and awe of something like Thor or Iron Man, the tone of the film, I liked all of those things. Sadly, it wasn’t enough to rescue the movie from the massive cracks it has, but I do give it an A for effort. One day Hollywood will understand all the aspects of the evolution of a great comic book movie. For now though, X-Men First Class is a failed mutation.

THOR-My Review

Thor was never going to be an easy movie to make. Unlike Iron Man, Batman, or The Incredible Hulk, Thor is a movie that takes place in two worlds. The fabled city of Asgard on one side and Earth on the other. From the outset director Kenneth Branagh had his work cut out for him and as Thor took shape, I became nervous. I wasn’t sold on the casting of Anthony Hopkins as Odin and I had zero desire to watch Chris Hemsworth botch the role of Thor. It seemed that the entire project would be just another stepping stone to the big Avengers film due in 2012. That didn’t happen, well, not entirely.

Thor is a mess, but an entertaining mess. The problems with the film come mainly from a lack of focus in the script and time spent in the wrong world. The story is simple. At the beginning Thor is an arrogant brute who starts a war with the Frost Giants for no real reason. His actions raise the ire of his father Odin who casts Thor and his hammer Mjöllnir out of Asgard, dumping both on Earth. It’s in the Earth realm that Thor learns humility and how to be a great king. If the script had stayed as simple as the idea, Thor might have been the best superhero movie since Dark Knight. Instead Thor becomes mired in Hollywood clichés and pacing problems.

The beginning of the film is flawless. Branagh knows how to direct an epic. The battles, staging, and direction of the Asgard opener are perfect comic book fare with a real respect for the source material. My initial fears of Hopkins and Hemsworth were quickly relieved. Hopkins is actually quite convincing as the all father Odin and Hemsworth knocks Thor out of the park. I wanted to hate him in the part but I just couldn’t. Not only does he nail the God Like swagger of Thor, but he also makes the Thor costume look really cool. The Frost Giants are well executed, as is the opening battle. Once Thor is banished to Earth the films problems begin.

When Thor gets to Earth he meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her little crew of scientists. In the comics Jane Foster is the nurse girlfriend of Donald Blake, the man who can summon Thor by smashing his cane to the ground. For the film Jane Foster is no longer a nurse but an astrophysicist studying something that changes every time the plot needs it to. To be honest they never really explain what it is she’s doing or why her team is stationed in a small town in New Mexico.

Naturally a romance blossoms between Foster and Thor, one that helps teach Thor about humility. Portman is awful in this role. Calling her performance one-note is an insult to all the one-note actresses out there. There is zero chemistry between her and Hemsworth, absolutely nothing outside of the forced romance to move the plot along. Then there’s Kat Dennings as Brandy, the plucky comic relief, who utters things like “He was freaking me out” and takes pictures of Thor for Facebook. Brandy is so unnecessary and annoying I was rooting for her to die first. Stellan Skarsgard is wasted as the father-figure scientist who has absolutely nothing to do.

The Earth stuff fails to connect because it never rises above plot devices used to get from point A to point B. Thor’s relationship with Jane Foster and her band of merry scientists goes nowhere. The audience is supposed to buy that Thor is learning humility from this relationship but there’s no connection with the characters so you never become invested in it. The same can be said for the small town that Thor tries to lay his life down to save. The thunder god never interacts with the town so when he fights for it, it rings false. If Thor had become part of the town, learning little lessons about compassion and humanity from every citizen, the battle for the town would have had a greater impact.

Another glaring problem with the Earth section is the arrival of S.H.I.E.L.D. When Mjöllnir crash lands, it embeds itself into the Earth and only one who is worthy can remove it. A bunch of rednecks find it and a tailgate party emerges involving drunken yahoos attempting to remove the hammer. At one point Stan Lee tries to do pull Mjöllnir from the Earth with a truck, failing miserably. Then S.H.I.E.L.D. arrives and tells them all it’s a satellite crash and everybody agrees and clears out. Nobody says, “Um, but it’s a hammer.” Essentially S.H.I.E.L.D. arrives so Thor can learn the location of his hammer and, when he can’t pull it from the ground, falls to his knees humbled. It also gave a nice arena to debut the character of Hawkeye. Like I said, everything happens just to move the story along.

What saves Thor is the action in Asgard and performances of the Asgard cast. I was particularly impressed with Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His performance is layered enough to actually elicit sympathy, even in the middle of his dastardly deeds. Thor’s crew of warriors also plays their parts with an eye towards restraint. For instance Jamie Alexander ‘s portrayal of Sif never panders to blatant sexuality. It’s obvious she’s beautiful, but Alexander never gives any “go girl” looks or “come hither” stares. That decision allows her character’s warrior status to be believable. All of Thor’s crew manage to, for lack of a better term, humanize their parts There was a lot of trepidation about Idris Elba portraying Heimdall, but rest assured, he is awesome.

Anybody who is excited to stay after the credits for the big scene that leads into The Avengers, skip it. It’s true that it contains the Cosmic Cube and a nice set up for the Avengers movie, but it’s really nothing you can’t read about or wait to see on line. For comic book fans, pay attention to a billboard in the small town for a cool nod to the first comic book appearance of Thor

Essentially Thor suffers from the same thing most of Marvel’s recent comic movies do, lack of a 2nd act. Iron Man and Hulk both started and ended with a bang but sagged in the middle. I know this will bring some boos from the gallery, but I enjoyed Thor much more than I did either of the Iron Man films. Both had pacing issues, both had action that saved the films and both had plot points that sucked. With Thor, at least to me, there was somebody to root for. Hemsworth’s thunder god is sympathetic, even charming. Where Robert Downey JR was mainly a smarmy, egotistical dick, Hemsworth’s Thor comes across as an actual hero.

Is Thor a perfect comic book movie? No. Is it worth seeing? Yes

SCREAM 4: MY REVIEW

In 1996 Scream was released to great fanfare. During the hype fans gave the film the mantel of ushering in of a new era of horror. The Scream era was hipper and more aware era, showing how irony and movie knowledge could be injected into scary movies. No longer would characters in horror movies act as though the horror genre didn’t exist; now it would be an intrical part of every horror film to follow. The problem with Scream came with the convoluted sequels and, sadly, the fact that it did usher in a new age of horror. Since the original Scream the horror genre sank to a hollow low, taking the self-aware ideas in Scream and exploiting them until whatever original ideas the series had, was lost.

Fifteen years after the first film, the gang that survived Scream is back for Scream 4, and a whole new generation will be sucked into what Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson promise to be a new trilogy. I must warn anybody that was the same age, as the original players from Scream will feel ancient during this movie. Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette all look good, but they also look old. The new film centers on Neve Campbell’s character Sydney returning to Woodsboro, her original home and site of the murders, to promote the self-help book she’s written. As soon as Sydney arrives in town the brutal killings start up again and off we go.

Scream 4 has a number of things going for it and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. The film has lost the self-importance the second sequel possessed, and isn’t nearly as convoluted as the third. It’s the same kind of scary, good time fun that made the first Scream such a classic. The murders are outrageous, the dialog witty and the twist ending is sufficiently surprising. The new cast of young people on the chopping block are still pretty but much more technologically advanced, something that plays heavily into the structure of the movie.

Two major problems keep Scream 4 from being outstanding, and oddly enough one is old and one is new. The new problem is that the movie misses the opportunity to do to the current genre of film what the original did for that era. Scream 4 should have been a straight a to z horror movie, without any of the nods to other movies or self-aware one-liners that peppered the first trilogy. It would have said, in a subtle way, that the filmmakers realize what they started with the first films and now they want to reinvent the genre out of the repetitive mire it was responsible for creating. This should have been a movie about a slasher that left all the other hip nudge-nudge-wink-wink stuff at the door.

Instead Scream 4 is overloaded with it. It felt as if every scene was either slightly or overly saturated with references to the “rules” of other horror movies but how the new rules are the old rules without rules, etc. There are still film geeks who guide us through the maze of understanding modern horror but who seem outdated. In the era of digital downloads, netflix and youtube, the idea that we need specialists in this kind of thing is rather antiquated. Scream 4 didn’t need to remind us how hip it still is, it could have proved that by stepping out of its own shadow and not being so hip.

The “old” problem comes with the victims. For a film that seems so set in teaching everybody the rules of surviving a horror movie, none of the characters in Scream follows them. Somebody says the first rule of surviving horror movies is to never go out alone, yet the first thing a character does is strut on out into the empty house by him or herself. For every rule laid down, there’s a character that does something incredibly stupid to break it. This issue has stood against what the Scream movies try and accomplish since the original movie.

Overall Scream 4 is an enjoyable movie, one good enough to interest me in the next one. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson finish the ending off in such a way that you’ll be flummoxed as to how the next movie will continue, making it all the more intriguing. I’ve always had a crush on Neve Campbell, so it was nice to see her back again. If Scream 5 can forget it’s own hipster legacy and allow for the characters to be a little less foolish, it might once again revitalize the current lost art of making horror movies.

EXPENDABLES -- MY REVIEW

I grew up in the greatest era for action movies ever, the 80s. I got Rambo, Commando, Die Hard, Predator, Delta Force, Above The Law, all the best action films came out for me between the ages of 14 and 19. Reaching back into that time comes The Expendables a high octane, rollicking and violent , mantastic super action film from Rambo himself Sylvester Stallone.

The story centers around a group of mercenaries who decide to defend a small country against an evil Dictator and a drug lord. Sure it's flimsy but who cares, The Expendables is a really good time.

The thing I like is that all the cliches are pushed right in your face in a very unapologetic way. Stallone and his co-writer must have watched every action movie they could find and listed every touchstone to each movie. Then they checked off these cliches as they wrote them into The Expendables. Even the characters are really action movie cliches come to life. In all of these movies you need the following:

The leader who has seen too much blood and lost too much so he tries to keep everyone at arms length: Stallone

The 2nd in command who is the same as the leader when it comes to guts but he's trying to be more of a normal guy and is more modern in what he does: Jason Statham

The high energy comic relief: Jet Li

The weapons obsessed guy: Terry Crews

The weirdo kind of crazy guy: Randy Couture

The ex-member, the guy who knows The Leader best and has seen so much blood shed he had to leave the life: Mickey Rourke

The turncoat: Dolph Lundgren

So that's the mercenary group. Add Eric Roberts as the FBI guy gone rogue and turned drug lord, Steve Austin as his cold blooded back up and Giselle Ltie as the incredibly hot woman looking to fight the oppressive system she's stuck in and her guts and honor in turn melts The Leader's cold heart. With those cliches set in stone Stallone then moves on to the plot cliches.

Jason Statham has a woman who leaves him for another man because even though she loves him he's "never there". Of course the guy she goes to is a wife abusing asshole so Statham beats the shit out of him. There's the "soul searching" scene where Stallone needs to know what to do so Mickey Rourke tells him a sad war story to show him the way. The cliches keep going on and on.

Nobody checks into a movie like The Expendables expecting anything but bloodshed and Stallone realizes that. The movie basically says "Yeah we know all your favorite action stuff and here it is". The action is so over the top and the fights so cool I was actually laughing at how fun it all was.

Of course the dialog is corny and filled with tough guys making little quips at each other as well as "we're brothers forever" parts and the whole tough guy alpha male bonding thing. Sure it makes no sense that the girl from this war torn little country strife with poverty has perfect teeth and gorgeous skin. Yes the movie asks us to buy five guys against an army. That's what these movies do.

The plot is mainly a way to push us into the next action parts so it doesn't even come close to making anything that could charitably be called sense. The way I figure it this is Eat Pray Love but for guys. Everything guys want in an action movie with very little filler.

To let you know the big scene with Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger together lasts about 7 minutes and shouldn't be a selling point for the film. Schwarzenegger looks bad, especially next to Willis and Stallone who've stayed in shape for the movies while he got fat on the Republicans money. The scene is cute but didn't need to be in the movie.

Do you care about any of these people? No. Do any of the characters develop beyond a two dimensional point? No. Who cares though, none of the characters did in the eighties films either. People who say The Expendables is stupid or start bitching about the script clearly just don't get it. This is nothing but popcorn flick escapism and it's nice to see it done with such unabashed honesty. Stallone knows exactly what this film is and he seems wicked proud of it. For me, at least for two hours, I was 16 again without a care in the world except what would blow up next.

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD -- MY REVIEW

For the few of those who read this blog and those who know me it's no secret that I am not a Scott Pilgrim fan. I disliked the comic, I hated the hype and the media blitz for the new movie sickened me. That being said I decided when asked to go see the movie to approach it with an open mind.

I figured it would be good practice for dealing with something I can't stand in as unbiased a way as possible. I must say the opening of the film, where the Universal logo and music are done in eighties video game style, is incredibly endearing. I felt good going in.

To my shock I didn't hate Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, though I wouldn't be able to recommend it one hundred percent. It's an interesting thing in the movie because that which makes it so good ultimately defeats it. For those unaware this is the story of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), a young man who meets the girl of his dreams Ramona Flowers(Mary Elizabeth Winstead), falls in love with her and then must fight her seven evil exes to have her.

The movie is shot in a hyper-realistic style that is very clever. Everything that goes on has visual cue attached to it e.g. when the phone rings or the doorbell rings there's text on screen representing the sound. It's a thick combination of video game meets comic book.

When it works the stuff is brilliant. The fight scenes are amazing both in visual style and choreography. I found myself completely engrossed in the battle and wanting them to continue for longer. When a person is "killed" in a fight they turn into coins, people get kicked through walls, thrown into buildings, there's psychic powers, a bass off, and all ratcheted up with video game style graphics bending heavy towards Legends Of Zelda.

The problem with the film is that it's too clever, it never calms down enough to just tell the story of two kids in love. The heightened visuals and quick cut editing don't end with the fights, they go through the entire film. Close your eyes and imagine every single thing that lights up, beeps, rings in a video game combined with the graphics that always pop up and lay it into a feature film. It's distracting as hell.

It would seem that if the story of the film had been shot as a normal story that the fights and other elements would have been that much more powerful. The constant visual and audio quirks also overpower the actors so you're left with living set pieces moved around instead of characters you get to know or care about.

The overload of visuals and sound hurls so much at the audience myself and several others felt a movie that clocks in around 1:45 was twenty minutes too long. It also doesn't help that for some reason the final fight is incredibly anti-climactic.

Director Edgar Wright does a lot to save the movie because he's just a great director. He knows how to get the most out of actors and their scenes together. Even with visuals, sound and editing chewing up the scenes Wright manages to get some amazing moments between Pilgrim, Flowers, Pilgrim's jilted girlfriend Knives Chau and Wallace Wells Pilgrim's gay roommate (brilliantly played by Kieran Culkin).

Casting wise Michael Cera was the wrong choice to play Scott Pilgrim. I always thought of Pilgrim as a geek with enthusiasm, a kid with issues but a go-go Gadget sense of himself. Cera (once again) plays his part as the stammering, unsure, goofy loser. Perhaps that is one way to go but Cera over does so much that when the fights begin you don't believe at all he'd even try this much less be good at it.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is fucking gorgeous, heart stopping beautiful in this film. However she plays Flowers as such a cold bitch I spent more time wondering why Pilgrim would fight for her than rooting him on in his quest. I had the same problem with the books as well but even there Flowers seemed a little kinder than Winstead plays her.

Not to drown in the negative lets get back to Kieran Culkin who steals every single scene he's in, sometimes with just a look or a word. He is the best thing about the film, hands down. Funny, charming and even manages to flesh out his character, something the others can't do against all the quirks. The other surprise breakout here is Ellen Wong as Knives Chau. She absolutely breaks your heart as the jilted ex and floods you with memories of being that young and awkward in dealing with love.

Overall Scott Pilgrim Vs The World isn't bad but it's never ending need to remind us how clever it is holds it back from being great as does the casting of the two leads who fail to make their characters people we care about and in some instances even like. I will concede that I had to let go my problems with the "witty banter" that replaces actual dialog in the film because this isn't one hundred percent a film for me.

I remember seeing The Breakfast Club with my friend and his dad and the dad asking why the cursed so much and us rolling our eyes. I also remember seeing Singles and having a woman behind me ask her daughter "What does 'not in an Eddie Hascal kind of way' mean? Why can't I understand what they're talking about." I thought the movie made perfect sense but the film was made for me and my generation.

Scott Pilgrim is a film for the generation right behind me and it seems that's how they like their dialog. In the end while I can't recommend Scott Pilgrim Vs The World as worth a full priced movie ticket I can say it's a good DVD or matinee movie choice.

CYRUS: MY REVIEW

As Hollywood continues to churn out movies that seek to do little more than try and drum up a spending frenzy it's easy to become jaded. When you do what I do, which is to place a critical eye on a world that breaks its arm patting itself on the back, the cynicism can run deep.

That cynicism almost made me miss the Jonah Hill, John C. Reilly, Marisa Tomei film Cyrus because I have become so sick of Jonah Hill doing, well, essentially "Jonah Hill". I also didn't want to see another kooky indie comedy with all the right scenes and people and shots starring Jonah Hill being nutty. I'm happy to report that's not what I saw when I finally sat down to view Cyrus.

What I did see was a film that lacked pretense and felt natural and very real. Often small independent films rely on the style of how the movie is shot instead of content(for examples watch anything Sofia Coppola has done). Cyrus does a very simple thing by giving us real characters going through a real story. Even the way the movie is shot is incredibly basic point the camera and shoot.

In Cyrus John C. Reilly plays a John, a depressed mess of a man who still pines for the ex-wife (Jamie played by Catherine Keener) he lost to divorce seven years ago. He meets the lovely and approachable Molly played by Marisa Tomei and the two begin a relationship that becomes complicated by Tomei's 22 year old son Cyrus (Jonah Hill) a man-baby mommas boy with a selfish streak so pronounced it boarders on cruel.

The storyline is simple and realistic and allows the actors to shine every step of the way. For the first time in ages Jonah Hill steps away from his shtick (including the perm) and just acts. Cyrus is loathsome in what he does but you don't hate him, you actually feel for him.

The way the script is laid out it would've been easy for Hill to make the character seem either too disturbed or too funny. Instead Hill walks a thin line perfectly that allows us to see how desperate his actions are and how dysfunctional Cyrus is but without vilifying him or making him so hammy it kills all the drama in the movie.

John C. Reilly also steps out of his comfort zone by forgoing his normal "quirky" behavior for more of straight performance. He doesn't chew scenes up here like he normally does, instead he lets the character ease out of him and blend with the other actors. Watching his character John struggle between the deep need to feel loved, his love for Tomei's Molly and the deck stacked against him by Cyrus is some of the best acting Reilly done in years.

The really champion of the movie is Maris Tomei who first of all is so real and so true that you believe somebody as beautiful as her as a single mother. Unlike Reilly and Hill, Tomei has much more to do and she does it effortlessly. So much of the back story between her and Cyrus comes from how she interacts with him, these little moments that show how dedicated she is.

Tomei does such a good job that you never feel like Molly is some stupid mother blinded by devotion. She's a woman who put her son first and has forgotten what it is to want something just for her. With that part of her gone Molly ignores what Cyrus is in order to hold on to what she feels is all she has.

When Molly meets Reilly, a man just as needy for love, it reawakens that part of her. Tomei delivers on all counts here making us somebody you root for not just to get with John but to also get her shit together with Cyrus. . It's a performance that stands toe to toe with her two costars.

The glue holding all of it together is Catherine Keener (can you not make an indie film without out her these days). You completely buy her guilt-driven devotion to John which in turn makes their relationship work. If it hadn't then the film would have totally fallen apart. Look for an awesome turn from Matt Walsh as Keener's new husband.

Script wise Cyrus could be seen as slight because it feels as if the actors are just talking, having real conversations. The script feels so unscripted I'm sure there will be those who think it's not a good script. For me I loved that everybody didn't have the perfect thing to say, that there isn't this one scene where it all works out, that everybody has to come to grips with their issues and that nothing is sure in life. Cyrus is uplifting and realistic at the same time. I didn't find one false moment in the movie at all.

Sure there are a couple of minor plot devices that feel forced but outside of nitpicking bullshit I was thoroughly charmed by Cyrus. Am I gushing, maybe I am but after a summer of loud, buzzing hollow movies it was nice to see a quiet film that just wanted to tell a story. Especially without any of the hipster bullshit that usually goes along with "indie" films.

PREDATORS: MY REVIEW

In 1987 when the original Predator came out I thought it was cool. I wasn't in love with it or married to it the way others were, I just thought it was an awesome action movie. So when the sequels and Aliens VS Predators movies came out I wasn't as insulted as everybody else. Sure they were steaming piles of maggot rich shit but I didn't think the original was so wonderful that the follow ups deserved so much attention. I say this because I wanted people to understand how low my expectations were for the Robert Rodriguez produced Predators.

As low as they were the movie was still a let down, not so much because it sucked so badly but because it was chock full of amazing ideas that the filmmakers squandered for no apparent reason. The entire movie felt as if they started with a budget of 100 million and were told a month before shooting started they actually only had 12. Things that really needed to be explored are wasted here and that's what makes the movie so disappointing.

First of all I don't understand why filmmakers don't just sink us into the action immediately. When Adrian Brody and the other heavy hitter killers are dropped on the Predators "Game Preserve" planet they should start fighting right away. It should be an opening action sequence that kicks us in the balls and never lets up. Instead it's a drawn out introduction section and then endless walking around saying "what's going on?"

Director Nimrod Antel and his writers could have eliminated that by cutting down the number of killers in the group who are so cliche that you can pick out what will happen to who within two seconds of meeting them. Cutting it down to Adrian Brody, Danny Trejo, Louis Changchien and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali would have done wonders for the movie.

First it would've eliminated the horrible acting of Alice Braga and the horribly forced boy/girl thing between her and Adrian Brody. It would have also allowed for four individual characters who could be fleshed out instead of the eight one dimensional characters we're stuck with.

The three biggest wastes of the film start with Laurence Fishburne who appears and then is gone. He's literally in the movie for fifteen minutes rendering him unnecessary other than a plot point. In the film his character has survived on the planet for ten years and he talks to himself. This is character you hold onto and use not eliminate just so he can tell the others "There's a space ship".

At one point Fishburne's character tries to kill the group and argues with himself while doing it. Imagine if his split personality went through the whole movie, at one point he tries to kill them at another he saves them. We'd be totally off balance and the thrills would never stop.

The second issue are these no-name creatures that get dropped onto the planet with the group. They are big, ugly and mean and remain for only one scene. So much is made about them in the beginning that it's a huge White Elephant how fast they are forgotten. Use these creatures, force the Predators to hunt them, team with them, fight them as well, that's pure awesome action.

The final waste is the Blood Feud between the Predators and Super Predators. Fishburne drops on the group that the smaller Predators (the ones that look like the original) and the Super Predators (bigger, meaner, stronger) have been in a blood feud for years. Then the entire idea is dropped. WHAT? How much more awesome could tossing a blood feud into the movie have made it. One group of Predators is about to kill the group but they get killed by the other Predators for the glory. The possibilities are endless.

Instead Predators plods along with every scene only driving us to an end that is ridiculous. There's a twist that sucks and an act by Adrian Brody that goes against everything his character has been since the opening credits. I don't know if Rodriguez helped edit this movie but it feels like his poor pacing skills.

Ultimately Predators is a wasted opportunity. Wasted characters, wasted possibilities, wasted action, just wasted. Within the confines of this slow, largely boring and devoid of action "action movie" is a brilliant film that could have set the world on fire. I didn't hate Predators I just didn't care and it proved to me that Robert Rodriguez is just as bad at producing as he is at writing, directing and editing.

EDGE OF DARKNESS DVD - MY REVIEW

Have you ever been stuck with a car that just won't start? You keep revving it up and it feels like it's about to start but then it dies again. So you start it again and it starts revving up again and then it dies again. Suddenly on the very last turn of the key the engine turns over and you forgot you were in drive with the gas down so you rocket forward and do heavy and unnecessary damage.

That little scenario is exactly what it's like to try and watch the Mel Gibson pot boiler Edge Of Darkness. Part revenge film, part political thriller and part high minded speech on nuclear weapons Edge Of Darkness has many parts that add up to very little.

From the opening frame you're tricked into thinking the movie is revving up for something good. Gibson plays a Boston cop (whose name I kept forgetting during the movie) who loves his "little girl" and when she gets mowed down he snaps a cork trying to bring down those who were behind it. In the first ten minutes we see his daughter vomit horribly and the revving starts but then nothing happens. We get a batch of shots featuring Gibson looking hard and driving around.

From there on the film will get started and then stall, hit you with something interesting and then leave you with more long, boring scenes of nothing. Then, without warning, the last twenty five minutes come and the movie not only starts but hits the gas and pretty much destroys anything the film might have amounted to by trying to tie up the numerous loose ends in a bow with lots of punch. At no point does this movie actually click together into something comprehensive.

Outside of my rather clever car analogy Edge Of Darkness suffers from plot strings that go nowhere, relationships that are started only to get from plot point to plot point but serving no real purpose. For instance there is a love interest for Gibson's daughter who is brought in, does nothing, and then is out of the film just to set up something else. Edge Of Darkness brings in new people at the drop of a hat and they usually serve no purpose other than the writer needed them to be there.

Another big problem is that the whole finger wagging big-business-is-bad thing allows director Martin Campbell to not only stretch believability but also bring in more characters. The plot, which starts out within reason, quickly devolves into something so over the top that it seems more like a James Bond plot than a thriller. As for the characters Campbell wants to take a shot at everybody we hate so there's a corporate asshole, a slimy senator, some "Government Guys" who are cold and say mean things, two hit men and even a "twist" involving Gibson's partner that I promise will make you laugh out loud.

Besides a gluttony of characters, a convoluted plot, too many loose ends, no pacing and an alarmingly low amount of cohesion, Edge Of Darkness also brings in a hit man character who just bops along making speeches and being cryptic for no reason. Then, as if this would make it okay, Campbell tries to make him the hero of the piece though he does it in a fashion that would even make Michael Bay say "Guys that's too much". Originally this part was supposed to be played by Robert DeNiro until he smartly backed out.

Personally I hated the last three minutes the most because it plays out like the ending of a bad episode of Cold Case. Others I've read and spoken with have said "Well at least Gibson was good" and I am clueless as to what they're talking about. Forgetting his crappy Boston accent Gibson phones this performance in from a cheap cellphone while sitting in a lead room built at the bottom of a gorge. He has no emotions other than anger and even that seems fake. Watching Gibson in this movie you'd swear that he hates acting.

Edge Of Darkness has no real idea what it wants to be or what point it's trying to prove. That fractured feeling never escapes the movie and it's made worse by the fact that film is tedious in most parts. It never gets going, it never finds a groove and when it finally does spring to life it's a giant mess that tries to do too much too fast and fails. Edge Of Darkness proves once again that all the top notch talent in the world doesn't mean you'll end up with a good movie.

IRON MAN 2 - MY REVIEW

Not having been a huge fan of the first Iron Man movie my expectations for Iron Man 2 were incredibly low. As early reviews rolled in that it just wasn't up to snuff I figured my disappointment was just and that once again Hollywood had failed me on a superhero level. Having seen the film I now realize that I will never, ever see eye to eye with critics nor the general movie going public for I thought Iron Man 2 was absolutely wonderful. Where the first film had no pacing, this has plenty, where the first film had no discernible villain, the sequel has two and where the first movie had no third act, Iron Man 2 delivers with serious punch. I can only suppose the folks who said this movie was a mess and had too much going on either suffer from ADD or saw a different cut of the film.

I think one thing that made folks uneasy was how director Jon Favereau balanced the structure of the movie like a house of cards. Each plot point rested heavily on the next to the point you began to feel as though the whole movie will topple over. Again and again Favereau pulled it out just in the nick of time, which added a layer of tension outside of the events in the film. I was interested in how people said there was no focus to the movie when it was clear Tony Stark was the focus, everything happening in the film was a direct result of his actions. His enemies, the Government, the creation of War Machine, the resentment of his friends, all Tony's doing and all obviously Tony's doing.

Favereau also let his characters grow here, letting the film take a step back from the standard action movie to grow some real relationships. Instead of this being the Robert Downey JR show everybody in the film gets some meat to chew on. To be honest several of the supporting cast including Don Cheadle as Rhodey and Garry Shandling as a sleazy politician steal the show from Downey JR. In fact the casting of Iron Man 2 is something that clicks for the first time ever. I didn't think any of these people were very good in the first film but they all nailed their parts here.

For instance Tony Stark is so over the top egotistical in this movie thanks to his new found fame that you want to hate him but you really can't. That's exactly how Robert Downey JR is so suddenly the role really becomes his. Given more to do Gwenyth Paltrow rises to the occasion and even Favereau's cameo as Happy The Bodyguard is fucking awesome. To be honest the only person left out in the cold is Scarlett Johansson but that's mainly because Black Widow has absolutely no reason to be in the film other than a cheap "save the day" writer's trick towards the end.

The two performances that stand out here are Cheadle as Rhodey and Sam Rockwell as fellow weapons tycoon Justin Hammer. Anybody who thought Cheadle wouldn't kick ass as the new Rhodey will be left feeling much better after the film. Cheadle brings a strong determination to the character and a force of will that easily matches Downey Jr. When the two face off there's real tension there, you find yourself rooting for both men.

Sam Rockwell is the backbone of the entire film and it sucks because his name is getting lost in the bigger star shuffle. Rockwell owns the character of Justin Hammer and plays it perfectly. He's sleazy, funny, insane and you can feel the hatred he has towards Tony Stark with every breath. Rockwell approaches Hammer as a spoiled child who know he's not as brilliant, handsome or charming as Tony Stark and it burns him to his core. That dedication to destroying Stark allows the decisions Hammer makes in the film to make sense no matter how off the wall. Without Rockwell there is no Iron Man 2, period.

People are all up in arms about Mickey Rourke's Whiplash and while he's a good villain the character suffers from Rourke's need to show how incredibly thespian he is. At no point does it feel like Rourke is enjoying the character or having fun with it so Whiplash comes across too heavy handed. Favereau manages to save the whole thing by only giving us doses of Whiplash. Right when it feels like too much he cuts and moves on to another event in the movie.

Action wise I thought there was a perfect ratio of Iron Man in the movie. Favereau doesn't over do it and makes sure that when Iron Man shows up the action is so thoroughly kick ass you can't help but cheer. What's really great here is that the filmmakers learned from their lack of a third act in Iron Man and worked to really focus everything on a strong delivery for the sequel. I was also happy that the Nick Fury scene actually played a part in the plot of the film, it wasn't just "Hey guys remember the Avengers movie is coming out soon". For us super comic book geeks look for a kick ass Captain America nod that I actually found cooler than the post-credits Thor scene.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the problems in the movie. First of all whenever Tony Stark becomes righteous or reflective it doesn't work, Robert Downey JR just can't play those scenes well. As I said before Black Widow has zero reason to be in the movie at all so whenever she appears it's a real distraction. There's also a cheesy subplot involving Stark's father that could have worked had it not been so "Adrian's Speech To Rocky" cliche. Outside of that and a few tiny moments that didn't work nothing here took away from the good time of the movie.

I really enjoyed the fact that Jon Favereau realized that Iron Man to is bright, splashy and fun. This isn't Batman or Spider-Man, there's no melancholy darkness here and adding some to bring in the Dark Knight crowd would have ruined the film. Iron Man 2 is an exciting, action packed, funny and oddly charming superhero movie that proves how good these films can be if handled by the right people.

CRAZY HEART -- My Review

In 1983 a little film titled Tender Mercies was released starring Robert Duvall and Tess Harper. The film was about hard drinking old time country singer trying to get his life together. While not a financial success Tender Mercies was a critical and fan favorite. It garnered a best original screenplay Oscar as well as one for Robert Duvall, his only win thus far if memory serves.

They have been trying to remake that movie ever since.


The latest attempt is titled Crazy Heart a film that won huge praise for Jeff Bridges for his portrayal of Bad Blake the central character in the film. To me Crazy Heart was a tedious, schmaltzy and overly familiar movie that was so predictable that you can never sit down and just enjoy it. The sad part for me was I wanted to like this film, I went into it amped to see it. I even tried to convince myself that it was good after the first mind numbing forty five minutes. It wasn't too long before reality set it and the cliches, awkward pacing and general laziness of the movie ended my enjoyment.

From the outset of the film you're smacked across the face with the cliches. Bridges character Bad Blake is a washed up country singer who, you guessed it, has a drinking problem, doesn't take care of himself and is ornery and grouchy but, beneath it all, beats a heart of gold. Seriously, that's established in the first ten minutes of the film and yet somehow I'm supposed to be invested in a cliche character that could be from a dozen "country" movies. Blake has a crappy manager, a rough life on the road and the entire time he has to watch his protege Tommy Sweet sell millions of records and achieve riches and fame.

With those cliches set then we get the lonely single woman (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and her cute kid that come into Bad Blake's life and become the family he never had. Oh wait, did I mention Blake has a grown son he's never seen? Anyway as soon as Blake gets deeply involved with Gyllenhaal you know that it's going to end up with him doing something stupid involving her kid while he's drunk. That fact is so certain I spent most of my time waiting for it so when it came there was zero emotional reaction. I knew Gyyllenhall's character would leave Blake over this which would drive him to clean up his act.

Enter Robert Duvall who I guess they brought in because they ripped off Tender Mercies so badly they felt compelled or guilty. Duvall is the straight talking ex-alcoholic that doesn't let Blake get away with anything and helps him get on the straight and narrow. So now we have the tough friend who won't let his buddy die, cliche number 15..check. Once Blake gets clean there's a laundry list of little scenes that you knew were coming straight up to the sappy ending. I never read the original novel by Thomas Cobb but if its like the film it's no wonder I haven't.

The pacing problems with Crazy Heart are basically that it has none. The movie doesn't flow as a story, instead it comes across as series of clunky scenes that don't really work together. Nothing is allowed to pick up steam or even work itself out. Through out the movie Blake is constantly pissed at his protege Tommy Sweet (Colin Ferrell in one of the stupidest casting choices EVER) but they never really say why. There's also no resolution to the relationship either, it just falls away until the end. Whenever Gyllenhaal's character seemed about to rise above just being a plot device the movie moved away from her and put Blake back on the road.

Crazy Heart also suffers from feeling very Hollywood Country. It never ever feels authentic but more like a group of "actors" getting together to use their "craft" to tell a "real and human story". It feels pretentious, as if you could sense the scum Hollywood execs on set with brand new Johnny Cash t-shirts and new cowboy hats. Many gave Jeff Bridges credit for raising the film above it's obvious flaws but I don't see it. To me Bridges basically was The Big Lebowski as a country singer.

Crazy Heart had some nice ambitions and I could tell it was trying to relay a convincing story it just never did. The movie never gets started because it can't rise above feeling like a series of scenes instead of a comprehensive film. The lack of originality also weighs the movie down as does the often disingenuous performances by the cast. If the plot of Crazy Heart sounds good do yourself a favor and watch Tender Mercies, you'll be much happier.

UP IN THE AIR - MY REVIEW

The best way to see Up In The Air is to go with absolutely no preconceived notions. Don't listen to all the best picture of the year hoopla or how brilliant the script is, just go and watch it completely uninformed. I say this because about ninety percent of what I heard or read on Up In The Air simply isn't true. It's not the best picture of the year by a long shot and the script isn't brilliant it's actually kind of obvious and flawed.

All that being said Up In The Air is a really enjoyable movie with awesome performances, a movie I would probably have liked even more if I hadn't been so gung ho to see the greatest movie this year. This is another film drawn from the pages of a book though I'm not sure if the novel suffers from the same flaws as the script does. Director Jason Reitman (who co-wrote the script) has no sense of discovery in Up In The Air, everything that's going to happen is pretty much laid out by halfway through the film.

Up In The Air is the story of Ryan Bingam (George Clooney) a man who flies all around the country firing people for bosses too cowardly to do so themselves. He loves his life of flying 300 plus days a year and living hub to hub with no personal connections to ruin it. From the very start Reitman hits us with the symbolism in a heavy handed manner. Bingham packing everything into a little suitcase, his personal speaking engagements where he tells the audience to symbolically stuff all they own into a backpack in order to see how it weights you down etc, etc. Okay, we get it, Bingham's perfect little life isn't going to be perfect for long.

Just in case that symbolism wasn't enough enter the two sisters, one of whom is getting married. Bingham isn't close to them and he doesn't see them much, a fact we could have picked up on without the scene telling us all this. Hiss kooky sister has cut out a big photo of herself and her fiance that she has people holding up in front of famous places so it looks like they were there. Bingham being a traveler is asked to take some shots. When he tries to put the plus sized photo into his suitcase it doesn't fit.

Did you catch the symbolism there?

As the film progresses Bingham is forced to reevaluate his ideas on life on both a professional business level. Business wise he's forced to deal with the changing way his company wants to fire people and a new young upstart named Anna Kendrick (Natalie Kenner) who Bingham takes along so she can learn the ropes. Ahhhh, the second hitch in his neat little life, the symbolism grows even wider.

The personal front is in the form of Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) a beautiful business-type who is essentially the female version of Bingham. They meet and begin a relationship that will put his I-want-to-be-alone idealism to the ultimate test. What director Reitman does in the first forty minutes is set everything up like a chess game instead of a film. Nothing seems to be growing naturally a problem Reitman also had directing Juno where he set up the pins to knock them down instead of building characters for the film.

The main problem I have with Up In The Air is that once the pieces are in place you can see how they will play out no matter how hard you try to deny it. You know how the family issue will end up, how the relationship with young upstart Anna will resolve itself, you can even see the curve in the road involving Alex Goran if you've ever been to a movie. Once those things are figured out the rest of the film sort of loses its purpose and you begin checking your watch or moving around in your seat.

What's worse is the curve in the road with Alex involves so many jumps in logic that the entire relationship seems more like a set up for the end than anything else. The same can be said for the Anna resolution to the point there's even a scene that almost screams "NOW YOU KNOW WHAT'LL HAPPEN TO ANNA!!". Up In The Air feels as if somebody leaned over halfway through and said "Let me tell you how this movie ends".

However there is one very strong reason not to be too hard on Up In The Air and that is the performances. It could be sold that George Clooney's performance single handedly saves the movie. He is charming, smarmy, dignified and funny. You end up rooting for a guy who gives you every reason not to root for him.

Natalie Keener is awesome as the young upstart Anna Kendrick, a part which is not easy to play. Too much one way and you hate her and won't believe her resolution, too much the other and she becomes too likable to be believed as a young business shark. Keener also straddles the line between wordly entrepreneur and clueless young girl with little life experience. She never seems phony or ill at ease, instead simply melting into her character.

Jason Bateman is the "Robert Duvall from The Road" of Up In The Air. He's not on screen for long but when he is he totally owns it. Playing Bingham's asshole cutthroat boss Bateman is so enjoyable I wanted more of him and less of everything else. Even the bit parts of Bingham's sister are played beautifully.

The only one note performance is from Vera Farmiga as Alex Rogan and I think that's more of the design of her character than her acting chops. She isn't given much to do besides look sexy and toss out witty one liners, which is too bad because she gets swallowed up by everybody else.

All in all Up In The Air is a solid movie with some great moments and kick ass performances. Reitman needs to learn how to let a script breathe and allow for the nuances that make a film seem natural instead of set up. I will say this for him though, he does a great job of showing how hard lay offs hit people and makes each individual so real your heart bleeds for them. Up In The Air is a classic "rental" movie. It doesn't need to be viewed on the big screen and in smaller digs you can focus less on the many potholes and more on the amazing performances.

A SINGLE MAN - MY REVIEW

Have you ever seen a movie that you really wanted to be great but it just couldn't get out of its own way? A Single Man is just such a film, one so stylized that it loses the story and so focused on creating texture and mood that it's all your left with. Telling the story of a gay man (Colin Firth as George) during the Cuban Missile Crisis who has lost his lover to a car accident A Single Man is based on the 1962 novel by Christopher Isherwood. The novel has been long held as one of the first in the gay movement and here fashion designer Tom Ford has attempted to bring Isherwood's book to life. It's ironic that Ford makes his home in the world of fashion because A Single Man is a great looking film. The problems come when the subtext of the book or the depth of the characters tries to come out and is strangled by the aesthetics of the movie.

From what I can gather Isherwood's novel is simply a second by second account of George's life after losing his partner Jim and attempting to live a normal day in his normal life in Los Angeles as an English professor. It goes into George's first meeting and then life with his lover Jim, the death and life afterwards as well as his friendship with drunken divorcee Charlotte (Julianne Moore). Ford attempts to visualize this inner monologue with various film tricks that overwhelm the script as oppose to enhance it. For instance when George is living his post-Jim life everything is saturated and grainy, as if you were looking at the movie through a film over the lens. If something or someone catches George's eye or he's having a particularly intense memory the color becomes very rich and very deep. While that might have worked using it sparingly Ford uses it so often it just becomes a hiccup that constantly takes you out of the movie.

Along with that there's an overuse of slow motion, quick cuts to simulate memories all happening at once, flashbacks, etc. A Single Man which purports to be a quiet movie suddenly becomes visually very noisy so it can't ever find a rhythm. Without that what you're left with is a series of scenes that don't really lead anywhere. The really frustrating thing is that all of these scenes are wonderful (save for Julianne Moore who is obviously making a bid for Oscar glory here) especially Colin Firth. His restrained performance with flashes of genuine anger and emotion carries the entire movie. Ford might have been able to get away with letting Firth carry the film except for his crack-like addiction to stylized movie tricks.

For instance there's one use of slow motion and grainy color that is so badly edited myself and a few others I spoke with all thought we were seeing a flashback to George's childhood. Suddenly we're told no these are his next door neighbors who George has a strained relationship with. These kinds of little issues continue throughout the movie so you never get to settle in and enjoy what's going on. Halfway through you're on guard waiting for the next trick to appear. The movie does find somewhat of a pace by the last twenty minutes but at that point I had given up caring.

A Single Man, in the hands of a more experienced filmmaker, could have been one of those quiet movies that just comes along and knocks an eye candy filibuster like Avatar right off the top spot. Instead it's a meandering visual exercise that plods along until finally limping to the finish. You can see on screen how powerful the book must've been, especially for the times, but that power is never translated. Hopefully if Ford continues to makes films he'll learn a little more about restraint and subtlety. If not then maybe he should head back to the runways where that kind of eye serves a better purpose.

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS - MY REVIEW

When Heath Ledger passed away it looked as if the latest Terry Gilliam film
'The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus" would go the way of Gilliam's Don Quixoteas; a movie derailed by hardship and tragic circumstances. Instead the acting community rallied behind the film (especially Johnny Depp, Colin Ferrel and Jude Law) and helped Gilliam finished what could be his best movie since Time Bandits. Lacking the annoying confusion of 12 Monkeys or the schmaltzy nature of The Fisher King, Parnassus is a complete statement, a story devoid of gimmicks or pretentious director tricks. This is the movie Gilliam was born to make, the one that all his other movies were practice for. It's interesting because it shares a lot of the same visual elements as Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes but where as that seems tacky and forced Parnassus is fascinating and necessary for the story.

Telling you the story behind Parnassus would be akin to walking out of a theater in 1980 screaming "VADER IS LUKE'S DAD!!!" but suffice it to say there hasn't been a more layered or compelling story in film this year. Gilliam does a great job of controlling his visual style by giving himself two separate realities to play in; the real world and the world of imagination. The real world is London and Parnassus is the man behind a traveling carnival show featuring his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), his assistant Percy (Verene Troyer) and his apprentice Anton (Andrew Garfield). This misfit family stumble upon a stranger named Tony (Heath Ledger) who changes their lives and the direction the act will follow forever. The imaginary world and how it ties into the real world is just something you'll have to experience for yourself.

What makes Parnassus so good is how the script, direction and performances string together to form an unbreakable rope that weaves this elaborate tapestry and never let's it get out of control. Gilliam is so restrained in this film that when he does get to go off it becomes brilliant instead of over-the-top. This restraint allows him to place layer on top of layer from the script with out Parnassus becoming confusing or convoluted. With so much going on there is always a sharp focus on story so you never begin scratching your head wondering what the hell is going on. Gilliam relies on the audience being intelligent so there's no spoon feeding but he doesn't hide the silverware from you either. Combining both strong story and direction allows the film peel away layer after layer so the audience is held captive by what's going on.

Performance wise everybody is not only wonderful but also perfectly cast. Christopher Plummer has one of the toughest jobs because Parnassus is both a magical entity to be feared and a drunken fool to be laughed at. His choices in life make him reprehensible but if the audience doesn't sympathize with him the film will be lost. Plummer has to make an annoying, egotistical drunk somebody we root for and he does it masterfully. Tom Waits, the actual physical embodiment of the world cool, is perfect as Mr. Nick aka The Devil and I even loved Verne Troyer who I usually can't stand. His world weary assistant is the voice of reason throughout the film and Troyer knows it. He doesn't mug for the camera or try to be Mini Me, instead he plays his part with razor sharp talent.

The hot-as-ten-suns Lily Cole steps up the plate as Valentina, Parnassus's young daughter who is starting to come into her own. It would be easily with the retina scorching looks that Cole has to play her character as overly sexy or overly spoiled but Cole walks the line very well. By the film's end you still understand that she's anatomically crippling but you're much more focused on her performance. The real gem of the movie is Andrew Garfield as Anton because he is the soul of the entire piece. Garfield holds his own with Ledger, Plummer, and anybody else he acts alongside. Anton is the moral center of the carnvial troupe but he's never preachy and his ability to show vulnerability without it being weakness is a nice change of pace. Garfield can be charming, annoying, brave or laugh out loud funny, switching all of it at the drop of a dime. I expect big things from this young man in the future.

As for Ledger's performance, well, it's almost hard to watch. Seeing him on screen in Parnassus and remembering his turn as The Joker you really see what an incredible talent he was and how tragic his loss is. Ledger's turn as Tony is perfect, almost like a song. Ledger is not afraid to get dirty, to put his good looks on the back burner and be what the character neesd him to be. His play as Tony is dark but compelling. You don't trust his character but you really want to hang out with him. if The Joker was Ledger going completely off the reservation then Tony is what would happen if he walked to the edge and started waving to people. Tony isn't all there but he isn't crazy, that ability to keep us guessing is ultimately what ties the movie together.

The Imagniarium Of Doctor Parnassus is a machine of many parts all working together in perfect order to bring you one of the best movies of 2009. As he gets older Gilliam is becoming a better storyteller without losing his ability to make things visually fascinating. I'm so glad this movie was finished and found a way to be released. It's a movie everybody should see, talk about, and then see again. I'm hoping seeing this will remind filmmakers that you can make something composed of elements of fantasy without sacrificing what makes a great film because at the end of the all my blustering that's what the Imagnarium Of Doctor Parnassus is.....a great, great film.

THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG - MY REVIEW

I don't usually go to Disney movies, mainly because they aren't what I remember growing up. I came of age on Disney fare like 101 Dalmatians, Lady & The Tramp, Pinocchio, The Jungle Book, etc. Since the success of The Little Mermaid Disney has taken a different approach to both animation and songs with their releases. With that in mind I was less than amped about going to see The Princess And The Frog but you'd be amazed what you're forced into by extended family during Christmas. What I expected were some chuckles, a couple of toe tapping numbers and maybe a movie I didn't hate. What I didn't expect was a thoroughly charming and exceedingly entertaining film that harkened back to the Disney I grew up with.

The Princess Frog centers on Tiana who, through a series of only-in-a-Disney-movie circumstances, becomes a frog after kissing real life Prince Naveen who was reduced into his own amphibious stature by voodoo witch doctor Dr. Facilier. From there it's a whole lot of jazz inspired songs and kooky characters that help the two try and become human again. Princess And The Frog takes several departures from the more recent Disney fare starting with the animation. Instead of the bright colors and clean backgrounds of movies like The Lion King or Beauty & The Beast, Princess and The Frog opts for a darker look, more shadows and more mystery. The characters themselves have that old school fluid look, one that screams it came first from the imagination and then through the pen of a Disney animator. Think of Baloo from The Jungle Book and you'll understand what I mean.

Disney also returns to their darker themes in Princess And The Frog. The bad guy her, Dr. Facilier, is really evil and the imagery used along with him has a tone that might even be too strong for young children. It's much more in the vein of the evil witch in Cinderella or the haggard old woman who hands Snow White the apple than the buffoon like nature of Tarzan evil hunter or the mean-but-witty style of The Lion King. Disney really shows how Facilier is involved in the dark arts and the price you pay for mixing it up with voodoo demons.

The Princess And The Frog is also a much more personal movie from the characters to the musical numbers. Instead of over-the-top celebrity voiced caricatures these are much more subtle and human (irony noted) personalities. For instance the jazz loving, horn blowing friendly alligator Louis could have been played to the hilt thus making him annoying. Instead he's played just grasping the edges of too much and that allows him to be endearing. Same with firefly Ray who has to be one of the most fun characters Disney has had in a while. You even manage to create a soft spot for Tiana's spoiled, rich best friend Charlotte La Bouff who could've been played as so spoiled you hated her more than the voodoo priest. Instead she's a sweet girl who is just a little off center and you can't help but laugh with her.

I was impressed with how personal Disney even kept the musical numbers. Sure they're big and involved but they aren't the show stopping, all encompassing, money shot musical hoe-downs that Disney has been churning out for the last ten years or more. I think part of what makes the Princess And The Frog such a personal and muted film is its reliance on Jazz to build not only the soundtrack but the story. Creole, southern New Orleans Jazz is some of the warmest most personal music ever made. When you center a story like this around that kind of warmth there's nothing you can do but make a film that echoes that type of personal connection. Something like "Under The Sea" or "Hakuna Matata" would never have worked if blown from a dirty New Orleans Jazz trumpet.

There are so socioeconomic problems with The Princess And The Frog that have to be addressed. The much touted "First Black Princess" isn't a princess at all, at least not through 97% of the movie. Instead Tiana is a poor black girl who can only work as a waitress to make money or cook for her rich white best friend. Her dreams are impossible for her to reach until she has the help of a big strong man. That seems a little surprising from a girl who has Oprah voicing her mother. None of this is anything that makes the film bad or unenjoyable but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. The only bizarre vibe to the movie is it feels like Disney was trying to sidestep the whole "First Black Princess" thing which wasn't necessary. Regardless of all of this I enjoyed the movie immensely and was happy to be brought back to my childhood if only for a couple of hours.

THE ROAD - MY REVIEW

Let me start this whole thing by saying that The Road is one of my favorite books of all time. It began my love of Cormac McCarthy and I, like most, became very skeptical at the idea of a movie version. The book is so personal, so intimate that I couldn't see how filmmakers would be able to bring that to the big screen without getting caught in the trappings of "post apocalyptic" cliches. Thankfully director John Hillcoat has decided he'd rather make a wonderful movie than a money maker. The Road isn't going to be a huge hit because it is bleak, unforgiving and relentless. This isn't the post apocalyptic movie with a pocket of survivors building a new world or someplace where the sun still shines and the grass is still green. This is the end of the world as we know it and there is nothing to do but survive each day.

The Road tells the tale of a father (Viggo Mortensen) and son (Kodi Smit-Mcphee) trying desperately to make it further south to the coast where the father believes will be more hospitable living conditions. Through their journey the father is torn between teaching his son the harsh realities needed to survive and not driving the humanity from him completely. The world they venture through is a horrible place covered totally in ash where humans keep other humans in living storage to eat and trying to make friends could kill you. The boy and his father who are never given names exist solely for each other and that devotion is as much warmth as the movie allows you to have. Much like the father and son the audience lives only to see the world through their eyes.

The hardest part of adapting a book like The Road into a film is simply that, well, it isn't a book. In McCarthy's novel the focus between the boy and his father is so nuanced and written so poetically that you're allowed to forget the back drop. The human story is all there is and it never gets lost in the shadow of what post apocalyptic America must look like. Though writer Joe Penhall's screenplay is astonishingly good as well as pretty faithful it's still bringing the written word to the screen. No matter how intimate the shots or the scenes are it's still against a back drop that, now visible, is hard to ignore. This could've been an issue that sunk the picture if not for the performances which continue to bring the focus back to the relationships.

Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-Mcphee keep The Road anchored to reality simply by allowing you to believe that what they see is simply their reality. They have now awe, no surprise, the horrors we are witnessing for the first time are common place to them. By keeping that sense of reality going the two actors are free to bring life to their relationship and they do it in spades. I've read some reviews that state Mortensen is one note through the movie but they either didn't see the film or slept through large chunks of it. I would also make sure you don't go to the restroom or you might miss where Robert Duvall steps on screen and does more in five minutes than most actors do in an entire movie.

The other thing that makes The Road work is how Hillcoat manages to weave striking imagery without beating you over the head with it. One of my favorite instances is when Mortensen and Mcphee are walking through a city and for a brief flash they're stepping over bodies with money all around them as well as watches and jewelry. It only lasts a millisecond but says so much on how fast things can change. That kind of imagery is all through the film as are powerhouse moments that grab your heart and squeeze it until you're chest hurts. If you watch the scene when Mortensen finally lets go of the memories of his wife (played admirably by Charlize Theron) and you're not moved then you should leave the theater and find out what time Old Dogs or New Moon is playing.

I've heard some critics say that The Road is too bleak and too unforgiving and that there is no hope in the movie and still others balk that there's too much humanity at the end because of a dog (yep, that's what they said). While they argue for snob points they've missed the point. The Road is exactly what an adaptation should be, the perfect blending of the written word and the visual medium. This movie could not have been the book simply because it's a movie so all liberties taken were more out of necessity than marketing. The Road manages to keep all the intimacy and humanity of the novel against this visual backdrop that would swallow lesser material. The Road is the first film in a long time that reminds me how once upon a time film was an artistic medium that had the power to change the world.

SURVEILLANCE - MY REVIEW

I don't often review movies that I happen to stumble on when renting but this is a movie so awful, so completely devoid of anything that could even charitably referred to as decent filmmaking that I felt it was almost a public service to warn people about it. Surveillance is directed by Jennifer Lynch daughter of David Lynch and boy does she share his need to toss out character, plot, pacing and dialogue for mood and "quirkiness".

Jennifer Lynch is worse than her father because while she has all of his weaknesses she has none of his strengths. Surveillance is astonishing in it's ability to horrifically nihilistic and painfully boring at the same time. This is a shitty Saw/Hostel type film trying to masquerade as art. Here's how much I hate this movie, I am now going to give away the big twist ending so stop reading if you don't want to know:


BILL PULLMAN AND JULIA ORMAND ARE THE SERIAL KILLERS.

Okay so that will hopefully get people to not even see the film. Even if they curse me for giving away the ending I can sleep better knowing I kept some innocents from wasting two hours of their lives. Surveillance "plot" seems like it might be interesting when it first unfolds. There has been some kind of accident on a deserted road near a small town killing several people including most of a family.

Supposed FBI Agents Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond show up to investigate what went down. From there Surveillance becomes a series of ridiculous events and idiotic plot twists dragged out at a pace that rivals a legless horse pulling itself through a sea of glue. I'm not sure what sucked more, what was going on in the movie or the fact that I wanted to scream "GET THE FUCK ON WITH IT" about halfway through.

Surveillance is really a miracle of filmmaking in that it fails on every level. The script is a logical mess, the characters completely uninteresting, the direction non-existent, the editing sloppy, even the costumes are fucking boring. I guess Lynch figured if she threw in some odd camera angles and creepy music that she'd be compared to her father. Instead she hands us a movie that looks and feels like a pretentious film student's final project gone horribly wrong. I seriously can't believe that somebody green lit this movie.

It's as if Jennifer Lynch walked into a meeting room, pulled down her pants and took a big shit. Then she kneeled down and started waving it around and...sniff sniff...started smelling it. Then she smiled at the movie execs, blew them all and underneath the sheen of newly fired semen she managed to produce enough photos of these producers with live boys or dead girls that she got her money. When the big twist ending reveal comes it's so laughable, so badly handled that I kept scanning the movie backwards to see if I had missed something. Nope, not at all, just a bad script brought to life by a hack director.

To round out the bad script and shoddy acting Lynch also throws in the overly mature and creepy little girl that art house films way overuse, the two in love serial killers who act all oversexed and "CRAZY" by opening their eyes really wide and yelling a lot and even the incredibly hot drug addict (which I love because we all know how hot drug addicts are). The worst of these are the two corrupt cops whose motivations make no sense and are clearly there just as catalysts for the movie's clunker plot.

Surveillance is a great example of how fucking far the apple can really fall from the tree. In this case the tree isn't all that great so the apple that falls lands all rotted and brown. Jennifer Lynch is an awful director and even worse at trying to craft a script. She has no sense of dynamics, tension or character. I beg you to avoid Surveillance at all costs. Better yet if you see a copy steal it and light it on fire. If everybody joined together we could, as a people, destroy every last copy of this vile, boring and completely reprehensible piece of shit.