"Moon" - REVIEW

An independent sci-fi movie. Not exactly what we expect in the Hollywood of today, is it? "2001: A Space Odyssey" aside, when someone mentions sci-fi, you probably think of blasting lasers, faraway planets, exotic alien races, and technology way beyond anything we have on earth. Sci-fi is not a genre that is easy to associate with "independent filmmaking", and the success of "Star Wars" and the recent "Star Trek" film only make it more difficult. The closest thing recently has been "Sunshine" (2007), but even that film, in its third act, moved into more conventional territory. So, for those of you hoping that somewhere out there is a worthy companion piece to your limited edition digitally remastered "2001" DVD that you bought despite already owning another copy, fear not. The film you're looking for is Duncan Jones' "Moon", and while it may not been the timeless classic that "2001" is, it's more than worth a look in a summer crowded with transforming robot aliens, teen wizards, and romantic comedies starring Katherine Heigl or Sandra Bullock (I'm not sure either of those two ladies would have film careers if it weren't for that genre).

Unfortunately, I have to be vague, because not only is "Moon" short (95 minutes, including the credits), but the story is also quite limited and moves based almost entirely on discoveries and twists. So, let's start with what I CAN tell you: set some years into the future (we're not told how long), mankind has found a way to harvest clean energy off of the Moon, and thanks to Lunar Industries, the Moon now helps supply a massive portion of the whole world's energy. The Sarang Station, Lunar Industries' HQ, is run by one astronaut at a time, on a three-year contract, after which the astronaut is sent home and a replacement comes. There's also GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), the computer who helps keep everything running. The current human employee is Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), who has only two weeks left in his contract and then he finally gets to return home to see his wife and daughter. Everything is going fine until Sam hallucinates while he is out picking up a container of Hydrogen from one of the mining vehicles, and gets into a crash. He wakes up hours later in the Sarang infirmary, with a bit of memory loss. Later, he goes out to look at a mining vehicle that seems to have broken down, and once inside, he finds...himself. Obviously, he panics. Is it just a hallucination? Has all of his time alone caused him to go crazy? The rest is best for you to discover on your own, but suffice it say that despite little actually "happening", there's plenty to keep you interested.

The smartest thing that Jones and crew have done with "Moon" is the way it is paced. Scenes are not dragged out endlessly just to fill time; we see just enough, and then it cuts, but does so without feeling over-edited (*cough*Wolverine*cough*). Details are established efficiently (we learn about Sam's family via a video message from Earth, as well as the company he works for) and despite the low budget, the effects are convincing enough to make us believe that Bell is indeed thousands of miles from any other humans. The mostly white set adds to the clinical, sterile, lonely, and impersonal nature of the station, which Sam does his best to brighten with some posters and pictures from home taped around his bed. Camera work is neither flashy nor lazy, mostly very calm, but briefly switching over to close-ups and handheld work when Sam has one of his most significant encounters with the bizarre. For a debut feature, Jones' direction is stunning assured, and quite commanding from the opening frames.

The biggest accomplishments though, are Rockwell's performance, and Clint Mansell's haunting score. Rockwell basically IS the whole movie, and while I'm not sure his work is the tour-de-force that it's been touted as, it's certainly very strong work. Surpriningly, Jones and the script never push Rockwell into manipulative tear jerking, in spite of his almost soul-crushing loniness. He never is forced to cry and scream awkwardly, but instead all of his performance feels very real, and un-flashy. However, while the script doesn't push Rockwell into maudlin hysterics, it also doesn't quite push him far enough in the other direction, robbing the performance of some power. He's never given the chance to be truly nuanced or devastatingly subtle as the later portions of the story would allow (which is strange considering the ethical dilemma confronted in the film). But, to back it all up, we have that other strong aspect: Mr. Mansell's score. Mansell has a history of doing beautiful, haunting music for films (Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain), and his work here is no exception. Though not as dynamic as the scores of "Requiem" or "Fountain", it does stick with you, and help drive the minimal story forward.

So, we've talked about the positives, but alas, we must move on to the negatives, other than the one already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Really, my only other complaint(s) is that there are times when the script puts too many discoveries/twists almost too close together. They aren't back-to-back necessarily, but when they popped up I couldn't help but think that maybe, just maybe, there needed to be more time, so that each one could breathe and fit into the story better. At the rate the film was going, a few more minutes certainly wouldn't have hurt at all. Then, there's the big ethical dilemma. Thankfully, there are no preachy moments on the subject, but a few scenes exploring Sam's thoughts on what was going on might have added another, very rich layer to the film that could have resulted in a much larger impact on the audience. However, these are not so glaring as to make me dislike the film or feel disappointed by it. I was more than pleased, and I look forward to seeing what Jones does next. It's just that, well, sometimes less isn't more.

Grade: B+/A-

"(500) Days of Summer" - REVIEW

There is a scene in "Shakespeare in Love" (don't worry, just go with it) in which Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench) asks to a room of people if a play can, "truly show us the nature of love?" That film took place at the end of the 1500s and was released in 1998. Now, several centuries later in movie-time and 11 years later in our world, maybe a play hasn't shown us an honest look at love, but perhaps a movie has.

That movie is Marc Webb's "(500) Days of Summer", which is one of those rare romantic comedies that is a delight from start to finish. Though told semi-linearly, we actually open around day (290) in the relationship between Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel). Such an opening would seem to be strange, or disorienting on paper, but that's the beauty of Webb's film. Even as it jumps forward and backward and forward again, we never lose track with names or faces or plot devices; the story revolves entirely around Tom and Summer's interaction, and as such it's impossible to feel disoriented or lost. And while part of the credit goes to the editor, this lovely little film wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the screenplay, which wisely has a lot of laughs and never weighs them down, even in the less-than-happy moments. And of course, the crowning acheivment(s), even more so than the script or Webb's direction are the performances from the two leads. They play off of each other with ease, with Levitt's quiet normality and Deschanel's adorability used to maximum effect. Perhaps in the film's finest moment, we see them enter a dark period in their relationship, and we're introduced to it via a sublime parody of black and white avant garde films, topped off with a hysterical nod to Ingmar Bergman. Even in its "darkest" moments, it never become weighty or tries to make itself into something melodramatic. The levity is maintained, albeit somewhat bitter-sweetly, the entire way through. And yet somehow, it still has a feeling a reality to it, without going too far. The unpredictability of people in relationships, particularly two people as different as Tom and Summer (he believes in fate and love, she thinks it's all hogwash) is rendered beautifully, but not overdone; we aren't forced to listen to a 10 minute conversation between the two of them about whether love exists or not...we get to see it and make up our own minds.

As far as artistic and technical aspects, there's nothing much to rave about aside from the soundtrack, which is brilliantly utilized...and on a non-artistic note, the two actors who play Tom's closest friends are both very well done with what little time they have on screen (one in particular, is hilarious). But in the end it all comes down to Deschanel and especially Levitt to carry the movie, and they do it effortlessly. So effortlessly, in fact, that you may not want to leave the film's little world even when the credits start to roll. And in a summer drenched with loud special effects bonanzas and a few stuffy period pieces, that's more than a little refreshing to find.

Grade: A-

"The Hurt Locker" - REVIEW

My only word of warning about Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is that it probably will leave you drained and exhausted. Aside from that, the only other thing I would say, is that you should look and see if the film is playing in your city, and if it is, go to the next showing; waste no time. If you have the chance to see this art house war film on the big screen, then do so. You may be left stumbling out of the theater in exhaustion after the 2 hours are over, but it will have been worth it, to see what is not just the best American film to come out this year so far, but the best film to come out this year, PERIOD.

It opens with a bomb squad that we spend just about the entire film with. The setting is Baghdad circa 2004. We hear and see the troops clearing the streets and the bomb squad goes to work, both aprehensive about the danger ahead, but also able to joke to each other. In this opening scene it's instantly clear how commanding Bigelow's direction is. She's making a "man's movie" better than most men. Equally impressive is Mark Boal's un-preachy, pretention-free screenplay. The only "message" the the movie carries is relevant only to some of the people in the movie: war is a drug. Save for one or two stylized slow-motion shots of pebbles being lifted into the air by an explosion, there is no "gloss". To quote Mick LaSalle's review, "[Bigelow] uses hand-held cameras in The Hurt Locker, not to make viewers dizzy or to instill excitement that isn't there, but to create a subtle sense of being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes. It pulses." And he's dead right. There is no forced excitement, no obnoxious shaking of the camera just to appear "gritty" (I'm looking at you, "Quantum of Solace"), but a real purpose. The camera is our guide. It is our way of looking into the lives of these men as they face scary-as-hell situations almost daily. There are no elegant crane shots or artfully composed landscape vistas. At any given moment the camera might move, even if it's only a little, just to keep you firmly planted in the movie's world. The same applies to the music. There is no "theme" or over-bearing tones that always play "just in time" to let us know that something is about to happen. It is heard infrequently, and when it IS heard, it is totally unobtrusive.

Of course, all of this would be wasted if the main characters were assigned to poor actors, but this is not the case. While accomplished actors like Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes have cameo appearences, the real protagonists here are Sergeants William James (Jeremy Renner), JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). Never heard of them? Join the club. James is something of a "wild man". Example: he takes his helmet and most of his gear off in the middle of a search through a suspicious car. His reason? "I'm probably gonna die...and I want to be comfortable when I do." Such behavior doesn't sit well with Sanborn, who doesn't like what he sees as James' total recklessness. Needless to say, they don't start of as the best of friends. The third man, Eldridge, has a problem of his own. He feels that he's going to die in Iraq no matter what...and he just wants to make sure he does it while fighting. As he tells an Army doctor, "I want to die with some real honor" (I'm really loosley paraphrasing there). These three are the heart of the film, particularly Mr. Renner. Seems like the perfect way to set up some heavy duty male bonding and then tear it all apart with some ugly tear-jerking. However, Bigelow and Boal have different plans for us. They never indulge in sentimentality. They never build characters up just for the purpose of being taken down to make us shed a cheap tear. Of course, these characters are fictional, but to me they might as well have been real people, and the script treats them as real people, and for that, I cannot praise the film enough. The performances are as real as the tension, which is considerable but never artificially "enhanced". The screenplay has a raw intelligence that fits beautifully with Bigelow's direction, and as I said, there is no obnoxious preaching or heavy handed symbolism.

As you may remember, 2007 was the year that Hollywood tried to really get us to see films about the war in Iraq and, well...it didn't go so well. Even the "best" of them were preachy, and looked at the war mostly from the standpoint of people far removed from combat. And then, just two years later, another Iraq War film, one smart enough to drop the preaching and just show us how scary war is comes along and blows them all away. And to think, that all it needed was a woman's touch...

Grade: A

"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" - REVIEW

There is a continuous shot in "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", the second in the series directed by David Yates, in which we see (from outside) the silhouettes of people cheering, past an empty room, and up to the top of the astronomy tower where Draco Malfoy stands glaring out into the night, that sums up the film perfectly. For while there is much to cheer and laugh about in this latest installment of the mega-franchise, there is also much to fear.

Even as love and awkward romances bloom at Hogwarts, there are reminders of the near-apocalyptic evil lurking in the near future. Such is the beauty of Yates' return to the directing chair. He has fashioned a perfect companion piece to "The Order of the Phoenix" (2007) that together make the best Potter film(s) by a mile. Where "Phoenix" showcased plenty of magic inside the halls of Hogwarts, "Prince" is stripped of almost all of it, and when the magic does show, it comes across with menace, instead of charm or wonder. And while a new cinematographer has been brought on board, the visuals and camera work are as gorgeous as ever. There are times when, quite appropriately, the screen almost looks as if it has faded to black and white, or in other cases, sepia. Though there are plenty of moments of levity, and indeed, "Prince" may just pack the most good laughs in the whole series, there are few, if any shots of bright sunny skies. The light that filters in through the arching windows of Hogwarts is pale and faded, reminding us of the ever present doom that threatens this little world. But most significantly, this is a film about the kids. "Phoenix" featured a compelling, visible adult antagonist in Professor Umbridge, but there is no such adult menace wandering the corridors of Hogwarts. The interaction with adults is limited, with only Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), Snape (Alan Rickman, perfect as always), and McGonagall (Maggie Smith). But even then, aside from Dumbledore, they never appear for lengthy amounts of time. It's almost all about the heroir trio of Harry, Ron , and Hermione as they battle not only the forces of evil, but raging hormones as well.

Now, on the issue of plot, "Half Blood Prince", much like the book, is something of the dark horse in the Potter canon. It was the only book in the series that I felt somewhat...strange as I read it, and despite the knock-out ending, as a whole it didn't leave me satisfied, because while it was NECESSARY to drive the plot to its final stage/s, it wasn't as enjoyable. Luckily, this problem is delightfully fixed by series screenwriter Steve Kloves, who has done a wonderful job of taking the exposition heavy book and turning it into something thrilling and enjoyable. Even the new Potions professor, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent, perfectly cast), who I didn't care for at all in the book, makes more of an impact thanks to Broadbent's performance (however, I will have to disagree that Broadbent's work is the best in the whole series. That honor still belongs to Imelda Staunton as Umbridge in the last film).

However, unlike "Phoenix", "Prince" does have slightly more noticeable flaws, most strangely in the editing department. It's not the fault of the pacing, but merely some of the timing. The clearest example is a scene where Harry tries to get some information out of Slughorn. We see Slughorn refuse, and the next cut leads us to Slughorn looking through an opening in his office door telling Harry once again, that he won't talk to him on the matter. The timing suggests a sort of montage of Slughorn refusing to speak to Harry...but then that's it. Just those two close together cuts that mislead and then drop the train of thought. The next issue isn't as much of a flaw as it is an expectations problem. After the exciting, slick finale to "Phoenix", it's tempting to get excited for the end of "Prince", knowing what's to come. But of course, "Prince" doesn't end in such a way. It's finale is more methodical and less cinematic. The problem is that after all of the other marvelous changes, the film makes us want to believe that the tragic end will play out in a chase/duel rather than just a couple of loud flicks of a wand.

But even with its more noticeable flaws, "Prince" still soars high, even as it strips itself of magic to focus on characters. The production is stunning, the cast in fine form, and the ending, despite not reaching the power of the book, is hard to get out of your head. It's both a testament to Rowling's talent and the filmmakers'. Rowling created a wonderful, enchanting world for both kids and adults, and the cast and crew have brought it gorgeously to light. And much like the books, once "Half Blood Prince" ends, it's kind of hard to have to leave the world where you've been for the past few hours. Even in its darkest moments, Harry Potter's world, on page or on screen, is still a magical place to lose yourself in. And how lucky we are that this particular cinematic translation has done it so well.

Grade: A-

"Cheri" - REVIEW

Let me begin this review by making a bold statement. I don't care what your gender or orientation is, you cannot look at Michelle Pfeiffer and deny that this woman is still sexier, at 51, than most of today's starlets. There, now that we have that out of the way, on to the actual review.

A long time ago in that dark period known as...the 80s (DUN DUN DUUUUUUN) the paths of three different people collided: director Stephen Frears, writer Christopher Hampton, and actress Michelle Pfeiffer. Along with Glenn Close and John Malkovich, they worked together and produced "Dangeous Liaisons", which is still one of the best period pieces ever. Now, over 20 years later, Frears, Hampton, and Pfeiffer are working together again. This time Hampton isn't adapting a stage play, but rather two different novels by Collette (I hope I spelled her name correctly...) about Lea (Pfeiffer) and ageing courtesan during France's Belle Epoque period before the arrival of World War I. Lea's friend, a somewhat older and equally wealthy courtesan Ms. Peloux (Kathy Bates, deliciously over the top) has recruited Lea, who has just broken off from her latest client, a man from Russia, to tend to her son. At the age of 19, Fred, nicknamed Cheri (Rupert Friend) has prematurely reached his midlife crisis. He stays in bed all day, eats little, does next to nothing, and doesn't even care enough to have one night stands with local women. Can Lea bring the boy out of his slump? Well, when the affair ends up lasting six years, we'd be safe to assume that yes, she can. But this is only the springboard for the rest of the story, which chronicles the aftermath of Lea's final relationship with a man. As adapted by Hampton, "Cheri" has its ups and downs. There's certainly understated wit in the prickly barbs the characters trade with each other, but then there are also somewhat inconsistent mood shifts. This fault lies much less with Hampton than with the editing. Take for instance, a scene towards the beginning where Cheri and Lea are talking. One moment they're outside (if I remember correctly) and only three sentences later we cut abruptly to a room at night where presumably the SAME conversation is still going on. Problem is, we never get to hear much more before it cuts to another scene entirely. This conversation, which seems to have lasted several...hours...is only shown to us in glimpses so brief that we can't even grasp hold of the deeper meaning it holds for the characters and in the context of the film as a whole. But where such oddities as these unwittingly try to hold the film back, the performances drive it forward. Pfeiffer is radiant to watch here, breathy and airy when trying to be "civil" around people she isn't fond of, and surprisingly sharp when she needs to be. Friend makes a good foil for her as the much less mature and experienced Cheri, with his somewhat refined yet still immature looking face. And of course Kathy Bates is having a ball with her larger than life supporting role, getting excited over gossip and laughing jovially when Cheri accuses her of dressing like a deranged convict. But what's perhaps the most surprising aspect of "Cheri" is the turn it takes as it nears the end. Despite the witty moments, the zingers never inspire uproarious laughter, which could have been a bad thing had it not been for the decidely darker series of conversations at the end. The decision to play up the darker aspects of the story's observations on love, youth, and age helps rectify many of the other problems (scenes not given enough time to breathe, awkward edits, an inconsistent narrator who disappears for a large portion of the film), and help the film become more than just "satisfying", but truly a nicely done effort that falls shy of true greatness or memorability.

Artistically it should be no surprise that the film is gorgeous (and not just the people). The Belle Epoque period is stunningly rendered in both sets and costumes and it's all beautifully shot. Helping things move along is Alexandre Desplat's score, which moves effortlessly between seductiveness and liveliness. The score is one of the film's truly redeeming qualities. It helps keep the film on track, even when it starts to risk losing focus and becoming boring.

Grade: B

"Bruno" - REVIEW

It's safe to say that Sacha Baron Cohen has no shame. It's also safe to say that he isn't afraid to put himself into situations where he often seems just one wrong move from being shot. In 2006 he shocked and traumatized us with "Borat", hilariously (and disturbingly) using stereotypes to show people's secret and not so secret prejudices. Just shy of three years later, and he's at it again, this time with results that lead more toward shocking than hilarious. Now he's transformed into Bruno, a gay Austrian fashionista, who after some personal setbacks decides to make it big in America. From his ill-fated attempt to start a TV show, to his journey to "become straight", to his plan to seduce Ron Paul (yes, that Ron Paul), the situations this man puts himself in are nothing short of jaw-dropping. However, where Bruno suffers is in its determination to shock rather than shock and make us laugh, and that it has more staged bits. Granted, "Borat" had plenty of staged bits, but within the context of the film they felt real. Now, things like Bruno's conversation with his Pygmy lover are knowingly fake, and it detracts from the faux-documentary style. As for the laughs, there are plenty, but they don't hit as hard those in "Borat", even at their best. More impressive than the entire film is Cohen himself, who can hold character and improvise in akward situations (interviewing the head of a terrorist group, meeting with top government officials from Palestine and Israel while confusing Hamas with Hummus, etc...). The man knows how to fully immerse himself in his ridiculous characters even when it brings physical harm to him. But unfortunately, this isn't always enough, and while "Bruno" certainly does provide some laughs and some unbelievably disturbing moments, now that we know what to expect, perhaps it's time that Baron Cohen retire these characters and quit while he's still ahead.

Grade: B-

"Public Enemies" - REVIEW

There were probably two different ways to tell the John Dillenger story. The first: the awards conteder way, filled with backstory (most notably flashbacks of Dillenger as a boy) and deep contemplative moments meant to draw one deep into the inner workings of Dillenger's head. The second: the summer movie for grown ups, wherein backstory and tremendous depth are cut out, in favor of a dark, straightforward, tale that goes straight to the good stuff. Clearly, Michael Mann, in what I would like to label as a return to form (though plenty will disagree) has opted for the second option. Though Dillenger (Johnny Depp) does briefly tell Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) that his father beat him, we never go into any disturbing flashbacks or moments where Dillenger stares and is haunted by something in his past. No, instead it's straight to the good stuff, right from the opening sequence.

The first words on the screen, instead of a long winded, pretentious scroll about the state of America in the 1930s, cut right to the chase: it's the Great Depression, and people like John Dillenger are thriving while others struggle and fall. Cut to a prison in Indiana, where we see Dillenger and some cohorts fake an arrest in order to get inside the jail, only to smuggle weapons in, and bust out their captured comrades. From the beginning, if there's one thing that stands out, it's not the acting, but the visuals. Shot entirely with HD Digital handheld cameras and then remastered for big screens, the camera work is often slightly shaky or in-your-face and certain scenes have quite a grainy look to them. It's an interesting experiment, and surprisingly, it's not a failure; sometimes it works quite well. Some of the shifting, tilting shots from alongside a speeding car are beautfully done, and it helps lend a sense of uncertainty during gun fights. Sound is a different matter however, and this is where the limitations of these cameras show. Gun fire is one thing; anytime someone pulls a trigger it's like a blast of fireworks going off (in a good way). Dialogue is another. Particularly in the early scenes, dialogue ranges from near-unintelligible to extremely quiet. Pray that you're watching this with a quiet audience. But like most things in "Public Enemies", from the writing to the acting, they get better as the film progresses through its 2 hr. 20 min run time. Depp in particular gets to shine, albeit in a less flashy way compared to some of his other recent roles, in later scenes when things start to go South for Dillenger. Cotillard is the same way. For a good portion of the movie, she might seem like she was just doing solid work in an underwritten role, but like Depp, the end is kinder to her than the beginning, allowing her to flex her acting muscles a bit more (however, she is a VERY supporting character, and does not get to do as much acting wise). Sadly, Bale, the last of the significant characters, along with the supporting cast including Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover, Giovani Ribisi, and Leelee Sobieski, don't. As much time as Bale has on screen, he never quiet breaks any new ground with his character over the course of the story. His performance isn't bad, but it never gets any of the those quiet moments to shine like his two main co-stars.

On the technical and artistic front, just about everything is first rate. The camera work with the HD handhelds is mostly strong, ranging from shaky closeups to controlled, elegant wide shots, and there are times when the visuals seem to lose all graininess and become strikingly clear and beautiful. Production design and costumes are all first rate in how they recreate the 1930s. But from the artistic despartment, it's Elliot Goldenthal's score that impresses the most. Remniscent of the score from Mann's "The Insider", it's not exactly the type of music one might expect to hear in this hard boiled gangster tale, but it works extremely well at bringing out the mood of the scenes; scenes that might have been left feeling a bit empty had the music not been there.

So at the end of the day, where does "Public Enemies" stand as a whole? I definately liked it, and as I said, it got better as it went on. However, it's not quite great, and again, this is in part due to the decision to focus 100% on Dillenger the gangster. Without deeper insight, "Public Enemies" can't soar high enough to break from "very good" into "excellent". It's a worthy addition to Michael Mann's canon, and certainly his best film since "The Insider" in 1999, but what keeps it from ranking up there with "The Insider" is that it falls short of being truly compelling; if only it had tried to soar a little higher...

Grade: B+

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" - REVIEW

The biggest surprise I got from "Transformers 2" was that I didn't HATE it. It left me puzzled, until a quick conversation with a friend made me realize why that was so. The film might be hollow crap, but it's well polished hollow crap. As much as Michael Bay is a hack of a director, it's hard to deny the impressive visual effects, and even some of the cinematography (there are some beautifully composed shots, in terms of lighting). Some of the fight scenes are fun to watch as well. HOWEVER....

The one word that comes to mind when I think of "Revenge of the Fallen" is: dumb. And I mean, D-U-M-B. With everything from the protagonist's mom high on pot brownies talking about how she heard her son lose his virginity, to obnoxious twin robots reduced to bad black/latino stereotypes, to not one, but TWO scenes of small dogs humping, to Megan Fox trying to "act", to the Smithsonian museum opening onto a DESERT, this is one lazy effort in the creative/writing department (and 2/3 of the writers also wrote "Star Trek"......). I'll spare you from too many plot details because they'll only leave you with a headache. Opening with a flashback, we find out that the autobots/decepticons have been on Earth MUCH longer than anyone ever knew. An older generation called The Primes landed on Earth thousands of years ago and even got into some nasty fights with ancient humans. This sounds fine, but once you learn enough later in the movie, you come to realize that it basically makes the hunt for the first film's Macguffin (the Allspark) seem trivial compared to what has (supposedly) been at stake the entire time. And this is just one of several plot holes big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through. There's also the question of how two VERY old transformers can teleport, but our "younger" robot heroes can't.

But hey, you argue, "Transformers" isn't meant to be a piece of art, it's an action flick! So why am I determined to judge it so harshly? Because I know that Hollywood is *gasp* capable of better. Let's compare Transformers with Pirates of the Caribbean. The first installments of both trilogies were big hits with fantastic special effects that kept audiences coming back for more. But there's one key difference: characters. Jack Sparrow alone elevated the weakest moments of the inferior "Pirates" sequels, because he was a charming, quirky, ORIGINAL character. Transformers has NEVER had that. The robots are barely given anything resembling personalities, which is more than I can say for the human characters. And even as Michael Bay strives to make his sequel bigger and better, there's never a chance to connect with these characters. So even though the massive fight at the end is cool to look at, it's hard to feel any genuine excitement, because most of the robots (good and bad) never have a chance to do anything to define themselves. Take for instance, a very cool looking autobot named Sideswipe. He gets some really bad-ass action moments in the opening chase in Shanghai, but basically NEVER SEEN AGAIN until the final fight. The same goes for the host of new decepticons, virtually all of whom make their first appearences at the FINAL BATTLE. Though there is a very cool tiger-like robot that gets a few neat scenes, it's meant to be more of a pet to the decepticons, and therefore never speaks. Again, this renders the action more "cool" than genuinely exciting. The only truly exciting moment isn't even a battle scene, but rather a scene where the decepticons try to perform some less than pleasant surgery on our protagonist. And even in the action Bay still can't figure things out. Though he has finally learned that it's best to show two giant robots fighting by pulling the camera BACK, there are times when the blocking is just stupid. Why on earth is part of the climactic duel shot so that great chunks of the action are blocked out by giant pillars? Don't hide the robots from us damnit! So, aside from flat out laziness and stupidity, is there ANYTHING else that could push this movie over the edge in ridiculouslness? As a matter of fact, there IS! In fact, there are two things, and I'll list them for you, but be warned...your head might just explode:

The Two Most Batsh*t Stupid Moments of Transformers 2:

1. John Turturro in a THONG (because really, is there anything more sexually stimulating than John Turturro's ass in a thong?)
2. A Decepticon with TESTICLES (aka: decepticles).

I'll leave you with that to think about...

Grade: C-

"Franklyn" - REVIEW

I'm in a tricky spot in reviewing "Franklyn", the sophomore effort from writer/director Gerald McMorrow. Not because of conflicting opinions, but because I'm not sure where to place this film: despite having played at various film festivals, it has yet to find a US distributor, even for direct-to-DVD release (which it doesn't deserve). I guess I can label it a 2009 film...for now.

Well, back to the important stuff: the movie itself. The biggest such a film faces is certainly in its marketing. Though the trailers seem to advertise it as "V For Vendetta" with a parallel universe angle thrown in, this is far from being a philosophical action picture. Astonishingly fits into the category of drama better than sci-fi, action, or thriller. Weaving four different-but-separate stories together, the lives of Emilia (Eva Green), Milo (Sam Riley), David Esser (Bernard Hill), and Jonathan Preest (Ryan Phillipe). Though the first three are in our world, battling with everything from crushing breakups to suicidal tendencies, Preest is in an alternate realty, ruled (somewhat tongue-in-cheekly) by religious fervor. It isn't so much about what you believe, but rather that you believe at all. Faiths are set up to follow just about everything, only because it will give them a steady place in society (the best one? Seventh Day Manicurists). However, there are some that are a bit more facsist-like, and its one of these that Mr. Preest is hunting down. In particular, the cult's leader, who kidnapped a little girl and may or may not have killed her. Of course, standing in Preest's way are his lack of any faith at all, which constantly puts him at odds with the current ruling religion. How the four separate stories tie together is the film's strength. Editing is strong, and manages to keep one interested, even as it jumped between four different (and not always clear) stories. Production values are great, particularly in the parallel world, and the score provides a nice atmosphere. Performances, however, are where some of the cracks show, for various reasons. Green, Riley, and Hill are all quite good, but their characters could have benefitted from a longer movie, one that gave each one (well, at least Green and Riley) more depth to work with. Said depth would have given greater impact to the finale, which is best not talked about. On the other hand, we have Phillipe's performance. Here the fault lies more with the actor than with the writer. Though Preest is apropriately filled with cold determination, there are times when Phillipe's line reading veers more toward laziness. Story-wise, McMorrow deserves praise for trying something so different, but there are times when his influences feel a bit too obvious ("V for Vendetta"'s religious domination, "Watchmen"'s Rorscach character). Perhaps the best thing to come out of the movie is the tremendous potential it hints at. All of the ideas, both fresh and derivative came from one brain, and not a team of screenwriters, and that same writer made sure to direct his vision to ensure he had the best control over it. He knows how to get solid work from (most of) his actors. He just needs to balance his ambition with his execution. Here's hoping that he can do it.

Grade: B

Quick thoughts on "The Taking of Pelham 123"

Ah, Tony Scott. It must be hard being the lesser brother of Ridley. Where your brother has directed numerous box office hits and Oscar winners, you've given audiences numerous average and even sub-par action films, year after year. Domino, Deja Vu, and now "The Taking of Pelham 123", a remake of a 70s action thriller. Though most of the heavy lifting is placed on more than capable leads Denzel Washington and John Travolta, the dialogue between the two either fails to be truly intriguing, or becomes rather routine. So despite expert sound crafting and some vivid lighting and camera work, "Pelham" is overall just too routine to build much suspense. We've seen a lot of these story arcs before, and despite a funny supporting turn from James Gandolfini, there just isn't enough here to truly electrify us. It's certainly loud enough to keep you awake, but that's about it. Better luck next time Mr. Scott.

Grade: C

"Summer Hours" - REVIEW

It's hard to pigeonhole "Summer Hours", my first foreign language viewing of the year. It isn't exactly good, but I can't find the energy to rip it apart either. In some ways, it just....is. The premise can basically be summed up in one sentence: three siblings decide what to do with their mother's home and belonging's after her death. Not exactly room for lots of "dramatic moments", but as other such films have shown, this doesn't have to be a problem. Nothing overtly important 'happened' in Richard Linklater's "Before Sunrise", but that film succeeded on its revealing and engaging dialogue. And that's exactly what "Summer Hours" is missing. Most of the conversation is constrained to discussions of 'are we selling the house? do we donate this to the museum that was interested?' and there's never much revealed about the three siblings. The opening sequence (a family reunion) doesn't suffer from this because the selling process isn't even in the works, and it's the most commanding part of the film. But after this opener, it's all downhill into nothingness. Sure, Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) is attached to a silver serving trey, and Frederic (Charles Berling) is the only one in defense of keeping the house, but it's never explored in any way. We learn next to nothing about these people in the past; only details about their current situations. All this does is inform us as to why two of the siblings want to sell the house, but we never get their feelings from the past. Not helping matters is the mystifying ending, which seems like a weak attempt to provide the 'aha!' moment that perhaps the house shouldn't have been sold. Are these people that detached from their childhoods? Or maybe they're secretly androids (I have to take issue with any movie that makes Juliette Binoche seem boring). That would certainly be a better explanation than anything that the movie offers us.

Grade: C

"The Brothers Bloom" - REVIEW

You know how you have those unfortunate experiences where you watch a film, enjoy it, feel that it's coming to a close, and start getting ready to leave...before it continues on for another 35 minutes? That's exactly the big problem with Rian Johnson's "The Brothers Bloom", a fun ride that seems to become a totally different movie (for the worse) in its last third.

Bloom and Stephen (Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo) are the titular brothers who have spent almost their entire lives working as expert conmen. Bloom is always the more reserved, cautious one, and Stephen is wildly ambitious, weaving cons so elaborate that they start to become adventure stories. Eventually, Bloom gets sick of it and goes off to Montenegro, but of course Stephen finds him, and ropes Bloom in for one last epic con, along with their explosives expert Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi). The plan involves roping in a shy, goofy heiress who "collects hobbies" (Rachel Weisz), and using her expertise in...everything in order to help the trio obtain an ancient prayer book hidden in the catacombs of Prague, before selling it to a man from Argentina for a cool $2.5 million.

The opening is pleasant, but weighed down by the necessary exposition and "this is the last one...no I mean it this time" conversations, but then the heiress comes into play. Initially a socially awkward hobbyist (who can do everything from breakdancing to play a dozen intruments and speak as many languages), as she comes out of her shell she becomes increasingly delightful. Weisz, who I'm not a huge fan of (never in a million years will I agree with that Oscar win of hers) is totally winning here, easily stealing the show. She's bubbly, funny, and a joy to watch amidst sour Brody, scheming Ruffalo, and near-mute Kikuchi (who, ironically, has the second best character). So, things get underway, including the involvement of a Belgian (Robbie Coltrane) who may or may not be double-crossing the group, and a man simply called Diamond Dog who taught the brothers what they know, but seems to have a bad relatioship with them (for a reason never made clear). A couple of explosions and some good laughs later, everything seems set to wrap up. 'Maybe there will only be about 10 or 15 minutes left, to squeeze in a little more plot and a nice tidy resolution,' I thought, 'what a great time at the movies this has been. It's not amazing, but I'd certainly recommend this to people with a smile!' And then the second movie started. When a pivotal scene in Mexico occurs, things start to slide downhill. The story gets darker and stranger, involving getting mixed up with some Russians who may or may not be working with Stephen to work out a con against Bloom and the heiress (why??). With its travels abroad, sly humor, and increasingly dark story, "The Brothers Bloom" feels like the globetrotting sequel to last year's terrific "In Bruges". But where that film felt seamless in its blend of humor and grim subject matter, "Bloom"'s shift feels bipolar. The darker third sucks the fun out of the fun ride that had been playing out on the screen, and to no purpose. Why writer/director Rian Johnson decided to take this route is puzzling. He had such a fun movie, so why on earth did he feel the need to go and add so much more than was necessary? Many movies are accused of not having enough plot to justify their run-times, but "The Brothers Bloom" has the opposite problem. In fact, one you hit the Mexico segment, you might as well walk out of the theater; you'll feel much more satisfied, instead of left wondering how the last act could have been reworked.

Grade: B-

"Away We Go" - REVIEW

I said in my review of "Revolutionary Road" that director Sam Mendes was on a continually downward streak in terms of quality, and at the time, I was certain it was true. Now, after seeing his latest offering, I can hopefully declare that said streak is over. "Away We Go", by writer Dave Eggers and wife Vendela Vida, is a welcome addition to Mendes' small-but-expanding canon, mostly because it has something that Mendes' other films didn't have at their cores: heart.

Burt and Verona (John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph) are stuck in life; he sells insurance to insurance companies, she's an artist of sorts. They can more than make it by, but are stuck with the question of "are we screw-ups?" After all, their electricity goes out from time to time and as Verona points out, "we have a cardboard window". Then they discover that Verona is pregnant, an unplanned but still exciting surprise. After Burt's goofy parents (Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels) make plans to move to Belgium (3 months before the baby arrives), the couple decides that they need to be somewhere near people that they know, and set off to visit a slew of people and places.

The biggest departure that "Away We Go" has from Mendes' past work is its lack of room for stylizing. Mendes has received praise and criticism for his stories being too stylzed, with some complaining that his stylization renders emotions weaker (I'd certainly agree that this was the case in "Revolutionary Road", a tragedy that was barely moving at all). Forced to dig deeper into characters, Mendes benefits quite a bit; the people feel much more human, even when they're one note. In addition to the subdued performances from Krasinski and Rudolph, there's also the terrific supporting ensemble which includes Allison Janney, Jim Gaffigan, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Chris Messina, and Paul Schneider, each one adding in whatever time they are given, in ways both hilarious and touching. However, some have accused "Away We Go" as being condescending, and this is a criticism that I take issue with. While it's true that Burt and Verona's relationship is shown to be better than some of the couples visited, there are two others (well...one and a half) that simply teach them something about how life works and what a relationship, whether bonded in marriage or not, means. The second criticism is one directed by a small few at Rudolph, claiming that she's too bitter and morose. While her character certainly isn't as lively as Krasinski, this notion that Rudolph takes her character's "bad childhood" trait too far seemed absurd to me while I watched the film. Subdued, and less excitable than most people around her? Yes, but a bitter, overly pessimistic bitch? Not even close. And even if she was, she'd have a hard time keeping "Away We Go" from putting smile on your face, making you laugh, and even moving you a little with its predictable but warmhearted last moments.

Grade: B+

"Easy Virtue" - REVIEW

If there's one sub-genre of comedy that has yet to truly grow tiresome, it's that of the "clash fo cultures". Whether it is set in modern times (2007's excellent "2 Days in Paris"), or some decades in the past like "Easy Virtue", there's plenty of material to mine from the differences in cultures' views on subjects like gender roles, appropriate discussion topics, manner of speech, etc...It seems like a genre filled with such endless possibilities for humor that when a film comes along that stumbles instead of soars. Unfortunately, "Easy Virtue" is such a film. It is certainly enjoyable, but not consistent enough .

Opening at auto race in France sometime in the late 1920's, we get a brief glimpse at the brief courtship between young Brit John Whittaker (Ben Barnes) and American racer Larita (Jessica Biel). Before we know it, the two are married, and are about to descend upon the country mansion of John's family, the members of which are both intrigued and appalled by his sudden nuptials. John's mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) is perhaps the most distraught over the situation, while his older sister Marion is mildly annoyed. Younger sister Hilda is more intrigued, as is John's father (Colin Firth), who looks forward to the arrival of someone so different. Of course, complications ensue as Larita's full backstory is brought to light, and as Larita attempts to survive the British stuffiness of the estate. Though the film was meant to be more of a vehicle for Biel (probably to show that she could do a period piece), she's actually one of the film's two problems. The performance isn't bad by any means, but it lacks consistency. It's hit and miss to the extreme. Sometimes she seems fully in character (a late night talk with Firth before the film's climactic dance), other times, she's not fully there (when she berates John for "not loving [her] enough"). The writing doesn't help Biel too much. Adapted from Noel Coward's play of the same name, this production gives all of the characters consistency except for Larita. Despite "unique" positions on things like hunting, the character never quite feels like the wind of progress that she's supposed to be. With the most lead role in the ensemble left floundering in inconsistency, it's the supporting cast who take control, particularly Firth and the excellent Scott Thomas. The film also suffers from an occaisional lack of good comedic timing. There are plenty of witty, biting lines in the screenplay, but towards the beginning, many of them are lost in the shuffle of things, and have little to no impact. That said, there is plenty to like here. The humor that does stick is quite enjoyable (particularly the can-can scene), and the production design and costumes are all first rate. Cinematography is also beautifully done, with soft lighting, great landscape shots, and one or two lengthy shots that involve quite a bit of constant camera movement in a confined space. As whole, though, it's hard to truly slash "Easy Virtue", but also hard to entusiastically recommend it. It's a pleasant enough diversion with some good moments, but it might not be quite good enough to warrant a visit to the theater.

Grade: C+

"The Hangover" - REVIEW

We've all seen the comercials, or at least heard people, often in jest, rattling off that exhausted cliche: what happens in Vegas, STAYS in Vegas. And after watching Todd Philips' "The Hangover", we know why; it doesn't just get crazy in Sin City...it gets f***ing INSANE. Opening with a phone call, we see a bruised and battered Phil (Bradley Cooper) talking to the fiance of his friend Doug (Justin Bartha, from "National Treasure"). The wedding is in five hours, but Doug is nowhere to be found. Before much else is said, we rewing to two days prior, where Doug, Phil, Stu (Ed Helms of "The Office"), and Alan (Zack Galifiankis), Doug's slightly 'off' brother-in-law-to-be, set off on a road trip to Vegas for Doug's bachelor party. After splurging on a gorgeous suite and making a toast on the roof of the hotel, the camera pans up and looks out over the city, going into hyper-fast-forward into the following morning, culminating in a blinding flash of white light. And then we see the aftermath. Broken glass, a shattered plasma TV, feather boas, an apple speared into the desk with a sword, a chicken, a baby, Stu's missing tooth, and a tiger in the bathroom are just some of the "what the hell?" results of the crazy night before. And that's when it all kicks into all-out-comedic-riot mode. Realizing that they've messed up big time, and that the groom is missing, the guys struggle to figure out what on earth happened to Doug and to themselves (not to mention their hotel room). It only gets stranger when they turn in their parking ticket at the valet, and get back a police car instead of a Mercedes. Perhaps the smartest thing that Philips' film does in its exploration of Vegas-induced insanity is that it doesn't show us much of anything. Rather, we're left with increasingly bizarre clues that continue to suggest how extreme the party was. With this mystery element, the movie is elevated far above what could have been a run-of-the-mill "outrageous road trip" movie. With solid performances, great timing, and some fantastically crafted profanity, "The Hangover" stays true to its promises of outrageousness, while also making itself something more memorable. Cooper and Helms each have their moments, but it's Galifiankis and bit player Ken Jeong who steal the show, as loopy oddball and foulmouthed Asian gangster respectively. Perhaps what's best about Galifiankis though, is that instead of simply making him an over-the-top loud mouthed crazy, many of his lines are delivered in an even tone, keeping his bizarre brand of idiocy from becoming overbearing, and making it much funnier. Throw in a brief but side-splitting cameo from Mike Tyson, and what we're left with is something so over-the-top-insane, so fearless, that it easily takes the crown as the funniest movie of 2009 so far.

Grade: B/B+

"Up" - REVIEW

They've done it again. Those wizards at Pixar have done it again. The winning streak is alive and well, and shows no signs of slowing down. Where other animation studios find themselves struggling to create films with enough sophistication for adults while also entertaining children, Pixar keeps on providing high quality animated pictures that prove their mastery over storytelling and (GASP!) getting one to care about there characters, whether their fish, robots, or a cranky septuagenarian. Wait, a cranky old person? That's the hero of Pixar's latest movie? It's not a cutesy animal or fantastical alien/monster who oozes adorability? Well how on earth will I ever warm up to such a character? The easy answer is: magical storytelling. But why stop there? In a summer that's building to be nothing but loud explosions, ridiculous stunts, and conventional plots, it's worth lavishing praise on one of the true few "standout" movies that 2009 has given us. Even from its opening, we know we're in from something special. In a 10 minute (roughly) prologue, we're introduced to Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner) and his relationship with his eventual wife Ellie. We see them bond as kids, both being adventure seekers, and then see their long marriage. By the time this portion of the movie ends, it's already going to be time to start sniffling and maybe breaking out a tissue. Yup. 10 minutes in, and there's already been more emotional impact than most films of the summer will have in their entire running times. So, with the prologue over, we meet the now-single Carl, still living in his house, surrounded by a growing metropolis. After an accident convinces people that Carl needs to be forcefully taken to a retirement home, Carl gets an idea: carry out the dream that he and Eddie had as kids and find the famed Paradise Falls in South America. Next morning, thousands of balloons hoist his house up and away, but Carl isn't alone. Tagging along is over-eager Wilderness Explorer (like Boy Scouts, only not as annoying) Russell (Jordan Nagai), who has been pestering Carl to let him help him so that he can earn his final merit badge. Once in South America, the somewhat-at-odds duo begin to bond, picking up two odd companions: a speedy rainbow colored bird and a dog with a collar that allows him to speak English. Such characters might have become subject to annoying running gags, but here they're handled brilliantly. Lush animation aside, the story is helped by a script that knows how to be both touching and hilarious, taking jokes that would become tiresome in the hands of others (a character who sounds like he just inhaled a gallon of Helium), and making them feel fresh. Voice acting is great all around, and Michael Giacchino's score, often piano-driven, is lovely on the ears. However, even though it is from the animation gods at Pixar, I have to confess that I was a bit underwhelmed by the actual storytelling. It doesn't always have the flow of other Pixar films like "WALL-E" or "Finding Nemo", because its dialogue sometimes threatens to bog the story down instead of help it; Pixar knows how to make us feel things with little dialogue, as "WALL-E" proved last year, and it's a shame that what dialogue there is sometimes doesn't quite cut it. The movie could have also benefitted from being a little longer, so that the events might have more time to build, and result in a more emotionally satisfying climax. That said, the movie rests on the relationship between Carl and Russel, and it soars in that regard. The two form quite the charming duo, and it all builds to ending that's sweet, charming, and touching without being forced or cloying. Pixar knows how to make us care about there characters, how to make us laugh, whether in a broad way or a sophisticated way, and even knows how to move us without shameless heartstring-pulling. It's one thing to do this once or twice, but to do it in EVERY MOVIE is something remarkable, and it's a goal that most studios, whether in animation OR live action, can only dream of measuring up to.

P.S. From what I've heard, there's really no point in seeing the film in 3-D; you're better off just sticking with a regular showing. After all, who wants to wear a pair of huge glasses just to get a few cheap thrills?

Grade: B+

Number of 2008 Films seen: 15

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" and "Star Trek" - REVIEW(s)

So, I actually did manage to see both of my other "must-sees" from the first half of May, and despite forewarning about one of them, neither ended up being a disappointment, although one is certainly miles ahead of the other:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - This whole "origins" story arc has become something of a staple in superhero franchises, spurred by the critical and commercial successes of "Spiderman" (2002) and "Batman Begins" (2005). Now, after three massively successful films, the X-Men series returns to the roots of one of its iconic characters: John Logan AKA Wolverine. Of course, some series will do it better than others, and while "Wolverine" is definitely on the lesser end of the spectrum of origin stories, it's surprisingly far from the train-wreck that people have been labeling it as; it is in no way the next "Catwoman". Really, the film only suffers from a handful of problems, but unfortunately, they're problems that cover the entire story, or even beyond. The first is the pacing. At just and hour and 45 minutes, and with so much ground to cover, "Wolverine" hits the ground sprinting, and never really takes time to slow down. While there is a pretty cool time-montage showing Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) fighting through the American Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars, and Vietnam, the first stage of the prologue, which actually has dialogue and "emotional trauma" is played at the same speed. This results in a setup that has young Logan say a few words to his dad before going to sleep, hearing a ruckus, finding his "father" dead, and sprouting his claws for the first time...all in barely 2 or 3 minutes. After an incident in Vietnam where Victor decapitates a commanding officer, the brothers are put before a firing squad which does little except "tickle" them. They are then introduced to Maj. William Stryker (Danny Huston, taking over the Brian Cox role from the original trilogy), who says he's "putting together a special team of people with special powers". That team consists of Logan, Victor, electricity-controlling Bolt (Dominic Monaghan from "Lost" and "Lord of the Rings"), fast talking swordsman Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), teleporter John Wraith (wil. i. am), Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), and Fred Dukes, AKA the blob (Kevin Durand). The mercenaries bust up a Nigerian...diamond mining ring? in order to secure a not so subtle I'm-sure-that-will-come-back-later plot point. After witnessing a massacre of innocent civilians, Wolverine quits, moves to Canada with his girlfriend Kayla (Lynn Collins) and works as a lumberjack...until Stryker shows up again. Things obviously take a turn for the worse when Kayla winds up dead, and Wolverine realizes that someone (I wonder who!?) is killing off the old members of the team (umm...Watchmen rip-off, anyone?). All of this happens in what feels like 30 minutes. That's a lot of stuff, considering the amount of time the supporting players receive. And here we come to problem number 2: character juggling. Yes, this is Wolverine's story, but honestly, why bother to throw in some of these cool characters if they're never going to be heard from again, or at least only shown in a limited capacity. Wade Wilson basically gets one blade-tastic action scene and then...GONE. Bolt uses his electro powers three times...GONE. Kayla shares a handful of really quick moments with Logan, and then she's GONE, which makes her death not as impactful as it should be (you'll probably just think "well that sucks", and move on). Even fan-favorite Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), who appears much later, only gets about two real scenes in the movie, one of which is completely pointless (why did he have to disrupt Wolverine and Victor/Sabretooth's New Orleans street fight???). On the other end of the spectrum is Stryker, who, instead of appearing too frequently, appears too often and too conveniently (at times it feels like that one Seinfeld episode where George seemed to pop up wherever Jerry was). So after all of this ranting, what could problem number 3 be? This is the trickiest one, and would have still been present even if the script hadn't felt so hopped-up on speed: William Stryker. No, not the character himself, but rather, the script's choice to focus on this part of Wolverine's early life. Since even most casual views (me included) know that Stryker shows up in a later part of the X-Men saga, it renders his part as an antagonist slightly limp: he can't die, and neither can Wolverine (well...duh) or Sabretooth. So while the dozens of fight scenes are actually well executed, there's never any true suspense; they are exciting enough, but not to the point where they inspire a sense of triumph or dismay in their outcomes. That said, the movie isn't a total waste. Fight scenes, though generally quite short, are usually well executed despite their lack of surprises in terms of victors, and the special effects, some of which seemed slightly wonky in the trailers, are actually solid throughout the film. Acting-wise, there are no bad performances; everyone clearly trying hard, even when they have so little to work with. Kitsch's Gambit hints at enough personality that make him deserving of a return where he might have a better showcase for his character, Reynolds nails the fast-talking Wade in his barely-10-lines of dialogue, and Schreiber has enough wicked charisma as Sabretooth to (mostly) cover-up some of his embarrassingly cliched lines ("look what the cat dragged in"...seriously?); they suggest that in better hands, these pseudo-cameos could have become a memorable supporting ensemble. Director Gavin Hood, more known for character driven films, does a solid job with establishing a darker tone, even when his efforts are undercut by the script and/or studio meddling. Sets look lived in, as opposed to overly polished, from in the research facility where Wolverine's bones become coated in adamantium, to the streets and alleys of New Orleans where Gambit resides. But at the end of the day, this is Jackman's show, and this is perhaps the movie's greatest strength. He has the looks and charisma to pull off this role even in the worst of circumstances, and as the film's only real lead, holds the often-rushed plot together, which is pretty impressive. So, at the end of it all, how does the film stack up? Well, it's no masterpiece, and I certainly wouldn't rush out to tell people to see it as soon as they can, but, as I've said before, it's no trainwreck. There are no head-bangingly awful moments, mostly thanks to the efforts of the cast, and I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't entertained, or that I was bored. So really, Wolverine isn't so much a bad or terrible movie, as it is an average one that fails to deliver the on the level of Spiderman or Batman, but still manages to provide a decent movie-going experience. It's just that, in the comic-book movie canon, it's simply not one of the memorable entries.

Grade: C+

Star Trek - Despite any hints of an origin story, J.J. Abrams' reboot of the classic sci-fi TV series, shares that much in common with "Wolverine", but the similarities end quite shortly. The opening alone settles that, as a Federation star ship comes under attack by a massive Romulan vessel comandeered by Capt. Nero (Eric Bana). So, if that previous sentence made you think that I'm a "Star Trek" fan who knows the ins and outs of its universe, you'd be wrong. Before walking into the theater, I only had a loose idea of what the Federation is, and I'd never heard of this "Romulan" race, (same goes for the Vulcans). But that's part of what makes Abrams film such a roaring triumph; there is plenty to appeal to die-hard fans, but more than enough to bring in countless new fans. It's the first Star Trek movie for, well, anyone who loves a good time at the movies. There's not too much more I can talk about plot wise, because it's probably best if you go in knowing as little as possible, so I'll just stick to the other aspects. Re-casting the iconic roles of the original USS Enterprise crew had to be a daunting task, but everyone succeeds with flying colors. Chris Pine is fun as the rebellious, impulse-driven James T. Kirk, and is foiled perfectly by Zachary Quinto's Spock, a half Vulcan, half human who is constantly torn between his logic-filled upbringing and the emotions buried deep beneath the surface. Rounding out the delightful cast are Karl Urban as wise-cracking doctor Leonard McCoy, John Cho as sword-wielding pilot Hikaru Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Russian math wunderkind Pavel Chekov, Simon Pegg as Scotty, and Zoe Saldana as feisty Uhura. Quinto still turns in the most memorable performance, but thankfully, there are no weaklinks, and I can't wait to set sail with this cast again in the near future. Story-wise, what I CAN say, is that the structure is beautifully handled. The opening scenes with young Spock and young Kirk perfectly establish their adult personalities, and set up for their inevitable head-butting early on. Unlike in Wolverine, where events just kept happening, quiet scenes are actually allowed to breathe and grow, giving the film greater heft. What finally completes Abrams' space odyssey are the visuals, and they're glorious. Starships, exploding supernovas, space monsters, lasers, gun blasts, and set design are all gorgeously rendered. Much like Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", the vision is very complete, and wonderfully detailed. This alternate future wasn't just thrown together casually; the crew put in a lot of work, and it shows. But even with all of its great effects and sets, Abrams never forgets story, character, or even humor, which is more than I can say for another recent set of sci-fi epics (I'm looking at you, "Star Wars"). I know that this is a totally cheesy way to end a review of this movie, but...I can't resist: I hope Abrams, the cast, and this film all live long and prosper. They wholly deserve it.

Grade: A-

Number of 2009 films seen: 14

"Angels and Demons" - REVIEW

Before I start, I must admit that I've fallen behind (roughly three weeks behind) on my movie watching. I still need to see "Star Trek" and "Wolverine", and I wanted to see them before "Angels", which opened today, but oh well...that's life. Hopefully I'll be able to see one or both of the above mentioned blockbusters and give you my views on those. For now, you'll just have to settle for the latest from Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown.

I'm a bit fearful for "Angels and Demons". Despite being based on the arguably superior Dan-Brown-religious-thriller, "Angels" seems poised for smaller success than the money-machine that "The Da Vinci Code" (novel and film) were in 2003 and 2006 respectively. And that's a damn shame. Where "Da Vinci" was a plodding, controversy-steeped, inflamatory thriller burdened with turgid faux-historical monologues, "Angels" is lighter, saddled with fewer demons (they fixed Tom Hanks' hair!!!), and more enjoyable, despite being lighter on the controversy.In fact, it's easy to say that "Angels", despite nay-saying from that jerk Phil Donahue of The Catholic League (though not the Vatican itself, because they finally got some sense), paints quite a positive portrait of Catholicism, and of faith in general, particularly in some final speeches near the end. Opening in the Hadron Collider (nicely incorporated), we see a team of scientists including Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) and Fr. Silvano in the process of creating anti-matter (yup, the same stuff that powers Starship Enterprise), in hopes of discovering the origins of life. Minutes later, Vetra finds Fr. Silvano, a close friend, dead in the laboratory. One of the containers of anti-matter is also gone. DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN. At the same time, a beloved and progressive pope has just passed away, and the Conclave of the College of Cardinals is meeting to elect the next earthly leader for nearly 1 billion Catholic Christians. However, this is not the reason that the Vatican seeks out Prof. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). They want him because they've just received a threat to destroy all of Vatican City, from the Illuminati, a secret society dedicated entirely to science, and supposedly crushed by the Church when it did not agree with their teachings. So even though the Vatican is aware of Langdon's previous exploits (the events of "Angels" are set after "Da Vinci", even though the novel was a prequel), they feel that they need his help...because y'know...he's good with symbols and secret brotherhoods (and apparently there are no symbologists in Italy...at all). Next thing you know, Langdon is interacting with a bunch of worried people, from the Camerlango (ie: pope's assisstant, played by Ewan McGregor), to the head of a Vatican security force (not the Swiss Guard), and Ms. Vetra herself. When they learn that four Cardinals favored for election have been kidnapped, with the threat to murder one each hour starting at 8:00 PM, the group sets out across Rome to try and follow the Path of Illumination, in order to find the Illuminati's secret meeting place, and get the anti-matter back into safe hands before it detonates. Toward the beginning, it's easy to assume that "Angels" is headed the same way as its predecessor. Either people just seem to "know" valuable pieces of information on the spot, or they act in bizarrely unhurried ways, or they resort to those longwinded faux-historical explanations. It's not a promising start, but around the time that Langdon and crew finally begin their search across Rome's countless churches, things continually build up steam. The controvery/"facts" give way to what made "Angels" so much better than "Da Vinci": a plot based on a race against time, that isn't about discovering a hidden secret as it is about simply averting a total disaster. Hanks, vastly improved here, finally learns to open his mouth instead of mumbling his way through the sometimes silly plot turns, Vetra is solid save for one limp accusation of "MURDERER", and Stellan Skarsgard plays his limited role as head of the Swiss Guard quiet enough to keep you guessing. But the two who really deserve credit are McGregor and Armin Muehller-Stahl as the Cardinal in charge of overseeing the papal election. Stahl's calm defiance of the pleas to evacuate the Cardinal, and his speech about religion and science near the end are nicely delivered, while McGregor as the Camerlango, despite a sometimes wavering accent, does a nice job with his character's conflict between obeying his church superiors and his sense of duty to keep everyone safe amidst unparalleled danger. Special mention should also go to Hans Zimmer, whose fantastic, lush orchestrations and dramatic choral sections help drive the story along even when it lags. Editing is also much tighter (although it still runs at close to 2.5 hours), actually giving one the sense that time is running out, as opposed to "Da Vinci"'s apparent years between monologues. Camera-work isn't anything mind-blowing, save for some nifty, swooping shots inside the Hadron Collider. The only other significant flaw aside from the story's silly parts, are the special effects. While the make-up is first-rate, the big special effects interior shots of St. Peter's Basillica and the Pantheon are often bordering on laughably awkward (crew wasn't allowed to shoot in quite a few places). So, despite these flaws, and there are flaws, "Angels and Demons" is definately the movie that "Da Vinci" should have been, and it certainly deserves its predecessor's success, which it unfortunately may not garner.  And all because it was higher in quality, but lacking in controversy. Irony at its finest.

Grade: B-

Number os 2009 films seen: 12

Quick thoughts on "The Great Buck Howard"

• Colin Hanks has an extremely likeable screen presence, just like his father.
• Surprisingly well-paced, even though the beginning feels a bit rushed.
• There's no mistaking John Malkovich's screen presence and line delivery.

• Overall: a small, well acted, pleasant experience, but nothing that you need to rush out and see.

Grade: B-

Number of 09 Films Seen: 11

"State of Play" - REVIEW

The political thriller is, unfortunately, a dying breed. It's not a matter of whether they're successful or not; it's that there are simply very few of them around. The last noteworthy political thriller was 2005's "The Interpreter", and it's been a desert for such films ever since. Whether or not "State of Play", adapted from the BBC miniseries of the same name, will open the door for more political thrillers is debatable, but it will satisfy fans of the genre for the time being. It opens with a murder in the dark, and an apparent suicide the next day. The suicide victim is Sonia Baker, the assistant to Congressman Steven Collins (Ben Affleck), who is just about to start a hearing into the work of private military organization Pointcorp (think the real life Blackwater). It soon comes to light that Sonia was the head of research for Collins, and that Collins was also having an affair with her. Meanwhile, shlubby reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) picks up on the story and ends up working with recently-hired blogger Della Frye (Rachel McAdams). As the pair's investigation continues, the case becomes increasingly complex and connected across Washington. The best thing about "State of Play" are noticeable from the very beginning: the tight editing. Condensing the intricacies of a six episode miniseries into a two hour film couldn't have been an easy task, but it seems effortless on screen. The pacing is aided by the energetic, string-and-electric-guitar-based score, which lends an added sense of momentum to the film, which has very few "action scenes". Characters are another highlight. With the exception of Rachel McAdams' Della, everyone has their good and bad traits. Cal, though eager to seek the truth, is torn witholds vital evidence from a police investigation for at least a day, while his boss Cameron Lynne (Helen Mirren) is trying to force Cal and Della to run their story as soon as possible, regardless of how complete it is, in hopes that the news will sell more papers. Performances are all solid, but it's difficult to label anyone as a standout; there's no weak link, but there's no superstar either. This is more than made up for by the twists, which feel natural despite the compressed running time; just when you think you've been given the last part of the puzzle, something else comes up. Unfortunately, the only underwhelming part of the film is its final, and perhaps most crucial twist. Sure, it's nothing compared to some of the awfulness that M. Night Shyamalan has given us, but it fails to pack the wallop that the script planned for. It's a shame that the script had to save the one "blah" twist for last; it puts a damper on an otherwise very solid political thriller that deserves to be seen.

Grade: B

Number of 2008 films seen: 10