A movie review: A Serious Man

A Serious Man (2009)

Directors - Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
Runtime – 105 min; R

Cast
Larry Gopnick - Michael Stuhlbarg
Uncle Arthur - Richard Kind
Sy Ableman - Fred Melamed
MANY OTHERS


It is no coincidence that the bearded figure who plays a prominently minor role in the new Ethan Coen and Joel Coen directed film A Serious Man, holds the last name of Ableman. He is after all, an able man, an all-knowing, community-respected, and generally speaking, a serious man, one who can sort of back door his way into taking your wife away from under your nose and still bring wine to your house for dinner and give you a lesson on how to enjoy it. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), upon learning all about Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed) and a plethora of sticky life situations, wants to also be a serious man, of sorts - how to go about it, that’s the problem.

I find myself a bit puzzled as to how to write about this film, since, for one, I have no working knowledge of the Book of Job or of 1960s Jewish culture (both of which play roles in the film.) I do, however, have a pretty good grasp of what excellent writing and perfectly timed humor can do to an audience, and in my case, an audience filled primarily with sexagenarians was laughing without pause. Of course, as with some films that can be considered comedic and serious, this is not simply a bunch of crass jokes, rather an intricate weaving of layers that lead from one laugh to the next, getting there by way of some seriously messed up situations.

We begin with a curious fable of sorts that lasts 10 minutes, with a scene conducted in Yiddish from century’s old Poland in which a small debate of good and evil can be surmised. Think about this scene as you view the film and just try to get a general grasp of its meaning, why is it there at all? You may not come up with anything, but I think it can be revealing in many ways which help you understand the nature of Larry and the world in which he lives.

The film takes place in the suburbs of the 1960s. As a professor of physics and mathematics, Larry works a great deal with certainty and the notion that the world has answers for everything if you know where to look. It is with a series of Rabbis that Larry ultimately seeks advice and it is within these scenes that we get the skilled writing of the Cohen brothers blasting us with wit and sarcasm, but also furthering the story along. The Cohens are masters of keeping us coherent of the characters in their movies, even when they are not on screen, and you never forget that the son is off smoking dope or the daughter is stealing money for a nose job or the neighbors are redneck hunters trying to encroach on Larry’s property boundaries – all of these sub-plots are fresh in your mind throughout, so that when the writing calls for the audience to remember that the uncle is a deadbeat cyst-sucking waste of space, the audience is already in the moment and can move with or against the flow of sympathy or repulsion.

I’m pretty sure some of you will see the resemblances to the film Election (1999), another dark comedy concerning a teacher going through a lot of life issues. I’m not going to stretch it too far and say they are ‘similar’ but I did think of it while watching and it is such a guilty pleasure movie for me I wanted to tie it in somehow. Like the teacher played by Matthew Broderick, Larry finds himself mixed up with a student in an unconventional way, and one which threatens to bring down his standing in the community as well as professionally. This all leads to some hilarious situations which, 2 days later, I still find myself laughing out loud.

The broader aspects of the film, those concerning Jewish culture, but, just as much, those concerning human nature, are portrayed wonderfully through this film as only the Cohens know how to do. A disconcerting score at times is weaved beautifully with classic sounds of the era, and every time you hear some of the score you realize just how important it is to the film itself. I don’t know who to recommend this film to, but I feel it is so well done that everyone should give it a chance.

Now that my review is complete, I look forward to reading any and every review I can get my hands on, because I know there is much much more to this film than I have covered.

***** out of 5

A movie review: The Informant! (2009)

The Informant! (2009)

Director - Steven Soderbergh
Runtime: 108 min; R

Cast
Mark Whitacre -Matt Damon
FBI Special Agent Brian Shephard - Scott Bakula
FBI Special Agent Dean Paisley - Allan Havey

I like Matt Damon as an actor. I actually like almost everything he does. He has great role selection and I’m sure he will continue to pick challenging and proper roles for his personality. I also like Steven Soderbergh as a director. He always seems to ‘get it’ and that generally makes for a great viewing experience.

I am not sure, however, that I can confidently say that I liked The Informant!, a movie based on factual events that really do make a very interesting story, but, unfortunately, just do not translate well in this film. Damon does a great job as Mark Whitacre, a high ranking corporate executive at a large and prosperous company who finds himself in the middle of a global price-fixing ring. With the involvement of the FBI and an incredible story of lies and back-stabbing and a really great performance by Damon, this movie has all the makings of a great piece of art.

Unfortunately it drags. It drags and drags and drags. Every time you feel some momentum, it slows down, and then it gets complicated. If you pay really close attention, you just may understand everything that is going on, but if you take even a one second break you will find yourself asking what is happening?

This is the type of movie I fear – it has great acting and a great story but just doesn’t come across well and leaves you wondering why? Why did I feel so unsatisfied? Was it the hokey musical backgrounds as Whitacre walked down the aisles of his work place? I wish it were that easy, but Damon really gives a great performance here and I wish I could capture just what was missing. It was a decent movie and a great real life story (search for the real story online and you will be amazed at what transpired) but something was missing and I cannot in good faith suggest you see this movie right away, although I do believe it would work well in 6 months as a rental or something on cable.

** and a ½ out of 5

A movie review: Zombieland (2009)

I was told by someone that a certain cameo in my review would be better left out. I'm not going to edit it, so be warned if you do continue to read you will discover who does the cameo. For what it's worth, I was on www.imdb.com and they have this person credited, so I was unaware it was a surprise.

Zombieland (2009)

Director - Ruben Fleischer
Runtime: 80 Min; R

Cast
Columbus - Jesse Eisenberg
Tallahassee - Woody Harrelson
Wichita - Emma Stone
Little Rock - Abigail Breslin



I’d love to write a long review of the film Zombieland but I’d be afraid of giving away too much, and this is a movie not to be ruined. See this film immediately, and see it with a group of good friends. This is perhaps the funniest movie of the year, and yet you get sprinting zombies, a great zombie-killing machine in Woody Harrelson, a hot, tough chick in Emma Stone, and some seriously awesome dialogue for Jesse Eisenberg. You will laugh out loud a lot and be happy that you saw this film.

Just to give some basic plot points, the world is experiencing an epidemic of a disease that has turned most of it into zombies. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg of Adventureland )(all characters named for the places from which they came, basically) is a survivor with a set of rules on how to survive (Cardio and seatbelts being two that have treated him well so far.) He soon meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) who is a straight-talking redneck who has one mission: to kill zombies. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin are sisters also making their way through zombieland, and together these 4 characters make their way west in search of something more.

An awesome appearance by Bill Murray is not to be missed, and when you aren’t wincing from some of the zombie head-bashing you’ll be laughing at the witty exchanges between Columbus and Tallahassee, or, if you’re into women, a strong desire for Emma Stone, who comes off as uber-sexy in this film. Overall not a fault to be found, and though I’ll take some heat, I put this comedy above The Hangover (2009) as the best of the year. Total re-watch-ability for this film and one that I will definitely own.

***** out of 5

A Movie Review: Surrogates (2009)

Surrogates (2009)

Director - Jonathan Mostow
Release date – September 25, 2009
Runtime – 88 min; PG-13

Cast
Bruce Willis – Tom Greer
Ving Rhames – The Prophet
Radha Mitchell – Peters

The definition of a surrogate is “One that takes the place of another; a substitute.” I wish I could have had my own surrogate attend the viewing of Surrogates I sat through, and maybe report back to me.

Bruce Willis is agent Tom Greer, a man we initially come to know as a chiseled chin, perfect skin and flowing, parted hair attempt at a modern day god of a detective, but who we quickly come to realize is just an average couch potato at home, balding and out of shape. Why the dichotomy? Oh the humanity! We initially meet Greer’s surrogate, a robot-esque humanoid which roams the real world while it’s’ owner sits safely at home connected via wires which allow sensation and a ‘real world feel’ without any of the complications.

The idea is intriguing (though not new) and I suppose a good story is somewhere to be found, but it is not here. Too much of this film is formulaic (for no reason!) and too much of it is harshly edited to keep us un-nauseated. Why the director (Jonathan Mostow – of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines fame) chose to gloss over all the important and potentially exciting aspects of a world where people sit at home and control themselves through surrogate robots is beyond me. Instead, what we end up with is a conventional story that quickly deteriorates into an obvious who-dunnit detective piece. If you don’t figure the entire story out by the half way point you either A: Fell asleep; B: Went to get popcorn and decided not to go back; or C: you were absurdly high.

The gist of the film is as follows: In a world where 98% of the population uses a surrogate to live life, and 2% resist this new technology, there is little crime and no murder, since the surrogate is a robot and the controller cannot be harmed in real life if the surrogate goes splat – or so it always was, until a strange killing device is employed and all hell breaks loose. Tell me again why there are so many surrogate cops in this movie when most crimes are no longer happening? No worries, it’s just one of a thousand questions I don’t really want an answer to from this film.

Without giving away any of the awful details, Greer is dismissed by his superior for improper conduct (shocking, this has never happened in a cop movie before) and he goes rogue to find out information. This is some serious writing folks. The end is just what it always was going to be, and the questions you think you want answered about what you just watched will not be answered. I mean, if your surrogates have sexual intercourse…well… you know, all those crazy questions.

If you look at the cast credits you’ll notice Ving Rhames is credited as The Prophet. The Prophet. Ving Rhames. If that doesn’t just scream to you that his role will be nothing more than a stereotype of so many movies with a fringe society that threatens the evil-doers nothing will. Any of the intriguing characters in this story are so quickly dismissed in depth that it is difficult to understand why they were even cast. With all that said, the film is not as bad as I thought it would be, and at just 88 minutes it isn’t pretending to be more than it is, which has to count for something.

** ½ out of 5

A Movie Review: Cold Souls (2009)

Cold Souls (2009)

Director - Sophie Barthes
Runtime - 101 min; PG-13

Cast
Paul - Paul Giamatti
Nina - Dina Korzun
Claire - Emily Watson
Dr. Flintstein - David Strathairn

I think the notion that removing one’s soul to gain some clarity is a pretty cool idea. It’s also pretty cool that you can see it, touch it, and store it in a cool (temperaturely speaking) environment. Cold Souls, a well-crafted look at what happens when people decide to hastily try new and untested scientific adventures, is a film by first time feature film director Sophie Barthes, and I think she has done a very competent job in giving us a thought-provoking film that is really more along the lines of a noir sci-fi imbued with utter realism.

Paul (Paul Giamatti) is an American actor who is sort of the Paul Giamatti of our world and he is working on the play Uncle Vanya, by Chekov. It is a deep role which requires range, and Paul is struggling to find the correct tone. Alone in his apartment one evening he sees a story written in the New Yorker about a research lab that will extract the human soul and store it in cold storage for a period of time all in the likelihood that by doing so it will free you up from many burdens.

All of this will be done, for a fee of course, by Dr. Flintstein (David Strathairn) and his egg-shaped looking futuristically designed shell of an x-ray machine, which will actually remove the soul and drop it into an airtight container. Once removed, Paul is a bit upset to see that his soul resembles a chick-pea – such is his life.

The resulting story follows Paul as he struggles to enjoy his life now free of the burden of his soul, and his search to have it re-implanted. Confounding such plans is Nina (Dina Korzun), a Russian mule of souls who crosses continents right and left trafficking souls back to Russia where they can be removed in a much unregulated environment and sold to the highest bidders. Paul and Nina come to share a bond that only those who have had their souls extracted can really understand; “soul-brothers or sisters” does not quite do it justice.

A re-telling of the plot of this film does not quite do it justice, as it sounds simply like a hokey attempt at the sci-fi genre. In fact, this is a gritty film told from the point of view of many who are suffering, but done so in a way that allows for many laughs and some great performances. This is the exact role that Paul Giamatti was born to play. He exemplifies the struggling actor weighed down by life, who can put on a wonderful and moving performance and still knows how to make you chuckle. David Strathairn is really superb as the doctor who will remove your soul but does not really want to talk too much about the how and why. He simply wants to run it as a business and speaks of soul removal in such a light-hearted way that you might think it is as ordinary as a simple dental procedure.

The film has some plot flaws which, really, just come in the form of some undeveloped thoughts, and I think if the director and writer were given a chance to remake this film in 3 years it would be excellent. Other than that I don’t find much fault here at all, and was pleasantly moved by the dialogue and human interaction set among some far-fetched notion of what the soul is and how we can control its’ functions. This is a slow moving film but at 101 minutes does not feel too long, and if you are the type of person who only sees one or two small-screen released independent type films a year, I suggest you add this to your list.

*** and ½ out of 5

A Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Director - Quentin Tarantino
Runtime: 153 min; R

Cast
Lt. Aldo Raine - Brad Pitt
Shosanna Dreyfuss - Mélanie Laurent
Col. Hans Landa - Christoph Waltz

As the credits rolled for the new Quentin Tarantino film, Inglourious Basterds, my initial gut-reaction was to give it 4 stars out of 5. I mean, it was very entertaining on a simple measurement of ‘was it good?’ and there was a fantastic performance by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa (The Jew hunter) that just obviously deserves an Oscar nod, and then there was the compelling story line of an alternate WWII ending set among some wonderfully shot scenes of countryside and an old, romantic cinema-house.

After taking some time to review the film in my mind, I’m more inclined to give this one more notch on the rating scale. This film falls just short of a 5 but is definitely above a 4, especially when you mix in the drollness of Waltz and the scenes of dialogue that command your attention. I recently gave The Hurt Locker a 5 star rating and, though I am not opposed to giving out multiple high ratings, I just don’t see this film quite fitting into a full-blown 5.

I’m not going to delve into the plot details (they are readily found if you want to search, and yes, quintessential Tarantino gore is to be found) but needless to say the entire movie is an interesting premise that is in many ways two separate films fused by a common enemy (The Basterds and the story of Shosanna are independently film-worthy.)

Though it is Waltz who steals the movie, I am more than happy to admit this film gives us a decent performance by Pitt who, though his character calls for an over-acted part, doesn’t over-do it, and instead finds a nice balance of caricature. The women in the film are well cast as are the secondary characters.

Is this QT’s finest film? I don’t know. I think a strong case can be made for a few of his other works (works which we all know) and I find it difficult to vault this film into the stratosphere so quickly (I look forward to a second viewing of this film.) Tarantino does have a special way with creating scenes you will never forget, doesn’t he? (Baseball bats and swastikas will not be soon forgotten.)

**** and a ½ out of 5

A Movie Review ((500) Days of Summer)

(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Director - Marc Webb
Runtime - 95 min; PG-13

Cast
Tom Hansen - Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Summer Finn - Zooey Deschanel

It took me almost the entire movie, but I finally placed the actress who was playing Summer Finn in the feel good (sort of) flick (500) Days of Summer; Zooey Deschanel was Jovie in Elf (2003) along side Will Farrell, where she played a sort of cynical department store clerk who falls for, well, an elf. That realization is not all that important to my thoughts on this film, but it is worth noting because it sort of distracted me. As for her role here, she is much more defined and much more believable.

The title of the film refers to the 500 days that Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) meets, obsesses, falls in love with, and loses Summer, the new assistant at the greeting card office he has called home for 3 or 4 years. He was once an aspiring architect, but life just sort of got in the way.

After 5 minutes I found myself squirming in my seat, wondering if this would in fact end up like just another in a long line of formulaic, unoriginal, romantic comedies. We are greeted with a narrator giving us some background and we see images of Tom with his friends in situations that lead us to understand he is a sappy, star-struck kind of guy. Tom believes in Fate. Enter Summer, and the story takes off. She is the opposite of Tom in all ways involving love, and so we have our two heroes of the story at odds over a pretty typical life scenario: dating.

Throughout the 95 minutes (the perfect runtime for this film) I found myself thinking of what to compare this to, and here is what I came up with: This is a feature length film with vignettes of the television show Scrubs, the narrator of the Woody Allen movie Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008), and most recognizable, multiple aspects of Juno (2007). In any event, I felt like this film was original in parts (nice use of different screen techniques) and formulaic in parts (skipping back and forth in time over the course of a relationship), making for a breezy but frustrating viewing. On the one hand, I cared about this relationship between two young people and I was interested in how it would turn out, but on the other hand, I never really cared for Tom at all, it was all about Summer.

There was one brief scene that almost had me spit up my drink, and I’m not giving anything away by retelling it:

A very intoxicated Tom is on a blind date after one of his numerous, extended fights with Summer, and they end up at a frequently used karaoke bar. As he sings along to the tune and blubberingly falters around the stage, his date gets up and leaves the bar.

Tom (into the microphone, slurring): “Go then! Waste of time, you don’t look anything like Summer”

So I say “Go then”, it’s not a waste of time.

*** ½ out of 5

A Movie Review: District 9 (2009)

District 9 (2009)
Director - Neill Blomkamp
Runtime - 112 min; R
Cast:
Wikus Van De Merwe - Sharlto Copley

It doesn’t take long for us to actually see the aliens in District 9, and that is very refreshing compared to so many films that make you wait in anticipation for more than half the film to get a glimpse of what the hubbub is all about. These aliens are not Close Encounters of the Third Kind-like, rather they are surprisingly similar to the alien in Predator, only not so much on a mission to kill as a mission to eat cat-food.

The plot can actually be summed up quite simply: In 1982 a spacecraft hovered over Johannesburg, South Africa, for reasons unknown. 3 months later humans entered the craft and found several aliens cramped and mal-nourished. Fearing a global backlash at anything inhumane, District 9 was set up as a shanty city in which the aliens would live and be loosely governed. Now, 28 years later, the people are fed up with it and want them out. MNU (Multi-National-United) is the corporation that is going to move all 1.8 million aliens several hundred miles away to a new tent-city. This is the main job for Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), a corporate man who needs to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. Of course, it doesn’t all go smoothly.

There were aspects of this film that bothered me on a purely critical level, specifically some plot continuity and reasoning, and there are also the clear political aspects of apartheid and South African history in general, but I’m not even going to touch that here, because this film is just too much fun to take any shots at it.

Definitely see this film and prepare yourself for a good old-fashioned sci-fi ride. There is death and destruction and other-worldly notions along with laughter and deeper meanings, all of which add up to a well told story held completely together on the wonderful role of Wikus. Sharlto Copley deserves an award simply for making us care about him, and the range he delivers throughout is outstanding. He is able to take a standard corporate worker personality and, by the films startling ending, have us believing everything that has changed about him.

At just under 2 hours the film turns sort of conventional with 30 minutes to go, and I wish it could have held the originality of the first half throughout. With that said, I believe you will find enough interesting shots in this film to keep you engaged and guessing, and I think re-watch ability will be high.

**** out of 5

A movie review: The Hurt Locker (2009)

The Hurt Locker (2009)
Director - Kathryn Bigelow
Runtime - 131 min; R

Cast
Jeremy Renner - Staff Sergeant William James
Anthony Mackie - Sergeant JT Sanborn
Brian Geraghty - Specialist Owen Eldridge

Normal people do not voluntarily approach bombs. They just don’t. They run away from them – quickly. They also don’t poke at them and cut wires and try to diffuse them. Again, they just don’t. War changes a lot of things about normal people.

I’m afraid that I lack too much in the ways of communication to accurately convey just how wonderful The Hurt Locker is from start to finish. I haven’t seen every ‘war’ movie ever made, so I can only draw on my knowledge of those films I have seen, those that have dealt with The Great Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and now, Iraq.

Staff Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner) is a cocky but very self-assured US soldier who voluntarily diffuses bombs. He does so in an over-sized protective suit that, in all likely-hood, will do very little in the way of protection. He knows this. He still does his job. Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) are there covering him as he does his job. These men are not friends, but they are a team, and though they are not perfect, they figure out ways to survive.

Films about the war in Iraq have had very little acclaim. Either they just haven’t been done well, or people just aren’t willing to give them a chance. In the Valley of Elah (2007) was a wonderful film and everyone should see it, but it tackles the subject of war from an onlookers perspective. What director Kathryn Bigelow (Blue Steel (1989)) gives us is the perspective of the soldier, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I was particularly gripped by the realistic feel of this movie. We don’t get all the information we need to always know what is happening, but we get enough to understand what is happening. We realize there are ‘good’ guys and ‘bad’ guys and ‘neutral’ guys, but we don’t really know a lot about whom is whom, and we don’t really need to know, because this film is not so concerned with any kind of cathartic conclusion, rather, it is dealing with a few specific soldiers in Iraq and the turmoil they go through (physically and emotionally) as they do their job in the desert.

This film works with changes in day and night beautifully, and leaves us filled with tension as we follow these men through a barren land in the harshest of circumstances. People are changed by war. The people in this film are changed by war. But they do their jobs and they count the days until they can leave.

***** out of 5

A Movie Review: Funny People (2009)

Funny People (2009)
Director - Judd Apatow
Release - 31 July 2009 (USA)
Runtime - 146 min; R

Cast
George Simmons - Adam Sandler
Ira Wright - Seth Rogen
Laura - Leslie Mann
Clarke - Eric Bana
Leo - Jonah Hill
Mark - Jason Schwartzman

As the title implies, Funny People is a movie that follows the lives of some funny people. They’re funny, all right, but they are also real people struggling with real life issues, and in a dramatic turn it is the humor of the movie that takes a back seat to more pressing concerns.

Director Judd Apatow (Knocked Up (2007); The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)) does not give us the same type of laugh out loud antics of his previous films, but, like each of those films, the comedy of the actors and the way they choose to present it is the true driving force. Adam Sandler is reminiscent of a favorite role of mine as the main character in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), his first true attempt at a darker version of a human being. With his portrayal of superstar actor and comedian George Simmons Sandler has achieved something very special.

In just a few short days of release I have heard many people say they were somewhat disappointed that this film was not a more typical Sandler farce, which they couldn’t believe it was almost two and a half hours and had such a serious tone. I can’t really speak to those people because I don’t understand them; I honestly don’t understand that mind-set.

This film is wonderful. The first half is heartfelt and funny, and the second half, though not as strong as the first, brings home a lot of nuances in characters that leave you really thinking about people in general, their motives, and the ways in which they go about projecting themselves on others. This is a film about how people can deceive themselves, but with a message of potential redemption.

Seth Rogen doesn’t steal the movie from Sandler, but that is because he doesn’t have to – they are both excellent in their roles, and, in my opinion, both deserving of awards. As upstart and struggling comedian Ira Wright, a chance encounter with legend Simmons, fresh off the news that he may be terminally ill, leads to a working friendship that changes both of their lives. They form a loosely based team while Simmons works through his demons and struggles to come to terms with what his life has become, and what he has left behind.

This movie did not need to be so long, but it also didn’t need to cut anything out, if you follow. If only the second half of the film had not become a bit too fabricated for my tastes it would have been perfect. As it is, this film made me feel real emotion for these people, and I cared about what happened to them. No one here is perfect – all very far from it, but they each seem to understand that, and it works for them. Life is very unpredictable and like the characters in this film, it is filled with funny moments and very sad moments. How we work through those moments with the people around us is what this film ultimately becomes.

**** ½ out of 5

Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Ok - Unlike most of my reviews, this is just a bunch of random thoughts associated with the film. It is a big film though, so I feel like I have to comment. There are spoilers and rants, so proceed at your own caution if you intend to see this film:



I saw it today.

Really have no desire to do a full write-up so here are my random thoughts.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Director- David Yates
153 min; PG
Basic same cast as the others

Oh man was I completely unsatisfied when I left the building. And on the entire ride home. And even now. This entire movie had the feel like something was missing. I mean, every 10 minutes I was wondering when it would get interesting.

And to be clear - I loved the entire book series and felt this book was probably the best of all 7. This movie just fell flat on every level.

The most glaring and obvious terrible mistake was the ending - how the hell they left out the tower fight scene is beyond me... I was at least expecting that to save the movie.

Young Tom Riddle was awesome. Slughorn was awesome. Other than that, yeah, I get it that they are growing up and have boy/girl feelings... what about all the muggle world having to fear dark magic? I mean, it is completely forgotten after the opening sequence.

Harry/Ron/Hermione were all averagely fine. Not bad, not great.

I know this was a set-up of sorts for the final, but I'm sure they could have had a little more action throughout 150+ minutes.

I'm not going to rip it to pieces, because I still love the series and love the premise and it was ok for entertainment, but this was very average.

** 1/2 out of 5

A Movie Review: Public Enemies (2009)

Public Enemies (2009)

Director - Michael Mann
140 min; R

Cast
John Dillinger - Johnny Depp
Melvin Purvis - Christian Bale
Billie Frechette - Marion Cotillard

John Dillinger was a bank robber. And that’s it.

Johnny Depp portrays the 1930s Chicago-area gangster in a way that leaves little to no interpretation of who he is and what he wants, though you may wish you learned just a bit more. Stark, brazen, and intent on moving forward with his own conceived invincibility, Dillinger led life one day at a time and always focused on the next score, no matter who stood in his way. He is cocky, arrogant, suave, cool and collected.

Michael Mann does not direct a lot of films, but when he does you can generally expect something pretty spectacular. Directing just 3 films in the 90s, you tell me where there is a flaw: The Last of the Mohicans (1992) Heat (1995) The Insider (1999). Just like in his masterpiece Heat, this film takes to the extreme the shockingly realistic feel to gun fight between lawmen and criminals. What better era to encapsulate than the 1930s with Tommy Gunns blasting round after round after round after round? You will not be disappointed at the action in this film.

But is the action of the film enough to make this a really great film? I suppose it just barely misses out on some level. I found so much of this movie to give wonderful amounts of action, suspense, score, cinematography and acting, but on some level I think I did need just a little bit more about this one man wrecking machine. What do we know? We know he lives life fast. He robs a bank for the money, which he spends, and then robs another. He breaks out of jail like he’s walking through the park on a sunny afternoon. He picks up a woman with little more than a look and 2 sentences. But what does he think about in his alone time? What drives him? Where did he come from and where is he going? I don’t suppose I needed all that answered, but I would have liked some of it.

In pursuit of Dillinger is Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) appointed by J. Edgar Hoover himself to head up the Chicago office with the sole purpose of ending Dillinger’s reign of terror. Along the way they find themselves confronted by a bevy of other criminals in the Dillinger circle, including Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) who gives a masterful performance as nothing more than a hardened criminal. Bale gives a pretty good look at what it takes to be in charge of a unit without enough resources hunting a man with nothing but resources. Marion Cotillard brings Billie Frechette to life as Dillinger’s love interest, and the woman who he ultimately pledges his allegiance to, no matter what the cost. She needs him for something more, and he needs her (perhaps any ‘her’ would have done) to validate his own narcissism.

I am reminded of the wonderful film The Untouchables (1987) in which another wonderful cast of cops and robbers (Kevin Costner and Sean Connery and the pursuit of Al Capone - Robert De Niro) fight it out with flying bullets and civilians and storylines that can only end in the way they were intended. This film does much in the way of giving the audience a great show and great value for their money. There is a magnificent sequence in the tree-soaked hills of Wisconsin in which Bale and his band of lawmen encounter Depp and his band of thieves. The foot and car chases throughout the 15 minute scene are on par with the great bank heist of Heat, and this one takes place at night, outdoors.

See this film. It is very good. It just lacks a little bit of the character depth I would have liked to learn about this man, John Dillinger, who ‘robs banks’ and not much else.

**** 1/2 out of 5

A Movie Review: My Sister's Keeper (2009)

My Sister's Keeper (2009)

Director- Nick Cassavetes
109 min; PG-13

Cast
Anna - Abigail Breslin
Kate - Sofia Vassilieva
Sara - Cameron Diaz
Brian - Jason Patric
Jesse - Evan Ellingson
Taylor - Thomas Dekker
Campbell Alexander - Alec Baldwin

It’s been a little while, but you can officially add My Sister's Keeper to the list of films that have made me cry. Thankfully I was able to slouch down in my seat, tilt my head backwards against the seat, and sort of flutter my eyelids so that no one could see it, but yes, it was there. And I hope you all experience this as well.

Nick Cassavetes (The Notebook (2004)) directs this wonderful piece that deals with themes of death, family, and even law in reasonably realistic fashion and in ways to which so many of us can relate.

The premise of the movie is that Anna (Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine (2006))) wants to sue her parent’s for ‘medical emancipation’ of her body, since the main reason she was conceived, in a Petri dish, with scientific help, was to harvest her own bodily organs and fluids to help keep her older sister Kate, who suffers from a rare form of cancer, alive. This is not a science fiction movie, and though there is very little in the film that touches on the actual conception of Anna, there is some scientific fact-based assumptions being made.

Kate (Sofia Vassilieva) is absolutely wonderful as she portrays a vibrant, youthful, yet dying child, who is surrounded by a loving family, yet one that is in turmoil. Kate’s illness has put a strain on everyone, including her parent’s Brian (Jason Patric) and Sara (Cameron Diaz), her brother Jesse (Evan Ellingson) and of course her sister, Anna. Diaz and Patric put in very strong performances as parents torn apart while striving to save their family. I wasn’t sure at first if Diaz’s portrayal of the mother as such an overbearing and relentlessly coldhearted woman would be the right feel, but ultimately it worked out very well.

If the movie lacks in any specific area it is simply that it loses focus at some point. This really is the story of Anna and her outward ambitions to be given her right to choose what she wants. At some point. however, this becomes the story of Kate and her struggles and triumphs. In the end the film is brought back nicely and it really does not hurt the overall appeal of Anna being her ‘sister’s keeper.’

Unfortunately, and I really don’t see why, the director chose to go with a lot of voice-over work to tell us back story. I am not necessarily a hater of voice over to compliment a film, but in this case, from the very beginning, it is too much of a recurring element. Please trust the audience to pick up on some of this, especially when the actors are doing a very decent job. Perhaps the most glaring omission I can think of is the lack of any real discussion involving the ethics of the entire situation. Certain items are brought up throughout, especially at trial, but what of the initial decision to conceive Anna for the purpose of harvesting her body? There really is a missing scene in this film.

Alec Baldwin does an excellent job as Campbell Alexander, the attorney for Anna with a ‘91%’ success rate. His role is neither a stereotype nor a caricature; it is very well grounded. The film actually revolves around the comings and goings of the trial and the deteriorating health of Kate, and Baldwin does a very good job of keeping us interested in both sides.

The real glue of this film, based on the novel by Jodi Picoult, is the relationship between the sisters and that of the mother and her dying daughter. Both girls do an amazingly good job of touching on some very difficult subject matter, and the smile of Kate alone is enough to melt your heart. This film is not an overly emotional heart-string-tugging-chick flick – at all. This is the portrayal of a family with real problems doing what they need to do to keep it together, and it is the story of two little girls facing some impossible decisions.

EDIT - copied wrong rating - updated now

**** out of 5

A movie review: Hunger (2009)

Hunger (2009)

Director - Steve McQueen

Runtime - 96 min

Cast
Bobby Sands - Michael Fassbender
Ray Lohan - Stuart Graham
Father Moran - Liam Cunningham

The one thing you will not find in the Steve McQueen directed look into the events surrounding the imprisonment and eventual hunger-strike of IRA members at Maze prison in Northern Ireland in 1981 is, oddly enough, any real history or background on the who/what/where/when/why. But that is ok, and I’ll tell you why.

What we do find is an intensely traumatic look at the daily ordeals faced by both prisoners and guards, in shockingly gruesome (though watchable, with stomach turning pain) fashion, and an incredibly somber yet liberating tone that allows no real empathy to anyone, or anything.

This is not a date movie, nor is it an action movie. This is a slow movie that starts fast, but the feeling of time is especially important to this film, as it slowly, slowly, eats at you and puts you in the position of these prisoners.

Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender) is one of many prisoners seeking through any means possible to be declared as political prisoners, thus giving them certain rights not afforded to the general population of criminals. It is, after all, their cause which landed them there, and they were prepared for that. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is heard more than once through voice-over declaring these men as criminals, not political, but criminal.

The continuity of the film addresses the personal anguish of prison guard Ray Lohan (Stuart Graham) who clearly has been beaten down by the job. The routine pummeling of the IRA prisoners can be excruciating to witness, but that is what you need to do to understand the effect of the film. The other more over-whelming focus is on Bobby Sands, as he and other inmates first take part in a strike against prison clothing and bathing (for which they are often severely beaten) and, later on, the hunger strike, of which Sands is the first to die.

Watching Sands die is a major focus of the film. We see him stripped of flesh as he ever so slowly diminishes before our eyes, exposed sores and internal injuries a constant. The film would be not much more than a course in torture, though, if not for the few impactful scenes between Sands and Father Moran (Liam Cunningham) in which they discuss in great detail the benefits and illusions of what the hunger strike might accomplish. It is in these scenes that you must pay attention to really grasp what the heart of the movie is getting at, and though the accents are a bit difficult at first, you shouldn’t miss too much.

Released outside the USA in 2008 and a recipient of numerous top awards, this movie has a style of less is more in speaking and sound, and does plenty to give us more of the visuals which still resonate with me as I write this piece. Even now, though, I am not swayed to either side of the cause, for, as mentioned earlier, though clearly a look at the deterioration of an IRA prisoner, the film does not have an immediate feel of one with political motives. Perhaps true students of history will disagree, but I will always remember this film for what it is, a beautifully crafted and hauntingly disturbing piece of art.

***** out of 5

3 movie mini-recaps: The Hangover; Terminator Salvation; Star Trek

The Hangover (2009)
Director - Todd Phillips
Cast
Phil - Bradley Cooper
Stu - Ed Helms
Alan - Zach Galifianakis
Doug - Justin Bartha
Jade - Heather Graham

EDIT UPDATE: I saw this movie again on DVD in January, 2010, and I want to invoke my mulligan. This movie is a train wreck. I understand how many people loved this and told everyone to see it, because I sort of got tricked as well. My initial viewing of this film was with a group of friends and we were having a great day and a good time, and I think our laughter just carried over to each other and fromt he audience in general. A second viewing of this film reveals a mess, with no more than 15 minutes of actual funny moments.

** out of 5

.

ORIGINAL REVIEW:

Phil Wenneck: [his answering machine message] Hey, this is Phil. Leave me a message, or don't, but do me a favor - don't text me, it's gay.

If you think that line can be funny in the proper context you'll love this film. I may be leaning a bit too high here, probably due to the lack of good comedies the past few years, but I literally laughed out loud more during this movie than any in recent memory. Sure, some of it is pretty dumb, but only some of it, and I can look past the 20 minutes that weren't funny at all and remember the parts that made me spit out soda. Plot is easy - Vegas bachelor party gone bad. Crude movie and a great time.

**** out of 5

Terminator Salvation (2009)
Director - McG
Cast
John Connor - Christian Bale
Blair Williams - Moon Bloodgood

This movie was sort of funny, so that can't be good, considering the genre. Plot? Umm... you've seen the other ones, right?

** out of 5 seems right, but I'm more than willing to go to

* 1/2 out of 5

Star Trek (2009)
Director - J.J. Abrams
Cast
Jame T. Kirk - Chris Pine
Spock - Zachary Quinto
Spock Prime - Leonard Nimoy

Star Trek was, to me, very surprisingly enjoyable, on a very base level. Kind of hokey in parts and I can't stand Chris Pine in anything he does, but from a standpoint of someone who knows nothing about the history of Star Trek I found the movie to be fun to watch. It DID NOT live up to the hype, I don't think, but I would tell people to see it if they are not sure what to see and like that genre.

*** out of 5

A movie review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Director - Michael Bay

Cast
(Is it at all important to this movie?)
Sam Witwicky - Shia LaBeouf
(Does it matter what her name is?) - Megan Fox

Michael Bay has a certain, oh, what am I searching for, a certain, je ne sais quoi, something I can’t quite grasp, when it comes to making movies. It isn’t that he’s terrible, or that he’s an ego-maniac, so much as he just wants the audience to accept what he is giving them as something good, when, in fact, it isn’t, really. I enjoyed The Rock (1996) enough, but what pattern do we see with Armageddon (1998), Pearl Harbor (2001), The Island (2005), Transformers (2007), and now Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)? Sadly enough, we are seeing what the movie industry has slowly evolved into, and even more so depressing, where it is going.

No plot and thinly developed are the ‘it’ thing for big budget Hollywood right now, and it really is depressing. Shelling out $200 million to put together a film that will probably gross 3,4,5x that much in worldwide revenue is what it is all about, which isn’t surprising, but it is sad.

I don’t generally care too much what people think of my opinions, they are, after all, just opinions, and everyone has one just like they have an ass. But I find myself increasingly trying to defend my stance that these types of movies are just plain terrible. I am often thrown the argument that two hours of mindless entertainment is what they expect going in, and if things blow up and hot chicks run across the screen then even better.

Listen closely: I get it.

I get it. I understand the desire or want to sit through a few hours of disbelief and just take it for what it is. I get it! I can still sit through an entire viewing of The Toxic Avenger (1984) (So I assume that makes my point clear?) But that doesn’t excuse filmmakers from putting out better material. It just doesn’t.

There are a plethora of examples of bigger budget movies with cgi or just big explosions, etc, that still count as a decent movie. There can be some thought to plot and character and meaning and still have explosions. Did anyone catch Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy? You may not like the genre and thus don’t care for the films, but there is a definitive difference between what Jackson put on the big screen and what Bay gives us.

Again, I know, I get it. A lot of people want to watch a movie (this movie) that is basically 150 minutes of metal-on-metal screeching and tearing with sound louder than a 1992 Metallica concert. My main issues are the continuity of the entire film, the switching between the robot wars and the human emotion. Why not just make this about the robots? If you aren’t going to develop the human characters in any plausible or forward-thinking way, then why have a series of very lame anecdotes about their lives? And maybe I'm just getting old, but I spent about half the movie trying to figure out which robot I was watching. Do they all have to look so damn similar with their razor sharp shrapnel beards?

Megan Fox is off-the-charts sexy and that alone will bring many to the seats. But her character gives absolutely nothing else to the movie. Does she need to? No, I guess not, but I think she could have, with a little more…oh….je ne sais quoi? Shia LaBeouf is quickly becoming too smug for his stature, and it shows. Any thought of sitting back and enjoying these movies is thrown out the window when Sam Witwicky is given to us as the main hero who gets the girl and saves the world. And yes, I get it.

The plot is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, though there is a battle of the good (Autobots) and the bad (Decepticons) fighting it out on Earth over all kinds of science fiction reasons. Casting aside the numerous fatal explosions the humans survive and the countless scenarios where a robot large enough to scale the Great Pyramids can’t wipe out a few secret army personnel, we’re left with the inevitable robots leaving and shouting that they will be back.

I’m sure we will have a third installment. It makes money, right?

* out of 5

A Mini-Movie Review: The Proposal (2009)

The Proposal (2009)

Director - Anne Fletcher

Release Date: 19 June 2009

Cast

Margaret Tate - Sandra Bullock

Andrew Paxton - Ryan Reynolds

Grandma Annie - Betty White

Joe Paxton - Craig T. Nelson

In 1994 Sandra Bullock had her breakout role in Speed, a high-action suspense movie that did quite well with audiences. Since then, it seems as if she has put out at least 2 movies every year, constantly in the press, but not really what I would call a superstar actress.

The Net (1995), A Time to Kill (1996), Forces of Nature (1999), Miss Congeniality (2000), Crash (2004) - all movies I've seen with Bullock playing a role, and I would say that 28 Days (2000) is probably my pick as her finest work. Missing from this list for the most part are romantic comedies. I missed them. On purpose. So maybe I'm a bit biased when I continue.

The Proposal is a pretty awful romantic comedy, and like-wise, a pretty awful movie. It is completely formulaic with absolutely zero twists you don't know are coming. The main characters are caricatures of roles past and all supporting cast members add very little. Audiences who enjoy these types of movies will probably find some slight relief from Grandma Annie (Betty White) who pops up throughout the film with some lines that will make you smirk, but not make you forget what you are watching.

The plot is spelled out almost entirely in the trailer, if you happened to catch it, but runs very much something like this: High power and highly hated exec Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) has just days to figure out a way out of being deported back to Canada (don't ask) and, in her infinite wisdom, blackmails her assistant of 3 years Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) into marrying her to make it all good again. Paxton is a scared pushover of a man who loathes his boss. So, in an effort to trick the deportation office into believing it is all on the up and up, a trip to Paxton's home in Alaska to meet the family is in order. What ensues is a bunch of blah blah blah blah blah, with little to no innovation and a whole lot of nothing exciting.

Unlike an earlier released film Duplicity (2009) which I reviewed, starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen (which I found much more watchable) this film fails to reach us on any real emotional level and instead goes straight for the obvious, re-hashed story lines and old jokes.

* 1/2 out of 5

A Movie Review: Bottle Shock (2008)

Bottle Shock (2008)

Director - Randall Miller
Runtime - 110 min

Cast

Steven Spurrier - Alan Rickman
Jim Barrett - Bill Pullman
Bo Barrett - Chris Pine
Sam - Rachael Taylor
Gustavo Brambila - Freddy Rodríguez
Joe - Eliza Dushku

In 1976, on a wind-swept farm somewhere near Paris, France, a small gathering of French elite wine connoisseurs put their pallets to the test and, when the spittle had hit the bucket, declared by means of a blind taste-test that the chardonnay of Chateau Montelena of the Napa Valley in California of the United States was the finest white wine in the competition. Hear that today and you’ll likely shrug, for even the most casual wine drinker knows that Napa produces some of the world’s finest vintages. However, at the time of the competition Napa was unknown to all but those who lived in Napa, and the French had a strangle-hold of pride and quality on the wine market.

Bottle Shock is a fictionalized tale very loosely based on the events that lead up to that historic wine tasting event, and it is a fun one. Beautiful scenes shot on location throughout the Napa Valley and a quirky soundtrack that somehow works enhance the story and draws us into the characters and their lives.

A wonderful performance is turned in by Alan Rickman (You’ll notice him as Severus Snape in the Harry Potter films) as Steven Spurrier, the British ex-patriot living in France and running one of the most renowned schools on wine who comes up with the idea to hold the contest. His droll demeanor and sophisticated acting bring comic relief throughout the film, and by the end you will find yourself remembering and laughing at his expressions as he traverses the California country-side in search of fine wines. In one memorable scene he studies the glow of the wine in the California sun as it is served to him in a jar normally used for holding preserves.

So too does Bill Pullman (Independence Day) do a fine job as the man who gave up his 9-5 job to pursue his dream of opening a vineyard. Chris Pine (Star Trek), Freddy Rodríguez, and Rachael Taylor (Transformers) play the roles of the youthful son and workers on the vineyard, and I only wish their roles were shortened substantially and replaced with more scenes of Rickman and Pullman. Though their presence is needed to further the story, and ultimately it is Bo who delivers the wine for competition, much of what they bring to the screen is a less dance-filled Footloose performance. More than one scene could have been left on the cutting room floor and no one would have known nor cared. Pine is reasonable as the hippie son unsure of his future, and Rodriguez turns in a decent supporting role, but Taylor appears to only be in the film as eye-candy (And if so it works GREAT!)

With that said, and remembering that this film is VERY loosely based on actual events, this is a fun movie with a great pace and some strong roles. Inevitable comparisons to another great wine movie will surely be made, but this is no Sideways and it never pretends to be. That film was a beautiful comedy about friendship, life and wine, whereas Bottle Shock explores the family dynamic and heart it takes to pull off a dream.

**** out of 5

A Movie Review: The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

Director - Steven Soderbergh
David Levien (written by) & Brian Koppelman (written by)
Runtime - 78 min

Cast
Christine/ Chelsea - Sasha Grey
Chris - Chris Santos

From the man (Steven Soderbergh) who gave us perhaps the first truly recognized independent film Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) 20 years ago, we are introduced (or re-introduced for some) to Sasha Grey in The Girlfriend Experience, the new independent movie reportedly shot for around 1.5 million and purely done in digital.

As in that first film, this one deals with topics of sex and sexuality, but in a slightly different way. In a very brief but very well paced 78 minutes, we are given a glimpse into the life of Chelsea (Sasha Grey), a high-class and high-priced escort, as she balances her working life with her personal life, moving from one john to the next while maintaining a relationship with Chris (Chris Santos) who is also trying to balance his life as a personal trainer.

Scene after scene shows us Chelsea at dinner or undressing in a hotel (though there is almost no actual sex in the film), while wealthy men (some married, some not) discuss things with her as they would a girlfriend…you know, more intimate than a cheap hooker experience. Except, they aren’t REALLY treating her as they would a girlfriend. She is, after all, a high-priced whore who just happens to pretend to like to listen to them talk about their lives.

Ultimately the film succeeds because it is so well framed by the time-period in which it takes place. Much of the conversation in the film revolves around the economy, specifically pertaining to late 2008 and surrounded by the upcoming Presidential election. Chris wants a promotion to make more money. The wealthy johns are freaking out about their stocks and confiding in their $10,000 a night escort and looking for acknowledgment of their dire predicament. Chelsea fears the new girl in town taking over her clients, and is seeking ways to invest her money and also take herself to the next level. The entire film is obsessed with it all, and it all works.

I’m not going to say this is a magnificent achievement, as it does, in fact, have the feel of a pet project in script and acting, but overall I enjoyed the cinematography and wonderful music set at appropriate times. Sasha Grey, a real life adult actress, holds her own just fine as a stoic woman in a profession that requires a stoic look. There are some comical scenes underlying this darker subject matter, and I think the director does a good job of keeping us caring just enough about these people to want to see what happens next. That we only see this small slice of these character’s lives is something I found refreshing for this type of film, as it could have easily tried to delve deeper into their pasts and create more character depth, which, for me, would have ruined the immediacy and intimacy of the course of the film.

*** 1/2 out of 5

A Movie Review: Angels and Demons (2009)

Angels & Demons (2009)
Director - Ron Howard
Release Date - 15 May 2009 (USA)

Cast
Robert Langdon - Tom Hanks
Carmerlengo Patrick McKenna - Ewan McGregor
Vittoria Vetra - Ayelet Zurer
Commander Richter - Stellan Skarsgård

Following the success and popularity of writer Dan Brown’s controversial novel turned movie The Da Vinci Code (2006), director Ron Howard returns with the follow-up project Angels & Demons, again starring Tom Hanks as super-hero symbolygist professor Robert Langdon, who makes his way rapidly through the streets of Rome and the Vatican City following a series of clues as he strives to save the entire city from the impending doom of a cataclysmic explosion caused by the recently stolen vial of anti-matter, created during a secret experiment by physicists including Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), and being used to reap revenge on the Catholic church during it’s time of conclave while it awaits the anointing of a new Pope, and all signs point to the secret society of the Illuminati, a group throughout the centuries consisting of scientists and rationalists oppressed and at odds with the church.

If the pace of that paragraph felt a bit rushed, so did the movie. As in the The Da Vinci Code, a film I enjoyed a bit more, the events that take place are hurried and unreasonable. With just a matter of hours to uncover a somewhat reasonably sophisticated plot, Robert Langdon doesn’t miss a beat. With each statue and turn of an old manuscript, he is able to solve some fairly complex puzzles without much effort (though, to the credit of this film, not everyone survives.) The introduction of a female side-kick in physicist Zurer leaves us questioning her necessity. Sure, she is instrumental in solving parts of the mystery, but her entire character feels forced into Langdon’s world of decryption.

Along with the uncovering of plot there is the on-going story of the death of one Pope and the election of another. Ewan McGregor does a fantastic job as a clergyman who is the rightful holder of the Pope’s responsibilities during the Cardinals conclave, and his role is central to pulling all aspects of the film together. There is an ever-present dialogue between characters discussing science and religion, and whether they exist together or at odds with one another. The discussions do not get very deep or preachy, but with so much being packed in to such a short time, there really isn’t any room for it anyway.

Unfortunately, leave it to the sequel (although not a sequel in any real terms) to try and turn it up a notch and end up with a slightly less satisfying and butchered project. Much like the 2004 film National Treasure, which I found to be hokey but fun and very watchable, National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) was a complete mess and always felt hurried, like it was trying to make a profit faster than the original.

Considering the seriousness of the situation the characters in this film find themselves, I found some attempts at comic-relief to be out of place and distasteful. In bad need of a change of clothes after encountering a pool of blood, and after a conversation that clearly indicates the professor’s non-faith, Carmerlengo Patrick McKenna issues Langon clothes resembling his own. He asks: “Would it surprise you to find these clothes fit you?” to which the professor replies “It would surprise the hell out of me.”

Filled with the expected twists you will never see coming (believe me, you can try and you can think you have it nailed, but you won’t ever really get it, even at the end, a lot is left on the table I still don’t get) it is still a fun ride with some nice views on location, and Hanks has his normal charm as the main focus. If nothing else see it for Ewan McGregor’s performance. If you liked the first one, you’ll probably enjoy this one, but I would think slightly less so.

** 1/2 out of 5

Movie thoughts: Powder Blue (2009)

Ok no formal review here and probably has spoilers- so just going off my general reaction and not thinking too deeply about the film, my initial thoughts are as follows:

I think the film was on the verge of being better than average, but ultimately it is an average watch. It almost ended up feeling like an R-rated made for tv movie. I could not get past some pretty bad acting for the most part, but the real killer was that the story lines just didn't add up in the end.

Jessica Biel was simply not that good (not surprising to me at all) and yes she is sexy as hell, which may have helped save the movie a bit. Her story line is kind of absurd - the kid in a coma? I mean... I don't know...

Ray Liotta had the type of part that could have played out pretty cool, but it was over-acted and too obvious throughout.

The mortician kid had a reasonably dark role and I think he did the best job of acting a difficult part - his role saved the movie for me. I would have liked to see more of his day-to-day life.

Forest Whitaker - maybe I'm way off here - someone tell me please - but man I thought he was bad. It could just be that his script was pretty bad, as far as what he was given to work with, but I just thought he overplayed the mopey poor-is-me role.

I'm struggling with how to rate it actually... I don't think I can suggest to people that they see it, but I also can't say stay away... I really think a ** 1/2 out of 5 is about right.

I think the word cliche is what comes to mind for me in a lot of this, but not quite as bad as it could be???

Definitely would like to hear other opinions if you see it because I'm torn on this one. Part of me wants to say it wasn't very good and part of me wants to say it was ok.

A documentary review: Tyson (2009)

Tyson (2009)
James Toback – Director
Documentary - 90 minutes

At the height of his career Mike Tyson was the undisputed, undefeated, unified heavyweight champion of the world. He had unlimited supplies of cash, women, and cheering fans. At the height of his career, Mike Tyson was one of the most recognizable (and feared) people on the entire planet.

Everything that happened before and after is another story.

Director James Toback allows Mike Tyson to control this film, through never before seen, up-to-date interviews, and lots and lots of archived footage over the years. Tyson tells us what is on his mind in somewhat shockingly candid moments. Seeing the most feared man alive choke up when he speaks of his love for trainer Cus D’Amato and being a pall bearer at his funeral (only) slightly makes us remember he is human.

Hard-core boxing fans probably know the story, but it may not be widely-known by the average sports fan that Mike Tyson came from a terrible childhood. Spending his youngest years watching his mother and women-figures in his life prostitute themselves drove him to the streets. On the streets he was picked on at an early age, especially for being overweight. After one particular beating, Mike Tyson vowed to get revenge on anyone who made him feel like that again.

It was an eventual meeting with boxing trainer Cus D’Amato that would change the course of Mike Tyson’s life, and ultimately shape boxing history for much of the 80s and 90s. D’Amato took Tyson under his wing, just a young kid, not even 20 years old, and trained him to be an animal in the ring. But as much as a life saving force he was for Tyson as a trainer, it was his father-like presence that gave Tyson the mental stability to focus his rage against the world on to opponents in the ring.

This documentary gives us wonderful fight archival footage of very early years and junior Olympics, through his victory over Trevor Berbick to take the title and his loss to Buster Douglas in Japan and his first ever knockdown as a boxer.

Along the way we are taken inside the mind of this man with his own words, telling us the raw details of his life with Robin Givens and their failed marriage, his conviction on rape charges which landed him 3 years in prison at the prime of his career, leading to his conversion to the Muslim faith, and his eventual fallout with promoter Don King and his downslide as a once great champion to a fallen champ to the journey man Kevin McBride in 2005.

This is a fantastic documentary for anyone with the slightest interest in the life and career of Mike Tyson, though is definitely lacks some very key aspects: We needed more on the rape conviction and time in prison, for one. It is almost glossed over in this film (no denying it took place, just no unraveling of the details) and it played such a prominent role in his downfall as a champion it was really surprising not to see more. There was also very little of his relationship with Don King. I think most people would associate what they remember about the Tyson years was Don King promoting all his fights, and then hearing later on how he swindled Tyson out of tens of millions of dollars. All of this is summed up pretty quickly near the end.

Leaving aside those over-sights, this will go down as a must see sports documentary for me, as it really gives you open access to mind of a child trapped in an adult body, one full of rage and disdain, but almost unbelievably searching for redemption, which is what we hear from Tyson as he speaks of his faith and his love for his 6 children, now ranging from toddlers to college age.

**** out of 5