Reviews

Once again, we get an animation director gone rogue in to the live action arena. Who will enter alive?? MI:4 raked in almost $30 million wide opening weekend and $670 million wordwide to date. Dang, Andrew Stanton, you've got your work cut out!

Ashton Kutchar, in his best role since Dude, Where's My Car?, plays the gritty ex-Confederate soldier who is on a search for gold. Update… my editor has informed me that Taylor Kitsch, not Kutchar, starred in the movie. Taylor Kitsch, in his best role since the Battleship trailer, plays the gritty Virginia man who takes the mythical planet of Mars by storm. Transported through a freak accident that left him radioactive and hulk-like, John Carter has to choose between continuing his disgusting search for riches on earth or letting go of the past and helping the Mars babe in need. What will he do? If you've seen ANY trailer, you probably know the answer. I guess all we have to wonder is.. does he get the girl?

File this one under "Movies I Wanted to Love." Andrew Stanton directed one of my favorite movies of all time: Wall-E. Just like MI:4, I had outrageously high hopes for a film that most likely would not live up to the hype in my mind. I think in my head is far worse than the internet, because I have zero different opinions to possibly shock me back to reality.

John Carter… never read the books, so I can't comment from that perspective. Beautiful film, wonderful visuals, did a great great job of world building, something I love in cinema. There was a little too much going on to truly build characters into believable beings, but they at least made an attempt to make John Carter seem like a man with a past, someone who actually had conflict about whether on not he wants to chill out as a Warrior God on Mars. The visual aspects and beautiful scenery made you forget that Mars is up there, real, and a lifeless chunk in space. Add to that some nice funny moments, and you'd think it was the perfect film. Nicely done, Andrew.

The grade I'm giving maaaaaybe doesn't really match the movie I described up above. Here's the problem: it's PG-13, but desperately wants to be a kids movie. As a result, there were the smattering of goofy characters, wacky falls, and just insultingly stupid moments in an otherwise fun film. It's a violent struggle involving deceit, magic, and a whole lot of death. Give it to me uncensored, Disney! Stanton is capable of sprinkling in kid-friendly jokes and moments in to bleak, adult worlds, so I can't really tell where the disconnect happened. Too many cooks in the kitchen? Not enough dangerously-close-to-JarJar characters to mold in to overpriced toys and Happy Meal stuffers? Who will ever know. I'm sure Andrew Stanton does, but in the interest of having a career, his lips are sealed.

John Carter opened up to a disappointing $30 million, $100 million worldwide weekend. It still finished #2 behind The Lorax. While that's not exactly a flop, the $200+ million spent on making and marketing the film has yet to be recovered. I guess animators should stick to what they know best.

There's a right and wrong way to do a remake. For example, you don't take a creepy, slow-paced Swedish film called Let the Right One In and hand it off a year later to the creator of "Felicity." Instead, you take a classic TV drama made over 30 years ago (plenty of time to bottle age properly) and hand it off to the brilliant director of a creepy, slow-paced Swedish film.

Like all spy movies, there's a mole and it must be trapped. Why can't there be a spy movie where everybody is who they say they are and you can trust everyone? Hmm? I think it's called a Western. Anyway, it's the Cold War era and there's a Soviet spy in MI6. George Smiley is Britishly coaxed out of retirement to take care of the situation, and (SPOILER) he does.

As spy movies go, this one isn't high on drama. It's a very well crafted, clever film but did not have me on the edge of my seat. That's what Mission Impossible movies are for. This movie was also pitched early as a "thinking" movie and I completely disagree. Sure, it wasn't laid out for you in every detail, but the investigative work done by Smiley makes sense and has good results. Story-wise, I didn't see it as being a great choice for Best Picture©. Where the movie really got my attention was the characters. I swear this movie had every great British actor since… ever. Their attention to detail on the subtlety of the characters, especially by Oldman, convincingly put the movie its proper era – a time of tense distrust and unease.

I also thought the film had a nice high-grain look that lent itself to feeling like you were watching a period film. Hoyte Van Hoytema, the Cinematographer, was the fine gentleman that shot The Fighter as well as Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In (can you tell I'm a fan?). Add to that great costuming, nice hair, and you've got a realistic piece. Just once I'd like to see costume design win an Oscar for a movie depicting 20 or 30 years back instead of Victorian or Elizabethan times.

All in all, an enjoyable film. I have not seen the original series or read the source text, but it seems to be a crowd pleaser from that respect. I'd probably get better insight into the subtleties of the characters, but it would also ruin the ending so… that's my defense of going in to a remake unprepared.

First outing to see Real Steel, I got to witness one of the most extreme examples of poor theater behavior. A family of about 15 sat in the front row, directly in front of me and my wife. Their kids had no interest in the movie, so they ran around and yelled and played. The dad sat at the end of our row talking loudly on the phone, and then about 10 minutes in to the movie plopped down in front of me and had a conversation with his wife who then started texting and talking. I imagine this is what it's like at home for them. I could have taken a hammer to each of their… phones.

So we walked out before Atom even makes an appearance.

Try number 2: on DVD. No interruptions except to replenish booze supplies and a chance to focus on the part of the movie I completely missed in my blinding rage.

To summarize…big robots fight each other for sport. Former sleazy boxer fancies himself a robot fighter. Big bad robot beats everybody. Reality check – this is just for fun, unless you owe money and then you'll get an unholy beat down at the hands of robotic thugs. The future sure is scary. Sleazy boxer has long lost son, who has a womanly figure and shrieks like one too. Womanly son finds robot, beats many other robots, we all cheer even though in the end nobody changes a single ding-dang thing about themselves. Got it?

For being a super-future film full of cool robots, the film sure was predictable. No surprises, except for the final match (although.. I'll explain). Hugh Jackman phones in a random performance as Charlie Kenton, Dakota Goyo acts his heart out but still comes across as a bit embarrassing, and Evangeline Lilly sits about like a hat stand showing her brand of talentless acting. Let's be clear here, I wasn't expecting good performances or a storyline that even made sense. I don't care about story or characters in visual feasts – I just want action and lots of it! Real Steel really failed me in two big ways.

First, if you're going to have a bad story with bad actors at least make it bad enough to be funny. Grab the worst takes and do the audience a favor. The movie wasn't bad enough to be enjoyable, but it also didn't excel in any big ways. Hugh Jackman is arguably a very good actor, but the director at least managed to make him look like a classic "foreign guy playing an American tough guy" mis-cast. I would have liked a few more obviously mispronounced words. Dakota Goyo could have been better if it wasn't for his ear-splittingly annoying voice. I enjoy kids movies, but the acting by a lot of child stars come across as a Jar Jar Binks addition rather than an impressive performance by a young person. See Super 8 – no shrieking children there.

Second way Real Steel let this Fat Man down was on the pretty CG action. If you think big fighting robots, you've got to imagine that at least 2/3 of the movie should be action. No no. We didn't even get to watch the entire final fight – 5 rounds at 2 minutes each. We got a crossfaded 30 second recap of rounds 2 through 4 and then got to watch the last round in slow motion. Spit my beer, why don't you. I'm going to spoil the last fight and to my co-writer Queer: SHUT UP! I can't talk about the finer points of story structure in mindless children's films without a little spoilage!

Atom ALMOST beats the big bad robot, but can't produce the KO and loses in the decision. I wonder why? Maybe we'll get to see a rematch in:

REAL STEEL 2: Rematch City The Reckoning!

It drives me insane when studios are so confident they've made a winner that they just go ahead and plan on a sequel. Jumper ended in a similar fashion and.. I've yet to see a sequel to that, unless you count Chronicle maybe.

It's not a terrible movie, but really wasted a good idea by skimping on the action. Sure dad may have learned a lesson, but in the end he still doesn't have custody and probably faces so restraining orders.

In the 4th in my 7 part Best Picture™ Review Series (because let's face it, I'm not going to watch Incredibly 9/11 or War Horsey) we look at Alexander Payne's latest Big Thing™.

Note: this summary is all in the trailer. No spoilers from The Fat Man today. So…George Clooney plays Matt King, a wealthy land owner, lawyer, and the least Hawaiian looking member of his purely Hawaiian family… guess we can chalk that up to his mother. His wife has been in a terrible accident and cheated on him (perhaps in that order, based on the trailer), so Matt must gather up his unruly daughters and go on a wacky adventure looking for HIM and just trying to keep the family dynamic alive. It sounds a lot like Sideways, but with a change of scenery.

As a showcase of Hawaii, it was beautiful. The shots at sunset, the views over the green-crusted mountains, the ridiculously blue ocean – it's more of Hawaii than I've ever seen in my life. I'd love to run off in to the hills and on the the perfectly white beaches. Beyond all the pretty was a story that made me feel less than inspired. I'm having trouble with the idea of medical-oriented story lines. It's a familiar story we all know to some extent. We've been there watching someone die or wondering if they'll get better. Hospitals can be a terrible, scary place and we write what we know. Earlier this year, 50/50 played the friend/cancer card and managed to rip a few tears from me. However in this case, it felt like a weird crutch for every emotional scene. Everyone was fine.. except when they talked explicitly about Matt's wife. Every other moment was wacky, oblivious of the tragedy at hand. Since we write what we know, I know that when someone you care about is ill or dying, everything reminds you of them. Songs, colors, just driving to work can make you break down crying. It's hard. You don't just shrug it off.

I feel as though I've gotten a little abstract. Let me simplify and say write what you know, but be aware it can come of as a little cheap and forced. It takes some real talent to write familiar themes in to unfamiliar stories or to take familiar situations and approach them from a unique angle. The Descendants just didn't feel like it did either of those – familiar situations, familiar reactions. I still stand by my view George Clooney is just George Clooney in every film. In the Ocean's movies, Clooney is Clooney stealing things. In Burn After Reading, Clooney is Clooney building something odd in his basement, in The Perfect Storm, Clooney is Clooney yelling at a storm. I've just never seen any depth in characters from him. He's really good at being Clooney, but if you want something else… well…don't hire Nick Cage either.

I know I've been pretty critical, but this is a Best Picture nominee. It was an enjoyable movie, nice to look at, had a few laughs, but nothing like Sideways or any of the other nominees. I'm not sure why it's even up there, to be honest.

Oh boy, another "found footage" movie! I haven't been this excited since… I hate these movies. Can't stand them, just like I can't stand any gimmick as your major selling point. I also feel incredibly cheated since the trailers made it look like a "normal" movie and then I got suckered in to 84 long long minutes of handy-cam work. This one doesn't really have the decency (or maybe it was smarter?) to give a cutesy "we found this footage, never heard from again" explanation to the POV shooting style, which I think made it worse – I was expecting the movie to snap out of "boy with a camera" mode for about 20 minutes before I realized this was it. Should have done my research, I suppose.

Let me see if I can explain the plot of Chronicle without spoiling too much. Unpopular kid decides to boost his popularity by wandering around with a camera filming everything. Many awkward staring at boobies scenes happen. Ha! Ha! Then he, his cousin, and the Popular Guy find some strange cave that gives them teleke..telokoni..mind powers that allow them to lift objects and fly through the air. Unpopular kid somehow becomes a little popular, but then like all popularity the winds shift, it's too much for his fragile psyche, and he snaps signaling the beginning of one of the longest, most repetitive fight scenes since the all of Shoot 'Em Up.

Max Landis, the writer, says in a Reddit chat:

Found footage is a medium that's yet to really find its footing. It should be entirely based in character. Cloverfield didn't do anything other giant monster movies haven't done, which bothered me because Found Footage should always be more personal in my opinion; Paranormal Activity really is something special.

Allow me to interpret: "I wrote a gimmicky movie, but I think I should be respected anyway. Do you know who my dad is? Cloverfield sux because J.J. Abrams, Paranormal Activity awesome because bandwagon. Do you know who my dad is?" Sure it should be personal – we have someone running their mouth behind that camera, so we get to know the character and their ideas on every little thing. Chronicle has a serious problem in this respect – none of the characters are likable. Andrew, the Unpopular kid, never progresses past his "feel sorry for me" attitude about his life. Sure it's rough, but life doesn't always go your way bucko. You can't fly of the handle with your superpowers and start killing innocent bystanders because your dad didn't love you enough. You'll never win sympathy from movie viewers in that way because that's a real life situation that some people have managed to get past and deal with it without resorting to mass murder. His cousin is stuck in neutral as well - pseudo intellectual that sort of stops being quite so judgmental of everyone around him and eventually just runs away from it all. And Popular Guy is just filler until he's out of the picture.

The technical aspects of the film left me limp and withdrawn as well. Point of view usually stays either with the primary camera for the entire film, or it switches between other found cameras of the same action. We were going fine with Andrew for a bit until Casey comes along and she films stuff too! Now we can conveniently leave Andrew when we're bored with his antics instead of sticking with it. During the long (long. long. long. long.) fight scene, we switch to a number of conveniently places shots that completely cover the action with great sound. A little late to be asking for that level of suspension of disbelief. The SFX came across as youtubeish in nature. It's as though Freddie Wong made a movie, came up with a scenario that only took about 30 minutes to explain, and then had to make 50 more minutes of filler scenes of cool stuff happening. NOTE: he did produce a movie called Bear. It's as bad as it looks.

I know it sounds like I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining. I'm just really mad. 84 minutes should be a slam dunk for an action/thriller – cram that full of special effects, wow me, and send me home not caring about story and actually having enjoyed my time. Instead I got a whiny brooding character that takes the majority of the movie to get to any real action. Oo, a floating rock. Big deal. Maybe if this was 1962 that would be a cool effect, but you've got to step up your game these days.

Unknowns, please stay that way and spare me from any more Chronicle- esque movies.

Brad Bird, oh you masterful animator. You made me cry with Iron Giant, grip the edge of my seat watching The Incredibles, and laugh raucously with the jokes of Rattatouille. Now on to live action, rewarded with the cream of the money crop – the incredibly successful Tom Cruise/Mission Impossible franchise. Bird has the chance to show that animation isn't his only gig.

Mission: Impossible 4 opens up with a mission gone wrong and a fun, brutal prison escape that (re)introduces the cast of characters. Once we get that nonsense out of the way – on to the mission. Using high tech gadgetry, fast thinking, and smooth talking, the crack team manages to take down a man set to destroy they world. Once again, the team makes it look easy… except…

They didn't. Everything went wrong – "Red is Dead" – gadgets broke, team members made mistakes, and nothing went quite as planned. It ended up being a major miracle that anything got done at all. It was sort of strange seeing this sort of plot and character development out of a normally polished action series, but I'll give the credit to Brad Bird. Previous Bird films felt very realistic, even when the subject was talking rats in a French kitchen. He has a knack for bringing real issues and conflicts in to otherwise insanely outlandish stories. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but Ep. 4 was different enough from most action movies to make me thing J.J. Abrams gave Bird a good bit of leeway in film making.

Beyond the nice bits of conflict, it was very nice film making. I could actually tell who was who and what was going where during action scenes. Smooth camera movement took precedence over shaky cam and "gritty" shooting styles. Just how I like it. Top it off with some gutwrenching sound effects and you've got a complete film.

Ghost Protocol wasn't perfect by any means. It had a lot of product placement, some goofy dialog, could have used a trim here and there but it was probably one of the more enjoyable films I saw in 2011. I don't often see movies twice, but when I do, it would be this one.

I've decided to take a look at this film through two lenses (CAUSE IT'S A MOVIE SHOT WITH CAMERAS, GET IT???) – one will examine the story, characters, and my overall impressions of the film; the other includes my discussion with an MPAA rater over the reasoning behind the NC-17 rating.

Shame is a happy little tale of a well-endowed sex addict living in New York City. His sister derails his daily plans by showing up and living on his couch. Obviously they have a stressed relationship, but they're family and deal. In the end, Brandon's word is shook and, we assume, changed by a scary incident with his sister (spoiler: not incest).

I couldn't tell you much more about the movie, not for spoilerific reasons, but because there wasn't much too it. If we cut the scenes down to a sane length, Shame is nothing more than a 20 minute short film about an addict and his sister. Each incredibly un-sexy scene simply hammers home his addiction – prostitute, two prostitutes, weird back- alley sex, gay sex (oh, what a low!), more prostitutes, and, whoops! he can't seem to perform when he actually might care about the woman. We get it, way to beat that theme in to the ground. There's nothing more to Brandon's character – he is addicted to sex, that's all we ever find out.

Carrey Mulligan, as usual, was embarrassingly bad. Watching her sob on the phone to her ex-boyfriend made me more uncomfortable than all the big-screen wang I saw the rest of the movie. I don't think she, like Michael Fasbender, had a lot to work with just in terms of dialog, but what she got she squandered.

As short films go, Shame was pretty daring and good. As a feature, it never had a story or a point other than being artistically NC-17….which brings me to the second half to my review.

Although there was nudity, sexuality, etc, there was never anything that made me say WHOA, that was unexpected. Without being too crass, I'd say the usual bits that make a film NC-17 did not appear, so I'm not sure why it got the rating. Why wonder? The MPAA is here to answer all of our questions.

First call went something like this:

"Hello, MPAA, how can I help you?"

"I'd like to speak to a rater about the movie Shame."

"Why do you want to do that?"

"Well, I was just wondering what made the film NC-17."

"It's rated NC-17 for explicit sexual content, what more you do you need to know? Have you SEEN the movie?"

She had a bit of a testy tone, so I explained that compared to other films, I didn't see anything… uh.. anatomical that put it in NC-17 range and wondered if it was maybe duration or something a little more abstract. She said she would have someone call me.

Second call a few weeks later was death by hold.

Third call, just now, I was put on hold, then hung up on.

Well, I've got to get this review up, but it's not over MPAA! Not by a long shot!

You may or may not be familiar with the original Girl movies from Sweden or Norway or wherever they don't speak the Lord's fine language, but they do exist. Made for TV, but containing unfiltered images of the sex, violence, and perversion from the thriller, the original trilogy was a great tribute to a now passed author. WHat's that Hollywood? You know what's good for us? This isn't a review of the originals, but they do bear mentioning since the Fincher feature is intended (and being hailed) as a superior version.

Mikael Blomkvist is a simple investigative reporter – he wants the biggest names in corporate corruption to fall. When he gets raked through the courts for a huge financial loss, he slips out of the public view taking a job solving a long standing murder for a strange wealthy family living on an island in north wherever. He soon figures out there's more to the single incident and employs the services Hot Topic poster girl Lisbeth Salander as his chief researcher. She's unhinged, but has the uncanny ability to hack EVERYTHING using the Mac OS – a feat worthy of praise, for sure. Mystery unfolds, solves, and it only took 2 hours and 40 minutes.

In typical Fincher fashion, everything was grass-growing slow. It's a thriller, but even the climax contained long, riveting scenes of Lisbeth flipping through old records, getting coffee, walking, walking, walking, riding elevators… there's pacing and then there's self-indulgence. Thankfully Queer had graciously tossed me a free large soda coupon, so I filled my time by drinking, eliminating, and refilling several times. Choosing the flavoring for my soda = most exciting part of my evening.

Daniel Craig really could have been anybody. It's not really his fault, Mikael isn't a very complex character. He's thoughtful, passive, and likes his little trysts (don't we all?), but never really has any intentions other than the ever-noble seeking the truth. Rooney Mara got the real gem – Lisbeth Salander with her stormy past, violent nature, and unfettered lust. Through the talented (and, funny, English- speaking) Noomi Rapace, the character has some maturity and more control in the crazed moments. Rooney Mara never broke from a sullen, pouty demeanor until the absurd final minutes of the film where she suddenly goes all Tin Man and finds a heart telling a brain-dead old man "I made a friend!" Rapace was a terrifyingly unhinged woman, Mara was a pouting teenager.

It's more than just the dull pacing and flat characters that made this movie boring as dirt, it was the entire experience. The Trent Reznor score sounded like someone leaning on a keyboard, the locations had zero deviation from the original, the accents fluttered somewhere between Swedish and British, and product placement overran the screen at all times. Far from the gritty source material, the film spewed out the watered-down, pretentious Hollywood version of edgy.

The one positive – first film I've seen shot on RedOne that had a beautiful cinema look to it. Too bad everything else couldn't match the picture quality.

Critics may fawn over Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and probably the subsequent two films, but I think I'll be taking the Twilight route and skipping the rest of the series having had the taste of the first.

Christmas day! What a day for seeing movies! I really wanted to see Sir Brad Bird's Mission Impossible, but my friend wanted to see it with me, so I went for the next best thing: a Summit film. If you have can't the best, get the worst, Fat Man sez. Just going to start off with a disclaimer: SPOILER ALERTS. I won't say the movie was predictable, but it certainly wasn't rational. Throughout this review, I'll be throwing in some sane person/writer pop quizzes. Let's see how you stack up!

The Darkest Hour starts with our " " "heros" " " " – I really couldn't put enough quotes around that word – flying in to Moscow on the worst CG airplane I've ever seen. Nice, Summit. Sean and Ben are there to pitch their newest internet craze Apple phones apps – World Travel Hunter (I honestly don't remember) – to an investment group. They find that their Swedish buddy, Skyler, has ripped off their idea and is selling it as they walk in the room. WHOA!! In a fit of being sad, they end up at a hip hip Moscow night club with two of the stupidest people on the continent, Natalie and Anne. Now that we have our cast of dummies, aliens invade. They hide in the basement of the club for a week until the coast is clear.

POP QUIZ #1! Aliens have attacked and slaughtered most humans alive. You're an American in Moscow and still alive. What do you do? A) Head for the closest police station. B) Head for the closest military base. C) Head for the highest building to get a vantage point on the action. D) Head for the American Embassy.

If you chose D, you're in good company. Off they go! Oh wait, it's time for…

POP QUIZ #2! Aliens have attacked and slaughtered most humans alive. You're in Moscow and you know nothing except that they are out for blood. You've got to get to… *sigh*… the American Embassy. How do you get there? A) Try to move from building to building, using interconnects. B) Walk down the middle of the biggest street you can find, in full view of everything. C) Use the ancient Moscow sewer and tunnel systems. D) Take advantage of the extensive underground transit system.

If you answered B, not only was that the best choice, but you're still alive. Now at the embassy, they find nobody is there, but somehow discover there's a SUBMARINE leaving soon that will take them to relative safety. Joined by others along the way, they finally get on a boat to float down to the sub. Oh, Ben, Skylar, and Anne are now dead. Guess those choices weren't so good after all. A huge blast knocks the boat over, and everybody manages to make it to the sub 50 feet away except for Natalie…

FINAL QUIZ! #3 FOR ALL THE MARBLES! You are trying to get to the safety of a submarine when you're knocked in to the water. Do you.. A) Resurface, swim to the sub, and get in. B) Resurface, swim to the sub, and get in. C) Resurface, swim to the bank, walk 20 feet to the sub, and get in. D) Resurface, swim to the bank, head a half mile inland at a dead sprint, and hide in a bus.

If you chose D, you are the love interest of The Darkest Hour and we're supposed to be cheering for you to make it. Wow. Wow. Needless to say, or maybe I should since nothing else made sense, they retrieve her, kill a few aliens, and head off. The crappy VO at the end lets us know a few other aliens have been killed and one or two ships blown up. So? They're strip-mining the earth and then leaving.

I've aired most of my complaints already, but it's worth noting a few other things. Emile Hirsch and Max Minghella are no slouches, acting- wise, but you couldn't tell. Even good actors need direction, I suppose. I also take back everything I've said about wanting better monster design. These were completely original and completely horrible.

Darkest Hour really leaves me a little torn. On one hand, I enjoyed the film immensely. It's like watching a car full of Hollywood producers roll down a hill, catch fire, and burst in to flames. Beautiful and hilarious in its tragedy. On the other hand, this film got heavily marketed, released in over 2000 theaters, and did terrible in the box office. Hollywood complains that nobody wants to go to movies, nobody is buying tickets, it's all the fault of pirates, we need more more more restrictions so we can make every bit we can. Funny, the top monthly grosses have all happened since 2007, most since 2009, and 4 in 2011 alone. Who's not making enough money? This will also be held up as an example of why original work doesn't sell – more prequels, sequels, and remakes for everyone! Maybe if you had a screening process for scripts and gave creative control to directors and writers instead of a pile of producers, good, original work would be successful.

Merry Christmas everyone. Continue to vote with your dollar and give your hard earned cash to deserving movies.

Hugo! Darling Hugo. He lives in the walls in a French train station, fixing clocks and working on a magical little man. He encounters a toy maker who seems horrified at the thought of little mechanical men and the mystery unfolds. I won't spoil anything, but this is based on true events. In fact the most believable part (little French urchin living in a train station) was the fake part. Bravo, real life.

Hugo wasn't at all what I was expecting. I though it would be more of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close set in 1910s France – boy searching for the answers to life pertaining to his lost dad. Touching stuff. What I got was a celebration of film sneakily slipped in to a children's movie. From the scenes in the film to the actual clips shown as part of Hugo's journey to discovery, everything paid homage to the classics – Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Voyage to the Moon, - every piece of film celebrated the art. As someone who grew up on old films, I really enjoyed seeing these greats back on the big screen. They even got laughs from folks I suspect never knew these treasures existed.

That's not to say that every part of this modern film wasn't also spectacular. The opening shot made me dizzy, the colors were dazzling and rich, and even the costuming showed great attention to detail. Scorsese hasn't been my favorite director, but I appreciate his skill and his love of film. Well done to all involved, this is one of my favorites of the year!

Roland Emmerich – what a man! He can wreck up a city like nobody's business, rack up a big bill for the producers, and rake it in at the box office. He claims he's done with disaster movies so we get a historic drama about this so-called Bard of Avon and the conspiracy theories surrounding his origins. Thrilling, even according to the trailer. I. Can't. Wait.

Spoilers ahoy! I'll be ruining a two hundred year old theory about Shakespeare's real identity. Don't blame me, you should have studied the Oxfordian theory a bit better when you were in English Lit 101. I'll use prose for you unwashed masses.

The year is 1604, or is is 1598? Or was the 2 year later flashback from 1609? In any case, Edward de Vere just wants to be a writer. So he writes a lot. Everybody knows it but nobody wants to believe that he's capable of such disgusting acts, so he picks a suitable pawn – playwright Big Ben Johnson (named the Big Clock after him, you know!). Ben Johnson just wants to be a writer too and wrings his hands about ruining his reputation with brilliant plays. Bill Shakespeare comes on the scene, scribbles his name all over the place, and becomes an instant success. Hurray! So … that's it? Nay! The rest of the movie covers de Vere's early wanderings in Queen Elizabeth's farthingale, jumping around in time juxtaposing the girlish Jamie Bower with rugged manly Rhys Ifans. There are uprisings, the discovery of penicillin, and wenches all beautifully costumed and scripted in iambic pentameter.

Emmerich plays this as fast and loose as he does any film. Big problem, since he's dealing with real people, real events that didn't happen long enough ago to have passed from known fact into highly compressed myth. I'm sure in 1000 years, Shakespeare will have penned the monarchs of England in to existence with his godly pen, then took on the form of an Earl to frolic amongst his creations. For now, we actually know plenty about all of these characters and the historical facts surrounding them. In Emmerich's version, Shakespeare was a minor character – a dunce of an actor who couldn't handle the success. All of the intrigue and political tensions were fictional, but not even wildly so. They were wrong enough to be unbelievable, but not so unbelievable to be interesting. If you're going to make up history, make it fun!

I can only surmise that Anonymous is a weak attempt at getting some sort of Oscar nominations. Every year, some historic English drama wins something. Might as well throw that hat in. The movie wasn't particularly well dressed or lavish, sets were sparse and small, and it lacked the one thing a movie needs – a plot. I can sit through anything if it's interesting, but every moment of "action" was covered in the cleverly cut trailers. The "twist" was unpredictable (as in, arbitrary and out of nowhere) and didn't even change the film one bit.

Once again, Roland Emmerich steals hours of my life, openly mocking me.

Andrew Niccol has a knack for taking his time. He's a writer/director, so I guess that's part of it. He also takes great care in worldbuilding, creating some of the most interesting universes I've ever seen. Gattaca's world spurned imperfection, The Truman Show's planet was obsessed with one man's life, and The Terminal reduced the world to an airport for a lonely man. All in all, he's a clever Kiwi.

I sat through In Time and I'm done praising Niccol.

In Time paints a picture not so unlike our own. The poor struggle to make ends meet while the rich live in their walled off sections of the city. The currency is time and the clock starts when you're 25, giving you just one year for free and ample opportunity for time-based jokes. I just don't have the time to tell any right now. BAM! Also just like in our world, when you run out of money, you just drop dead. The poor can't get to the rich parts of town because it takes too much…time. Enter into the picture pauper factory worker Will Salas ( and his creepily young mother (Olivia Wilde). He has a chance meeting with a wealthy (timely?) man who transfers 100 years into his arm/bank. All heck (heck I tell ya!) breaks loose when he starts getting more time (takes time to make time!) and gives it out, upsetting the balance. The wealthy cannot STAND for this time-rage and time sends time cops to time arrest Time Salas and bring him to time justice. In time.

Niccol's previous works were subtle, with a very well-defined world. This one seemed haphazard. How did humanity get to a point where they agree to only live to 26 for free and let the wealthiest live forever? The rich might have power, but there's a heck of a lot of everybody else to violently overthrow that idea. Why did everybody display their personal worth in big, bright letters on their forearm? You'd think if you could be killed for having too much time (liberal arts majors died off quickly), you'd have that little tidbit hidden. Maybe a futuristic HUD so you can tell where you stand without prying eyes craving your goodies. Everything else in the world seemed lazy as well – 50s looking electric retro cars, everybody looking young, no changes in buildings, roads, or restaurants, on and on.

Story-wise, it was equally sloppy. It intertwines with the huge logic gaps in the world, but the plot seemed to be an afterthought fueled by a reaction to the financial situations in the world. Less commentary on the human condition (like Niccol's previous films), In Time seemed like an "if I had my way.." exercise. Neat! We should rob banks and give all the money away. That's totally how the financial system works and won't result in massive inflation or instability. I don't care if you want to take a stance against capitalism or whatever, just don't make it sooo heavy handed. It's like watching a Morgan Spurlock movie, something I rarely enjoy.

Top off the suck cake with icing called casting. Justin Timberlake as a poor working stiff? Really? They would have had to try pretty hard to find someone less qualified. I thoroughly enjoy Vincent Kartheiser in Mad Men, but I don't want Pete Campbell in my future sci-fi film. Cillian Murphy, however, was the biggest tragedy of all. I love this man in the not-queerest way possible and I will watch anything he does (also on the list: Jason Statham and Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but he came off as an incomplete character. He seemed confused, as an actor, as to why he was there, what he was doing. The answer to "what's my motivation?" apparently didn't give him anything to work with. Maybe the answer was "Time! You're there for time! To stop time!"

I shouldn't be so irritated by a movie, but I am. The trailer said "No, no", but my love of Niccol's past work said "Yes, maybe." A waste of film, a waste of time.

If you know Norwegian, you know a major plot point of not only The Thing, but also of The Thing. It's very confusing and I can't recall how many "I hate remakes... What?... It's a prequel?" conversations I've had since the movie trailers started running. Obviously this movie's going to be held up to John Carpenter's horror masterpiece, so I'll touch on some comparisons.

The movie starts off with a weak, CGI-filled discovery of the alien craft. I didn't care, I was at the Alamo Drafthouse drinking beer. We then jump to Kate Lloyd's (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) recruitment as part of a select few scientists to fill out the Norwegian camp's research team. They discover The Thing, save it in a block of ice, and the waiting game begins. Thankfully, no time is wasted waiting for the horror to unroll. It gets loose, and then the game is afoot to see who is and isn't a creepy monster waiting to burst on to the scene. The ending unfortunately went a little typical horror - please, just end your movie.

I'd say this version held up pretty strongly against Carpenter's original. Many effects were convincingly real either as a result of great CGI or some actual practical effects. The Thing is a creature/horror playground since it showcases horrifying shape-shifting and you could tell this team had a blast. I do wish there had been stronger character development in Kate Lloyd or any of the other gentlemen fighting off certain death. As much as I enjoyed the creature effects in the 1982 movie, I enjoyed MacReady's character. They don't build them like Kurt Russell any more. I was also a little disappointed in the tie-ins between the two movies. The ending of this movie seemed almost an afterthought despite being a lead in to the creepy events that started off the next set of events. Other little "nods" were simple ensuring the fact-checking fans were satisfied. Axe? Check. Dog? Check. Fire? Check.

I can't tell you much more without giving a lot away. The Thing is a horror movie through and through - violent, scary, and not for little children. As much as I complained about comparisons with the now sequel, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It's a shame there's backlash now against remakes, prequels, and sequels - this one was worth watching.

Fat Man is now a big fat Texan. I saw this at my local THIRTY-PLEX. Thirty screens! Big ones too. It's Texas after all.

Anything can be a comedy these days, even (supposedly) movies about sewing people stem to stern. The subject matter didn't really give me pause, it was more the nature of the film – quirky indie comedy/drama with wide release, mostly unknown writer and director, Anna Kendrick and Seth Rogen. I do love Joseph Gordon-Levitt and he was the driving force for looking past all these other items. Funny thing was, it did play out like a great indie film and both the knowns and unknowns performed marvelously. I'll get in to that in another paragraph.

The movie starts with cautious, nice-guy Adam (Gordon-Levitt) going through the daily gyrations (or not) with girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and best friend Kyle (Rogen). His persistent back pain turns out to be cancer and makes every hypochondriac in the audience squirm in their seat. After that, there's not a lot of action but lots of self-doubt, poor behavior, and crying and crying and crying. I won't ruin the ending, but it's a little bit of a cliff-hanger to the end. Other than some of the oddities, there's nothing particularly outstanding about the story other than the nicely crafted dialog.

I didn't hate Anna Kendrick (Katherine) nearly as much as I thought. She wasn't so…. herself… in this movie, thanks goodness. Same for Seth Rogen. After the mess of Green Hornet, I realized he's like a lot of actors – they need direction. Give him the right words, and he's amazing. Let him write them and it's really not the same. Speaking of, Will Reiser's script was great. He crafted each character to be consistent, show some growth, and act like a real person. By the end of the movie, you really care about what's going to happen to Adam, you think his girlfriend is a waste of meat, and this whole situation just sucks. Reiser also managed to finish the film strongly. Most movies can be great for the first 2/3, but fall flat in the last act. The emotions continue to build as Adam goes through the stages of dealing with cancer. Maybe it was the fact that this story already had a real life ending, but Reiser definitely had a goal in mind when the film started.

Jonathan Levine has come a long way from All the Boys Love Mandy Lane and really impressed me with 50/50. While some of the acting is less than convincing, the story, characters, and technical aspects made it very enjoyable.

The Fat Man does not like baseball. No cheerleaders. Football's my game. For some reason though, I was drawn to Moneyball like a fat moth to a bacon flame. Maybe it's Brad Pitt's massive screen presence and acting ability… heh. Or perhaps I really want to like baseball a lot and watching this, Field of Dreams, and Angels in the Outfield will finally bring me in to the fold. However, it's probably fellow fatty Jonah Hill's presence that made me feel welcome at a baseball movie.

Moneyball tried to explain Billy Beane's (Brad Pitt) implementation of sabremetrics to improve the Oakland A's chances for a championship team on a shoestring MLB budget. He's struggling with his lot in life until fictional Peter Brand (fat fatty Jonah Fatness Hill) tells him to use the power of maths and win some games. Things turn around, but in the end, it's just not enough. Season and movie over.

While it's no Miracle … well… it's no Miracle. That's the closest comparison I can make. Long shot hockey team wins it all. Long shot baseball team does not win. They go on a record-setting 20 game run, but even the movie tears itself down immediately by pointing out this means nothing. Nobody remembers the A's run except for die-hard A's fans that have no hope. While this is historical, what reading I've done about the real Billy Beane seems pretty far removed from the movie. Why not go full fictional and have them win the World Series? That wouldn't have sat well with a lot of fans, but would have made the movie more interesting. As it stood, the movie was incomplete.

Moneyball covered the beginnings of Beane's use of sabremetrics with the A's, but he's still there, still using the system. He's yet to win a World Series. This is a story – continual failure with a system that should be working correctly, convincing the league that there's merit to this system, and his loyalty to a franchise over money. Moneyball wasn't really a movie about the system either – that could have been pretty interesting for the nerdier types. Instead it used a fictional character to whisper little numbers in Beane's ear instead of crediting him with knowing the system himself. In all, the movie shows just a snippet of something that really does not matter and isn't that interesting. While Hill and Pitt are a great duo, they can't break through the tedious nothingness of the plot.

Great idea, but needed more…something. Looking like The Social Network just isn't enough to make a good movie.

Drive is the latest film by one of the prettiest directors out there – Nicolas Winding Refn. That's not a Queer™ thing to say, I just mean that he makes pretty pictures that go in your eyes and made your brain a little soft. The only arguably prettier director could be Zach Snyder, but he has managed to obscure his visual talent with offensively stupid stories.

Drive opens with a Transporter-style scene with our title character "Driver" – he don't need no stinkin' name – shuttling some crooks around town in their getaway car. We then get a sappy little tale of him saying one or two words to his next door neighbor, played by the child- like Carey Mulligan. I wanted to like An Education. I really wanted to like Never Let Me Go, but I don't get the hype. Whatever, she's in it, but like all the characters, she could really have been anybody. Manly man Ron Perlman showed up as a mob boss, Christina Hendricks' finer qualities showed up long enough to warrant a name on the poster… but nobody cares. Driver drives, fights, stares and stares and stares and stares, bleeds a bit, and the movie ends.

I'd love to talk more about story, but there's not much to say. It's an overused plot about some guy getting in over his head, yadda yadda, pays the price or gets away despite the odds. Pointless dialog punctuated with long, long pauses on characters. It'd have an impact if there was anything to ruminate on during the silence, but it just turned in to a staring match between Ryan Gosling and the audience. Here's an example of the Memorable Quotes from IMDb:

Irene: "That's Benicio's father."

Driver: "Where is he?"

Irene: "In prison."

Driver: "Oh."

Inspiring! But really that's not the point. Here's why I'm giving this movie a better grade than it deserved: it was good film making. It was brutal, bloody, with great car chases and fight scenes. It became nearly grindhouse near the end with all the nasty deaths and ridiculous fights. I stayed for the entire credits and didn't see the usual host of visual effects houses. There are 9 visual effects folks in the credits. There are far more stunt people, art department members, and post sound crew. Refn can get what he needs from the camera and doesn't need to alter the end product with poor CGI decisions.

Drive had no heart, no character, no mercy, but it did provide a visual feast to offset the boredom.

Spoiler alert: this review will spoil not only Warrior, but possibly a few other movies. And off we go

I understand the irritation with Warrior trailers, really I do. The first time I had a real issue with spoiler trailers was with Just Like Heaven. Yeah yeah, chick flick and all, but the first trailers made it seem a little interesting. Who is this mysterious ghost woman? If you go to a lot of movies, later trailers reveal that she's in a coma somewhere. Seriously? That's amazing, now I can save a few bucks/hours. Corpse Bride followed the same annoying trend – mystery, less mystery, oh what they heck here's the whole movie. Warrior definitely lost an element of tension, but I didn't feel like it took too much away from the film.

Warrior follows the lives of two brothers (who end up fighting each other for the championship!) – one is an ex-Marine, appearing under mysterious circumstances and an absolute animal in the cage, while the 2nd was a mildly successful fighter turned teacher who has to go all the way to save his house, pride, and pretty Blond Doctor wife. Add gravely drunk Nick Nolte as the vaguely abusive father, and we've got our cast. The two are fighting for noble reasons, but in the end, only one brother may leave the championship that match that they are certainly going to fight against each other. Did I mention – THEY'RE BROTHERS!?

I wanted to see this movie for two reasons only: Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy. Edgerton is part of the award-winning Blue Tongue Film collective and Tom Hardy is kind of insane but a fun actor. The problems started early with Tommy's (Tom Hardy) brooding homecoming with his father. This first and very emotional scene could have been a great start to an action/drama, but it had an awkward vagueness that plagued every scene throughout the film. Tommy's father did something, but they don't come out and say it. His brother Brendan (Joel Edgerton) uses the same language – "Yeah, phone or letter – after that THING you did." What thing? What did he do? Tommy and Brendan finally meet/argue/hash in an amazing chance meeting on the Atlantic City beaches before their big fight and they too argue about that plan that Brendan didn't follow through on WHAT PLAN? I've got to imagine it's as ridiculous to watch two people argue about as it would by to attempt that kind of thing in real life. I think I'll pick a fight with my wife about something I didn't like, but never actually come out and say it. I might be The Sad Man tomorrow, but it could be fun.

There were a host of other problems with this film – pacing, edits, the entire believability of any actions, the premise that anybody can lose their house these days after a few late payments – but there was one redeeming aspect – THE FIGHTING. I'm not an MMA fan, but I do like well shot action. Every moment in the ring was intense, chaotic, and made you feel every massive hit. The sound design reinforced the brutal beat downs that Tommy administered and Brendan received. I've had the chance to sit 2nd row at an MMA event, and even that close, it's just a bunch of slappy-sounding hits and grunting. Warrior gave us what we really wanted – bone-crushing hits, flips, tosses, and general mayhem in the ring. The intense, sweat and emotion laden choke-out at the end of the championship match could have been the most amazing moment in cinema history given all the great action, but I had laughed at the drama far too many times take it seriously at that point.

What went wrong? I think Warrior had the several writer problem like Cowboys & Aliens. Too many writers, too many plot lines vying for attention. My good friend Ryan pointed out that the story should have been told from one character's point of view. It never had a focus and tried to cover too many perspectives at a time. Lose the 90′s high school kids, lose the wife with no convictions, cut some of the drawn out scenes, and you might have a movie.

While not the worse movie I've ever seen, it didn't have enough action to hold my attention for the nearly two and a half hour runtime.

I originally saw Win Win at the local sort of art theater (which is currently playing The Guard, The Trip, The Help, and The Debt) on a scratchy print that had obviously been passed around a few times before.

The trailer put off this fun, quirky, life's looking up vibe – Paul Giamatti plays chubby lawyer Mike who's just trying work through his wacky problems when his life is interrupted by… Rob Schneider! I mean… the bleach-blond up and comer Alex Shaffer. Everything gets wicka-wacky fun when his drug-addict mom shows up to reclaim her son with some shady ulterior motives and Amy Ryan gets really sassy. Just goes to show the power of editing.

Back up a little. Win Win is mostly actor, sometimes writer/director Thomas McCarthy's third film. I watched his previous film The Visitor in anticipation of seeing Win Win. My micro review: REALLY wanted to like it. Richard Jenkins is fantastic, the premise promises to be kind of awkward but heartwarming, but it didn't ever do anything or go anywhere. I finished the movie, but only because I had nothing else to do at the time.

Back to the movie on hand. It did have some funny moments, as promised in the trailer. Bobby Cannavale (Terry) put on a great show as an over- enthusiastic side-kick for Mike delivering some great lines. While I'd never accuse Giamatti of phoning anything in, he seemed to be playing that character he plays – you know, just being Paul Giamatti. Not a bad choice – I really can't see anybody else filling the role, but I felt like I'd seen it all before. Story-wise, I won't spoil the details should you choose to watch (it is a little complicated), but the premise set forth had the same general concept as The Visitor. Mike makes some choices that are sure to come to a head near the end of the film, but like McCarthy's previous film, it really falls flat on resolution. Everything is just too convenient, easy, and really unsatisfying.

Perhaps my love of action movies squishes my enjoyment of subtle, quiet family drama, but I really wanted there to be bigger emotion, bigger conflict, and more satisfying characters. Mad Men is a favorite of mine because everyone is so ruthless and emotional, and the characters have some serious flaws. Win Win was a no go for going to any extreme and, as a result, didn't have much of a rise an fall in story for the duration.

Every year I get really excited about the handful of indie films that pop up in the festivals and threaten to break the normally terrible indie mold. Another Earth showed up on my radar during a Pom Wonderful Greatest Movie Thing screening at my local pseudo-art cinema. My wife told me to keep calm and not to set myself up for disappointment, but I don't listen. I am my own man, and I wanted a space drama.

I'm going to synopsize for a second and although it's sort of spoilerish, the trailer covers every bit of it. Brit Marlin plays Rhoda Williams, a smart young teen who goes to the big house for a few years after sending a man's entire family to that big Another Earth in the sky. She comes back after her release to apologize to John Burroughs (William Mapother), but can't bring herself to tell the truth and ultimately starts a torrid little affair with the once brilliant composer. During all of this, she writes a moving essay that wins her a trip to the other Earth, which was discovered the night of her accidental slaughter party. Truth is told, lives are changed, sad indie music plays.

On paper (or your favorite digital text viewer), this script is fantastic. There's a nice element of sci-fi suspense overarching a very uncomfortable drama. There isn't a moment of their relationship you stop thinking "Jeez, she is really adding insult to injury in an epic way", and you anxiously wait for the honest moment that has to happen. Nobody can live life with that big of a lie hanging over them, and nobody is going to react well to that kind of information. Tension! Drama! Uncomfortable! Yessssss! But…none of that ever happens. Sure, she tells the truth and he's upset, but neither are anywhere close to what everybody in the audience feels. *I* was getting anxious for the truth, *I* was getting angry for Burroughs, but neither Williams nor Mapother broke enough from their permanently blank looks to convey any of those emotions in a satisfying way.

I hate to blame the partial failure of the movie on the acting, but I don't what else caused it. The story was compelling, interesting, and well-crafted; every shot was a work of art from the lovely twilight wides, to the CGI earth in the sky. I should mention that the incredibly talented Fanton brothers of Bentlight Digital helped with AE's special effects. They also worked on a great short my wife and I did sound for called Source. No faults there, as far as I'm concerned. Brit Marlin starts the movie with a smile, leaves prison with a blank look on her face, and never looks back. And as much as I loved Mapother in LOST (eeee!), he really didn't get angry, sad, or happy in any believable way. It really boils down to believable acting in a story so driven by human emotion.

While Another Earth raised some interesting questions about parallel universes, the larger dramatic story dragged along lifelessly under the weight of sub-par acting.

Oh lordy, this movie has got all the elements I love: Luc Besson co- writing (Fifth Element, Transporter, Leon), Zoe Saldana in skin-tight outfights, tons of action (see: Luc Besson), and - no joke - the movie is directed by Olivier MEGATON. Okay, so that's his entertainer name, but still, with a name like Megaton his movies had better be action packed.

We definitely got action. Unexpectedly, the cute, shy Amandla Stenberg - playing young Cataleya - showed off some nice action moves. A parkour chase ensues in the chaotic ghettos of the Colombian city, ending up with young Cataleya winning access to the US. Years later, she has become a smart, sexy, and extremely dangerous killer. Although there are some little plot twists and character growth in the film (discussed next), go for the action. It's got a nice mix of tricky Mission Impossible missions mixed with fancy gun play and a nice hand- to-hand combat scene. Throughout all of this, viewers are treated to a fascinating PG-13 ballet danced by the camera to show every inch of Saldana's body while avoiding the naughty R-rated bits.

Action movies with plot? Never! Colombiana takes a few stabs at building complexity in to Cataleya's motives and actions without a lot of success. She has the strained boss/uncle relationship, a massive grudge against the man who killed her father, and an awkwardly wedged-in sex-only relationship with a hack artist. None of these, especially the artist relationship, do much more than try to cram little bits of sympathy into an otherwise cold character. "What do you feel?" "Sometimes I get lonely." I see what you did there - I feel lonely sometimes too! It's an action movie. Her parents were murdered - what more do we need to know? At the end of the film, Cataleya's no different, no better than she was before - she's just left a wake of destruction and misery in her path.

Am I being over analytical by picking apart the main character? Probably, but why try to craft a character with any depth if you're going to have her return to the shallow end of the pool when it's convenient to pick the action back up? Transporter 1 through 3 were completely devoid of any attempts at meaningful story, but who cares! They're crazy-fun action movies. Cataleya also has the Captain America problem of being a little too perfect. It's just hard to build tension when your hero cannot fail.

The verdict: fun action movie with distracting blah blah blah. Also, no nipples.

This is the first of many Nick Cage (or is it Nic Cage?) movie reviews. I'm trying to make a bit of a formula so we have a good standard. I think it'll go something like this:

Opening Rant: We start off with an early-90s gem that looks made for TV, but has far too much nudity to play on the Super Station. Director Sam Pilsbury appears to be banished to TV movies after this, although he did direct the critically acclaimed Free Willy III. For whatever reason Zandalee only played in Hong Kong and Italy, which would explain the Chinese menus on the DVD from Netflix.

The Plot: Zandalee is married to a former-poet-now-exec who has no attraction to her whatsoever. Enter Nick Cage, long haired, cocaine addicted painter who sweeps Zandalee off her feet... in the other room... while her husband is entertaining guests. She falls for him, he falls for her, husband is unhappy, everybody's dead by the end except Nick Cage, who is very very sad.

Favorite Nick Cage Line: "I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive."

Favorite Nick Cage Moment: Nick Cage is very upset, strips down to booty shorts, and rubs paint all over his body while screaming. Alternate: Nick Cage shoveling a mountain of cocaine into his lover's vagina as though the cops are at the door and he's gotta hide the stuff.

My Impression: Frankly, it was embarrassing to watch. Everybody was trying so hard to act, and obviously had no idea what they were doing. The filming was awkward, the bar scenes were quiet enough to hear a pin drop, and the ADR and sound mixing were typical TV terrible.

That wasn't so bad, was it? Far easier to read than Zandalee was to watch.

Oh boy oh boy! I'm up to 32 Nick Cage movies watched! Crossed the halfway point with this gem and Bringing Out the Dead.

What do we have here? A coming of age drama in which Nick Cage plays an idiotic womanizer who uses his friends? And do we also have a moody, whiny Sean Penn to boot? What more could I ask for?? Although it seems to have killed his career as a director, Richard Benjamin at least had the decency to shoot it in 1.85:1, unlike Zandalee.

The story involved Nicky (Nick Cage... hmm), his friend Henry (Sean Penn), and Henry's chubby chunkin' cheeked love interest, Caddie (Elizabeth McGovern). Nicky loves to run the gauntlet of loose women in town, while Henry is a one-girl man. All heck breaks loose when Nicky impregnates a girl and convinces her to abort it. Hilarity ensues as they are ushered off to war after doing a lot of yelling and moping.

Favorite Nick Cage Line: "Wow, 200 bucks a shot. That's some business, huh?"

Favorite Nick Cage Moment: When he's driving his hot rod away from the abortion, swigging from a booze bottle. Classy.

Gotta be honest, I had to look up a script to even find a decent NC line in the entire movie. Unlike many of his movies, it wasn't so much embarrassing as it was boring. Surprisingly, there were some saucy scenes in this (for whatever reason) PG movie underscored by a sensual saxophone soundtrack.

James Gray, also a tea brand, is your typical writer/director, as in he needs to pick one or the other and focus on it. For Jimmy G, I'd definitely point him in the direction of the typewriter. Although I could blame poor casting, I think the real issue is that Gray could be replaced on set with a poster that read "Act Angry" that was just waved at the actors before each scene shot. I've never seen such limited range purposely put onto film. Everybody knows how to act angry. It's what you tell actors NOT to do when they need to be "emotional."

My other issues with the movie could probably be blamed on Joaquin Baca- Asay, the DP, but if the director walks up and accepts an award for a film, he takes the fall as well. Plus Baca-Asay DP'd Thumbsuckers and Super Troopers. To the point: far too many stylized shots mixed in with a very standard shooting style. The one that really stood out was the cool looking shot of Man-jaw Mendes walking down a hallway smoking a cigarette. It was excellent in the trailer, but was completely out of place where they decided to cram it. Another pointless Hollywood moment, one of many in the film.

I'm also going to question Gray's sanity as a writer with is bizarre choice to set We Own the Night in 1988. Who sits down and writes a period piece based 20 years ago? I might have been more okay with it, but there's nothing significant about that year that would be a compelling reason for a crime/drug drama. They only indicators were typical 80s Buicks, and a few big hair women. Beyond that, it didn't matter and you didn't notice it was anything besides now. I guess that's an achievement. Nah.

Overall, a very slow, predictable story. I enjoyed the absolute bleakness of it all, but the performances were weak, and the cinematography average. Better luck next time!

This movie was just the pick me up to keep wading through the generic garbage that pollutes the theaters on a daily basis.

I really really wanted this movie to be bad. Between Booty Call's Jamie Fox and horse-faced Jennifer Garner, I was in the mood to be disgusted. Color me wrong (I think it's a shade of puce). What I got was a crime drama set around the terrorist turmoil of the middle east. It was fast- paced and lighthearted at times, and the cast was right for that type of dialog.

The cinematography = fantastic. It was everything Miami Vice wanted to be, but just couldn't pull off. I hope it hurt Mann watching Peter Berg pull off a good shaky-cam action flick.

With so much anti-war sentiment going on, I was surprised to see how unpolitical they decided to go with the story. It simply stated things as they were and moved forward with a very probable storyline. Contrast that with just the previews for Lions for Lambs and you'll see the kind of heavy handed scriptwriting I'm talking about. Is it wrong that I lay in bed at night sighing happily at the prospects of a writers strike?

Other interesting note: based in Saudi Arabia, but shot in the UAE. I'm sure they were thrilled to throw SA over the rack and portray them as a terrorist state. Nice.

If you had a chance to catch this in theaters, good for you! Watch it anyway, but it loses a little bit of the intensity unless you've invested in a good system.

Warning: Spoilers ahead. Right, like you'll ever even rent this.

Having seen the first movie in this set, I knew roughly what to expect, but had hopes for so much more. Previously on AVP, a teenage Predator gets in over his head at the Alien arcade and mommy and daddy have to come rescue him. And there's people somewhere. I wish that were a joke, but it's the plot, I swear. Basically the only way you could lose a bet is if you put all your eggs in the baskets of the Aliens (ha, sucker).

The latest installment in this should be amazing series, was AVPR - which stands for Not Another AVP Failure (more or less). There are no major stars, not even a failed stand up comedian or a former Disney Channel star. I didn't read the title right, and failed to notice it said "Predator"... not plural. The trailers led me to believe there were hordes of Aliens and an army of Predators to stop them at all cost, even when mowing down Marines (which there were about 5 of in the movie). They chickened out and didn't show a single gruesome moment. I don't know what else to say other than it was a complete disappointment and failure.

It gets the fabulous F mostly because it was so boring, I could hardly stay awake. You've got to be really bad to pull that off. I even stayed awake through Nancy Drew at 1AM, so that's saying something.