MC1-Bjornson Reviews

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Batman ENDS = "Escape from New York" times Ten . . .

[7/10 · 27 July 2012]

"The Dark Knight Rises", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Mild Sexual Innuendo, Violence, Mild Gore. Running Time: 2hr&44mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****) -- IMDb = 7.3/10

Director Christopher Nolan's take on Batman has finally come to an end. Nolan's third and final "bat-offering" completes his near-perfect film trilogy of the popular DC Comics character. To say that Nolan's take on the Batman, a character rich with over 73 years of history, is the definitive version of the caped-crusader is entirely subjective. The first two films in this series, "Batman Begins" (2005) and "The Dark Knight" (2008) raised the bar on comic-book film adaptations. Both films have been universally praised as the genre's two best movies. Based on that, will "The Dark Knight Rises" live up to the film legacy established by its predecessors? Will it conclude the trilogy on a satisfactory note?

What distinguishes the Nolan Batman films from other comic-book inspired movies is the naturalistic approach to the source material. His films provided fresh and interesting re-interpretations of well-known characters in terms of relatability and their social relevance. Straight out of today's headlines, "The Dark Knight Rises" deals heavily with issues of social inequality, class warfare, identity theft, re-distribution of wealth, terrorism and righteous fanaticism.

Eight years after "The Dark Knight", the Batman (Christian Bale, "The Fighter") has not been sighted since the fateful night he took the rap for the death of the Gotham City District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Ackhart, "Battleground: Los Angeles"). He is wanted by the police. His vigilantism will no longer be tolerated. Batman is really the secret identity of the billionaire philanthropist and playboy Bruce Wayne. He also has been absent from the public-eye, holed up in his restored ancestral home of Wayne Manor. His depression over the death of his beloved Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhahl, "Hysteria"), from the previous picture, has left him in mental shambles. He is also in a deteriorated physical condition due to his dark defender days. Wayne's physician assures him he does not have any cartilage remaining in his knee. There is scar tissue on his kidneys and there is concussive damage to his brain tissue. He's not even match enough for the sleek cat-burglar Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway, "Love and Other Drugs") when she robs him, not once, but twice.

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy, "Inception"). He's an eco-terrorist with a seeming agenda to punish Gotham's wealthy. He initiates a steep toll on western civilization by attacking Gotham's financial and professional sports worlds with his insurmountable armies and resources. His attack on Gotham's social elite is eclipsed by a more sinister plot, one of proportions no city or the entire world has ever seen. Given the apocalyptical nature of plan, is fitting the hulking masked Bane resembles a nomad from "The Road Warrior" (1981) with the most intense voice for a cinematic villain since Darth Vader.

The urging of Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II") and rookie beat cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, "50/50") presses the dark knight back into service. Wayne Industries CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman, "A Dolphin Tale") is still a technological ally for Batman. Also offering aid is the environmentally conscious Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard, "Contagion"). She just might have what it takes to save Wayne Enterprises from financial ruin. Not onboard with Batman's return is Wayne's faithful butler Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine, "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island"). He is a loving father figure who fears Bruce is on a path of self-destruction. There aren't many scenes between Alfred and Bruce, but the scenes they do have are touching and resonate with you after the film is over.

2008's "The Dark Knight" was a pitch-perfect movie (****/**** -- IMDb = 10/10). That film was bold in a way comic book movies had never previously been (eight months after TDK's release the "Watchmen" also took the genre to new ground). In comparison "TDK Rises", though it is satisfactory entertainment that delivers, comes up a little short both as a third part of a trilogy and as a stand-alone movie.

This is a Batman movie that barely has Batman in it. With a running time just under three hours, Batman makes a few short appearances and then a longer one during the climax of the picture. For a flagship superhero movie, why is he barely in it?

This new picture is unusually grim for big-budget superhero film about a such a mainstream comic book icon. Though it is a good feature, I cannot say it is much fun. This film is bleak and depressing. I felt all of the Batman series regulars (Batman, Gordon and Fox) were somewhat restrained from their usual positions of proactivity against adversity. I realize every situation and movie is different, yet it just felt a little off to me. When the Batman regulars do band together to oppose the terrorism threat, it feels a little too little too late. As a result, the movie's middle section seemed to sag. I think the middle part could have been consolidated or re-worked to fix the momentum, or its lack there of. Though the finale is grand, the resolution of all the main characters felt a little rushed and forced. This is a minor complaint, as I'm sure many people will love the ending and it will be talked about in the years to come.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is at its core a war-time disaster picture. It is an extremely tangible commentary on social inequalities and terrorism of this age. Though not perfect, Christopher Nolan delivers an extremely ambitious and very intense film. The movie's last third is "Escape from New York" times ten (you'll see why). This film does ultimately accomplish what it set out to do: the Batman legend does end in style. Overall, it is a fitting conclusion to the dark knight saga.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Who or What is Out There?

[7/10 · 19 June 2012]

"Prometheus", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Scenes, Some Sexual Content & Graphic Violence. Running Time: 2hr&04mns.

My Take *** (out of ****) -or- 7/10 on the IMDb Scale

Shortly after a I completed Navy basic training, I went on a camping trip in the Wisconsin north woods with my friend John. After we watched a lunar eclipse, John told me about "the greys" and several other alien races that watch planet Earth. He explained that alien hybrids walk among us (apparently one was really good friends with his mom). John was also very big on the notion the human race had been "planted" on Earth by the alien race of "the greys" who watch us from the dark side of the moon. Not that I bought into this theory, but I let him speak his piece.

That night, I learned about panspermia, the hypothesis that life exists throughout the universe and it is deposited on planets by celestial objects and/or other beings. I thought of John while I watched "Prometheus," the latest Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner," "Gladiator") film. This film uses the premise of panspermia as the springboard for its story.

This film is loosely (though not necessarily) set in the "Alien" film continuity originated by Scott in 1979's "Alien." The "Alien" films run the gamut of sci-fi horror flicks. The first was a "bump-in-the-night" kind of movie. The other offerings were creepy action pictures. "Prometheus" is the first time the series questions mankind's origins.

This film opens in the side of a cliff high in Scotland where a group of researchers discover a cave with primitive paintings on its walls. The paintings are similar to other paintings found throughout time around the world. All of the paintings pre-date recorded history and each contain an identical star chart. Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce, "Lockdown") the elderly CEO of the Weyland Corporation (a forerunner of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation as seen in the "Alien" pictures) finances the interstellar craft "Prometheus" to journey with a research team to the location depicted in the ancient graphs.

In Greek mythology, the titan Prometheus created man from clay. Similiarly, the science vessel Prometheus is seeking a potential alien race which may be responsible for planting mankind in primordial DNA form at the dawn of time on Earth. The scientific aspect of the mission is overseen by the Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, "Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows"). Though she considers herself a Christian with strong faith, she is in search of answers to assert her faith. What will she think if she learns an alien race really did plant mankind? What will become of her faith? Asking these kinds of "what if" questions is what "Prometheus" does best.

There are several characters on the expedition with different agendas. Some are looking for the answers to life while others are only on board Prometheus to "drive the bus" and collect a paycheck.

The mission director Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron, "Snow White and the Huntsman") is a bitter ice-queen who has no interest in the mission. Being a consummate professional, she will ensure the mission is carried out to the fullest to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Prometheus sets down on the foreboding world believed to be the location of "the engineers" who may have made the human race. Shaw leads the investigation team into a pyramid structure to discover humanoid remains and biological residue. Is it alive? That's when we learn the explorers are not alone in there. Something lurks in the shadows and in the puddles. But what?

Creepy android David (Michael Fassbender, "X-Men: First Class") is also asking questions about existence. When he asks a crew member why man created androids, David is disappointed with the answer of "Because we could." David asks the crewman what he would think if the engineers would give mankind a similar answer. What then? The level of disappointment man would experience might be too much to bear.

"Prometheus" is grand in concept, scope and vision. Director Ridley Scott approaches the film in a thought provoking manner. This film challenges people to discuss creation, intelligent design and panspermia. All this and it's a primarily a horror film. The scares are freaky. The sequence of a woman performing a self-abortion is both unsettling and claustrophobic. It echoes the original "Alien" dining scene with the alien's first emergence. This new scene is expertly done and might be as memorable.

Though "Prometheus" deserves praise for its craft, I found the picture a little underwhelming as a whole. Sure, the vistas and scares are good, but I wonder if that's going to be enough satisfy audiences. Questions are left unanswered and new ones are asked. Though I realize the characters live in a dark world, I found the movie a little too grim, sterile and devoid of emotion for my tastes. This is to the picture's detriment. At least James Cameron's "Aliens" (1986) provided top-notch scares with some comic relief in the form of Private Hudson ("Game over, man! Game over!"). "Prometheus" lays the dread on pretty thick and heavy without ever looking back.

I marginally recommend "Prometheus" for its sharp writing, grand visuals, scares and overall creepiness. What the crew ultimately encounters ends anti-climatically, though hints at a possible sequel. There are traces of the feel of "Alien" thrown in for good measure, but it feels like homages to a much better picture. "Prometheus" may disturb and entertain audiences, as it is designed to, but I doubt many people will ever care to see it again. That's too bad. This movie has all the makings to be one of the great ones. Instead, you get a film where you settle. Though a decent offering, there's nothing about it that sticks. Maybe it doesn't have to, but I was really hoping for something a little more.

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

Snow White and the Kingdom of the Crystall Skull -- NOT!

[7/10 · 13 June 2012]

"Snow White and the Huntsman", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Mild Language, Mild Sexual Innuendo, Violence, Mild Gore. Running Time: 2hr&07mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****) / 7/10 on the IMDb Scale

"Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Please stand up?" I know, I know. To quote the lyrics to an Eminem song isn't the normal way to start a film review. But it seemed relevant in the case of "Snow White and the Huntsman." Here is a film version of "Snow White" unlike any other before it. Though the 1937 animated Disney film became the popular version of the Snow White tale, it is not the definitive story. In fact, there isn't one. Can the real Snow White please stand up? I don't think she can.

There are multiple versions of the Snow White story throughout Europe. The generally accepted fairy tale was added to a collection of stories by the Brothers Grimm in 1812 (which was also revised for later editions). Despite the differences in the various tellings, there are common aspects to the story. These elements include an evil queen, a magic mirror, a poisoned apple, dwarfs, haunted forests and a potential suitor for our fair maiden. Is she fair? In "Snow White and the Huntsman," she's more like Joan of Arc crossed with Aragorn from "The Lord of the Rings." Given her iron will, maybe she's more like an "iron maiden"?

"Snow White and the Huntsman" opens "once upon a time" with a beautiful queen admiring a solitary rose blooming in the dead of winter. She wishes to give birth to a child with raven's hair, fair skin and a fierce determination to live just like the uncommon rose. The queen gets her wish when Snow White is born. Tragically, as is usually the case in this kind of story, the queen dies and King Magnus (Noah Huntly, "Your Highness") and young Snow White are left without her.

A few years after the queen's death, the marauding Dark Army, comprised of supernatural glass soldiers, attempts to overtake King Magnus' kingdom. After Magnus's soldiers defeat the Dark Army they rescue the beautiful captive Ravenna (Charlize Theron, "Prometheus"). Magnus is so enamored with her loveliness and beauty, he marries her the very next day. To his horror, Ravenna is the dark sorceress who commands the Dark Army. She deliberately plotted to get into Magnus' marriage bed to murder him and overtake the kingdom as the new queen of the land. The queen imprisons young princess Snow White in a tower, with the people believing her to be dead. The kingdom is no longer peaceful and prosperous it once was, but now dark and grim. The land becomes harsh and haggard under Ravenna's reign.

Flash forward 10 years. Ravenna has remained young though her witchcraft. She is able to suck the lifeforce from fair maidens to maintain her radiance and beauty. When she asks her magic mirror "Who is the fairest of them all?" she learns that Snow White (Kristen Stewart, "The Twilight Saga") has the ability to destroy her. This will not do.

Snow White escapes into the haunted forest where her pursuit is halted by the forest's treacherous nature. The queen's lead henchman and brother, Finn (Sam Spruell, "The Hurt Locker") recruits a drunken widower (Chris Hemsworth, "Thor") to track Snow White for them. Not liking the arrangement, the huntsman decides to aid Snow White in her plight.

Snow White is determined to defeat the tyrannical queen and restore peace and order to the land. Many people are willing to take up arms for the cause. This includes some fairly handy dwarfs who are experts in guerrilla-style combat.

"Snow White and the Huntsman" is director Rupert Sanders' film debut. He got his start directing television advertisements, including one for the video game Halo 3. He doesn't hold back in creating a dark foreboding atmosphere for a majority of this picture. The cinema-photography is brilliant, yet so grim and colorless it might turn some people off. Nevertheless, it is stylish without going into cartoonish territory. Snow White's world, though make-believe, feels real and lived in. The clothes and the sets are believable.

What really captured my imagination was the enchanted fairy forest. For me, this sequence was the crown jewel of the picture. The animals, the foliage and fairies are presented with such a vibrancy in stark contrast to Ravenna's kingdom, I felt like I was watching a completely different movie altogether. This is easily the most fully realized storybook forest I have ever seen done in a live-action movie. The last movie to come this close to achieve this was Ridley Scott's "Legend" (1986).

There is no doubt "Snow White and the Huntsman" looks great. CGI helps tell the story, but thankfully its use doesn't go over the top beyond what it is needed for. In fact, the whole picture has an old-fashioned quality to it. The tone and the pacing are on par with the sword and sorcerer pictures from the early '80s. This might be distracting to some who want their movie action to come a little swifter. The movie takes time to set up the characters and develop the background stories for them, their lands and their goals. This adds a dimension to this tale probably not previously seen in the movies.

"Snow White and the Huntsman" is the second Snow White inspired film to be released in last three months. Both are live action pictures with alternate spins on this familiar story. I speculate the property is being revisited in 2012 to commemorate the 200 year anniversary of its inclusion into the Grimm's fairy tale anthology. This new film is an interesting take on Snow White, though the pace might throw some people off. Nevertheless, "Snow White and the Huntsman" is nicely crafted and tells its story well.

Men in Black³ (2012)

Back in Black Times Three

[7/10 · 6 June 2012]

"Men in Black 3", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Some Sexual Content, Violence, Mild Gore. Running Time: 1hr&46mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****) -or- On the IMDb Scale: 7/10

After 16 years, we are still experiencing a particular Hollywood trend. I will call it "The Big-Budget Will Smith Fantasy-Summer-Movie." Sorry for coming up with such a long name for this trend, but it sure seems to ring true, doesn't it? Since 1996's "Independence Day", there have been many summers like what I just described. Back then, I did not realize Will Smith would have that kind of staying power. Here we are 15 years after the original "Men in Black" film hit multiplexes and Will Smith is still going strong.

The "Men in Black" film series is loosely based on an early '90s comic book series about a secret government organization which monitors supernatural phenomena, alien activities and safeguards against alien threats. These premises must have been in vogue in the early '90s, as at the same time there was a television series similar in structure that had the tagline "Trust No One" (that show also had a "foxy" redhead for additional sex appeal). For the "Men in Black" films, the supernatural angle has been dropped in favor of staying focused on alien matters only.

"Men in Black 3" (with a standard numeral in the title unlike the second movie that featured a Roman numeral "II") is an unlikely sequel. The other two "MiB" movies were self-contained adventures and the interest of a third installment really wasn't in demand. The good news is "Men in Black 3" is actually a decent continuation.

The movie opens with the escape of the intergalactic criminal Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement, "Dinner for Schmucks") from his 40-year incarceration in the Lunar-Max Penitentiary. He is one volatile, mean and ugly hombre. He is also the last survivor of his conquering race of Boglodites that destroy worlds. He was put on ice in 1969 by Special Agent "K" (Tommy Lee Jones, "Captain America") at Cape Canaveral during the Apollo 11 launch. In the pursuit, Boris lost his left arm and swore revenge on Agent K at all costs.

The plan Boris has is a fairly simple one: he will go back in time to the events that lead to his apprehension and kill Agent K. To do so would have a catastrophic effect on the future. In the original timeline, Agent K is also responsible for placing a special global shield on the tip of the Apollo 11 module that was activated in orbit to protect Earth from the imminent invasion of the Boglodites. Without Agent K to put the shield in place the world is in one heck of a predicament.

Boris the Animal has a run-in with Agent K and his partner Agent J (Will Smith, "I am Legend") before time-traveling to the past. His parting words to K are "You are already dead. You just don't know it yet." How prophetic, as the timeline is changed the moment Boris goes back. The only person unaffected by the changes is Agent J. He is aware of the timeline changes. He did not change with it because he is believed to have been present at the events in 1969. Therefore, we have a time paradox, and it is now necessary for Agent J to venture to the past.

"Men in Black 3" has fun with time-travel on several fronts, the best one involving meeting the younger Special Agent K in 1969. He's played by Josh Brolin ("True Grit") who was made to look like actor Tommy Lee Jones. That's easy enough to do with a little make-up and combing his hair a certain way. Brolin stands out in the role by his posture, mannerisms and speech patterns. He is so uncannily like Tommy Lee Jones in his performance. Allegedly the film's director Barry Sonnenfeld (who directed all the movies in this series) shed tears of relief during Brolin's audition. Having Brolin cast is better than any of the over-the-top special effects that could have made Tommy Lee Jones look younger.

An interesting addition to this picture is the alien Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg, "Hugo"). He is one of the most likable and engaging characters I've seen in years in the movies. Griffin, like Boris, is the last of his race and living on Earth. He dresses like the video camera kid from "American Beauty" (1999) and the youngsters from "South Park" (1999). He is able to envision the futures of various possible outcomes which he sees in his mind. He is humble and wise as he delights in the simple things, like the outcome of a baseball game that hasn't happened yet. How he aids Agents K & J in their mission is one of the movie's charms.

Like its predecessors, "Men in Black 3" is special effects laden, mostly involving the various alien races that reside on Earth in hiding. They are creative in appearance and at times surprising in their individual functions. Take Boris the Animal for instance. He is symbiotic with parasitic creatures that live in his palm. Too weird. In keeping with the other films, this one is heavy with goo. Whether it is an alien being splattered or simply goo oozing out of them, the "MiB" movies love their goo. I'm not sure why these movies adhere to this prerequisite. No doubt there is some marketing "goo"-ru behind this.

"Men in Black 3" is a fun popcorn movie. It is light and easy to get into. "The Big-Budget Will Smith Fantasy-Summer-Movie" for 2012 is a gooey good time. By the film's closure there is new light shed on the K and J dynamic. It's unexpected and touching. A third movie in a series seldom has originality and heart. This one does.

Battleship (2012)

Man Your Battlestations

[6/10 · 30 May 2012]

"Battleship", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Mild Sexual Innuendo, Violence, Mild Gore. Running Time: 2hr&11mns.

My Take: **1/2 (Out of ****)

It never ceases to amaze me how Hollywood studios attempt to turn anything into a movie. This includes theme park attractions, toys, video games and board games. In the case of "Battleship," it is the latter. Can a board game be successfully adapted into a full-length feature? A better question: when it comes to Hollywood taking your hard-earned dollar, does it really matter if the movie is good or not? I ask this rhetorically.

"Battleship," budgeted over $200 million, has all the elements of a summer blockbuster movie. Many films like this can also tank and sink film studios with them. The recent box-office bomb "John Carter" fiscally hurt its studio, Disney, and resulted in the resignation of their studio head. I only bring this up to show you what "Battleship" is up against and I'm not talking about aliens with missiles.

The characters of "Battleship," like the film's premise, are also set up like pieces on a board game grid. The movie opens with the gifted slacker Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch, "John Carter") trying to impress the attractive Samantha Shane (Brooklyn Decker, "What to Expect When You're Expecting"). She is the daughter of Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson, "The Dark Knight Rises"), the commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet and the boss of Alex's brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard, "True Blood"). In a last ditch effort to become productive, Alex is persuaded by his brother to join the U.S. Navy. Fast forward a few years and Alex (referred to as "Hopper") is the tactical officer onboard the destroyer USS John Paul Jones. He is still something of an embarrassment to Stone, who is now the commanding officer of the USS Sampson. While in the preparation for the international joint fleet exercise RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific), Hopper finds himself in hot water with Admiral Shane and Hopper's future in the Navy is in doubt.

Lo and behold, alien spacecrafts crash land in the Pacific Ocean, smack dab in the middle of the RIMPAC exercise! They are belligerent, with the intention of conquering Earth. The alien spacecraft generates a dome-like force field keeping outside interference away. Trapped inside the force field are a handful of ships from the RIMPAC exercise. They take action against the alien threat.

Hopper's group decides to use weather buoys to track the underwater movements of the aliens with a grid. Hmmm, this tactic reminds me of a particular board game.

There are things in "Battleship" that do not make sense. I fail to understand why a raft with about three Navy personnel, under the protection of the gun-toating Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Raikes (Rhianna), would speed over to an alien craft the size of 20 aircraft carriers to "assess" things. That's like a mosquito visiting a heavily armed rhinoceros. Why anyone would leave the ship to do this and what they thought they could achieve is beyond me. What did I miss here? Also confusing me was why would the alien ships land in the Pacific Ocean during RIMPAC? Why didn't they land in Washington D.C. or at the Kremlin or somewhere like that? It must have something to do with the satellite dishes in Hawaii that can broadcast into deep space. Oh. Well then, never mind…

"Battleship" also has a few nice sub-plots. The best one involves Samantha and the Army amputee Lt. Col. Canales (Gregory D. Gadson). He has mechanical legs and he is reluctant to learn how to use them. Samantha coerces him into a nature hike in rural Oahu when the alien invasion takes place. How rises to the challenge of doing some reconnaissance against the alien and overcome the adversity of his new handicap is nice to watch. Granted, this film is a fantasy, but having the characters proactively engaged shows positivity that helps drive the movie.

The original "Battleship" board game did not have aliens floating around the Pacific. It was a watered-down naval strategy game. My hunch is for the film version, aliens became the bad guys for two reasons. Reason #1: Aliens sell movie tickets. In the wake of the financial successes of the "Transformers" movies, making the baddies resemble and mimic the ones from "Transformers" guarantees teenage filmgoers will have a built in interest in "Battleship." Reason #2: It might not be politically correct to portray a given nation or other groups engaging in an all-out battle with the Pacific Fleet with the goal of world conquest. I should point out that "Battleship" could have been a period piece set during World War II, which would have been more naval and true to the board game. Oh wait, that might not generate the kind of ticket sales from the teens unless there are aliens on the screen. I guess I can rule out a career in movie marketing. Though there is a nifty tie-in to WWII during the last third of the movie which is definitely a crowd pleaser.

Director Peter Berg ("Friday Night Lights") deserves credit for taking this material and making it as fun for a screen adaptation as possible. Still, the movie is nothing more than bubblegum. It is also funny to note the leading man in this film is named Taylor Kitsch. The word "Kitsch" is a derogatory German word meaning tawdry, vulgarized, or pretentious art, literature, etc, usually with popular or sentimental appeal. I think it's ironic that Mr. Kitsch is the lead in both "Battleship" and "John Carter". I'll just leave it at that.

"Battleship" is only somewhat satisfying. I think the script and the editing needed one more polish. Though it is a light and breezy film, the clichés and formulas in it have been done better in other films. That and there are better "kitsches" out there.

Dark Shadows (2012)

Barnabas BEGINS

[6/10 · 22 May 2012]

"Dark Shadows", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Humor, Some Sexual Innuendo, Violence and Mild Gore. Running Time: 1hr&53mns.

My Take **1/2 (out of ****) -&/or- The IMDb Scale: 6.4/10

I never understood the appeal daytime soap operas. Though, I must confess, I've always been curious about "Dark Shadows," the daytime soap that ran from 1967-1971. I've always been aware of it, but never saw it. This show was set in a dark Maine mansion where family patriarch Barnabas Collins was a 200-year-old vampire. Supernatural occurrences were normal for the series. So were supernatural beings like werewolves, witches, warlocks, zombies and ghosts. They sure didn't have those on "As the World Turns."

"Dark Shadows" was never a mainstream mainstay, though it did gain a cult-like fan following. Now "Dark Shadows" has been re-imagined for a big-screen makeover by director Tim Burton ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Sweeney Todd") and actor Johnny Depp, who are also fans of the series. Depp even claimed when he was a teenager he wanted to be Barnabas Collins. In Burton's new "Dark Shadows" movie, Depp gets to do exactly that.

The film opens in 1760 with the entrepreneurial Collins family leaving Liverpool, England for Maine to further their fishing business empire. The family settles the bustling Collinsport and they build the elaborate family mansion of Collinswood Manor. Growing up in the lap of luxury, Barnabas Collins (Depp, "Pirates of the Caribbean") enjoyed his youth as a wealthy playboy destined to take over the family business. That is until he spurned the love of jealous witch Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green, "Casino Royale") for his fiancée Josette DePres (Bella Heathcote, "In Time"). Angelique uses her dark arts to kill Josette and turn Barnabas into a vampire to mourn Josette for eternity. Framed by the dubious witch, Barnabas is chained and buried alive by the townspeople of Collinsport.

After 200 years of confinement, Barnabas is freed in 1972. His discovery of a certain fast food chain's sign provides one of the biggest laughs in the whole movie. He finds his beloved Collinswood to be a shadow of its former self with only four living Collins residing there. The family is no longer a proud one, but dysfunctional and unhappy. The curse Angelique had put on Barnabas also affected the future generations of the Collins with travesty and despair.

Angelique is still in Collinsport after two centuries. Through her black magic, she has not aged a day. She has made it her life's work to sink the Collins family into financial ruin with her own fishing businesses. Once she discovers Barnabas is back, she resumes her fascination with him and plots to have him at all costs.

As I watched "Dark Shadows," I deeply admired the craft of the movie. Here is a film that doesn't go over the top with CGI to tell its story. CGI is there, but the film relies more on tone, darkness, shadows and the elaborate sets of Collinswood Manor to create a convincing atmosphere for the characters to exist in. I enjoyed the old-fashioned feel to the picture, befitting to the eras we see depicted, which is something many big-budget special effects extravaganzas seem to get wrong.

Johnny Depp is fun to watch as Barnabas Collins. I really enjoyed his appropriately stilted performance as a late 1700s British man muddling his way through 1970s American culture. His observations of music icons Karen Carpenter, Alice Cooper and Steve Miller definitely provide nice touches of humor. Barnabas is a fish out of water. His interactions with other characters are high points throughout the film. Kudos is also in order for Eva Green. She's very classy and sassy as Angelique. She's a great foil to the Collins family.

Though "Dark Shadows" is replete with vampirism, witchcraft, secret identities, re-incarnation, ghostly apparitions and a brooding mansion with secrets, I couldn't help but feel the movie felt a little flat. You would think the film with all these elements would have enormous entertainment potential. In fact, the whole second act is one big lull. As it stands, "Dark Shadows" is like an ice-cold sodapop without the fizz.

I'm not sure if Tim Burton really knew where he was going with this movie. Is this film best served as a comedy? Well, maybe if there were more humor to balance out the story and tone. Is it a drama? For a picture inspired by a soap opera, the normal plot-twists and surprises you would expect to see are absent. Is it a horror film? Not really, but it does borrow overtones from the spooky Republic/Hammer films of yesteryear.

"Dark Shadows" is not a bad film by any means. I kind of liked it, but not enough to recommend it (a bare minimum of three stars are required for that). The film suffers from being a "one-shot." It has all these really great parts to it, but due to time restraints, nothing is really explored beyond the basics. It is like the filmmakers put everything into this picture because they wanted it to be representative of the television series. The problem there is the TV show had time to go into these different tangents over a course of several episodes. The movie does not have the ability to do that.

"Dark Shadows" looks good with great looking sets and spot-on acting. The soundtrack is a great montage of rock songs popular in the early seventies. If anything you can at least enjoy the ambiance the visuals, acting and music provide throughout this picture. The picture is only hindered by a sense of aimlessness. So, Mr. Tim Burton, if you're not sure what kind of a film you're trying to make, then your audience might not know what to make of your film either. I'm just sayin'.

The Avengers (2012)

The Avengers FINALLY Assemble

[7/10 · 16 May 2012]

"The Avengers", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Humor, Mild Sexual Innuendo, Violence and Mild Gore. Running Time: 2hr&23mns.

My Take: *** (Out of ****) ---- On the IMDb Scale = 7/10

Over the last four years, movie-goers have known that The Avengers" was coming. It was inevitable. Since 2008, there have been "cookies" (short clips usually appearing after a film's closing credits) in certain Marvel Comics based movies. "Iron-Man" (2008), "The Incredible Hulk" (2008), "Iron-Man 2" (2010), "Thor" (2011) and "Captain America: The First Avenger" (2011). They served as the pre-cursors to this latest world-wide box-office phenomenon.

At the end of each movie, there was a cookie with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director and agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate), who would eventually recruit these Marvel icons into the superhero team known simply as "The Avengers." This was truly a unique marketing strategy. It was essentially an ongoing "in-house" ad campaign and now it has finally paid off.

Presently, "The Avengers" has grossed over $381 million domestically and over $627 million overseas. Its total worldwide box-office take is over $1 billion and climbing. It is presently the 11th highest grossing film of all time. This is an astonishing feat and there is no end in sight.

"The Avengers" opens with the global threat posed by the rotten scoundrel Loki (Tom Hiddleston), a god-like being from the distant Ansgard at the other side of the universe. Loki plans to unleash his warmongering monster minions to storm planet Earth and enslave the human race. Loki seeks to use the tesseract, which is essentially a weapon of mass destruction of insurmountable power, to aid in his quest for global dominance.

S.H.I.E.L.D. Special Agent Nick Fury is not down with this. Neither is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a.k.a. Iron-Man, the brilliant billionaire philanthropist in a high-tech super-suit of epic proportions; Natasha Romanoff/"The Black Widow" (Scarlett Johansson), an unparalleled martial arts expert; Steve Rogers/"Captain America" (Chris Evans), a genetically engineered super-soldier; Clint Barton/"Hawkeye" (Jeremy Renner) a hand-to-hand combat master; Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the god-like being, who is Loki's brother; and the elusive Dr. Bruce Banner/"The Incredible Hulk" (Mark Ruffalo), a scientist with a powerful alter-ego of, well, "incredible" size, strength and endurance.

There are several characters in this movie who demand their own signature moments of screen-time and individual back-stories (which were primarily covered in the other Marvel pictures). All these elements must tie into the crisis at hand with a neat little bow on top of it all. Also vying for screen-time is the flying fortress of S.H.I.E.L.D., an elaborate flying aircraft carrier. I've never seen anything quite like it before in the movies. Points awarded for originality and making me go "hmm" as I watched our heroes venture into action on that aerial "marvel." Fans will probably gobble "The Avengers" up with repeat viewings, strong word of mouth and what will likely be high volume DVD and Blu-ray sales. For them, the movie showcases in spades these superheroes uniting together in the same superhero film. Each superhero looks great and they certainly deliver the goods in terms of characterizations, use of super-powers and super-strength as they battle dark forces side-by-side.

"The Avengers" is a very busy film. This film really is a superhero smorgasbord. It's ambitious in its approach as a piece of pop culture cinema. How the film manages to balance all of its multiple components is a strong suit. A movie like this could have felt like an enormous hodgepodge collage. To the film's credit, all the pieces fit together rather nicely. Sure, there are some loose ends that go in different directions. That's okay. The pendulums are set in motion for other story arcs in subsequent movies to follow. "The Avengers" accomplishes this without becoming an incoherent mess. If filmgoers haven't seen the other films, and if they don't plan to see an Avengers' spin-off to see what else happens, that is fine. This picture is relatively self-contained. How many other films of this magnitude can pull that off? While I enjoyed it, I did feel this movie could not be more than what it is. From my perspective, it meets only the checkpoints. Here's what I mean: Do we see our Marvel heroes together? Yes. Do they bicker and fight each other at first? Yes. Do they overcome their sub-cultural differences to work in tandem against the Loki/WMD/alien invasion threat? Yes. Are there a few good jokes and a Stan Lee (the founder of Marvel Comics and co-creator of many of its characters) cameo thrown in for good measure? Well, funny you should ask . . .

This film adaption of "The Avengers" was directed by Joss Whedon, who is well-known in fantasy-television circles as the driving force behind "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1997-2003), "Angel" (1999-2004), "Firefly" (2002) and "Dollhouse" (2009-2010). Given his track record and reverence for the fantasy genre, he was a natural choice to head this film. Why he had not broken into big-screen comic book film adaptions earlier is hard to say. Though, a few years back, he did try to bring DC Comics' "Wonder Woman" to the screen in a failed attempt. He is clearly a story-teller who knows how to get his audience dialed-in and he gives them exactly what they want.

Though likable, I personally found "The Avengers" merely satisfying and nothing more. I know there are people who absolutely loved this film, while I only liked it at arms length. Perhaps that's due to my own tastes and sensibilities. Again, I felt this film only met checkpoints and it didn't do anything to exceed that. That's okay. This film will still be treasured by its fans, and I still managed to have fun with it too.

The Lucky One (2012)

Lucky Sparks

[7/10 · 9 May 2012]

"The Lucky One", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Humor, Some Sexual Content, Adult Scenes & Mild Violence. Running Time: 1hr&41mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****) / 7/10 on the IMDb Scale

Do you believe fate brought you to your circle of friends and family? Was it merely coincidence, luck or circumstance that put you there? Here's another question: does it matter how the people in your life came to be in your life? Perhaps it is more important that they are simply there. No whys, buts or ifs. Just accept your blessing(s) as an absolute.

Well, for anyone who's ever read a Nicholas Sparks book, or seen a film based on one of his books, you would be well advised to suspend all your beliefs in reality. Instead, you would have to accept his whimsical notion that love is blind and it will find and envelope people when they least expect it. It is a constant in all his tales, which include "Dear John" (2010), "The Notebook" (2004), "A Walk to Remember" (2002). Let's not beat around the bush here: the success of Sparks' books rely heavily on schmaltz. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's a little like going into Chucky Cheese and knowing what you're getting yourself into. Did I say 'cheese'? That is no fooling. This latest Sparks' film adaptation, "The Lucky One," is another unapologetic staple in Sparks' highly improbable love stories.

"The Lucky One" focuses on young Marine sergeant Logan Thibault (Zac Efron), a troubled man who has completed three tours of duty in the Marine Corps. He has a photo in his possession of a beautiful woman that he found in the middle-east during combat. For whatever reason, he believes that the photo is good luck and that it has saved his life on several occasions. He returns home to Colorado and realizes he won't find peace there. Looking for closure, he decides to walk to Louisiana in search of the mystery woman. That's right, he's going walk to Louisiana and bring his dog too.

Are you following this? This is where you check your brain at the door when watching anything based on a Nicholas Sparks book. How does Logan know the woman is in Louisiana? Let's just say, at the very least, he was able to deduce this astronomically. This fact could be construed as creepy, obsessive and stalkeresque, though these matters are relatively ignored. It is a Sparks absolute, and it must be accepted as such.

The woman in the photo is Beth (Taylor Schilling), a plucky single mom living at her grandmother Ellie's (Blythe Danner) large rural home with a dog kennel business. Logan wants to tell Ellie about the photo and why he's in Louisiana, but the words simply elude him. Through a misunderstanding, Logan agrees to take a job at the kennel. The job also conveniently comes with a place to live right on the property.

Beth finds Logan odd and is cautious of him. Naturally in a story like this, the wise old grandmother knows the potential for young love when she sees it. She believes Logan to be a fine, noble young man. Let us forget he is a military drifter like Rambo. He looks like Zac Efron which clearly means he's trustworthy and meant to be with Beth right? Uh, huh. Naturally, Beth's young son Ben (Thomas Riley Stewart, "How I Met Your Mother") is accepting of Logan. Yes, it's a given that Beth's ex-husband Keith (Jay R. Ferguson, "Mad Men") is disapproving of a mysterious drifter having a passionate romance with Beth. It doesn't help the two lovebirds that Keith is a shady sheriff's deputy determined to learn what brought Logan to town.

"The Lucky One" is directed by Scott Hicks who is probably best known for his Oscar nominated bio-pic "Shine" (1996). That film was a meticulous recreation of the life of driven pianist David Helfgott (played by Geoffrey Rush who won the Best Actor Oscar for the role). His next film was the heated racial period piece "Snow Falling on Cedars" (1999), which was also grand in scope. This time instead of using an epic canvas to tell the fictitious "The Lucky One," Scott lets the whimsy of the story carry it through. The story is treated as serious as it can be given the premise, and Scott doesn't shy away from being playful with the material either. Unlike his earlier works, this film is intentionally light-hearted and breezy.

Though "The Lucky One" is a romance at heart, it also boasts some impressive visuals. The rural Louisianan vistas are lush and elaborate. Whether it is something as simple as a tree house overlooking a river or sail-boating on the open blue water, this movie is great to look at. Simple shots like sunlight beaming through the treetops is masterfully done. Grandma Ellie's home looks idealic; like a place you would see in a Thomas Kincaid painting. I would be happy to live at Ellie's house. The cinematography in this movie is one of its charms.

Overall, "The Lucky One" is a charming, likable movie. We know it's far-fetched, especially when we learn how Beth's photo ended up with Logan and the connection he has to the incident that brought it to him. But we don't care. Sure the movie has some clichés, but the good news is the film is honest in its sappiness. That's what saves it.

"The Lucky One" is nothing grand, but in the right context it is a satisfactory watch. True, there are better Nicholas Sparks movies out there. Nevertheless, this picture has earned the right to be among their ranks. How many of us watch the movies for reality anyway? If you're not expecting too much, "The Lucky One" is a cute little movie.

The Vow (2012)

An Earnest Vow . . .

[8/10 · 2 May 2012]

"The Vow", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Humor, Sexual Content, Brief Partial Nudity & Mild Violence. Running Time: 1hr&44mns.

My Take: *** (Out of ****)

What if the person you loved more than anyone else in the entire world one day did not know you anymore? Can you imagine? I cannot begin to fathom the sorrow I would go through. Unfortunately, this is a reality for people dealing with loved ones suffering from Alzheimer's disease or from a traumatic brain injury.

As I watched "The Vow", I imagined myself in the character of the husband's shoes. What startled me was how much of the movie actually reminded me of myself and of similar situations I've been in. I'll be honest; this movie definitely struck a chord with me.

The movie opens with young Chicagoans Leo (Channing Tatum, "21 Jump Street") and Paige Collins (Rachael McAdams, "The Time Traveler's Wife") leaving a movie theater late one winter night. They are madly in love and it's obvious from the get-go they are best friends. While they are driving home on slick roads, fate intervenes. That's when we learn of "moments of impact and ripple effects where some particles are brought closer and some are spun off into great adventures" that happen in life.

This is when a dump truck rear-ends the young couple's vehicle which sends Paige sailing through the windshield. During her hospital stay, she is put in a medically induced coma to help her recover. When Paige is revived her motor functions are good and her personality is sound. Leo is elated to see his wife on the mend, it appears she will not have any lasting injuries from the accident. Herein lays the ripple effect: Paige has no memory of Leo. She is unable to recall the last five-years of her life. This includes changing her college major, her works as an artist and sculptor, her estrangement from her parents, and how and why she met and married Leo.

From Paige's perspective, Leo is a stranger. There is no passion for him as there once was. Without the last five years of memory, she still has feelings for her former fiancé, the handsome and somewhat snaky Jeremy (Scott Speedman, "Underworld"). He never wanted his engagement to Paige to end. For him, this might be a chance to pick up where they left off.

Leo's life is made even more complicated by Paige's meddlesome parents Bill (Sam Neill, "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole") and Rita (Jessica Lange, "Big Fish"). With Paige's memory of their estrangement gone her parents now have a chance to implement a life "course correction" for her. Bill and Rita never wanted Paige to assume the career she did, and they certainly do not approve of Leo.

Channing Tatum is good as Leo. In spite of the many challenges that come from Paige trying to put the pieces of her life back together, he always tries to remain calm and even keeled. This is no small task for a man who, for the most part, lost his true love to "a moment of impact". Though hurt, he is determined to play straight with Paige and let her make her own decisions, including what she now wants to do with her life. Truly, if you love someone enough you will let them go.

"The Vow" is aptly named. It is the very premise of the Collins' wedding vows the movie is framed upon. What's interesting to note, is our couple wrote their wedding vows on their copies of the menu from the café prominent during their initial courtship: the Mnemonic Café. Nice touch with the name.

"The Vow" was inspired by the real-life couple Kim and Kickitt Carpenter. They were married for only ten weeks when an auto accident robbed Kickitt of knowing her husband at all. When asked "Who's your husband?" Kickitt responded with "I'm not married". Tests revealed she had only maintained her long-term memories. She no longer had any feelings for her husband Kim. "I don't have a visual memory in my head, and I have no memory in my heart." The Carpenters faced over $200,000 in medical bills for Kickitt's care. Kim did not think their marriage could survive. "This isn't my wife; my wife is in this body, trapped and trying to get out." Kim valued their marriage and was determined to make it work. "I made a vow before God. 'Until death do you part'." It's been nearly 20 years since the accident. Today, they are happily married and have two children. Kickitt never did regain the memories she lost.

"The Vow" took creative liberties with the actual events of which it is based. A movie like this could have easily gone in so many directions. As it is, it is a bittersweet love story that deals with loss and heartache. How the movie resolves itself feels reasonably honest and noble.

I don't know if I would have had the stamina, will-power or heart that poor Leo had. He's a very idealist character with great personality traits and few or no flaws. Many couples probably wouldn't have handled this situation as well as the Collins. But the Carpenters did and that is a testament to their faith and determination.

"The Vow" works best as a date movie. If I had to complain, some events take place feel a little too convenient. An example is the scene where Paige meets a former acquaintance in the floral store. That chance encounter is there to provide a plot twist, but it felt a bit much and a little too late. Oh, well. I can forgive that and some of the other clichés. After all, this movie has heart. That's what brings this story home. For this kind of movie, isn't that what really matters?

Gone (I) (2012)

Stay Gone . . !

[4/10 · 24 April 2012]

"Gone", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Strong Language, Some Violence, Some Disturbing Imagery. Running Time: 1hr.&34mns.

*1/2 (Out of ****)

Amanda Seyfried seems likable enough. She's a talented young actress who's been in supporting roles and is now crossing over into headlining territory. She's got the smarts, acting chops and the good looks to be an engaging actress in the years to come. In my opinion, to a degree, she resembles a young Michelle Pfeiffer.

Having noted these things, I'm still trying to understand what Seyfried was doing in "Gone." No doubt, this film was designed as a vehicle for Ms. Seyfried. I'm sure there will be other roles for her to shine in, but in "Gone" she is wallowing in the mire.

The film opens with the lovely Jill Conway scouring a forest outside of Portland, Oregon. She alleges she was abducted a year earlier by a lunatic who brought her to the woods and placed her in a hole in the ground with human remains: dead women, to be exact. After all this time, she believes this woman-killer is still on the loose. Her deepest fear is he will come looking for her to finish the job he started with her. Jill's sister Molly (Emily Wickersham, "I am Number Four") has moved into Jill's house to keep an eye on Jill. Their relationship is a symbiotic one. Jill has a mounting paranoia about a supposed loony on the prowl and Molly is a recovered alcoholic. Together, they keep each other in check.

After waitressing late one night, Jill returns home to discover her sister has vanished. Molly's disappearance does not jive as she was studying for a test and all her clothes are accounted for except for the night-time garments she was wearing when Jill last saw her. Frantic, Jill searches for her sister. In Jill's mind, there is only one possibility for what happened to Molly: the man who kidnapped Jill a year earlier has returned. Jill believes he kidnapped Molly with the intent of killing her as revenge for Jill escaping from him. Now, I realize the movies are generally tall tales to begin with, but for the lunatic to plan over a year to get back at Jill, the one girl to have gotten away, seems an overly ludicrous conclusion for Jill to arrive at. But I digress.

There are the obvious questions about this film's set-up. Why wasn't the killer ever brought in? Why wasn't the hole in the woods with the human remains ever discovered? Why haven't the police found anything to support Jill's claims? What is Jill's next move? The partial answer to these questions is somewhat "Hitchcockian": Jill previously spent some time in a psyche ward. Oh. This hinders Jill's credibility as the victim of a mad-man. The police doubt he was real at all. What about the hole in ground? What hole in the ground? The police were never able to find it. Oh.

"Gone" works on the premise that all cops are stupid, unbelieving and inept to do their jobs. We are introduced to three of them: Lt. Bozeman (Michael Pare, "Leverage") who is authoritative and easily agitated (sounds like my high school study hall teacher) ; Detective Lonsdale (Katherine Moenning, "The L Word") who looks about as bored as this movie's audience (at least she looks sharp in her leather coat and messy straw-like hair) ; and the sympathetic Detective Peter Hood (Wes Bentley, "The Hunger Games") who looks like he belongs in a "creepy guy" edition of GQ. Given Jill's past, the police all believe she is crazy. Jill came in on a Friday with her complaint, but as far as they are concerned it can keep until Monday. Feeling that nobody can be trusted, Jill sets out to find her sister and confront the crazed stalker for once and for all. Hmmm…

If it wasn't for Amanda Seyfried's charm and good looks, I could not imagine how anybody could make it through this movie. The dialog is horrendous, the situation is preposterous and there are a lot of wasted opportunities with the story. Here's an example of a wasted opportunity: We know why the police don't believe Jill's story. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Jill herself had doubt on her own story? What if she questioned if the events of the previous year had happened at all or if the events only took place in her head? The filmmakers don't even go there. Here is a chance to keep the audience guessing if the threat is even real or imagined. This is just one of many ideas totally blown.

If you're concerned about spoilers, read no further . . .

How about the killer? I couldn't help but wonder about this guy. What motivates him to do what he does? Why didn't the police ever find any physical evidence on this guy? Didn't anyone else in Portland think it was just a little weird that all these women disappeared? Was anybody looking for them? Surely you can't have a pile of decaying women in a hole in the woods without someone asking questions about their whereabouts. I also found it hard to believe the killer would be a homeless guy who did his handiwork out in the woodland. How could he have had any income to buy materials for his crimes and rent vehicles? The movie doesn't tell you. This guy has no other purpose than to drive the story. There is absolutely no depth to him and there is no real sense of danger either. Heck, just to have said he was the boogeyman would have been at least something.

"Gone" is completely devoid of any real emotion, plausibility and suspense which are the keystones to any effective thriller. If you were to fall asleep at the movies and miss a movie completely, this would be the one to sleep through.

Wanderlust (2012)

Wander Where?

[6/10 · 22 April 2012]

"Wanderlust", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Profanity, Adult Humor, Sexual Dialog, Graphic Nudity & Mild Violence. Running Time: 1hr&38mns.

My Take: ** (Out of ****) -or- 6/10 on the IMDb scale

I love my friend Lisa. She's a sweet girl who's always been searching for herself. She's spent a lot of time traveling and studying other cultures and philosophies. I remember corresponding with her when she lived in the woods at a commune in Florida. That's been quite awhile back. Last I knew, she wants to conceive a "shaman baby" that will grow up to be a great spiritual leader and teacher.

I couldn't help but think of Lisa as I watched "Wanderlust," the latest Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston date comedy. In addition to Lisa, there were many characters in the movie that I could totally relate to. That is what struck me the most: all the people in the movie that reminded me of many souls I've met over the years and still hold friendships with to this very day. "Wanderlust" overflows with "Lisas." In the opposite end of the spectrum, is a materialistic character of great independent wealth with his dissatisfied trophy wife. Wow, do I know my fair share of these guys in real life too. These self-employed businessmen may have it made financially though they might not be happy. I am also sure many do not know what they really want.

The film opens with the forty-something yuppie-wannabe couple George (Rudd, "I Love You Man") and Linda (Aniston, "The Bounty Hunter"), who are trying to make it in New York City. They purchased an overpriced micro-sized apartment believing, no, hoping this is the world for them. They want to be self-sustaining and successful. After George's employer goes bankrupt, he finds himself out of work. Linda's documentary pitch to HBO also didn't pan out. Down and out in today's economy, things look really grim.

George's self-serving brother Rick (Ken Marino, "Californication") offers to take George and Linda into his over-sized Georgia home and give George a job. On their way, George and Linda take lodging at Elysium, a free-spirited commune off the beaten path. It is here, George and Linda encounter a variety of kind, yet eccentrically open souls. George and Linda enjoyed their Elysium stay. They are welcomed by those who dwell there to live with them, but they decide to continue on their way to George's brother's place.

When the couple finally makes it to Rick's enormous home, they see firsthand what a miserable life Rick leads. He's arrogant, condescending and adulterous. His bored wife Marissa (Michaela Watkins, "Enlightened") is perpetually boozed-up to help her cope with loneliness and a virtual non-existence. Deciding to leave it all behind, George and Linda elect to move into the Elysium commune.

What we get here is the "fish out of water" story. There are some funny bits about George and Linda trying to grasp the concepts of "free-spiritedness." Alan Alda ("Tower Heist") is great as the former hippie Carvin who helped to buy this property in 1971. A lifetime of being free of society's materialism and regular "overindulgences" have helped Calvin to remain as the gentle being that he is.

Probably one of the most memorable characters in the movie is Wayne (Joe Lo Truglio, "Role Models"). He is a nudist vintner who likes to write novels and screenplays. It doesn't matter if the material he writes is boring and mundane. He's a happy camper no matter what. His first on-screen appearance is what will stand out for most people.

The sultry Eva (Malin Akerman, "Watchmen") is all-about a free-love encounter with the married George. Meanwhile the maniacal Seth (Justin Theroux, "Your Highness") has designs of his own in store for Linda and the fate of the commune.

There is an earnest sappiness about those living at Elysium. Each character exhibits a strong dislike and mistrust of the world outside. They are perfectly content with themselves and their spiritual journeys. For them, there is no other way to live. These characters are rather chipper and, unfortunately, contrived. Maybe that's why I'm giving this movie a mediocre review.

I felt the subject of a yuppie couple moving to a rural commune was ripe for a comedic ribbing. After all, the stories I've heard about what goes on in these places, including how genuine and dear the people who reside in them are, would lend to a very interesting and very humorous movie. However, in the case of "Wanderlust," I couldn't help but feel that the characters on the screen are fairly stereotypical ones. They were one-dimensional "cookie-cutter" weirdos, so to speak. Sure, there were some funny bits in this picture, but not enough for me to recommend it. Where were the big laughs? This kind of "fish out of water" story should have been "off the hook" with side-splitting laughs. Why weren't they there?

"Wanderlust" was directed by David Wain, who also did the much funnier film "Role Models" (2008). The cast features some of the usual actors that appear in the Judd Apatow ("The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Superbad") "potty-mouth" comedies of the last decade. All the makings for a great over-the-top comedy seemed to be in place for "Wanderlust," but the film ultimately feels a little tame to me. With this much talent involved, there's no excuse for "Wanderlust" to be as pedestrian as it is.

"Wanderlust" is an okay film with likable folks. It aspires to be more than what it is and it shows. I hope the topic of communal free-spirited living will be revisited someday by filmmakers willing to do something daring and outrageously funny with the material. Hopefully those filmmakers would have enough sense to talk to Lisa. Man, does she have some great stories. Now any one of those tales would be "infinitely" funnier than what this movie was.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

Awwww h^!! !!!

[5/10 · 11 April 2012]

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Strong Violence, Disturbing Imagery. Running Time: 1hr&35mns.

My Take *1/2 (Out of ****)

Oh dear. How should I start? I went to "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" and I overheard people during the end credits talk amongst themselves. "I couldn't wait to see this movie" said one gentleman. His colleague recounted with "I couldn't wait for it to end." To be fair, here's another incident: I found myself talking with an aquaintence later on who also saw the feature. I mentioned that I planned to write a review on this movie. This was followed by a wincing face while he very softly said "Ooooooh!" As he shook his head, I knew with certainty this movie would be discussed in hushed tones by those who had seen it.

For the uninitiated, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is the indirect sequel to 2007's "Ghost Rider." These movies are based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name with the same premise. Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) is a daredevil stunt motorcyclist who made a pact with Mephistopheles (Ciaran Hinds, "John Carter") to cure his father's cancer in exchange for his soul. After a cruel twist of fate, Blaze got burned in the deal, losing his soul and becoming a demonic pawn of dark forces. He now has supernatural abilities and is able change at will into a fiery skull-headed demon known as "The Rider," who has a fierce sense of justice. In this form, he is nearly indestructible and uses flaming chains as weapons.

The new movie finds Blaze eight years after the events of the first picture. The cursed loner has left behind his normal life and is living a meager existence in Eastern Europe.

In his earthly guise of "Rourke," the devil is tracking his own son Danny (Fergus Riordan, "I Want to Be a Soldier") in order to inhabit his body. Rourke's current body is dying, as the devil in human form weakens the host. To do Rourke's bidding, the mercenary Ray Carrigan (Johnny Whitworth, "Gamer") and his merry band of goons are hot on Danny's trail.

The boy and his mother Nadya (Violante Placido) are hiding within a monastery's castle when it is stormed. All the monks are killed and the duo is on the run. The drunken priest Moreau (Idris Elba, "Thor") finds and recruits Johnny Blaze to help protect the boy from the devil's insidious plan. Blaze is reluctant to unleash "The Rider" to defend Danny and make battle with the dark forces pursuing the boy. Moreau makes Blaze an offer he cannot refuse: access to a supernatural sect that can lift Blaze's curse and free him from his dark pact. With the prospect to regain his soul, how could he possibly say "no" to that?

A conflict with the Ghost Rider leaves Carrigan dead. He is resurrected by Rourke as the dreaded Blackout, complete with supernatural abilities to siphon life and to decay anything he touches. A great example of his newfound powers is handled somewhat amusingly: Blackout touches a sandwich and it decays. Then he touches an apple, it too dissolves. Nothing happens when he picks up a Twinkie, affirming that a Twinkie will last forever. In this case, the Twinkie can even withstand evil powers.

The Ghost Rider's new look is awesome, having been modified from the previous picture. This time, the skull is charred black, fierce and menacing. When the Rider sucks the sole of a baddie from him, he is truly a horrific force to be reckoned with. Towers of flames spirals off the Rider like a geyser. The way the Rider's leather jacket smolders, bubbles and smokes is a really great detail I haven't seen in the movies before.

The MTV-like camera work was notably atrocious. Many scenes are presented with animation and other graphics that happen so quickly, when they are over you're not sure what happened. The hip, fluid, linear approach I am sure the filmmakers were going for is completely upstaged by an oversaturation of the medium. The effect is dizzying, unnerving and, quite frankly, amateur looking. How about the sound? I half wondered if I was going to be partially deaf for a day after seeing the movie, much like the day after a Motley Crue concert, due to the non-stop barrage of loud action sequences and ear-pounding music. If you want to replicate the effect, just put a metal bucket over your head and let a six-year old drum on it with a pair of mallets.

I'm sure the studio felt there could be no wrong in green-lighting this picture. The 2007 original actually grossed money despite being panned by most critics. This new movie boasts a very impressive screen writing credit: that of David S. Goyer. He is best known as the man who breathed new life into the Batman revision for the films "Batman Begins" (2005) and "The Dark Knight" (2008). Surely, he was believed to be able to reinvigorate the Ghost Rider franchise after its dismal 2007 start.

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is an un-engaging and un-interesting film that is an incoherent mess. I cannot fathom why anyone thought making this movie could possibly have been a good idea. It's frantic, chaotic and downright ugly. There is no sense of awe or fun, which is something you would want in a comic book based movie. If someone wanted to write a thesis on why they should stop making comic book movies, look no further than "Ghost Rider II." Though, the comic book film gods will be working overtime this summer with the anticipated releases of "The Avengers," "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Dark Knight Rises" (co-storied by Goyer). Hopefully any one of those films, if not all of them, can quell the memory of this disaster and save the genre from itself.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Game On

[8/10 · 4 April 2012]

"The Hunger Games", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Mild Language, Some Graphic Violence. Running Time: 2hrs.&22mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****)

It's been about four months since I last reviewed a film about a dystopian future. Stories like this are great at making social commentaries about a caste society's impact on people. During the McCarthyism of the 1950s, Ray Bradbury and other science fiction writers used the conventions of these dystopian worlds to discuss ideas and morale tales with their readers. The format was a way to discuss war, sex, politics and religion by dressing these stories up in such a way that they would be passed off as "fantasy" or "make-believe" to get around the era's intolerances for points of view that were considered inappropriate or even un-American. Today it is easier to openly discuss these grand themes people without fear of prosecution. People are hungry for these kinds of stories and I suspect they will never be out of vogue.

Proving my point, "The Hunger Games" currently has the third highest grossing opening weekend at the U.S. box office (following "The Dark Knight" [2008] and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part II" [2011]).

Based on the young adult novel of the same name, "The Hunger Games" takes place in a future that is far beyond its post-apocalyptical origins. Where the North American countries once were is now the nation of Panem with a grandiose capital and elite ruling class. Far beyond the city limits are 12 impoverished districts.

To keep the districts in check, the ruling class has devised "The Hunger Games." They serve as both a harsh reminder of the previous world, before the "ages ago" post-nuclear horror, and to quell any potential uprising against the elitist government. Through a lottery, each of the 12 districts must offer both a boy and girl between ages 12 and 18 as "tributes" to fight each other to the death in a woodland arena until only one child.

This being a form of reality entertainment, tributes require sponsorship endorsements much like NASCAR drivers do. The financial and popular support from the viewership helps to foster an interest in the perils of our youthful gamers. Anything for "must-see TV," I guess. These gladiatorial games are televised live to the world with cameras hidden throughout the arena to capture every single movement from every single participant. Safeguards and arsenals are in place to keep the "tributes" on task and prevent their escape.

Skilled archer and hunter Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, "X-Men: First Class") is very protective of her younger sister Primrose (Willow Shields, "R.L. Stine's The Haunting Hour"). So much in fact, Katniss becomes is the first volunteer to enter into The Hunger Games in lieu of her sister's defining lottery drawing. Also from District 12 is the dopey-eyed Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson, "Journey 2: The Lost Island"). The two kids are acquainted with each other, yet Peeta has underlying feelings for Katniss. How will this impact the outcome of this year's Hunger Game?

President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland) leads Panem mercilessly, though he projects a public image of calmness and congeniality. He is not too thrilled about how the Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley, "Underworld: Awakening") is handling the affection between Katniss and Peeta in front of global viewers. After all, there is world to keep in line.

Suzanne Collins wrote the original novel. She was reportedly inspired to write the book by flipping through television channels. She noted a reality show on one channel and a military invasion on another. With some Greek influence added, she was able to conjure a story about loss, heroism and also make a social statement on poverty, starvation, oppression and the devastating effects of war on people.

The themes from Collins' book are present in the screen adaptation and are handled well. The culture of the goal-mining District 12 reminded me of Amish communities in terms of plain dress and simple living. It is interesting to note the book is published by Scholastic, which from my childhood were the books that you used to send away through a grade school book order. Funny to think Scholastic are now the ones behind a teen-aimed fable where young people carve out each other's entrails on live TV in return for riches. My, how times have changed.

In spite of the positive reviews and strong box-office numbers, "The Hunger Games" is drawing criticism on allegations of racism, sexism and unrealistic body image. I don't think the movie intends to be anything more than a commentary on social classes, such as wealth and poverty. These have been absolutes from the dawn of the world.

Though it is a good film, "The Hunger Games" feels a little incomplete. The set-up is good, but I know there is more to this story. The novel is followed by two sequels "Catching Fire" and "Mockingjay." As of this writing, the second book will be made into a movie and released in late 2013 and I have no doubt a third movie will be made. I suspect when "The Hunger Games" is viewed in the context with the other two stories it will be more rounded and complete.

"The Hunger Games" is a satisfactory fable with solid performances and good action. It's refreshing to see a movie targeted at teen audiences that is witty and engaging. The "Team Edward" film series springs to mind. After all, the themes of war, starvation and poverty are a stark contrast to "Does my sparkly vampire boyfriend like me?" "The Hunger Games" does things right and whetted my appetite for more. I'm sure the upcoming installments will be the payoff. So far, the trilogy is off to a decent start.

Chronicle (2012)

Chronicled Well . . .

[9/10 · 27 March 2012]

Chronicle", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Adult Humor, Some Sexual Innuendo, Strong Violence, Some Gore. Running Time: 1hr&23mns.

My Take: ***1/2 (Out of ****) // 9/10 on the IMDb Scale

There are some people who absolutely detest "the camcorder movie." That's understandable. These types of films don't have the same mass appeal as the summer popcorn blockbusters do. However, I do believe these films ultimately do find their audience.

"The camcorder movie" is also known as the "found footage" movie. Basically, these are films purporting to be the faithful and accurate depictions of actual events as they had unfolded. The characters in these pictures chronicle everything with their video cameras. Good examples would be the supposed lost NASA archival footage of "Apollo 18" (2011) or the supposed discovered camera of the ill-fated college students of the witch-in-the woods creep-fest "The Blair Witch Project" (1999). The actors in these movies are usually unknowns to aid in their believability as the ordinary people they portray. The sound fluctuates and the image is usually grainy to appear as actual stock footage, right down to framing and dust on the film if required for the medium.

It is necessary to establish this before going right into my review of "Chronicle" and for the context in which I have graded this picture. This is a movie intentionally designed to appear being pieced together from multiple video camera footage, cellular telephone videos, a surveillance video and a live news broadcast feed.

"Chronical" starts off simplistic enough. The film opens with Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, "True Blood"), a socially awkward teen, videotaping his abusive alcoholic father pounding on his bedroom door. At first you think this is a defensive tactic to ward off the father, but we soon realize there's more to Andrew's need to videotape the moments in life. His camera now goes everywhere he goes as he documents his world. He doesn't fit in at school and his loving mother is dying of cancer.

Andrew's cousin Matt Garetty (Alex Russell, "Almost Kings") has been absent for a while. He likes to quote Plato and is asking deep questions. Matt and Andrew link up and attend a rave outside of Seattle. That's when popular Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, "Red Tails"), who's running for class president, enlists Andrew's aid in taking some video of the mysterious cavern in the woods and what is inside.

After the trio is exposed to a glowing crystal in the cave, they develop telekinetic abilities. That is, they are able to move objects with their minds. At first this is a novelty to them. It's good for hijinks with a hacky-sack and skipping rocks on a lake. They discover telekinesis is also fun to play pranks at school and at a shopping mall. The moments in the parking lot and the toy store are some of the funniest I've seen in a movie this year. The part with the young girl with the teddy bear had me laughing out loud.

After theorizing the use of their powers is like "flexing a muscle," the three friends broaden their abilities into flight. The footage of them playing football in the clouds together is what you'd expect newly super-powered youths to do in real life. To them their new found powers are the means to goof off and have a little fun. Sadly, as is often the case, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not everyone can possess super-human abilities and keep their tempers in check. For those who can do so, it might have something to do with moral re-armament and their upbringing.

This first 50 minutes of "Chronicle" are an absolute delight. The three friends act just like ordinary high school kids would act as they test their new powers. The problems they face and their good humor comes across as real making this film feel like a legitimate home video. Even when the extraordinary happens to these guys, they still act as teens probably would act in this kind of situation. There's an authenticity throughout the picture that really makes everything feel believable and true. This includes Matt's courtship of the cute Casey (Ashley Hinsaw, "Gossip Girl") to the extraordinary show-down in downtown Seattle toward the climax of the picture.

DeHaan is terrific as the shunned Andrew, whose problems at home and school are universal. Andrew's repressed anger issues are to be expected. He is sweet and reserved until his personal demons get the better of him. What starts off as an unassuming movie with good cheer turns a very dark page. Though this transition seems a little abrupt, it also makes sense. The last act plays out well.

"Chronicle" has the ingredients of a comic book origin story, though the filmmakers wisely decide to keep this movie in the real world as much as possible. The overall effect is one of sincerity. Some will argue that "the camcorder/found footage" approach in this film's story telling is a gimmick. Maybe it is, but so what? In this case, it helps make "Chronicle" work.

"Chronicle" is written by Max Landis, who is the son of filmmaker John Landis. It's evident that he has a firm understanding in writing teen dialog and making lines that seem nonsensical come across as real and true. All of the characters are genuine.

I can only review "Chronicle" in the context of what it is: "the camcorder/found footage" picture. For those who don't care for this kind of picture, there is no talking to you. That's fine and I respect where you're coming from. On its own merits, I think "Chronicle" did what it set out to do For that, I appreciated and enjoyed it. I didn't expect much when I sat down, but I did have fun as I watched it.

The Grey (2011)

Grey Matter . . .

[8/10 · 23 March 2012]

"The Grey", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Profanity, Adult Humor, Grisly Imagery, Strong Violence. Running Time: 1hr&57mns.

My Take *** (Out of ****) / 8/10 on the IMDb Scale

There are certain jobs people look at and say "How do they do it? I could never do what they do." I am referring to thankless jobs that involve high skills working in extreme conditions. These workers have limited to no contact with their families. What motivates people to endure these positions to provide for themselves and their families? These are the questions that formulated in my mind as I viewed "The Grey," the latest Liam Neeson thriller. The film serves as a metaphor to the pitfalls of life, the obstacles people endure and how their faith is tested. True, "The Grey" is designed as a taut nail-biter with good scares, decent pacing and good drama. But I think there's more going on with "The Grey" than what you initially see on the silver screen. For now, let's hold that thought.

The movie focuses on John Ottway (Neeson), a man who specializes in killing wolves to help keep the Alaskan oil-drilling teams safe. After he completes his work, he faces much uncertainty about what to do next. The loss of his wife even has him contemplate suicide before he decides that he will fly back home. Unfortunately, a freak blizzard brings his airliner down into the barren Alaskan wasteland.

Ottway is stranded with other oil-drill team members who survived the plane crash. They have no heat, no food and supplies are minimal to aid them in surviving the harsh arctic-like elements. They are hundreds of miles from any other human contact. Matters are worse when the group realizes they are deep within the territory of predatory gray wolves. One of the most eerie scenes is when a hand-held torch reveals several pairs of wolves' eyes reflecting in the darkness.

After losing team members to the wolves, Ottway leads the survivors away from the plane's wreckage. It's a pilgrimage fraught with strife through the stark wilderness. The elements, group tensions and the pursuing wolves continue to take their toll on the small band trudging through the snow. Desperation is combated by stories and humor, but the severity of the group's predicament is always looming overhead.

The group is pursued by the wolves lead by an alpha male. Indeed, a formidable omega wolf tests the group openly around the evening campfire while the alpha watches from out of sight. The outcome of this incident sets the pendulum in motion for the group to do whatever it takes to make it through each minute.

"The Grey" depends heavily on dynamic visuals to make its impact on viewers. It should be no surprise the film is produced by the highly prolific brothers Ridley Scott and Tony Scott. The movies they have directed and now the ones they produce are known for the strong visual sense in telling their stories. Consequently, the Scott brothers' films are not known for having any strong human sentiments. This time, "The Grey" is separated from the rest of the pack with a story about fear, faith and, on some level, redemption.

Director Joe Carnahan wanted to show Ottway as a man experiencing deep pain over the loss of his wife. In reality, it was only three years ago that actor Liam Neeson lost his own wife to a freak skiing accident. Neeson openly admitted he suffered from a lapse in his own personal faith and he was able to channel that into his role in "The Grey." When we see Ottway cursing at God and demanding a response from him, are we watching the character grapple with his dilemma or is it about Neeson's real-life pain? There are moments in the movie containing personal visions, flashbacks, poems and childhood reminders that aid in the acceptance of death and making a stand in face of adversity. The film was screened even by Christian groups with media materials highlighting the spiritual value of the film.

Whatever the message, "The Grey" is a highly crafted film. The scenes with the wolves are incredibly tense and the characters are as real as they get. If I had to complain about anything, it would be the ending. I do feel the build-up throughout Ottway's odyssey demanded a more concrete resolution. If the audience makes it through the film's credits, there is a "cookie" at the very end expanding on the films conclusion. How you choose to interpret the cookie is up to you. I suppose that's where the faith aspect of the film can come in. This is what this movie is ultimately about.

I think people can enjoy "The Grey" as an engaging thriller that happens to ask its viewers "what do you believe in to help get you through?" It's a rhetorical question from the Scott brothers. Goodness knows everyone has metaphorical wolves in their lives that pursue them.

Where a person gets the strength to cope with their personal wolves is something best left to people to answer for themselves. Looking at "The Grey" from this perspective is like seeing the tip of an iceberg, with so much unseen below the surface. Whoever thought audiences would get a feature like this from the minds that brought us movies about replicants ("Blade Runner"), unicorns ("Legend"), hot-shot fighter pilots ("Top Gun") and feisty race car drivers ("Days of Thunder")?

The Lorax (2012)

Get Seuss-Loose

[7/10 · 13 March 2012]

"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax", Rated "PG" for Mild Peril. Running Time: 1hr&35mns.

*** (Out of ****) -- 7 on the IMDb Scale

Dr. Seuss is a hot commodity for Hollywood. In the last decade, at least three of his books were made into big-screen live action pictures. Those preceding films boasted excessive budgets with fantastic production values, great special effects, weak scripting and big name comedians layered in prosthetics to "get them into characters" that rendered them unrecognizable as actors.

"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" is the first film to rely on CGI animators to create the visual look of the characters and the world they inhabit. CGI animated films are nothing new. One would think that the works of Dr. Seuss would have been made into a CGI movie much sooner than now.

Though Suess himself had always claimed his books are written without a "moral of the story" element, you could have fooled me. If "The Lorax," isn't about environmental conservation and anti-commercialism, then I don't know what is.

"The Lorax" opens with the idealistic 12-year old Ted (Zac Efron, "High School Musical"). He secretly desires the acceptance and affection of the lovely Audrey (Taylor Swift) . Ted is willing to do whatever it takes to have Audrey notice him.

Ted and Audrey live in the bustling "Thneed-Ville." This city has been blocked off from the rest of the world. Its GNP is bottled and canned fresh air. Their world used to be bountiful with fresh air, until all of the trees became extinct. Without trees to generate fresh air, it is now mass produced and marketed by the greedy Aloysius O'Hare (Rob Riggle, "21 Jump Street"), the wealthy mayor of Thneed-Ville.

Upon learning Audrey will only marry someone who would give her a real tree, Ted is on a quest to meet the only man that knows anything about trees: the Once-ler (Ed Helms, "The Hangover"). He lives in the barren wasteland far beyond the protective walls of Thneed-Ville. The Once-ler agrees to share with Ted in a series of visits the tale of what happened to all the trees.

The Once-ler also explains his role in how Thneed-Ville came to be. As a youth, the Once-ler discovered how processing truffula trees could be manufactured into "Thneeds," which can be used for just about anything from fashionable hats to hammocks. No one could live without having a thneed and everyone absolutely had to acquire one. However could anyone live without a thneed?

The spokesman for the trees is the two-foot tall, fuzzy orange fellow known as the Lorax (Danny DeVito, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"). "I speak for the trees" he asserts upon his arrival from the sky. The Lorax was opposed to the Once-ler's logging plans to make thneeds for the mass consumers who demand them.

The Once-ler originally agreed to not cut down the trees. When his greedy family arrived, he changed his tune for the chance to become the wealthiest man alive. The Lorax and the woodland animals were powerless to prevent the harvesting of the truffalas.

Ted is humbled by the Once-ler's account. Ted also ponders the meaning of a message from the Lorax etched on a stone in the Once-ler's yard. "What does it mean? How does this apply to me today?" he wonders.

The new movie version of "The Lorax" is considerably broader in its telling compared to the original children's book. There is more background on the Once-ler and Ted to help transition the material into a full-length feature. As a movie, "The Lorax" holds up on its own merits. This film is colorful, detailed and kinetic in its approach. I admired the truffala trees that resembled white birch crossed with cotton candy looking much as they did in Seuss' book. The Lorax himself is a true Seussian creation. This is welcome to see. The previous live-action Seuss-based movies offered comedians Jim Carrey and Mike Myers merely dressed up as Seuss characters, and they channeled themselves and not the characters. This time, the character of the Lorax feels right. Danny DeVito's voicing doesn't go over the top and he is believable.

Also refreshing is the sense of innocence in this film. The other big screen Dr. Seuss outings turned off parents with some crude humor and language that was present. "The Lorax" is fairly squeaky clean in content, despite its "PG" rating. There's no foul language, crude humor or violence. I'm guessing the rating stands for "mild peril." Even then, there's nothing objectionable for children or parents in this movie to be concerned about.

"The Lorax," like the book, has created a stir about its "eco-message" and anti-consumerism stance. Charlie Jane Anders of the science fiction site "io9" complained "I'm pretty darn liberal and I still wanted this movie to shut up and stop lecturing me."

Whether "The Lorax" is heavy-handed in a message or not, the sub-text of the film did not bother me. I felt it was a pure escapist family feature. "The Lorax" is light-hearted romp with bright colors, lively characters, some catchy musical numbers and a happy ending. The message I got was to let the movie entertain its audience. I am sure people can make up their own minds on any messages, perceived or other, that may have been present in "The Lorax." Hasn't that always been the case with children's stories?

Act of Valor (2012)

Real SEAL Deals

[6/10 · 6 March 2012]

"Act of Valor", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Profanity, Some Torture and Graphic Violence. Running Time: 1hr&41mns.

My Take: **1/2 (Out of ****)

As I watched the end credits of "Act of Valor" roll, a guy leaving the showing walked by me and said "That's a good-*** movie." He then disappeared and I started to put into perspective the movie I had just seen.

"Act of Valor" is a film that had an uncommon genesis. Originally, the film's directors, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh, had intended to make a recruitment film for the U.S. Navy SEALs program. The filmmakers were embedded with real U.S. Navy SEALs for research. It was decided that actors could not accurately portray a SEAL for the movie they wanted to make, so actual SEALs were employed to be in the picture. These real-life service members in this film do not reveal their full names in the credits and still remain anonymous.

"Act of Valor" follows the heroic acts of a group of highly skilled and extremely versatile SEALs in two story lines. The first story focuses on the liberation of a captured CIA operative. The second story centers on drug cartels planning to sneak terrorists into the U.S. through tunnels in Mexico.

The actions of the SEALs are narrated in past tense by a man known only as "Chief Dave." We meet a majority of the SEAL team at a beach campfire get together. This sequence is the closest you'll get to any real human backstory on any of the SEALs. We get a sense of bonding and camaraderie and we genuinely believe the group can function as a well oiled machine. We also learn the lieutenant in charge of this group is an expectant father. These scenes are no doubt present to humanize the characters, though these scenes do feel a little contrived.

"Act of Valor" is primarily a straightforward action picture. What works best are the scenes of the SEAL team engaging in covert operations and combat. These parts, which are bountiful, are meticulously thought out and well executed. You see these professionals track down the bad guys and see them strategically position their team before carrying out their mission. Case in point: There is a scene where a sniper in the trees coordinates his next move with the pair of hands which rise up from the river behind a baddie on the pier. Without giving the entire scene away, that sequence was one of absolute brilliance.

Principal photography for "Act of Valor" took place in Cambodia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Florida, San Diego and Mississippi. All of these locations underscore the SEALs global presence and the quick response capabilities. "Act of Valor" easily has the best photography in a military themed movie since "Apocalypse Now" (1979). Woodland scenes are lush and the scenes where the sunset is reflected on the water are nicely done. If anyone ever assembled a collection of stills from this movie, they would have the basis for a striking coffee table book.

All this aside, is "Act of Valor" any good? Well, I have to be honest. This movie was originally going to be a recruiting tool for the military and it shows. Patriotism and adherence to a credo of honor are heavy in this film. These are not faults by any means. However, these factors are about all you are going to get from this feature. If you are hoping to get a movie that is engaging as a thriller with deep characters and plot twists, this isn't that movie.

There's a scene where the bearded senior chief petty officer interrogates an apprehended drug lord who's aiding in the terrorist effort. You see the two men work off of each other's dialog. There's no backstory on either men. I'm sure the senior chief is one tough hombre and is a force to be reckoned with. Without a background story to make this guy a more formidable presence, his scene is all about defensive posturing. It's a missed opportunity to make the scene far more intense and meaningful.

Many action sequences in "Act of Valor" reminded me of the first-person shooter perspective common in video games. Several scenes are framed with the stationary end of a machine gun going back and forth taking out the bad guys. You see the gun's magazine replaced and the gunfire resume all in a continuous shot (pun). Whenever a character is introduced, you get a digital schematic on the screen that reads with their rank, last name, number of combat tours served and the commands they were attached to. Likewise, when a ship is presented, you get a tactical read of the ship's name and its longitude and latitude. After I saw the movie, I learned the film's trailer was shown on a video game website for "Battlefield 3" with free downloadable I.D. tags for the game. I think I see the film's marketing strategy here.

I suspect "Act of Valor" will be popular with the right audience. The movie will certainly be a conversation piece about the SEALs. Their hard efforts and sacrifices are not in dispute here. "Act of Valor" showcases SEALs very positively and there are great production values throughout. Apart from that, the on screen story lacks any real human interest, which hinders one from being really drawn in. If the filmmakers had infused more heart into movie, you would have had more than an extended pro-SEAL mockudrama. Though this film is a little flat as an actual "movie-movie," I am convinced it will generate SEAL awareness and keep people talking. That's the best it can do. I'm sure that will be okay with the guy proclaiming "That's a good-*** movie." After all, he knows what he likes.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

Journey to Where?

[6/10 · 28 February 2012]

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island", Rated "PG" for Mild Peril. Running Time: 1hr&34mns.

My Take ** (out of ****)

Did you ever play in your backyard as a youngster, pretending you were in another time and place? I used to do it all the time before the end of my elementary school days. During that time, my backyard took me to the Cretaceous Period with dinosaurs galore and to outer space into the deepest recesses of the final frontier. This was a time of innocence where the sense of wonder and awe was all that was needed to propel you through the journey through the imagination.

As I watched "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island," I channeled my childhood playtime. Straightforward in its simplicity, the movie makes no apologies for not being anything else. "Journey 2" is a "paint by numbers" family film. So be it.

"Journey 2" is loosely based on Jules Verne novels which have been, and continue to be, landmarks in fantasy literature for over a century. These books set the standard against which all other published fantasy works are measured. Not only is "The Mysterious Island" actually a title of one of Verne's works, but this new film also borrows several passages quite heavily from his books, in addition to other fantasy writers' works, to get through the adventure. Just when the characters are unsure of how to proceed in their quest, they literally bust out a Jules Verne book to use as a road guide to achieve their goals. How's that for faith crossed with a poor man's GPS?

This loosely based "Journey to the Center of the Earth" sequel follows the anxious Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) as he frantically tries to decipher a coded message from his missing grandfather Alexander (Michael Caine, "The Dark Knight Rises"). The concerned teen's actions catch the attention of his new stepfather Hank (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). Instead of interfering with the boy's mission, he decides to support it. Hank has the know how and cash to be an asset to the quest.

Hank and Sean trace the origin of the coded message to a remote location in the southern Pacific Ocean, where they travel to find the fabled Mysterious Island of Verne's book. Naturally, Sean believes the all the works of Verne to be a trail to a real island while Hank is skeptical, yet wanting to be a supportive step-dad.

At the island of Palau, helicopter pilot Gabato (Luis Guzman, "Arthur ") is all too quick to grab Hank and Sean's cash for transportation to "the most dangerous part of the ocean," where the mysterious island is believed to be. The voice of reason against this venture is Gabato's daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens, "High School Musical"). Do you think anybody is going to listen to her wisdom? Definitely not. Do you think she will tag along for the ride? Well, of course!

Ultimately, our weary travelers to "The Mysterious Island." Here's a place where everything we know as giant in size is small, such as elephants and Great White sharks. How much you want to bet everything we know as small is large, such as spiders and lizards? Are these spoilers to you?

To say this is a "paint by numbers" film would be a kind assessment. Here we have a montage of fanciful elements that include the lost island of Atlantis, the location of Captain Nemo's submarine the Nautilus and the Lilliputian elements of "Gulliver's Travels." The only thing missing from this assortment would be a chocolate river from "Willy Wonka." Somebody must not have been able to secure the rights from Roald Dahl's estate to do that.

Do you think our travelers find Grandpa? Oh, the suspense! Do you think the cute Kailiani will initially not like Sean, only to come to love him by the end? Gee, I wonder. Will Sean save Kailani's life? Whoa, I hope so! Do you think Luis Guzman's role exists only to go "oooh" and "aaaah" and provide comic relief? The mystery deepens.

A film like this features a barrage of grand vistas, chiefly of the mysterious island. Strangely, the CGI looks to be a step above what can be achieved with a budget of a television show. The visuals are definitely not on par with the island that was presented in the 2005 incarnation of "King Kong." In the plus column, the visuals are vibrant with vast arrays of color.

Everyone in "Journey 2" is so chipper and the level of tension in the scenes of characters in peril is so completely minor, I'm a little surprised at the film's "PG" rating. Had this film been released 15 years ago, it likely would have been a "G" rated film. How times have changed.

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is the epitome of "bubble-gum" cinema. This movie is rather witless with sub-par special effects used in abundance trying to awe its viewers. This is not a good movie by any means. To its credit, it is pure escapism and the good naturedness of the adventurers is in abundance. That's something "Journey 2" got right. If you put your feet up and just let the movie be that light-hearted romp it wants to be, maybe, just maybe, you'll be that kid you once were in your backyard riding high on the innocence of it all. How can you lose on those terms?

This movie was released in theaters in February 2012. Traditionally, the months of January and February are not good movie months at the box office. That's when film studios put out whatever they can just to make a buck. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to move on and finally see a film that's worth seeing. "Journey 2" may be good for a little childhood nostalgia, but that's about all. Enough with these appetizers and let's have the main course

Safe House (2012)

Huh ? ? ?

[6/10 · 21 February 2012]

"Safe House", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Some Blood and Intense Violence. Running Time: 1hr&57mns.

My Take: **1/2 (out of ****)

There are times where I feel really dumb at the movies. Does that make sense? I will elaborate: You attend a feature film presentation, ready to become immersed in the picture. You cleared your mind of conscious thought and let the transpirings of the screen happen. The audience around you appears to be having a good time. They laugh on cue and seem to be following the film fine…everyone, that is, except for you.

This is the overall experience I had while watching the latest Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds picture "Safe House." It is a film of visual brilliance, quick action cut-away shots and high tension. These are the usual ingredients of pot-boiler international intrigue movies. There is no reinventing the wheel for the genre, except of course for studios to put out a movie that is better than the last one to make it stick with folks long after it is over. To achieve this, the film must adhere to attention to detail and have a visceral effect on its viewers. There are numerous variables to make this kind of movie work.

"Safe House" opens with the pursuit of the international criminal Tobin Frost (Washington). He's a former CIA agent with a file of grave importance in his possession. Their contents, if discovered, would cause irrevocable damage to global security, foreign and domestic. After he arrives at the American embassy in South Africa, he is relocated to a CIA safe house in Cape Town for interrogation.

Running this safe house location is the low-level "housekeeper" Matt Weston (Reynolds). He is young, brash and idealistic. After his safe house is raided by the unrelenting mercenary Vargas (Dares Fares), who will stop at nothing to take Frost down, Weston takes Frost prisoner and they go into hiding.

The chase is on. While Weston is retrieving a GPS device to track the detrimental file, Frost uses his cunning and ingenuity to escape. The CIA headquarters is abuzz with how to track Frost and secure the stolen file before it is too late. CIA Deputy Director Harlan Whitford (Sam Shepard) is adamant for the file to be accounted for and never again see the light of day. He asserts that whoever is possession of the file will have many enemies.

"Safe House" is a thunderously paced "cat and mouse" picture. The cinema photography is unique from other action pictures. While the use of "documentary style" camera technique is nothing new, I enjoyed the infusion with the warm kelvinesque colors throughout the picture. The stark beauty of South Africa is presented strongly and boldly.

This film features great action sequences and the acting talent pooled together is quite impressive, though most of it is underutilized. Why are the versatile Ruben Blades and Vera Farmiga ("Up in the Air") wasted here? Their characters are set up with the promise of seeing them more, then nothing. What did I miss here?

"Safe House" is the American film debut for Swedish filmmaker Daniel Espinosa (less than Swedish-sounding?). He allegedly drew from several decades worth of international intrigue thrillers as the inspiration for his own offering. Espinosa stated he wanted his picture to have relatable qualities for U.S. movie-goers, calling it "a classic American tale." But is it really?

As I watched "Safe House," I felt like I had seen all of these elements before, but in better movies. That's not to say these elements couldn't have worked here. They actually do, but to a very limited effect. The show stoppers on "Safe House" are coherence and cohesion. These are imperative to make any movie work as a whole.

Coherence: "Safe House" is so quick in pace I honestly felt like the filmmakers left out plot points. I had a hard time keeping up with what was going on. I definitely was never sure of what was going on. Maybe, as I watched the movie, I might have been distracted. Then again, maybe not. As I mentioned at the opening of this review, I felt dumb trying to put this film together. If the reactions of other moviegoers in attendance is any indication, there seem to have been some people who seem to have gotten it. I wish I were one of them.

Cohesion: This is one of the most disjointed, "all-over-the-map" movies I've seen in many a moon. I never knew how the scenes pieced together or why.

"Safe House" might be a good time at the movies for the right demographic. It has some really great factors, though I felt it never came together. It felt scattered, disconnected and clichéd. Based on that, in good faith I cannot recommend this film. I know I'm not totally alone, as many people I quizzed after the movie felt the same way I did. Whew! It's not just me. If you saw "Safe House" and enjoyed it, I'm glad. For me, it was an incoherent editorial mess that begged to be more than the sum of its parts. That's not the movie I wanted to see.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)

Extremely...Extremely ...

[6/10 · 15 February 2012]

"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" (2011), Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language and Thematic Elements. Running Time: 2hrs.&9mns.

My Take **1/2 (out of ****)

Like "Hugo" (2011), "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" tells the story of an adolescent who loses his father to a horrible tragedy and then seeks a special message from him from beyond the grave to cope with the loss. Coincidentally, both films are contenders for the Best Picture Oscar on Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012 (which is 1.5 week(s) away from this writing).

The film centers around the high functioning Oskar (Thomas Horn). He's a brilliant child lacking in social graces. It is observed he may have Asperger's syndrome which makes sense given his erratic behavior.

Oskar's father Tom (Tom Hanks, "Larry Crowne") knew Oskar to be a very bright lad. He often engaged Oskar in activities that stirred his mind and kept him thinking. Their relationship was very idealistic. If everyone had a father like Thomas Schell, the world would be a better place.

Unfortunately, the world isn't a better place. We learn that Tom Schell was one of the over 3,000 victims who perished at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Since his body was never recovered, an empty coffin was buried at his funeral which troubled his young son.

Oskar has great difficulty coping with his father's death. His mother Linda (Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side") is beyond grief over losing her husband and worries over the self-imposed social isolation of Oskar. He engages in self injury, pinching himself all over his body, while dealing with his calamity.

One year later Oskar finally visits his father's bedroom again. While seeking a connection to his father, he discovers a mysterious key in an envelope labeled "Black." What is this key? Why was it in his father's possession? Convinced the key must have a significant meaning, and a possible message from his late father, Oskar is on a quest to discover what the key opens. He meets the film's most interesting character who is simply known as "The Renter" (Max von Sydow, "Shutter Island"). He's an elderly gentleman who secretly lives with Oskar's grandmother (Zoe Caldwell). He hasn't spoken a word since experiencing the Holocaust firsthand. Here is a man who hasn't been able to cope much with the world around him, similar to Oskar. He's seen his fair share of unhappiness, though he does find compassion for Oskar and aids him to find out what the key is for.

It's nice to see a unique friendship develop between the two. "The Renter" helps bring the fearful Oskar out of his "shell." As they bond, we discover the secret Oskar has kept since the final moments of his father's life and who "The Renter" really is.

"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" is a rather strange film. The subject matter is the most serious of its kind: dealing with the emotional toll on those who are the survivors of the victims of Sept. 11. At the same time, the film gets a little whimsical in its quest to make sense of loss. The key, the elderly mute fellow and a tambourine are bizarre elements in a story of a young boy coming to terms with the events in life beyond our control.

I normally would not mind whimsy in movies about youth and discovery, but this is a story that uses Sept. 11 as a major plot device. Is it too soon for a breezy film with Sept. 11 as a backdrop? Can that fateful day be used as a springboard for this kind of film?

This feature is based on the book of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer. The critics of that book echoed many of the same concerns I had with the film version. Harry Siegel of the New York Press titled his review "Extremely Cloying & Incredibly False: Why the author of 'Everything Is Illuminated' is a fraud and a hack," believing Foer was exploiting Sept. 11 for his personal financial gain. Anis Shivani with The Huffington Post went as so far to add Foer to "The 15 Most Overrated Contemporary American Writers." In contrast, The Spectator felt "the book is a heartbreaker: tragic, funny and intensely moving."

The book was adapted into the screenplay by Eric Roth, who also scripted "Forrest Gump" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Like "Extremely Loud," those are films about unique characters in unique circumstances. One can assume this kind of movie might be Roth's screen writing "calling." Behind the camera directing is Stephen Daldry, who brought us the acclaimed post-Holocaust drama "The Reader." Daldry has a penchant for real life events being the catalysts for the characters in his films to grow and develop over time. You would think with these two talents as the driving forces behind "Extremely Loud" you would have a thoughtful and intriguing picture.

What do you get from "Extremely Loud" when it's over? There's no denying the first rate acting. Max von Sydow even received an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his role. That's saying something about a character who says nothing. The pacing is reasonable and the conclusion is what it is. You have a decent picture, but not much else. Perhaps the whimsy doesn't mix well with the most horrible national tragedy from the last decade.

"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" is a likable and watchable film with some great moments. It just doesn't resonate with you afterwards. You are left asking yourself, what was this about and why? I suspect it's about coping with dramatic change and growing beyond comfort zones. But shouldn't a film framed within the aftermath of Sept. 11 be something more? One would think.

Hugo (2011)

Hugo Boss

[8/10 · 7 February 2012]

"Hugo", Rated "PG" for Adult Situations and Mild Thematic Elements. Running Time: 2hrs.&8mns.

My Take ***1/2 (Out of ****)

At the end of January 2012, the nominees for the 84th Annual Academy Awards were announced. Leading the pack with 11 nominations is Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" (2011), a film that was met with universal critical acclaim. Unfortunately for the people behind "Hugo" the movie's box office returns were disappointing. The film grossed just $90 million, which is far below the film's $150 million budget. Perhaps on Oscar night all will be forgiven and there will be a renewed interest in the picture (as of this writing the 84th Annual Academy Awards is two & 1/2 weeks away).

On the surface, "Hugo" appears to be a departure from what movie goers expect from director Martin Scorsese. Over the last 30 years he has made a reputation and a Hollywood career out of gritty hard edged crime dramas, many focusing on the mafia. Don't be deceived. Scorsese has been known to make lovely artistic dramas as well. Even now it's hard to think that the man who brought us the likes of "GoodFellas" (1990) and "The Departed" (2006) is also the same guy who brought us the 19th century period piece high society film "The Age of Innocence" (1993) or "Kundun" (1997), a film about the Dalai Lama.

To watch "Hugo," it is apparent the movie was a passion project for Scorsese. He's a celebrated filmmaker and "Hugo" is celebration of the movies. More importantly, it is about dreamers and the dreams they dream. Who better than Scorsese to bring this story to you? The movie opens in the winter of 1930s Paris. Young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan living in the Gare Montparnasse train station. He was the ward of his uncle (Ray Winstone) after his father (Jude Law) passed away in a museum fire. Now the uncle has been missing for several months, leaving no one to wind the clocks in the great station, save for Hugo. He performs his duties daily without fail.

Before Hugo's father passed away, the father and son had started restoring a dilapidated automaton, which is a mysterious mechanical man that supposedly writes a special message with a pen. Hugo is determined to bring the mechanical man back to life, if only to write Hugo a message which he believes will be from his late father.

Everything is a challenge for Hugo. To make ends meet, Hugo steals food to survive and mechanical parts for his machine restoration. He is careful to not get caught by the train station watchman, the inspector Gustav (Sasha Baron Cohen) who is ever vigil and quite experienced in sending orphans into group homes. The most prominent figure Hugo encounters at the train station is the toy store owner Georges (Sir Ben Kingsley). Hugo regularly lifts items from his store until one day Georges finally catches him. In a heartbreaking turn of events, Hugo's dream of restoring the automaton comes to a bitter end.

Hugo has been on his own for so long, he's not too sure how to take the prospect of making a new friend in Georges goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). She has a lively imagination and a love of books. Hugo loves to hear about the stories she reads and he in turn shares with her one of his loves he used to enjoy with his late father: the cinema. The movies Hugo and his father loved best were the ones rich in imagination where the possibilities of the screen seemed boundless. In fact, one character in "Hugo" describes the movies as a place where a person could see the dreams from their sleep on the screen.

It is pleasant to watch Hugo and Isabelle talk about dreams as if they are an elixir of life. Leave it to true dreamers to see them as such. These are smart kids dealing with the circumstances in their lives on their own terms. You generally don't see kids in the movies with this much passion about what makes them tick.

It has been suggested that "Hugo" is Martin Scorsese's autobiography. He has been consistently a powerful filmmaker with precise clear vision. "Hugo" talks about the human drive for visions and imagination. It asks viewers what inspires them and what encourages them to carry on with their daily lives.

Sometimes people lose their dreams. When that happens, everything they've done previous to that can be lost. "Hugo" also shows us this loss and what it is to reach redemption and become reinvested once again.

"Hugo" easily boasts the best looking visuals used to re-create the past, giving everything a recognizable, yet unearthly quality. The best way to describe it is it looks gritty and feels like something out of a storybook at the same time. All the buildings, machinery, sets and costuming are created in top form.

There are a lot of really brilliant metaphors in "Hugo" that hint about ideas, hopes and dreams. I believe that more than one viewing of this picture can take people to different places with each viewing. That's an unusual thing to say about a family geared movie. But then, "Hugo" isn't just any film. How many features do you know that challenge us to look at ourselves, no matter what our circumstances are and then invite us to keep on dreaming? "Hugo" does just that. The film honors the wonder of the movies and encourages us to celebrate dreaming.

The Sitter (2011)

The Sitter is Litter

[3/10 · 2 February 2012]

"The Sitter", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Profanity, Sexual Content & Violence. Running Time: 1hr.&21mns.

My Take * (Out of ****)

Ultra obscene comedies have been the rage this last decade. Today, is it possible to think of new "R" rated comedies that don't contain excessive vulgarities, graphic sexual situations, gross out humor and other excessive acts of chaos that stretch the bounds of what can be done in the movies? I don't remember "R" rated films being this over the top 15 years ago. Even "R" rated fare from the '80s seems really tame in comparison.

The latest Jonah Hill vehicle "The Sitter" is supposed to be a comedy, though I cannot begin to understand why it was made or to whom this movie is marketed. Maybe on paper this film seemed like a much better idea than its silver screen offering.

Jonah Hill plays Noah, a lazy college suspendee who once again lives at home with his mother. His supposed girlfriend Marisa (Ari Graynor), a self-serving party girl, uses him regularly to cater to her every whim. Due to financial woes and to help his mother out, Noah reluctantly agrees to babysit three kids: the high anxiety Slater (Max Records), the Jon Benet Ramsey wannabe Blithe (Landry Bender) and the young deviant Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), who has an insatiable love for running away and cherry bombs. Naturally these kids live in a very well-to-do neighborhood with their trophy-wife mom and no-nonsense father. Noah's game plan is to stay home with the kids and keep an eye on them until their parents get home. In a movie like this, you just know there's no way that can possibly happen.

Soon, the loser Noah is out to appease his girlfriend on a drug run with all three of his charges in the backseat as he rushes through the streets of Manhattan. The deal goes awry when young Rodrigo sneaks into Karl's (Sam Rockwell) body building gym and steals an egg from Karl containing over $10,000 in cocaine. The egg inevitably breaks and its powdery contents explode in Noah's face. All of the kids look on while Noah ponders his next move. Cocaine and kids. Now isn't this funny? Ha…ha…ha.

Karl wants his ten grand for the stolen cocaine or else Noah's a goner. Pursued through the night, Noah and the kids go to a department store, attend a bar mitzvah, go to Noah's father's house, stop at wild party and are chased by thugs through a park. Meanwhile Slater comes to terms with his anxiety, Blithe ponders her place in the world as a child and the pint-sized demolition expert Rodrigo learns a thing or two about humility. Oh, I forgot to mention there's a scene where the little girl accidentally defecates herself and stinks up the entire van leaving everyone gasping for air with the windows down. Isn't that cute? Isn't that funny?

Amidst all this craziness, Noah makes a connection with these children and shares with them his insights on life, how to cope with circumstances and how to become a better person. Who knew the man who would so recklessly endanger children with a trip to make a drug deal and to a wild alcohol binger would prove to be as insightful as Yoda? Why not? There's even a sweet co-ed from his college who can see what a nice guy he really is! Puh-lease.

"The Sitter" is an astonishingly bad movie. There is nothing even remotely funny about this picture. Seeing children involved in coke deals, beatings, and contemplating their sexuality (with one as a runway object and another dealing with personal orientation), blowing up everything in sight and get chased by vengeful drug dealers is absolutely appalling. I did fully expect the kids to use multiple f-bombs, as is par for the course with this kind of movie. There are movies with unlimited vulgarity that are funny. "The Sitter" is not among their ranks.

I'm not trying to be a prude here. I don't object to the use of obscenities that dominate today's comedies. After all, what people chose to watch for entertainment is entirely their business. What is unsettling to me is how low for a joke will some filmmakers go. As I watched "The Sitter," I was totally mind-boggled as to how far the movie would go to do that. When is enough ever enough? The folks behind "The Sitter" ought to be ashamed of themselves.

One can only wonder why the likable Jonah Hill is in such a trainwreck of a movie. Does he have a horrible agent trying to sabotage his career? How about Sam Rockwell? He's such a versatile and talented actor. No doubt they are in "The Sitter" to collect a paycheck. Both actors have appeared in good movies and will hopefully continue to do so. There's no reason they should have been sidetracked to appear in this drudge.

Next up for Jonah Hill is the updated big-screen makeover of the late 80s TV show "21 Jump Street." Hopefully that will be a return to comic form for Hill. He usually appears in funny, thoughtful movies, though on the risqué side. Who can say what went wrong this time? Well, I hope the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. We know there's a better Jonah Hill movie to be made. "The Sitter" can sit on it.

Red Tails (2012)

Tail Spin

[6/10 · 25 January 2012]

"Red Tails", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Violence & Some Gore. Running Time: 2hrs.&01mn.

My Take: **1/2 (out of ****)

For over two decades, George Lucas has been developing "Red Tails," his film version of the story of the Tuskegee Airmen of the 322nd Fighter Group. Lucas is rumored to have spent $100 million out of his own pocket to produce, distribute and market this picture: an investment he hopes will generate awareness of the history of the real "Red Tail" airmen.

The "Red Tails" moniker comes from the tails of their P-51 Mustang aircraft, painted red to distinguish themselves from other squadrons. During World War II, these pilots were the first African American aviators in the history of the U.S. armed forces. At this time, the military was federally segregated. During the first leg of the war, these aviators were on the sidelines in noncombat operations.

As the war progressed, the members of the 332nd were tasked with escorting bomber squadrons. Many troops were reluctant to have African American aviators for escorts: the consensus was these airmen were of limited intelligence and should not operate heavy machinery. Many questioned their bravery, thinking they would run at the first signs of trouble. As history would tell, nothing could have been farther from the truth.

The film follows the beginnings of the Red Tail pilots. Col. A. J. Bullard (Terrance Howard) knows these men are capable of aerial combat. He shows great determination and poise at Pentagon staff meetings to get his men into the war fight. When he is successful in doing so, Maj. Emmanuel Stone (Cuba Gooding Jr.) is only too eager to tell his men that they will start escorting bomber aircraft into combat theater.

These men do believe that they are finally doing something special. After all, they weren't what society expected them to be. They were not cooks, nor did they "clean the latrines in Milwaukee," as was the expectation of blacks at the time. On the contrary, they were finally able to do what they were trained to do and all eyes were on them. Would they succeed or fail in their new challenge?

After many successful escort missions, it became apparent to the military that these men were highly trained and viable assets to the mission. Their reputation preceded them. It wasn't long before the Red Tails' services are requested by name.

Historically, the 332nd Fighter Group's Red Tails had a very impressive war record. They destroyed 261 enemy aircraft and damaged 148 while participating in 1,578 missions. Those are no small accomplishments by any standards, nor did it not come without a toll: 66 Red Tail aviators were killed in action. Distinguished Flying Crosses were awarded to 95 others for their service during the war.

George Lucas is very successful in creating a visually spectacular film in the recreation of the WWII dogfights between the Red Tails and the Germans. CGI is used in a movie as a storytelling tool and not for cartoonish backgrounds as in so many other pictures. These scenes are expansive and all-encompassing. They are brought to you by Lucas' own special effects house, Industrial Light & Magic (ILM). Lucas is on record saying the Death Star battle in the original "Star Wars" (1977) was modeled after real WWII dogfights. Now nearly 35 years later, we are able to see those very dogfights Lucas discussed realized on the silver screen in style. These scenes do not disappoint.

What is disappointing is Lucas' inability to write dialog beyond the sitcom level. I think characters on "Saved by the Bell" (1990) had far more meaningful conversations on life than the men in "Red Tails" ever do. Almost everyone on the screen is one-dimensional. The Germans are definitely your standard cardboard cutout bad guys of yesteryear. They only display their dislike of Americans and black aviators with disparaging comments and gunfire. No up-close-and-personals there. I guess they don't need to be more than that, but at the same time their lack of dimension makes them about as menacing as Wile E. Coyote.

Good character moments are few and far between, like in the scenes where the senior officers discuss the merits and effectiveness of black airmen. However, most of the time you feel like the acting is a little over the top. The best human interaction comes from daredevil pilot Joe "Lightning" Little (David Oyelowo) as he woos Italian beauty Sofia (Daniela Ruah).

At least the premise of "Red Tails" is really good. It is a part of World War II history that is worth knowing and talking about. There's no denying "Red Tails" looks great despite the flat characters. The film's co-writer Aaron McGruder defended the film by saying: "Some people are going to like this tonal choice and some people are going to say, 'Oh it should've been heavier and it should've been more dramatic.' But there's a version of this (story) that doesn't have to be "Saving Private Ryan." We can be "Star Wars," as crazy as it is."

I can't argue that. Lucas and director Anthony Hemmingway made the movie they wanted to make. It is entertaining, though given the seriousness and historical importance of the subject matter it is apparent this film could have been so much more. It certainly never should have felt like a sitcom. The good thing about "Red Tails" is it will get people talking. The bad thing about "Red Tails" is it feels half realized in terms of drama and presentation. Darn it. "Red Tails" had so much potential and deserved to be more gripping than what it is.

J. Edgar (2011)

The Life & Times of J. Edgar Hoover . . .

[9/10 · 18 January 2012]

"J. Edgar", Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Adult Language, Violence & Mild Gore. Running Time: 2hrs.&17mn.

My Take: ***1/2 (Out of ****)

"J.Edgar" is Clint Eastwood's biopic chronicling the complex life of J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hoover, believed to have been the second most powerful man in the U.S. at times during his 1924 to 1972 tenure, was well-known as being extraordinarily meticulous. He implemented many basic procedures of the agency, including its centralized fingerprint file system and the use of forensic laboratories to aid in solving crimes. Though commonplace today, these methods were considered revolutionary in that time.

It was only in Hoover's later years and after his death that he became more of a controversial figure. Rumors persisted that he abused his power as FBI director with his exaggerations of events, reports and supposedly overextended the authority of the FBI for his personal gain. If that weren't enough, rumors persist Hoover was a crossdresser.

Director Clint Eastwood showcases the man for all his strengths and with his faults. He shows Hoover as the consummate professional capable of such brilliance, yet lacked so many social graces, especially with members of the opposite sex. He's presented as a man with a fierce determination to be right at almost any costs, all the way to executing the alleged Lindbergh kidnapper and murderer Bruno Hauptmann. Though many still believe there was enough circumstantial evidence to the contrary, there was no doubt in Hoover's mind Hauptmann was guilty of the "Crime of the Century." In fact, Hoover is depicted in "J. Edgar" as being jealous of the media's attention to special agent Jack Purvis after Purvis took down the gangster John Dillinger in Chicago. Supposedly, Hoover saw to it that Purvis's reward for his societal good deed was to be slowly removed from the FBI.

Leonardo DiCaprio does a superb job of conveying Hoover's thoughts and emotions throughout the picture. He is a man molded by his mother (Judi Dench, "Quantum of Solace") to be a problem-solver and to excel at what he does. Often, to maintain this reputation, Hoover hides behind facts to project an image of confidence and superiority. Eastwood's film is more interested in the psychology of the famed FBI director than his actual achievements.

As the film progresses, Hoover endures turmoil over his sexuality. When he confides in his mother that he doesn't care for dancing with women, she asserts that "I'd rather my son be dead than have a daffodil for a son." This definitely hampers his budding relationship and attraction to his FBI number two man Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer, "The Social Network"). The sexual tension between the two men is kept in check, despite always taking daily lunches, weekends and vacations together. Historically, Hoover and Tolson were often seen in public holding hands. DiCaprio does a nice job of showing a broken man who didn't know how to exist personally and professionally. He would never have his mother's consent, nor in the public's eye, to engage in an open relationship with Tolson. Perhaps that helped the man bury himself so much into his work.

Obviously Tolson loves Hoover deeply, yet that love can never be fully reciprocated. Tolson is loyal to Hoover to his detriment. Hoover's faithful secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts, "Eastern Promises") stayed in his service for over 54 years.

Clint Eastwood creates a stirring drama on the man the public thought Hoover was, and of the fears and anxieties of someone at odds with himself. Was he in denial? Did Hoover really experiment with crossdressing as a way to cope with a personal loss? These concepts are explored and the feelings on the screen are compellingly real. You genuinely want to see what happens to this man and see what lengths he'll go for the FBI and himself. "He's a mystery man," director Eastwood said of Hoover. "I still don't have all the answers on him."

"J. Edgar" features some of the best age makeup I've ever seen in modern cinema. Hoover and Gandy's aging look absolutely authentic as the film progresses over 50 years. Still, it's the actors who really sell us on who these characters are at different stages of their lives, and DiCaprio and Watts pull it off nicely. Hammer is excellent as the aging Tolson, but looks like the bedridden old man in astronaut Dave Bowman's hallucination in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968). It's mildly distracting, but Hammer's talent is the saving grace.

Visually successful, the film conveys the shifting time periods very well. There isn't an overabundance of special effects to recreate the past. The naturalistic appearance of the clothes, sets and props are welcome and feel genuine.

"J. Edgar" is a well-made, thought-provoking film. It handles the public image of Hoover while giving us insight into his soul. The film takes us through many decades at the different junctures of Hoover's life. He left quite a legacy, but it's hard to say exactly who he really was. Right or wrong, Clint Eastwood's film does a fine job of putting the pieces of the puzzle known as J. Edgar Hoover together to try to make sense of the FBI icon.

I'm sure there are a few pieces missing, but are we not all flawed in some way? "J. Edgar" tells it like it is.

Immortals (2011)

Immortal Combat??

[5/10 · 10 January 2012]

"Immortals" Rated "R" for Adult Situations, Mild Language, Brief Nudity, Sexual Content, Graphic Violence and Extreme Carnage. Running Time: 1hr&50mn.

My Take: ** (out of ****)

Over the last decade, there has been a substantial increase in live-action CGI-heavy hyper-reality movies. The film "Sin City" (2005) is an example of how this kind of picture is made right. That movie offered up a great story, interesting characters, and great visuals with enough balance to play off each other to successfully create a fascinating world in one of the most engaging films of the emerging genre. When it's done wrong, all these elements are squandered and the whole picture caves in under its own weight.

"Immortals" is another gladiator-like film trying to cash in on the success of Zack Snyder's "300" (2007). It opens in Greece with the dirty-rotten good-for-nothing King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler") attacking and pillaging holy sites. He is seeking the mighty Eprius Bow, a supernatural weapon lost by the gods somewhere on Earth during a battle with the Titans. Hyperion kidnaps the virgin oracle priestess Phaedra (Freida Pinto, "Slumdog Millionaire") to help in his diabolical quest to gain the Eprius Bow and conquer all of Greece.

Standing in the way of Hyperion's blitzkrieg for Greek dominance is the peasant Theseus (Henry Cavill, next year's Superman in "Man of Steel"). For a young man of limited means, he has a Charles Atlas body and unparalleled combat skills. It also helps being the illegitimate son of the god Poseidon and being in Zeus' good graces, who in the guise of a wise old man (John Hurt, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows") has mentored Theseus on the art of war and how to fight. Apparently in ancient Greece, chiseled good looks and combat skills will increase your earning potential!

Theseus is alone when he begins his campaign against Hyperion. Eventually Theseus accrues allies to aid in his quest. There is no shortage of battles as Theseus thunders on to take down his man. All these fight sequences consist of various stabbings, spearings, beheadings and other acts of mass carnage. Judging by their inadequacies, Hyperion's minions obviously had combat training at the same school the Star Wars imperial stormtroopers had theirs. Theseus liberates the exquisite Phaedra and she has visions of his fate and destiny. She can see the importance of Theseus' life and helps him to achieve what he set out to do for the good of her people.

There's no denying "Immortals" is one of the most visually stunning films in recent years. Through CGI and elaborate sets the backdrops, locations and set dressings are rich in complexity and beauty. You're actually able to enjoy looking at them, an exception to the tendency of modern films to have the frame race around like a gerbil with ADD. The costuming is top notch. Who cares if the wardrobes are historically accurate or not? They just plain look cool.

However, apart from the eye candy, "Immortals" doesn't give you anything else. Characters with hard-to-pronounce names seem to show up at random and then vanish. Why were they even on the screen at all? Like models on a runway, maybe they were there only to showcase their exotic costumes.

I also couldn't help but wonder why all of Greece appears to be carved alongside a cliff thousands of feet in the air. Characters are shown strolling along the edge without the slightest regard to gravity or without fear of plummeting to the rocky shoreline of the ocean thousands of feet below.

This film really has no other purpose than to showcase elaborate computer generated backdrops, exotic costumes and multiple gorings via vials of CGI spatter and good ol' fashioned red goo. Just chalk it up as another Hollywood exercise in over-the-top extravagant "gore fest." This film further serves as an example of how some film producers in Hollywood think: If we layer it on heavy with exceptional visuals, show blood flying everywhere and frame it all with gladiatorial dorkiness they think they might, just might, have a box-office winner.

I don't think "Immortals" will generate the kind of business or word of mouth interest in the movie the studio was hoping for. It's incoherent and almost torturous to watch. The story is fragmented at best. But one thing is for sure, it will look great on Blu-ray. I'm sure the home theater aficionados will be pleased with it. Maybe that's all "Immortals" is good for. It sure isn't good for anything else.