Author: Darren Goodhart

Our setting is a post-apocalyptic world that’s been ravaged by a very long conflict between the Church and a strange vampire race. To fight the vampires, the Church has created The Priests, a group of specially trained warriors who’s specialty is vampire killing. The struggle is supposedly over, and most of the remaining citizenry is protected by the Church in walled-off cities.  But unknown to the Church, the vampires live on.  Outside of the city walls, in a frontier settlement, the daughter of a couple is abducted by the vampires.  Word gets back to one of the Priests (know simply here as Priest) about what has happened, with special significance to him because the abducted girl is actually his niece.  Priest leaves the city to try and find his niece, though it could mean excommunication from The Church.  Unbeknownst to Priest, there’s even more going on, involving a specific moment from his past.

That’s the basic premise to the new movie, Priest directed by Scott Stewart adapted from the Tokyopop comic series Priest by Hyung Min-woo. I am a big comic book fan, but sad to say, I don’t have any familiarity with this series.  I do have familiarity with Scott Stewart though as he directed last year’s Legion (also starring Priest’s lead actor Paul Bettany) and I wasn’t too thrilled by it, to say the least.  But, I thought the trailer to Priest looked pretty cool and so I was certainly open to giving it a chance.

And I’m glad I did.  I thought Priest was quite a bit of good, old B-Movie fun.  It mashes together a lot of familiar genre concepts with an overall Western feel.  The movie has a great look to it, and while it’s characters are somewhat simplistic, there’s still enough there that I wanted to follow their story.

I really liked the look of the film.  Since seeing the movie, I’ve now seen some little bits and pieces from the Tokyopop comic and overall it looks very faithful to the book with it’s actual production design.  Seeing this in live action though, I was also put in the mind of the art of Enki Bilal a French comic creator (and film director) whose work is best known (at least to me) for being run in the pages of Heavy Metal magazine.

I thought the visual effects were really nicely done, though for some, I know they’ll be biased against the use of CGI for the vampires and a reliance for Matrix-like techniques used in action scenes.  Personally though, I don’t mind the use of either, and as I said, I thought they looked quite cool here.  In addition, there’s a good bit of traditional animation used at the start of the film to immediately give us the history of the situation.

Priest is very nicely paced, briskly running under ninety minutes in time, without any real wasted space.  This is setting itself up as the first in a series of films, but honestly, I don’t know if it will have the chance.  We had a very small audience in attendance and with bigger releases like Thor and Fast Five out there right now, and even bigger movies to come, I don’t know if this will really succeed.  Regardless, I had a great time with it, as did the friends of mine who I saw it with.

As mentioned above, the cast is headed by Paul Bettany as Priest ad he serves the part well, with the right intensity but also with being believable in the film’s stylized action scenes.  He’s given some solid support with actors Cam Gigandet and Maggie Q.  Gigandet plays Hicks, the sheriff of the settlement who also has a personal stake in this.  Maggie Q plays the part of Priestess, who’s first assigned the duty to bring in Priest back to the Church, but as things unfold she joins him o his mission.  There’s some nice solid work from Brad Dourif, Christopher Plummer and Alan Dale for strictly set-up purposes.  Karl Urban plays the villain of the piece, known as Black Hat, and I’m just continually impressed by him with each part I see him in and he doesn’t disappoint me here either.

I chose to see this movie in 3D.  When I first saw the trailer for the movie it was in 3D and being promoted as being “shot in 3D” that certainly helped seal the deal for me.  Overall, I think the 3D is pretty good with this film offering up some real depth in scenes as well as doing a few in your face effects.  It does suffer some in some of the darker scenes.  Seeing this in 3D isn’t essential to your overall enjoyment though, and while I don’t regret seeing this in 3D by any means, I won’t give it a blanket recommendation either.  I liked it, but I wasn’t blown over by it.  As an aside though, the theatre that I saw this at, part of St. Louis’ Wehrenberg chain, had just added another 3D room, which of course was the one that we saw Priest in.  We actually had the pleasure of talking with one of the Wehrenberg higher-ups who was there to check everything out and he gave us quite a bit of insight into Wehrenberg’s plans for that particular theatre.  This was thoroughly fascinating to say the least and I certainly think it added to my overall enjoyment of the evening, but I digress…

Priest won’t change anyone’s world when it comes to it’s overall effect in the end, but still it is a fun diversion that’s very well made, looks great and has some solid performances.  I hope it does well enough for sequels, but I’m not holding my breath.  It’s good B-Movie fun though, and for that, I certainly recommend it.

Kenneth Branagh was definitely the right man for the job for directing Thor.

Ever since Marvel started their own film adaptations, their choice of directors for each film have certainly been interesting.  Neither Jon Favreau or Louis Letterier would’ve been the first guys to come to mind to helm Iron Man and Incredible Hulk respectively.  Joe Johnston, who’s directing Captain America coming in July, is a little more obvious choice, thanks to a lot of his previous movies with their special effects drive.  Joss Whedon, who’s doing next year’s Avengers is the only one so far that is overtly obvious, being a huge fan favorite for his previous genre work.

But Kenneth Branagh on Thor? On paper, with his Shakespearean background (which includes the film adaptations of Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, my personal favorite, his four-hour epic version of Hamlet, and non-Shakespearean films like the thriller Dead Again and the Coppola-produced Frankenstein), he certainly seems interesting, but would he get it?  Would he be able to come in and make a big-screen adaptation that could capture the awe of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s work and still retain some humanity?

Oh hell, yes.  He certainly gets it and I just hope this isn’t his only time to get to handle the character.

Thor tells the story of this god of Norse Myth, who in his arrogance and defiance of his father, Odin, is cast out of the fabled realm of Asgard and sent to Earth to learn a lesson in humility.  While on Earth, Thor meets with a small team of scientists, led by an astrophysicist named Jane Foster in who he finds an almost immediate attraction.  Upon being cast out from Asgard, Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir is also sent to Earth where no one can lift it, thanks to a spell put on it by Odin.  The Hammer becomes an object of definite interest to the secret organization known as SHIELD.  Now, Thor must retrieve his hammer and all the while, his brother Loki plots to take control of Asgard.

Now I have top admit, out of all of Marvel’s characters, Thor wasn’t always a big favorite of mine.  That changed when writer/artist Walt Simonson took over the comic back in the early 80s, and later I started to develop a better appreciation for him, in particular the earlier works by the aforementioned Stan Lee and jack Kirby.  This movie combines a lot of previous comic book elements to cast a new origin of sorts for Thor, though to be honest, I have no idea of what really counts for his origin in the comics these days.  There are some things here I could certainly quibble with (primarily Jane Foster being an astrophysicist and Loki not quite being as initially malevolent as I’ve known him to be), but overall, I think Branagh and company have presented something that could be palatable to both comic fans and non-comic fans.

Where Branagh really shines for me is when he’s dealing with Thor on Asgard.  This might be the closest I think we’ve ever seen, or could hope to see, the grandeur of Jack Kirby’s artwork translated to a live-action movie.  From battles with Frost Giants to the climactic battle with Loki, Kenneth Branagh looks like he’s having a great deal of fun creating this world.

Now it’s not perfect, there’s a few plot holes here and there and on a personal level, I would’ve liked to have seen more of the look of the comics show up here with some brighter yellows in some of the costuming and more use of Thor’s winged helmet.  But other than the plot holes, that’s a personal preference and doesn’t really affect the overall look of the movie.

Branagh skillfully weaves in other factors of this Marvel Universe being created for film and sets the huge scale for Thor. But it wouldn’t matter a lick if it’s title character wasn’t appealing.  Chris Hemsworth plays Thor and he carries this movie and does it quite well.  His Thor is both arrogant and charismatic and as this story progresses, he starts to display some real humanity as well.  Hemsworth is really a guy to watch and look forward to seeing what he does next, not only with Thor but with other movies as well.

He’s backed up with a huge cast which includes Oscar-winners Natalie Portman as Jane Foster and Anthony Hopkins as Odin.  Portman has a real infectious drive as Foster, but more importantly she has great chemistry with Hemsworth, making their attraction quite believable.  Hopkins has great presence as Odin, and there’s nothing really wrong with what he does here, but I almost would’ve preferred to have seen someone like a Max von Sydow in the part, as I just think his booming voice would’ve played better.  But still, Hopkins does good, solid work here.

Stellan Skarsgård and Kat Dennings play the parts of other members of Jane Foster’s team and they’re both good, with Dennings getting the funny lines (though they’re not obnoxious by any means).  Clark Gregg keeps the continuity with the other Marvel films as SHIELD Agent Coulson.  On the Asgard side, Idris Elba is a real standout for me as Heimdall, the guardian of the “bridge” Bifrost.  Elba is just as stoic as can be and with that, you get the idea of real power behind this defender.  Jaimie Alexander plays the warrior woman Sif and Josh Dallas, Tadanobu Asano and Ray Stevenson play the Warrior’s Three, Fanrdral, Hogun and Volstagg.  These four are solid support for Hemsworth and certainly eat up their parts.

The only bit of casting that I have a little issue with is with Tom Hiddleston as Loki.  Now, to be fair, Hiddleston doesn’t really do anything wrong here at all and certainly plays out to the vision of Loki that this film has.  That vision though is not necessarily the one I’m used to from the comics.  I’m used to Loki being a touch more sly and arrogant than what Hiddleston gives off here.  Now he does get there by the film’s end, but I would’ve liked to have seen a little more of that from the start.  I think someone like an Adrien Brody might’ve pulled that off a little better.  This isn’t meant as a slam on Hiddleston at all, just a personal preference based on what I know of Loki through the comics.

Thor is currently being shown in both 3D and 2D.  I opted to see this in 2D. I’ve seen a 3D version of the trailer and just wasn’t impressed by it at all.  As dark as the film gets in some places, I’d almost expect that the 3D would just fall flat.  And further, this wasn’t filmed in 3D so that certainly left me very wary of the whole thing.  Before our showing of Thor started, I peeked in to one of the 3D rooms at our theatre showing this.  It was a large room, with maybe fifty people or so in to see it that way.  By contrast, our 9:15 showing of Thor had almost four times the amount of people in to see it.  Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come with movies that just have the 3D tacked on.

Another note, do not walk out as the end credits begin to role.  As has been the case with the other Marvel movies, there is another scene at the end and this one is major in the set-up to The Avengers.

Thor is a whole lot of big fun.  While it’s not the same sort of fun that I had with Fast Five, it’s no slouch either.  Kenneth Branagh clearly gets it and delivers another facet to this expanding universe of Marvel films.  This has a star-making performance from lead Chris Hemsworth and his support is very, very solid.  The look of the movie is fantastic and I was left in awe of what Branagh did with Asgard.  if this is a sign of things to come, I cannot wait to see Captain America in July and I certainly hope Branagh gets the chance to fly with Thor again.  Highly, highly recommended.

Following the events of the fourth movie in the series, Fast & Furious, Dominic Toretto once again finds himself facing a very long prison sentence.  As before, this doesn’t last long.  Dom’s sister, Mia, and his former adversary, now ally, former Federal Agent Brian O’Connor stage a daring escape putting all three once again on the run.

The trio have made their way to Rio de Janeiro and soon find themselves having to take a major car theft job.  In the process of the theft, DEA agents are killed and the blame is given to the Torettos and O’Connor.  They’ve obviously been framed and now seek out revenge against the man who framed them, crime boss Reyes, who controls Rio and has most of the police in his back pocket.  They plan a major heist to take 100 million dollars from Reyes and in order to do that properly they need to assemble a team.  All of this needs to be done while dodging the attempts of a ruthless federal agent, Luke Hobbs, who’s in full pursuit.

That’s the basic premise to Fast Five, the latest film in The Fast And The Furious series and the third time out for director Justin Lin.  I imagine that when some saw the trailers for this, there were a lot of eye rolls, oh no, not another one of “those” movies.  Well, not from me, I absolutely love these films and was very much looking forward to Fast Five. Justin Lin and his terrific cast and crew did not disappoint me in the slightest.  Fast Five is terrific fun.

Oh sure, I’ll grant you that they’re over-the-top and not the most complicated of affairs out there.  That’s OK, they’re pure entertainment always filled with some terrific stunt work and very comfortable characters who their audience enjoys returning to.  You get that in spades with Fast Five, and with this movie, the franchise is making a transition from not just being about the street racing culture but also incorporating heist film elements.

The stunt work is incredible with the capper being an amazing 20-minute chase through the streets of Rio involving nearly 200 cars without any overt CGI involvement.  But it’s not all about the chase.  There are real advancements of character here, and all of the characters who are part of this team get their due.

Justin Lin has really matured as a filmmaker with Fast Five. This is the longest movie in the series weighing in at 130 minutes, and Lin doesn’t waste a moment of screen time.  It’s paced just right with plenty of action and the right amounts of subtle comedy and character in-between.

Fast Five has a great cast.  Returning, of course, are Vin Diesel and Paul Walker as Dom Toretto and Brian O’Connor respectively.  These guys are rock solid here and it’s obvious watching this that their relationship has matured.  Jordana Brewster also returns as Dom’s sister and Brian’s love interest, Mia, and she also adds a new element to the mix.  In addition, we’ve got a slew of returnees from the previous films to make up the team.  These returnees include Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Matt Schulze, Sung Kang, Gal Gadot, Tego Calderon and Don Omar.  All of them get their moments to shine, but the best of the bunch is Tyrese Gibson who gets off some genuinely funny lines throughout the movie.  This is a good group and to me the only thing missing is Lucas Black from the third film in the series, Tokyo Drift. I certainly hope eventually they see fit to get Black back in the series, and the opportunity certainly looks like it could happen.

Joaqim de Almeida plays Reyes, the villain of our piece, and it’s certainly nothing new for him.  My own first exposure to de Almeida came with the Tom Clancy film, Clear And Present Danger. While he doesn’t quite have the depth here as he did in that movie (and others since), his presence alone still gives the part credibility.

New to the series is Elsa Pataky who plays a rookie Rio cop Elena who’s tasked with helping the federal agents in pursuit of the team.  She even has her own back story that’s pretty well established here and leads to further involvement with Dom Toretto.  And of course, there’s Dwayne Johnson who is just terrific as Luke Hobbs.  It is so cool to see Johnson back in these straight-up action films.  He’s hard-edged and imposing in every scene he’s in.  I’ve heard that there’s the possibility that they might spin him off into his own movie after this, and that would be great, I’d certainly pay to see that.  But, it also looks like he’ll be involved with the sixth film in this series as well.

Yes, already a sixth is in the planning stages.  If you’re planning to see this film, then stay through the end credits because we do get one more scene tacked on which sets up the next movie and brings back two more characters from the previous films.  This was icing on an already delicious cake and already I cannot wait for the sixth movie in the series.

Fast Five is just a fantastic piece of total entertainment.  If you’re a fan of the series, you’ll probably have a great time with this.  It’s all there, amazing car stunts, engaging though simple characters, and a well-paced and packed story.  If you’re one of the eye-roillers, I doubt I can ever convince you that Fast Five is a great movie.  Still, I and the group of friends that I saw this with, had a terrific night.  If you’re a fan of this series, you don’t want to miss this.  Highly, highly recommended.

I really was not planning to see this.  When I first saw the trailer to Super, it looked to me like it was going to this geek reference comedy with Rainn Wilson doing his thing from The Office, which had become extremely tired for me (I quit watching The Office a couple of seasons ago).  Even knowing that this was written and directed by James Gunn, who has previously made Slither which I had a good time with, wasn’t enough.

What made me want to see it was the recent review that Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and Christy Lemire gave it on Ebert Presents At The Movie. Their review convinced me that there was more to Super than what it’s trailer gave off, and it certainly intrigued me enough to want to seek this out when it came to St. Louis.  Awhile back, I’d posted on a messageboard about one of the original iterations of At The Movies going away, and it was followed by someone talking about the idea that the concept for this show was going the way of the dinosaur thanks to the internet and the barrage of reviews that you can get through that.  I thought that was just kind of sad.  Yeah, sure, you can get reviews all over the internet for everything, but they’re faceless, they have no sound or inflection and unless it’s someone you trust completely, they’re all over the map.  Of course, there’s a lot of good reviewers out there on the internet, who you know you can completely trust, just due to their consistency.  But with that said, nothing will ever really replace for me the idea of an actual television show devoted to it.  I can’t begin to tell you how many movies I was opened up to by actually seeing and hearing intelligent conversation thanks to the various iterations of At The Movies. Sorry for the long digression in the midst of this, but I can’t push Ebert Presents At The Movies enough.  You may not agree with every review in the end, but the one thing that it does have is a consistency of voice and intent.  To me anyway, that’s invaluable in deciding what to see.

But back to Super. This opened here in the St. Louis area this past weekend at one of my favorite theatres in town, the Tivoli.  When I heard it was coming, this got fast-tracked for me right away, thanks to the above.  I saw this last night, and think it’s one of the best movies that I’ve seen so far this year.

Frank D’Arbo is seemingly just your average ordinary guy who at the start of the film tells you about the only two perfect moments in his life- marrying his wife Sarah and pointing out to a policeman where a criminal went.  Frank’s devoted to Sarah, but Sarah’s got a past history of substance abuse.  That history begins to catch up to her when she gets involved with a slick guy named Jacques.  In a matter of days, Jacques leads Sarah back to her old ways, and soon she out-and-out leaves Frank, leaving him hopelessly distraught.  Frank’s at the end of his rope and doesn’t know what to do until a divine vision comes to him.  This vision inspires Frank to become a costumed crimefighter named The Crimson Bolt and from there, the inevitable hijinks ensue.

As I said above, writer/director James Gunn is best known for 2006’s Slither. But before that, he had a long association with Troma Studios, known for their low-budget, extremely over-the-top exploitation films.  A lot of Super is a flat-out salute to those movies, but there’s a lot more to this as well.  It’s really difficult to pin any sort of singular label on this movie.  On it’s surface, it looks like it’s going to be a broad comedy, when in it’s actually an extremely black comedy.  With Rainn Wilson’s presence, I at least originally had the feeling that he was going to be of one note, but he goes to some places emotionally that are extremely dark, so this could also carry the label of being a psychological investigation.  And then there’s the whole super-hero element that initially gets compared to Kick-Ass, but combined with other factors more puts this on the same plane with what I think Sucker Punch was trying to achieve.  The difference being that Super actually does achieve it.  The end result, to me anyway, actually has more in common with Taxi Driver more than anything else.

Oh, there’s certainly some broad comedy, and it’s not ineffective.  It’s also not what this will be known for, that gets overshadowed by the very dark overall tone and the extreme violence within.  The violence is quite graphic and feels “real” and that is certainly something to keep in mind if you decide to see this.  That factor alone is something that could be a huge turn-off for someone coming in and expecting this to be like what I’d originally thought it was going to be.

Gunn’s Troma roots are certainly on display in the shooting style.  The look of the film feels like there was a lot of guerilla filmmaking going on while shooting this, and it definitely works.  It’s authentic feel makes the evident darkness even more pronounced.

There’s even more to it than that.  Other highlights include a terrific animated opening sequence, a very Troma-esque way in which Frank gets his divine vision, and a great score from composer Tyler Bates.  I’d mentioned Sucker Punch above.  Sucker Punch does something with it’s ending that tries to flip the whole thing that just doesn’t work primarily due to just not being set-up that well.  Well, Super does the same sort of thing, but when it happens it’s not forced and it does still come back to Frank, making for quite the poignant ending.

The big revelation for me here though was Rainn Wilson.  This isn’t Dwight Shruite by any means.  Frank is off-balanced, to be sure, but he’s also, at least to me highly relatable.  He’s had his life turned upside-down, with one of his perfect moments tarnished.  He externalizes a lot of pain that I know I can certainly relate to.  Those scenes might at first seem a touch over-the-top, but I thought they were very honest and certainly made him to be a much more sympathetic character than what I had originally expected.

Liv Tyler plays Sarah, and Kevin Bacon plays Jacques.  At first, the big question looms, how does someone who looks like Liv Tyler get involved with a guy like Frank?  Another movie might be very superficial with something like this, but James Gunn actually goes there and tells you how.  Tyler shines in these scenes, and again, it feels honest.  Kevin Bacon is very slick and right off the bat you know that Jacques is going to be this sort of scum that everyone has come across in their lives in their own way.

Ellen Page plays Libby, a comic book store employee who helps Frank get on his track and later becomes his “kid” sidekick, Boltie.  I tend to think that Ellen Page is one of the best young actresses out there today and seeing her in Super further supports that.  As unbalanced as Frank is, there’s even darker stuff at work for Libby, she’s just not as cognizant of it as Frank is.  Page is quite good at subverting that making this part something that has more in common with the first movie I saw her in, Hard Candy.

The casting also includes some other nice touches.  Veteran actors Gregg Henry, Michael Rooker and Nathan Fillion (all also in Slither) have key roles here and play perfectly into Gunn’s big picture.  Other nice acting touches include William Katt (from TV’s The Greatest American Hero as an on-screen police officer and Rob Zombie as the voice of God.  Their appearances are really brief, but very nice winks to the intended audience.

Super is a terrific movie and just this extremely huge surprise.  It’s not for everyone, for instance if you’re a parent who’s seen the trailer and think that this will be something your children will enjoy, you just might want to hold off.  It’s dark tone and extreme violence could also be very off-putting to some, so I can’t give this a blanket recommendation.  But if you think you can get into the combination of blacker-than black comedy, psychological unbalance and a very big heart, then you might find something very special with Super.  I know I did.

Hanna is a 16-year old girl who lives with her father in the wilderness.  They’re totally cut off from everything, including not having electricity for their home.  That’s fine by Hanna’s father, a former secret agent named Erik Heller who’s purposely keeping Hanna from the rest of the world.  But one day, he knows that his girl will want to see the world around her, and because of that, he relentlessly trains her to be most deadly with both weapons and hand-to-hand combat.  The day has come, and Hanna wants to leave, but in order for her to truthfully go and deal with the world around her, she’ll first have to deal with the very thing that her father has been training her for, a ruthless CIA agent named Marissa Weigler.

Hanna is the latest movie from director Joe Wright, who has previously made movies like Atonement and Pride and Prejudice, neither of which I’ve seen, though after seeing Hanna I should probably re-consider that, even though I know they’re not along the same lines as Hanna, which at it’s core is an action film, and those aren’t.  That’s basically telling you that I enjoyed Hanna quite a bit.

As this starts, I sort’ve get the feeling that I’m seeing what I’d first expect to be what you might get if Lars von Trier made Batman, but as it progresses, it feels more along the lines of a deeper action film from director Luc Besson by way of the The Brothers Grimm.  Now The Brothers Grimm are very much an influence on this film, in both subtle and not so subtle ways.  I don’t necessarily know if Besson and von Trier are influences on Joe Wright, but as far as I’m concerned, if I’m using them to compare, I’m paying a huge compliment to Wright.

Hanna is terrifically shot and features some really nicely done set pieces.  It’s all punctuated by a first rate techno music score from The Chemical Brothers which really adds a little something extra to the whole thing.

That wouldn’t matter if you didn’t have a strong story and well-drawn characters to carry the whole thing, and fortunately Hanna has both.  Writers Seth Lockhead and David Farr pack quite a bit into this, not just giving us a strong action film but also a good coming-of-age story.  While there’s certainly elements of this that are things that we’ve seen done before, the way it’s all mixed together feels surprisingly fresh.

Saoirse Ronan plays Hanna and while I know she’s been in other movies (Atonement and Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones) this is my first big exposure to her.  She’s certainly a talent to watch and I know that upcoming she’ll be in The Hobbit.  Her Hanna is both resourceful and innocent, and her presence is quite remarkable.  Eric Bana plays her father Erik Heller, and Bana does a real nice job here with some great intensity and really gets to shine in a couple of key action set pieces.  Cate Blanchett plays Marissa and I think she’s just wonderful in this, obviously having a great time playing a villain.  Tom Hollander plays an outside operative, Isaacs, hired by Marissa to take care of Hanna, and like Blanchett, you can tell he’s having a great time with this part.

In addition, Jessica Barden, Peter Flemyng and Olivia Williams play members of a British family who Hanna comes across in her travels.  They expose her to a life that she really can’t have and really shine later in the film after Marissa has come into contact with them.

Hanna is really solid entertainment.  Though there are familiar elements, it’s all put together in a way that feels surprisingly fresh, to me, largely due to it’s use of The Brothers Grimm and a terrific score from The Chemical Brothers.  Cate Blanchett really shines in a terrific villainess part and Saorise Ronan is definitely a star in the making.  Don’t miss this one.

A school teacher named Sean Fentress wakes from a disturbing sleep on board a train.  He’s sitting across from his friend an attractive woman named Christina Warren.  Christina’s engaging Sean in some banter, but he’s hugely disoriented.  He believes himself to be an Air Force Captain named Colter Stevens and with immediate memories of being in combat.  He scurries about the train, trying to figure out why he’s there, all to Christina’s amusement.  Then, within moments, the train explodes.

This same man then awakens within some sort of capsule.  He’s being addressed as Captain Colter Stevens by an officer on the other end of a communications station named Collen Goodwin.  Goodwin is asking Stevens about his mission and whether he’s found the bomb that is onboard this train.  Stevens is just as confused about his situation now as he was moments ago.  He’s being informed that he’s about to be sent back to the train and as it was previously, he only has eight minutes to find out what he can.

That’s the opening sequences in the newest movie from director Duncan Jones called Source Code. Previously, Duncan Jones made the excellent low budget science fiction film Moon with a tour-de-force performance from actor Sam Rockwell.  With Source Code, Jones shows us that lightning does indeed strike twice.  This is the best movie I’ve seen this year thus far.

Though my description of the opening is vague about all that’s really happening, Jones and writer Ben Ripley, do indeed reveal all as this unfolds.  They do it in such a way that only little bits and pieces are revealed as the movie moves along, always keeping their audience on their toes.  This is a hard science fiction movie that never talks down to it’s audience right up to it’s very surprising ending.

I’d expect that the budget for Source Code is quite a bit more than it was for Moon though still significantly smaller than other Hollywood movies.  Regardless of that, this looks terrific.  It’s very well shot and it’s pace is extremely brisk.  The action is all punctuated with a terrific score from composer Chris Bacon who right from the start almost seems to be channeling the late great Jerry Goldsmith and Bernard Herrmann.  This score makes this feel like Source Code would be the sort of science fiction movie that Alfred Hitchcock would make, if he made science fiction films.

That’s high praise indeed, and I think Jones and his crew deserve every little bit they can get.

When he made Moon it offered actor Sam Rockwell a chance to really put his skills to work.  Jones has a bigger cast with Source Code and while they don’t necessarily get the same chance that Rockwell had with Moon they’re still excellent here.

Jake Gyllenhaal leads the cast as Colter Stevens and he’s fantastic.  Stevens is smart and charismatic and we want him to win the day.  That’s all to Gyllenhaal’s credit.  Michelle Monaghan plays Christina and the way she plays her, it’s obvious from the start why Colter Stevens would be attracted and want to do all he can for her.  Vera Farmiga plays Goodwin and I’ve been a big fan of her’s for awhile now, ever since seeing her with Paul Walker in Running Scared. She does not disappoint her playing an obviously disciplined officer who still becomes wrapped up in Stevens’ plight.  Jeffrey Wright plays Dr. Rutledge, the creator of the Source Code system. Wright handles the part with cool confidence.  One nice little extra in the casting is Scott Bakula as the voice of Stevens’ father during a brief phone conversation.  As what’s really happening to Stevens becomes revealed, this little bit of casting is a nice nod to fans of Bakula’s old television series, Quantum Leap.

I absolutely loved Source Code and look forward to seeing it again down the road.  Source Code is smart and engaging science fiction with surprises at every turn and terrific performances from four actors at their prime.  I can’t wait to see what Duncan Jones does next.  Don’t miss this…

As this movie begins, we see the 20-year old girl who becomes known as Baby Doll on a theatrical stage, which immediately shifts over to her “real” life in presentation.  She’s frightened because her mother is at death’s door and she and her little sister are looking at spending their lives with their wicked stepfather.  Baby Doll’s fears are realized and her stepfather is livid over the idea that the girls stand to take everything from their mother’s inheritance.  He lashes out and intends to inflict sexual harm on the girls, but Baby Doll fights back, inadvertently killing her little sister in the process.  With the police on his side, the stepfather has Baby Doll committed to an asylum where he has signed papers to have her lobotomized.  With five days remaining to her before the procedure, Baby Doll attempts to escape using the power of her imagination.

That’s a pretty simplistic overview of the set-up for Sucker Punch the latest movie from visionary director Zack Snyder.  Now I’m a big fan of Snyder’s, I’ve loved all of his previous films which include the re-make of Dawn of the Dead, and adaptations of Frank Miller’s 300, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen and Kathryn Lasky’s Guardians of Ga’Hoole adapted as Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole. They’ve all been very entertaining rides extremely true to their sources and so for me, Snyder has been batting a thousand…

… and stee-rike one!  Well, to be fair, it isn’t a total loss, there’s a lot to recommend about Sucker Punch and good portions of it that I did find extremely entertaining and I expect for a certain audience range, they’ll think this is pretty special.  To some extent, they’re right to do so, though I expect that all depends on how much you want this to weigh with it’s narrative as opposed to it’s flash and style.

A popular thing to do with music these days is the mash-up, merging together two songs for something that will be effective.  Sucker Punch is the ultimate mash-up movie.  From the start, to me, it looks like Snyder is mashing together filmmaking styles like those of Jean Jeunet and Dario Argento.  This shifts over to a mash-up of genres from samurai movies, to fantasy movies to war movies to science fiction movies to anime to psychological drama.  In the big picture sense, it could be seen as a mash-up of a high-powered action movie with a musical thanks to it’s effective use of songs.  To a comic book fan, I’d describe this as Danger Girl creator J.Scott Campbell’s version of Shutter Island.

On this level, Sucker Punch succeeds wildly as sensory overload.  The action sequences occurring in Baby Doll’s mind are absolutely spectacular and one of them in particular involving Baby Doll and friends assaulting a train filled with killer robots is about as good as an action sequence gets.

Where this falls apart though is in it’s narrative, but again, that’s only if that’s going to be that big a deal to you.  it was for me simply because with a few more scenes, this could’ve been filled out to actually have that make sense in it’s own way.  Baby Doll, obviously a female, tries to find her escape through her imagination.  Only her imagination is that of a twenty-something male who plays a lot of video games and reads a lot of comics and fantasy fiction.  Now I know that may sound entirely sexist, but without any sort of set-up, that’s just how it comes off. Some sort of scene showing Baby Doll embracing these male fantasies near the start could’ve gone a long way to making this make sense, but as it is, it doesn’t.  At the same time, I don’t necessarily think that’s a major concern of Snyder’s either.

The end of the film, literally the sucker punch the title refers to basically comes at you from left field.  it’s really hard to go into this without spoiling it, and I don’t want to spoil it.  But again, a little more set-up into that could’ve gone a long way to making that a lot more effective.

Finally there’s Baby Doll and the other girls.  While in the asylum, Baby Doll builds a friendship with four other girls, Sweet Pea, Rocket, Blondie and Amber.  The actresses involved, Emily Browning as Baby Doll, Abbie Cornish as Sweet Pea, Jena Malone as Rocket, Vanessa Hudgens as Blondie and Jamie Chung as Amber all come off as very plastic.  They’re pretty good together in the action scenes, but scenes with them “bonding” just tended to make me snicker a bit.  On the other hand though, this characterization  and their look are true to some anime I’ve seen and so on that level, I guess it does work.

What works better for me are the brief appearances by Carla Gugino as Dr. Gorski, the doctor in charge of the girls and Jon Hamm as the doctor who’s scheduled to give Baby Doll her lobotomy.  Oscar Isaac plays the orderly who’s essentially the villain of the piece, and really he just wasn’t that threatening.  Scott Glenn plays an advisor of sorts in Baby Doll’s fantasies and he certainly lends some credibility to them.

In the end, as a sight and sound experience, Sucker Punch is indeed spectacular and is about as well technically made as it gets. I’d actually like to see this again, but on a second viewing, I’d like to see it with a Zack Snyder commentary just to get into his mind about what he was wanting to accomplish with this.  As a story, it’s all pretty shallow though it tries to give the impression that there’s a lot more depth to it.  With a few more scenes, that could’ve been resolved to some extent, but as it is, I really didn’t find a lot to give a damn about when it comes to the actual characters of the piece.  This isn’t for everybody by any means, it’s a love letter of sorts to all of the stuff that Snyder is a fan of which just happens to be a lot of the same stuff that fans of genre fiction, comics and video games share.  I’ve heard some refer to it as a love it or hate it movie.  Well, for me, I was in the middle, and so this gets a marginal recommendation.

Eddie Morra is a divorced writer who’s having some trouble getting motivated.  He has a book contract to write a science fiction novel, but he can’t even put the first word down.  His current girlfriend is at the end of her rope with him and leaves him.  The world is pretty much weighing down on Eddie, and then a twist of fate occurs.  He has a chance encounter with his former brother-in-law, Vernon, on the street.  Eddie’s brother-in-law had a shady reputation as a drug dealer, but now he swears he’s legit.  Vernon has a new drug that he swears is FDA-approved called NZT.  Taking NZT allows it’s user to use 100% of their brain.  Eddie, with nothing left to use, takes the drug… and hijinks ensue.

Limitless is the newest movie from director Neil Burger, who’s best known for making the movie The Illusionist with Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Jessica Biel.  With Limitless director Burger and star (and executive producer) Bradley Cooper, deliver a pretty wild ride with something that on it’s surface might seem little more than an extended episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, and much like those TV shows, it has quite a bit to chew on, though it’s not entirely successful.

Where it’s not successful is in the fact that there are a lot of plot holes in this as the story unfolds.  The thing is, I don’t necessarily want to go into all of those because I actually do think Limitless is a ride worth taking, and some of those holes do spoil a few things.  At the same time, by the nature of a person taking NZT, a lot of those holes can be explained away, but that’s up to the individual viewer to determine if he or she wants to make that leap.  The one that isn’t easily explained away though is a section of the movie that has Eddie encountering a Russian mobster to borrow money and then have to pay it back.  There are parts here that if one looked at this logically just should not have happened, and yet they do.  To me, the only explanation for why they do is just to move the action forward and add a definite physical action element to the movie.  I think both could’ve been accomplished a little more logically, though they probably would’ve added quite a bit more to the film’s running time.

Another thing that I found just a little troubling was the movie’s ending.  Now this isn’t necessarily a bad thing in that it definitely does cause you to talk about what you’ve just seen.  The ending isn’t atypical of this type of movie, which at it’s core is a take on drug abuse.  It didn’t quite set well with me, but at the same time, I have to give Burger points on daring to go into this direction.

The final thing that doesn’t quite work with me is in the casting, but I’ll get more into that later.  Still the pluses here are huge.  Burger’s shooting style and camera tricks are absolutely amazing.  The look of this movie is really nicely done.  In particular, this really stands out when Eddie takes the NZT for the first time.  While there are holes in the story, the dialogue is first rate.  That dialogue also contributes to how a viewer can fill in some of the holes on their own, though again that all hinges on whether you want to do that yourself.  And finally, there’s Bradley Cooper…

Cooper delivers one hell of a performance here.  His transformation is highly believable and he has enough charisma to drive this movie forward despite it’s plot holes.  Cooper supplies narration throughout, and his delivery is smooth and convicted.  It’s probably the best I’ve seen him on screen yet.  Cooper’s backed up by some good supporting work, in particular from Abbie Cornish who plays his girlfriend, Lindy, Anna Friel who plays his former wife Melissa is stellar in a brief scene, and Johnny Whitworth as Vernon convincingly sets the whole thing forward.

Where it doesn’t quite work as well for me is with Robert DeNiro.  DeNiro plays Carl Van Loon, a business tycoon who Eddie Morra gets involved with.  DeNiro’s Van Loon is a pretty rumpled character who doesn’t, at least to me, appear as slick as he should.  To his credit though, there’s no mugging to the camera and the line delivery is pretty good.  Still, I would’ve rather had seen someone like a Michael Douglas or a Dustin Hoffman in this part.  DeNiro’s not a dealbreaker by any means and this is purely a personal view of him in the film, your own mileage might vary wildly.

Even with my problems with the movie, I found Limitless to be quite an engaging ride.  Smart dialogue, Neil Burger’s stunning visuals and a fantastic performance from Bradley Cooper carry the day.  The way it’s all carried through makes it’s initial premise compelling and by the end of the movie, you should be asking yourself that if offered the chance to take NZT yourself, would you do it?  I myself probably would…

It’s August of 2011 and the world is gripped by the news of groups of meteors headed to Earth.  The meteors are poised to hit 12 major populated seaport areas around the globe. The evacuation of these cities is taking place under military control and soon they reason that there’s more to this than an act of nature.

U.S. Marines Staff Sergeant Mike Nantz is a 20-year combat veteran.  Though his last mission was a success, he lost men to achieve it.  Nantz is ready for retirement and on the day before the meteor strike, he gets it, but is quickly called back into service.  He’s set to fill in for another sergeant for a group of men under the leadership of a green lieutenant.

As Nantz and his men learn of the true nature of the meteor strike, an alien invasion, they’re given a mission to rescue a group of civilians who have found shelter in a police station deep behind the front lines of combat.  Now, Mike Nantz and his men have a limited amount of time to rescue the civilians and get back to safety before bombs are dropped along the coast line of Los Angeles.

That’s the premise to Battle: Los Angeles. When I first saw the trailer to this, I thought I was seeing an immediate sequel to last year’s Skyline. Other than the idea of an alien invasion centering around Los Angeles, this is totally unrelated.  Thank goodness, I wasn’t the biggest supporter of Skyline though I do think there’s a lot of good stuff in it, but where it failed for me is that I didn’t care for it’s main characters at all.

That’s not the case for Battle: Los Angeles. Here, I did give a damn over what happened to these people.  While deep characterization isn’t necessarily director Jonathan Liebesman’s central focus, he gives you enough for most of them to make you care. With the case of Michael Hantz, he gives you a lot more. But more on that in a moment.

I just have one little gripe about the movie and that’s it.  This is primarily shot in a shaky camera style that suggests the idea of a cameraman being imbedded with the men.  For the most part, this really works for me here and in other movies, but where it didn’t work was near the beginning of the film.  Before going into combat, the movie flashes back to the day before to set up Nantz and each of his men.  I found this style of shooting a little annoying here because it really wasn’t necessary.  This is the calm before the storm and here we’re given bits and pieces about each of the men.  The shooting style becomes just a little too intrusive during this brief period.  This is a pretty moot complaint though, the set-up doesn’t take too long and the rest of the style works tremendously well with the rest of the film.

On the whole, the movie looks terrific.  It has great production design and the special effects are about as top drawer as it gets.  That terrific look gets punctuated with a great musical score from Brian Tyler.

As you’re watching this, you’ll certainly see similarities to other movies out there.  I thought it was like taking military movies like Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers and mixing them with movies like the above-mentioned Skyline or Independence Day. Is it derivative?  Sure it is, I certainly recognize that and I don’t mind it at all when it’s well put together, and Battle: Los Angeles is well put together.

Before this, Liebesman directed movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and Darkness Falls neither of which I’ve seen or didn’t really care to see, and so I wouldn’t necessarily think I was going to get something that great from him for this big film.  Obviously I was pleasantly surprised.

Aaron Eckhart plays Mike Nantz.  I’ve been a big fan of his ever since first seeing him in Neil LaBute’s In The Company Of Men. While I’ve not seen everything he’s done, I’ve seen quite a bit of it and Eckhart always brings in some standout work.  I mention In The Company Of Men because in that, Eckhart plays about as vile an individual as it gets.  With Battle: Los Angeles he goes to the other end of the spectrum to play what I think is his most heroic role to date.  Eckhart was always my pick to play Marvel Comics’ Captain America on the big screen, and Battle: Los Angeles shows he would’ve made a great one, but I digress.  Mike Nantz is the most fleshed-out character in the movie, and though he does have this heroic exterior, Eckhart is a strong enough talent to show you that there’s more to the man than just that.

The trailers that I’ve seen for the film only show Eckhart clearly in a few brief moments.  He’s not the big push for the film, that belongs to the special effects and big action.  I actually think it’s a good way to push it, that will be a clear draw for the audience going to see this and further, I hope they’ll be satisfied with it.  They’ll be further rewarded though with this fine bit of work from Eckhart.  This may not stand out in the same way as In The Company Of Men or The Dark Knight, but still it’s a solid and grounded performance.  Hell, I’d follow him to hell and back after seeing him in this movie.

The rest of the cast is filled with some solid younger acting talent that I’m not really that familiar with, with a real standout for me being Ramon Rodriguez, who plays the young lieutenant leading this mission.  Other recognizable faces include Michael Pena and Bridget Moynahan as two of the civilians.  Pena gets a nice chance to step up to the plate as a brave father, and I wish Moynahan would’ve had  a similar type scene, just because I like her.  She doesn’t do anything wrong here and the movie isn’t necessarily wrong to not do more with her, she’s just someone who I like and would’ve liked to have seen a bit more of.  Also in the cast is Michelle Rodriguez who plays an army Tech Sergeant who joins up with Nantz and his crew on their mission.  Compared to what she did in Machete this is quite a bit restrained, but it still works.

Now even though I said that deep characterization wasn’t the focus here, that’s not to slight the cast (or the writing) by any means at all.  I think it’s evident by just how physical this movie is that there’s a tremendous amount of hard work put into this.  Further, I’ve got to hand it to Liebesman and writer Christopher Bertolini to not burden this cast with a character who would be there to deliver the snark.  You’d almost expect that with a movie like this, but it’s played totally straight and for that, I really applaud these guys.  It’s very cool to see a story about people heroically stepping up to the plate played with a totally straight face.

Battle: Los Angeles is a whole lot of big screen big fun.  It’s an intense ride that rarely lets up, but when it does, it does at the right periods and for the right amount of time.  It’s look and special effects are fantastic and it’s held together by a terrific lived-in performance from Aaron Eckhart.  Don’t miss this… highly, highly recommended.

David Norris is an energetic New York Congressman who’s now making a bid for one of the state’s senatorial seats.  David is an amiable guy, running on the idea that he’s more appealing to a younger voter and he has great plans for the future.  David’s got a bit of a past though and it catches up to him, giving him a sudden drop in the polls which of course results in his losing the election.  David wants some time alone to prepare his concession speech and quickly makes his way to what he believes to be an empty men’s room.  As he’s talking to himself and working things out, he hears a noise from a stall, and realizes he’s not alone.  An attractive woman named Elise steps out, and after they converse a bit, David is inspired.  All through this, David is being watched.

When he makes his concession speech, David comes clean with all of his supporters and talks about how his entire campaign was so focused group engineered that it got him away from showing his true self.  He’s cheered by the crowd and from there makes his way to working in the private sector.  In the background, the watchers are making sure that something needs to happen to David at a precise moment.  The watcher assigned to David falls asleep on the job, and doesn’t cause the event that is supposed to happen.  Instead, as David is getting on a bus to go to work, he suddenly comes across Elise again.  And the two strike up a further conversation both being enchanted by each other.  Now the mysterious watchers are scrambling to do what they can to fix things, because David’s involvement with Elise is not in their master plan.

And that’s the starting point of The Adjustment Bureau the newest movie starring Matt Damon and the first movie directed by George Nolfi, who’s been better known as a writer for film’s like The Bourne Ultimatum and Ocean’s Twelve. This is probably better described as a light romantic drama with some fantastic overtones.  It has a few good points, but for the most part, this just didn’t work for me at all, but then I don’t think I’m it’s intended audience either.

For me, the draw for the movie was twofold:  this was based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and it’s star, Matt Damon.  While I’ve not read the short story, I’ve managed to have a pretty good time with other movies adapted from Dick’s work.  I’ve also always liked Matt Damon and have really admired his work in most all of the movies I’ve seen from him.  So, that’s what got me in the door.

What made me want to run for the door was the way this was all put together.  The way I see it, there were three elements that basically just don’t jibe for me here. One being the passage of time and character development considering that, another being the attempts to explain the Adjustment Bureau itself, and the final just being the tone of the film.

Let’s get to the Bureau itself first, and a warning there are spoilers here, so if you want to see this cold, I’d suggest skipping the next paragraph or so.  What we’re led to believe about the Bureau is that they’re some omnipotent force that’s out there to make sure that we humans run our lives to a carefully laid out plan.  While it’s never said directly (one would assume not to offend anyone’s religious beliefs), it’s implied that the bureau are agents of Heaven who work for who they call The Chairman (who as explained in the movie, we know by many different names, but let’s just say God and get it out of the way).  The Bureau’s agents can freeze time and move quickly between destinations thanks to the cosmic placement of key doorways and the mysterious hats that they wear (which leads to the funniest line in the film, though I doubt it’s intentionally so).  But they also have a problem with water and that sort of disrupts their ways of tracking their targets.  They don’t have enough manpower to cover every single human, though they do the best they can with who they’ve figured to be the key people to keep us from screwing things up further.  And as the movie plays, we have one key scene which tells us that the plan has been rewritten once for David’s destiny.

Now if you’re sitting back and thinking about all of this while it’s playing out, you can’t help but ask a lot of questions that point to some pretty dramatic holes in the logic of the whole thing.  Part of the promotion for this movie has been calling it “more mind-bending than Inception” and at least for me, that opens the door for picking this thing apart.  Inception’s rules are clearly laid out and everything works within, Christopher Nolan takes the time to make sure they do.  Thanks to The Adjustment Bureau’s breezy nature, this isn’t concerned with making it’s rules work in a logical manner, but more in just being conveniences to make sure that Matt Damon and Emily Blunt can overcome the whole thing in the end.  The big picture isn’t the concern, at least for the filmmakers’ idea of what they think the audience wants.  The biggest question looms though, that if this is a major master plan for how we’re supposed to survive, wouldn’t you at least think that there are numerous back-up measures set in case certain key things don’t play out?  Well, that was a key question for me anyway.

Second, the passage of time and character development.  After things have been revealed to David about the Adjustment Bureau and it’s master plan, three years pass and in this three-year period, nothing at all has really changed for David as a character except that he’s getting ready to make another bid for a senator’s seat.  He’s still single-minded about Elise after what amounts to maybe somewhere between 5-7 minutes of talking and pure animal attraction.  On top of that, there’s been nothing further brought up around the idea that this mysterious group of divine figures have been following him.  David does manage to find Elise again, and this time he really does get further involved.  This escalates things for the Bureau, and now a top agent has to get involved to really put the fix in.  Once this happens, David and Elise are separated for another 11 months before they come together again.  Even though David is still single-minded about Elise, he’s managed to overcome all of his past personal indiscretions and now it looks like that senatorial seat is a lock.  To me, this sort of obsession along with what would be a grueling campaign would, I’d tend to think, drive a guy a little bonkers.  But exploring that isn’t this movie’s concern, it’s the idea that we’ve got to get these two kids together.

Finally, we get to the tone of the film.  As this starts, it all seems very light and fluffy.  The movie’s score is this sort of lyrical stuff that I’d expect to hear in a romantic comedy (James L. Brooks’ Broadcast News is what came to mind) and the dialogue and banter is all on the light and friendly side, basically it’s all very non-threatening.  That non-threatening feel though also extends to the Bureau itself.  Oh sure, they make the attempt to say that if everything fails, they (the Bureau) will make a complete mindwipe on David.  But it’s all talk, and no action like this is ever shown, which brings us back to the basic contradictions of the nature of the Bureau itself.  When the film builds to it’s climax, it tries to escalate everything so that there should be some danger present, but it doesn’t work and so I never felt there was any risk of anything at all.

Now, some might think that I’m asking too much out of this.  I don’t think so, especially considering that it is adapted from a Philip K. Dick story and it’s promotion does make the comparison with Inception. With these two factors in place, I really do think this opens itself up to dissection.

To be fair though, I do think the film has a great look.  It’s extremely well shot and the effect of traveling through these doorways to faraway areas in New York City is terrific.

In addition, I think the performances are just fine, they’re just left to the mercy of Nolfi not wanting to go into any great depth with them.  Emily Blunt (who plays Elise) certainly does a fine job, though she’s not given altogether that much to do other than just enchant Matt Damon.  Damon is certainly affable enough and he and Blunt have some good chemistry together.  Anthony Mackie plays Mitchell, the Bureau agent who’s been assigned to David and he plays this as if he’s certainly troubled by all that he has to do to keep the plan running.  Terrance Stamp plays Thompson, the higher-grade agent who has to come in after the three-year period has passed.  Though he’s very two-dimensional, his authority does come through.  The best of the cast for me though was John Slattery who plays Mitchell’s superior, Richardson.  Though I disagree with the tone of the movie, I think Slattery is the one member of the cast who does the best with trying to balance it all out.

I’ve been told by some that I just don’t have any sort of affinity for a romantic movie at all.  There’s some truth to that, but I think it’s just more that I don’t have much of an affinity for them the way they’re told today.  I mentioned Broadcast News above, and I think that’s a terrific film.  Even though I didn’t much care for The Adjustment Bureau, I don’t think that will be the case for most people who see it.  Still, I think it’s tone, it’s lack of logical character development with considerable time passage and the very nature of the Bureau itself all are contradictory to the type of fluff that I think this move is poising itself to be, that being a love conquers all film (and there’s nothing wrong with that when it’s done well).  With that said, I’d certainly like to offer up a few alternatives that deal with some similar elements.  Warren Beatty’s Heaven Can Wait and Albert Brooks’ highly underrated Defending Your Life deal with some of the same things seen here in a far more satisfying manner, and yet they don’t leave much to question at all.   For me, that can’t be said about The Adjustment Bureau.