Author: Darren Goodhart

In the city of Pittsburgh, an horrific mass-murder has just taken place. One lone gunman, a former army sniper, has just killed five supposedly random individuals. Thanks to quick police investigation, the shooter is soon found and identified as one James Barr. Before a proper interrogation can take place, Barr has been beaten to a point where he just can’t talk. The detective who worked this all out and the city’s District Attorney try to coerce Barr into writing his confession, but instead, Barr scrawls on the paper this message, “Get Jack Reacher.”

It’s soon discovered that jack Reacher is ex-military police and has basically taken himself off the grid, making himself difficult to locate. That doesn’t matter though as Reacher himself has watched the news,saw what has happened and once he’s seen that the suspected gunman in James Barr, he takes the trip to Pittsburgh. Reacher meets with the police and the DA, but before anything can come of it, Reacher is approached by Barr’s attorney, Helen Rodin, who just happens to be the DA’s daughter. Reacher is convinced to help Helen, and soon discovers that this case isn’t as open and shut as the police and the DA would like us to believe.

That’s the premise to Jack Reacher the latest action/suspense vehicle for super-star actor Tom Cruise. It’s also the second feature film for director and writer Christopher McQuarrie, who’s prior feature was The Way of the Gun with Ryan Phillipe and Benicio Del Toro and a film that I enjoy very much. McQuarrie is better known as the writer for Bryan Singer’s The Usual Suspects and another Singer/Cruise movie, Valkyrie which I also quite enjoy. In addition, McQuarrie was the creator of a short-lived series on NBC, Persons Unknown which had strong echoes of the classic TV series The Prisoner, and again, something that I enjoyed a great deal.

Jack Reacher is based around a book by author Lee Child called One Shot which in itself is part of a series about Reacher. I wasn’t aware of this before and I certainly haven’t read any of Child’s books, though I’ve heard that the character himself is quite a bit physically different from Tom Cruise. When I first saw the trailer for Jack Reacher, after doing the obligatory bad joke (“Reacher? I don’t even know ‘er!”), I thought that it looked pretty run-of-the mill, but I like Cruise and I mentioned my appreciation of McQuarrie’s prior works above, and so I was interested in seeing it. For me anyway, this turned out to be mixed bag.

I actually think the plot is a terrific idea and on a technical level, the film is beautiful. The first few minutes of the film which sets everything up with no dialogue at all is quite riveting and has you paying attention to the details. The way the film is shot, it emphasizes strong visual storytelling and it’s all punctuated with a terrific score from composer Joe Kraemer. On the down side in the technical aspects, this runs a little too long and could’ve easily benefitted by having about 15-20 minutes cut and/or shaved from the movie. One of the best scenes in the film, a terrific car chase that echoes the movie Bullitt, is hampered by a terrible ending, which has Reacher walking out from the moving car and then sauntering over to the crowd to blend in- it goes for a cheap laugh, but it’s hardly what really would happen in this situation.

Where the film really falls a part for me though is with it’s main character, Jack Reacher, himself. Reacher comes into this as a total enigma, but seemingly, he has all the answers and just projects an air of invincibility. There’s nothing wrong with that if your character is handled in a bit of a mythic way, but that’s not the case here, as Reacher is pretty quick to make his comments, have all the answers right in front of him and do it all without raising a sweat. He’s pretty much a costume short of being Batman and that, to me anyway, just doesn’t seem to fit here. Cruise is certainly intense in the part, but it all just seems a little too one-note in his intensity.

As the movie progresses, Reacher is sort of sexually “teasing” Helen Rodin, who we believe is supposed to be a competent attorney, but thanks to Rosamund Pike’s performance is pretty wide-eyed and acts like it’s her first day on the job. I’ve liked Pike in other films and I figure she’s doing what’s asked of her here (and she looks terrific), so I don’t want to come down to hard on her, but this part doesn’t exactly do her any favors.

Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo play the DA and Emerson, the detective who works this all out, respectively and both are extremely solid in their parts. Less so are director Werner Herzog, who plays actor here as the villain of the piece, known as The Zec, and Robert Duvall, who’s brought in late in the game as Cash, the owner of a shooting range that Barr has frequented in the past. There’s a lot of promise in Herzog’s villain, but unfortunately, he’s only given a couple of scenes in order to play that out and it just doesn’t come together for me as it should. Duvall, it just seems to me is brought in to play another one of his “folksy” type of parts. That’s not meant as derogative, Duvall’s done great work in the past with these parts, but here he’s just played a little too fast to be convincing as the type of person who’s going to just go out and help Jack Reacher based on Reacher’s word alone.

I thought Jack Reacher was certainly watchable in the end, and I certainly admire the fact that McQuarrie is trying to make something here that echoes movies of the 60s and 70s, but due to it’s characters, it just didn’t satisfy me the way that it should. Reacher’s invincibility just doesn’t leave this open to any sort of suspense or any sort of real danger for it’s main character at all. As I said above, I haven’t read any of the books, and so I don’t have any sort of affection or prior knowledge of them. If you’re a fan of the series, then this very well may be satisfying for you but for me, I thought it was only average at best and think there’s better things out there right now that are more compelling to see.

60 years before Frodo Baggins goes on his epic quest with the wizard Gandalf and the Fellowship of the Ring, his uncle, Bilbo, went on a similar journey. The young Bilbo Baggins, living his life of predictability and leisure in The Shire, is invited by the wizard Gandalf to join a group of dwarves lead by their prince, Thorin, in a quest to take back their home from the dragon Smaug. On this epic quest, Bilbo first encounters Gollum and the ring of power, that of course starts an even greater story already told by director Peter Jackson in his epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey marks Peter Jackson’s return to the world of Middle-Earth and is the first in another trilogy of films that seems a bit much at first, but if the following films are made with the same great care and zeal as this first one, then I know I certainly won’t mind making my own journey to theatres to see them.

To be honest, it’s literally been decades since I first read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit so I’m a little fuzzy on all of the details being right in this first part of the adaptation, but they certainly feel right. Bilbo’s first encounter with the party of dwarves as they gather in his home seems right on the money with what I remember, as does their meeting with the trolls and Bilbo’s first encounter with Gollum. These are truly magical moments in the film, in particular Bilbo’s meeting with Gollum and it was truly wonderful seeing them all brought to epic life.

Jackson’s film is, as expected, utterly gorgeous, looking like it’s bringing to life the paintings of The Brothers Hildebrandt. It’s visual effects are truly amazing and I have to admit to always being amazed at just how Jackson and company show the size relationship between Gandalf, the Elves, the Dwarves and the Hobbits and keeps it all seamless. I didn’t see the film in it’s 48 frames-per-second version, but I did opt to see it in 3D and I thought the 3D worked out extremely well for the film, more bringing a huge sense of immersion more than in-you-face effects. Composer Howard Shore has returned to the series as well and his music for the film certainly adds to the picture’s drive and scope.

I do think it’s run-time is a little bit too long, seeming to me to drag the most when Gandalf has his meeting with Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman in the Elven land of Rivendell. But honestly, it’s a moot complaint, and when the action picks up, it really is a thrilling ride.

Returning from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, you have Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Sir Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis and Christopher Lee all reprising their respective roles, and of course, they’re all spot-on perfect with McKellen and Serkis being the real standouts amongst the returnees. The greatest addition to the new cast is Martin Freeman playing the younger Bilbo Baggins. At first it might seem that maybe Freeman is going to bring a little too much of his comic sensibility to the part, especially in the early scenes, but as things progress, you start to see a few more facets that he brings to play. When Bilbo decides to join the company on their quest and runs through The Shire, saying “I’m off to have an adventure!” (I’m paraphrasing), it’s genuinely infectious and you can’t wait to see what happens next. To me anyway, it seems that Freeman is sort of combining aspects of the prior performances of both Elijah Wood and Ian Holm in this younger version of Bilbo making it even apparent why Frodo is Bilbo’s favorite nephew. It’s truly a terrific performance from Freeman and I cannot wait to see how he advances further in this new trilogy.

Other new additions that stand out for me are Richard Armitage as Prince Thorin, Ken Stott as Balin, and Jekyll star James Nesbitt as Bofur amongst the dwarves. It’s also a real pleasure to see former Doctor Who, Sylvester McCoy in the movie as the wizard, Radagast, bring a lot of life and energy to the part. Really, all of the new cast are truly wonderful, but these are the standouts for me anyway.

So, we’re off to a great start with this return to Middle-Earth. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is really quite a bit of fun to experience and though it does drag a little in a couple of places, it’s quick to pick back up with it’s thrilling action and terrific characters, especially with Martin Freeman in the lead. While I chose to see this in 3D and totally enjoyed it, I don’t think it’s necessary to experience it that way (though I have to admit, I’m certainly curious to see it in it’s High Frame Rate version)), though I also don’t think it hurts it in the slightest, as long as you’re receptive to 3D- if not, then just go see the 2D version and you’re still bound for a terrific film. Very much recommended…

As our movie starts, it’s 1959 and Alfred Hitchcock’s North By Northwest is seeing it’s premiere to resounding success. As Hitchcock and his wife, Alma, are leaving the premiere, Hitchcock is asked about his age and maybe now should be the time when he steps down from directing as he goes out on a high. This sparks something within Hitchcock; an urge to re-invent himself with his next movie, though for the moment he’s stuck for what that next project will be. Hitchcock finds himself attracted to Robert Bloch’s newest book, Psycho which is all about the grisly case of mass murderer Ed Gein. He’s bound and determined to make this his next film, over objections from nearly everyone around him, including the head of Paramount Pictures. What follows is the story of how Hitchcock made Psycho and re-invented the horror genre, all while facing problems that he was starting to have with Alma.

That’s the nutshell premise to Hitchcock from director Sacha Gervasi. It’s a pretty good film overall that to me seems more at it’s best when it’s dealing with the making of Psycho than when it deals with Hitch’s and Alma’s personal situation (as well as Hitch’s obsession over his leading ladies).

I’ve not read the book this is based on (Stephen Rebello’s Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho) so it’s hard for me to say if the personal scenes between Hitch and Alma are actually accurate. They come off as more theatrically broad than the vision of Hitchcock that I personally have and just sort of seem very forced. There’s a scene that involves Hitch having his own frustrations, walking out to his swimming pool and seeing the mess that it had become. Hitch takes a net for cleaning the pool and starts to swing it around in a way that just comes off as cartoonish. Maybe this did actually happen, but for me it just sort of seems to force dramatic histrionics on the man. The movie places heavy importance on Alma’s contributions to Hitchcock’s career to the point where it almost seems to undermine Hitch’s own genius. For some, this might be right on the money, but for myself, it was more of a distraction more than anything else.

Even with that said, it’s still a pretty entertaining film, and Anthony Hopkins as Hitch and Helen Mirren as Alma do their best to elevate this specific material beyond the TV movie level. To me though, this is way more entertaining when it deals with the actual making of Psycho and scenes around this are real gems. Scenes showing how both writer Joseph Stefano (Ralph Macchio) and Anthony Perkins (James D’Arcy) got their jobs are absolutely terrific as are scenes that deal with such things as the infamous shower scene and Hitch’s dealings with Paramount to get the film made.

For the most part, I think Hopkins does a pretty decent job with the part (though my own first choice might’ve been to have someone like Paul Giamatti play the part). Hopkins really shines with scenes that have Hitch interacting with Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) and Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), but more on them shortly. Mirren’s Alma, is a little more glamorous than what I’ve perceived the real Alma Reville to be. She seems more at home in the scenes that she has with Danny Huston who’s playing writer Whitfield Cook, who wrote Strangers on a Train for Hitchcock, than she does with Hitch himself. That’s certainly by design for this film’s purpose, but as I said above, it doesn’t exactly seem right.

For me, the real surprises in the cast are Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel. Johansson’s Janet Leigh is spot-on perfect and she catches your attention every time she’s on screen. I’ve not exactly been the biggest fan of Jessica Biel in the past, tending to think that she’s been more miscast in parts that I’ve seen her in, but here, she’s quite the revelation in her portrayal of Vera Miles and as far as I’m concerned she holds her own with Johansson and just demands your attention when she’s on screen.

Even with my problems with the film, I still thought it was pretty entertaining and certainly well worth seeing. Hopkins and Mirren do good work, though it’s somewhat stunted by the TV movie aspects of the portrayal of their relationship. Hitchcock is at it’s best though when it’s dealing with the actual making of Psycho itself, and within that, you’ll see some very cool moments highlighted by stellar performances from Scarlett Johnasson and Jessica Biel. If you are a fan of film history and more a fan of Hitchcock (my own personal favorite movie of all time is Hitchcock’s Vertigo), then this is certainly worth viewing, though you may want to just wait until it hits cable or streaming rather than run right out to theatres to see it.

Pi Patel has led an interesting life; born to a family who runs a zoo in India, Pi has always been curious about religion and finding the soul in all things, including the animals. Financial problems start to plague his family and they’re forced to sell their animals and hope to begin a new life in Canada. Disaster strikes though as the ship that they’re traveling on is capsized. Pi manages to survive on-baord a lifeboat with one other inhabitant; an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.

That is a real simplified description of the premise to Life of Pi the latest film from celebrated director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) and there really is much, much more to this than that, but I don’t want to say too much more because really, Life of Pi is something that demands to be experienced in theatres- this is a terrific movie and certainly right up there with Lee’s best.

I can’t claim to have read the novel this is based off of, but I’ve heard it described as “unfilmable.” Well, Ang Lee has certainly risen to the challenge and has given us something that’s absolutely beautiful, thrilling, funny and life-affirming all at once. Visually, Life of Pi is a true masterpiece, with moments that are just indelible on the mind. Right from it’s opening credits to the very end, this is pure visual spectacle. That alone would be enough to recommend the film, but fortunately there’s so much more with it’s compelling story of survival and self-discovery and absolutely terrific performances from newcomer Suraj Sharma and veteran actor Irrfan Khan as the teenage and adult Pi.

While those two performances certainly stand out, I have to give Lee credit with his casting of Gautem Belur and Ayush Tandon as Pi at ages 5 and 11 as well. All four actors play this part seamlessly and make this quite convincing that this is one person at different ages in his life. That alone would be enough as far as good performances go, but Lee has really stepped it up with what he’s done with the tiger, Richard Parker. From what I gather, the tiger is mostly computer animated, but they’ve really created a character here that’s as much a driving force in the film as Pi himself. It’s an amazing achievement and again, it deserves to be seen on the big screen.

And when you’re seeing this on the big screen, make sure you opt to see it in 3D as well. Lee has taken the 3D and really made it very much part of the experience. It’s more than just “in your face” moments (though it does have those). It truly immerses you in Pi’s experience and just enhances the film thoroughly.

Oh there’s so much more I want to say about this, but really I think it’s best that you go and experience this first hand. I’ve given you the basics, but there’s so much more going on here that If I say anything further, I tend to think that I’m going to spoil it and I certainly do not want to do that. Life of Pi is a very special movie that’s certainly deserving of all the accolades that it’s been receiving. Don’t miss this one…

In Spokane, Washington, returning Iraqi war vet Jed Eckert, is watching his impulsive young brother Matt play in a football game. There’s a little discomfort between the two brothers, but before any of it can be resolved, their town and the United States as whole finds itself being invaded by North Korean forces (with a little assistance from the Russians). Now, the two brothers begin to lead a ragtag team of other teens as a terrorist force called the Wolverines in order to free their town.

That’s the premise to Red Dawn, a remake of the 1984 film from director John Milius, and the first time effort for director Dan Bradley, who’s best known for his stunt coordination work. I have to confess, I’ve never seen the original movie- oh, I’ve always wanted to, but somehow or another I just never got around to doing it, so unfortunately, I can’t really make any comparisons to the original. As it stands though, this new version is a fairly passable time-waster that has a lot of potential, but just seems content to run everything by the numbers.

One plus that I was quite surprised about was the initial prologue to the film which basically goes into a little detail of how this is about to happen and unbelievably, it actually does set it up with the current US administration in mind. Now it doesn’t really do anything with that after the prologue, but I was quite surprised to see them actually tie this all in to current events. After that, this pretty much advances by rote- inspirational speech from the war vet, montage scene of all the training, initial successful attacks by the Wolverines, all peppered with little young adult relationship building moments in-between. There’s no big surprises here, but it’s still pretty watchable.

For the most part, the cast here is pretty good. Chris Hemsworth plays Jed Eckert, and even though this was made before Thor and The Avengers, Hemsworth already displays strong presence. Josh Hutcherson (Peeta in The Hunger Games) plays a bookish type who learns to adapt and has the big rallying moment during a Wolverine attack. Adrianne Palicki and Isabel Lucas play the girls of the group and are mostly there to give romantic moments for both of the Eckert brothers. They’re all serviceable performances and certainly keep things moving.

Two performances that I’ll call out belong to Josh Peck and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but for different reasons. Peck plays Matt Eckert and it’s an “OK” performance, but I just have a hard time buying that he and Hemsworth are brothers- it’s more a physical thing that anything else, and this might’ve been better served had Peck and Hutcherson each played the other’s roles. Things start to spice up a little bit when Jeffrey Dean Morgan comes into play as a Marine named Tanner who’s seeking out the Wolverines for help. Even in a smaller part like this, Morgan is money in the bank and certainly brings a little more gravity to the part just by sheer presence alone.

Red Dawn isn’t a horrible movie by any means, but it doesn’t do much to really stand out either. Like I said above, I haven’t seen the original, but I certainly know of it, and actually do think that it’s a ripe film to re-make, but maybe re-making it as a feature film might not have been the best way to go. Doing this as a television series could’ve been a better route, at least on an artistic level and certainly would’ve had more opportunities to try some things that wouldn’t be just “by the numbers.” It’s a watchable movie, just as I said, but there’s other things out there right now that’s more compelling to see in theatres than this re-make of Red Dawn.

Adapted from the novel by David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas tells six main stories across a period of several centuries. Those six stories involve:

A young man from a wealthy family who’s life has been changed by what he’s seen with slavery.

A vagabond composer/musician who seeks to find love and make the music of his life.

A crusading journalist who’s uncovered corruption with a nuclear power company.

A publisher who’s found himself in trouble through his debts.

A serving class woman who could be the key to an uprising in a dystopian future.

A tribal leader in a devastated future who’s haunted by his own demon for cowardice in letting his brother be killed.

Though they are all separate, they are also all interwoven showing us that we’re all connected whether it’s through the smallest acts of kindness or the greatest moments of catastrophe.

That’s the premise of Cloud Atlas, a thrilling epic ride across time brought to us by an equal epic teaming of directors; Lana and Andy Wachowski (the Matrix series, Bound and Speed Racer) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The Princess and the Warrior and Perfume) The six stories aren’t told as separate pieces, but instead are all interwoven together with timelines changing after each scene. It might be a little disconcerting at first, but pretty quickly it does indeed all gel together. Maybe the best way to think of this film is like a cosmic version of Lawrence Kasdan’s Grand Canyon or Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia. While it’s message might be obvious, i don’t really find anything wrong with that. Every now and then, we sorta need this type of film just to remind ourselves that we’re all part of a bigger picture.

It’s definitely an ambitious production, and some might even think pretentious. I don’t necessarily mind a little pretension if the heart and drive is there, and it’s definitely there throughout every aspect of the film. Though it’s two separate directing units, so to speak, it’s pretty seamless in it’s presentation. Cloud Atlas runs nearly three hours long but thanks to some extremely skillful editing it moves at a breakneck pace, though it still gives you the chance to soak it all in. The production values are high and quite beautiful and equally complimented by an emotional score from Tykwer working with Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek.

The greatest thing that Cloud Atlas has going for it besides it’s directorial vision is an absolutely amazing ensemble cast that literally plays parts in every single story told through the film. Tom Hanks and Halle Berry lead this cast as it’s biggest names, but the film isn’t all about their characters, though each plays six different characters in the film. I watch Hanks in this in particular and not only do I admire his performances, but just give him all the credit in the world for putting himself in the hands of these directors to use him in ways he’s never been used in before on screen. This cast doesn’t stop with Hanks and Berry; it also includes Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw Keith David, James D’Arcy, Xun Zhou, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon and Hugh Grant, all at the very top of their games here. I was particularly impressed with Broadbent, Weaving, Sturgess, Bae and Grant- really enjoying seeing Grant play so against type in almost all of the sequences. It really is a cast to die for and they’re all committed to seeing the directors’ vision shine through.

The one criticism that I can certainly understand that some might have is the obviousness of the make-up with some of the players. In some instances, the make-up is totally seamless while in others it is obvious, though I tend to think that some of that is by design as well, basically to make those certain characters stand out just a bit more. Just a word of advice though, stay through the end credits because each actor is actually shown along with their credit and shown in all of their appearances through the film. When you see this, you’ll see some instances of the make-up that will truly astound (for me, it was Hugh Grant as the Kona Chief).

Cloud Atlas is indeed a sprawling epic in the truest sense. It’s message may be obvious, but there’s nothing wrong with that when it’s presented with this amount of heart and conviction, and underscored through a truly lavish production. Cloud Atlas is a movie that demands to be seen on a big screen to truly appreciate it’s scope. It’s a meaty and lengthy piece, but it moves at an extremely brisk pace and by it’s end… well, I kinda hated to see it come to an end. I was ready to sit back down and watch it all over again. It’s one of those movies that I think will reward even more on re-viewings and be the sort of thing that you’re going to want to re-visit every now and then. Highly, highly recommended… don’t miss this one.

It’s the fall of 2011, five years after both Katie and the baby Hunter disappeared at the end of Paranormal Activity 2. Our new setting is Henderson, Nevada and we meet a new family, father Doug, mother Holly and their kids, teenaged daughter Alex and the youngest son, Wyatt. They seem to be a normal family, though the marriage has hit a stale point, but still nothing out of the ordinary. That all starts to change when new neighbors, a mother and son, move into the neighborhood and then weirdness happens.

That’s the broad premise for Paranormal Activity 4 the latest film in the franchise from producer Oren Peli and directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. I make no bones about it; I’m a huge fan of the franchise and so I was certainly looking forward to seeing this one. I thought this was a lot of fun, but the franchise is starting to show it’s age and it might be time for Peli to consider wrapping this one up.

As has been the case with all of the Paranormal Activity movies, this is in the “found footage” horror sub genre. As has also been the case with each film in the series, some new tricks have been brought into play, with this one making extensive use of phones and computers to record the footage as well as using an Xbox Kinect to help give a particular neat effect to some of the scenes. I love the “found footage” sub-genre just due to it’s sheer immediacy of action as well as how it makes you scan every little bit of the screen to keep you on your toes. There’s no problems there at all.

Now also like the previous films in the series, this new one adds a little bit more to the bigger story, though you really won’t see that addition until the very final scene, but still it’s a big one and it certainly expands the scope of these films (and even further, there’s another scene after the end credits as well). But even with that expansion, I think the formula here is starting to show it’s wear and it might be time to start to think to put a bow on this series and wrap it up. Where this new installment falters for me is in a couple of areas. First, the daughter Alex and her friend Ben set up the house with the computers recording the footage. The next day, they check the footage and certainly see that something has happened, but that seemed to me like the last time that they did that, even though stranger things started to happen on subsequent evenings. If they’re consistently checking it, then they should be more driven than what they seem to be in this film and thus trying to tell anyone what exactly is going on. If that was happening that would certainly lead to Alex’s parents finding out more, but here they’re just played as being thick and not much concerned at all. Sure doing these things would’ve probably deprived the filmmakers of a few cheap scares in the film, but I think it also could’ve added to the tension. As it is, even though the scares are cheaper, they still work, but nowhere near as effective as the prior three movies… until you get to the final scene anyway, and for me that made it a little more forgivable, but not much.

The performances are all pretty good here, even if it’s by rote. I mentioned the parents above, and I can’t really fault what either actors Stephen Dunham or Alexondra Lee do here, that fault is more in the script. Of course, this wouldn’t be a Paranormal Activity movie without Katie Featherston in it and so I’m certainly happy to see her here and would like to see her in more features as well (beyond Oren Peli’s projects- Featherston was also part of the cast of ABC’s The River also from Peli).

My suggestion; let’s wrap this series up with the just announced fifth film. We’ve got all of this “found footage” and now let’s put this in the hands of some professional paranormal investigators (or even TV paranormal investigators) and put a new spin on this beyond it’s domestic settings. That’s what I’d do, but I doubt that will happen. These films are very cheap to make and their profit is considerable given their cost. I love the series, and enjoyed this latest chapter, but still the wear is starting to show and it would be better for the series to go out with a huge bang rather than get staler with potential sixth and seventh films.

So even before I get into any of this, a little disclosure is in order. I’ve never read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and I only know it mostly from reputation. My main interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism is mostly secondhand. That comes from being a huge comic book fan and in particular a very huge fan of comic creator, Steve Ditko, who’s best known for being the co-creator of Marvel’s Spider-Man. Ditko is an extreme devotee to Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, and his devotion started to show in work that he did for Charlton Comics in the late 60s, primarily through his creation, The Question. Once Ditko left Charlton with editor Dick Giordano to go to DC Comics, some of these themes continued in his creations of The Creeper and Hawk and Dove. They really came to the forefront though in Ditko’s creator-owned work, first and foremost with his creation Mr. A. Ditko’s passion for this philosophy is unbridled in his creator-owned work, and even to this day it continues in the small press projects that he self-publishes with editor Robin Snyder. This philosophy runs counter to that shown in most comics today and for a lot of readers out there, it’s stilted and old-fashioned. Personally speaking though, I find it admirable that Ditko is still out there doing his thing even though it goes either unnoticed or just plain deemed as crazy by the majority of the comic readership. When I was younger and reading these works, I have to admit, I didn’t quite get it, but as I’ve gotten older and have come back to them, I have to say, they do “speak” to me.

I’ve tried to take the time to better understand Rand and Objectivism, and for the most part, I think I get it and agree with most of it, though some of it’s finer points have run counter to certain events in my life that I won’t go into here. For those that are true scholars of Objectivism that might read this, well, I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, so my review here could certainly be full of holes.

I was curious to see Atlas Shrugged: Part I after seeing it reviewed (negatively I might add) on Ebert Presents At The Movies. I’ve since seen it twice thanks to Netflix, and actually enjoyed the movie though it’s not perfect by any means. In brief, the time is 2016 and the United States has fallen into major economic collapse. Increasingly high gasoline prices have made railroad travel the most affordable way to move about the country. The leader in the field is Taggert Transcontinental run by siblings James and Dagny Taggert. James is more of a figurehead leader willing to do the bidding of the government while his sister, Dagny, is more the driving force that keeps the railway going. Dagny is being forced to use an inferior grade of steel, but rejects that in favor of wanting to use a new metal developed by steel magnate Hank Reardon. Reardon is keeping the secret of the alloy’s development to himself which sparks jealousy amongst his competitors and in turn is denounced by the government as being inferior. Dagny knows better though and enters into a partnership with Reardon to keep the railway going and successful despite government meddling. Dagny and Hank’s relationship moves beyond a business partnership as both see each other as kindred spirits. All the while, in the background prime movers of industry, science and the arts are mysteriously disappearing with a key phrase connected to each; “Who is John Galt?”

Now there is of course way more to this than what I’m describing, it is after all adapted from an 1,000+ page novel, so of course there’s way more going on in the background and way more facets to each character than what I’m simply describing above. My main complaint with the first film is that it’s a little too short considering the themes that it’s dealing with and the amount of set-up that it has to do. But still I think there’s a certain amount of fire and energy to it that I found very attractive as well as the performance by actress Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggert. The first film was a tremendous flop at the box office, and I think that’s a shame but also understandable. I honestly didn’t think that a Part 2 was going to be coming, so obviously I was quite surprised when I heard it was coming this past July.

With Atlas Shrugged: Part II the film’s producers have an increased budget allowing for a little more in the way of production design (and these are considered low-budget films by Hollywood standards) and I think it’s got a good look to it. But, they’ve also had to re-cast the entire film and none of the actors from the first film are in the second with one little exception; that being actor Graham Beckel who played oil industrialist Ellis Wyatt in the first film and only showing up here as a photo image shown on a newscast after his mysterious disappearance at the end of Part I. For the most part, I think the new cast actually works better than what the original did, with one exception and that being Samantha Mathis who’s now been cast as Dagny Taggert. Mathis’ performance here is serviceable but she just looks tired in the part, though some of that is entirely understandable due to the nature of things that happens to Dagny’s character. I understand that it was just going to be impossible for the producers to get Taylor Schilling to reprise the role and that’s a shame (though Schilling can also be seen real briefly in another new movie this weekend, Argo where she’s seen at the end as Ben Affleck’s wife). I do think that Mathis does the best that she can, and if she’s retained for Part III I’d expect a more memorable performance by the end.

Two improvements to the new cast though are Jason Beghe as Hank Reardon and Esai Morales as Francisco d’Anconia. Beghe in particular stands out to me. In the first film, Hank Reardon is described as a ruthless businessman and you definitely get that more here than what you got from Grant Bowler in the first film who’s way more affable there. Beghe’s Reardon is a tough guy who’s definitely firm in his principles and it’s especially on display when the character is put on trial for defying government orders. Esai Morales is definitely more effective than Jsu Garcia was in the first film and I couldn’t even begin to imagine Garcia giving the driving delivery that Morales does to Beghe during another key moment in the film.

Atlas Shrugged: Part II is directed by John Putch, who’s best known for directing a variety of different TV shows. Putch keeps this moving at a pretty even clip and the feel to building something even bigger permeates through the whole movie. One scene in particular that was both very effective and even a little scary to me involved the Head of State (the new term here for President) handing out an overwhelming new directive that effectively changes the way the country does business and for the worse. The biggest compliment that I can pay to Putch though is that by the time he gets to the film’s conclusion, I was immediately ready to see Part III. Now as to the down side, even though I do agree with a lot of the new casting choices, I can also see that as being disconcerting to those that greatly like the first film and speaking of that, I think it’s also an absolute necessity to see the first movie in order to truly appreciate all that’s going on here. Putch does his best with Part II to make it accessible, but I only think it will be that way to those who can really appreciate the source.

One thing that I find refreshing here is the positive portrayal of business magnates. For most Hollywood movies, big business is the big villain, with the only real difference being in the portrayals of the main characters in the super-hero movies (those being Anthony Stark in the Iron Man films and Bruce Wayne in the Batman movies). Characters like Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon are to me anyway, Stark and Wayne without the costumes.

In the end, I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged: Part II even more than the first film and now just hope that Part III gets made. Even without having read Rand’s book, I tend to think that her philosophy is accurately represented in these films. In my day job, I’m a graphic artist and illustrator and I tend to take great pride in my work and strive to get even better with it all the time. The principles of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy “speak” to me in this way, and as such, so does this film. Even though this is opening in more theatres than the first film, I still expect this to be seen as a commercial failure though I’m keeping my fingers crossed to see the answer on screen to the question, “Who is John Galt?”

As our story begins, it’s 1979 and the Shah of Iran has been given political asylum and angry Iranians are beginning to storm the United States embassy in Iran. Right as the embassy is being taken over, six embassy employees manage to escape to the streets of Tehran and manage to find their own asylum in the house of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. What followed of course was the hostage crisis that lasted a staggering 444 days. These six managed to make it out of Iran thanks to an incredible plan from CIA exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez. That plan involved the idea of using a faked movie production for a science fiction film called Argo and this movie, named after the fake movie, tells that amazing story.

Argo is the third movie from director (and star) Ben Affleck, who blew me away with his previous film, The Town and he did it again with Argo. This is a terrific film and even though you already know the outcome, the ride getting there is absolutely compelling and as told by Affleck, still keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Affleck’s attention to detail is just staggering and really on display during the film’s final credits when you see comparison photos of scenes from the movie and from real life. His style here is much more in line with the style of a film made in the 70s, keeping the performances (for the most part) very low key and the action all told more through pure visuals more than anything else. One key scene, the scene in which Mendez gets this idea is absolutely amazing and as a fan of the classic Planet of the Apes films, just stuck with me.

When this moves a way from being low-key, it’s just as compelling but with total purpose and that’s more when Mendez moves into the Hollywood world to make sure that his cover story is absolutely flawless. Mendez’s first move is to get in touch with legendary Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers (really well played by John Goodman), who was known to do some work for the CIA. From there, Chambers puts Mendez in touch with producer Lester Siegel, played with gusto by veteran actor Alan Arkin. Arkin’s Siegel feels absolutely right- he knows he’s in an impossible situation, but also knows it’s his duty to do what he can to help, and thanks to Arkin’s performance, that help also involves giving this movie some much appreciated lighter moments, but nothing that takes away from the gravity of the situation.

As he did in The Town, Affleck is the lead here as well, but his performance is extremely muted and generous in the extreme, with Affleck more than willing to give his co-stars their chances to shine. It’s just terrific work on Affleck’s part and it’s terrific to see this maturation that he’s made in his career. The great Bryan Cranston plays Jack O’Donnell, the CIA official who brings Mendez into play. Cranston’s terrific here, especially near the end of the film and the chemistry that he shares with Affleck is spot-on.

I’ve already mentioned both John Goodman and Alan Arkin, but also want to make note of the performance by three of the actors playing the embassy employees. Standing out for me were Tate Donovan, as the leader of the group, Scoot McNairy as a member of the group who’s very hesitant to go along with Mendez’s plan, and Clea DuVall, who was almost unrecognizable to me in her part, but felt totally authentic. Key amongst these was McNairy and again, that will become real obvious during some of the final scenes of the film. I’ve also got give Affleck Kudos for using some of the great character actors out there in some smaller background roles- guys like Zeljko Ivanek, Titus Welliver, Keith Szarabajka, Bob Gunton, Philip Baker Hall- you’ve seen these guys in all sorts of movies and TV shows in the past and their presence here just adds credibility to the whole movie. For you comic book fans out there (and believe me, I was really surprised to see this), veteran actor Michael Parks plays the storyboard artist for the fake movie Argo, and while he’s not mentioned by name in the movie, he is mentioned in the credits and that was legendary comic book artist Jack Kirby. That just blew me away even further to find out that Kirby was involved with this, even if he was unaware of the big plan.

Argo is an absolutely terrific night at the movies. Ben Affleck is showing us that he’s truly a director to watch and as an actor, he’s just getting better and better. The attention to detail is terrific, the story is totally compelling, the performances are all first rate and Ben Affleck keeps it all moving at an even clip. Argo is thrilling and I can’t wait to see what Affleck does for his next directorial effort. Highly, highly recommended!

If you’ve read any of my past reviews about “Found Footage” horror films, then you already know that I’m a huge fan of this sub-genre. Now I’ll certainly grant you that they all haven’t been winners, but I love the immediacy that they bring as well as that sense of always seeing something in the corner of your eye. I think this style of filmmaking is very effective with the genre and thanks to the success of movies like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield, it’s definitely here to stay.

I guess it was only a matter of time before someone made an anthology film with this subgenre and now it’s here with the release of V/H/S. The best way I can think of to describe this is think of George Romero’s film Creepshow made for the YouTube generation.

This starts with the premise of a group of criminal misfits who’ve been hired by an unknown third party to raid a desolate country house in search of a rare video tape. This group of guys record everything they do, so naturally they take their cameras along. Once they get to the house, they find a dead body, a hub of old TVs and a supply of video footage with each one more stranger than the next. Within this framework, V/H/S tells five separate stories ranging from a crime of passion to tales involving cultists, vampires and aliens, each one all told in the “Found Footage” format.

I enjoyed all of the stories for the most part. Director David Bruckner’s story “Amateur Night” mixes amateur POV voyeur “porn” with a highly effective take on the vampire genre. Ti West (the director of the terrific film House of the Devil) give us the second story “Second Honeymoon” and I honestly admit, I did not see it’s ending coming at all. Director Glenn McQuaid gives us “Tuesday the 17th” which is a pretty nice twist on the classic slasher genre. The collective group of directors known as Radio Silence tells the story “10/31/98” which follows a group of four decent guys going to a Halloween party with decidedly unexpected results. I enjoyed all four of these a great deal and really thought they did a nice job of taking the classic formula of horror stories told in old EC Comics and translating them to the modern video format.

Less successful for me was Joe Swanberg’s “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger” which uses a format of computer video calling to tell it’s story and Adam Wingard’s “Tape 56” which is the “glue” for this whole piece. Swanberg’s piece is certainly twisted and it’s format worked fine, but there were aspects of it’s story that just defied logic. Now with that said, I certainly realize that there’s probably aspects of all of the stories that do that and some you can just go with and others stand out to far. This one stood out too far especially when physical things started to happen to one of it’s leads and you just had to wonder why she didn’t then go seek out proper medical attention. Wingard’s “Tape 56” just seemed to me like it wasn’t edited into this properly. It’s story comes to an end, which then should’ve been the end of the film, but then the film went on to tell Radio Silence’s story “10/31/98.” “Tape 56” just need maybe one or two more scenes along with a bit of re-working in the final edit to make this more the capper to the whole thing.

Even with these qualms, I still enjoyed V/H/S quite a bit, but I can only recommend this movie to fans of this sub-genre. If you’re not already into this style of filmmaking and you’re put off by shaky handheld camera films, then more than likely, you’ll absolutely hate this all the way through. But for fans of the sub-genre, I think it’s a lot of fun and certainly worth seeing. Even further, I hope these guys do it again. Along with this movie, we got to see a special preview of another upcoming horror anthology called The A,B,Cs of Death a collection of 26 stories from 26 directors with this preview spotlighting a story called “D is for Dogfight.” This was extremely riveting stuff and I’m absolutely looking forward to the final film.