Category: Theatrical Review

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…

(Note: The following review was ungraciously swiped from Tee Morris’ blog at www.teemorris.com.  This review is not printed by permission, but is instead published under the Fair-Use doctrine of copyright law. Specifically the ‘Triple-Dog Dare you’ portion of the law.)

Director and Writer Zack Snyder can really make a beautiful movie. Snyder set his own style with films like 300 andWatchmen, but has also come under fire for making movies that lack depth or are very “comic book” in their almost balletic approach to graphic violence. When you consider his last two films were pulling from (wait for it!) graphic novels, it makes you want to bitch slap critics. Perhaps this is why critics (and perhaps, some moviegoers) have been overly critical of Snyder’s latest film, Sucker Punch.

On reading some of these reviews, though, I have to ask “Did you see the same film as I did?” I not only loved Sucker Punch, I am here to tell you that missing this on the big screen would be a crime. It is original. It is surprising. It is intelligent.

What is isn’t is what the critics are making it out to be: Geekboy Titillation.

Now there’s no denying it: Snyder covers all of the bases in this flick. Sucker Punch offer up zombies, steampunk, dragons,  WWII bombers, and katana swordfights. And yes, all of the gunfire and swordplay is happening with women who all just happen to be hot.

Quite hot.

Smoking hot, as a matter of fact.

But the titillation critics rant on and on about just isn’t there. I didn’t find anything really “stimulating” about Sucker Punch unless you count the alternate realities where our femme fatales are kicking surrealistic asses in a variety of ways. Snyder’s signature “artistic action” sequences could hardly be described as “erotic” in their video game brutality. (And the more I think about that, the more I come to understand why Snyder’s fantasy sequences are so epic. You have to see the movie to catch it.) An episode of Sailor Moon or Bubblegum Crisis has more titillation than Sucker Punch. What shouldbe titillating — Baby Doll’s hypnotic dance that segues into her own imagination — we never see. All we see is the reaction to it, and that is really intriguing.

Before any of my female readers comment with “If this isn’t geekboy pr0n, why then are Sucker Punch’s insanely attractive women so scantily clad in the action sequences? I mean, where’s the realism? What’s with the high heels in the giant samurai sequence?” I would like to present a few visual aids to end this debate.

History tell us that this is Sparta:

Frank Miller and Zack Snyder, on the other hand, tells us that

THIS — IS — SPARTA:

This just in from Zack Snyder: “You’re welcome, ladies.”

Critics have also been making references that the principle players as “happy hookers” and “sensitive strippers.” Both of these assessments are completely and utterly wrong, and ruin the subtext running through this film. While these girls are carrying stripper names like “Rocket,” “Sweet Pea,” and “Baby Doll” (the lead), and while they are exotic dancers performing extravagant burlesque productions, they are not hookers nor are they strippers. And they’re not “happy” by a longshot. They’re sex slaves.

Let me say that again: These girls are sex slaves.

When you accept that uncomfortable fact, the whole mood of Sucker Punch changes; but from the opening — a very bleak, powerful opening telling the backstory of Baby Doll’s arrival to the insane asylum — this movie makes it clear that this is not a fun ride we are undertaking. This is the kind of darkness that makes Synder’s Watchmen look like an episode of Super Friends (the first season with Marv and Wendy…who were those kids anyway?!), and adds a sense of desperation for the girls daring to escape. Calling them “hookers/strippers with hearts of gold” really could not be farther from these characters’ dismal collected truth.

And when you consider the reality that Baby Doll is truly escaping, this tale takes an even darker spin.

That’s where I nurture a growing respect for Sucker Punch: it’s amazing layer-like quality and intelligence. Sucker Punch keeps you guessing as to where the lines of reality reside. Perhaps this is another reason why critics are coming out hard against this movie: Snyder made a geeky action movie that you have to pay attention to when watching it. This is a tale of redemption, and the lines of what is real and what isn’t are blurred just enough that when you walk out of the film, you are trying to piece together what was real and what wasn’t. Giving away any details right now would be spoilerific so I will simply say the ending completely caught me off-guard. How things play in the finale, which you discover isn’t the finale you were expecting, are a complete and utter surprise.

Perhaps this is why critics are so “angry” about Sucker Punch: They didn’t see this coming. But isn’t that the title right there? I was waiting for this movie to jump the rails. Pip was, too. It’s the morning after and I’m still waiting! Sucker Punch was not even close to what I was expecting, and I loved experiencing it on the IMAX big screen.

And concerning Sucker Punch’s soundtrack, I rank it right up there with the music from Scott Pilgrim Versus The World. Sweet crapbuckets, did this soundtrack ever rock! Props to Snyder, Tyler Bates, and producers for coming up with some fantastic covers and a Queen mash-up that gave me goosebumps!

In the age of reboots, remakes, and comic book movies, Sucker Punch is a breath of fresh air and originality, along the same lines as Inception and Black Swan. Dismiss the critics on this one, and go see it. If you can catch it on IMAX, do so as the bigger screen just makes Snyder’s composition — even the ones based in reality — breathtaking. You may be pleasantly surprised. You might walk out wondering what the hell you’ve seen, but you will be talking about it. Consider the tagline: “You will be unprepared.”

I was. Delightfully so.

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.

John Milton is a man on a mission.  He’s found that a heinous act of violence has been committed against a member of his family.  He’s on the warpath to find the man who perpetrated this act, Jonah King, the leader of a devil worship cult.  Nothing will stop Milton, but he needs help and he gets it in the form of a sexy and feisty waitress named Piper.  Piper’s about to be brutally beaten by her boyfriend, when Milton gives a hand to help her settle the score.  Their quest begins, but looming in the background is a mysterious figure known as The Accountant in his own pursuit of Milton.

That’s about as broad a description of Drive Angry 3D as I can get without filling in all of the details and getting spoilery.  If you’ve seen the trailer for this, then you know already that there is a heavy supernatural aspect as well, but I’d rather you find those full details out for yourself.

Drive Angry 3D is directed by Patrick Lussier, who prior to this has made movies like My Bloody Valentine and Dracula 2000, neither of which I’ve seen.  It’s written by Todd Farmer, who previously worked with Lussier on My Bloody Valentine and on his own was one of the writers behind Jason X (which I have seen and had quite a bit of fun with).  Farmer’s also in the movie playing Amber’s boyfriend.

While it’s nothing wholly original, there is some fun to be had here.  It’s heavily profane with ample helpings of blood, guts, bullets, sex and muscle cars.  This brings a nice “grindhouse” element to the movie, and as a fan of “grindhouse” movies, I certainly appreciated that.  As a comic book fan, it looks to me like there’s been heavy influence on this movie by something like Garth Ennis’ Preacher, and that’s not a bad thing, it just doesn’t have the chance to fully develop as what that series had, due to having to fit this big story into a small running time.  But I don’t think that’s a concern of Lussier’s or Farmer’s, they just want to get in there and have a wild, good time.  There’s nothing wrong with that as long as I have a good time too, and I did.

The story and characters are all cliches that wallow in their attitude and the atmosphere of the film.  They’re here to have fun and give us an entertaining ride and for the most part, they do.  Where this falls a bit for me is in some of the action scenes.  They’re competently done and they are fun, but they’re not as stylish and over-the-top as they could be (though don’t get me wrong, they are over-the-top, I just think they could’ve gone a little further).

It’s only late February and already I’ve seen my second movie with Nicolas Cage in it this year (the first one also being a fun genre piece, Season Of The Witch).  Cage is solid here, his character is supposed to be stoic and bad-ass, and he does that.  He won’t win too many accolades for this, but I still thought he had enough charisma to make me follow him.  Amber Heard plays Piper, and she’s terrific.  She’s keeping pace with Cage, and pretty ballsy on her own.  Billy Burke plays Jonah King and he brings a real seedy and despicable quality to the guy.  You want to see him get his in the end.

Backing them up in support, we’ve got David Morse as Webster, an old associate of Milton’s.  Morse’s purpose is more for presence as to the type of character he is and what he means to Milton.  This gets a few extra points on the cool side for putting the great Tom Atkins to work as the law enforcement leader who’s also on the hunt for Milton.  For genre fans, Atkins is one of those guys who just gives a movie a little something extra just for sheer presence alone.

The best part of the cast though is William Fichtner as The Accountant.  I’ve been a fan of Fichtner’s for quite a long time now.  Whenever I see him connected to any piece of entertainment, it always gets a little extra fun for me.  Out of all of the cast, Fichtner’s the one who just looks like he’s having the most fun on-screen.  He’s a powerful presence, gets the best lines and makes the most of any action scene that he’s in.

The 3D in Drive Angry 3D is really quite good and for being promoted as being “shot in 3D,” it should be.  Well, I wasn’t disappointed by it.  There’s plenty of depth and this does what I think a good 3D movie should do, play with it’s gimmick.  When I recently saw Sanctum, the best thing about that night was seeing the trailer for Drive Angry 3D in 3D and it really stood out (that same night, I saw the trailer for Thor in 3D as well, and while I really liked the trailer, for now, I’m going to opt to see that one in 2D when it opens, but I digress).

Drive Angry 3D won’t change anyone’s world, but it does offer up some profane, diversionary fun and it’s 3D is actually quite well done.  It could use a touch more style in it’s action sequences and had it had that, I could’ve seen this one as being something a little more special.  Still, I had a good time with it, and William Fichtner stood out to me as the film’s MVP.

Originally, this was not going to be the movie that I was intending to see this weekend.  That would’ve been Unknown with Liam Neeson.  But unexpectedly (for me, anyway), Sylvain Chomet’s newest movie, The Illusionist came here to St. Louis, and further at one of my favorite theatres in town, so I had to leap at the chance to see it.

The Illusionist is a 2010 release and something you won’t necessarily find at your local multiplex, it is an art house movie, but with absolute universal appeal.  It’s also one of the three nominated movies for Best Animated Feature Film for the 2010 Academy Awards (the other two being Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon.

Tatischeff is a stage musician whose better days are now behind him.  As this is taking place, Rock ‘N Roll music is making it’s debut and television is becoming more and more pervasive.  Tatischeff is eking out a living, playing to very small audiences.  His act is appealing to a drunken Scotsman who happens to see him performing at a wedding.  The Scotsman invites Tatischeff to come to his town to perform where he’s actually a big hit with his act.  But the biggest appeal lies with a young serving girl named Alice, who’s not just drawn to Tatischeff because of his act, but also because of great kindness that he’s shown her.

Tatischeff leaves the small village, and unexpectedly finds Alice coming with him.  Soon Tatischeff finds more work performing at a theatre in Edinburgh, where he’s also faced with not just providing for himself, but Alice as well.

Previously, Sylvain Chomet really impressed me with his prior animated feature, The Triplets of Belleville. Now adapting an original, but unproduced, screenplay from French filmmaker Jacques Tati, we have this latest film and it’s an absolutely beautiful experience.

I am not familiar with any of Tati’s previous films.  Thanks to Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of the new Ebert Presents At The Movies (an excellent show that if you’re reading this, you should be watching as well), I’ve now sudden interest in seeing Tati’s Playtime. In addition, The Illusionist itself makes reference to Tati’s Mon Oncle. Those two movies, along with Tati’s M. Hulot’s Holiday are all available on Netflix Instant Play and have all been added to my own queue.  So now, I’m very much looking forward to discovering Tati’s work for myself, and if The Illusionist is any indication, I expect I’m in for a fantastic time.

The animation in The Illusionist is absolutely incredible.  This is traditional hand-drawn, 2D animation (with some digital enhancement).  What’s amazing about it is the subtlety of character that’s here and just how much Chomet has going on in any given scene.  Traditionally with American animation, we’re used to one major focus in a scene, and while that is here, there is just as much attention paid to all of little background elements.

There is actually very little spoken dialogue in the film.  When it does come up, it’s not necessarily meant to be taken literally, but more as expressing a feeling behind a moment, and it works.  We’re drawn into the characters of Tatischeff, Alice and their relationship purely through the visuals, with the small bits of dialogue being more scene punctuations more than anything else.

The Illusionist is a beautiful, bittersweet film that amazed me not just due to it’s technical prowess, but also due to it’s characters and the life they live throughout the piece.  It has genuine moments of comedy (though gentle), pathos and is a fine example of the type of adult animation that we should have more of.  I was sad to see that we only had about ten people in our audience to see this film (though we were seeing this at a later show time) and this deserves to be seen by more.  Toy Story 3 was one of my favorite movies of 2010, and I expect it to win the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film, but I wouldn’t be unhappy at all if The Illusionist came in and took that award.  Very much highly, highly recommended.

In 120 A.D., as Rome sought to expand it’s empire to the North and the West, they encountered sizable resistance from the Picts in Britain.  Seeking to take control, Rome’s Ninth Legion with 5,000 soldiers fell before the Picts, in disgrace to their country.

In the 20 years that have passed at the start of The Eagle, it’s been established that Rome had constructed a wall cutting off this region of Britain.  Now, the son of the general of the Ninth Legion, Marcus Flavius Aquila, seeks to regain his family’s honor by taking command of a small garrison near the wall. In a battle against a Pict tribe, Marcus’ troops hold back the tribe, though Marcus suffers from an injury that then has him honorably discharged from his command.

As Marcus recuperates, he manages to save the life of a Briton slave, Eska, during a gladiatorial battle.  And though Eska despises everything that Marcus stands for, he owes him his life and swears allegiance to him.  Marcus hears that the golden eagle standard that belonged to the Ninth has been seen in the possession of one of the Pict tribes, the Seals. Recovered from his injuries, Marcus seeks to take back the eagle, with Eska by his side.

That’s the basic premise of The Eagle, the new movie from director Kevin Macdonald who has previously helmed the films The Last King of Scotland and  State of Play, neither of which I’ve seen.  This is also the second recent movie to use the fall of the Ninth Legion as it’s centerpiece, the other being Neil Marshall’s last film, Centurion, but more about that later.

Overall, I thought that The Eagle wasn’t bad, but it doesn’t really do a whole lot to distinguish itself either.  It’s pace is very leisured and in some places is just a little laborious.  The film has a serviceable look to it which gets a little more impressive as we get further into Marcus’ and Eska’s journey.  The fight scenes aren’t bad, though they are tightly cut and shot close up.  They serve their purpose and nothing more.  The best part of the film is the relationship between Marcus and Eska, but even that is on the very dry side.

Channing Tatum plays Marcus and Jamie Bell plays Eska.  Both actors look terrific in their parts and they do their best with what they have here, with Bell’s intensity as the standout between the two.  Tatum does his best to garner sympathy for his character, but it doesn’t give you the rousing drive that you want out of something like this.  Still, for Tatum, this is pretty decent work.  Donald Sutherland plays Marcus’ uncle, who we see during Marcus’ recuperation period.  His performance, as is those of the other actors playing Romans, is very casual, which doesn’t quite give off the air of imperialism that you sort’ve want out of something like this.  From what I understand though, that was a decision on Kevin Macdonald’s part to sort of buck the trend of how we normally see Romans portrayed on film.  Mark Strong also briefly shows up in the movie as Guern, a former Ninth Legionnaire, who saw the futility of the Ninth’s battle and left to survive.  Strong’s almost unrecognizable when you see him, though it almost doesn’t matter as there’s not a whole lot done with him here.

The Eagle isn’t a bad movie, it’s just average.  The pieces are there to make this a rousing piece of entertainment, but it seems to me that director Macdonald is deliberately underplaying everything.  Why?  I don’t know, maybe to keep it more grounded in reality than anything else.  That may be the case, and at the same time clips The Eagle’s wings.

Now, I also mentioned Neil Marshall’s Centurion above and I just watched that before going to see The Eagle (it’s available in high definition on Netflix Instant Play).  Now, I’m already a fan of Marshall’s, his previous films Dog Soldiers and Doomsday are just a hell of a lot of fun, and The Descent was one of my top ten favorites for 2005.  Centurion, which is very much influenced by Walter Hill’s movie, The Warriors, delivers on just about every count.  It’s beautifully shot, the action scenes are spectacular, and the performances are absolutely terrific with standout work from lead Michael Fassbender and Olga Kurylenko.  This wasn’t widely released theatrically which is a shame because it deserved to be seen on a big screen.  So basically, I offer that up as an alternative if you’re wanting to see a movie based around the fall of the Ninth Legion.  The Eagle is workmanlike and average, but Centurion soars.