Defiance

***1/2 Stars

Defiance is a fantastic film, one that reaps the benefits of historical accuracy to the advantage of professional filmmaking. Since The Last Samurai, Edward Zwick has become a misunderstood and unappreciated director. How this film received mixed reviews is beyond me.

The first thirty minutes of Defiance is a masterpiece. It introduces the Bielski brothers, a Jewish family whose parents were killed by the driving Nazi regime during World War II. Following moments of revenge and emotional lapses, the brothers are forced into the Belarusian Forests, where they join Russian resistance fighters and endeavor to build a village in order to protect themselves and thousands of other Jewish survivors. Tuvia (Daniel Craig in top form) the eldes of the brothers, Zus (an electrifying Liev Schreiber), and Asael (Jamie Bell) use their strong bond for one another to push their survival towards a distant and optimistic end.

Zwick never takes us out of the woods and keeps with the survivors on the ground. Now this doesn't mean the film itself is flat by any means. We are trapped with the characters on a level of isolation, trying to break the surrounding sense of evil. The Nazi's come from the outside in, viciously attacking the Jew's without warning. You will feel for ever death and weep for every loss. Defiance translates to the screen as a story of community and entangled loyalty that has echoed throughout world history.

The film demands your attention to the details of cultural interactions as humans face the verge of unprecedented extinction. It flirts with Hollywood antics (the final battle scene feels a bit staged) but it never reduces itself to formula. Zwick pushes entertainment into an incredible story, creating a film of continuous praise that it has yet to receive.

Gran Torino

*** Stars

Clint Eastwood has picked the perfect role for his final acting performance. Playing Walt Kowalski, he nostalgically gives homage to all his past roles. This is what Dirty Harry would be like if he retired in a modern American suburb.

While Eastwood's showcase is a complete success, it also brings out the failures of Gran Torino too. The film is all Eastwood and nothing more. All supporting performances are mostly weak and the subplots tend to linger. This is really just a film to celebrate Eastwood's remarkable career.

With that, I am saddened that Eastwood missed out on a Best Actor nomination for his performance as Walt. It's as strong of a portrayal that he's ever given. And hell, the man is pushing 80 years old and I know he can still kick my ass. Along with yours.

Walt is a racist old fart who spends his days fixing things and drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon. After the passing of his wife, Walt is alone in a neighborhood that's no longer his. He is surrounded by other ethnicity's, one's that he has, to put nicely, never been particularly fond of. Let's just say I learned a lot of new curse words from this film.

He soon befriends his young Asian neighbor, Thao, who tries to steal Walt's Gran Torino for a gang initiation act. He puts him to work (not by choice, Thao's sister insists) to fix things around his house. Throughout their relationship, Walt begins to realize that times have changed and he is nearing his end.

Gran Torino is a study of cultural differences and the maturity of modern society. The rise of gangs around this neighborhood is an eerie image of a forceful flood of violence venting into their unwanted territories.

I very much liked Gran Torino. I liked it's ability to stay grounded inside an isolated area, I adore Eastwood's performance, and I even liked Walt's philosophical conversations with a young priest. It's too bad though that I didn't love this movie. Was it because of my high expeectations? Probably. But come on, I can't think of anything less when it comes to one of the greatest icons in film history.

The Wrestler

**** Stars

The Wrestler is the best film of 2008.

I thought Revolutionary Road was a lock for the #1 spot, and although its equally worthy, The Wrestler is something we have never seen before. Not only does it have the greatest performance of the year (the comeback of Mickey Rourke) but it is also one of the most emotionally involving character studies I have ever seen. This is proof that director Darren Aronofsky (one of my favorite directors, obviously) has the ability to shift from flashy visuals to character substance without any signs of uncertainty. The Fountain was the best film of 2006 and The Wrestler is the best film of 2008. Darren, you amaze me.

This is the portrait of Randy "The Ram" Robinson (real name Robin Ramzinski), a fictitious professional wrestler nearing the end of his career. When he has a heart attack after a brutal match, he is forced to retire. Through this, Randy begins to question his existence and reclaim what he lost during his years as a bad father and mediocre friend. He asks himself how after all his ups and downs, he finds himself living alone in a trailer park. Wrestling is the only thing he knows and the only place (the ring) he can truly live. The most brutal parts of this film are not the violent matches, but the emotional journey back to a life he cannot control.

Marisa Tomei is fantastic as Cassidy, a stripper and Randy's only true friend. As the two interact, we learn that there is more to Cassidy than just a stripper looking for money. Both of these characters are real humans dealing with real life issues and Aronofsky displays them as the utmost, down-to-earth characters you will see all year. Not one scene is wasted or faltered, which allows viewers to forget that they are watching a movie. Even the low budget of this film gives authenticity to the actors in it.

Rourke does more than just emotional acting here. Before principal photography, Rourke trained for four months to learn how to wrestle and embody the stamina a wrestler faces during every match. Every move he makes in that ring is an astonishing feat in physical acting. Combining physicality and emotional brutality, Rourke has a lock for an Oscar nomination and if everything goes the way it should, his first Oscar win.

When Randy says this line to his daughter he abandoned years prior (played wonderfully by Evan Rachel Wood): "I'm an old broken down piece of meat and I deserve to be all alone, I just don't want you to hate me," I immediately knew that Mickey Rourke as Randy "The Ram" Robinson was giving the performance of the year, his career, and a lifetime. The Wrestler is an odyssey, one that stands the test of time in every person that has gone through the pain of being unable to rediscover the nostalgic memories that we all desire once again.

Revolutionary Road

**** Stars

Revolutionary Road is everything I could have hoped for and more. Every scene is electric, every line is heartbreaking, and every action is carried by another that leads its leading couple down a path of self-destruction. Revolutionary Road is a timeless American film that digs deep into your personal life without your written consent.

Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet play Frank and April Wheeler, a married couple living in 1950's suburb without any sign of escape. Escape from what you ask? Well I can't vouch for the Wheeler's because I didn't live through the 50's, but from an outside perspective, the Wheeler's are living one of my biggest nightmares. They have retired from life, from living, and from feeling any kind of wondrous spontaneity. They have also lost the moment that made them realize they were meant for each other.

Director Sam Mendes, who in my mind is becoming a very underrated director (he is not a one-hit wonder with American Beauty) has crafted a brilliant character study. Frank works in the city for ten hours a day at a job he can't stand. April is a housewife and retired actress raising two kids and going insane in the process. After almost losing it all in a fight after one of April's abysmal plays, they decide to risk everything and attempt to move to Paris. Paris represents the escape and wonderment from a reality that's breathing way too heavily down the couple's neck. Once they get there, April will work for the government as a secretary and Frank will try and find himself. It's the perfect plan and perfect future, until things get in the way. April gets pregnant again and that bright and shining escape dims away into an everlasting darkness.

The film evolves as a trainwreck, but it's never a film that is hard to watch because every shot and scene is so perfectly executed. Not for one second does this feel like Titanic 2. I was really afraid that people were going to view this as Jack and Rose together after the honeymoon stage ended, but it hasn't. And I am so glad! This is one the greatest films of the decade.

And I stand by that statement. Even though The Wrestler is my #1 film of the year, this one is equally worthy. It has been one hell of a season for movies, and Revolutionary Road is a monumental aspect of it. Winslet and Dicaprio are mesmerizing and Michael Shannon deserves a best supporting actor nomination for his role as a mentally unstable son in the Wheeler's neighborhood. But what if he is the only one who gets life? Ponder that while watching the film.

I am sad because this film probably won't receive a best picture nomination, but maybe that's how it should be. Revolutionary Road never takes the stage, it haunts you behind a curtain that is forever waiting to be opened.

Marley and Me/Yes Man

The Christmas season is one of the biggest times for movies. The two biggest commercially are Marley and Me and Yes Man, each with signs of success but where one outweighs the other. Yes Man is a very mild success only (and I mean only) because of Jim Carrey and Marley and Me is a special treat for canine lovers and moviegoers alike. Those who flock to these movies will be those specifically looking for what they crave. For Yes Man, it's a reminder of old school Jim Carrey. For Marley and Me, it's a tearjerker packaged in wrapping paper with a big red bow shinning ever so brightly. In a last minute choice, I'd take the lovable canine labeled as the world's worst dog. It's a uniquely cute story that fits perfectly for the holiday season. Families: You've been briefed.

Marley and Me: *** Stars
Yes Man: **1/2 Stars

Valkyrie

**** Stars

I've put up with it for years, but now with Valkyrie, this needs to be said to all the Tom Cruise haters out there: STOP.

Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor just because Tom Cruise the person is crazy. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor because it's the cool thing to do. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor for thinking that he plays the same role in every movie. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor because in fact, he hasn't made a bad movie in over a decade and a half. With Valkyrie, Tom Cruise the actor is in top form in one of the best films of the year. 

Tom Cruise is fantastically structured in Bryan Singer's intensifying World War II Nazi Thriller. Playing the infamous man who attempted to kill Hitler, Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, Cruise plays him with conviction and maturity. However, what ads wonders to the film is the supporting cast behind the star, including Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, and Tom Wilkinson. Even though none speak in a German accent (in fact some are British), they are still fantastic performances. I mean they have to be right? When they are completely convincing as Nazis speaking in the completely wrong accents?

Director Bryan Singer has crafted one of the most taut and tightly built films of the year. The first twenty minutes is electrifying. A small attempt to kill Hitler is acted out by two Germans by putting an explosive in a liquor case that will be shipped on the same plane as Hitler will travel on. After the device fails to go off, the two are forced to retrieve the liquor case back from the plane while all the while the explosive could still be set off. I was on the edge of my seat throughout this scene, and after that, the entire film.

This is the most underrated film of the year. I will leave asking you this question: If Tom Cruise wasn't the star, would you like the movie? If you have to think about it for second, so be it, but just think about that question, and then judge the film objectively. 

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

**** Stars

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is an experiment of time and a celebration of movies. It explores the territories of love through poetic curiosity. At nearly three hours, this is an epic throwback to classic filmmaking with a pinch of new school antics. You do not want to miss this one.

Brad Pitt gives a perfectly subtle performance in a film that analyzes life in a natural process. Life is not always fast-paced and director David Fincher respects this aspect while still entertaining the absolute hell out of the audience. Pitt plays the title character who is born old and slowly progresses into a younger and younger person. In the middle, he falls in love with Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and the two share a nostalgic love affair that lasts as long as possible given Benjamin's condition. Through time, he becomes a baby. This is all I will say about the plot of this movie. 

Why? Because the film is an exercise of realism sprinkled into a fantasy world with an unrestricted imagination. It's a story of a person's life with no focus on any particular event. It would be like describing the plot to one's life. Why would I want to ruin its wondrous unpredictability?

What you can take from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a reason to keep an imagination fresh and down to earth. Just because someone ages backwards does not mean they are any less human. I know it sounds insane and incoherent, but this film does such an outstanding job of keeping this lyrical fantasy realistic to the emotions of human morality. It's funny, touching, tragic, brilliantly directed, and alive with the flowing melody of humanistic livelihood. 

Casey's Films

Great news. I have just completed my first semester at Emerson College. It was a great first semester, as I learned a lot of new information on film technology and writing. I have completed a few projects here the I would like to share:



FLEDGLING LURE: A suspenseful six-minute drama surrounding two friends caught up in their poorly-executed kidnapping of an innocent girl. The stakes are raised when one friend begins to question the morality of their actions. With little time remaining from being discovered, the two friends suffer from the consequences of not thinking before they act. Fledgling, meaning beginner in activity, defines the personalities of the two friends as they are lured into unknown territories of criminal existence. Written by: Hunter Miles
Edited by: Nick Keating
Produced and Directed by: Casey LaMarca, Hunter Miiles, and Nick Keating

Starring:
Casey LaMarca as John
Thomas Haggerty as Tom
Hunter Miles as The Cop
Natalie Krebs as Tina

A Chaotic Melody: This is a one minute musical image of a city under chaotic circumstances while also having the potential to be something beautiful. A city can be a wondrous place, but themes of crime and darkness can cloud someone's mind.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

** Stars

Keanu Reeves returns to the genre that made him famous. We didn't ask for an encore.

Keanu Reeves, I feel bad for you. I don't know why but for some reason I do. You seem to be a nice guy who shows up on set ready to work. But why do you fail to capture human emotions on screen? I know this time around you're playing an alien, but you still haven't convinced me that you're a movie star. The Matrix and Speed are two of my favorite blockbusters and you succeeded in those films, but I think now is the time for someone to say this to you: Either try something different, or stop making movies.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is not a good film. It sucks, actually. And I hate to see Jennifer Connelly stuck inside a film that won't even let her breathe the way she wants to. The movie is a sequence of paralyzed frames that capture some astounding visuals, but avoid any chance of exploring the abstract.

The movie is based off the 1951 original film. Reeves plays Klaatu, an alien who captures a human body to explore Earth's chances of saving his species. He's here to save the Earth. Not humans.

That's actually a really interesting concept to explore in our day and age. There are moments where we see chances of great debate. However, the film becomes preachy the second Klaatu is captured and held for question by the government. It's a way of telling us that our government cares more about National Security than exploring the unknown. I love the idea, but the execution feels extremely elementary.

The government is represented by the Secretary of Defense played by Kathy Bates, who looks completely and utterly bored. When Klaatu escapes custody with the help of Dr. Helen Benson (Connelly), the two begin to find a way to stop the attack that seems to be dooming the world. Jaden Smith plays Helen's stepson Jacob, who loses all the respect that I gave him for The Pursuit of Happyness. The kid is really freaking annoying. Although I admit that his character has little structure to follow anyways. Whatever, don't really care at this point.

I'll admit that the film is visually spectacular, the first twenty minutes is exciting and attention-grabbing, and the idea of remaking the original seemed very timely. Sadly, this instantly forgettable remake is reduced to the level of cinema that critics and audiences are forced to sit through time and time again.

Frost/Nixon

**** Stars

"I'm saying that when the President does something that means it's not illegal." -Richard Nixon

The powerful words from the once-powerful man hint at the questionable motives behind the most powerful job in the world. What could be timelier than that?

Frost/Nixon is one of the most exciting films of the year and not one bullet has to fly on screen to earn it. Ron Howard has always been a wonderful filmmaker and to see him give us one of his best movies in years is a true gift of mature cinema. The story is simple and complex, funny and sad, and important without preaching a side of political preference.

When Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974, he hid in the shadows from the media for three years. In 1977, the ex-President and most wanted man in America (even though he was pardoned from Gerald Ford) finally broke his silence and agreed to sit down and discuss the years that defined his legacy. He chose David Frost (a fantastic Michael Sheen) as his medium to the public. Frost, known for his playboy antics, thought this would be the perfect ratings boost he needed to secure himself as a media sensation. Nixon felt that someone who lacked political bite would be the perfect prey for him to gain back his popularity from the entire world. Is this David vs. Goliath or what?

The first hour of Frost/Nixon is a funny historical lesson in the eyes of journalism. The transition from David Frost the entertainer to David Frost the journalist is an outstanding feat that deserves a bonafide celebration. Ron Howard seems to be having a blast behind the camera on this film because everything on screen feels so natural. Plus he has over four or five actors from his previous films (mainly Apollo 13). On that note, it's great to see Kevin Bacon back in a role that suits his strong acting persona.

I am proud to note that I am rambling on the praise of this film. And now I shall continue.

Frank Langella as Nixon, like Josh Brolin as George W. Bush, is more than just an impression. He embodies the character as a man of substance. Of course Nixon was one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents in American history, but the film focuses on Nixon as a human being. After all, he is one just like the rest of us.

And people forget to remember that. With so much information in history books and media stories covering him as a figure larger than life, Nixon is still a human, one who expresses the sheer emotions of a depressed man at the end of his regretful road. When the interviews finally take place in the final hour of the film, audiences will be on the edge of their seats waiting to hear the words he should have said the minute those men broke into the infamous hotel. Frost/Nixon's reenactment of this is an absolutely thrilling engagement of American history and one of the year's best films.

Australia

*** Stars

When I first saw Australia three days ago, I left the theater feeling disappointed. I kept wondering how Baz Luhrmann was unable deliver a coherent narrative inside an almost three hour runtime. It jumps from a love story, to a sweeping epic, to a telling of mystical lands, to melodrama, and finally lands with a forty minute Pearl Harbor like action-extravaganza.

Whew.

With an A-list cast and such a fabulous production design, I expected Luhrmann, one of my favorite directors (mainly because of Romeo and Juliet) to give us the best movie of the year. On that line, he has failed. Miserably. But I don't think he's the one to blame. Australia, the version I saw, is not complete. After bad test screenings with its ending, Luhrmann went back and changed it. He has worked on this project for years, and although I understand that a release date is important, Luhrmann seemed to have been forced into releasing a movie he wasn't ready to release.

Three days after seeing Australia, I sit here at my computer writing my review. Those three days have given me time to reflect on the positive and negative aspects of the film. Even though the word disappointment lingered in my mind, I found that I was remembering more positive moments than negative.

What sticks out has to be the visuals. In Aristotle's elements of drama, visual spectacle ranks as the least important. While I tend to agree with this hierarchical order, Australia has to be one of the most beautifully shot films of the decade. Luhrmann is a natural when it comes to experimental camera movements. The auteur inside of him is begging to be heard.

The movie is set in 1939 after Hitler invades Poland. Nicole Kidman stars as Lady Sarah Ashley, a proper English woman from society's higher class who heads to Australia to protect her husband's property. After his death, she learns of a possible takeover plot towards her land. That's when she meets Drover (Hugh Jackman), the rugged frontiersman she falls for. For the rest of the film, the two are involved in the hysteria of World War II (The attack of Darwin, Australia right after Pearl Harbor), chases from bad guys who want Ashley's land, and a love story that hits melodrama on several occasions.

The best scene of the movie is one of the best scenes I have seen all year. There is a stampede sequence involving a 2,000 head of cattle that is almost worth the price of admission alone. This scene (close to ten minutes long) is blended by CGI and outer landscapes that distinguishes Baz Luhrmann as an old-fashioned visionary with a hint of technological genius.

However, from an overall standpoint, unless you're a fan of Baz or Hugh Jackman, many moviegoers will feel cheated and exhausted after an almost full three hours. To name an Eclectic Collective song I love, Australia is a "Beautiful Mess".

Milk

**** Stars

Erupting in passion, Milk is a masterful work of political art, showcasing a brilliant performance by Sean Penn. This is one of the most important films of the year.

Director Gus Van Sant is a true artist, writing poetry inside a history lesson. The story of Harvey Milk's upcoming as a Gay Rights activist followed by being the first openly gay man elected to public office (year was 1977) is extremely relevant in today's American society. After Proposition 8 was passed in California (banning same-sex marriages), Milk is going to go down in history as being a film released one month later then it should have been. Yes, this film has the historical documentation to prove its effectiveness. 

And that's what makes the film so special. Dustin Lance Black's screenplay simply shows Harvey Milk's several attempts (and one victory) at becoming a member on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. We know he is a homosexual, and Van Sant never focuses on why or when he became one. The film shows his closest love relationships, but only through the events of his activism. Scott Smith (James Franco) and Jack Lira (Diego Luna) were the two loves in the final decade of his life. 

Milk's assassin Dan White is an oddly interesting figure. A conservative who blamed Milk and Mayor George Moscone for his departure from the Board of Supervisors, White (played by Josh Brolin) is displayed in this film as a confused and delusional individual suffering from his own insecurities. He stands for family traditions and values, yet he can't seem to discover his true self. Josh Brolin brings urgent life to the character and avoids playing him as a stereotypical killer. In fact, if you were unaware that White was Milk's assassin, you wouldn't suspect a thing until the film's conclusion. 

Although the film is a tragedy, Milk is filled with humor, love, and most of all, hope. It's a message indicating the importance of change (no, this is not a Pro-Obama statement) and understanding. I was raised Catholic and was taught that marriage is between a man and woman. And while I do still believe that the term "Marriage" is a bond between a man and woman, that does not give anyone the right to destroy the sanctity of love and someone's personal decision. That is why Milk can be considered a masterpiece. It doesn't preach, it avoids sloganeering, and it allows its viewers to think for themselves. With an outstanding cast (including Emile Hirsch, who is seriously growing on me) Milk is a timely and righteous biopic about a very important chapter in our nation's history.

Twilight

*** Stars

Another franchise is upon us.

And it's not like we didn't see it coming. The four-book series by Stephanie Meyer is the biggest craze since Harry Potter, and its film future will take-off as Harry fades out. Does Twilight outshine its source material? No, it doesn't. But it is worthy of its fame.

So are the stars. Kristen Stewart and Scott Pattinson carry the torch of young love in this romantic-thriller about a teenager who falls for a vampire. Bella (Stewart) is returning to her old town of Forks, Washington from Phoenix, Arizona to see her Dad. Her first days as a new high school student in her old town consist of nostalgic reminiscing with people she knew from childhood. As she sits at lunch with a few friends, she looks over and stares at a young man. His name is Edward Cullen.

In the book, the first act consists of Edward and Bella learning about each other. I found this to be the most interesting part. Sadly, the film rushes through it to get to, I guessed you can call it, the part with, "more bite". For those who don't know what the plot is really about, I suggest you pick up the book. For you men out there, swallow your pride and read it. I'll give you two reasons why you should: 1.) It's actually a really good read and 2.) If you ever go on a date, you'll have something to talk about, because every girl in the world has read the damn thing.

As for the movie? Well, it grossed $67 million on its opening weekend and has the potential to cross the $200 million mark over its theatrical run. Sequels are certainly a guarantee. The movie works. Director Catherine Hardwicke (Thirteen, Lords of Dogtown) can't raise the material to brilliance, but she stays faithful enough to the book to satisfy fans. After all, that's the first priority when adapting such popular material. Right? The movie does have a tendency to leave out small yet significant personality traits to the characters. Especially Bella. In the book, she cooks. A lot. And it's important to have that in the character because it shows her as a woman of freedom of independence. In the movie, they go out to a diner and eat burgers.

When the sequels start to dish out, I am excited to see what kind of direction the franchise will take. Will Hardwicke be replaced? Will Stewart and Pattinson keep the same caliber in their performances? Will non-fans of the series care to keep up? For now, the fans of Twilight can breathe a sigh of relief. You won't be unconditionally and irrevocably in love with the movie version, but it will keep you thirsty enough for more blood.

Slumdog Millionaire

**** Stars

Stop reading for a second.

Go see Slumdog Millionaire.

Now continue.

I haven't seen a truly great movie in a while (and I really didn't see that coming in the middle of November). This is the time of year where I should be celebrating cinema. After Bond failed on almost every level, I was entering Slumdog Millionaire as a desperate man wanting to be reminded why I still go to the movies. Slumdog Millionaire: You answered my prayers as the best film I have seen so far this year, and I am so glad that a possible Best Picture Nomination is in its future. Director Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Trainspotting) has made his best film yet. It unfolds as a sublimely told love story wrapped inside a poetic tale of human existence. 

Jamal Malik is an 18 year-old orphan from the streets of Mumbai who wins $20 million on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" How did he do it the film asks?

A.) He cheated

B.) He's lucky.

C.) He's a genius 

D.) It is written.

Don't worry, I'm not giving anything away. We discover this in the introduction. The real secret is how Jamal has come to learn the answers of the each question. The plot shifts from the game show to his past, where we learn about his desperate journey to reunite with the love of his life, Latika. 

Latika is all Jamal cares about. When he is suspected of cheating on the show, he is arrested for questioning. Jamal explains his innocence, as he tells the officers he still looks for Latika around every corner. Question by question, the maturity of both the characters and the story is an enthralling piece of cinema, one that will erupt the passions out of your heart and explode them into an emotional existence.

Every line of dialogue poetic, every camera shot a stunner, and every action monumental, Slumdog Millionaire jumps out of the ordinary and into a stage that will stand the test of time. When Jamal is one question away from winning the $20 million, the entire world is watching. In this rare case, television unites people to believe in the unbelievable. Is Latika watching the show? Will Jamal ever find his destiny? How can moviegoers experience such magic?

D.) It is written.

And it's called Slumdog Millionaire.

Let The Right One In

** Stars

Even if you are a fan of vampire movies, Let The Right One In is not a pleasant movie to watch. Pointless and instantly forgettable, the film lacks any sort of dramatic punch. The audience is always at a distance and never allowed to be apart of the story. The film is about a 12 year old vampire who lives next to a creepy boy and they form a friendship.

I'm so sorry, but I just gave away the entire film.

Quantum of Solace

** Stars

Quantum of Solace has suffered from the Spiderman 3 effect. What's the Spiderman 3 effect? Here's the definition:

The Spiderman 3 effect: a sequel/continuation of a film series whose budget saturates the original story, ultimately destroying its predecessor's hard work and becoming an unnecessary failure.

Examples:

Quantum of Solace budget: $230 million (** Stars) Casino Royale Budget: $150 million (**** Stars)

Spiderman 3 budget: $258 million (*1/2 Stars) Spiderman 2 budget: $200 million (**** Stars)

When I first heard that the follow-up to the greatest Bond film of all time was going to be a direct sequel, I was ecstatic. Casino Royale was a re-boot of the franchise, so why not continue to spice things up after such a wonderful success? Unfortunately, that dream became a nightmare in what I believe is one of the worst Bond films of all time.

And believe me, I'm a huge Bond fan. I grew up watching every single film in the franchise. When Pierce Brosnan ended with Die Another Day, I along with most of the world thought it was time for a change. When Daniel Craig came into the series using a film with barely any gadgets and no Moneypenny, I was feeling a bit skeptical. Thankfully, Casino Royale gave us a new Bond for the 21st century. And the right one.

So why does Quantum of Solace fail? First and foremost, the script is terrible. Paul Haggis, who I have loved for so long, gives us an abysmal approach to a promising theme. Bond is pissed about the loss of his love Vesper from Casino Royale and he is thirsty for revenge. In the opening sequence, we get this car chase that is so quickly cut that I had absolutely no idea what was going on. After that seizure, Bond goes to a building, opens up the trunk, pulls out his prisoner (Mr. White from the previous film) and starts to ask questions. He discovers that Mr. White has his people everywhere. Ok, good to know?

Then Bond goes on several more fast-paced chase sequences, from running on hill tops to jumping on boats with motorcycles. It all sounds really cool right? Absolutely! But like I said before, we don't know what's happening in these key moments because of such painfully quick camera movements. The average cut has to be no more than two seconds. A note to director Marc Foster: Dude, relax. You don't need to tell a Bond film in only 106 minutes. And if you're going to, we don't need to see the development of a villain who really has no purpose but to give Bond something to chase. The villain is named Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's Mathieu Amalric, who is sadly miscast) a ruthless businessman behind the Quantum organization. He is forging a deal with baaaaaaad people to try and take control of a very powerful natural resource.

Now get ready for this. The reason why Vesper was killed and why Bond lost his mind was because of this organization wanting control of, wait for it, water!

Um, what?

Yea, you heard it right. After Bond and the new Bond girl Camille (the incredibly sexy but dull Olga Kurylenko) have an aerial dogfight, they crash land to find a secret stash of water. At that point in Quantum of Solace, I pretty much lost all interest.

The film does have great stunt and technical work. I enjoyed the on-foot chase that Bond endures and wouldn't have minded the others (the opening car chase and aerial dogfight) had they been shot differently. And I will admit that the film ends on a note where the series can get right back on track, but in this installment, Marc Foster went all Jason Bourne on us and turned one of my favorite on-screen heroes into a tantrum-induced basket case. Daniel Craig, you deserve better.

Role Models

*** Stars

Role Models is a movie that feels like a movie concept worked into something completely improvised. In this case, it works. This is another worthy selection from the familiar cast of the Judd Apatow gang (Apatow surprisingly did not produce this one) along with Sean William's Scott funniest performance since his departure from the American Pie series.

Scott plays Wheeler, a mascot for the energy drink Minotaur. Wheeler loves life and doesn't mind coasting along with barely any responsibility. His co-worker and best friend Danny (the always hilarious Paul Rudd) is the exact opposite, hates everything and is miserable 24/7. After a bad morning at work and his girlfriend Beth (the very busy Elizabeth Banks) dumps him, Danny loses it. He crashes his work truck into a statue trying to escape from his truck being towed. Both Danny and Wheeler are forced into 150 hours of community service to avoid 30 days of prison time. It will be painful, annoying, and of course, from an outside perspective, hilarious.

When Role Models explores Danny and Wheeler with their two kids, things get really funny. Danny is stuck with a fantasy world obsessed geek named Auggie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) where Wheeler has to babysit a out-of-control little punk named Ronnie (Bobb'e Thompson). Like I said, almost everything here feels improvised, so for the middle hour of the film there are little scenes that achieve very funny moments. The two kids are shown with substance and heart, aside from what the trailer shows. The climax of the film is a long battle scene surrounding all the dorks in the fantasy world Auggie belongs to. What makes the action work is how appropriately choreographed the fights during the scene actually are. Rudd and Scott are a winning combination. They riff off each other in a classical buddy comedy way that makes us feel sympathy for their awfully painful punishment, even when they act like total jerks.

Because this is a one-liner kind of film, I must say my favorite. In the conclusion when Danny is trying to win back his girlfriend by singing her a song, Danny sings a line "Like Susan Surrandon and Tim Robbins". For absolutely no reason or adding support to the plot, there's a close-up on Wheeler who grins and says "They're good actors". It doesn't need to be there, but hell, I laughed pretty damn hard. Role Models is a funny, funny movie.

Zach and Miri Make a Porno

***1/2 Stars

I'm starting to get a crush on Elizabeth Banks.

Banks is in three new movies currently playing right now. Oliver Stone's W, the newest one Role Models, and this, Zach and Miri Make a Porno, a movie in which the Weinstein Company chose to distribute solely based on its title. Banks is the charm, sass, and beauty of all of three of these films.

Zach and Miri Make a Porno does involve porn scenes, but that's not really what the film is about. It is actually a sweet and lovable story about two lifelong friends who are forced to make an adult movie due to insufficient funds. Through this dilemma, they discover that there is something deeper to their relationship.

Who would have thought that a love story could be successfully made through the medium of porn? Kevin Smith writes the raunchiest material this side of Two Girls One Cup and still manages to find his respectable muse. The film begins with Zach and Miri (Seth Rogen and Banks) on the day of their high school reunion. Miri is forcing Zach to go and he accepts because he'll pretty much do anything she asks (he never says it, but its obvious). This tells us that their trust factor is incredibly high, and that is proven when Miri agrees to Zach's lucid idea that making a porno will bail them out of their financial problems.

Zach works at a coffee shop with his buddy Delaney (Craig Robinson) with the same enthusiasm as a teenaged part-time employee who couldn't possibly care less about proper work etiquette. Smith's dialogue during the introduction of the store is really funny stuff. When a customer interrupts Zach and Delaney and says "Can I get a cup of coffee, black?" Delaney fires back "Can't you see we talkin', white?" The little comical touches Smith creates makes the scene explosively funny.

When the cameras start rolling on the actual porno, Zach and Miri agree to have sex with each other for the sake of saving their apartment. With this decision comes the truth. After they have sex for the movie, (very tastefully done by Smith, who makes the scene romantic) the two realize that they may be in love.

The film works best when focusing on the intimate relationship between Zach and Miri. The rest of the movie is filled with gross-out moments, that even I found to be borderline NC-17. However, I would have been extremely pissed had this been NC-17, when a torture porn show like Saw V gets an R-rating with no argument whatsoever. Ratings aside, the actual story of these characters show that Smith is still a great writer. He may be raunchier than ever, but strangely enough, Smith is still growing up. And as for Banks, with no argument whatsoever, the woman is a star to the ultimate degree.

Opposing Demographics

Three films, Three different themes.

If you're in the mood for some Government bashing, see:

** Stars

The Plot: Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan are on the run after being targeted through their cell phones by a mysterious woman. Lebeouf's character (Jerry Shaw) discovers weapons and a small fortune in his name at his apartment just seconds before being taken into custody by the FBI, where Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) is forced by the voice to follow her orders otherwise her child will be killed. The two attempt to learn what is actually going on through car chases, interrogations, and assassination attempts.

Why the film doesn't work: Director D.J Caruso is given an $80 million budget, a hot topic in today’s culture, and Steven Spielberg as a producer. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the problem with Eagle Eye is that it tries to be too much at once. In order to nab young moviegoers, the film relies heavily on ludicrous action scenes, ultimately creating moments filled with implausible scenarios. Example: When Shaw is escaping custody, the film cuts to signs and electronic billboards telling what Jerry has to do. There is no possible way that Shaw could see all of these orders to follow as he is jumping off buildings and trains.

I usually never have problems suspending disbelief, but when an entire film relies on stunts like this, it gets a little frustrating. Especially when the material is trying to tackle a very important and very real problem in our country. I give props for its guts, but in the end, Eagle Eye goes for the entertainment factor. I didn't hate it by any means, but its potential versus the film itself is an absolute waste.

Review in a nutshell: An incoherent disappointment.

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

W. (Dub-Ya)

***1/2 Stars

Oliver Stone tackles George W. Bush.

Not much of a surprise.

Stone’s biopic of the 43^rd President is very well done, with an electric performance from Josh Brolin in the title role. It is however, much different than expected. Instead of purposely tackling the controversy on Bush’s tactics, it stays pretty close to an old-fashioned profile story, of how this man went from a booze-crazed Yale playboy to the most powerful man in the world. I found it refreshing that Stone has the ability to second-guess all those who have the man figured for a liberal who just loves to bash people.

Now don’t panic just yet. There are several moments of Bush-bashing here, but there's rarely any cheap laughs. Everything that comes out of Bush’s mouth is proof enough that the man is pretty incoherent to the English language.

The popular example: Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? (My computer’s spell check won’t stop bugging me about that sentence’s phrasing. Maybe it doesn’t understand normalcy.)

W. is a showcase for Josh Brolin. The man doesn’t just reference Bush’s mannerisms. He literally transforms himself completely to become him. The way Brolin moves, talks, squints, laughs, drinks, and stares while playing Bush are all so effortlessly created that he actually plays Bush better than, well, Bush. How? He actually makes us care about the man. How the hell did he manage to do that?

The rest of the cast includes several heavyweights. Elizabeth Banks (who seems to be in every film this fall, no complaints here) plays the first lady, James Cromwell as Bush Sr., Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney, Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton as Condi, Toby Jones as Carl Grove, and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. It’s hard to explore every character subjectively, and Stone stays away from that because this is in fact the sole-story of Bush. Smart move.

The film won’t make much at the box-office and won’t change the way we look at Bush, but it’s nice to know that filmmakers are still able to question those in power through the medium of artistry. I look forward in seeing how this film will be placed in years to come when we know for sure just how bad Bush did at his job he got paid $400,000 a year to do.

-Spell Check: is our children learning (Order of words: Consider revising)

Suggestions: Are our children or Is our child

Ignore all.

The spelling and grammar check is complete.

Pride and Glory

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

Body of Lies

*** Stars

Compared to almost all the names currently in the top ten at the box office, Body of Lies is easily the superior film. It's directed with expected maturity and grit by Ridley Scott, has a top-notch performance from my man Leonardo Dicaprio, includes a minor yet solid supporting role by Russell Crowe, and it explores a very important theme about today's world. But, in the end, Body of Lies is a little disappointing from a commercial standpoint for two reasons. 1.) It’s not the film that could have turned around the Box-office poison surrounding the Iraq War and 2.) It lost to Beverley Hills Chihuahua. Can you seriously imagine how depressed Scott, Dicaprio, and Crowe must feel when their very important film lost to talking dogs? Maybe it’s true, the world is actually coming to an end.

Dicaprio plays Roger Ferris, a covert CIA operative working throughout the middle-east searching for freelance terrorists who have been bombing civilian targets. After surviving several close calls through car-bombings and on-foot chases, Ferris discovers information on an Islamic terrorist leader named Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). With the help from his boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe), who somehow coordinates these missions during his routine errands (breakfast, dropping kids off at school, etc.), Ferris goes undercover to find the truth behind what this chaos is all about.

Body of Lies is a difficult process to render. Maybe because it feels completely untouched with reality. Maybe it relies too much on Dicaprio's and Crowe's performances. Then again, maybe the whole point is that there are no answers to its incoherency.

The character of Roger Ferris seems like a really interesting person to profile. This man is so good at what he does that he sometimes forgets to look at things objectively. However, there are several subplots about Ferris's life that are completely out of focus with the film’s narrative. We hear that he is getting divorce through two or three lines of dialogue. Then he falls for a middle-eastern doctor who treats him for rabbi bites. And then, without crucial development in their relationship, Roger decides to sacrifice everything for her safety. The film starts with CIA connections in the middle-east, then trails off into that land’s uncharted territory, and then it ends with a character study about one man figuring out if what he is doing is truly and morally right.

It is hectic yes, but inside this chaotic story is a smart and exciting film that sometimes hits brilliance. I want to talk a little bit more about Dicaprio. Here is an experienced, mature, and still young actor who is giving his all in every film he touches. He is one of the finest actors working today who deserves to be challenged in films like this, and in this case involving the Iraq War. It was unlikely that Body of Lies was going to be a box-office hit because of its nature, but I think that films like these will be very respected in the years to come. Let's just hope that's soon because I am seriously getting sick and tired of talking dogs that are ruling the movie world.

Religulous

**** Stars

I am not a huge Bill Maher fan. I occasionally watch his HBO show when I need that occasional (and lately, frequently) uncensored Bush bashing rant, but I think he can be a complete smartass. The way he asks question is purposely slanted towards the answer he wants, which usually consists of making the other person look like a moron. He also seems to be very self-absorbed and absolutely in love with himself. However, I have to give Bill Maher some serious credit. His documentary Religulous is something you've never seen before. This guy has the balls to go to some of the most sacred places on earth and ask monumentally controversial questions to some of the most religious people on earth. This film hits you hard from the start, and ends with a finale that is the scariest ten minutes of footage I have scene since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

For all contingent purposes, I was raised a Catholic Christian. I spent years in CCD and was confirmed over four years ago. I never really liked the church that I attended. It was run like a business and was forcing young minds to believe in such awful ideals. I am so glad I have great parents who are realistic to the issues of a teenager. They laid to me straight when I asked for truth. When I asked my church for advice, they gave me some random biblical reference to live by. I will never forget one of my confirmation classes that occurred during my sophomore year of High School. It was a dangerously touchy subject. It was the subject of premarital sex. Oh no, run for the hills! Teenagers learning about sex? That's devil talk! But don't worry, the church set it straight. NOT. (I felt it was appropriate to ad that Borat reference considering the director of this film is also that of Borat.) In fact, my church gave such demeaning advice that day, that it actually made me question the faith I grew up with, at that point, for almost sixteen years. Our teacher told us that every time you had sex with someone before marriage, regardless of age, emotional intimacy or length of relationship, that you were losing a piece of your soul, and it would be impossible to get back. It was a sad moment in my life. Sad for those around me who had to hear such words, and sad for the teacher herself, who actually thought this was the right way to approach a generation who is already in such confusion about the world.

I eventually got confirmed later that year and was no longer forced to go to church. As that force decreased, my faith actually increased. I still attend church twice a year (Easter and Christmas) not because I want to, but because it's a nice reason for my family to be together. I certainly still believe in God, but I'm afraid that people are so hypocritical and radical when it comes to religion, that Bill Maher's bashing seems to make unusual sense.

On that note, back to the film. Bill Maher begins by saying that he is not in the know when it comes to religion. He never actually says so, but we assume he is an atheist. He wants to understand what people are thinking. How can someone believe that Jonah lived inside a whale for three days? Is judgment day truly coming? Does anyone really know what Scientology is about? I really don't. I know Tom Cruise and John Travolta are apart of it. And it was created by the author L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote Battlefield Earth. I think I actually blame him more for creating the source material for that morbid film adaptation than that religion. Bill Maher actually disguised himself as a Scientologist and started preaching it on the streets of a city. Dozens of people started to listen. I mean they were really listening. Are people just looking for answers to all of the world's proposed questions? In this case, Maher makes a point. Maybe people really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

In fact, he actually applauds one Christian for coming up with such "brilliant bullshit". In Orlando, Florida, Maher travels to a place called The Holy Land Experience. It's a reenactment through songs, interpretive dance, and really bad acting, of Jesus's crucifixion (if you do go, don't worry, Jesus is connected to a microphone, so you can hear him from the back row). The actor playing Jesus tells Maher that God works in higher levels than humans. We may not always understand what he's doing but we know it’s him. Like water, it works in three different forms. A gas, a solid (ice cube), and liquid. Bill Maher is so impressed with this "bullshit" that he is at a complete loss of words.

As the film continues to bash religion silly, it does tend to get a little redundant. I wish Maher would let some of his interviews be more focused on what others had to say. It's undeniably appropriate that the man wants to play hardball, but he's flirting dangerously close towards spite's gimbal lock. Then again, you kind of expect this behavior considering it is what made him famous in the first place.

Spite aside, Bill Maher knows what he is doing. In the final ten minutes of Religulous, putting all "bullshit" aside, he abandons humor and says his final peace on this crazy little thing called religion. I think he understands that God can give us comfort when we have no one to turn to. He even admits that he has turned to him at a younger age. That's not the problem he is referring to. The problem that emerges are those who are willing to sacrifice the decency of human morality, that referring to religious wars, for something that no one can really understand but God himself. Even though it always has been so, religion is becoming more and more abused; as an excuse for creating empires and establishing dominance. We may just be seeing things clear now because we are using such apocalyptic weapons on each other. Maybe that confusion I felt in my confirmation class that day now seems more comprehensible. If abused, religion can tear people apart and create a pointless, endless war. We Americans should know. We’re smack-dab in the middle of one.

Miracle at St. Anna

** Stars

I am glad to see that the whole pointless debacle between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood has subsided (Lee criticized Eastwood for failing to have one African-American in his Iwo Jima films). Even though Spike Lee does have a point, Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima is the much superior film. Miracle at St. Anna is a huge disappointment. There is so much talent in this picture that to see such potential fail, is an eyesore to any film fan, especially Spike Lee's.

There are several positive things to say about St. Anna. Both the scope and cinematography are visually exceptional and there are moments of brilliance. However, I found myself trying so hard to focus on those moments, as they were quickly cut from existence and lost in a shuffle of other pointless historical reflections, that I finally gave up on its entire purpose. It's another classic example of a wonderful concept for a film gone wrong with its execution.

This is the story of the African American 92nd Infantry Division, who during World War II, is trapped near a small Tuscan village (Sant'Anna di Stazzema) after Private Sam Train (Omar Benson Miller) risks his life to save an Italian child. It's also the story of that town's heartbreaking massacre caused by Neo-Nazi Germans (these scenes are actually some of the strongest shots I have seen all year). It's also the story of a modern day murder case surrounding one of those soldiers who killed a man responsible for evil-doings during his time at St. Anna. It is ALSO a story about that Italian boy and whether or not he is an angel descended from heaven.

Now does that all sound like one movie? Sure, I guess. And it seems that Spike Lee would be the perfect filmmaker to bring that story to life. Wait, which one am I talking about? I'm not sure either. There are so many things going on here that we are frantically trying to understand Spike Lee's vision. I really wish he expanded more on the massacre itself rather than having the primary focus on the African American soldiers dealing with racial issues of its time. Then again, it is Spike Lee. This is a passion project, sure, and I absolutely respect that, but Spike Lee made one mistake. I will explain it in the next paragraph.

As I was leaving the theater, my roommates and I spent our twenty minute walk home discussing the film. One liked it. The other didn't. I began to hear their arguments and the one who liked it had a very interesting point. The film runs at 166 minutes. He said he wanted it to be longer. It didn't hit me right away, but he was absolutely right. Spike Lee has such conviction and passion for every project that he touches and his ability to explore important historical moments is truly the work of a gifted filmmaker. In 1992, he gave us Malcolm X. It was 202 minutes long. It was also an absolute masterpiece. What stopped him from adding on to this one? Did the studio force him to cut it down? Was their financial issues? If there is ever a film that needs a director's cut, this is the one.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.

Choke

**1/2 Stars

Choke is an easily watchable film that unfortunately tries to please everyone. Leading man Sam Rockwell scores, while the film itself is another story. From the author of Fight Club, Choke revolves around the life of Victor Mancini, a somewhat repulsive sex-addict who spends more time in relapse than actual recovery. He sleeps with what feels like over a hundred women and fantasizes what sex would be like with every woman he sees. Regardless of looks. Regardless of age. Regardless of mental stability. He is a medical school drop-out who spends his days as a Colonial-Time tour guide, or what he calls it, a historical interpretor. The only thing he interprets is how on earth he is going to have sex that day. It's rather unpleasant because the man is hard to root for. He's a mild jerk who rarely cares about others. Rockwell has a special charm that elevates the material, but Choke chokes on its own self-absorbed style. It's Californication, if Hank Moody was a tumultuous, pompous, and disturbing sex-stalker.

Righteous Kill

0 Stars

The first time Robert De Niro and Al Pacino pair together (with the exception of Heat) is this? Seriously? Really? Honestly?!?

There is an enormous stench reaking of this morbid piece of moviemaking. It's combination consists of stale, flat, and overused scenes created for no significant purpose. Righteous Kill combines replays of recycled De Niro & Pacino lines from other films, and then are filtered into a script that had its place locked in a drawer under someone's basement floor.

There's one crucial thing left out of this film. A STORY. There is no coherent plot or any reason for the characters to do what they do. De Niro plays Turk. Pacino plays Rooster. Partners for thirty years. We must assume they're best friends too. De Niro is a cranky old S.O.B while Pacino is smooth and easy-going. As the story progresses, we ignore and abandon all reasoning for the story and its ending and wonder if De Niro and Pacino can stop living off of their legacies. Especially De Niro. Pacino actually looks like he's trying, but De Niro looks utterly bored. We feel you Bobbie. We are too.

And also, not to give to much away, but do we really need to see the beautiful and talented Carla Gugino having rough sex with De Niro. Or the idea of Pacino raping her? Um, gross. And the fact that its really the only thing you take away from Righteous Kill, unwillingly, should be proof enough for this much deserved 0 star rating.

Eagle Eye

Three films, Three different themes.
If you're in the mood for some Government bashing, see:

** Stars

The Plot: Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan are on the run after being targeted through their cell phones by a mysterious woman. Lebeouf's character (Jerry Shaw) discovers weapons and a small fortune in his name at his apartment just seconds before being taken into custody by the FBI, where Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) is forced by the voice to follow her orders otherwise her child will be killed. The two attempt to learn what is actually going on through car chases, interrogations, and assassination attempts.

Why the film doesn't work: Director D.J Caruso is given an $80 million budget, a hot topic in today’s culture, and Steven Spielberg as a producer. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the problem with Eagle Eye is that it tries to be too much at once. In order to nab young moviegoers, the film relies heavily on ludicrous action scenes, ultimately creating moments filled with implausible scenarios. Example: When Shaw is escaping custody, the film cuts to signs and electronic billboards telling what Jerry has to do. There is no possible way that Shaw could see all of these orders to follow as he is jumping off buildings and trains.

I usually never have problems suspending disbelief, but when an entire film relies on stunts like this, it gets a little frustrating. Especially when the material is trying to tackle a very important and very real problem in our country. I give props for its guts, but in the end, Eagle Eye goes for the entertainment factor. I didn't hate it by any means, but its potential versus the film itself is an absolute waste.

Review in a nutshell: An incoherent disappointment.