THE L.P. PRESENTS: My 2 cents on Movies +TV

After his very public divorce, I'm sure Cruise appreciated being anyone besides Tom Cruise for a change.

                     “You Think I’m a hero? I’m not a hero” says Jack Reacher in the new Tom Cruise movie of the same name. The film goes out of its way to showcase Reacher as a drifter with questionable morality that could lead him to suddent bursts of vigilante violence; but that he has no noble end game or grand plan. As played by Cruise, however, Jack Reacher ends up being a hero because Tom Cruise is always the hero. That’s not to say he’s bad or even in miscast. In fact, Cruise is very very good; It’s just that we don’t believe Reacher is not going to save the day because Tom Cruise always does and as good as Cruise is, you’re always very aware that you’re watching Tom Cruise. I wonder, then, if it would have been more effective to cast an unknown who could have more easily disappeared into the role and better conveyed that sense of danger and unpredictability?

                     I freely admit that central question may be unimportant because Jack Reacher is a very good film. It uses a minimalist approach to action which means no over-the-top Transformers set pieces, just good old fashioned shoot outs and hand to hand combat. These days, that’s positively old school and refreshing. The film, which follows the title character investigating a seemingly guilty mass murdering sniper who he has history with, also plays as a mystery. This gives Reacher similarities to Sherlock Holmes which is different than most action movie protagonists who usually have similiarities to The Rock. As directed by Christopher Marquette, the film is suspenseful. It takes its time to set up the clues and suspects. This slow burn may be frustrating for some but it wasn’t for me. The payoff is worth it and it all ends in violent action which was fun to watch. And yes, Cruise saves the day, but not in the typical Tom Cruisey way. There are layers to Reacher that are fascinating and makes me wish for another adventure with this non-hero.

FINAL GRADE: B+

The rare film where the German is the GOOD guy.

                I sat in my seat for the entirety of Quentin Tarantino's new film, Django Unchained, in a heightened sense of anticipation.   I knew what I wanted to see and I knew it was only a matter of time until I did.  I realized this had to do with the premise of the film as much as the quality of the filmmaking.  The movie has Jamie Foxx playing a slave freed by Christopher Waltz's German bounty hunter.  They then team up to save Django's enslaved wife from the evil clutches of Leonardo DiCpario's evil plantation owner, Calvin Candie.   This means that the audience knows the course the movie will take, mainly that Django will go from meek shackled submissive slave to confident freed killer-for-hire.  We sit waiting for that change to lead to the eventual explosion of violence and gunplay.   This being a Tarantino film we know that violence will be both sudden and awesome.  He doesn't disappoint.  Our patience is first rewarded in small but effective bursts before the free-for-all bloody ending.

                As we wait we get typical Tarantino touches:  Long dialogue scenes where every word, no matter how banal, seems important; a prelude to a bigger symbolic or actual plot point.  It forces us to listen and Quarantino is a superior writer, but it can be distracting to watch characters talk in stories and allegories instead of engaging in more direct conversation. The violence is typically stylized with copious use of slow motion and the music a mix of western scores and modern day gangster rap.   There nothing I necessarily object to with either but Tarantino is risking becoming a self parody like John Woo did in the 90's with his flying birds.

 He's a little too in love with his own unique touches.  Here it mostly works but at points I did find myself thinking "is all this really necessary?"   

                The film excels with its characters.  All of them are extremely compelling whether hero or villan.  Christopher Waltz is especially great in a colorful role of the German former dentist turned bounty hunter.  He has his own dubious moral code but nonetheless is  a polite and genial person.  Given that he frees our hero Django many might even argue that he's "good" but perhaps that overstating it.  He's only opportunistically noble, preferring to not overanalyze his violent existence; he's a man who makes his own way in the world, not often stopping to wonder why it is as it is. 

                Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't show up until an hour into the movie but his Calvin Candie is appropriately larger-than-life and despicable.  DiCaprio chews a lot of scenery but that's okay because he captures your attention absolutely, stealing scenes from Foxx and Waltz quite handedly.  Samuel L. Jackson shows up even later as perennial house slave, Stephen, and when he does he brings with him a needed dose of humor mixed in with his usual expletives.  He's also a bad guy and one that throws a serious monkey wrench into the plot, but we love to hate him and without him there would be no last 1/3 of the movie.    Both DiCaprio and Jackson employ heavy use of the N-word which has gotten a lot of controversial press lately.  Within the movies it doesn't feel  excessive and is actually historically accurate, so it's much ado about nothing.

                You may have noticed I haven't mentioned Django himself, Jamie Foxx.  I found him only okay as the main character.  Foxx is not a great actor and he has given a variation of his restrained but angry-beneath-the-surface performance in every dramatic role since Any Given Sunday.  He does more of the same here and while I still found myself rooting for Django, I wonder if I would have connected with him better with a stronger actor given a more nuanced performance.  

                The end of the movie doesn't end where you think it will end which, again, is typical Tarantino. As a result the movie goes on about 10 minutes longer than is probably best.  He makes up for it, however, with a massacre that is deplorable but also unbelievably cathartic.  It will have you simultaneously clapping and cringing.  This is what the audience expects, and after everything we see, demands.  We get what we want with no real surprises which makes for a very strong, if not spectacular, movie experience.

FINAL GRADE: B+

(AKA Yes, it's worth spending 12 bucks going to see in the theatres)

Most people are probably thinking "No thank you, i'd rather walk.'

                  Any grown man who’s ever been in a confined space with their mother for more than 30 minutes will relate to The Guilt Trip, the new comedy starring Seth Rogen and Barbara Streisand.   There’s a sense of anxiety and tension underneath the surface; from the son that the nagging and correcting that makes you feel like a child again will not cease, even for a moment, and cause you to lash out;

from the mother that her genuine interest in her son’s wellbeing and happiness will be interpreted incorrectly and she will be considered annoying which will drive her son away from her.  Add to that the oft times uncomfortable evolution of the mother-son relationship past childhood, especially if the mother is unmarried or widowed, and the conversation inevitably turns to spouses and relationship.  it can get awkward very quickly.   It’s a complicated relationship but one with an underlying sense of respect and love from both sides. 

                The Guilt Trip explores this complicated relationship as Rogen’s Andy and Streisand’s Joyce embark on a cross country road trip from New Jersey to San Francisco.  As the film begins Andy is attempting to sell his new cleaning product, having gone from a stable successful career as an organic chemist to an entrepreneur.  This, of course, could not make Joyce prouder as she brags to her friends about her prosperous son.  The thing is Andy isn’t doing so well; his poor presentation skills which emphasis the boring science over the pragmatic applications of his all natural safe-enough-to-drink spray, is leading to bad sales call after bad sales call.  He can’t tell this to Joyce out of embarrassment (in typical mother fashion she lovingly and rhetorically asks: “Who could say no to you?”), so he lies.  This makes every conversation, which typically turns to work, uncomfortable and painful for him so he ducks her numerous calls.    When he comes home to visit after another dead end meeting with a potential buyer, he’s anxious to leave as quickly as possible.  That’s complicated when a series of events leads him to hesitatingly invite her on his forthcoming sales road trip.  Joyce is surprised but thrilled, and immediately starts packing every single item needed for every possible weather condition and reminding (pestering) her son to do the same.

                   If the premise of the movie makes you cringe it’s because you can relate and know what Andy and Joyce are in for.  The tensions mentioned above can emerge very quickly.  The more time you spend together the worse it gets.  Once you get past pleasantries and updating each other on you are respective lives, you are forced to relate to your mother as a human being and not just a parent, which is something that can be uncomfortable and hard to manage.  That usually leads to disagreements and fights as you find things about her that annoy you.  But the truth is these “things” are usually small and petty;  personality traits or habits any real person has.  It’s just coming from your mother, someone you never really considered a “person.”  For many it can be a revelation that they’re really not wanting to have;  Watching Rogan’s Andy listen to a story about Joyce’ s first love or listen to her risqué audio book about a hermaphrodite, you can see that revelation, and it creates for a humorous dynamic between the two.

                During the course of the film Andy and Joyce go from tolerating each other, to being annoyed by each other, to finally coming to a newfound respect for the other.  Through it all that sense of underlying love shines through, helped by the very maternal/son chemistry Rogen and Steisand have.  You’re immediately convinced they can be related.  Much of the movie seems to be off the cuff which just means the conversations between the two feel natural and real.  Joyce Nags; Andy rolls his eyes and makes sarcastic jokes and I found myself bemused watching the two. 

                The movie isn’t necessarily laugh-out-loud funny but more smile-to-yourself pleasant.  It’s also very sweet which really surprised me because I was expecting something hilariously vulgar from Rogen. I thought the hook was that it was going to be gross out humor except this time with Streisand in tow to show contrast and provide commentary, but it wasn’t.  The movie is PG-13 respectable with only one “fu**” to be found and, surprisingly, that comes from Streisand.   I wish the script were better with a few more plot complications but Rogen, and especially the delightful Streisand, take what they have to work with far and in the end the movie gets extra points for the interplay between them .  Or perhaps I just feel guilty giving this anything less than a solid recommendation because I saw this with my mother and if she knew I did I would never hear the end of it.  Just Kidding (sort of)

FINAL GRADE: B

Even in this poster someone is walking.

Delightful.  For reals?

-Yes and no one is more surprised than me. I went to this movie primarily to see the New 48 Frames Per Second and because they hooked me with a Star Trek Into Darkness preview.  I emerged very satisfied.

Explain.

-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is based on the Hobbit book by J. R. R. Tolkien.  It is 310 pages long.  This movie is almost 3 hours long and there are two more on the way.  I expected a padded drawn out mess with lots of walking; What I got was a well done adventure movie with admittedly a LOT of exposition and walking but it was interesting exposition and walking.   

What makes it good specifically?

-Peter Jackson can direct the Mordor out of a movie. 

 Every single scene is elegantly staged and beautiful to look at.  The grand scenery is a prominent part of the story but doesn’t overwhelm it like in all of the Star Wars prequels. The action is exhilarating and suitably epic and the acting is first class.  Martin Freeman as Bilbo captures perfectly the put upon, reluctant, but ultimately courageous hero from the source material.  His performance is very nuanced.  He underplays all his scenes knowing full well that events surrounding him are animated enough, so he needn’t be.  Bilbo is very relatable and affable as well as humorous.  You enjoy rooting for him.  Richard Armitrage is also strong as Thorin Oakenshield, the noble yet damaged leader of the group.  He is skeptical of Bilbo’s contribution to their dangerous mission so he’s not necessarily the most likeable fellow.  Yet, Armitage commands attention in every scene he’s in.  He has enough gravitas to portray Thorin as a strong and brave leader so we respect him even if we don’t agree with his skepticism of Bilbo.  He could very easily have played Thorin as a giant douche but he doesn’t.

Isn’t it long?

-Extremely but it doesn’t feel that way.  My worry about the story being padded was unfounded. This flick moves and since they’re walking all that the time that’s literal moving.  Jackson sprinkles in flashbacks and fantastic sequences that break up the walking so nothing becomes mundane.  Yes, some of the sequences do feel like side adventures, something I’m sure was buried deep within the appendices Jackson so finely combed through as research for this movie…but it’s entertaining so I’m not complaining.

Did you see it in 3D?

-I did and was very happy for it. This isn’t a “Life of Pi” where you must watch it in 3D to fully understand the themes.  This is more, “gee that looks super cool” 3D.  It’s not really necessary but boy is it spectacular.  The action sequences look like a pop out book and I had fun as objects hurled towards me in the screen.  I may have even yelped a bit with one particularly harrowing sequence.

I’m sure you squealed like girl.  How was Gollum? He's my favorite character.

-You are in the majority but unfortunately I am not on Team Bug Eyed Steve Bucemi Looking Thing.  Even in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy I thought of him as an over-the-top distraction. While I respect the technical aspect of it and Andy Serkis deserves all sorts of praise for bringing him to life, I just find the guy annoying.  But he's here and mercifully he's only in it for about 20 minutes.  A little goes a long way.

How was the the 48 frames per second thing?

-Now that WAS unnecessary in a bad way.  It looks like HD Video which makes it look realer but it didn’t add anything to the experience.  It looked like I shot it with my camcorder in terms of detail and clarity but I found myself asking if we really need everything to look realer?  Maybe a movie should just look like a movie.

 So you’re watching the rest?

 -Absolutely and this time I won’t be watching them out of sense of obligation but genuine interest to see what happens next.  While I can’t imagine there being two more good 3 hour movies to come out of the source material (the movie feels more than halfway over by the time the credits roll), I couldn’t imagine myself enjoying this, so for future I’m keeping an open mind.

How open?
-I have limits. I still refuse to pay to see another shi**y Pirates of the Caribbean movie

FINAL GRADE: B+

I was disappointed The Fugees didn't cameo.

                 I know why people hated this movie.  2 people walked out of the theatre while I was watching it.

                Killing Them Softly received an "F" Cinemascore which means audiences polled thought it was god awful.  Don't take much stock in that because I find that audiences polled for this are usually too nice or too harsh on films.  Their reaction many times is a measure of the how well the film met its expectations not in quality but, in content .  

                The story involves two amateur hoods robbing a poker game run by the mob.  Needless to say the Mob doesn't take too kindly to being ripped off and calls Brad Pitt's Jackie Cogan, a contract killer, into town to do a little bit of murder.  This film from Director Andrew Dominik reteams him with Brad Pitt and the previews make it appear to be la dark thriller with Fargo-esque and Goodfellas undertones.  Bravo/Damn you Marketing people, because this movie is nothing like that.  This is a very talky, slow, and simple drama that underwhelms.  I'm actually not saying it deserved an "F" but given that it was sold as something much more flashy and fast paced, I get why people were disappointed.

                But  Killing Me Softly has its pros. It's certainly is about something.  It takes place during the 2008 Presidential Election of Barack Obama.   The promise of  bright united future for all Americans  juxtaposes with the rundown slums in which the movie takes place, and the despicable selfish people who inhabit them.  This is done purposefully to make the point that the "real" America works very differently than the idealized one people hope they live in.  Those are big ideas told through a comparatively small story.   

                The film is also extremely well acted with solid performances from Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, James Gadolfini , and Ray Liotta. I also liked that the Mob in the movie is mostly unseen.  Their interests are communicated by Richard Jenkins who plays a sort of talking head.  This does away with cliché scenes of overweight Mob bosses in butcher shops surrounded by his crew talking about killing.  Dominik's direction is solid.  He frames talking scenes in interesting ways and effectively uses slow motion in the action sequences.   He is extremely confident.  He knows what he wants to do and how much time he wants to spend doing it.

                Unfortunately where the films disappoints is that there just isn't enough going on to justify everything Dominik and co. are doing.  It's okay to take time getting to your point but it better be worth it.  As it stands, Killing Me Softly has very little going on besides the 3 sentence summary I wrote above.  Everything that happens after happens exactly the way you assume it will.  The big ideas set against the background of the 08 election are really not needed and feel beside the point.  Not that Dominik doesn't try.  He very much wants to make it fit perfectly with the themes his story is telling.  He doesn't miss an opportunity to show press coverage in the background or play an audio clip of Obama talking about hope , it's just not effective considering nothing much is going on.
                While the dialogue is good the movie doesn't show restraint in using it. Every scene is an opportunity to talk because Dominik is very much in love with his script's words.  Characters give long soliloquies which sometimes don't even make sense to the character they're talking to.  Gandolfini specifically has scenes where he tells tangential stories which are very long and have nothing to do with what's going on in the movie.  You can say it fits with what his character is going through but I don't buy it.  Dominik just likes to have the characters say his words which admittedly are good.  The overall effect is that the movie has many interesting individual well written and acted scenes that are strung together to make a not so interesting but still well written and acted movie.  If I came in like many in the audience expecting action, I would be pissed as well.  But most of this move is at least interesting and some of it even compelling so it's certainly not terrible; it's just not good either.

                FINAL GRADE: C+

I'm in for the sequel, Life of Cherry Pi

              Life of Pi is a life changing movie for me and not for the reasons you may think.  It stars a largely unknown (to the U.S.) cast and, on the face of it, is a very simple story.   Our hero is Pi who survives the sinking of a ship and is tossed into sea on a lifeboat alongside the company of a Bengal Tiger named Richard Parker.  There he must make some sort of peace with the wild creature while simultaneously battling the elements and attempting not to starve to death.

                 There’s not a lot more to that plot wise but the film is about a a lot more than just a boy and tiger. It’s a story about self discovery and faith which touches on a very existential question, if not THE existential question: Is there a God?

                Pi is an intelligent and introverted boy who looks for answers to his questions about the existence of God in many different places.  He’s born into Hinduism but in a very secular family.  His father is a stern man who worries about practical manners like providing for his family and doesn’t suffer fools who waste time searching for anything “deeper.”   Without religious guidance,  Pi turns to stories and pictures about the powerful Hindu Gods to make sense of his life, the world, and his place in it.  Then after a dare from his brother has him drink holy water from a church, he comes across a priest who gives him much more to think about.  From Hinduism he jumps to Catholicism, from believing in many to just one.  It is a profound switch for Pi.  Part of appeal of Hinduism was a chance to make a connection with one of hundreds of Gods; Pi liked the better odds of finding at least one special deity.  That one turns out to be the Catholic God.  It gives him clarity as he narrows down his focus.  He takes to praying and taking communion as well as asks to be baptized.

                Yet the question is never really settled for him.  Pi is a seeker who is always looking for answers especially as the questions of life become more complicated.   After wandering into a mosque, he takes to Islam as his new answer to these questions. The importance of Islam to Pi is less about the dogmatic rules of the religion and more the ritual and sense of community which he takes to enthusiastically.  If someone is looking for guidance on what to do,  it helps to have a religion that tells what to do five times per day and who to do it with.  So the once Hindu and Catholic turns Muslim, but again he is not satisfied.  He’s looking for not only for his place in the world but some sort of universal truth and beauty beyond the texts and prayers.  He finds this in nature and in his father’s zoo animals who he sees as touched by “God” or “Gods.”  Surely they have souls, he mentions to his brother, because he has seen them. 

                One day he decides to test his theory by attempting to make a connection with Richard Parker, the dangerous new Tiger.  He gets close, almost able to touch the beast beyond the bars he reaches through, before his father comes in and takes him away.  His father admonishes him for being too gullible and naïve concluding that animals are just animals and there’s no more truth beyond that.  Pi has too much faith for his father.   Soon after Pi (played as a teen by newcomer Suraj Sharma) is alone on a boat with that same tiger his father said had no soul.  His time together with Richard Parker tests his faith against his father’s assertion.  He fights to stay alive in the company of the tiger hoping that his father is wrong and there is something more.

                    Life of Pi is told in flashbacks with a narrative structure that makes the whole movie based on the memory of the adult Pi played by Irrfan Khan.  Khan is absolutely brilliant.

He underplays the ridiculousness of the story by displaying an even temper and good sense of humor throughout the telling.  That’s important since what he is describing is admittedly absurd, so he helps sell it by being so rationale.  This lets us believe completely in Pi’s story. We are much more deeply invested in what is happening and the deeper meanings behind it since we’re not constantly calling out “bullsh**.”

                      A religious person would take Pi’s incredible journey as proof of God; of Pi’s faith challenged and him answering the challenge by believing in himself and the wisdom of God in all things , including Richard Parker.   But I’m not religious and I walked away with something completely different.  I suppose it is open for interpretation.

SPOILERS (DO NOT READ THIS PART UNLESS YOU’VE SEEN THE MOVIE)

                As the movie reaches the end and Pi is saved his companion Richard Parker abandons him unceremoniously.  He cries, he says, because it proves his father right and there was nothing more to him than just an animal; no divinity.  But its clear the Adult Pi believes in something so most people would interpret that as proof that God does exist. That the tiger “abandoned” him because his job protecting him, keeping him alive by keeping him alert and active reached its end; that to many people is God.  When the twist ending comes revealing the possibility that Pi’s whole story was made up and instead there was a more horrific and straightforward chain of events that happened to him, many believers would say that it doesn’t matter if Richard Parker existed; Whether metaphor or real, it helped him survive and surely that is God’s work.

                With all due respect to those people, but they’re wrong.  The less fantastical and sadder version of the story is the correct one. His mother died at the hands of a man who was more beast than man but still human.  He survived by keeping his mind and body busy not by evading his tiger companion.   What the Adult Pi believes is that believing in something versus nothing is preferable.  The reason that he identifies himself as Hindu and Catholic and Muslim is because it doesn’t matter what the story is, just that he believes in a story.  There’s no universal truth besides the fact that questions without answers (or at least part of answers) are unsatisfying and ultimately destructive.  He chooses to believe the story about the tiger because it it’s a better version of what happened and he living his life believing that, believing in GOD, is simply better.  

END OF SPOILERS

                Regardless of what the meaning of the movie is it’s undeniably beautiful.  Masterfully directed and acted, the story of Pi looks as memories do when you are remembering: large, colorful, exaggerated and glorious.  This is where the big change in my life comes in.  To me 3D has been an extra distraction at best,  a cheap gimmick at worst.  It added no value besides displaying what you’re looking at slightly closer to you.  Life of Pi changes my antinque thinking by proving 3D is a valid form of storytelling and an important one. This movie, this wonderful and larger-than-life steller drama, is the new standard bearer for 3D; it proves that this technology has finally evolved enough to be integral to the creative process and produce art.  To watch the movie without the added dimension is a misktake that will lead you to miss so much.  Do yourself a favor and get the full effect and see the story how it was mean to be told.  I guaranteee you'll leave the cinema a changed man just like myself.

Wow, just Wow. 

FINAL GRADE: A-

The silver lining of this movie is that after watching it you'll feel more normal.

                Silver Linings Playbook is the latest David O Russell black comedy.   It stars Bradley Cooper as a mentally unhinged man named Pat Solitano who is just released from a mental institute after almost beating to the death the man his wife was having an affair with.  Pat is Bipolar, freshly diagnosed and refusing to take his medication. This means he's unstable, unpredictable and prone to episodes of mania that are sad then funny then sad again.  The same can be said about the film.

                The film is seen from Pat's  point of view and Russell directs it accordingly. Scenes don't start or end "neatly."  They run together , side by side, and then land on top of each other, and you find yourself not quite sure what the purpose was.  When you do think you identify the central running theme, Russell changes it up by showing something over-the-top and sometimes funny but still with deep underlining sadness.  The film is, therefore, purposefully bipolar.

                Jennifer Lawrence also stars as Tiffany, Pat's crazy new friend who is a widow but also probably a  sex addict. She tries to form a connection with Pat that doesn't involve sex as much for her sake as for his.  This leads to lots of crazy scenes , literally, where Tiffany and Pat talk to and at each other lacking any emotional intelligence or filter.  One early encounter has him call her a slut which she reacts to by hugging him and crying then afterwards angrily slapping him.  She leaves him confused and so are we.

                Somehow all the seemingly random scenes do cobble together a narrative arc for Pat, who is trying to find the silver linings in all the events in his life no matter how negative they seem.  He does so by developing  his relationship with Tiffany.  He uses her to pass messages to his now estranged wife asking for reconciliation even as he and she develop feelings for each other.  Their interactions end up driving him simultaneously more crazy and sane.  Eventually their relationship collides with his also-crazy family.  This includes his OCD-suffering father played by Robert Di Niro, who has his own storyline involving his superstitious beliefs about his Eagles football team.  His and Pat's storylines inevitably merge in some (again) crazy way that harks back to the silver linings Pat has been looking for.   

                If you're confused it's because we are meant to be.  Russell makes the stylized choice to let the story just happen however messy and confusing it might be, just like Pat's thoughts and just like life.  I liked that and I wanted it to be great.  Unfortunately, the lack of clarity takes  you away from the characters and themes and the film is only somewhat successful.

FINAL GRADE: B-

The only Wolverine I know is Hugh Jackman, a man's man who isn't afraid to kill a man then sing and dance about it.

                 Red Dawn is a ridiculous remake of a ridiculous 80's action movie.  .  If you aren't familiar with the original story , it's about smalltown USA being taken over by Communists. In the original it was the Soviets but now its the North Koreans.  After they invade those who can flee to the mountains are mostly teenagers who form a resistance cell known as The Wolverines.  They fight the invading armies using Viet Cong tactics in an effort to try to cause enough chaos for the invaders to retreat.

                The original seems to hold a special place in people's hearts due to his "America, F*** yeah" patriotism and cheesy 80's action and acting.  When I heard they were remaking it I was surprised not because a studio was going back into the well but because it didn't come sooner. The whole gung ho American cowboy stuff seemed prime post 9/11 when the public was needing to feel like they we could still kick some a**.  Today the film feels very dated.  If communism is a threat, it doesn't certainly feel like one to kids growing up today so the thought of the U.S. being invaded is pretty ridiculous. 

                Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck lead the cast and they handle their roles as antagonistic brothers well.  Hemsworth is the older disciplined Marine who has to reign in the reckless younger Peck.  That means Hemsworth talks in speeches and morality tales but he pulls it off with authority. They start the movie hinting at some tension between them that they never fully develop.  Much like most everything else in the film, that's pushed aside for the action.  Basically after the initial attack, Hemsworth very quickly forms his band of resistance fighters and then the movie moves to a series of montages showing the new young soldiers developing their skills.  Then more montages of them blowing things up followed by montages of them killing soldiers.  By the time the last third of the movie begins you know exactly where it's going which feels boring.

                One last item of note is that the North  Koreans in the film were originally Chinese. Then someone at the studio remembered there are 1 Billion Chinese people who won't watch a movie where they're the enemies. It was changed to the North Koreans but with the film already shot, inconsistent CGI and quick cutting was used to edit around the fact the movie was changing who the enemy was. This means the Asian actors who gave their performances in Chinese have their lines dubbed in Korean, something that looks silly and is distracting.  This isn't the worst thing about the movie but it certainly doesn't help.

FINAL GRADE: C-

This time I wasn't running towards the exit.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock:  You saw Breaking Dawn Part Two? Does that mean you saw Part One  and all the others?

                Indeed it does.  I never heard of Twilight until the first movie came out but it had Vampires and a love story so I was sold.  Plus I liked Kristen Stewart in Panic Room and I thought she was a rising star.

But then you actually saw it…

                Unfortunately, yes.  The movie was truly bad and I didn’t see how this generic and unintersting story could sell millions of books.  I also began to question my ability to spot talent because Kristen Stewart was the worst part of the movie: Twitchy, moody, un relatable, and annoying.

Why see the others?

                I’m a sadist and I forgot the safe word...Actually, no. I love movies so much that I wanted to stay “in the know”  with what was going on in movie pop culture so I had to see how the story progressed.

But they sucked.

                Most did. Only one (New Moon) was anything besides awful and the most recent one (Breaking Dawn Part One) was the biggest pile of monkey turd of the them all.

So the last one is just as bad?

                Actually to my complete surprise, no.  The movie picks up right after the events of Part One (or non events since splitting up the barebones story into two movies was clearly a money grab that worked spectacularly).  Bella is now a vampire and wedded forever to her true love Edward.  That should mean happily ever after but alas, their half-human, half-vampire child Renee complicates everything.  The bad guys of the movie (The Voltaire) believe she is an immortal child. This is strictly forbidden because their appetites cannot be controlled and they threaten the secrecy of vampirism from the general public.  That leads Bella, The Cullens, and Jacob to call together “witnesses” from all over the world to testify that Renee isn’t what she appears.  This leads to the inevitable showdown.

So why doesn’t this suck?

                Part Two benefits from the fact that the previous movies have all sucked; it’s the culmination of a story with the most exciting plot.  The other movies had laughable storylines that I’m sure were okay to read  but were unexciting to watch.  This one is the classic good vs. evil battle with the protection of the special child to boot.  It’s exciting.

What specifically is exciting?

                The first 25 minutes of the movie deal with Bella’s Vampire transformation and getting used to her new self.  It’s lame and repetitive with scenes of her running and hunting that we’ve seen before.  Once the Voltaire decide that Renne is a threat, however, it gets very interesting very fast. The Cullens have to call on all their family and friends to “witness” what the children really is, but it feels very much like they’re recruiting an army.   This army consists of mostly new characters which inject new life into the franchise that has had at its forefront, a group of boring vampires played by bad actors.  The characters have their own special powers which are nto especially creative but fun to watch anyway.  One vampire can electrify, another can move elements (think one of Captain Planet’s planateers), the other can make you see what she wants.  That’s super cool, so the middle third of the movie feels like their summoning the X men for a war that I was eagerly anticipating.

Wait…X Men? It’s not that good is it?

                Goodness no. Remember, everything is relative and the enjoyment I got out of the plot was a good part due to my surprise that there actually was something interesting to watch.  No more watching Bella eat ice cream and listen to sad music in her Pj’s pining over Edward.  No more Jacob trying to convince Bella that she should be with him and running off into the woods transforming into a werewolf when he’s rejected.  All that stupid sh** I out of the window.  Now it’s all about fighting for their daughter!  Liam Neesen from Taken would be proud.

Okay so the plot is not bad. But how’s the acting?

                Umm…did I mention the plot was good?  All the Cullens are boring to watch.  The stilted line readings and general woodiness remain.  The new vampires are a mixed bag but some of them have no lines so I can’t blame them.  And Stewart also continues to bravely portray a young woman living with Tourettes as she bites her lip and moves her head from side to side for no reason. 

                But I counted and there are actually 7 good actors in the whole movie.  I could list them all but I’ll just give you a couple of MVP’s:

- Billy Burke as Edward’s dad has been the Alfred of the Twlight series, if batman was played by actors who couldn’t act. His portrayal continues to be down-to-earth , low key, and containing bits of humor sorely missing from most of the franchise.  He plays a very realistic dad.

 -Michael Sheen as Aro.  Sheen overplays the hell out of this, so much so that if he had a moustache he’d be twirling it.  He cackles, he smiles creepily, he stares down the other actors with his large unblinking eyes.  He does it all but given that everyone around him looks comatose, it works.  Still, Sheen is definitely slumming just like he did in the Underworld Franchise but a paycheck’s a paycheck. 

-Lee Pace as X.  Boy oh boy, does he get the absolute worst lines.  He plays an old vampire who has been in many American battles.  At one point after he agrees to fight with the Cullens he says something like “this won’t be the first time I’ve fought against the oppression of the British.”   Oy vey that’s cheesy but Pace does it with a straight face and his commitment sells it.  Even with abhorrent lines and a one note character his performance is still good. That’s the mark of a good actor.

-And Taylor Lautner as Jacob 

Seriously!?  Taylor Lautner. I thought he was a bad actor. 

                You’re preaching to the choir. I spent 10 bucks to see Abduction which he was the star of, and I couldn’t believe he was so bad.  However, as I think back on the entire series he’s gotten better or at least less bad.  In this movie he has a cynical detachment to him that seems to say “I know this is ridiculous and I’m laughing at it just like you are.”   This is a welcomed change from everyone else who takes everything so dead serious.  He also has the creepiest plotline with him  "imprinting" himself on baby Renee, which basically means when she comes of age she's his mate.  It could have come off like "To Catch a Predator" but he is able to convey protective and loyal  versus disturbing and sick.

So why’d you like it again?

                Ah, yes. I forgot for a moment this was a positive review.  After creating some nice tension, the showdown finally comes. The sequence that follows is about 20 minutes and every bit of it is good.  It doesn’t move too quickly so as to make the long build up completely meaningless , but it doesn’t move too slowly to bore us. There’s just enough staring down of each side, menacing talk, and surprises to keep you watching.  Then the fighting begins and it’s very fun.  

This surprised the hell out of me because the “action” in the previous movies was so clumsily edited and choreographed that I expected more of the same.  I’m glad I was wrong.  The way the vampires movie: running, jumping, climbing, punching, all is exciting to watch.  Each vampire they focus on also has their own fighting style which goes is esepcially true for Edward and Bella who actually throw each other to kill people. 

What about the wolves?

                The CGI continues to looks extremely cheap but after 4 movies I’m used to it and they fit right into the action.  They growl, snarl, bare their teeth, eat and kill.  Good stuff.It’salso fun to watch a vampire try to fight a werewolf because it comes off more like wrestling. 

Is that all?

                If I say more about the fighting I will spoil it for you but let’s just say the battle it’s suitably devastating for both sides and I actually found myself tearing up at some of the deaths. Others I cheered enthuastically and I was entertained.  Which brings me to the ending.

I heard it deviates from the book.

                Absolutely it does, and I for one think that it was perfect the way it was and how dare the director-  Ha, just kidding. I have no idea if it's different because I don't read, but judging from the audible gasps it probably is.  I’m sure a lot of people won’t like it and call it a cop out but I thought it worked perfectly.  I didn’t feel cheated at all.  I also have to give them credit for circling around to the beginning (and by that I mean of the entire franchise) to remind everyone of the journey, however painful much of it was. 

Anything else?

                If you’ve loved the Twilight movies you’ll love this ending. If you’ve hated them and you're forced to watch by your girlfriend or lose a bet, you’ll be pleasantly surprised. 

                I counted and I rolled my eyes at the movie a total of 8 times.  Much of it is extremely corny and just plain dumb but I didn’t hate this.  In many ways, this last movie is a more satisfying ending then Harry Potter. Before you start taking umbrage, I’m not saying Twilight is anywhere as good as Harry Potter, but that ending was a let down; the culmination of 8 movies that created a world filled with interesting characters, complex themes , and genuinely moving moments that deserved more than the anticlimactic dénouement it got.  The Twilight movies …well they were just about young love conquering all and following your heart and this movie fits in perfectly with those ideas.  Besides, the bar was super low.

I heard they might be rebooting it.  Would you watch the new ones?

                Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times shame on me.  But, that’s what I said after Pirates of the Carribeean part 2 and 3, and I still found myself watching the 4^th one in 3D with my passed-out-from-boredom friend.  I’m a glutton for punishment and I love cinema.  So if you were wondering what my safety word is it’s “movies.”

FINAL GRADE: B-      

I wish I was Ian Fleming's grandson. That guy's like must be cake.

                I’ve never been a fan of the James Bond movies.  The formulaic set up: goofy gadgets, corny one liners, bond girls...it makes them feel all the same and nothing has every truly resonated with me.  I’ve also never connected with the character of Bond.  He has been played by many men and there are those who passionately argue about who the “Best” bond is and who really captures the character’s look and style.  But to me Bond was always a cipher;  a shallow character whose personality was merely a collection of spy clichés.  It doesn’t matter who plays him because he’s always the same.   

                Enter Daniel Craig, the latest actor to take on the Bond character.  When they cast him the press (British mostly since they really have boner for the character) were up in arms.  “He’s too short” I read.  “He’s too blond.” “He’s not built enough.”  I didn’t understand what the big deal was because the hair color or height didn’t matter if he was just going to do the same thing he’d been doing for past 20 movies.  When I finally saw Casino Royale , I was pleasantly surprised because it  wasn’t the same thing as the previous movies. 

The film actually tried to a break a little bit from the formula and give Bond some depth and motivation beyond,” I want to save the world because I really want to keep this job where I get to keep banging random girls.”   It was a bit darker, rougher and all together more serious film that worked.  Yet it had its problems  which included the fact that half of the movie was people playing poker.  Although today this is something ESPN devotes whole channels to, it  got a bit exhausting in an action movie where things are supposed to blow up.  But I liked where the franchise was going and I was in for the next one.

                Unfortunately the next one was the sh** show that was Quantum of Solace. Besides the terrible title, this is also a terrible film.  That's because…actually I don’t remember why.   It was so unbelievably boring that I’ve blocked it from my memory.  This was truly a disappointment because again the movie was trying to do something different with Bond by daring to continue the story from Casino Royale and the death of Bond’s true love.  So he was pissed and out for blood and that led to… lots of talking and a lengthy scene of Bond being tortured that came off more like footage form Abu Ghraib than a major motion picture. 

                Skyfall is the latest Bond and Daniel Craig returns in this much improved outing.  The plot is the best of the three with M (Judi Dench) targeted by cyber terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardeem) who has a connection to her past.  Bond starts the film by returning from almost dying and having taken a bit of a sabbatical which looks more like a bit of a bender; needless to say he’s not in the best shape.  He also starts off the film at odds with M for causing his almost-death.  This adds intensity to their relationship and makes the film more compelling than Bond swooping in and saving the day.     

                Despite the film’s serious set up, Skyfall also brings back some much needed fun to the series. It brings back Q (Ben Whishaw) and his gadgets, making the correct decision to make them more realistic.  Craig’s Bond starts off cranky but never moody as he was in Casino Royale and Quantum.  He’s more sarcastic and uses his dry wit to say several funny one liners which after three movies Craig finally looks comfortable saying.  He’s also looser and clearly having more fun; All that translates on screen.    The interplay between M and Bond is fun because there’s a respect between the two that the audience feels even though they’re at each other’s throats (or the British version of that which mainly includes Waspy condescending comments and backhanded compliments).

     Javier Bardeem’s Silva is the best thing about the movie.  His performance is all over the place in a good way because it’s full of interesting facets.  He plays the rogue as a effeminate yet menacing mama’s boy who seems like he might use his superior intellect to either murder everyone or, just fu** them.   I’m not kidding about that.  Bardeem has a homo erotic scene with a tied up Craig that will make you squirm and giggle all at the same time. 

          Unfortunately, Bardeem is not in this movie a lot which is related to the biggest weakness of the film:  No matter how good of a Bond movie this is you never forget you’re watching a Bond movie.  As well presented as the formula is, it is still a formula.  You wait for the corny one-liners, gadgets, and dangerous Bond escapes with a lack of excitement or anticipation because you know they’re coming.  I hoped Skyfall could avoid this by mixing it up and expanding on its promising theme.  Silva you see is actually M’s former protégé and feels scorned by her betrayal.  He has strong maternal feelings for her and refers to her as “mommy.”  Bond, her new favorite son, is then Silva’s brother and the showdown between them is not about terrorism or world domination but about fighting for the affection of their common mother figure.  When they introduced this halfway through the movie, it excited me to see a new different Bond because I felt certain they would link this familial theme with Bond’s past.  This would give the film a perfect way to explore Bond as a character and dig deeper to what makes him tick.  We could also learn more about M, whose front-and-center in this weird family feud.  Her character would be able to developed and it would make it so much more interesting. 

       However, this is a Bond movie and the focus has to be on Bond so Silva and M’s back stories are swept aside in favor of his.  But we don’t really get to Bond’s back story. It’s merely mentioned off handed and the focus goes back to the action because this is a Bond film and the next action sequence has to start or else they can’t play a riff on the Bond theme while things explode.  It’s frustrating because the ingredients are all there but the meal never really comes together.  

         I can now say without a doubt Daniel Craig is the best Bond and Skyfall is the best of his movies which makes it a great Bond film.  Unfortunately, being a great Bond film means you’ve hit the ceiling created by the formulaic nature of franchise.   It’s like watching a really great episode of Law and order.  You walk away happy you did but in the end, it’s still Law and Order.  Good, not great.

SKYFALL (2012):  B

THE QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008): D+

CASINO ROYALE (2006): B-

Ralph...SMASH!

      Wreck It Ralph is a clever and hilarious comedy that combines the childish potty humor of a Saturday morning cartoon with a healthy mix of adult sensibility that makes it enjoyable for everyone. When the film begins, this constant label of “bad guy” and the lack of respect he receives in his own game leads Ralph to a support group filled with other video game baddies.  They consul Ralph that It’s okay to be a “bad guy” because it’s the role they will forever have to play; They must accept it since there’s nothing they can do about it. Ralph disagrees, and “game jumps” into a Halo-like first person shooter game in order to win a medal and become a real hero.The plot is so ingenious you wonder why it hasn’t been tried before.  Wreck It Ralph is a Atari-era 8 bit video game character, forever fated to be stuck in a game as  the “bad guy” to Fix It Felix’s hero.  

The story is set up as a classic “accepting yourself” story but its film is actually surprisingly and appropriate complex, with at least 4 characters (including those played by Sarah Silverman, Jack Mcbreyer and Jane Lynch ) that have fleshed out character arcs.  Some (including Ralph’s) go to places you would be surprised and its handled perfectly , making the film go by very fast.  The voice acting is wonderful with John C Reilly as Ralph especially making the character come alive just by saying words.  Most actors can’t even do that when they are able to be seen (cough Jessica Biel cough). 

Visually, the world created in the movie is rich and detailed. The animation is superb, especially the design of our main heroes, who look a lot like their actor counterparts, a nice touch that helps with connecting with them.  

The background is also a sight to behold because of the level of care that was obviously put in each and every frame.  A lot of the times I found myself just looking around the characters and admiring how beautiful it all looked.

The film also has puns galore, and I love me a good pun.  

This is the best movie I have seen in a while. Seriously, go watch it.

FINAL GRADE: A-

I'm trying to decide if I could pull off that leather jacket.

      Seven Psychopaths is the Collin Farrell-led  drama / comedy involving the kidnapping of a mob boss’s beloved dog by a couple of con artists.  They supposedly don’t know the importance of who they kidnapped and so are immediately in over their heads, and have to figure out a way not to get killed by him. This proves unfortunate for Farrell’s screenwriter character Marty who gets mixed up in all the shenanigans but uses it to flesh out his screenplay (called Seven Psychopaths) while running for his life.  Since the last film director Martin McDonagh did was the very funny and entertaining dramedy In Bruges, I came into the movie with elevated hopes.  I also was also cautious, however, because of what I saw as problem areas for the movie just from the preview.   Unfortunately, my fears were proved correct because the film is an uneven clusterf*** that I don’t regret seeing so much as regret paying to see.

So because there’s a number in the title and because every one of my reviews needs a hook: here’s seven reasons why I didn’t like Seven Psychopaths.

1.  The Genre.  Above I identified this as a comedy and a drama but the real genre I hate is the now-cliched  violent comedies which involve eccentric and intelligent immoral people who spend their time in-between robberies or murders having funny and insightful conversations about life.  There’s also usually a bunch of them and one is chasing the other or they’re all chasing after one thing. Then usually somebody is killed or dies and what little there is of the plot progresses not that much as characters continue to chase after each other or after something. Post Pulp Fiction I saw a slew of these movies come out and most of them were terrible.  It lends itself to not making a cohesive movie but instead a collection of scenes which come off like an actor’s audition pieces, overwritten and with just enough weird things to make it a nice “challenge” for the actor reading it. The genre can still be done correctly but it’s tricky and for every Go (awesome) we get a 2 Days in the Valley (not so awesome).   Seven Psychopaths falls into the trappings of the genre which is made worse by the abundance of characters which means none have to be developed all that much. I call that the X-Men 3 effect. 
2.  It wastes a talented cast:  There are a lot of good actors in this movie. We have Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken, and yes even Collin Farrell who I find capable of turning in a good performance even if he isn’t quite the superstar they’ve tried very hard to make him out to be (and I don’t know how many more times they’re going to give him a chance. Every movie he’s in bombs. Seriously go look it up: Fright Night, Total Recall, this movie. All big disappointments) .  
        All of them seem to be having fun but that’s not something the audience shares in mostly because the fun comes from clearly doing anything they want to.  Blame this on weak direction because it seems like they’ve gotten an actor’s dream in being able to pick any cinematic cliché or eccentricity and running with it.  Farrell gets to be the tortured alcoholic screenwriter, Harrelson the psychopathic mob boss with an uncharacteristic soft spot, and Christopher Walken well...he does a great Christopher Walken impression which means he lets his funny gestures and cadence be his character and not so much any of the details of the script.        This makes for funny and interesting performances (especially Rockwell’s unhinged Billy)  but it also means that because they’re doing anything they want to, the performances never gel.  The result is that all of the actors seem to be in their own separate movies, most of which I’d rather have been watching.
3. The movie isn’t about anything:  I dare you to watch this flick and tell me what the point of it was.  Was a story about love? Betrayal? Deceit? Envy?  Not really.  In fact the plot doesn’t create anything interesting to watch).  It just creates an excuse for everyone, in the midst of doing their own thing, kind of coming together and being in each other’s radius’ while they do so.  You leave the movie wondering what exactly just went on and why the hodgepodge of weirdos you just watched deserved a whole movie.
   
4. Nobody acts like real people.  Most films don’t exist in the “real world” by definition because what you’re seeing is not real.  So you just accept the fact that situations and people are exaggerated and resolutions are made “neater” because it has to be to fit into 90 minutes.  I’m okay with that.  However, in order for a movie to be effective, things have to make sense within their own world and connect back to basic human emotions.  That way we understand the motivations and actions characters take no matter how far removed from reality what’s going on around them is.  We understand that Neo chooses to save Trinity in The Matrix Reloaded because of love which we can understand even if we don’t necessarily understand  a post apocalyptic world where everyone is trapped inside of a computer.  In an odd way, no matter what ridiculousness we are seeing, Neo’s decision makes sense.  The problem with Seven Psychopaths is that nothing the characters do make sense, in any world.  We don’t understand why the mob boss is so in love with his dog given that he is a psychopath, just like we don’t understand why Marty is sticking around a dangerous situation that most of us would flee immediately from.   And we don’t understand what Rockwell is doing at all especially after a twist in the middle of the movie makes him even more nuts than we thought he was.   The movie instead uses the title as a way of making up for it all by basically saying “yeah, they’re all crazy so they’re going to act weird and crazy. Just go with it.”
5. The setting. I cringe when movies filmed in Hollywood are set in Hollywood. That “insider” crap really wears thin on me after about 20 minutes because no one, unless you live in Hollywood, can relate to working in that town.  Any movie that makes Hollywood and the movie business a major part of the plot loses me and about 95% of the watching public because we just don’t care.  It would be if someone made a movie about a government worker where the fact that he worked in D.C. was a major part of the story.  It screams snooze fest.  A good movie can overcome this but Seven Psychopaths is not that movie.
6. The ending.  So mild spoilers here: a couple people die but the way they do is anti climatic and pointless.  Ancillary characters take out both after long strung out conversations which lead to absolutely nothing and do not provide any character development or progress the plot.  So there’s no good reason for them to die except that hey, it’s almost near the end so in a film titled Seven Psychopaths you have to kill at least a few more people off.
7. There are actually 6 Psychopaths, not 7.  If I wrote about why this is it would spoil a plot point which I suppose is meant to be a “major” reveal but to me just came off as obvious.  Regardless, there is no good effing reason why there are not actually 7 Psychopaths in this movie.  There are already enough violent/deranged characters to choose from to make up the 7 but again proving that this movie just puts stuff out there in an attempt to be different and clever, they only identify 6.  And the movie is called Seven Psychopaths. And some of the psychopaths are not even real.  Whaaaa?  Maybe they should have just made the dog a psychopath. It would have made just as much sense as everything else in this movie.

FINAL GRADE: C-

At last, all those "Ben Affleck has a Beard" rumors are proved true.

     In 2000 the movie Gladiator came out.  You remember it: the one with a thin Russell Crow avenging the death of his family by hunting down the Roman dictator who killed them.  It was a huge hit and won so many Oscars I have no interest in doing a google search to get an accurate count.  The famous line that came out of it happens when Crowe’s Maximus yells out to the hungry Roman crowds who watch gladiators kill each other mercilessly: “Are you not entertained?”  That's always the question I ask myself when I review a film and for this one I actually bucked the trend and answered that question with a firm “Um…sort of.”         I didn’t especially love the movie but I thought it was a well done action flick with great acting, for sure, but it has a predictable and uninspiring narrative that makes it only ‘good’ in my book. Apparently I was in the minority because everyone loved this movie so much.  To this day it baffles me that I did not connect to the movie like most of my friends did

.

     This brings me to Ben Affleck’s latest directorial effort, Argo.  This is a film that has already been called an awards contender and that Entertainment Weekly gave an “A” in their review.  Surely, it is a masterpiece, cementing Affleck as one of the best directors around.  Well, I’m here to say “not really.”

     Argo has a great premise: During the 1979 Iranian Hostage crises, six employees from the American embassy hideout in the Canadian ambassador’s house.  The CIA puts together every “bad idea” as the film puts it, with Ben Affleck’s Tony Mendez being the “best worst idea, by far.”

  He plans to fly into Iran with the cover that he is scouting locations for a science fiction film (The Argo of the title) and fly out with the hostages disguised as his Canadian crew.  It’s a great set up, and one that I hoped would play out with much drama and suspense.  What I got however was a film that felt very much like an HBO TV Movie, meaning that it is a fascinating part of history but not necessarily deserving of the big screen treatment. That’s because as much suspense as the premise of the film promises, nothing much happens beyond the three sentences I just typed above. 

     Mendez puts together the colorful cover story with the help of Hollywood special effects guru John Chambers (John Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) , the former eccentric and the latter curmudgeonly, and together they provide the film’s comic relief.  But while what they did certainly was historically important, it’s not all that interesting to watch.  To hold a fake Hollywood reading of the Argo script and design storyboards and rent out office space does not scream suspense.  Affleck films their actions with the respect he clearly has for these men, but their efforts, while noble, are not Herculean, and there’s just enough drama to warrant them taking up 30 minutes of the movie.  Their scenes are padded with “action” moments like Siegel bluffing a spineless Hollywood agent, and a montage of the men reading potential scripts.   It’s not exactly boring but not very exciting either, and it feels much to do about nothing (and again I’m not saying they actually did nothing, I’m just saying watching it wasn’t all that captivating).

     Where the film has the most potential to mine drama is with the dynamics between the hostages.  They are stuck in one home (sometimes in a crawl space) with rising panic and tempers, and they often passionately disagree about what to do next.  Yet, the movie doesn’t spend enough time exploring this.  Beyond the names and brief bio, we never get to know them and really dig deep into the tension that had to have actually existed between them in this high stress situation.  

     The star of the film is Affleck’s Tony Mendez who gets the most character development with a brief back-story involving his son and the separation from his wife.  This supposedly raises the stakes for Mendez to succeed and get something right in his life when so much has gone wrong.  But again it feels forced, a screenwriter’s contrivance to create some sort of an arc because…someone has to have an arc.  This also means Mendez is a Gloomy Gus throughout the film, silently sitting staring at nothing, and drinking by himself because, supposedly, of all that is going on with him.

   Mendez looks miserable throughout and doesn’t come across as a likeable or relatable person, just one with drama for his baby’s mama. 

    As the film proceeds to its conclusion we get a lot of scenes which alternate between the Hostages escape (or attempted escape, no spoilers here, although seriously… Wikepedia it) and the bureaucrats in Washington who want to shut down the operation and leave the Hostages stranded. There’s lots of running around and yelling mostly done by Bryan Cranston (who is pretty damn good and I hope we see him more in the future).  The yelling signals to the audience that the situation is serious but the “tension” created as the film reaches its denouement feels fake, as if they were trying to make it more dramatic than it really was.  So convinced was I that it could not have possibly gone down the way I saw, that me and girlfriend googled it after, and sure enough, it was made up.  That in itself is okay but it feels made up, and that’s the issue.  Nothing in the film feels as genuine as it tries to be and I found myself not connecting with the movie.

     But I didn’t hate the movie. It’s an interesting and pleasant telling of a little known part of our history that I was glad I saw.  So I was “entertained” by it…just not to the extent other people have been.

     Apparently the movie title that was actually used was not the memorable “Argo” but something else I’m too lazy to google now.  That’s fake too but it does give the film an excuse to make a pun, which I love. When Siegel is speaking to Mendez or Chambers about the operation they have a secret code between them:  “Ar, Go fu** yourself.”  That’s funny and clever and like the film I enjoyed it.  So I’m not say “F you” to Argo, I’m saying “B, you.” And yes that's a strech but I wanted a pun in the title of the review.

FINAL GRADE: B

(This poster is just puntastic)

Mighty Joe Young...and Old

              Looper posits that in the future time travel will be invented but outlawed. It will be used only by crime organizations to kill undesirables by sending them back to the past to be gunned down by for-hire assassins known as loopers.  These loopers work until their contracts expire at which time they kill their future selves.  It’s a promising concept that comes frustratingly close to being fully realized in wrtier-director’s Rian Johnson’s film.  As it stands however, the film is 2/3 of a good move that could have been so much more.

                Looper begins well by using voice over to succinctly summarize the film’s time travel aspects.  This avoids a lot of needless scenes awkwardly inserted (that’s what she said) merely for exposition. This allows the film to start off with bang, literally, as we immediately witness Joseph Gorden Levitt’s young Joe emotionlessly use a shot gun to commit murder, and we are taken directly into his morally devoid world.  Besides murder, this world includes money (or “silver”), drug abuse and hookers, all of which make an appearance within the first 15 minutes.  See what I mean about the film starting well?

                 Johnson sets everything in 2044 but makes the wise decision not to focus too much on Joe’s “present” (aka our future) to keep the movie grounded in as much reality as a science fiction film set in the future can have.  Mercifully, this means there are no “look what I can do with my really cool special effects” wide shots which do nothing but make us appreciate today’s technology.  If I wanted to do that I would just ask Siri where I could get “my knob polished” and giggle while she brings up metal polishing and buffing services. Oh, Siri you don’t understand…. It means TWO things.

                 Although the future aspect is not focused heavily on, Johnson succeeds in presenting his vision of Joe’s world as separate from ours through his strong and confident direction.  As I watched Joe inhabit this world, blissfully enjoying the present while at the same time plotting out his future of endless potential, I too saw potential.  By the time the great Jeff Daniels shows up as bearded and haggard elder statesman Abe, who I could only assume was the main baddie, I was confident I was in for a good time with a director who know what he was doing.

Unfortunately, Daniels is not really the bad guy and that’s where the movie starts to make mistakes.  I mean, he is a bad guy, who tries to kill Levitt’s Joe after he fails to “close his loop” and kill himself (played by Bruce Willis), but there’s not enough focus on him for him to be the main antagonist.  That is left to Willis’ older Joe who escapes being murdered by his younger self and goes on a mission which threatens the life of Levitt’s Joe. 

The problem with that is that we are rooting for Willis’ older, wiser, man who’s learned from his mistakes to succeed not Levitt’s drugged out killer.  Levitt in turn becomes the real antagonist, selfishly trying to preserve his decedent lifestyle as he fights for his turn to piss his life away as Willis has.  This by the way is shown in a clever flash forward (or a flashback for Willis’s version of the character) which clues the viewer into just how wasteful Joe would be if his next 30 years go as planned.

                      Joseph Gorden Levitt is good at making young Joe likeable even if there’s no good reason he should be, but since we are rooting against him, we don’t want to spend time watching him unless he comes around to Willis’ way of thinking.  For that to happen Willis has to knock some sense into him and he does try as they face off in a run-down out of the way diner. This great exchange from two very good actors is where the movie peaks as Levitt peers menacingly in Willis’ eyes as Willis looks back disgusted and ashamed at himself. 

That scene serves as exposition too as Willis explains what he’s come back to do, but it’s really about character development.  With just looks we see pain and fear as both men peer into their future and past respectively, and have to figure out how that makes them feel.  That’s meaty stuff (that’s what she said) and it lays groundwork for a lot compelling drama and action. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t fulfill on the potential we see in the diner.

             After Levitt and Willis are separated they don’t really meet again, taking away the confrontation between the two which is best thing about the film.  Levitt then becomes involved in another plotline completely, one which involves single mothers, psychic powers and even more exposition. It’s all supposed to be a soul –searching experience for young Joe as he gets dry and starts to confront the effects of his decisions.  But it comes off as hurried attempt to humanize a character the audience isn’t really on the side of which takes away from Willis, who the audience does want to see succeed.  Willis is then relegated to running from faceless bad guys as he goes about his mission, which by the way includes killing innocents.  But besides looks of guilt we don’t’ spend much more time with old Joe.  Not getting to know him feels wasteful because there’s so much there to explore.

           Back on the farm (literally, Levitt spends the second half of the film at a farm), young Joe gets the majority of the screen time and  as interesting as it is to hear information linked to Willis’ time travel, this is never fully explored either.  Much of the time I was waiting for the plot to come back to Willis and I was disappointed when it didn’t.  Ironically even when Levitt’s and Willis’ plotlines re-intersect and what Levitt has experienced becomes more significant, it still feels beside the point.

             What is the point then? Well, I thought it was about a man confronting both his future and past and trying to rationalize the two.  I expected Willis and Levitt would meet again as they learned to accept they each one of them is Joe, and have to work together. That would make more sense because it would give Daniels a chance to be the antagonist he is set up to be, and give the single mom and young child Levitt spends most of his time with, more to do.  It also would help the audience be more involved with Levitt if he came around more to Willis’ thinking.  That would increase “buy in” to Levitt’s part of the story which does seem part of a greater and fascinating whole I ‘d be interested in exploring.  Instead the film “closes the loop” in a different and wasteful way which I won’t spoil here.   By doing this is negates much of what we have seen and finally kills the potential the movie has shown.  What a shame.

                 Looper ends in unsatisfying way which brings us back towards the beginning of the film.  This is exactly where my mind went as I thought back to what could have been and then finally what the movie became, an endless loop of unrealized potential destined to repeat itself.

FINAL GRADE: B

(JT was right, what comes around goes around)

At least the poster is good.

     Over the past two weekends, 2 movies with great advanced reviews opened in select theatres in my area. Both films feature tough-as-nails protagonists who are stubborn and self destructive as well as mentors who bring them into the fold of their groups over the objections of others.  Both then follow the attempted redemption of these outsiders turned members of communities, as they explore the new terrain of living with and interacting with group members when all they want to do is what feels familiar and comfortable: be by themselves

Despite these similarities 2 the films end up being very different movies with only one being as depressing and dull as the above paragraph suggests.  Since one is the Paul Thomas Anderson period drama “The Master” and the other is the college comedy “Pitch Perfect,” that may not be surprising.  But the biggest difference here is actually that one is clearly much better than the other.  Which one? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the movie that features  a song by Blackstreet.

If you just now began to picture Phillip Seymour Hoffman rapping about the original rumpshakers  while singing “No Diggity, No Doubt,” you can wipe that hilarious thought from your mind.  Unfortunately there’s nothing nearly as entertaining as that going on in the “The Master.”  Instead of Teddy and Blackstreet, you get the story of Freddie Quell, a World War 2 veteran played by Joaquin Phoenix who aimlessly navigates his post war existence.   Freddie is a mentally scarred and disturbed young man.  He is a sullen and self isolated, drinks past the point of reason, is prone to erratic and excessive bursts of violence, and has the proclivity to sexualize everything.  This can be most clearly seen during his Rorschach test as he describes seeing a vagina in literally every figure presented to him.   He also makes his own alcohol but his particular brand of hooch is made from shoe polish and paint thinner which he chugs with gusto as he literally poisons his body and mind.

     When the war ends and he is discharged he loses what little structure there was in his life.  With no direction there’s nothing to contain his excesses, and he moves from place to place working a variety of odd jobs each one of which he loses for being either too drunk, too disorderly, or both.  It’s after another one of the job’s abruptly ends that he meets Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd , The Master of the title.  The two then strike a friendship which the film follows.

 Much has been said about this film being a thinly veiled critique of Scientology with Hoffman as L Ron Hubbard and there are similarities to be sure.  The Master in this film leads a cult of followers who take his every word, written and spoken, as gospel.  They try to recruit new members through a variety of recruiting techniques most of which are hinted at are pure hooey that The Master makes up.   They involve past lives and astro projection and as I watched the movie I kept thinking about Tom Cruise and him jumping on Oprah’s coach and how devoted his is to his religion which involves many of the same ridiculous notions in the movie.  The film may very well be an attempt to expose Scientology but the film never gives the religion its full attention.  As much as the film is entitled The Master, he is a supporting character to Phoenix’s Quell. His journey is what the film spends its time on.   This wouldn’t be an issue except that as good of a performance as Phoenix gives as a broken sociopath masquerading as a man, nothing really happens on his journey.  He joins the cult and attempts to change but we never know if he’s serious about it or just paying lip service.   He seems to just continue being his crazy self in scene after scene of him being angry and drunk.  Another issue is that since we never really get an idea of who is in the first place, we are never interested in seeing him become something else.   The “point” of the movie therefore, is lost.

Without thematic clarity all we have to rely on is plot and The Master does itself no favors in that department because Absolutely Nothing Happens. The end result is almost constant boredom which is only broken up by our anticipation that surely something is going to happen.  Except it never does, at least not on screen.  The most interesting aspects of the film are the bits exploritng the cult, its inner workings  and Dodd’s methods and possible madness but that’s happening in the background.  But  since nothing is happening with Quell’s story it’s really happening in the background of nothing.  The Master then becomes the cinematic equivalent of a screen saver, interesting to look at because of the performances,  but after you’ve seen it for a few moments, you’re over it.   

Unfortunately the movie’s runtime is 2 hours going on infinity so it drags on long after you’ve lost interest.

     I know a lot of people are going to say Paul Thomas Anderson is a genius and anyone who is not amazed by the awesomeness of the Master is too stupid to get it but to that I say bulls***.  It’s fine to be different and reject traditional story structure and character development but it has to be replaced with something. As it stands now the film mostly feel like a collection of great individual scenes stitched together to create a whole that is not quite cohesive.  That has nothing to do with “not getting it.”  It has to do with quality,

     Which brings me to “Pitch Perfect,” a film that is as traditional as they come but actually not completely dull.  

In this case the outsider is Anna Kendrick’s Beca, a loner freshman at the fictional Barden University  who reluctantly joins The Bellas, her school’s all-girls singing group.  What follows is what you would expect: The  members of The Bellas don’t gel right away but eventually they do as she shakes up the rigid dynamic; In the process they and she are the better for it.  There’s also love interest who she initially rejects because of her issues with commitment and there’s a competition which they reach the finals of.  Pretty standard stuff.

     So the film is not going to win “Best original” anything but it works because it doesn’t care that its telling you a story you’ve seen a million times.  It’s telling it with their own  style which includes hilarious non sequiturs and sardonic and subversive humor that gets laughs from places you might not expect.  Yes there’s a Fat Girl who’s bullied but she calls herself Fat Amy. She’s played by the riotous and I’m sure soon-to-break out Rebel Wilson whose deadpan delivery helps her steal absolutely every scene she’s in.  Yes the leader of the singing group is uptight and controlling but her reasons for that include a gross out and laugh out loud scene which I won’t ruin.  Yes there’s a shy girl who breaks out of her shell but she’s an Asian group member who talks in a low voice allowing her to say the most outrageous things directly to the camera without anyone hearing them (this include the outrageous non sequitor: “sometime I light fires just to feel joy” which she volunteers for no reason.)  There’s also witty and sarcastic banter from the requisite announcers played by Christopher Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks (who produced the film).  They get to be hilariously insulting to the singers and to one another.

    The film also has a fair amount of heart especially from Kendrick which has us rooting for the Bellas even more.  The music selection is refreshingly varied and sometimes surprising.  It includes songs made in this century which sometimes you just don’t hear on Glee.  All in all I had an enjoyable time at Pitch Perfect which was very much not the case with The Master. In the end, that's the most telling measure of success for a film.

I’m told Pitch Perfect is based on a book which is ironic because if any of the two films I saw this past weekend was going to be based on a book I would have picked the boring meandering The Master and not the funny charming college romp Pitch Perfect.  Go figure.

THE MASTER:  C

PITCH PERFECT: B+

There's a joke about Milla Jovovich and spray and pray that I'm too mature to make here

     I’ve always had mixed feelings about the success of the Resident Evil movie series.  For the un-initiated the franchise follows the aftermath of a zombie outbreak organized by the evil Umbrella Corporation.  I love the games and find them cerebral and scary but the films are mostly stupid and loud.  I was convinced after I saw the 2002 original, a fast, frantic, confusing-for-no-reason splatter palooza set to annoying techno music, I was seeing the simultaneous birth and death of Resident Evil on the big screen.   It seemed like Paul W.S. Anderson took the bits we found “cool” and mixed them into a generic zombie flick.  Do you like weird zombie mutations? Check, it’s in there.  Big ass guns ?  Check.   Zombie dogs?  Triple Check! 

A mystery?  Umm… sure we’ll make it so mysterious you won’t see the plot twists coming...mostly because they don’t make sense.   The movie felt badly put together and looked cheap, like it belonged in Sci-fy’s  distinguished Saturday Night movie library alongside classics like Frakenfish, Dino Croc, and Sharktopus. 

I really expected for it to make no money and to see Wesley Snipes, Cuba Gooding Jr. and/or Dolph Lundgren reset the series with the inevitable straight-to-DVD sequel.

                But the public disagreed and die hard fanboys and horror fans alike made the first film a success.  Looking back on it I can see why they didn’t hate it:  The zombies look cool, the deaths are over the top and inventive, and Milla Jovovich was pretty much naked for a lot of it. Plus, Paul W.S. Anderson is not a bad director.  To me, he’s always come off as a mid budget Michael Bay who is skilled at constructing action and has a distinctive visual style, but who wastes it in films that are badly plotted and written.  Since he has sole or shared screenplay credit on a lot of his movies (including all of the Resident Evils) there’s no one to blame but himself in this area.  But, hey, as long as his movies make money, there’s no reason to try anything different. 

                And his films have made money, including the first Resident Evil, which lead to the inevitable sequel titled Resident Evil:  Apocalypse.

The film picked up directly after the events of the first film with Jovovich’s Alice having escaped Umbrella Corporation's underground science lab.  She is the sole survivor and as I began to watch this second entry I picked up on something that became a recurring theme in the series.  Every film seems to completely ignore or downplay significant plot and character development , as if Anderson is literally hitting reset on what has happened before and starting anew.  It does it in a way where it won’t say the previous film’s events didn’t happen it just has no effect on Alice’s psyche or decision making.   It’s like Alien 3 when Ripley wakes up and sheds a few tears for Newt and the other guy and then moves on because the story demands that she pay attention to the next set of horrible events happening around her.  Actually, it’s even worse than that because Alice doesn’t even shed tears.   There’s a certain thematic consistency with this tabula rasa approach because later we discover Alice is an experiment by Umbrella with many blank clone copies.  But it’s frustrating for anyone looking for growth or consistency in the franchise.

                2004’s Apocalypse has Alice set aside any inconvenient feelings about those she loves meeting horrible deaths, as she joins a military team trying to contain the outbreak in Raccoon City.  (and oh yeah, the virus she worked to keep in the underground lab…well nice try but she actually wasted her time because it spread).   Her mission is really just to escape before the city is nuked and she does it with the help of said military squadron and her friend Jill Valentine.  For fans of the games you recognize the name but not necessarily the character because Anderson only pays lip service to what makes her so compelling.  Jill isn’t really a character as much as she is an excuse to say to both the die hard Fanboys and the casual fans who may have played Resident Evil once at Best Buy while waiting for a friend in line, “Hey, Jill Valentine is in this. It’s just like the game. Awesome, right?”  Well, not so much.  The movie is just a run of the mill action film with badly done CGI, stock characters, wooden acting, and more needlessly complicated plot twists, this time involving different aspects of the T Virus and the artificial intelligence that caused the outbreak and… blah blah blah.  None of it really makes any sense but it doesn’t matter since there’s a nuke coming and Alice and the others have to get the hell out of Dodge…or Raccoon, as it were. 
               A couple other random tidbits about this film: In 2004 I had a bootleg copy of it and I put it on to take a break studying for a very difficult Econ final.  I was so disgusted at how terrible it was that 30 minutes in, I stopped watching and started studying again.  That’s how much of a waste of time it was.  

And a few years after it was released, I saw an interview with Zack Ward, the capable actor from TV’s Titus who played one of the members of the military team, where he complains about the movie and how it “wasn’t as good as the first film.”  I agree with the statement but not necessarily the sentiment. The original was still bad but the second was so much worse.

                3 years later there came a third, Resident Evil: Extinction which I respected for at the very least pulling the trigger on the end of the world threat presented in the previous films.  The movie takes place in the apocalyptic aftermath of the T Virus escaping Raccoon city.  Alice is back and so is Carlos, the only military survivor from the previous film as well as Mike Epps who was the comedic relief in Apocalypse.  The film actually makes an attempt at character development by briefly exploring the romance between Carlos and Alice hinted at in the previous film. They do seem to genuinely care for and find solace in one other, even in the midst of their constant struggle to survive against the swarm of the undead. Oded Fehr from the first two does a decent job of creating a character who we understand: a military man trained for long term survival but not necessarily relationships, whose instinct is to protect Alice.   Unfortunately we don’t spend enough time with him and Alice because they are traveling with a new group of characters which includes Claire Redfield, another familiar face from the games.  Honestly, I don’t’ remember much about her character from the movie only that she only somewhat resembles the Claire from the games and that she spends the rest of the time running around killing zombie birds.    Oh yes, there are zombie birds.  Persumably, in an attempt to top the zombie dogs from the first film and try out some of their slightly better CGI, zombified birds are introduced as a major menace. It’s ridiculous but then so is everything else as the film also reveals that Alice has developed super powers and she proceeds to blow stuff up with her mind.  So, the ridiculousness fits right in.  Mike Epps also is in the mix but he goes from the light comic relief in the pervious movie to deadly serious in this one.  Given the film’s circumstances that makes sense but Epps is just not a strong enough actor to carry scenes where he has to show genuine fear or concern.   He comes off as annoying and silly and when he finally does die we don’t really care.  Ashanti is also in this film for some reason, perhaps to continue my perfect streak of being able to identify singer turned “actors” in movies, even if I have no idea who they are and have never seen them sing or “act.”  They’re noticeable because of the blank look on their faces and the laughable overacting.  Ashanti is no exception but it’s okay though because the zombie birds get her. 

In fact as much as Alice tries to protect her group, all of them pretty much die even, regrettably, Carlos who does have a touching goodbye scene at least.   All in all the film, for all it’s ridiculous touches, is a marked improvement from Apocalypse.  It has improved graphics, at least some character development, and some interesting plot twists because I defy anyone to get bored watching Jovovich use her mind to create fireballs.  Not since Luigi has someone been so menacing playing with hot fire.

     2010’s Resident Evil: Afterlife actually makes the bold choice of continuing Alice’s story.  She tracks down those responsible in the Umbrella Corporation for her super powers (acquired from being the only human to successfully bond with the deadly zombie T-Virus insted of turning into an undead cannibal).   It seems as humanity has died out those who were responsible because they sold the T-Virus as a biological weapon, were living it up in comfortable secure underground cities just watching and plotting.  Plotting for what is never really explained because as much as a corporation likes to make profits it really is limiting its customers and the value of its currency by killing its customers and decimating countries who issue currency. 

                In the first 10 minutes Alice shows up in one of the underground fortresses and leads a refined tactical assault she’s obviously performed more than one, killing mostly every one of the evil capitalist Umbrella bastards.  The army she leads? It’s actually made up of her clones because apparently Umbrella cloned her since she was such a successful experiment.  Why and how, and what the f***?  I have no idea and the film tells you to pretty much forget about that because the clones introduced in the last film are all conveniently killed off in the first 10 minutes of this one.  And Alice also loses her super powers so pretty much all plot development from the first 3 films are undone and once again Resident Evil starts anew.  Again with the Reset Button! 

I’ve never before witnessed an ongoing movie series punish its viewers for being invested in what happened in its previous installments.  Seriously, it makes no sense.  It’s like if in Underworld 4 they completely got rid of the whole Vampires vs. Werewolves thing and went off on another tangent.

                As much as I hated the set up of Afterlife, after the immediate terribleness, it evolved into a well done action movie.  Alice, free of those pesky clones, decides to stop her tour of revenge and focus on what really matters when you’re surrounded by the dead:  living.  She wants to go rendezvous with Claire and her ward K-Mart (don’t ask) from the last movie and start a new life. She’s ready to move on from zombie dogs, birds, and all the other craziness.  Then, in a nice twist, she learns that Claire and K-Mart have been abducted by…who else? The evil Umbrella Corporation.  It’s like Godfather III: just when she thought she was out they bring her back in! 

                She sets off on a mission to rescue them, but oddly the film steers off course AGAIN and she somehow ends up stuck in a prison.  So instead of focusing on saving characters Alice and we as the audience are emotionally invested in, the film buries the lead.  Instead, it introduces new characters who are also trapped inside the walls of the penitentiary surrounded by hungry zombies. The whole movie feels besides the point, as if we are taking time to read the appendices of a book rather than continuing the story. 

                What helps the movie is as far as diversions goes it’s actually a fun one because of how exciting and well staged the action is.  This film is the first in the series presented in 3D (and I did see it in 3D), and the added dimensions seems to invigorate Anderson’s direction, as he clearly enjoys using the new format.  The fights excite and scare, the monsters are appropriately menacing, and blood seems to fly from the screen. 

They also throw in Chris Redfield, Claire's brother.  It’s a hilarious bit of type casting because they are all trapped in a prison and the character is played by Wentworth Miller, late of TV’s Prison Break , where he played Michael Scofield a character forever fated to be trapped in prison.  They don’t do much with him, but Miller is a welcomed addition.  He underplays which juxtaposes nicely with the craziness around him.  With him in the mix, I was encouraged thinking that the point of the movie might be to find an excuse to pick him up and join the main action with Claire. It would certainly add to the drama and stakes if the familial aspect was introduced.  When the film ends with Alice reuniting with Clare and K Mart and killing the film’s “main” baddie, only to find themselves moments later under full assault by an Umbrella squadron led by Jill Valentine, for the first time at the end of one of these movies’s I felt excited to see what followed.  Clearly , the movie brought the gang back together for one last free-for-all to wrap up the Resident Evil Saga! Right????... 

Sometimes, I grow tired of being wrong.    

     The new Resident Evil: Retribution starts promisingly enough with a very neat looking recap of the moments after Alice and the rest are attacked in Aftermath.  The action is set to a gripping new score which conveys the appropriate menace and consequence of the situation.  Anderson also has the whole thing in backwards slow motion which allows him to remind the audience what happened in the last one.   It also gives Jovovich an opportunity to do a narration which goes back even further, reminding us what happened in the 1^st one.  I was thrilled when I saw this part because after all this time we would finally be rewarded for paying attention and doing the homework!  Then Alice wakes up in an empty room.   It’s a throwback to the first film which is fine, but unfortunately the movie also has a backwards mentality.  It throws out what happened before, at least emotionally, in favor of nonsensical twists and yet another diverting side adventure.  Alice is tortured by Jill Valentine then promptly escapes with the help of Albert Wesker, a baddie from number 4, who reveals she’s in ANOTHER Umbrella lab that she must again escape.  Chris, K-Mart and Claire?  Don’t ask because Alice only asks once in passing about Chris and Claire, and then their names are not mentioned again.  

       I got angry thinking they were ignoring everything that happened.  Why then start with a re cap?  I tried to think positively and I was pleasantly surprised when they thought of a clever way to bring back Michelle Rodriguez and Fehr’s Carlos.  I then thought the movie would actually make up for the missed opportunities with character development from the first three movies.  Clearly Alice seeing Carlos again (or at least his face again) would illicit some emotional response.  Again, I embarrassed myself by being wrong.  Rodriguez and Fehr are wasted and their presence is used to absolutely no effect.  They are mindless disposable bad guys only one step above the disposable henchman wearning masks around them.  This was another missed opportunity that left me wondering what they point of bringing them back in the first place was.

                The film’s not all bad.  The plot, what little there is of it, does give Anderson the opportunity to have Alice and the rest trek through different scenery and fight zombies in New York, Tokyo and Moscow.  That keeps things interesting.  But it seems like between the last one and this one, Anderson has gotten lazy with the 3D because the action in this movie is awkwardly choreographed and staged.  There is also an overuse of slow motion which is especially distracting because the moves look so clumsy.  It’s like all Anderson wants to do with the fights is bide time between the weak punches to find an excuse to throw something at the screen.  I didn’t see this in 3D which could make some difference, but Anderson has definitely taken a step back. 

                The point of this movie is not really clear to me because like before Alice’s character development is nonexistent.  She is trying (again) to escape but what else?  What is she looking for?  The previews made it seem we would explore some of that with a scene set in suburbia of an alternate life for her.  In it, Carlos is her loving husband and she’s perfectly content to be a housewife and mother.  It doesn’t happen exactly that way in the actual film, but why not? Wouldn’t that be interesting? It would make the film mean something and be worth our time if it did have Alice longing for a life away from the violence and darkness around her.  She would be forced to choose between that fake existence and the terrible real one she may ultimately be fated to live.  As it stands now those nuggets are introduced but nothing is done with it.  She also adopts a child, or at least a clone of a child.  The child is also deaf so experiences the horror around her differently than everyone else.  That’s interesting.  What’s done with it? Absolutely nothing.

                The film’s ending does whet my appetite for more as it promises, at least on the surface, to play out the scenario that we’ve been waiting at least 2 movies to see: the end of the world and how Alice, as the ultimate weapon against the zombie apocalypse, helps turn the tide for the humans.  Or not.  Maybe it won't make money and the series will change course once more and have Alice wake up in another Umbrella prison and have to escape again.  Maybe Wesley Snipes will be there as a man serving time for tax evasion.  Maybe Dolph will be there as another prisoner who raises pigeons and Cuba will be there as an ex convinct who has pet Snow Dogs.  Then there could be zombie birds and dogs again. And maybe the twist at the end is that this time the facility is actually…IN SPACE. That would be a great ending and it wouldn’t have to be explained because the next one would just have Alice wake up somewhere else, and the reset button would be hit once more.

RESIDENT EVIL (2002): C-

RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE (2004): D-

RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION (2007): C

RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010): B

RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION (2012): C

*

(I'll bet you ten bucks this is how the next one starts) 

I challenge you to order them from toughest to wimpiest

     When movies start becoming self referential it’s usually the death kneel.  It’s a sign that what was once clever and new has become predictable and old.  But what happens when a franchise is completely built around self references; only existing to entertain and poke fun at itself?  I’m not talking about a spoof movie, which have become all too common and lazy, but a real “new” movie that gets its power from the fact that everyone knows it’s basically a jokey fake and a complete rehash of everything we know to be “old.”  This is the situation with The Expendables movies, currently at entry number 2 of what I assume will at least by 5 (or “V” if they get all classy on us and switch to roman numerals).   They’re basically big budget cinematic inside jokes, but they work and here’s why.           

     The Expendables is a movie franchise from the brilliant mind of Sylvester Stallone.  If anyone reading this starts laughing at that sentence I demand you to show respect.  This is the man who is the epitome of an Action Star and pretty much owned that genre in the 80’s (along with his movie muscle head brethren soon to be discussed). He brought us Rambo, Cliffhanger, and Demolition Man.  He’s a man who wrote the original Academy Award winning Rocky and commissioned the song that put “eye of the tiger” in the cultural lexicon.  

He followed up his iconic original with 4 successful sequels, many of which are considered classics in their own right (in both ironic and non ironic ways).   He could have stopped after the much derided 5^th outing, but he took the criticisms from his fans to heart.  In 2006, he rewrote history, creating a brand new ending to the Rocky Balboa legacy thereby giving a classy exit to a character who some fake historians think single handedly won the Cold War by “breaking” Ivan Drago.     

                Since then he’s experienced career resurgence with another Rambo sequel.  Like His Demotion Man character John Sparten, he spent some time hidden away (probably 1996-2006 if you go by box office receipts), or at least hidden from those who don’t watch Direct to DVD movies.  And also like John Sparten, Sly came back looking as young as he did when he left (thank you, science), and ready to kick some ass.   In 2010 he did this by organizing a who’s who of B-list and forgotten action stars in a film only a former B -list then forgotten action star like he could put together.  With the original “The Expendables” the forgotten sheep found their shepherd and they, and us, were only happy to oblige him.  It was a fun time but could you really make a sequel out of it? 
  
              This brings us to The Expendables 2 which reunites the gang from the first one (Sly, Terry Crews, Jason Stathem, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, and Randy Couture) in a sequel that is at the same time ridiculous, over-the top, terrible and great.  The film’s plot has Liam Hemswroth join the group as Billy the Kid, a young former marine turned Expendable sniper.  Early on, after a bloody rescue operation that leaves, by my count, at least 200,000 dead, he has a heart-to-heart with Sly’s Barney Ross and decides the life of murder, mayhem, and money is not for him.   Barney understands and even envies Billy as he goes off to his (we assume) hot Piece of a** Parisian girlfriend to live the normal life that he would want to, if he had a choice to do it all again.  Billy represents the “new” for the group in his youth and with his less pessimistic view of the world where men of violence and vengeance like Barney and his Expendables team are becoming more and more rare, as they are becoming less and less necessary.  

                Shortly thereafter on a mission Barney is blackmailed into taking,  Billy The Kid takes a knife straight to the heart and he chokes on his own blood as he dies a horrible death.  At that moment Barney and the team spring into action with a cause worth fighting for, and the performance-enhanced violence circle jerk can finally begin in earnest.   The kid has to die because the movie is not about what’s “new.”  It’s very existent hinges on the “old” from its cast to its basic revenge plot.  The film doesn’t have time for doubts or questions of growth or change.  It stuck in the past where talk is cheap because violence is the answer for everything. 

                Joining the fun this time around is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Trench and Bruce Willis’s Church with expanded roles. And by expanded I mean instead of corny-clever one-liners they also get to run around with big fu****g guns and kill countless unnamed faceless terrorists.  Not to be outdone, Jean Claude Van Damn proves you can’t keep a good Universal Soldier down as he joins the festivities in a rare villain role.  He is credited as “Villain” because the film doesn’t feel the need to give him a name, mainly because we don’t care. We know who Jean Claude is, and in the spirit of the inside joke the whole film is, he doesn’t play a character, but an amalgam of every Jean Claude character you ever saw him play.  He’s walking, talking, kicking nostalgia; your 80’s child or young-adult hood in human form.

                Schwarzenegger and Willis also bring back the feeling of the good old days and to watch them work together to kill terrorists is a wonderful, gruesome, bloody sight to behold.  With just looks, they can capture our attention and we immediately like them because we have liked them before; as The Terminator and as John Mclaine.  They bring their sarcastic senses of humor to the bloodshed as they constantly play off these old action personas.   Willis is the put-upon everyman reluctantly forced into action, and Schwarzenegger is the unstoppable soldier killing without remorse but also without malice.  They both have glib and funny one-liners many of which directly reference their movies.  Schwarzenegger says “I’ll be back” more than once, and the words “Yippe Kai Yay” are uttered.  In any other movie such self referential jokes would take us out of the movie but the whole point of this movie is that we’re out of the movie from the very beginning.  We don’t for a minute buy into the fictional world put on the screen or that Sly, Willis, and Schwarzenegger are playing anybody else besides Sly, Willis and Schwarzenegger.  Everything is perfunctory because the real reason we are watching is to watch our old favorites kill bad guys.  

                And I will mention that they do look old.  Some have aged better than others but all of them have aged.  At one point Jean Claude takes off the dark sunglasses he’s had on for the entire film and you half expect to see birds flying in and hear “caw caw” sounds, so prominent are the crow’s feet.  

The movie takes the approach of talking about this openly because Sly knows the audience is talking about it.  By making light of it with lines like “We all belong in a museum,” we laugh with it instead of at it.  There’s one more reason it’s okay to talk about them being old: because we’re older as well. We have more wrinkles under our eyes now than we did when we first saw these action stars in theatres.  So there’s more than a little bit of wish fulfillment to see age not stopping Sly from breaking necks with his bare hands.

                While all the other actors are good to great in their roles (Lundgren especially looks to be grateful to have a job and a has a lot of fun), I would be remised if I didn’t have a special section for Mr. Chuck F-in Norris. 

Yes, the legend himself, Walker Texas Ranger, shows up.  In typical Norris form, his entrance is epic.  This 72-year old R.E.D single handedly defeats an entire army and saves the Expendables from certain death.  And if the symbolism wasn’t clear enough, after killing dozens of terrorists, he nonchalantly walks towards the group with a giant f*****g gun. Yup, he has the biggest ”gun” of them all, and as he enters his message is clear:  stand aside kids, let the grown up handle this.  I now see why Sly had the foresight to not cast Lundgren in a role that utilizes his iconic Russian accent from Rocky IV.  If chuck Norris had heard a Ruskiee speak, just by reflex he would have had to shoot a rocket grenade at that commie.   

                I wish Norris was in the movie longer but he’s there enough to bring his own meta humor into the mix by basically making a thinly disguised “Churck Norris” joke, they having become so popular as of late.  It’s okay because the audience is in on the joke.  Even if we weren’t, we should show respect, though.  After all, he’s Chuck f*****g Norris.

                I can’t call Expendables a great film. I can’t even say it’s a good film.   But I will say it’s the perfect film for a kid who grew up watching these guys murder people, jump of buildings, time travel, destroy robots, defeat communists, and save America time and time again. The Expendables 2 counts on us being familiar with these things and brings back even more of the old school than the original.  It won’t work for those who haven’t done the reading and succeeds by playing off our communal nostalgia for maximum effect. Ultimately these legend’s greatest enemy might be time but for 103 minutes we don’t care as we embrace what once was. Out with the new, in with the old.

FINAL GRADE: B 

(I think she needs to be in the 3rd one)
  

The film's title will either inspire it's own coffee or a strand of weed

     There’s a subcategory of movies which I find interesting.  They’re films with such limited premises that they don’t really sound like movies at all.  After you finish explaining the premise to someone they respond with silence as they wait for the punch line.  I call them the “And…?” flicks.   Take Phone Booth:  Colin Farrell gets stuck in a phone booth and told by a sniper on the other end of the phone that he can’t leave or he’ll die.  And….?  Remember “Panic Room?”  A mother and daughter escape home invaders by hiding in a fortified room.  And…?  Remember  “Snakes on a Plane?”  Snakes are set loose on a plane full of people.  And…? … Well, that one does have Samuel Jackson saying mother***er a lot so there’s that.
                Most people feel this limited premise means an unsatisfactory movie experience but I disagree.  Premium Rush, the enjoyable fast paced thriller directed by David Koepps helps prove my point.   It’s about a bicycle messenger who rides his bike to deliver a message which someone doesn’t want him to deliver. And…?  Well, turns out there’s a bit more to the plot than that but in the end it doesn’t matter all that much and it’s still enjoyable.
                The movie stars Joseph Gordon Levitt as Wylie, a bike messenger who lives his life as quickly and recklessly as he rides, never stopping to consider long term consequences as he quite literally moves forward. He does this purposefully to avoid thinking about difficult decisions and resist the banal adult world he sees his fellow law student graduates entering.  Instead of stopping and taking time to pass the bar with his obvious intelligence, he jumps on a bike and keeps riding.  If he stopped he might realize what he’s doing is not practical, maybe even foolish, so keeps riding without brakes, always moving forward but directionless.  

                 The bike riding is, to use another franchise’s terminology, fast and furious and is shot in a way where danger is seen coming from all around; Every turn Wylie takes could kill him.  There’s even the film’s  version of Madden’s “QB Vision” where Wylie imagines all the gruesome fates different turns could lead to.  The fact that he avoids them is almost as amazing as the fact that he keeps riding knowing he’s only one bad decision away from death.  But he has to, because the alternative is to stop.

                 The movie reflects Wylie’s forward motion, moving from bike race to bike race only digressing occasionally to share the bare minimum needed to keep the plot moving.   This guarantees something is always happening on screen.  That makes for a very fun ride but the film also suffers because of it.   There’s not enough time to develop characters beyond stock archetypes.   The real action is outside on the busy New York City streets, not with people’s petty jealousies, relationship dramas, or addictions.  Yes there is a compelling reason someone is chasing Wylie but for most of the film Wylie doesn’t really care and we don’t either.  Anything that pulls him, and by extension us, away from the adrenaline ride is distracting.  By the time he does stop to learn the facts he uses the knowledge as an excuse to get right back on his bike and spring back into motion.   True to form he doesn’t stop to consider anything;  The film’s premise is just as limited as Wylie’s thinking . He prefers it that way.   And in this case, I do too.

FINAL GRADE: B

(I need a shirt that says this)

Any movie with a pun as the title has my vote

        I’m starting to get jealous of the quality of kid’s movies these days.  When I was young kid watching regular 2-D movies with my big tub of popcorn blissfully ignorant of things like calories or the fact that baby fat is not supposed to last until your late teens, most of the films aimed at my demographic were broad slap stick comedies.  Offerings like Home Alone and 3 Ninjas, or forgettable family friendly fare like The Amazing Panda Adventure were silly and innocuous.  They all had similar plots and “lessons” that were spelled out in ALL CAPS  to help anyone who needed help comprehending all the non-existent subtleties.  Every once in a while  we would get a quality film, usually from Disney, with  catchy lyrics and music that still have me exercising to “I’ll Make a Man out of You” from Mulan.  But even that was sanitized and simplistic with a whiff of movie-by-committee.  It was as if in an effort to appeal to everyone it was decided it would be best to for no one to have to think.

                 Post the rise of Pixar, the studios started putting out movies that have more complex characters, plots, and themes.  Most films aimed at children these days have less straight forward lessons to teach than "horrible thIngs happening are okay because its all apart of “The Circle of Life.'" The Toy Stories developed into a powerful meditation on growing up and learning to let go, and its recent entry I won’t be ashamed to admit had me crying (I really thought they were going to be burned alive; that’s how intense it got).  Shrek started off as a clever satire of other fairytale movies but with each subsequent chapter dealt with more complicated and very real relationship issues.  It matured by showing us layers or, as Donkey might say, it was like an onion. WALL-E’s whole story takes place in post apocalyptic times with humans nearly extinct.  And Up’s first fifteen minutes are so depressing that at first viewing I thought I stepped into the end of a Shakespearean tragedy instead of the start of  an animated comedy with balloons and a talking dog..   

                Para Norman, the immensely satisfying new stop motion comedy, continues the trend of complicated and quality kid’s films. It’s about a boy who can see dead people which may seem Six-Sensy and so 1999, but I promise you it’s not. The movie proves it’s doing something different very early on as it spoofs an 80’s zombie horror movie complete with opening credits.  The clip we watch is slapstick and ridiculous but also very clever in referencing low budget horror movies with bad effects and even worse acting.  This immediately distinguishes what we are watching as something apart from those terrible B movies and, because the laughs stem from us knowing this, the movie shows its intention not to condescend to its audience.

                 Its audience of course is kids but the movie doesn’t pull back any punches because of that.  Para Norman’s plot has the title character able to speak to the dead.  Of course the movie explores the comic possibilities of this with gags like a dead Ameila Earhart hanging from a tree by a parachute being asked “how’s it hanging?,” and a Mafia informant wearing cement shoes.  Its funny stuff and you’ll laugh out loud many times.  But the film is about more than just laughs. 

                Norman feels alienated because of his gift.   He is mocked and picked on by his family at home and his classmates at school.  His only friends are ghosts who can’t move on from the living world. They’re not exactly gone but not really alive, and the same can be said for Norman who inhabits a solitary sad world where the only connections he makes are to people he can’t touch.  He says he prefers it this way but we don’t buy it, and the film uses this set up to explore themes of alienation and resentment.  There are speeches about being different, bullying, forgiveness and acceptance.  It’s timely and heady stuff but luckily for us it comes alongside exciting plot twists including witches, zombies, curses, and most refreshingly, sexual attraction.  All this is headed by terrific voice acting from all involved especially Kodi Smit-McPhee as Norman, and  Tucker Albrizzi as his best friend. They make the characters real and you can feel the emotions they play even though you aren’t staring at a live person but a cleverly constructed animated character.  The movie movies quickly and goes to places that are as exciting as they are unexpected, with an ending that includes some not-so-tidy plot revelations. 

                 I left Para Norman grateful to have been part of the fun ride and more than a little jealous that these types of movies have gotten so good.  I imagine somewhere out there is a pudgy 12 year old kid who’s maybe a little bit of a late bloomer but incredibly intelligent and witty, who also just watched this, probably in 3D and probably eating 2000 calories worth of popcorn and Regular Coke.  He’ll have been challenged to think while watching Para Norman and gotten a lot more out of it than anything I saw when I was that age.  After all, how much of a workout can your brain really get from watching Rocky, Colt and Tum Tum learn the way of the Ninja by kicking some guy in the nuts?
FINAL GRADE: A-                                        
(you would think the asian grandfather would have at least one asian grandson)

Come on, trust me.

A common complaint amongst Netflix streaming subscribers who are unaware of the battle royale taking place over the price of streaming rights between studios and popular platforms like Netflix, is that there’s nothing to watch.  A quick search on “what’s new” on the Netflix que makes you wonder if the company is not playing fast and loose with the use of the word “new.”   Making it worse is that browsing is not very user friendly so most people only see the 50 or so movies that Netflix’s “Recommend-atron 3000” sends your way based on past selections.  Besides making you regret that you once watched Brokeback Mountain just see what all the fuss was about, it also has you miss out on some gems.

Fear not! I am here to give you 5 recommendations with mini-reviews/summaries.  They’re not in any particular order and they range in quality but all worth the extra zero dollar and zero cents you pay to stream them. Not to get all Drake on you, but Thank Me Later.

1. Warrior (2011):  A movie that no one saw and for the life of me I can’t figure out why. This is quite a good film which chronicles the underdog stories of two down-on-their-luck estranged brothers both trying to make it in the world of UFC.  They both have their personal, and equally as compelling reasons for doing so.  There’s good actors: Nick Nolte, Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton (who , in a close race, gives the best performance which is masterfully restrained), and relatable complicated family dynamics which force you to pay attention even as you wince and want to look away. It’s the Fighter with kicking; Rocky with the Octogon in place of the ring:  B+
    
2. Dreamscape (1984):  This is about a person who can go into and manipulate people’s dreams.  If that sounds far-fetched that’s because it is and the film (with Dennis Quaid as the lead dreamscaper) is set firmly in the world of science fiction.  If you don’t buy the premise, don’t watch it; if you’re willing to go along with it you’ll be rewarded.  It’s very well done and lean; it gets right to the point without a whole lot of needless talking.  The film is also a twofer: it’s also a very solid thriller which has Quaid forced to work for “The Man,” seemingly for the good of national security but actually for money.  And by work I mean enter people’s dreams.  And by dreams I mean mostly scary ass pee-inducing nightmares.  You’ll be thinking about this as you go to bed:  B
    
3. Radioland Murders (1994):  Everything about this comedy is wonderfully old school as producer George Lucas adds a rare yoda-less entry into his filmography.  By old school I mean like Abbot and Costello old-school, not 90’s jean shorts and grunge hair old school.  The film, which follows a live radio performance in the 1950’s complicated by behind the behind-the-scenes murders, is an old fashioned farce.  It features pratfalls, overacting and ridiculously convoluted action.  It’s sort of like a solid I Love Lucy episode.  The only thing missing is a pie to the face but it’s been a few years so that might actually be in the movie, I don’t remember.  It isn’t the best film but there’s enough going on to keep you entertained, and there’s a frantic energy that keeps the film moving at a brisk pace.  You may not be howling with laughter but you’ll be chuckling and enjoying the fun ride: B-
    
4. Margin Call (2011):  A nice little film which slightly fictionalizes the very real economic crises of 2008.  It plays out as a ticking clock thriller on the day before everything goes to sh**, with  The Wall Street traders who see the fall coming and decide the best way to act is to profit from it, damn the losses to innocent people.  The stakes are every bit as big as any Bond movie except there are no explosions just words …but its engrossing nonetheless watching these economic terrorists exploit the system at the expense of everyone else.  If you’re employed and didn’t lose your shirt four years ago you’ll feel very lucky; if you’re not and you did, you’ll be even angrier: B
    
5. Tales from the Hood (1995): Admit it, just the title makes you interested, right?  First off this is NOT a porno (that would be the also-excellent lesbian film, TAILS from the Hood…hioooo!), but a solid entry into the anthology genre. There are 4 or 5 stories of terror told by a mysterious mortician to 3 gangbangers who show up to, ostensibly, rob and murder him, but are first drawn into these frightening tales behind the dead bodies in the funeral parlor.  Some are better than others and many hit you over the head with its depiction of whites as evil racists, but each one is intriguing and scary.  They also don’t turn out the way you may expect, and the ending is certainly memorable. B (I'll be waiting for your letter of appreciation)

I still think I could take him in a staring contest.

5 years ago when the last Bourne movie came out, I guaranteed my friends that this was not the last one.  There would be more adventures I confidently proclaimed, and the next one would deal with other parts of the super secretive program Jason Bourne was in as well as the fall out of what Bourne exposed to the public.  And lastly, and very specifically, I said the film would be called “The Bourne Legacy.” 

So first of, SO called it again!....but whatever that's how I roll; you can’t the stop the sun from shining, you know?

Second off, I wasn’t 100% correct because my version still had Matt Damon’s central character as the lead.  What I couldn’t predict was the back stage drama that would take place as director Paul Greengrass decided not to return and the Bourne right-holders hired Tony Gilroy, the previous film’s co-writer.  This sounds all fine and dandy except Damon was more than a little peeved that he wasn’t consulted on the choice because he didn’t have much respect for Gilroy, claiming he phoned in his Bourne Ultimatum script. This didn’t make Gilroy too happy as one can imagine and he had words for Damon. Like, I said: drama.

But when there’s a will to make money, there’s always a way, and Capitalism marched ever forward as this new film was put together using  absolutely none of the elements from the book source material.  This Bourne Legacy centers around Aaron Cross another super soldier who is on the run from nefarious government agents who, due to the events of the previous film, are out to obliterate evidence of all of the CIA’s less-than-legal undercover projects.  Bourne exposed Treadstone, the film says, but there was so much more going on that he didn’t know about. This premise has the interesting effect of making the first 30 minutes an information dump as the events of Legacy overlap with those of Ultimatum and the characters and plot points of the new film are awkwardly inserted in the new Bourne mythology (and yes that is what she said).  But so motivated is Legacy to reassure us that the it all makes perfect sense that it hammers in the same obvious points again and again, in seemingly desperate attempt to defend its retroactive continuity. It’s as if the film makers are nervous the audience won’t buy it so they over load us on dialogue and redundant scenes that feel the same and play out sort of like this:   Government spooks look intensely at each other repeating again and again how important it is for the larger parts of the conspiracy to be eliminated, and Edward Norton barks orders while holding back just enough information to tell us that this new “whole story” isn’t even really the “whole story.”

The film spends so much time trying to convince the audience that this something MORE does exist it doesn’t have the time to flesh out what that something more really is. The result is a pretty standard government-agenst-as-the-bad-guys chase movie with only a handful of competently shot and edited action sequences to capture our interest.  As the lead, Jeremy Renner asserts himself nobly but is not given anything to work off of.  Character development for him is confined to awkwardly inserted (yes she continues to say that) flashback scenes which don’t accomplish anything but to emphasis a plot point that Cross himself literally says and we don’t need reminding of.  His character is almost as blank a slate as Jason Bourne was in the original and Bourne had amnesia.  Everything we learn about Cross (which is to say almost nothing) is perfunctory and as a result he comes off less a character than a tool for exposition to again justify to us that there is indeed MORE, MORe, MORE to the story (even the posters reiterate: “there was never just one”’ …Yeah, yeah, we get it guys.)

I’m also starting to feel sorry for Renner because much like in last Mission Impossible: Ghost Recon from last year he is given an extremely generic role.  It’s as if the filmmakers are expecting his physicality and intimidating face to do all the work.  As much as Cross does need to be strong and intimidating, these generic adjectives do not take the place of a compellingly written character.

With all the concentration on exposition and almost none on the actors (including a wasted Rachel Weisz whose character is so under developed that you can almost imagine Megan Fox as this new “Bourne Girl,” hammerthumbs and all), the film is all set up and absolutely no delivery.  Perhaps that is what it’s meant to be as the ending leaves the door very open for a sequel because as we’ve been told…there’s so much MORE. Okayyyyy…but is any of it new or interesting?

Oh, and before I finish the review let me just throw my prediction out there for the next film’s title which I imagine would have Damon and Renner combine their manly forces:

 “The Bourne Conspiracy.”  Yeah, I just called it again, just wait and see.

FINAL GRADE: C

I saw this in 3D which just means that I was miserable in an extra dimension.

     It must be getting more and more difficult to find slightly new plot lines for the Step Up franchise. The "plot" is always basically the same: young adults, including the central way-too-attractive couple, find comfort and community in dance, and use it to eventually battle the “establishment.”

  It takes all of 10 minutes to set upthe slightly different variations of this in every movie, but it’s done with so much passion that I go along with whatever follows. What does follow is mostly window dressing as it presents an idealized world where the struggles and optimism of youth are expressed through, and in some cases, solved by dance. We know it’s not real but there’s such a good natured-ness and optimism behind the story that we like to think it could be.  So far as window dressing goes, I've always found the Step Up movies, with its inventive and beautiful choreography, pretty to look at and fun to watch.

        I don't have expectations for an engaging plot, but the latest entry, Step Up Revolution, tests and betrays my loyalty to the franchise; It doesn’t even try.  It’s as if the series has given up on telling anything close to a believable story and just throws a pretty couple on screen with loud music flanked by other pretty people moving their butts. It takes what little plot there is in these movies and uses it to present a world so phony any relation to reality is completely gone.

        The establishment this time is the "evil" capitalist Bill Anderson whose beautification project in Miami, we are  told, will tear down the "real" Miami.  This “real” Miami apparently consists of beautiful young bohemians living in perfect racial harmony bound together through dance and plenty of alcohol. The young people don’t work so much as just ‘get by,’ in order to spend their time doing what’s really important: getting 10 Million hits on YouTube for their flash mobs videos so they can win $100,000.  That’s the lesson here: forget school or a career, follow your passion no matter how reckless, and somehow it will come to pass. Anyone who tries to stop you, including the "condescending" adults, must be ignored and pushed aside because they only serve as obstacles to your destined greatness.

    Except these evil adults live in the real world which doesn't seem to enter into any of these irresponsible dreamer's heads.  They are trying to counsel their children, brothers, sisters because they genuinely care about their future.  They know, like most of us in the audience know, that $100,000 divided by the 25 people in the group doesn’t go that far.  The film ignores them, however, and makes those who will not heed their well meaning advice, the ones we are to presumably root for.  We’re supposed to take their side but their side doesn’t make any sense so the whole set up is, excuse my French: bullshit and it reeks of lazy writing.   

     In previous Step Ups I was able to go along with it all because it made sense and at least felt authentic.  It may not have been plausible but that’s okay, I’m willing to suspend disbelief. In previous films, dancing was an expression of one’s true self so yes it made perfect sense that a young person would want to have the ability to choose that as their major in college, or use it to escape a troubled past or home life. I can get behind that. 

        This time around, the film makes the case of art as a weapon that changes hearts and minds. This is a lovely notion but the art in this case is shoved down everyone’s throats through sneak attack flash mobs that seem more hooliganism than the intended noble civil disobedience.  That’s not the way it works.  And the hearts and minds are that of the adults in the film who are simply being level headed and realistic.  If “the establishment” they’re fighting is simple common and economic sense, they have a long fight ahead of them.  

        And thekids dancing and jiving to try to stop the evil capitalists seems more than a little hypocritical. We're left to wonder if any of our protagonists know that the brands they wear come from the same type of greedy capitalism they are protesting against.   Or if they know that the reason they can afford to buy the fancy clothes, costumes, music equipment and alcohol that make up their carefree existence, is due to those “condescending” and “unhelpful” adults who support them and also work for those corporations. Who do they think is providing their paychecks, The Red Cross?

    Apart from the problems above, the movie also suffers early from wooden acting from all involved, (save Peter Gallagher who looks somewhat embarrassed to be there) and while the dancing is nice looking and technically impressive, it does the film no favors.  The more intricate and spectacular it gets the more we are reminded how out of touch with reality the movie is.  It’s as if “Revolution” the title refers to is that which takes the film to the realm of pure fantasy where I for one, will not follow.

FINAL GRADE: D+

   ( Will he be in the sequel?)