My Thoughts on Movies. You're Welcome.

As of this writing I'm up to benching 90 lbs which I'm proud of.

              "My name is Daniel Lugo and I believe in fitness"  And so begins Michael Bay's new dramedy Pain and Gain where physical fitness is as much as symbol as it is literal.  The movie tells the outrageous true story of Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) and his friends Paul Doyle and Adrian Doorbal  who, in 1995 , kidnapped a rich business man.  Their plan was to rob him of his money and then let him go.   Given that this story is getting the Hollywood treatment you can guess it doesn't go to plan.  Part of the reason is that the 3 criminals, all fitness buffs who are addicted to steroids and other even less legal substances, are not the cleverest.  The ring leader Lugo is the smartest of the 3 but he's definitely not a MENSA member.  He is, however, ambitious;  That ends up being his downfall as his reach far exceeds his grasp.  Becuase Lugo isn't just after money.  He's after something much more all elusive: The American Dream.

                Lugo is a successful trainer at Florida's Sun Gym but after years of working to distance himself from his past of poverty and petty crime, he gets frustrated.  The people he trains are richer and more successful but they're also fatter and lazier.  He begins to wonder why they're so fortunate?  The way Lugo sees it he's a much harder worker than any of them.  His proof is that he can bench 400lbs and squat 500lbs.  The very literal minded Lugo sees physical fitness as a symbol for worth, indeed the ONLY symbol that matters.  

Because he's the most physically fit he concludes he must be worth the most.  The fact that Lugo doesn't make as much money as the people he trains is a violation of everything he believes.  He's the strongest, so he must be the richest.  His quest for the American Dream is colored by this sense of entitlement and that proves to be a dangerous combination.  When he takes on businessman Victor Kershaw as a new client and sees what a condescending, arrogant, vicious, and weak person he is, Lugo concludes Kershaw has too much in life.  Lugo, having earned his physical superiority, feels that he's owed and chooses him as a target for his plot.

                What proceeds to happen is a series of unbelievable events that are actually true.  After Lugo's cologne tips off a blindfolded Kershaw to his identity, he decides he can't let him go.  He and his partners torture him and make him sign over all his assets. 

 But Lugo doesn't just want cash.  He wants everything else he feels he's entitled to: cars , boats, a "leave it to beaver" suburban home and a small business.  And Lugo doesn't stop at Kershaw's things.  He wants his life.  He moves into Kershaw's house and starts to establish himself as a pillar of the community.  He mentors neighborhood kids to get them physically fit.  He starts a neighborhood watch to protect his neighbors.  He installs himself as President and CEO of Kershaw's stolen Deli business and begins to runs it.    People don't suspect anything because by all accounts, he runs the business efficiently and is well liked.  Others around him are surprised by this but not Lugo.  In his mind this is a homecoming.  It's where he's belonged all along.

                Unfortunately Paul and Adrian's have more earthly desires and their brazen and idiotic behavior catch the eye of the private investigator Ed Du Bois(Ed Harris).  Du Bois is hired by Kershaw after he escapes and the police don't believe his story.  Du Bois begins to piece it all together and it's not long before Lugo's new existence begins to unravel.  During it all the film, as directed by Michael Bay, keeps up the hyper energetic behavior typical of all of Bay's movies.  This isn't an action movie but Bay directs it like it is.  This is a positive and a negative.   It keeps everything moving at a good pace but Bay doesn't allow the film to slow down and get inside the head of the characters.   He gets away with that by employing multiple voiceovers where characters tell the audience exactly what they're thinking but that's cheating.  He only does this to get it out of the way and move on to the next ridiculous scene. This allows the film to take on a more comedic tone even with the amount of violence we see.  This is effective but limiting.  What could be a deeper drama is therefore pretty shallow as the scenes whip by extremely fast and are played mostly for laughs.  It would be interesting to see what a director who didn't have ADHD could do with the material.

                The cast is strong.  Wahlberg is funny the way he was in "Ted" and "The Other Guys."  He plays the straight man shocked by the stupidity of what's happening around him and holding back a tidal wave of aggression that hits at inappropriate times to hilarious results.   Shalhoub as Kershaw is a grade A ass***e.  He has fun playing a victim with no redeeming qualities that's less likeable than the people who kidnap and torture him. 

Anthony Mackie and Rebel Wilson also have funny scenes  playing Lugo's erectile dysfunctional associate and his "penis" nurse respectively.  The one weak link is Dwayne Johnson as Paul.  He looks uncomfortable playing the comedic elements  but his performance is not G.I. Joe-Retaliation distracting

                Pain and Gain is an entertaining film that has fun telling an outlandish story with Bay's usually hyperactive flair.  I wish it was more subtle and slowed down a bit to allow character development but maybe it's fine that it doesn't.  Daniel Lugo isn't a very self aware character.   He lets his zeal to get what he thinks he deserves override any self reflection he may experience; His single minded pursuit of his American Dream and its horrible consequences are what define this movie.  Because if there's one thing you will learn by the time the credits role is what Daniel Lugo believes in:  Fitness.

FINAL GRADE: B

Trust me, it's better if she doesn't turn around.

                 A bloody violent glorious spectacle, this new Evil Dead is a throwback to the horror movies of old while still feeling very much relevant to the present.  This sorta-but-not-really  reboot is executive produced by the director and star of the original film, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell and the story is pretty much the same:   A group of kids spending time in a cabin in the woods are overtaken by demons after a passage is read from the aptly titled, Book Of The Dead.  Yet, this isn't your father's Evil Dead. 

                    The original Evil Dead was fun demonic possession mixed with some zombiesm.   While this new incarnation keeps the bones of the original story, it starts from a darker place and that's partly due to the times we live in.   The kids in this new film aren't out in the secluded cabin for a fun time of partying.  They're out there to help their mutual friend, Moa (Jane Levy), detox.

And this isn't there first attempt.  Most have been down this sad road before with Mia and the one who hasn't is her estranged brother, David (Shiloh Fernandez).  Both Mia and David share a complicated past which include the pain of losing a mother to cancer.  Mia feels David wasn't there for their mom in the end and blames him for her having to bear all the burden.  Mia even hints at that being a central cause of her addiction.  So these aren't some kids out for a fun weekend of recreational drugs and bad decisions.  These "kids" aren't really kids at all.   They look, sound, and most importantly, feel older. 

                True to the more adult nature of the story, the film has a more menacing tone.  Gone is the slapstick comedy of original Evil Dead replaced by bloody and violent scenes of demonic possession which did not have me chuckling.  Horrible things happen to these good people;  most of them die in grisly ways and the series feels as it has grown from its cartoony beginnings.

                As extreme as the proceedings become, it's never malicious.  The handpicked director Fede Alvarez never lets it become that.  He has fun playing up the outlandish.  People don't bleed they ooze;  Limbs don't just come off with one chop of an axe, they are sawed  off... slowly and painfully.  But as relentless as he is, Alvarez instills the film with the same sort of manic energy Raimi and Campbell did in the original and keeps everything moving at a brisk pace.  What you're seeing may be ugly but it never feels ugly.  I didn't walk out of the film feeling like I needed a shower.  I've had that sensation with certain Saw-like movies which are like snuff films, and with the new Halloween entries which feel as if they revel in showing pain inflicted.   Raimi and company only revel at telling an entertaining, if bloody, story and showing everyone a good time; that shines through. 

                I do wish the story was a little more creative and I found myself, at times, longing for the catharsis of the previous films where a laugh would serve just as well as a scream to relieve the tension.  But I appreciate that this new Dead film wanted to be different.  Perhaps it needed to be because the world is different now; harsher and darker. It makes sense that our movies are as well.

FINAL GRADE: B

Even the poster is confusing.

                 The expression "you'll either love it or hate it" is over used.  When I hear about it in reference to a film, I find I neither loved nor hated it; Most times I just like it.  So I'm not going to say you'll either love or hate Trance, the new thriller from Danny Boyle.  Let's just say you'll either go with it or you won't. That's because it relies heavily on "tricks"; of camera angles, of lens flares, of narrative flashbacks and quasi-hallucinations.  If you're predisposed to hate all those bells and whistles and prefer a meaningful story with character development and a satisfying conclusion, then you will probably hate this.  Or you may just be "blah" about it.  Point is, you won't leave the theatre satisfied.

                As for me, I find the above mentioned cinematic tricks overused by filmmakers who are a little too in love with their own cleverness.  Danny Boyle, especially, has overloaded my senses with quick cuts and whip fast camera movements in the past.  In a film like 127 Hours it feels out of place, almost self indulgent.  Yet, when the story allows for such "tricks" it works as in the case of Slumdog Millionaire.  Trance falls in the latter category.  It works mostly because the movie is based on hypnotism, which itself employs tricks of suggestion and "power words."  Boyle's  hyperkinetic filmmaking style fits with that perfectly.

                Trance begins with an art gallery employee named Simon.  He's hit over the head during a robbery in which Goya's "Witches in the Air" painting is stolen by four thieves.  They get away but when they look inside the bag supposedly containing the 25 million Sterling artwork, they only have an empty frame.  Simon appears  to be a hero but he's actually in on it.  Soon after he recovers, his partners in crime catch up with him and demand to know exactly where he put it.  Simon claims that he can't remember and that being hit over the head caused amnesia.  After some gruesome fingernail-removing torture, the four thieves lead by French mastermind Franck (Vincent Gallo),  believe him, and look for alternate ways of accessing the hidden memory.  That leads them to Rosario Dawson's Elizabeth Lamb whose job it is to help Simon remember.

                That's the plot or so it would appear.  There's more going on, of course, and the movie is never really about the missing painting.  It's soon made clear that Simon doesn't want to remember. 

The film really is about the memories we all try to forget; Memories we repress and suppress, because we want to try to change who we are.  During  Simon's hypnosis sessions, we slowly begin to explore what kind of man he really is and what he's capable of.  These are where the "tricks" come in because the narrative begins to fragment into pieces as the hypnosis intensifies.  There are sequences which are not real edited together with scenes that are real but haven't happened yet.  There are flashes of images (some of them meaningful, most of them not) cut together with (maybe) hallucinations.  Soon Simone begins to question what's really "real" and we do as well. 

                But Simone doesn't stop searching. He feels compelled to keep going and eventually the "tricks" fall away leading him to the truth about himself. The film asserts that that's inevitable.  That we just can't rely on tricks and choose to forget who we really are.  Eventually we remember, no matter how much we may not want to.

                There's much more to the story of course.  As unreliable as the scenes become so too do the motivations of the characters.  There's twist after twist, some of which are real and some of which are not, and it gets a bit confusing.  During it all Boyle employs all his filmmaking tricks of flashbacks, layered voiceover, and striking visuals like the kaleidoscope lense and for the most part it works with what's going on.

After a while, however, it does get to be too much.  The plot becomes a bit too ludicrous and a keen viewer will figure out what's really going on (what the truth is) about 45 minutes before Simon does.  And since all the tricks employed make us question everything, we don't really get to know much about any of the characters .  How can we, if we don't know what we're seeing is true?  There' s an intrinsic disconnection with a film that puts its tricks so front and center because then it becomes all about the tricks and not about the characters or story. 

                In the end, Trance is an entertaining movie but not one that you'll really connect to.  But if you go along with its tricks you'll have a good time.  Perhaps you won't love it, but you won't hate it either.

FINAL GRADE: B

I hate sports but love sports films.

42? I assume this is the sequel to that blackjack movie 21 with Kevin Spacey and the smart M.I.T kids?

                -No sir, this is actually an original film based on the story of Jackie Robinson, the player who broke the color barrier in "white baseball" beginning in 1947.  He wore the, since retired, #42, thus the name of the film.

This is based on history? That means it's boring, Right?

                -Not at all.  I've said it before: I hate sports, love sports movies but this film is something more.  It works as a moving historical drama and as an exciting sports film. 

What's good about it?

                -Where to begin?  #1 is the film's structure.  It's not Jackie Robinson's life story.  It limits its scope to his first year in the league. It doesn't just cover his reaction to it but the press reaction, the reaction of African Americans as well as whites, and that of the players and coaches.  Other films may have tried to do too much by focusing on Jackie's whole life.  42 chooses wisely and doesn't bury the lead by focusing squarely on the historic desegragation of baseball and it's impact on the sport and America.

                #2 is the casting:  Harrison Ford does the finest acting of his career as Brooklyn Dodger's owner Branch Rickey.  He takes a character that could be played for laughs with his cartoony bushy eyebrows, Mr. Monopoly glasses and habit of chomping cigars, and plays it serious.  He brings a gravitas to the role as Jackie's boss and mentor (in baseball) that lends weight to the importance of the events surrounding the film.

There a lot of other standouts as well in smaller roles: Christopher Meloni as Brooklyn Dodger's Manager Leo Durocher, John C McGinley as announcer Red Barger, Lucas Black as Pee Wee Reese, Alan Tudyk as Ben Chapman, T.R. Knight as Harold Parrot and Brett Cullen as Clay Hopper  to name a few. 

                #3 is the script:  It can be a little corny but the film pulls at the heartstrings effectively and there are many a well written speech and conversation.  My favorite line by the way is Harrison Ford's telling off the Phillie's owner by proclaiming that when he meets God "and you have to explain why you didn't take the field (against Robinson)...saying he was a negro may not be a suitable reply!"   I let out a mini cheer after that one becuase it's pretty perfect.

So this is a perfect movie?

                -Unforutnately, no.  I saw this movie twice because I needed to figure out how I felt about it. I knew after the first time that I liked it and that it was moving and touching but there were certain things that bothered me.

                #1:  It can be VERY corny.  There are scenes which are just so over the top it takes me out of the movie.  An example happens in a scene when a young black fan chases Jackie's train as it leaves the station.  When it's out of sight he bends down and puts his ear to the train track, saying to his friends proudly that "I can still hear him!" Yikes that's cheesy.  I've since been told it actually happened but I'm sure a lot of things happened that they didn't include and somethings that didn't they did include because the point is to make an entertaining film.  This bit of cheese could have been excluded and that's just one of half a dozen examples which had me rolling my eyes.

                #2 The casting

Whoa Whoa Stop the Clock. You just the casting was a strength!

                -Yes, but it's also a weakness.  You may have noticed in my list of great performances I did not include Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson or Nicole Beharie as his wife Rachel Robinson.  That's because they're only okay.  The fact is that Jackie Robinson was a star and Chadwick Boseman is not.  He does a fine job as Robinson but there's nothing special about his performance.  The script doesn't help him because it focuses more on the legend than it does the man, but a real star would shine through.  Beharie is even more plain as Jackie's wife which is a shame since the real life Rachel Robinson helped put this movie together. 

                A bigger problem is something I was able to pinpoint finally during my second viewing.  With any  film there's a certain feeling I get when something doesn't feel authentic. It's sometimes hard to figure out why exactly but this time I can: In 42 the extras and background players are the problem.  If you watch this film pay attention to the crowd scenes where they're supposed to be cheering or booing and you'll see extras miming cheering and booing because some production assistant told them to.

They're simply terrible and it makes the film feel ameaturish and a bit cheap like they got their friends and family out there in period dress up and they were good enough to play extras for free.  This may be the first time I've felt this way in a major motion picture but I noticed it and it wasn't good.

You're going to slam the film because a guy getting paid $50 for the day didn't clap enthuastically enough?

                -No, not at all.  The good more than outweighs the bad in 42 and even the first time I was going to give it a positive review.  I just didn't know whether it would be a "B" or "B+".  The second time all the problems I noticed the first go around were still present (and I found more) but what was also present was a feeling of satisfaction.  That's not a small feat considering I just watched it less than a week before. That, my friend, is what we call a crowd pleaser and this film certainly is.  I also know it tells an important story about a time of our history many people would rather forget but we must never. 

So what are you saying?

                -It was close but I really liked the movie and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and am awarding it a ....

FINAL GRADE: B+

A good host is usually entertaining

               I hate people who talk during a movie.  While I was watching The Host however, I became 'that guy.' I wasn't talking to anyone because I could never get anyone to come along to this movie so I was talking to myself.  I wasn't having a conversation so much as repeating the phrases: "'this is terrible.' 'I can't believe I'm watching this' and 'you've got to be fu****g kidding me.'" 

                You can probably guess by now that I hated this movie.  It's long, boring, stupid and corny.  It's a shame too because the premise is so intriguing:  Earth has been taken over by alien parasites that latch onto the body of humans and replace them, body and mind.  The down side is that person's consciousness goes away but at the same time so does war, poverty, hunger, and death because these aliens are mostly benign.  They see inhabiting humans as a way of helping them and planet and they come off as very polite gentle beings.  The film follows one of those aliens, Wanderer, latching on to a recently dead human by the name of Melanie Stryder.  Unlike the other humans however, Melanie's consciousness doesn't go away as Melanie and the Wanderer exist in the same body.  This causes problems since Melanie wants to go back to see her family and Wanderer struggles to control her emotions because she retains Melanie's memories and begins to sympathize with her plight.

                All of this sounds interesting but not in the way it plays out on film.  The main plot device, that of Melanie and Wanderer talking to each other, maybe worked better in the best selling book that inspired the movie, but on screen it just seems silly. Melanie says something in the Wanderer's head and the Wanderer makes awkward facial expressions like she's thinking real hard and answers back audibly.  It reminded me of the Brady Bunch Movie with the voice inside Jan's head complaining about Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

                The casting also is an issue.  Saroise Ronan is a talented actress and she does what she can with Melanie so she's not the problem.  Neither is Diane Kruger as The Seeker (the alien after Melanie/Wanderer) or William Hurt as Melanie's uncle and leader of the human resistance.  Unfortunately, a great amount of time is spent with terrible actors which is pretty much every other male actor especially the two main "heartthrobs" Jake Abel and Max Irons.  They anchor a story arc where they're in love with Melanie and Wanderer respectively.  Since they share the same body that's tough.  Watching them fall in love and make puppy dog eyes at Melanie/Wanderer then get emotional as they each yearn for her is laughable.  They reminded me of leads from a bad CW show; young, pretty and bland.  Their bad acting made me not care about the love story which is a problem because that's a big part of the movie.  Pretty much anytime they were on screen I would start talking to myself and repeat "this is terrible."

                  And did I mention the movie is long?  At 125 minutes, the film feel like an eternity.  I usually don't take running times into consideraiton when I go see movies so it's a bad sign when I'm checking my phone.  I did so half a dozen times in this movie and then I said to myself: "I can't fu****g believe this."  This made me hate myself for talking but the way I figured no one could possibly be enjoying this crap so I wasn't ruining it for anyone.    

FINAL GRADE: D+

The Rock has that same expression the entire movie.

               G.I. Joe Retaliation is a poorly written and directed convoluted mess of a movie which is a sequel to the poorly written and directed convoluted 2009 Original.  This new entry is only slightly less terrible because there's one genuinely great action sequence and lots of things blow up at the end of the movie.

                The plot has the G.I. Joes victims of a surprise attack where all but a handful of Joes are killed.  It turns out that attack was ordered by the President of the United States who is actually an imposter Cobra agent.  The Joes have to stop the Cobras, rescue the President, and then save the rest of world from nuclear annihilation all while working underground with limited resourced. 

                Limited is also a good way of describing the acting range of the star, Dwayne the Rock Johnson, whose acting seems to range from passable to Scorpion King. 

He takes over for Channing Tatum who collects a paycheck, um, I mean makes a cameo as the lead from the original movie.  The back-story of this is that the script for the sequel was written before Tatum had a monster 2012 with three 100 Million Dollar hits so he was always supposed to be killed off early as a surprise to the audience.   Then somewhere around the time his stripping in Magic Mike was causing theatres full of women to oogle him like he was a piece of meat  and throw dollar bills at the screen, the studio realized maybe having him show up for one scene wasn't enough.   That, and studios were learning that they could make bank off cheap 3D conversions overseas where dialogue and acting don't matter as much as sh** flying at your face, caused them to scrap their original release date.  

They filmed more foorage with Tatum which gave him a bit more screen time and highlighted the friendship between his character's and the Rock so as to make the passing of the torch easier for the audience.

                Watching the movie with that bit of background information in mind I have a few observations: Number one, the added scenes are awkwardly inserted (that's what she said) and amount to nothing more than a few frames of the Rock and Tatum playing Call of Duty.  Tatum still dies quickly.   Number two is that Tatum dies too soon.  It wouldn't matter if there was a suiteable replacement ,but there isn't.  The Rock is supposed to be the lead but his character is so boring and not integral to the plot that he never emerges as a compelling protagonist.  I'll give you an example:  the movie cuts from a mildly diverting scene of the Cobras breaking out Cobra Commander then to the mysterious Snake-Eyes and his master (played by RZA, I sh** you not) engaging in some interesting kung fu, to The Rock and the remaining Joes...walking and searching for Bruce Willis' character.  Then the plot continues and almost everything that happens after which is actually important does not involve the Rock's character. He's literally the least interesting person in the movie and he's supposed to be the star. Whoops.

                And speaking of the plot, this is a straight sequel to the first movie and if you didn't see it, or like me blocked it from my memory, then you're in for quite a confusing time.  I understood what was happening plot-wise most timese but understood almost nothing about the characters which were holdovers from the first move.  But the studio knew the first movie wasn't successful so why oh why would they tie it so much to that?

                It's a mystery as is the one scene in this movie which is actually great (not just good but GREAT).  That involves Snake Eyes and Store Shadow (former friends until Storm shadow killed their master or something) in the mountains of what looks like Tibet.  Snake Eyes knocks out and kidnaps Storm Shadow and has to evade an army of other highly trained ninjas as him and his protégé escape.  

That scene is so thrilling with such expertly staged action and impressive special effects that it sticks out like a sore thumb.  I almost want to say it can't be the same director.   It lasts less than 10 minutes and then the movie becomes terrible again which is even more noticeable because of the hot action just witnessed.  Not good. 

FINAL GRADE: C-

Watch the poster, not the movie.

                Spring Breakers is like the art house version of "Girls Gone Wild" except there's a bit less nudity and I'm embarassed to have paid to see it.

                 The movie movie follows 4 young co-eds who lie,  cheat and steal their way to Florida for Spring Break.  It's all fun and drinking and snorting coke until they are arrested and don't have any money to post bail. They are eventaully bailed out by Alien (James Franco), a White Gangster with dreadlocks (and ulterior motives) who introduce them to a life of crime that some of them can't handle.

                This movie is fu****g terrible.  There is scene after scene of partying in slow motion with audio from future scenes played in the background.  It's supposed to add deep meanings to the festivities and a sense of danger as we know that the partying will lead to our protagonists getting more than they bargain for with the Spring Break lifestyle.  Instead, it comes off as repetitive, mind numbingly boring and oh so pretentious.  In the theater I audibly sighed because it was so stupid and I begged for it to end.  I actually said out loud to myself: "This is horrible; Please let this be over soon; I can't believe I'm still watching this."

                As the misbehaving continues (this time on another level with Alien's help), some girls have second thoughts about the consequences of it all.  It's very predictable but at least if there were captivating performances on screen I could forgive that.  But all the girls are on the same bandwidth and seem to be playing the same loud, drunk, obnoxious character. The exception is Selena Gomez who plays the "good girl" of the group and is more aware that they are in over their heads.  Unfortuantely, Gomez has a limited acting rang;  It goes from confused-looking to crying.  She wears skimpy bikinis throughout the whole movie and I suppose that's attractive to some people but I found her very "blah" in that way as well.

                For those of you who think I hate James Franco I say once again that's not true. Exhibit A is that while he may be the worst thing about a good movie (Oz The Great and Powerful where unfortunately he played Oz), he is the best thing about this bad movie.  By my math that just makes him mediocre.   He commits to the white Scarface-wannabe with a grill role and he's at least interesting to watch. 

At times I almost forgot it was James Franco as well which is progress.  I wished the movie was all about him, actually.

                Everything ends in violence which happens in slow motion with more voiceovers and I just wanted it to be over.  When it was I was grateful Spring Break was over and I could go home.

GRADE: D+

If only the movie were as exciting as the poster

                 I didn't even know what this film was about at first but it was $5.00 and when I looked it up on Fandango I saw it was a World War II movie so I figured, why not?  I don't regret watching it but it wasn't particularly good.

                The premise is the most interesting part: In the days after the Japanese surrender, American troops are occupying the country.  They are led by General MacArthur (Tommy Lee Jones) whose mission is to help Japan rebuild.  But first there's a nasty bit of business in regards to War Crimes, specifically whether Japan's Emperor, considered a God in the Japanese culture, will be put on trial for his part.  MacArthur knows his superiors in Washington are out for revenge but he has other ideas (which include a Presidential run).  He hopes to exonerate the emperor because he knows anything else will mean civil unrest and more blood. He'd rather show how strong of a leader he is by rebuilding a united but humbled Japan.  He appoints General Bonner Fellers to launch a speedy 10-day investigation and do just that.   Bonner is an expert in Japanese culture having written a paper exploring the psychology of the Japanese soldier.  He also fell in love with a Japanese woman, Aya Shimada, who he was separated from when the war began.  The film follows his story as he explores the role of the Emperor in Japanese culture and looks for his lost love.

                The movie raises a lot of valid points about the warrior mentality in Japan's 2000 year old culture and calls into question whether Japan's conquering ambitions are so evil given that it's following in the footsteps of Britain and American Imperialism.  It's interesting subject matter  but I wished it played out more captivatingly.  The investigation lacks suspense.  Bonner is just asking questions that knows the answers to to fill out a report which feels more like an academic excercise.  It does pick up speed towards the end as the Emperor's actions to end the war are explored but it's a little too late.  His search for Shimada never really gains much traction either because we're never invested in their relationship.

Part of the blame lies in the script which intersperses brief flashbacks about their relationship throughout the entire movie.  We never really get to know Shimada or care about her.  Fox does what he can with an uninspired script.  Jones looks like he's going through the motions and barely awake as he plays a variation of the put-upon old man he's been playing for the past twenty years.

GRADE: C