Georgia Rule

This is not my cup of tea, but I went to see it anyway. Call it the best of what’s left. Actually, Georgia Rule wasn’t too bad. It features Felicity Huffman (Transamerica), Lindsay Lohan (Bobby), and Jane Fonda (Monster-in-Law) as three generations of dysfunctional women. Lohan’s dysfunction is the most pressing, as her mother decides that she needs to spend the summer before college with her grandmother Georgia in Idaho.

Lohan is Rachel, a wild child from San Francisco with a smart mouth and promiscuous front. We watch as she flirts with anything that moves and mouths off to her mother and grandmother. As the story progresses, we realize that her misbehavior is the result of very unfortunate circumstances that were beyond her control, and that all Rachel needs is some love and attention. How cute. In all seriousness, this movie probably falls under the label of “heartwarming,” and may not be the way most people would like to spend a day at the movies, but it was well-acted, even by Ms. Lohan. I know that she’s almost as overexposed as Paris Hilton, but I’ve seen her in a few movies and I don’t have any criticism. She’s not bad. Too bad that life seems to imitate art when it comes to her personal life. In the end, Rachel mends the family ties that bind and gets on the right track. I won’t suggest you spend $$ on this one, but catch it on a Sunday afternoon on HBO.

Fracture

Anthony Hopkins (The Silence of the Lambs) and Ryan Gosling (The Notebook) star in the first marginally noteworthy psychological thriller of the year, Fracture. I’m ignoring Halle Berry’s The Perfect Stranger which was released a few months ago, because it looked too contrived for me to even bother with it. Hopkins plays Ted Crawford, a wealthy businessman with a philandering young wife, while Gosling is Willie Beachum, a young, cocky district attorney faced with the task of prosecuting Crawford after he’s accused of his wife’s attempted murder.

Hopkins brings his trademark deliberate, methodical psychosis to the role, although his performance is tempered with cool and a certain suaveness that Hannibal Lecter lacked. His Ted Crawford isn’t a raving lunatic; after all, how many cheating spouses have met a similar fate, both real and imagined? Nevertheless, Beachum and Mrs. Crawford’s lover, a police detective, embark on a crusade to see that justice finds Crawford, who seems to be one step ahead of them. Gosling shines in his role as a prosecutor with one foot out the door. His Beachum has already accepted a loftier position with a big law firm when Crawford’s case is dropped on his desk. It is his lackadaisical attitude combined with Crawford’s smug assuredness that set the stage for this battle of wits, a chess match between two towering egos. Will the senior outfox the young upstart? I won’t give it away.

Fracture made for a passable day at the movies, but what I’m really looking forward to is Mr. Brooks, which opens this week. Please someone revive the psychological thriller, I’m begging you!

Spiderman 3

One word: lame. Spiderman 3 was a huge disappointment. As a matter of fact, when was the last time “part 3” of any movie franchise was good? Seriously…maybe Die Hard 3, that’s the only thing that comes to mind.

Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker, as do James Franco (Tristan and Isolde) and Kristen Dunst (Elizabethtown) as Harry and Mary Jane. I know the franchise has a built-in fanbase, and that’s probably why it managed to rake in ridiculous opening numbers. I suspect that there has to have been a significant drop-off when you look at the second week numbers as word of mouth got around. The movie is contrived, sappy, corny, and poorly written. The action is also less entertaining this time around. Spiderman 3 was marketed as an exploration into Spidey’s darker side. We get a hint of darkness, but it’s never really anything too sinister. Peter’s idea of being a bad-ass is demanding that his neighbor bake him some chocolate chip cookies. Gimme a break! I’ll admit there’s one scene where Peter’s evil side shines through in great fashion (no spoiler), but that’s about it. Mary Jane is more annoying than ever, and the villains are not believable, especially Topher Grace (In Good Company) as some weird bizarro Spiderman-looking creature. Not since Christopher Reeve has a superhero been this corny. The only interesting performance was given by James Franco; I think he’s hot and a damn good actor. Please Sam Raimi, do not make Spiderman 4!!

The Invisible

*Sigh* The Invisible seemed like it would be an interesting and spooky supernatural whodunit, but it played out like a morbid soap opera instead. It tells the story of Nick Powell, a smart, well-liked high school student with a bright future. Nick has a rocky relationship with his mother, but he’s on top of the world: high school is over and he’s about to head to Europe to perfect his prose. There’s a hint that things might go awry when Nick clashes with the school outcast in the cafeteria, a social misfit named Annie. Let’s just say that little Nicky ends up at the bottom of a sewage drain in the woods, somewhere between life and death. The movie follows Nick’s “pseudo-ghost” as he tries to convince Annie to save his life. Sound weird? Yeah, it’s a little bizarre and kind of a downer. The Invisible is definitely NOT a feel-good movie. I was disappointed because there was no suspense or mystery. The conflict is established fairly early, and the remainder of the movie tediously meanders toward its conclusion. The performances are good enough, with the exception of Marcia Gay Harden (Mystic River) as Nick’s mom. His mom is supposed to be detached and out-of-it, but it just comes across as if Harden can’t act. We know that’s not true, so maybe the director should have tried to get something different out of her, I don’t know. What I do know is that The Invisible was kind of a drag, skip it.

Grindhouse

I don’t even know where to start. When describing movies I often say, “It’s not for everybody.” Well when it comes to Grindhouse truer words cannot be spoken. To their credit, directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino don’t hide the ball. They let you know upfront what you’re in for: sex, violence and gore. Thank you sir, may I have another? The title refers to the popular cinema houses of the 70s that specialized in double features of the “B-movie” variety. The theaters also doubled as “go-go” bars, putting the “grind” in “grindhouse.”

Tarantino has a way of paying homage to the vestiges of his youth, whether it be pin-up girls (i.e. Pam Grier, that’s why he cast her in Jackie Brown), spaghetti westerns (think Kill Bill), or these dirty little grindhouses I just described. I applaud Rodriguez and Tarantino for their creativity. They previously teamed up for Sin City, and I think they work pretty well together – although each director is responsible for his own work in Grindhouse. The movie is a double feature, and Rodriguez is first up with “Planet Terror,” followed by Tarantino’s “Death Proof.” Since both movies are inspired by the B-movie genre, each director gets to eschew any plot constraints and focus on the salacious and tawdry. Bullets and blood abound, particularly in “Planet Terror.” The gore is gratuitous, the campy dialogue at an all-time high. What makes it great is that it’s supposed to be that way. Either you get it or you don’t. Complete with phony previews and “missing reels” that leave HUGE plot holes, Grindhouse aims to make your movie-going experience an authentic one. “Planet Terror” features Rose McGowan (Jawbreakers) as a one-legged go-go dancer. She and her boyfriend, played by Freddy Rodriguez (Dead Presidents) must dispatch their town of brain-eating zombies. That’s pretty much all I can say about the “plot.” Everything else that transpires can best be described as sensory assault.

Now it’s Tarantino’s turn. “Death Proof” is less gory than “Planet Terror,” and actually has a little character development, if you could call it that. It features Rosario Dawson (Sin City), Sydney Poitier (it’s his daughter, not him!), and Kurt Russell (Dark Blue), most notably. Russell is “Stuntman Mike,” a psychopath who preys on women with his car. We follow two groups of girlfriends as they are stalked and terrorized. What I liked most about “Death Proof” was its voyeuristic quality. You really feel like you’re watching a group of friends with a hidden camera. It’s very dialogue-driven and realistic, which is both good and bad. It’s good that it feels genuine, but it’s bad when the dialogue turns tedious and uninteresting. You have to care about these girls’ conversations and interaction, and I could see some people shifting in their theater seats, waiting for the “action.”

I could go on and on about Grindhouse, but I’ll stop there. This is not the kind of movie that comes along every day. It is remarkably unique – never taking itself seriously in its storytelling, but maintaining the artistic integrity of its premise. Sometimes when a movie is a parody or spoof, you’ll find that the writer/director takes the lazy road because the movie is “supposed” to be bad or silly. That wasn’t the case with Rodriguez and Tarantino. They’ve managed to create a hilarious, edgy, over-the-top spectacle that will stun anyone with the guts to see it. I thought it was great.

Blades of Glory

Save your money. Talk about false advertising. Blades of Glory looks hilarious. It’s not. It’s mildly amusing at best. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed less at a comedy. Once you get past the initial chuckle-inducing concept of a male figure-skating pair, the movie is left with nothing. It was ridiculous, but in an eye-rolling way, not in a funny way. Yes Will Ferrell (Anchorman) is funny. He’s always funny. The problem is that he wasn’t enough to carry the movie, and the script was mediocre. It was just corny and stupid. Comedy is not my favorite genre, and I choose them wisely when I go to the theater. I expected laughs on the level of The Wedding Crashers or The 40-year Old Virgin. Blades of Glory can’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as those two. You know when they suck I like to keept it short. I have nothing else to say.

Shooter

Everyone’s second favorite bad-ass is back at it again. Mark Wahlberg (The Departed) stars as Bob Lee Swagger (ridiculous name), a disenchanted, reclusive marine. Devastated by the death of his fellow soldier in a botched mission and the military’s subsequent abandonment of him, Swagger begins to question his ingrained sense of patriotism. An expert sniper, he is approached by a Colonel Johnson (Danny Glover, most recently of Dreamgirls) and asked to help prevent an assassination on the president. Johnson and his men know that Swagger is an expert marksman, and they need his help in getting into the mind of the potential assassin. He reluctantly agrees, and begins gathering information on the manner in which an assassin would strike. Armed with this advice, Johnson and his cronies attempt to take out the president and frame Swagger for the hit.

Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) maintains a high level of action throughout, and Mark Wahlberg is completely convincing in his role. He’s good at shit like this. Of course the whole I’ve-been-framed-and-now-I-have-to-clear-my-name-before-I-get-killed-or-arrested thing has been done plenty of times before, but Shooter is good enough. Wahlberg’s screen presence alone makes it worth seeing – he’s rarely disappointing. Check it out.

Premonition

I wish I would've had a premonition that this movie would suck donkey balls. Then maybe I would not have wasted my time with it.

Premonition stars Sandra Bullock (Crash) and Julian McMahon (Fantastic Four, Nip/Tuck) as Jim and Linda Hanson, a married couple with two daughters. Soon after we meet the family, Linda is informed that Jim has been killed in an auto accident. The rest of the movie plays like a morbid version of Groundhog Day. One day Linda wakes up and Jim's dead, the next day he's alive. She tries to glean clues about what happend, and each day that passes reveals a new little wrinkle. Sound provocative? It's not; it's bullshit. Linda pays a visit to a priest, and he gives her some cryptic spiel about premonitions, reciting a history lesson of other quackpots who've seen the future. The problem is that it's never revealed why Linda had the premonition. It's not to change the future or to right some wrong...the whole thing is just pointless. I do think that the basic premise of the movie is interesting, and I like movies that deal with fate, spirituality, and destiny - but this was just LOUSY. I would suggest Frequency in lieu of Premonition. Even last year's Deja Vu was better than this.

I Think I Love My Wife

This is Chris Rock's latest directorial effort, a take-off of his popular stand-up routine where he laments married life. To quote Rock, you can either be "single and lonely or married and bored."

The movie follows Rock's character Richard Cooper, a successful investment banker with a lovely wife and two adorable kids. Richard's wife is a good one, but he finds himself bored with the mundane aspects of married life. His wife wears "granny panties," and the sex is virtually nonexistent. Enter Nikki Tru, played by Kerry Washinton (Ray, She Hate Me), the ex-girlfriend of one of Richard's old friends. It seems Nikki needs an employment reference and decides to pay Richard an unannounced visit for a letter of recommendation. It's obvious from the start that Nikki is nothing but trouble. She's everything that Richard's wife Brenda (Gina Torres of Alias) is not: sexy and adventurous. She has him p-whipped without even giving him the "p." The movie follows Richard's efforts to remain on the straight and narrow in the face of temptation. In his heart Richard is a good man; he just needs to spice up his marriage. He ultimately realizes what's most important in life and manages to get his priorities in order. This is only after Nikki gets him completely discombobulated. Is that a word? I've always wondered if that was really a word. What's the opposite. Is it combobulated? What does that mean?

I Think I love My Wife is humourous at best and mildly entertaining at worst. It has an indie feel, which is kind of a good thing. It falters at points, and certain parts of the story don't make sense. One scene in particular seems like it should have been part of a dream sequence, but Richard reacts as if it takes place in reality. And another thing, are we supposed to believe that Kerry Washington is hot for Chris Rock??? I mean, come on. I love Chris Rock as much as the next person -- the man is a comedic genius; but he's one step from Pookie in New Jack City. His lips looked so cracked at one point I was like "damn!" But hey, that's why they call it the movies, right? Because you get to see some shit that would never happen in real life.

300

Wow...300 was a feast for the eyes and the most visually decadent movie I've seen in a long time. Based on the graphic novels of Frank Miller (Sin City), the movie tells the story of 300 undermanned, outmatched Spartans who valiantly sacrificed their lives in The Battle of Thermopylae.

In the ancient times of Greek battle, the soldiers of Sparta were the bravest, most fearless warriors in the world. They were bred for combat, preparing for war soon after taking their first steps. It is this innate heroism that fuels 300 Spartans and their King Leonidas in war against mighty Persia. When Xerxes, the king of Persia, demands that Sparta submit to him, Sparta refuses. The gauntlet has been laid, and the only alternative is war. Despite the odds, the Spartans manage to slay many Persian soldiers. Unfortunately their victory is merely a moral one, as valor ultimately succumbs to manpower.

300 is straightforward in its storytelling, and a welcomed departure from other period movies that have had more convoluted historical underpinnings. The movie focuses on one battle. We know who's fighting and we know their motivation. We can also surmise the result, but the treat lies in getting there. The battle scenes are choreographed wonderfully, and the cinematography is something to behold. 300 will appeal mostly to men due to its violence, but women are in for a pleasant surprise with the myriad of scantily clad Spartans, particularly King Leonidas, played by actor Gerard Butler. I watched a television program about the making of 300, and each one of the male actors was whipped into impeccable physical condition. They looked like warriors in every sense of the word, literally dropping to the floor to perform push-ups between takes. It pays off, as they all look like they could tear a person to shreds with their bare hands. So on that note, 300 is a movie that will oddly appeal to men and women equally, if the girls can get past the violence (it's not too bad). It's been said that 300 is as revoulutionary and groundbreaking as The Matrix. I wouldn't dare go that far, but its unique sensuality makes it a movie worth seeing.

Zodiac

Zodiac is the dramatization of the true events surrounding one of America's most infamous serial murderers, The Zodiac Killer. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal (Jarhead, Donnie Darko) as Robert Graysmith, the San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist who remains obsessed with the case long after the police have resigned themselves to defeat. Graysmith becomes involved in the case when the killer begins to send taunting letters to police through the local newspapers.

The movie begins on July 4, 1969(?), on lover's lane in the city of Vallejo, California. A young couple has parked in a secluded area, talking quietly. A set of headlights temporarily blinds their vehicle from the rear. Pausing nervously, they wonder aloud about their visitor. The boy is apprehensive. Just as their tension begins to mount, the car leaves as quickly as it arrived. Their conversation resumes. Now the car returns and blocks their escape. The driver exits and approaches their vehicle, aiming a bright flashlight. The boy thinks it's a police offer, and begins to explain. Before he can complete his sentence, POP! The stranger is firing shots into the vehicle, the girl is screaming. When the stranger leaves, the girl is dead and the boy will be the one of the few witnesses to see the Zodiac and live to tell about it. It is this chilling opening sequence that introduces us to the Zodiac Killer, a man who wantonly terrorized the Bay area from approximately 1969-1975.

Directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club), Zodiac is one part police procedural and one part murder mystery. At a lenghthy 2 1/2 hours, the movie is not without its slow moments, but for the most part it manages to hold your attention. This is due in large part to the aforementioned opening scene, as well as different murder scenes interspersed throughout the first half. The movie stalls when it lingers too much on the minutiae of the policework. Which brings me to Mark Ruffalo (Collateral), a highly regarded actor who has yet to impress me. He is adequate as Detective David Toschi, and certainly attractive, but his delivery was a bit too understated, in my opinion. He and Gyllenhaal were both so soft-spoken in Zodiac that it started to annoy me. Anyway, Zodiac is not without its listless moments, but it picks up once Gyllenhaal's character gets more involved in uncovering the killer's identity. I also enjoyed the introduction of different suspects, each of them plausible in their own way. Robert Downey Jr. is also featured as Paul Avery, a Chronicle reporter who becomes consumed with the case, only to succumb to that obsession, ending up a washed-up alcoholic.

Fincher captures the time period in dark fashion, using the same muted, orange-tinged hue found in Se7en. Zodiac doesn't compare to his previous gems, but it is a solid addition to his body of work. Gyllenhaal isn't exactly a revelation, but he's an amazing actor and I bet if I saw the real Robert Graysmith I would see that he nailed the performance. I think fans of Fincher and/or Gyllenhaal should check out Zodiac off GP. It was interesting, if nothing else -- even though my eyelids got heavy once or twice.

Ghost Rider

Nicholas Cage (The Weather Man, Lord of War) is one of those actors that annoys the hell outta me. I think it's his voice and his mannerisms. I just don't care for him ususally, because when you watch one of his movies you never forget that it's him, and isn't that the point of acting? Anyway, I saw Ghost Rider in spite of Nic Cage and it wasn't half bad.

Based on the Marvel comic character of the same name, Ghost Rider (alter ego of Johnny Blaze) tells the story of a man who made a deal with the devil as a teen to spare his father's life, and now must repay his debt. He must become "the rider," collecting souls for his nefarious one-time benefactor. After dark and in the presence of evil, Johnny Blaze transforms into the rider: a leather-clad skeleton who rides a bad-ass mortorcycle, leaving a trail of flames in his wake. Okay, so the premise is interesting enough, as far as comic heroes go. Both the story and execution were pretty good. The special effects were decent, although let's be real - this isn't Spiderman or Superman. Ghost Rider has more of a lonely, everyman quality to him and the vigilante angle is a good one. Plus, he straight up kills people. No sticky webs to temporarily immobilize the bad guys like Spidey; Ghost Rider sends the dudes to hell. That's pretty cool.

I feel like it's unfair to critique the acting in a movie like this, but I have to give a quick word. It was marginal at best. Cage did a good job of looking alternately forlorn and corny. Eva Mendes plays his girl, and her role has about zero substance. It's nothing. A resume-filler, that's it. Sooo....in conclusion, Ghost Rider is the kind of movie you go see just to kill time or if you're looking for something to do on a random afternoon. I know this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but like I said, it wasn't half bad. Unfortunately that also means it was only half good.

Notes on A Scandal

This film was outstanding and is well-deserving of any future accolades, Oscar or otherwise. The acting and writing were superb, and there was never a minute in the film that didn't count for something. Starring Judi Dench (Casino Royale) and Cate Blanchett (Babel), the movie tells the story of a young fresh-faced teacher named Sheba (Blanchett) who begins an illicit tryst with a student - Mary Kay Letourneau style. The film is masterfully narrated by Dench's character Barbara, an older teacher who has taken a shall we say, healthy interest in Sheba. Barbara fluctuates between maternal friendship with Sheba and sexual longing for her. I've never seen Judi Dench in such a role, not that I'm terribly familiar with her work anyway, but still. It was creepy-good. Blanchett, conversely is both sympathetic and repugnant. She is, after all, sleeping with a 15-year old. There's no excusing that, even though the boy is a willing participant. However, I couldn't help but feel sorry for her character when she became the object of Barbara's predatory obsession. Think Single White Female for the AARP crowd.

Notes on A Scandal is the best movie I've seen this year, so far. The performances of the two leads were outstanding. Dench portrayed Barbara as the well-intentioned schoolmarm with a hint of menace lurking beneath the surface. Blanchett is naively selfish, acting without consequence until it's too late. It's been a while since I've seen a movie that wasn't at least mildly disappointing in some fashion. Notes on A Scandal was a refreshing change from the norm, and definitely worth seeing.

Smokin' Aces

I was excited about Smokin’ Aces because this is really my type of movie: fast-paced, frenetic, violent, featuring characters with a singular focus who are hell-bent on carrying out the task at hand. However, I was a tad disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, Smokin’ Aces was a highly entertaining movie overall, it just came across as the product of a poor-man’s Quentin Tarantino. The dialogue was fast and funny, the acting pretty good…but something about the movie felt thrown together. Smokin’ Aces was akin to deciding to make a painting by taking a bunch of paint and throwing it on a blank canvas: some parts will look kinda cool, but others will look like a complete mess.

The cast is an eclectic mix of seasoned and inexperienced actors, from Ray Liotta (Goodfellas) to Alicia Keys. Jeremy Piven of Entourage is featured as the main character, Buddy “Aces” Israel, a washed-up Vegas high-roller turned government snitch. The movie begins with a quick (and I do mean quick) recitation of the plot, making it crystal clear what we’re in for: About a dozen hitmen will attempt to take out Israel before he can sing to the Feds, and a handsome sum will be paid to the victor. Israel doesn’t know about the bounty, but he has holed up in the penthouse suite of a Lake Tahoe hotel, awaiting the specifics of the deal he struck with the government. He’s guarded by Sir Ivy (played by the always-sexy Common), and two other henchmen.

The best thing about Smokin’ Aces was the dialogue; it was hilarious, risqué, off-color, crude, and very authentic. Piven was effective as the pathetic, sleazy Israel, and he actually manages to make him seem sympathetic a time or two. Alicia Keys and Taraji Henson (Baby Boy, Hustle & Flow) nearly steal the show as a pair of sassy assassins. You like that? Sassy assassins? Say that ten times fast. Alright, if you liked Lucky Number Slevin, Domino, or Running Scared (I loved all three), then you will probably enjoy Smokin’ Aces. Just don’t expect it to be as good.

Alpha Dog

Alpha Dog marks the film debut of Justin Timberlake in the story of suburban drug-dealers who bite off more than they can chew in a quest to add excitement to their vapid existence.

Based on true events, the movie chronicles the exploits of Johnny Truelove (Emile Hirsch, who I’d never heard of prior to this flick), a fake-ass thug who is a major weed supplier in California. Truelove and his band of idiots (including Timberlake) spend their days getting high in the California sun, having sex, pissing away their parents’ money, and generally behaving like disgusting pricks. When one of Truelove’s customers fails to make good on a debt, he decides to kidnap the guy’s younger brother Zack and hold him for ransom. The plot goes awry when Truelove, genius that he is, realizes that he’ll actually go to jail if he releases the hostage. What happens next is tragic and heartbreaking, as Zack is a naïve, sympathetic character. He’s out of his league with Truelove’s crew, failing to see that his demise is imminent.

Alpha Dog was wack as hell to me, partly because I think the individuals on whom the movie is based are lame. Every character is a shallow poser. I’ve heard that the film received critical praise at Sundance, and I’m astounded by that. Writer/director Nick Cassavetes has tried to present a psychological study of disaffected youth, but he’s failed miserably. Alpha Dog tries to be edgy, but just seems corny and ridiculous. The characters don’t have to be likeable (they’re actually deplorable), but it would be okay if they were at least interesting. They all seem like spoiled little shits, and as a viewer I could care less what happened to them. They weren’t even cool, despite Cassavetes’ lackluster attempt to make them bad-ass. Veterans Bruce Willis (Lucky Number Slevin) and Sharon Stone (Bobby) cannot save the movie with their supporting roles. Timberlake had his moments, but overall his acting was corny as well. He needs to work on his delivery…he might end up being a decent actor with a little more practice. If you want to watch a movie about white kids getting loaded and not giving a damn, rent Kids or Black & White.

Children of Men

Children of Men presents one of the more fascinating movie plots in recent memory. The year is 2027, and planet Earth has become a barren wasteland, literally and figuratively. The only functioning society is found in London, as the rest of the civilized world has ceased to exist. All “immigrants” are arrested and anarchy fills the streets of London’s surrounding areas. As if it couldn’t be any worse, the surviving human beings face certain extinction, as women and men are infertile and the population dwindles. Enter Clive Owen (Sin City, Closer). It seems that his ex-wife (Julianne Moore, The Forgotten, Freedomland) needs him to transport an illegal immigrant (a character named Kee) to safety. This is no ordinary immigrant; rather this is a young lady who has managed to do what no one else in the world has been able to do for 20 years: become pregnant. Protected by a fringe political group, Owen’s character must shield his young charge from the government and escort her to a neighboring city for amnesty. They dodge bullets as it becomes clear that Kee’s protectors have their own agenda and plan for her and the unborn child.

Children of Men paints a provocative, bleak picture of the future that is both fascinating and depressing. Clive Owen is excellent as the reluctant hero, and you can’t help cheering for him and Kee. The movie falls short in its ending, which is rather abrupt. I saw it with a friend who also thought it started slowly. I think Children of Men is a good movie to check out if you like food for thought. The acting is great, with good supporting performances by Michael Caine (Batman Begins) and Chiwtel Ejiofor (Dirty Pretty Things, Four Brothers). If you’re looking for something a little outside the box, check it out.

The Good Shepherd

To paraphrase rapper Beanie Siegel, I’m going to be short and to the point like Steve Nash. The Good Shepherd? Didn’t care for it that much. Yes, it was a good film in the sense that it was well-made and well-acted, but there was something missing. The first 10-15 minutes almost bored me to tears. I’m not a child; my attention span is greater than that of a gnat, but come ON. Matt Damon (The Departed) is such a solitary figure in this movie, you really have to care about the story in order to care about the movie -- and I didn't. The subject matter was fascinating, I just don't like the way it was handled. This is the sort of movie that some critics adore because of its pedigree, but I was not too impressed.

The Good Shepherd tells the story of the founding of the CIA through the eyes of Edward Wilson (Damon), an ivy-league educated well-bred young man selected for covert government service while still at Yale. The movie spans about 25 years, showing us how Edward is the perfect man for the job: dispassionate in the course of duty, possessing both a keen intelligence and superb instincts. Sounds a lot more exciting than it is, but perhaps that’s the way it works in the real world. The only time we really see any emotion from Edward is when he spends time with his true love, a young woman he meets while at Yale. Their relationship is doomed, for reasons I won’t go into. Suffice it to say he ends up marrying someone else (Angelina Jolie) and is left to wonder about what might have been. The movie really isn’t about Edward's personal life beyond the way it’s impacted by his service to his government and country. He is driven by an unrelenting loyalty, sacrificing all others for his sense of duty and belief in America. The movie is all very cloak and dagger, but not in an interesting, captivating way. It’s all nebulous and more than a little long at 2 hours and 45 minutes. I feel like I am supposed to like this movie a whole lot more than I did. Deniro directed it for crying out loud. You’ve got two of my favorite movie stars in Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie…but I think it's one of the least satisfying political thrillers I've ever seen. I’d give it a 7/10, and that means wait for Netflix.

Edit: I never read other reviews before I write my own. After I wrote this review I went to rottentomatoes.com and it's rotten! I feel very validated now. I knew this movie sucked out loud. Nah, I exaggerate. It was just very OK.

Dreamgirls

To say that Dreamgirls is highly anticipated would be an understatement. Buzz has been building since word got out over a year ago that a big screen adaptation of the Broadway hit was on its way. Now there are Golden Globe nominations and Oscar buzz too. Dreamgirls has taken on a life of its own. Originally a Broadway musical, it’s loosely based on the rise and ultimate dissolution of The Supremes. The musical made quite a splash when it debuted in 1981, and the movie version is sure to please audiences even more.

Dreamgirls stars Beyonce Knowles (Goldmember), Jennifer Hudson (TV’s American Idol), and Anika Noni Rose, an actress best known for her work on Broadway. The three ladies portray Deena, Effie, and Lorrell, respectively. They comprise The Dreamettes, a girl group from Detroit aspiring for fame and stardom. When we first meet the ladies they are entering a talent contest, which they end up losing. It is here they meet their future manager, Curtis Taylor, played by Jamie Foxx (Miami Vice). He proposes that they tour as backup singers for James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy), a charismatic ladies' man and soul singer. And so the journey begins, and it’s one filled with highs and lows as the girls navigate the pitfalls and triumphs of stardom. A budding relationship between Curtis and Effie is threatened by his growing attraction to Deena, and she eventually supplants Effie as lead singer, despite having a weaker voice. Rising tensions come to a head and the group dynamics change drastically. These principal plot developments reveal the movie’s core themes of following your dreams, remaining true to oneself, and perhaps most significant: forgiveness.

Okay, enough with all of that. Let’s get to the nitty gritty. The movie was wonderful. Period. Anyone who’s seen a live performance of the musical will tell you that the movie was about as on point as it could possibly be. It followed the script almost exactly, with the exception of a few artistic liberties that only enhanced the movie. The singing and acting were excellent. There were big shoes to be filled, and all of the players seemed to have welcomed the challenge. There were no weak links in the chain, but let me address the two strongest, Ms. Knowles and Ms. Hudson. For those who think the latter “stole the show,” this is only partly true. When Jennifer Hudson is on screen, it’s almost as if the other actors fade into the background. She dwarfs them with her presence, and with her voice – whether she is belting from her soul or giving Curtis a tongue lashing. She eats up the screen. HOWEVER, to say that she stole the show is to do Beyonce a disservice. If you are familiar with the musical and the original script, you know that the role of Effie is one that calls for more character development and depth. Deena’s role is more linear. Deena changes and evolves, but not like Effie. This is not Beyonce’s fault, this is simply the way the characters were created, and so it is a tad ignorant to assert that Jennifer Hudson outshone Beyonce, as some have suggested. She did a better job, but that is because she was called to do more. Her role required more, and she delivered. Having said that, Beyonce’s acting has vastly improved. Particularly, her non-verbal acting has become quite good. I always look for that, and she gave Deena all that the role demanded. I’m not so sure she deserves a Golden Globe nomination though. That’s a bit of a stretch.

Dreamgirls is a must-see for those who don’t mind the idea of movie adaptations of musicals. I attended an advanced showing with a group of friends, and the one person who disliked the movie was a friend who just detests the entire concept of the musical as movie. He also needed more character development, which is a fair complaint, but not if you’re familiar with the musical, which kinda throws you right in the mix with little exposition. If you didn’t like Chicago, Idlewild, Rent, Moulin Rouge…avoid Dreamgirls because you won’t appreciate it. Everyone else, prepare to be wowed by some powerhouse performances, especially that of Jennifer Hudson. Homegirl is on her way and I predict a #1 opening for Dreamgirls, if it can squeak by The Good Shepherd. Hell, go see it just because Little Ms. Perfect (Beyonce) drops the F-bomb and smokes a cigarette! I wonder what Mama and Papa Knowles thought about that. I knew there was a bad girl underneath that southern belle façade. All jokes aside, Dreamgirls is big, an instant classic like Cooley High, or Sparkle, or The Wiz or some shit. Don’t be that one person who’s outta the loop.

Bobby/Blood Diamond

I go to the movies for different reasons, and different things happen each time. That is the beauty and wonder of art. If you view music, poetry, literature, and film as expressions of art rather than mere forms of entertainment, you can gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of the world, of your own environment, and of yourself and those around you. When you gain that appreciation, these are the times when art speaks to your soul, when it achieves something great. I’m not trying to be melodramatic, but I’m a person who likes to think and to feel. When you do anything that makes you really think, or really feel, I think that is a wonderful thing, and that is one of the many aspects of art that I love. I saw two movies this weekend (Bobby and Blood Diamond) that made me think and made me feel something. Let’s look at Bobby first.

It’s hard to believe that the life and assassination of Robert F. Kennedy hasn’t been tackled yet, but I think actor and director Emilio Estevez (Judgment Night, The Breakfast Club) is the first to take on the task in Bobby. The movie is as much about Kennedy’s effect on the American public as it is about the actual man. Bobby is told through the eyes of the occupants of The Ambassador Hotel, where RFK was shot in 1968.

Estevez has assembled an impressive ensemble cast, including Martin Sheen (The Departed), Demi Moore (Ghost), Helen Hunt (As Good as It Gets), Nick Cannon (Drumline), Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls), Christian Slater (Murder in the First), and Joy Bryant (The Skeleton Key), among others. You get the idea – there’s a gang of people in this movie. The people are not important; what resonates so deeply from Bobby is the powerful effect RFK had on American citizens from all walks of life. People just don’t feel that way about politicians nowadays. I’m looking at the movie and I’m struck by how much people LOVED this man. Estevez interspersed the movie with actual footage of RFK, and there is no denying that the man was absolutely adored and that he had a good heart and a good soul. During a tumultuous time for our country, he offered some semblance of hope for the future, and not in that cheesy bullshit way we see now, but like he really gave a damn. I’m not trying to sip the Kennedy kool-aid, I’m just trying to convey to you what the movie conveyed to me. The man next to me in the theater was crying, and when the closing credits rolled over a Kennedy montage – no one got up to leave. That means that this man had more than just a passing effect on people. There has always been something sad and tragic about not knowing what might have been. That is the legacy of RFK: untapped potential, untold possibilities. He was a truly good man who was snuffed out during a time when the country seemed to be going crazy in a perfect storm of tragedy: the assassinations of JFK, MLK, the Vietnam War, etc. Bobby uses its ensemble cast of characters to convey this turbulent and desperate time.

The movie is not without its flaws, as the script is plodding in places and the dialogue borders on sappy. The transition between scenes and characters was less than smooth, a flaw which was magnified by the intersecting storylines and characters. Many scenes felt choppy and disjointed. All of these flaws were erased in the electrifying final 30 minutes of the film, which depict the actual assassination and its chaotic aftermath. Here the ensemble cast shines in its delivery of collective pain, suffering, comfort, and finally: despair. Emilio Estevez’ Bobby is ambitious and deeply meaningful in its portrait of a fallen paragon of hope, taken too soon as the great ones always seem to be.

Blood Diamond

Now, let’s take a look at Blood Diamond, starring Djimon Honsou (The Island), Leonard DiCaprio (The Departed), and Jennifer Connelly. This film was truly amazing. It tells the haunting story of a man named Solomon Vandy, forced to mine for diamonds. He has been literally torn from his family by rebels who use the diamonds to finance a civil war in Sierra Leone. They have kidnapped his son and forced him into combat. Rebels, the African government, and large diamond retailers are all in bed with one another for the sake of profit, and the consequences are shockingly savage. Enter DiCaprio as Danny Archer, an opportunistic smuggler. Solomon knows the location of a 15-carat pink diamond which he has hidden in hopes of bartering for the safe reunion of his family. Archer, who must deliver diamonds to his “employer,” needs the gem to stay alive. Now the two are in a race to recover the diamond without being killed in the process, becoming reluctant and unlikely allies. DiCaprio and Honsou turn in brilliant performances, and their scenes are truly captivating. DiCaprio’s role is layered and complex, as his character shows vulnerable humanity one minute, and callous viciousness the next.

Blood Diamond is a movie which cannot be done justice by mere words. Before I can describe the movie any further, let me pose a question or two. What is human suffering? What does it mean to feel pain? I’m sure we all have our personal answers and thoughts. Perhaps it is the death of a loved one, like a spouse, child, or parent. Perhaps it is surviving a crime, or a debilitating illness. All of these answers are valid, and who am I to question the things that make another person suffer? I say all that to say this: Blood Diamond made me rethink my concept of pain and suffering. I sit in my little corner of the world with no idea about the shit that happens on planet Earth. Blood Diamond isn’t just a movie; it is a fictionalized portrayal of REAL events. The characters are subjected to unspeakable horrors, all in the name of the almighty dollar. It raises questions about human nature and the forces that drive us all. For Archer, it is greed. For Solomon, it is the unconditional love of a father for his child. Blood Diamond is not a pretty movie, it is the type of movie that serves as a mirror --- hold it up and you might not like the face staring back at you.

Deja vu

Question: If the great Denzel Washington (Inside Man) stars in a bad movie, is the movie still bad? Answer: YES. If, like my mother, you believe that any time Denzel graces the screen it’s a cause for celebration, by all means – walk don’t run to your nearest theater to check out Déjà vu. However, if you need more than a handsome face to make your movie-going experience worthwhile, I’d think twice about it.

Déjà vu reunites director Tony Scott (Man on Fire) with Washington and super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Con Air, The Rock). If these two are on board we at least know that a whole lot of shit is going to blow up. And it does. Washington plays ATF agent Doug Carlin, who is assigned to investigate an explosion that kills hundreds on a Naval Ship in New Orleans, during Mardi Gras. Simultaneously, he must solve the murder of Clare Kuchever (Paula Patton of Idlewild), whose death is linked to the explosion. To borrow a line from the script, if he can find Clare’s killer, he can find the person responsible for the blast. After this initial puzzle is established, we are introduced to the main concept which drives the film. The government has stumbled upon technology that allows it to not only record the past, but to manipulate it as well. As a matter of fact, they are able to send objects and people into the past in order to change the future (present). Agent Carlin is now looking at Clare’s last few days in order to uncover her killer’s identity and foil the terrorist plot.

This premise is acceptable, perhaps even intriguing, but its execution is flawed. I’m talking major plot holes and piss-poor writing. Have you ever been unable to comprehend something, not because it was so “deep” or “over your head,” but because it was just plain dumb? That’s Déjà vu! I don’t go to the movies to pick them apart, but I’m not an idiot either. Some of the things that happen in Déjà vu make absolutely no sense; it’s like the writers expect the audience to accept certain truths about this time travel technology although they directly conflict with other elements of the technology that have been presented. The implausibility level is 9 out of 10 in Déjà vu. Can the mere presence of Denzel Washington overcome these glaring flaws? Well, that depends on the viewer. Denzel will always be Denzel, but Déjà vu’s problems are bigger than him. In addition to the poor writing, the cast is wasted as the actors are relegated to one-dimensional beings that only serve to advance the plot. Jim Caviezel (Frequency, Passion of the Christ) is featured as the villain and prime suspect, while Val Kilmer (Heat, The Doors) is a federal agent assigned to the case. Neither one of these actors will be remembered for Déjà vu. If you want to see a movie that deals with concepts of time travel, fate, destiny, or government surveillance in a manner that is genuine and thought-provoking, I would suggest any one of the following: Frequency, The Butterfly Effect, Minority Report, or Donnie Darko. Despite a provocative premise, Déjà vu is ultimately disappointing, although Mr. Washington makes a valiant effort. He can’t do it alone though, and even if you put a diamond on a turd, it’s still a turd, feel me?