The Dark Knight

Oh y-y-y-yeah. It’s taken me a few days to find the time necessary to review this movie, this cinematic masterpiece, the illest movie of the year. Some movies manage to be all things to all people, and while everyone does not love the new Batman movie as much as I do, I think it managed to have a little something for everyone, from the fanboy purists to your average moviegoer.

I almost don’t even know where to start. The Dark Knight was pretty close to perfect. There was not a single wasted scene, character, or piece of dialogue. Everything fit together like a perfect puzzle. The performances, score, script, everything was amazing. Sometimes you can tell when you’re watching something special, and that’s how I felt the entire time.

Heath Ledger’s (Brokeback Mountain, Monster's Ball) portrayal of the Joker lived up to its morbid hype. Word on the street was that this was the performance of his career, even before his untimely death. I’ve seen his interviews where he discusses the psychological demands he suffered in preparation for the role, immersing himself in the character. His performance was truly something to behold. Ledger’s interpretation of the Joker was chilling, unnerving and complex. It was nuanced and idiosyncratic, from the way Joker licked his lips, to the way his tone shifted between high pitched and gravelly. It was brilliant, menacing, and ultimately sad. The movie would have had a dark and heavy vibe anyway, but when you acknowledge the reality that Ledger is no longer with us, his performance becomes even more haunting. This is not the Joker of old, the laughing cartoon-ish villain of the sixties television series, decked out in a ridiculous campy get-up. Oh no. Ledger’s Joker is a sadistic criminal who cannot be intimidated or bullied because he values nothing. Possessing a cruel sense of humor and diabolical intelligence, he torments Gotham City for sport. His desire is to give Gotham “a better class of criminal” and to expose Batman’s true identity, all under the nose of Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman, Dracula) and new district attorney Harvey Dent. Which brings me to…….

Harvey Dent/Two-Face (Aaron Eckhart, Paycheck): Wow. I think everyone expected Ledger to turn in an immortal performance, but I must say that Eckhart almost stole the show. Almost, but not quite. His character Harvey Dent represents hope and change for Gotham, a sort of take-no-prisoners Elliot Ness type of guy. He begins as a straightforward idealist, but tragedy causes his devolution into a vengeful madman, who doles out his own brand of justice. I won’t take the time of discussing every character, just the three principals, which brings me to….

The Dark Knight himself, Batman. Christian Bale (American Psycho, The Machinist) makes a wonderful caped crusader, in my opinion. To some he comes in a close second to Michael Keaton in terms of Batman greatness, but I haven’t seen Tim Burton’s Batman in years, so I give the edge to Bale. He was outshined by Ledger and Eckhart, but I think it’s because they had more to work with. Bale did an admirable job, playing Batman as the straight arrow who is conflicted about his role and responsibility to Gotham. He is an imperfect hero, hailed one moment but willing to be vilified the next. Beyond all else Batman is selfless, and sacrifices his personal desires for Gotham’s greater good. He and the Joker are locked in a bizarre battle, each adhering to their own personal code. Yes, even Joker has a code, one rooted in his own concept of criminal honor. My only problem with Bale was his choice (I assume it was his choice) to use a hoarse whisper when shifting from Bruce Wayne to Batman. That was a little lame, but it’s not enough to detract from his overall performance. While I’m at it, I might as well give a brief word about Maggie Gyllenhaal, even though I said I would stick to the three main characters. She wasn’t hot. Sorry, that’s mean but it’s my opinion. It’s unbelievable to me that Harvey and Bruce are in love with this “beautiful” woman. Poor casting.

I could go on and on about this movie. It is not like the corny installments we had in the 90’s, rather the Nolan brothers have crafted a dark, psychologically provocative and emotionally-charged tale that will leave you transfixed. There are many scenes that touch upon the fragile balance between insanity and normalcy, between what is right and wrong, and that call upon us to question what we are capable of when pushed to the brink. Words almost don’t do this movie justice, but words are all I have. It was an experience, and if rumors of Ledger being in contention for a posthumous Academy Award are true – he is most deserving. Yes, Jack Nicholson did his THING back in the day, and I take nothing away from Jack – but Heath completely freaked this role. As a matter of fact, no one else can fill his shoes. There, I said it. To the Nolan brothers: don’t let anyone else play the Joker. Heath smashed it, it’s done. Sorry for the rant, but if you are a fan of movies, not just comic book movies or action movies, but real movies: go see The Dark Knight. Spiderman, Superman, Iron Man, Hulk – step your game up because the bar hasn’t just been raised, to borrow a line from Jay-Z: this is high level, not eye level.

Wanted

This was a cool little number, though not as dope as it tried to be. Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, and newcomer James McAvoy (never heard of him until now) star as members of a secret society of assassins known as “the fraternity.” McAvoy is Wesley Gibson, a disaffected twenty-something whose life is one monotonous and miserable blur. His girlfriend is screwing his best friend, his boss is a bitch, and to top it off he’s a wuss who suffers from panic attacks. So yeah, his life pretty much sucks - until the day he is recruited by the fraternity.

Jolie is Fox, a member of the fraternity who swoops into Wesley’s life and turns it upside down. Morgan Freeman, well you can just call him the boss. The fraternity transforms Wesley into one of their own, and it was riveting to see the metamorphosis take place. There are lots of bullets and blood, and just some generally ill-looking stunts and action sequences. There’s good character development, and McAvoy was believable as the weakling turned ruthless killer. Angelina is badass, always. She can play this type of character in her sleep, so she wasn’t stretching with this role, but it was a good one. Morgan Freeman is a legend, he always comes correct. Common also had a small part, so good for him. I have no complaints about the cast. My only criticism of Wanted is that it felt a little self-aware. I think there was a conscious effort to make the movie seem fresh, irreverent, and different. I was reminded of Ed Norton's character in Fight Club while watching some of the early scenes depicting Wesley's life, though of course Wanted is definitely not in the same league as Fight Club. And don’t get me wrong – the movie was dope so it obviously worked, I just think it tried too hard in certain parts. I don’t know. I’ve reached the point where I’ve stopped making sense so I’ll wrap it up :-). Overall, I’d say you can’t really go wrong with Wanted. It was entertaining, action-packed, and even had a few twists and turns along the way. Good $hit.

The Incredible Hulk

Now is the season for movie studios to roll out their blockbuster comic book movies, and the field is a little crowded this summer, with three that I can think of offhand (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight). If you broaden the category to include superhero movies generally, than I guess you can add Will Smith's upcoming Hancock to the mix, bringing the total to four.

Marvel brought us Iron Man a short while ago, and now we have The Incredible Hulk, which sort of seems like a sequel to 2003's Hulk, but not really. New director, new leading man, new love interest, and it doesn't seem like the new story picks up where the last one left off, so I don't know what's up with that. The new one stars Ed Norton (Rounders), whom I LOVE. No movie he's in can ever be that bad. I must admit that the caliber of actors portraying these comic book characters is quite good. Norton takes the reigns over from Eric Bana (the last Hulk) as Bruce Banner, the scientist whose experiment goes horribly wrong, transforming him into a mammoth green monster. The movie opens with a refresher that rolls during the opening credits, if you pay attention. We see Bruce trying his experiment on himself, and then turning into the Hulk. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the experimental drug was intended to be used as a military weapon. Now that he has turned into the Hulk and fled, the Army is after him so they can refine the drug and begin using it. When we meet Bruce he is on the lam, hiding out in Brazil, working in a bottling factory and managing his "condition" with breathing techniques to avoid getting angry and hulking out. William Hurt (Mr. Brooks) is the Army general on his trail, and his daughter Elizabeth (played by Liv Tyler of The Strangers) is the lovely doctor and girlfriend Bruce left behind.

Ed Norton brings a quiet, sympathetic thoughtfulness to Bruce Banner, and he seems like more of a tortured creature than a terrifying monster. This is underscored by the relationship between Bruce and Elizabeth. Their scenes are sweet and tender, both when it's Bruce and Elizabeth and the Hulk and Elizabeth. The latter scenes reminded me of King Kong, watching this huge thing carry a woman in its arms. Despite relying heavily on obvious CGI effects, I still felt that the movie was very good and wasn't hampered by the apparent inauthenticity of the Hulk. You know what's funny though? When the Hulk busts out of his clothes, he manages to keep his pants on. LOL, how is that possible? I mean, I'm not saying I want to see what's underneath, I'm just sayin'. It doesn't make sense. Regarding the performances, Norton and Tyler had good chemistry together. Not much was required of William Hurt or Tim Roth (Gridlock'd) as the villains, but the presence of such accomplished actors can only enhance a movie. All in all, The Incredible Hulk is a worthy addition to the field of comic book flicks coming out this summer.

The Happening

Poor guy. I don't know whether director M. Night Shyamalan should consider himself lucky or snake-bitten. His first chance at bat (The Sixth Sense) resulted in a home run, while his subsequent films have ranged from solid (The Village, in my humble opinion) to average (Signs). I think he will forever be held to the standard he established with The Sixth Sense, which is somewhat unfortunate. I considered that movie to have been groundbreaking, and it's one of my all-time favorites. It's almost unfair to expect Night to duplicate his initial success, but he's become sort of a joke in some circles.

Regarding his latest effort, The Happening, I must say that I enjoyed it. My opinion is not the prevailing sentiment, but I stand behind it. To each her own. I thought the movie was very high-concept on an micro-level, but I know others will take issue with the overarching outer concept, which is a bit fairy-tale ish. I apologize for the cryptic review, but I really don't want to spoil the movie. The Happening chilled me to the bone. Maybe that's lame on my part, but the concept of the movie was horrifying to me, and if it ever really happened in real life it would be the worst thing the U.S. has seen since 9/11, EASILY. Marketed as Night's first R rated movie, opening on Friday 13th, The Happening was absolutely frightening. It basically explores what could happen if Mother Earth decided to punish her children for their misdeeds. Yeah, chew on that one for a second.

As I've mentioned before, I enjoy the psychological questions that doomsday movies present, and there were plenty of moral dilemmas and tough choices raised by the movie. The sense of urgency and panic in the movie resonated deeply with me, and I was on the edge of my seat throughout. Mark Wahlberg is an effective leading man, though he delivered some lines with a little to much wholesome innocence, if that makes any sense. Maybe I'm just used to him playing a bad ass.

Of course this movie is not on the level of The Sixth Sense, and we should stop holding Night to that standard and just enjoy his movies for what they are. For all of you that see this movie, hit me up, I'm curious as to what you think. tanyarlane@gmail.com

The Strangers

Yikes! This one gave me the heebie geebies, I can't lie. The Strangers tells the story of an estranged couple's absolutely terrifying night in a secluded cabin. James and Kristen have attended a friend's wedding, and are spending the night in a cabin belonging to James' family - one where he spent his childhood. We learn that something is wrong with this couple fairly quickly. It seems that Kristen has refused James' marriage proposal, and the two must spend an awkward night together in the cabin. Don't worry, I didn't spoil anything for you: that little detail means nothing. Anyway, I mention that part of the story because it sets the stage early for the nature and progression of their realtionshiop, as events force them together, physically and emotionally. The movie is tinged with sadness from the very beginning. Although the pair have recently ended their relationship, their love and concern for one another is evident throughout the movie. Anyway, on to the stuff you really care about. I'd say that on a scariness scale of 1-10, I'd give it an 8. I think that's pretty good. I can't give it a perfect 10, because certain parts (as with most horror flicks) exasperated me. It started off pretty strong because it was realistic. James and Kristen pretty much reacted the way you or I would. They were placed in a fucked up situation and were at the mercy of others, essentially powerless. Let me tell you about the plot quick-fast, it's really simple: a family (mom, dad, and teenage daughter) are terrorizing James and Kristen. Why? No reason. And that's the scary part. I think it makes us feel better as human beings if we can look at tragedy and say, "well, they did it for revenge, or for money, etc..." When Kristen asks the strangers why they are doing this to her and James, the answer is simple and chilling: "because you were home." Oh shit! I just scared myself. I'm sleeping with the light on.

Sex and the City

The mother of all "chick flicks" arrived and took theaters by storm. Much hyped, highly anticipated, Sex and the City met expectations - both from a financial standpoint and in the minds' of fans. I wasn't an ardent viewer of the show, but I have the first couple of seasons on DVD and knew enough about the series to keep up. The movie did a good job of explaining each character's backstory and history for any first-time viewers. Samantha is as sex-crazed as ever, Charlotte the embodiment of sophisticated motherhood, Miranda the analytical, self-absorbed ladder-climber, and Carrie, the complicated fashionista that holds them all-together. I know that was a corny synopsis, but gimme a break. I'm not trying to do an in-depth character analysis here! They're all a little more complex and not as one-dimensional as I just described, but you get the idea. Call me a slacker, but I'm not going to spend any more time on this review. It is what it is. I think if you were a fan of the show, you won't be disappointed with the movie. Most people were pleased with it. One thing I have to take issue with is the insane level of excitement expressed by some women. One said it was women's version of the Superbowl. Pump your brakes sweetie. More estrogen than the studio audience at the Oprah show, but it was a good time.

Iron Man

For a while there the only Iron Man I knew about was Ghostface Killah, Wu Tang Clan’s loveable lyricist who adopted the alias Tony Starks. Lo* and behold he took the moniker from his favorite comic book hero of the same name. We’ve become inundated with superhero movies over the last several years, and I must admit I enjoy the genre. I think the first Spiderman movie set the bar pretty high, as Hollywood made a marked departure from the cornier superhero movies of the 1980’s (Christopher Reeves’ Superman comes to mind). With that being said, I think Iron Man continues the recent tradition of very good superhero flicks.

Robert Downey Jr. is one of those highly respected, critically acclaimed actors, despite his run-ins with the law and his substance abuse problems. It looks like all that nonsense is a thing of the past and Downey’s got that proverbial swag back. He’s in rare form as Tony Stark, brilliant billionaire weapons developer and ladies’ man extraordinaire. When Stark is taken hostage after traveling to the Middle East to debut a new weapon, he creates “Iron Man” as a means of escape from his cavernous prison. After a series of refinements, Iron Man becomes not only Stark's altar ego, but a highly advanced, sleek weapon in and of himself. I’m not familiar with Iron Man’s bio, so I don’t know if he’ll evolve into the type of hero that saves everyday citizens by foiling bank heists and other such clichéd foolishness, but for the first installment our hero is just focused on making sure his weapons aren’t in the hands of the bad guys.

I must confess that when I look at Robert Downey Jr, I don’t immediately think of him as a superhero, but he did a great job. I guess I didn’t think Tobey Maguire looked like a superhero either, but I’m sure he has everyone sold as Spiderman. My point is that if you’re a good actor first, you can probably successfully portray a superhero or just about anything else. Unless you’re George Clooney in Batman. LOL. Anyway, Iron Man lives up to the hype. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the other highly anticipated comic book movies being released later in the summer: The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight. For now it’s probably the best movie based on a comic book in recent memory. Actually, I expect The Dark Knight to $hit on everything Iron Man stands for, but we’ll see!


*I am a spelling fiend and I hate misspellings. This is not a typo! You don't put a 'w' in "lo" when it is used this way, as an interjection.

Baby Mama

The premise of this movie seemed hilarious. A responsible woman who has unsuccessfully tried to conceive must rely on a surrogate to get the baby she so desperately wants - the only problem is that the woman carrying her child seems to be a child herself.

Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live) is Kate Holbrook, a successful, single executive who put her professional life ahead of the desire to start a family. Now in her late thirties, Kate’s biological clock has become deafening. When she learns that her oddly shaped uterus makes it unlikely that she’ll be a mommy (the scene w/ the GYN who tells her this news is hilarious), she decides to resort to alternative methods. Enter Angie (Amy Poehler, also of SNL) as a surrogate who doesn’t mind renting out her uterus for the right price. It’s funny because Kate and Angie couldn’t be more different from each other. Whereas Kate is straight-laced and “together,” Angie seems to be stuck in a second childhood. There are a couple of good twists that keep the story moving forward, and the movie wasn’t too predictable. It relied heavily on its premise but also showed Kate evolve from a total career woman into one that is more open for love and willing to let her guard down. Kate and Angie made a good yin and yang duo, with great comedic effect.

Of course I have a few quibbles, or else this wouldn’t be life and I wouldn’t be me. There were a couple of little racial jokes that I found rather offensive. That’s not to say that there wasn’t humor in the jokes, but it was the kind of humor that makes people uncomfortable. I’ll admit I’m sensitive to that sort of thing, and I don’t think it’s a reason not to see the movie. I just didn’t appreciate it, particularly because people tend to believe jokes that come from certain people, i.e. if Chris Rock makes a joke about Black people, Whites will probably think there’s a lot of truth there, after all Chris Rock is Black, right? So it must be true. Maybe, maybe not. Getting back to the movie, I have a problem with what I assume to be a White writer making a joke about the Black community and having a Black actor deliver the line, almost as if that will lend credence to the negative stereotype. Alright, I’m off my soapbox!

Go see the movie, it was good and it has a strong supporting cast featuring the likes of Steve Martin, Sigourney Weaver (most recently of Vantage Point) and Greg Kinnear (Stuck on You). Over and out.

Deception

Deception, the newly-released suspense thriller starring the talented Hugh Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) and Ewan McGregor (The Island) opened up this past weekend to dismal numbers, coming in 10th place amidst stiffer competition. I thought it was an intriguing movie and I enjoyed it, despite its disappointing finish.

McGregor stars as Jonathan McQuarry, a timid Manhattan accountant who lives a pretty lame existence. While auditing a law firm late one night he meets one of the firm’s partners, Wyatt Bose, both brash and confident. Guys like Wyatt are usually pricks, but for some reason he takes a liking to the awkward Jonathan, with whom he would seemingly have very little in common. They even fire up a doobie right there in the building, and this little bonding experience foreshadows the naughty lifestyle Jonathan will be experiencing now that Wyatt has entered his world. When the two men mistakenly grab each other’s cell phones, the trouble begins. When Jonathan receives a call (on Wyatt’s phone) asking if he’s “free tonight,” he doesn’t exactly go out of his way to tell the female caller that she has the wrong number. He meets the mystery caller in a posh hotel lobby, a beautiful blonde that looks like just the type of woman that would be phoning Wyatt. They go up to a room and Jonathan feebly confesses that he’s not the man she thinks he is. She asks if he’s the guy she spoke to earlier, and when he says yes the protest basically stops right there. This beautiful stranger makes love to Jonathan, and thus he embarks on a journey of late night, anonymous frolics with different women, each foray precipitated by a phone call asking “are you free tonight?” Now, of course these calls are intended for Wyatt, and Jonathan tells Wyatt about them. Wyatt encourages him to lose his inhibitions and enjoy himself, which he does. Things go awry (as they always do), but I don’t want to give too much away. Suffice to say that Wyatt isn’t the friend Jonathan assumed he was. The two end up engaging in a battle of wits with a mysterious femme fatale (Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain) acting as centerpiece.

Whew, I’ve said a mouthful, more than I intended. Deception was stylish and sexy to watch, but was noticeably flawed, particularly towards the end where a good twist was followed by events that defied logic. There was something about this movie that I liked though. Hugh Jackman was perfect as a handsome narcissist who preys on the weak, and McGregor was believable as the straight arrow who gets in over his head. I don’t think the movie’s eye-rolling implausibilities detracted from the overall noir, sleek feel of the film. It wasn't as smart or provocative as Eyes Wide Shut, but the vibe was similar and I liked it.

88 Minutes

Al baby, I love you. You know I do. You and Bobby D are two of my faves. *Sigh* I wanted so much more from 88 Minutes. It wasn’t COMPLETELY terrible, but it was not the smart, entertaining thriller I’d hoped for. A very mediocre script led to many little details that didn’t add up or just didn’t make sense. Okay, I’m getting ahead of myself; let me set it up for you in case you don’t know the plot.

Al Pacino (most recently of Ocean's 13) is Jack Gramm, a psychologist and college professor whose testimony against a serial killer named Jon Forster resulted in his death sentence. On the day of Forster’s scheduled execution, Gramm receives a phone call from an anonymous caller informing him that he has 88 minutes to live. What follows next is a series of attempts to both frame Dr. Gramm for the serial murders and kill him. We’ve seen people be terrorized over the phone before (Die Hard With a Vengeance and Phone Booth instantly come to mind), and I think the idea is a good one. The problem with 88 minutes is that the cast is alternately annoying (Gramm’s teaching assistant), clichéd (the FBI agents questioning Gramm), or just plain stupid. So many little things failed to make sense, and I can’t discuss all of them here. I’ll give you one though. There’s a part where Gramm pays a cab driver to let him borrow his cab, but the driver sits in the back seat. Why the F did this happen? Gramm didn’t speed, so it wasn’t because he needed to drive the way he wanted; he let the cabbie remain in the car – so obviously the destination was not a secret; and he never used the cabbie as a distraction or as a means to trick the person who had been threatening and trying to kill him. It might seem insignificant, but it jumped out at me and I thought it was ridiculous. I thought the movie's premise was a good one, but the execution was rather disappointing. Sorry Al, although your presence alone was enough to get me in the theater, it is not enough to save this movie. 6 out of 10, and that’s generous.

Street Kings

This movie just popped up outta nowhere, real random-like. I like random, so I figured, why not? Street Kings looks like your typical cops vs. bad guys shoot ‘em up, and that’s pretty much what it was. It was a little smarter than your typical variation, so I must admit I was pleasantly entertained by this gritty depiction of the unabashedly corrupt LAPD.

Street Kings stars Keanu Reeves (The Lake House) as Detective Tom Ludlow and Forest Whitaker (Vantage Point) as Captain Jack Wander. The opening scene sets the tone of the movie, as we see Ludlow abandoning the 4th amendment to nab some particularly nasty bad guys. He’s like a one-man wrecking crew, and it earns him the respect of Captain Wander, his mentor and protector in the department. Keanu Reeves is alright with me, I just think he always sounds like a surfer dude. He has an unwavering deadpan delivery. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but I thought he was serviceable as Detective Ludlow. His delivery lent authenticity to some of his character’s personality traits, particularly Ludlow’s naiveté to the widespread, far-reaching corruption in the department. Another thing I liked about the movie was that the director (or cinematographer, whoever) made the City of Angels appear very dark and ominous – the atmosphere was tense, which I think is a marked departure from the way L.A. usually is portrayed in film. David Ayers (the director) has written, directed, or produced several movies set in L.A., and his familiarity with the setting was an asset to the movie. He has a knack for showing the city’s underbelly, which made the movie better than I thought it would be.

Street Kings was worthwhile, nothing you’ll rave about to your friends, but certainly worth checking out. If you get past the violence and profanity (rated R, no doubt), there are some good performances from Whitaker (of course) and Chris Evans (Fantastic Four) as a straight-laced detective who teams up with Ludlow. A strong 7 out of 10.

20 questions: UNC-Kansas edition

I haven't ranted in a while, so

1) what's more rant-worthy than the debacle of watching my alma mater get thrashed on national television in the most important game of the year?
2) why did i bet on the game?
3) where was the team i watched all year?
4) why did they come out flat?
5) is kansas really that good, OR
6) were we that bad?
7) does asking #5 make me a sore loser?
8) am i a typical, arrogant tar heel?
9) why didn't i know kansas was that good?
10) why did i place my bet AFTER i dreamt that we'd lose?
11) why didn't anyone tell me it was bad luck to bet on your favorite team BEFORE i placed the bet?
12) why is roy still torn between kansas and north carolina?
13) why couldn't kansas have lost to davidson in the elite 8?
14) why did i make a fool of myself while watching the game?
15) should i just be happy because memphis would've beaten us anyway?
16) why couldn't the ball get in the damn hole?
17) why are you talking SHIT to me if you are not a LEGITIMATE Jayhawk or Tiger??? Your team is not better than mine!
18) was this karma?
19) why is roy williams staying behind in san antonio to watch and CHEER for kansas in the championship game when they just trounced us?????!!!!!!!!!!
20) am i the craziest most rabid diehard tar heel in the state of MD??

21

Vegas hasn’t jumped the shark yet. It seems like within the last 5-10 years, Sin City has mushroomed in popularity, if that’s possible. I don’t know…maybe people have always been allured by a city out in the desert where vices can be explored in anonymity. A place where, as one character in 21 so aptly put it, “you can become anyone.”

It is that decadent, hedonistic ambience that attracts Ben Campbell, a broke MIT senior with aspirations of attending Harvard Medical School. Ben’s a genius, even by MIT standards. When he impresses one of his professors (Kevin Spacey, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil), he is offered the chance of a lifetime – an opportunity to make more money than he’s ever seen. It seems as if Mickey, the good professor, has been leading a team of students in a most interesting extra-curricular activity: high stakes Blackjack aka 21. Every weekend they fly to Vegas where they unleash their brilliant minds on an unsuspecting casino by counting cards. They’d like Ben to join them, as he’s one of the most gifted students in his class. His crush, team member Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth, Superman Returns) provides a little incentive, and soon Ben has entered a world previously seen in his dreams. In the words of Jim Jones, Ben is BALLLLINNNNNNNNNNNN. He claims that he’s saving money for med school tuition ($300K), and as soon as he gets that amount, he’s out. Of course the excitement of living a double life becomes intoxicating and he gets in too deep.

What I liked about 21 was that I got sucked in right along with Ben. Vegas is depicted as a separate universe, some otherworldly sensory paradise. The contrast between Vegas and Ben’s normal life in Boston was stark. Although he seemed to be living a fantasy, nothing seemed farfetched, which I guess is explained by the fact that the movie was inspired by a true story. This was the best movie I’ve seen lately, and it was well-acted and held my attention throughout. The main character was likable without being annoying and sympathetic without being wimpy. Kevin Spacey portrays Mickey as a presumably thoughtful professor, but we get a hint that something is not quite right. Laurence Fishburne (Akeelah and the Bee) also made an appearance as a casino employee who smells something fishy. 21 is a must-see Vegas movie. If you liked Rounders or Ocean’s 11-13 you will probably enjoy 21 as well.

Stop-Loss

I wanted to see this movie because it seemed moving and relevant. I wasn’t familiar with the military’s stop-loss policy, so I did some research to find out about it. It’s basically a clause in a soldier’s contract that allows the president to extend his period of service. It sucks because it’s like a “backdoor draft.” Like Carlito said, just when you think you’re out, they pull you back in.

Ryan Phillippe (Crash) is Brandon King, a decorated Army sergeant who just led his men into a deadly ambush in Iraq. One man was lost, and another was seriously wounded. When he returns home to Texas he reminds anyone who’ll listen that he’s done his time and is getting out. When he goes to turn in all of his equipment, he’s informed that he has been stop-lossed and will be re-deployed to Iraq. What follows is a depiction of Brandon’s struggle to accept the fact that Uncle Sam basically owns his ass. He panics, he feels helpless, angry, and betrayed. He served his country as a loyal patriot and feels like the Army is not keeping their end of the bargain. The movie is unabashedly critical of the war, showing the cruelty of the stop-loss policy and the horrors of Iraq. However, it also shows the flipside of Phillippe’s character in the form of his best friend, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum, Step Up). Steve is all about the red, white, and blue through and through. In a way they all are: Steve, Brandon (initially), and fellow soldier Tommy.

Stop-Loss was okay. Ryan Phillippe is a very very good actor. He infused Brandon with the appropriate amount of anger and heroism. His character wants out of Iraq, but he never seemed weak or cowardly, and I think that’s a reflection of the confidence and bravado Phillippe brought to the role. Of course I have criticisms, and they really stood out. Stop-Loss was produced by MTV Films, which may explain the music video-ish approach to some of the Iraq montage scenes in the movie. It also felt a little formulaic. Soldiers joking around and displaying juvenile male camaraderie? Check. Lots of pushing and shoving? Check. Cursory portrayal of post traumatic stress disorder? Check. Regarding the performances, I think Channing Tatum is a capable actor. He cried convincingly and I was impressed by that. He’s also nice to look at. My problem is that there was a 10 minute stretch when he broke into a TX drawl, and then he resumed his normal speaking voice. It was obvious. Does your character have an accent or not??!! I mean, I always wonder how no one catches the fact that a character is dropping in and out of an accent. I can excuse one word or two, but this was more than a slip. I’ll keep the other criticisms to myself so I don’t give anything away. I don’t think Stop-Loss stacks up well against other war movies. Jarhead puts it to shame, and I won’t even mention any of the older classics that portrayed the Vietnam War. Stop-Loss’ value lies in its current relevance, and it will be remembered as capturing people’s dissatisfaction and frustration with the war in Iraq. There’s something to be said for that, but the movie was solid, not great. It’s also depressing, so I wouldn’t see it unless you’re a fan of Phillippe or Channing Tatum. If you are then I’m sure you’ll enjoy.

Meet the Browns

Tyler Perry. I don’t fool with him too tough, but I saw Meet the Browns anyway – mostly just to hang out with my mom. I’ll try to go easy on Mr. Perry this time. The movie actually wasn’t half bad…which also means it was only half good. LOL.

One positive thing about the movie was that it starred Angela Basset (Akeelah and the Bee), with whom you can never go wrong. My only criticism (if you could call it that) of her is the same one I had of Forrest Whitaker in Vantage Point, which is that sometimes they come across as being bigger than their roles. In Meet the Browns Bassett portrays Brenda, a financially strapped single mom living in Chicago with her three children. Her eldest son is an aspiring professional basketball player (Lance Gross), and she is challenged with keeping him off the streets after he tries to hustle to provide money for the family when Brenda loses her job. Yeah, that part is a bit cliché, but okay – I can deal with that. I’m sure it’s not too far from a lot of people’s reality, especially in urban areas across the U.S. Rick Fox is a basketball coach named Harry who takes an interest in Brenda’s son. Brenda is naturally wary of him, as she’s been burnt by every man in her life, from her son’s father to her own father, whom she never knew. Again, this is familiar territory; we know how it’ll end. Boy meets girl. Girl disses boy. Boy wins girl in the end….yaaay! Can I go home now? Seriously, I don’t mind if I know how a movie will end up, at least let me have fun getting there. To Perry’s credit, Meet the Browns is funny. A large portion of the movie takes place in Georgia, where Brenda travels when she finds out that her father has passed away. As the title suggests, she meets her relatives for the first time, and this is where the comedic action takes place. Perry does a good job of balancing drama with humor, and he does allow Bassett to show her skills…my only negative observation is the writing. In some places the script is very contrived. I know that’s the nature of the movies, in some respects, but come on. For example, Harry just so happens to be from the same small Georgia town as Brenda’s family, and they meet up there. What??? Yeah RIGHT! They met in the large metropolis of Chicago, yet they both have roots in some podunk Georgia town and reconnect there. I mean, it’s not even like its Atlanta or something, which would still be implausible but a little more believable. They both are from a one horse town…just not buying it. Another thing I don’t care for is Madea, but that’s just me. “Her” appearance was really unnecessary and not all that funny. It was just an excuse for Perry to show up in his own movie. Don’t worry TP, we know it’s your movie – your name always precedes the title.

In sum, as with all of Perry’s movies, either you like ‘em or you don’t. Simple as that. Nothing I’ve said here will persuade or dissuade you from seeing it. So, have at it! :-)

Semi-Pro

Will Ferrell (Anchorman, Blades of Glory) is back with his unique brand of foolishness for Semi-Pro, the story of the fictional Flint Tropics, a rag tag ABA team with hopes of joining the NBA. What can I say about this movie? Any comedy set in 1976 is already halfway there with the silliness factor. I love the seventies though, I wish I was more than a gleam in my parents' eye back then. Anyway, Ferrell stars as Jackie Moon, a player for the Tropics and also the owner. The Tropics are pretty pitiful, with the exception of Coffee Black, played by Andre 3000 (Idlewild). Attendance is sparse, and the Tropics really just serve as a means by which Jackie can make money and have fun. All that changes when the Tropics have a chance to be absorbed by the NBA in the ABA-NBA merger of '76. If the Tropics can finish in the top 4 of the ABA standings, they will be absorbed. Now Jackie decides to ratchet up the intensity and effort to vy for the last NBA slot. He brings in additional talent in the form of Monix, played by Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men). Monix revamps the team while Jackie increases attendance through ridiculous stunts, like bear wrestling and free corndog night. LOL.

Ok, enough of the plot, because this is really all about watching Will Ferrell act like a fool, something he is very adept at doing. Jackie is a pretty funny character. In addition to owning the Tropics, he also had a number one hit called "Love Me Sexy," which plays during the opening credits. HEE LARRY OUS. Semi-Pro is better than I thought it'd be. Will Ferrell movies are hit or miss - for example, I didn't enjoy Blades of Glory that much. Semi-Pro isn't an instant classic, but it's certainly funny and worth checking out if you're a fan of Ferrell.

The Wire

WARNING: MAD SPOILERS

As you know, I don't often write about tv shows, but it's the end of an era, so I have to do it. Wipe your eyes, for The Wire must now bid us adieu.

For 5 seasons we've watched cops, various kingpins and minor players, and a host of politicians take us away to another world, one that is foreign yet familar. Foreign because most of us will never live a life as dangerous or volatile as the characters on The Wire, but familar because Baltimore could be Anycity, USA. Creator David Simon has left a masterpiece that will be remembered as one of the best and most underrated series of the 21st century. What I've always found most intriguing about The Wire is that it consistently challenged our notions of good and evil. The portrayal of that complexity of human nature is what made it such a compelling series. People are not black and white, the world is not black and white. The Wire lived in that gray area between those two shades. Whether it was the depiction of Omar as some twisted, ghetto Robin Hood, or McNulty as a good cop with nasty habits -- The Wire always left me with something to think about, and quite often left me reeling.

The series finale last night was a befitting end to a great series. While not perfect, it was a good resolution to the conflicts we've seen arise in this final season. I will assume all of those reading this review are familiar with the series, so the background info I provide will be sparse, if any.

McNulty and Freamon: They manage to avoid any real trouble for the homeless killer clusterfuck. They get booted from the department, which sucks b/c these two are literally Baltimore's finest. It's a small price to pay though, when you think about them avoiding jail time, which was a real possibility. Wasn't it a little convenient that a copycat killer struck at the right time, allowing Carcetti and co. to wrap up the situation nicely? What would they have done if that hadn't happened, was the homeless killer going to just disappear, never to be heard from again? I guess it doesn't matter. I'll cut David Simon some slack on that one. I think it's plausible that the two of them got away with it, because Carcetti's ass was in a sling, so the whole thing had to be quieted, fast.

Scott Templeton and The Baltimore Sun: What a fucking worm. I wanted him to get exposed for the sniveling fraud that he was. Why didn't Gus give all the evidence he had on Scott to the other editors? Maybe he thought it would fall on deaf ears, but why get his buddy to compile it in the first place? Perhaps he wanted it as an insurance policy of some sort. I thought The Sun angle was a great one, showing how the important news is neglected, or misinterpreted if it's reported at all.

Carcetti & Co.: Well, I thought Carcetti was alright at first. I thought he was idealistic and well-intentioned, but I should have remembered back to when he was nailing his campaign manager that he was a sleaze. Believe it or not, I think less of him for "juking" the crime stats than I do for covering up the homeless killer fiasco. I can understand making an unethical choice when your back's up against the wall, but why'd he have to fudge the numbers too? He's just like everyone else, which brings me to another theme running through The Wire: INEVITABILITY. Was it inevitable that Carcetti would get dirty? In a way, yes. More on inevitablility later.

Kima: I'm done with ole girl. Nothing anyone can tell me can justify her snitching, and I've heard a few explanations. No, I'm not buying it. McNulty and Freamon could have gone to JAIL. And I'm not buying that she's such a straight arrow (no pun intended) that she just couldn't sleep at night while good cops were investigating a phony killer. So fucking what, big deal. There have been plenty of shady goings on within the department to which she turned a blind eye ("Hamsterdam," anyone?), but now she has to blow the whistle?? No, she violated, plain and simple. Freamon and McNulty were very kind to forgive her betrayal.

Marlo: I hate him. He has no respect. No respect for Prop Joe, no respect for anything. He's unrefined and unlikable. He is no Stringer either, did you see him at that swanky affair with his lawyer? He looked like a fish out of water. Couldn't someone have popped him in the head like Cheese or Omar? He's one lucky MF. Oh, and I don't believe that the Greeks would be so willing to start doing business with Slim Charles and the rest of the co-op. They needed a lot of nudging to do business with Marlo, so I'm not buying that they would hop right in with some new players. I know money talks and bullshit walks, but I don't think it's about the money with them. Remember how they insisted that Marlo bring them "clean" money? I doubt some individuals who are that particular would be amenable to a new situation. Oh well, small point.

Michael: Omar 2.0. The biggest parallel I see between the two is that they both lived by a unique code of ethics, both willing to murder - but only if the unlucky victim is "deserving." I would even venture that Michael admired Omar's principles. Omar never gave it to somebody who didn't have it coming, and I think Michael is the same way. He always questioned his orders, always asked why. Again I ask, was it inevitable that Michael ended up this way? I say yes, it was written. Another victim of circumstance.

Dookie: This is maybe the saddest part of the finale. The inevitability of Dookie's descent, his transformation into Bubbles 2.0. Again, The Wire makes you uncomfortable with its harsh realism. Dookie was a good kid. He was looking for work. He wasn't cut out to be a corner boy. He came from a shitty home and had no one. INEVITABLE.

Bubbles: I have to end on a good note. There has to be balance between tragedy and triumph, and it was good to see Bubbs come out on top. He was always a good-hearted person. He wasn't just a fiend looking for a fix, he was a layered individual, as were almost all of The Wire characters. I'll tell you, it is a testament to the quality of a show when ALL of the characters are so incredibly nuanced. Simply brilliant.

Damn I love this show, and it will be missed. It never received the critical acclaim it deserved, and I can't figure out why. It gave you everything you wanted: the joy and pain, highs and lows, and it endeared you to the so-called villain because it always portrayed the human element. I had the pleasure of discussing the series on a radio show, and I think it is ripe for dissection. The Wire not only entertained - it educated and it inspired. The end of an era.

The Bank Job

The heist/caper genre is usually a reliable one. I’m always entertained by the new methods Hollywood comes up with to tell the familiar tale of a band of misfits with their eyes on a seemingly unattainable prize. Whether it’s the clever approach of the robbery in Inside Man, the intricacies of the Ocean’s Eleven plot, or the innovative swipe in The Thomas Crown Affair, I love watching the so-called “bad” guys pull it off. If you’ve seen one caper, have you seen them all? I don’t think so.

The Bank Job’s title is straight to the point. Quite simply, a small band of crooks is planning to rob a bank vault. Leading the crew is Terry (Jason Statham, Crank), a small-time body shop owner desperate to get out of debt. The robbery idea was hatched by Martine Love, an old acquaintance who resurfaces with the plan. Terry rounds up a few more people, and the gang is in place. Problems arise when it appears that Martine’s motives for the job aren’t just to get rich. It seems she’s after the contents of one particular safe deposit box, and may have jeopardized the crew and pissed off the wrong London thugs in the process. What made this movie so fun was that the crew was getting it from all angles: dodging crooked cops, the British government, and the local hoods. Pretty cool, and it’s all based on a true story, which lends a certain air of realness to all the unbelievable predicaments in which they find themselves. Set in 1971, the movie touches on the Black power movement abroad, and Black militancy, as one of the vault’s boxes contains incriminating photos taken by a Black militant who is using them as leverage against the British government. Sounds farfetched, but apparently it’s true!

I like Jason Statham because he’s one of those ruggedly handsome actors that appeals to men and women equally. He’s attractive but not soft. This is probably the most acting I’ve seen him do, as he’s usually kicking ass all over the place. He didn’t resort to fisticuffs until the movie’s final act, but I knew it was coming eventually. The Bank Job is one of those fast-paced mile-a-minute movies that assaults your senses and keeps you fixated the entire time. I mean, it starts with a threesome for crying out loud. I’m like okaaaaaay, I’m here with my mom. LOL. Anyway, I really dug it, it reminded me of Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels. You won’t be disappointed if you’re a fan of the genre. Even if you’re not, who doesn’t like a good caper flick?

Vantage Point

This movie was pretty funny. What’s that you say, it wasn’t a comedy? Oh shit. Could’ve fooled me. I, along with the rest of the audience, got in a few good snickers. Call Vantage Point another squandering of immense talent. While certainly not terrible, I can’t say it was very good.

The movie examines the chaotic aftermath of an assassination attempt on the president that takes place in Spain, as the US and Spain prepare to enter into some sort of vague (trade?) agreement. As the title suggests, we see the event from multiple vantage points. We see it in “real time” initially, then the events “rewind” to several minutes before the attempt, and we see a new perspective. I don’t mind this technique, but I understand how it can be exasperating. After about the FOURTH time, the theater was laughing and groaning audibly. I don’t think that was the intended reaction. Marketed as a political action thriller with suspenseful twists and turns, Vantage Point failed to live up to its hype and instead played like a hodgepodge of stories, none of which was particularly intriguing - at least not to me. You’d think someone could make a better use of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Sigourney Weaver (The Village), and William Hurt (A History of Violence). These three are Oscar winners/nominees, and I think their combined presence elevates a movie, but they weren’t really used properly. For example, Forest Whitaker is superb, but his performance just seemed overdone – like it was too big for this silly little movie, if that makes any sense. It’s like I’m criticizing him for being too good, which is weird, I know. Sigourney Weaver had a throwaway role, which didn’t require much. She was onscreen for about 10-15 minutes, and that was it. William Hurt as the president did nothing more than act as a helpless victim, waiting for Dennis Quaid to save him. They had one really corny exchange at the end, where I thought they were actually going to kiss!

The theater I went to was packed, and I’m sure people expected a little more. Don’t get me wrong, Vantage Point wasn’t a total waste, but I had high expectations. I thought the plot devices were overdone, and the interlocking storylines felt superficial and contrived. It is what it is: a forgettable contribution to the political thriller genre.

Jumper

Jumper is one of those movies that appear to be all fluff and no substance. I’m not sure how much substance one could be looking for, but it seemed like it would be gimmicky. I’ll credit the studio with promoting the hell out of this movie, and their marketing efforts have apparently paid off, as the movie is currently #1 at the box office. Having said all that, I’ll admit that Jumper wasn’t the suckfest I expected it to be. Not exactly high praise, but I wasn’t disappointed.

Directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Jumper stars Hayden Christensen (Revenge of the Sith) as David Rice, a young man with a very special gift. He can teleport anywhere in the world just by willing himself there. He accidentally discovers his ability at the age of 15. He experienced a tragic, intense event that presumably got his adrenaline pumping, and the next thing you know he teleports from his high school grounds to the town library. Abandoned by his mother (Diane Lane in a bit part) at age 5 and enduring a strained relationship with his father, David takes off for NYC after discovering his newfound talent. He does what many people would do with such a gift, making the absolute most of it. He robs banks, since he can just magically appear within their vaults. He travels the world, and that’s perhaps the coolest part. He eats lunch atop the Sphinx in Egypt, chills out on Big Ben in London…you name it, he can do it. It was fascinating to watch him living a life without limits, where every whim is possible. There is also an emptiness to David’s life though, as he cannot share his secret with anyone and doesn’t have any friends. His is a solitary existence, filled with material possessions but nothing of any substance, no real relationships. That changes when he returns to his hometown of Ann Arbor and re-connects with his high school crush Millie, played by Rachel Bilson (The OC). Of course all good things must come to an end, and David’s charmed existence is bound to be noticed eventually, or else this wouldn’t be the movies. Enter Samuel L. Jackson as Roland (Black Snake Moan) a sort of jumper hunter, if you will. Roland thinks that only God should be able to do what David can. Fair enough. Roland doesn’t seem very religious though. Quite mean actually. Anyway, of course I have my complaints. Jumper ventures into the realm of the ridiculous when too many people find out that David can teleport. It’s supposed to be a secret, right? Also, doesn’t anyone wonder why he just disappears at times?? Come on now.

Jumper is fine enough for a matinee…but I wouldn’t make it a date night activity. Entertaining due to its concept but loaded with implausibilities, Jumper is good but not great.