"The Mechanic"

Runtime:1 hr. 40 min.

Rated R for strong brutal violence throughout, language, some sexual content and nudity

Cast: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland, Tony Goldwyn, Jeff Chase

Director: Simon West

It's safe to say that "The Mechanic" will never be mistaken for upper-echelon filmmaking.

It is, however, competent, mercifully short, and oddly watchable.  The film also resists the temptation to obliterate the viewer's senses with a third dimension and a thundering soundtrack.  How refreshing it is to see an action movie that takes greater pride in its action than its decibel level.  I can't quite bring myself to recommend the movie, as there's little to take away from it.  But at least it knows how to flex its muscles.  That's something.

Oh, it's goofy as hell.  So many of the story's twists and turns involve characters knowing things they couldn't possibly know and anticipating events with such pinpoint accuracy that would make the Good Lord himself sit up and take notice.  Added to which, the whole story hinges on a laughably inexplicable decision made by the protagonist. 

Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) is a "mechanic."  A hit-man.  Cleaner.  Whatever they're called these days.  His task, he explains in a voice-over narration at the movie's outset, is to make his jobs look like accidents.  He embraces this concept with noticeable zeal.  His first kill involves a drug kingpin inside his mansion.  He accomplishes this by waiting for the drug lord in his pool.  (Yup.  Actually in the pool itself.  Under the water.  Full scuba gear.)  Once he drowns him--somehow without his guards noticing--he tricks his henchmen into thinking he's still alive by moving the dead kingpin's arms in a swimming motion while beneath the water.  (Yup.)  Of course the plan works to perfection, and it's off to the next job.

This guy is meticulous as hell.  He inherited that skill set from his mentor, a former mechanic himself named McKenna (Donald Sutherland).  McKenna shares the same philosophy--he totes a handgun with "Victory Loves Preparation" engraved along the side--but he's been out of the field game for a while.  Now confined to a wheelchair, McKenna is the main go-between for Bishop and the agency head (Tony Goldwyn in slithering snake mode.)  Something's different about this next job, however.  It doesn't come from McKenna.  This is from the head honcho.  Bishop's next assignment is to bump off his former mentor, who is accused to ratting out an elite team of assassins.

Bishop questions this, but like a good little soldier, he follows orders.  While visiting the gravesite one morning, He encounters McKenna's listless son Steve (Ben Foster).  Steve and his father never saw eye-to-eye, though the boy seems to possess a tinge of rage over his father's demise, and seeks an outlet for his aggression.  Bishop agrees to take Steve in.  Teach him the ropes of being a mechanic.

So now, why exactly does Bishop agree to take in the son of a man he just assassinated?  You know, to be perfectly honest, I've been racking my brain and I can't think of a single reason beyond the fact that if he didn't, there wouldn't be a movie.  Anyway, Bishop sets about teaching Steve the tricks of the "mechanic-ing" trade.  Will Steve discover the truth?  Was Bishop set up?  Was McKenna really innocent?  Is the company head hiding something?  Those questions are rhetorical for anyone was has ever seen a movie in their lifetime. 

Director Simon West ("Con Air", "The General's Daughter") isn't so much a cinema artist as an action movie technician.  He's in the same camp, I think, as someone like Renny Harlin.  That's not a bad thing.  I've seen some indie-darling directors take on action pictures only to fall flat on their faces, so I appreciate what directors like Harlin and West bring to the table.  If Richard Wenk and Lewis John Carlino's screenplay had provided the story with a tad more substance, it might have been worth a recommendation.  I do give West credit here.  He keeps the pace moving, and incorporates every action movie technique at his disposal to keep the movie afloat.

Jason Statham and Ben Foster are both likable actors, though they're playing characters that seem in lockstep with those they've played in the past.  Statham can do these movies in his sleep, and Foster is portraying a personality quite similar to his role as Russell Crowe's main henchman in "3:10 to Yuma"... one who has a seemingly calm demeanor but can explode into violence on a dime.  Perhaps it's a bit much to expect some modicum of character development in a story like this.

If nothing else, the movie is fun in its sheer absurdity.  I especially got a kick out of the climactic chase scene on the crowded city streets, where whatever our heroes need to apprehend the villain... be it a bus, a forklift truck, a means to get from a skyscraper to the sidewalk below in less than a second, weapons, knowledge of where the antagonists are headed even before they know... anything within or beyond reason, it's right where they need it to be.  (Victory may indeed love preparation, but it's got a hard-on for blind luck.)

The topper might be at the movie's conclusion, when one of the characters--who has anticipated things the best oracle in the universe couldn't touch--has sprawled a message for his target on a piece of paper.  The guy reaches for the note.  It states: If you're reading this, you're dead.  Yup.  And if you're writing this, you're God.

Reality is such a buzzkill.  Who needs it in movies like this, right?

* * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Rite"

Runtime:1 hr. 52 min.

Rated PG-13 for disturbing thematic material, sexual references, language, frightening images and violence

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Colin O'Donoghue, Alice Braga, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones, Rutger Hauer

Director: Mikael Hafstrom

"Choosing not to believe in the Devil will not protect you from him."

That's one way to debate a philosophy, I guess.  Those words of caution are imparted by Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins) to a seminary student named Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue) after Kovak questions the reclusive priest about his exorcism methods. 

In a way, it's not surprising that Michael Kovak finds himself here in Rome, following around an unorthodox priest as he assists those souls whose bodies are seemingly no longer theirs.  The son of a mortician (Rutger Hauer), Kovak joined the seminary for no other reason than to get away from the family business, even though he has always harbored spiritual doubts.  Those doubts have plagued him all throughout his schooling, to the point where he informs Father Matthew (Toby Jones) of his intentions to leave the seminary mere weeks before taking his vows.  Father Matthew does not accept his decision.  He asks him to meet with the recluse Trevant.  What do you know?  Kovak has doubted his way right to Satan's alcove. 

Father Lucas lives in a quiet flat inundated by stray felines.  Upon their first meeting, the aging priest immediately establishes himself as a pragmatist.  ("I would give my cats names, but there's no point.  They won't come to you no matter what you call them.")  His methods are a bit strange for someone who dabbles in the world beyond.  At one point during an exorcism, he is interrupted by the ringing of his cellular phone.  He takes the call while the subject thrashes about on the floor.  It's one of those all-too-clever screenwriter's tricks... making the character needlessly quirky.  As Michael inches deeper into the satanic abyss, his own faith is put on the line.  Will he believe?  Does he really have a choice?

The movie has gone to great lengths in conveying the notion that it's "inspired by true events."  I hate that.  It reeks of desperation.  "Inspired by true events?"  So are healthy bowel movements.  What's your point?  When you consider the possibility that most cinema artisans draw from their own personal experiences, one could reasonably argue that almost anything besides science fiction and superhero movies is inspired by true events. 

Of course, this wouldn't matter if the movie were interesting.  For a while we sense that the story might be on to something as Michael questions the methods of Father Lucas and grapples with the possibility that those methods are themselves having a negative physical and psychological impact on his subjects.  But then the movie morphs into this snore-inducing self-examination of Michael Kovak.  Essentially, this is a story about how Kovak has lost his faith, and now must restore it.  Great.  What does it have to do with exorcisms?  I don't know, and I honestly don't think the movie knows, either. 

And even that wouldn't matter all that much if the exorcism scenes were at all scary.  Hopkins seems so intent on making Father Lucas so unusual, so pragmatic, and so against-the-grain to the point where his laid back demeanor undercuts the potential impact of the exorcism sequences.  After one such scene, Michael asks if that's all there is.  "What did you expect?" Father Lucas replies.  "Green spew and twisting heads?"  Maybe not, but I'll say this much for Friedkin's "Exorcist"... that movie wisely took an outsider's view of demonic possession.  Exorcisms were portrayed as truly alien concepts and were frightening as hell.  Everyone here is so laid back that dancing with the Devil seems no more intimidating than skipping down a sidewalk.

At the end of the movie, we're told that Michael Kovak is now one of fourteen exorcists working today.  A pointless footnote, as the movie really isn't about exorcisms so much as about one uninteresting character's reclamation of faith.  Footnotes like that, along with the aforementioned "inspired by true events" seem like the movie's attempt to cobble together a semblance of self-importance.  In one scene, Kovak asks how can we be sure the subject isn't mentally ill.  He query is met with another possibility... how do we know the Devil isn't tricking us into thinking it's something other than what it is?

Yeah, I had a similar feeling exiting the theatre.

* *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Blue Valentine"

Runtime:1 hr. 54 min.

Rated R for strong graphic sexual content, language and a beating

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams, Faith Wladyka, John Doman, Mike Vogel

Director: Derek Cianfrance

"Blue Valentine" has been described as a movie illustrating the dissolution of a marriage.  It is, but it felt more to me like the dissection of the marriage.  We're shown the day-to-day lives of two lovers at two very different parts of their relationship.  At its inception and yes, at its unfortunate conclusion. 

This is a different movie than, say, "Revolutionary Road" where Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet seemed hellbent on each other's personal annihilation.  That movie was like "The War of the Roses" without the jokes.  This one feels less agenda-driven.  There are some emotionally harrowing scenes for sure but there are also sweet, gentle moments.  The film isn't anti-love.  It acknowledges the pain, the loss, the ultimate heartache, but those possibilities are already embedded in the territory.  The movie is a celebration of risk.  If it takes itself extremely seriously, that's because love is a serious business.

The scenes where the couple first meet aren't really shown in flashback.  These are parallel stories, allowing the viewer to observe how lines of connection open between young lovers whose adolescent fears and confusion are offset by life's possibilities.  We're then made to watch as those same lines have broken down when one of the lovers feels unacknowledged not only by her mate, but by life itself.  If it's true that we take a chance on marriage because we want a witness to our life, how crushing it must be when our witness stops paying attention.

Director and co-writer Derek Cianfrance makes an intriguing narrative decision... he opts to begin with the couple later in life.  We see them one morning.  Dean (Ryan Gosling) seems like a perfectly nice husband.  There's an innocent exuberance in his rapport with his little girl Frankie (Faith Wladyka).  He wakes his wife Cindy (Michelle Williams) by playfully tossing his daughter upon her.  Father and daughter share a slew of giggles, but Cindy isn't amused.  At breakfast, she chastises them for playing with their food instead of eating it, and laments about how she is raising "two kids instead of one."  She seems unusually bitter at first, until we realize that Dean isn't at all tuned in to her frustration.  We begin to gain a broader perspective. 

They try to regain a sense of closeness by checking into a third-rate, cheesy "romantic" hotel, but to no avail.  Her emotional needs aren't being met, and she's reluctant to bring up the subject.  "Whenever I say something, you twist it around and make it sound like I did something wrong," she tells him. 

Those scenes are intercut with the couple when they first meet years earlier.  Things aren't all roses for them as adolescents, either.  He has recently dropped out of high school, and has now found employment as a furniture mover.  She is studying to be a doctor, but is still healing from emotional wounds suffered at the hands of a verbally abusive father.  They meet at a retirement home where Cindy cares for her grandmother.  Dean is eager to get to know her.  She is suspicious.  But her current boyfriend is inattentive and increasingly disinterested.  Possibility wins out, and Cindy drops her defenses. 

They share some truly special moments.  My favorite takes place at a storefront late at night.  Dean asks her to dance for him.  She tells him there's no music.  He offers to play his ukulele and sing while she dances.  Cindy is reluctant at first, but agrees.  It's a wonderful moment.  Not because it's a display of amazing artistic talent, but because of the unbridled vulnerability on display.  Totally open to one another.  A full-on surrender.  Young people may scoff at scenes like that, but when you're at an age where the thought of laying your vulnerabilities at the mercy of another person seems like a relic from a past life, moments like that are a stent for the human soul.

Of course, being young and in love does lead to unwise decision-making.  Theirs is when Dean suggests they get married after discovering Cindy is pregnant with her ex-boyfriend's baby.  Sounds romantic when you're a vibrant youth, but it's the absolute wrong reason to venture into matrimony.

Which brings us back to them later in life.  I've heard some critics say the movie is about how she falls out of love while he remains in love and committed to her.  I disagree with this.  He may well be in love, but he's in love with an ideal... not with the person she has become.  At one point, she tries explaining that he has so much potential to be more but doesn't seem committed to any particular personal goal.  He takes offense... his family is his goal.  "Potential?  Potential for what?  What does that even mean?"  She's right.  He has lost his sense of self, and has compensated by turning to the bottle and engaging in a kind of emotional full-court-press which is slowly suffocating her. 

Their emotional distance finally boils to a rupture during a violent confrontation at her place of employment.  "I can't do this anymore!" she screams.  Pointing to her heart, she adds "There's nothing left here for you!"  "You want to hit me?" he yells back, and we realize these two are no longer even listening to each other.  There's no hope at this point.

I make it sound like a movie no young couple would ever want to see.  I didn't find it quite as depressing as I thought I might.  It acknowledges pain, but embraces risk.  By the end we may ask ourselves why bother letting ourselves love another human being when everything can come crashing down so brutally.  We needn't ask that question, however.  It's pointless.  We'll always take that chance when beckoned by possibility. 

Love is one powerful sucker.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"Winter's Bone"

Runtime:1 hr. 40 min.

Rated R for some drug material, language and violent content


Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, Kevin Breznahan, Dale Dickey, Garret Dillahunt, Sheryl Lee

Director: Debra Granik

 Note:  Because I started this blog late in the year, I've opted to go back and review select movies that are currently up for multiple Academy Awards.


The Ozark landscape is unforgiving.  Cold.  Stark.  Relentless in its indifference.  It offers no quarter.  No respite.  It seems to say, "if you want to build a life here, you do so under my rules... if you venture beyond the confines of those rules, you do so at your own peril." 

The inhabitants of this small town view their lives through a similar prism.  They help one another when they can, though they're careful not to interfere too deeply into another's life.  No secret is brought to light unless it is willed to do so by the town itself.  When virtually everyone embedded in this isolated area is a mere stone's throw from being unable to support themselves, rules like these are easy to enforce.  Unfortunately for one of its inhabitants, she doesn't have much of a choice.

The girl is seventeen-year-old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence).  She is the matriarch to her two younger siblings.  Their mother lives with them, but recent events have made her catatonic, withdrawn, and unable to function normally.  Ree has gripped the reins of the caretaker role with unparalleled ferocity.  She's holding things together.

One morning, the local sheriff (Garrett Dillahunt) arrives at the family's doorstep with some unsettling news.  Ree's father, an incarcerated crystal meth cook, had recently signed the deed to the house toward his bond, secured his release, and is now nowhere to be found.  If he doesn't make a particular court date, their home will be taken away.  Ree listens, her steady eyes careful not to reveal her fear for what might happen to her family.  She nods.  Determined.  "I'll find him." 

The most unsettling thing about this scene isn't the sheriff's arrival, his news, nor her reaction, but that various other inhabitants in the area have surreptitiously positioned themselves to better observe the conversation.  Why?  Do they know something about her father's whereabouts?  What stake do they have in this particular bit of news?  Something's going on here.

Ree sets out to discover what may have happened to her father, but is met with heavy resistance from all sides.  "Stop poking around!" is repeatedly spewed in her direction.  She finally receives a little assistance from the enigmatic Teardrop (John Hawkes), her father's brother who initially joins in the chorus of "butt out."  He soon comes around, however, having resigned himself to being tossed onto the undying fire of his niece's stubbornness.  In doing so, he has found his own degree of personal redemption.

"Winter's Bone" comes billed as a mystery/thriller, though it's a bit heavier on the "mystery" than on the "thriller."  Over-the-top cinematic histrionics aren't on display here.  The tension instead bubbles to the surface as Ree and Teardrop face obstacles from truly unexpected directions.  Like Carl Franklin's "One False Move", this is a story where sins in the past have planted seeds from which sprout moral complexities in the present.  The Ozark setting is crucial to the story in the same way that, say, the expanse of ocean was vital to "Dead Calm"... it imparts to us that help isn't coming from the "outside" world.  The outcome, good or bad, will be determined by those occupying this singular field of gravity. 

The story lives or dies on Jennifer Lawrence's central performance, and she is more than up to the task.  Her role is challenging in two ways.  First, she has to convey a lot while revealing little.  Her character does not possess a demonstrative personality; her familial responsibilities are too great for such luxuries.  Second, her character doesn't go through the standard arc of most movies leads.  She must remain steadfast throughout, as her stubbornness is what carries the story to its powerful conclusion.  A lesser actor would have tried to force some sort of character growth.

The character change actually comes from Teardrop.  John Hawkes, a movie and tv veteran of ridiculously strong acting range (I first remembered him as wily fisherman Michael "Bugsy" Moran in "The Perfect Storm") is remarkably effective in slowly peeling away layers from Teardrop's personality.  Early on in the story he seems to have an uncompromising predilection toward violence, but in later scenes he demonstrates a surprising capacity for verbal confrontation.  (He manages to back off a law enforcement official in a scene I was convinced would end up mired in bloodshed.)

The screenplay by Debra Granik and Anne Rosselini (based upon the novel by Daniel Woodrell) is skilled in the way various elements are conveyed with as little as one or two lines of dialogue.  Ree's personality is essentially summed up in a scene where her little brother observes a neighbor preparing a caught animal for their dinner.  "That looks good," he says.  "Plenty to spare.  Maybe we should ask?"  She turns to him, takes a gentle hold of his face and imparts the following advice... "Never ask for what should be offered."  Another crucial moment in the story involves a meeting Ree has with an Army recruiter.  She tells him the reason for her interest stems solely from her need for the money.  Her age prevents her from joining.  The recruiter knows this, but turns her away by telling her that "the greater challenge would be in staying at home, raising those two kids."  He senses her pride and determination and makes a remarkably magnanimous decision in the way he phrases his response.

The story ends on a positive note, though painful truths were revealed in the process.  But her family remains intact, and Ree has gained an ally in Teardrop.  Late in the story while visiting the kids, Teardrop is shown a banjo Ree found that belonged to him and his father when they were younger.  As he starts to leave, she extends the instrument in his direction.  "Ain't you gonna take this?"  He stops.  Turns, faces her.  The melancholy and bitterness that has blanketed his face for so many years dissipates from his eyes for the briefest of moments.  "You keep it here for me, will ya?"  Seldom does one line convey so much meaning.  It may not seem like a transcending moment between family members, but it echoes here... throughout this land so unforgiving.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Kids are All Right"

Runtime:1 hr. 44 min.

Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language and some teen drug and alcohol use

Cast: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson

Director: Lisa Cholodenko

Note:  Because I started this blog late in the year, I've opted to go back and review select movies that are currently up for multiple Academy Awards.


"The Kids are All Right" is the story of a lesbian couple raising two children whose lives are turned upside down when their sperm donor is contacted by one of their kids.  An unusual set of circumstances for a family drama, but the movie is too smart to treat the material as unusual.  The strife encountered isn't the result of the matriarchs' sexual orientation, but because the human condition simply isn't wired for us to spend our lives with one person.  This isn't the story of a lesbian marriage.  This could be any marriage.

The two moms are Nic and Jules.  Nic (Annette Bening) is a meticulous, driven, successful ER doctor whose attention to life's details rests in a subconscious fear of not being good enough.  Jules (Julianne Moore) appears to be Nic's polar opposite... an engaging flower-child free-spirit who seems to have lost focus as far as a career goes, never surpassing the dipping-a-toe-in-potential-waters phase.  (Nic has given Jules money to start a few failed businesses.)  They clearly love one another, though tensions are beginning to bubble to the surface.

They have two terrific kids.  Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and the unusually-named Laser (Josh Hutcherson) are both smart, witty, engaging, talented... and curious.  After a little bit of prodding from Laser, Joni decides to go searching for her sperm donor father.  Through the agency, she gets in contact with Paul Hatfield (Mark Ruffalo), a successful restaurant entrepreneur who has somehow managed to knead social fecklessness into a charming kind of art form.  They set up a meeting and immediately hit it off.  Of course this doesn't sit well with Nic and Jules, but they do agree to meet with him as the kids attempt to forge some semblance of a relationship with the man who helped give them life. 

Meanwhile, the issues between Nic and Jules continue to mount and appear to gain strength with the arrival of Paul.  His presence is the catalyst the unsheathes the insecurities of both women, as Nic starts to feel that her family is being torn down the middle.  Struggling to find an escape from Nic's perpetual scrutinizing, Jules begins to seek solace in the company of Paul to the point where an attraction develops.

The film is a triumph of acting, writing, and direction.  Both Bening and Moore are so crisp in their mannerisms that nothing feels phony or forced.  Their facial expressions, body language, and line deliveries are so authentic that I forgot I was watching actors at work and was swept along with the narrative.  I felt such strong empathy for both characters at various points in the story.  At the backyard barbeque where the moms first meet Paul, there's a moment when he asks Jules what she does for a living.  Jules hems, haws, explains that she's "between business ventures" and is now dabbling in landscaping.  Bening's facial expressions during the exchange are subtle but brutal.  One can see how an asphyxiation of judgment could be felt by Jules when on the receiving end of those looks.  Later in the story, however, after Jules and Paul have engaged in certain indiscretions, there's a scene at dinner when Nic and Paul softly sing the lyrics from a Joni Mitchell song, and we (along with Jules) come to understand the true depths of Nic's vulnerability.

Mark Ruffalo plays Paul as a man whose brain is constantly racing to keep up with his mouth.  (Upon learning that his sperm was used by a gay couple, his surprise is echoed in his response.  "Oh yeah yeah, no, yeah, no no no, yeah yeah, no, yeah... I love lesbians.")  His growing feelings for Jules seem to be genuine, but he's walked away one too many times from uncomfortable situations in his life to understand that relationship issues need to be dealt with instead of tossed aside.

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland") and Josh Hutcherson are both effective as well, portraying adolescents good enough to earn their mothers' love, but also perceptive enough to learn their flaws and sensitive enough to not be affected by what they uncover.  (After learning of Paul and Jules' tryst, Joni tells Paul "I wish you could have been..." she struggles to find the right word, before landing on "...better.")

The screenplay by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg is spot on, imbuing each character with an intelligence and perceptiveness that crystallizes the nature of each relationship, be it lover, parent, child, or friend.  The script also gives way to the occasional humorous line of dialogue, as characters vent their frustrations by digging at the lifestyles of those in their vitriolic crosshairs.  ("I swear to God, if one more person tells me how much they love heirloom tomatoes, I'm gonna fucking kill myself.")

Director Cholodenko ("Laurel Canyon", "High Art") has given us a movie with an ending that is not Hollywood-happy, but it is one with a surprisingly powerful air of contentment beneath it.  In its understated way, the movie accepts the truth that long-term relationships are meant to be a struggle.  An evil, yes, but a necessary one, as the only thing in this world that makes the loneliness bearable is each other.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Dilemma"

Runtime:1 hr. 58 min.

Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements including sexual content

Cast: Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Winona Ryder, Jennifer Connelly, Channing Tatum, Queen Latifah

Director: Ron Howard

Vince Vaughn seems an ideal choice for the male lead in Ron Howard comedies.  He possesses an acting style reminiscent of Michael Keaton in some of Howard's previous efforts ("Night Shift", "Gung-Ho", and "The Paper").  Like Keaton, Vaughn has a rapid-fire manner of speech coupled with an insatiable need to do right by his friends.  That skill set is put to use in Howard's latest comedy, "The Dilemma," a so-so movie that boasts loftier ambitions than most buddy comedies and certainly knows how to set up its comic premise.  Unfortunately, the film doesn't know how to close itself out.  That proves to be its undoing.

The dilemma in "The Dilemma" is whether or not to inform your best friend of a painful truth.  Vaughn plays Ronny Valentine, a Chicago-based car engine manufacturer and a recovering gambling addict who seems to have finally got his life in order.  He is happily involved with the lovely Beth (Jennifer Connelly) whose stunning looks are matched by her kind, gentle demeanor.  His best friend is Nick Brannen (Kevin James), the "brains" behind the manufacturing business.  (Ronny works the clients; Nick works the engines.)  Nick is married to Geneva (Winona Ryder).  Theirs seems to be a happy union.  That is, until Ronny sees Geneva in the arms of another man... a tattooed, guitar-toting goofball appropriately named Zip (Channing Tatum).  Should he tell Nick?  Should be an easy call, but Nick does have a nervous streak, and news like this could threaten the lucrative deal the men have with Chrysler Dodge.  Thus the dilemma.

As I said, the movie does have admirably high ambitions.  (Or at least, high for a comedy of this sort.)  As the story opens, we see both couples dining out and engaged in a conversation about just how well you know another person... even someone you're closer to than anyone else.  It's a strong theme that lays the groundwork upon which the story can build.  Yet those very ambitions are the tipoff to what's wrong with the movie.

How?  The movie attempts to introduce various complexities into the situation (when confronted by Ronny, Geneva informs him that there's more to their union than meets his untrained eye, and tells him he should butt out of her marriage... and later we learn that Nick may be engaging in his own extramarital affair), but then it inexplicably opts out of dealing with those complexities later in the story, perhaps because they would become a burden to the comic elements.  Particularly the subplot involving Nick's infidelity.  It's forgotten late in the story, somewhat cruelly so.

I realize this is a comedy and some may perceive my objections as taking the story too seriously.  But when the lynch pin of your comic premise hinges around a bout of marital infidelity and you choose not to deal with that element in any way, shape, or form... that leaves--as they might say on "Seinfeld"--a pretty big Matzo ball you're asking your audience to ignore.  The dissolving union between Nick and Geneva plays a curious second fiddle to the anguish Ronny faces in whether or not to tell Nick.  The whole movie plays like a footnote to a much more substantial story.

Ron Howard's clout has managed to net him a pretty impressive cast.  Vaughn is well-suited to this type of role.  Kevin James and Winona Ryder put everything they can into their respective roles, but Allan Loeb's screenplay really isn't fair with either character.  They're both asked to portray genuine emotions involved with marital strife, only to have their potential impact muted to make room for the comic elements.  Jennifer Connelly somehow manages to bridge the gap between possessing staggering physical attractiveness and having the well-meaning heart of the girl-next-door.  Channing Tatum and Queen Latifah provide solid comic relief.  Particularly Latifah, playing a consultant for Chrysler Dodge with a curious affection for the quality of Ronny and Nick's work.  ("I mean, I got some serious lady wood here."  I don't know too many actresses that could pull that line off.)

The studio was obviously nervous about negative audience reaction, evidenced by both the January release date and the absence of critics' screenings.  Truth is, the movie isn't quite that bad.  There are some good laughs and the effort wasn't phoned in.  The problem lies not in the execution, but in the conception.  The idea either should have been thought out more fully, with more emphasis on how to bring the story full circle, or it should have been scrapped altogether.  Quite the dilemma.

* *  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Green Hornet"

Runtime:1 hr. 48 min.

Rated PG-13 for language, sequence of violence, sensuality and drug content

Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Christoph Waltz

Director: Michel Gondry

"The Green Hornet" is loud, at times funny, loud, sometimes fast-paced, loud, occasionally quite violent and most of all... loud.  Oh, it does have moments of wit.  It begins well, and I enjoyed the first half-hour.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that the wit eventually dries up.  The remaining traits--(i.e. LOUD)--are relentless.  I haven't been in the habit of bringing Imitrex to a movie screening.  God help me, I don't want to start now. 

I don't know if this film has any 2D showings, but the only screenings in my area were of the 3D variety and that, I imagine, contributed to the migraine suffered at its hands.  I sense an unsettling trend developing here.  Not only does the "added dimension" give rise to ticket prices, but it seems to give studios yet another excuse to put even less effort into story and character development.  Now, I know there's going to be die-hard fans out there who'll say that the previous versions of the story were equally vacuous and stupid, so there's no reason not to love this version, right?  I find arguments like those so hopelessly inane that I feel embarrassed for individuals who try making them.  Love it if you want.  No critic will ever say you're wrong for doing so.  But I'm not going to dish out critical praise for it.  There's no honor in being a lemming.

Of course, movies like this do have an audience.  I'm not naive enough to think they don't.  And for that audience, I suppose "The Green Hornet" does deliver what it promises.  Like I said, it begins well and I laughed out loud a few times.  Unfortunately, a sinking feeling took hold about forty minutes in.  That's the moment when you realize you're watching a film that isn't going to be about anything.  There's a scene that sums up the movie's problem for me... it's when The Hornet and Kato thunder from the Reid Mansion in their funky, bulletproof, weapon-laden vehicle.  Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise" blasts from the car's speakers.  The two protagonists bob their heads and sing along with the tune.  Finally, Kato silences the stereo and asks: "So, what now?  Where are we going?"  The Hornet's reply?  "I don't know, man.  I thought you did."

Exactly.

After his father (Tom Wilkinson) dies of an apparent bee sting, playboy Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) is left with running "The Daily Sentinel" newspaper, his dad's pride and joy.  Their relationship being as strained as it was, Britt doesn't take kindly to the responsibilities of his inheritance.  (Though he has long since taken to the riches accrued from said empire.)  He immediately fires all those employed by his father, but soon hires back one of his dad's most trusted employees, a cappuccino-artist named Kato (Jay Chou).  Britt and Kato talk, learn things about one another, (upon learning Kato hails from Shanghai, Britt's blank response is "yeah yeah, I love Japan") and discover a common bond... neither one thought too highly of the senior Reid.  Kato soon reveals himself as a true master not only of martial arts but of all things mechanical, which gives Britt an idea... dude, they can be, like, superheroes! 

So why can't I just sit back and enjoy the movie as empty-headed entertainment?  Well, besides its gleefully loud, obnoxious, in-your-face intent on giving me a thundering headache, part of the problem may lie in the fact that there just isn't any chemistry whatsoever between the leads. 

Seth Rogen is a hit-and-miss actor for me.  I liked him in "Pineapple Express" because he played off James Franco so well.  (Incidentally, Franco has a cameo early in "Hornet" which is one of the movie's few bright spots.)  Jay Chou is decent here, playing a character so inventive he's impossible not to like.  Their banter, however, is so clunky and forced that they might as well be in different movies.  Rogen also has zero chemistry with Cameron Diaz, who plays temp assistant Lenore Case.  Diaz has tremendous comic timing when given the opportunity, but her talents are absolutely wasted here.  It's sad.  I sense at some point Rogen knew there was a lack of chemistry, as a kind of desperation seeps into his performance.  He seems to be straining for laughs. 

Christoph Waltz stepped into the role of the villainous Chudnofsky after Nicolas Cage reportedly left the project.  Waltz is indeed a terrific actor, though I think he made a mistake in accepting this role.  When we first see him, he is being berated by a young crime boss wannabe... his clothes, his demeanor, even his name is being mocked.  He sits quietly, takes in the onslaught of insults.  A look of deep introspection blankets his face.  He then smiles, thanks the man for his "input" then unleashes a round of fury on the unsuspecting crime boss.  At that point we realize that Waltz isn't really playing a character here.  Instead, he's playing a tongue-in-cheek mockery of the character he portrayed in "Inglourious Basterds."  To be honest, I think Cage would have fared better in the role.  He would have tried to bring something new to it.  Something more than a knock off of a previous role.

The screenplay by Rogen and Evan Goldberg contains a few good lines, but without any chemistry between the actors, there's only so much a screenplay can offer.  Director Michel Gondry ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Be Kind Rewind") is a wildly talented visual artisan, but there's no reason that artistry can't be at the service of a story that's actually about something. 

Am I being unfair?  I don't know.  What I do know is that I'm increasingly losing patience with movies that substitute a lack of story and interesting characters with 3D technology and sound effects aimed at assaulting the senses with stentorian zeal.  I'm not looking for a migraine when I hit the theatres.  I give the movie two stars for two reasons... one, "Hornet" may very well appeal to its target audience and two, I readily admit I am not a part of that audience.  This review is geared more toward those who are on the fence.  I don't think it's worth the price, unless a headache is what you're after.  If this trend keeps up, they'll need to start offering aspirin along with those 3D recyclable glasses.

* *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Season of the Witch"

Runtime:1 hr. 38 min.

Rated PG-13 for violence, disturbing content and thematic elements

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Stephen Campbell Moore, Claire Foy, Robbie Sheehan

Director: Dominic Sena

"Season of the Witch" plays like a movie where any capacity for viewer empathy has been left on the cutting room floor.  It approaches its material they same way, I'd imagine, that a video game designer might...

We have cookie-cutter lead characters, some semblance of a backstory, a slew of dangers our heroes must face, and a showdown between Good and Evil that threatens the world as we know it.  What we don't have is a reason to care about any of it. 

Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman are Behmen and Felson, two 14th century Crusaders who throw themselves into His service with comic fervor.  ("You take the 300 on the left, I'll take the 300 on the right.")  That is, until they feel betrayed following orders which resulted in the massacre of women and children.  They abandon their post, are branded as deserters, and flee to a land overrun by the black plague.  Their identities are uncovered and they are apprehended. 

A deal is proposed.  In order to regain their freedom, they must escort a young girl believed to be a witch to a remote abbey where monks will perform some kind of ritual in an effort to put an end to the plague.  Behmen will comply on one condition... that the girl (Claire Foy) will receive a fair trial upon arrival.  (Seems strange that he would have reason to believe his captors given the aforementioned betrayal.  Of course, if he refused then there wouldn't be a movie.)  So, accompanied by a priest convinced of the girl's guilt, a knight in mourning over his lost daughter, and a naive yet headstrong youth determined to earn his knighthood, the men embark on the dangerous journey. 

It's not so much a hateful movie as a thoroughly disposable one.  There's nothing to care about here.  I know there is a distinct demographic of cinema viewers who love sword-and-sorcery movies but I am not of that ilk.  Perhaps I've seen one too many cinematic Armageddons in my day, but it takes a lot to engage my interest in another ultimate battle between Good and Evil.  This effort didn't quite rise to that level.  Maybe if the movie took on a more humorous slant, it might have fared better.  Indeed, at times the actors seem to recite their dialogue with a kind of cognizance of absurdity... as though they thought they might be participating in a Monty Python flick, but weren't quite sure.

The director is Dominic Sena, whose career is interesting in its mediocrity.  Consider this... his feature-length directoral debut (following several Janet Jackson music videos) was the riveting low-budget indie thriller "Kalifornia" with Brad Pitt giving one of his best performances as serial killer Early Grayce.  It was an impressive debut that called attention to the talents of its director.  He followed that up years later with a subpar remake of Toby Halicki's "Gone in Sixty Seconds."  On the heels of that one came the mediocre "Swordfish", the less-than-mediocre "Whiteout" and now this one.  Like Michael Bay, he's a director who seems to be evolving in the wrong direction.  "Kalifornia" was a movie that really had something significant to say regarding the violent energies running rampant in our society, but his efforts since then feel phoned in, as though anything beyond the artistic scope of a music video requires too much thought.  Sena was apparently inspired to do this movie by Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" and has chosen to honor that film by making one that imbues the viewer with a passionate desire to watch Bergman's far superior "Seal". 

One might wonder what prompted Cage to take on this role, but this isn't that surprising.  His IMDb filmography page is littered with throwaway movies like this.  He works so often that I suspect he doesn't always have the patience to wait for the best screenplays to come along, choosing instead to participate in whatever crosses his queue.  Ron Perlman can chew scenery with the best of 'em, and seems a perfect fit for this kind of story.  But since we've seen him in this mode before, I do find myself wondering why he'd bother.  He already has a plum role of the FX television series "Sons of Anarchy".  Maybe a vacation during that show's hiatus would have been a better move.

In a movie where my interest is lacking, my eyes scan the screen for anything of interest to latch onto.  In this case, they fell on British actress Claire Foy.  She possess a tomboyish appeal, similar to Kristen Stewart before "Twilight" got an unfortunate hold of her.  Playing a character credited only as "The Girl", she chooses to play down the potential histrionics associated with a role like this, opting instead for a subtlety that arouses curiosity instead of instilling fear.  She has taken what could have been a shrill performance and makes it a watchable one. 

As uninteresting as this movie is, no careers will be destroyed here.  (Not even Sena's.)  The studio's decision to release the film in early January was a true act of mercy to all those involved in its inception.  The quicker this film is forgotten, the better it will be for all the participants.  Luckily, here is a movie that seems engineered for exactly that.

* 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars