"Drive Angry"

Runtime:1 hr. 44 min.

Rated R for strong brutal violence throughout, grisly images, some graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

Director: Patrick Lussier

“Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

--Gustave Dore in John  Milton’s “Paradise Lost”

No one movie is for everyone.  This seems like basic knowledge, but you wouldn’t know it from many of Hollywood’s mainstream offerings.  One of the things I admire is a film that doesn’t bother to placate.  That doesn’t try to be all things to all people.  A movie that knows what it is, who would enjoy it, who wouldn’t, and why the hell should it care?  “Drive Angry” is a movie like that.

Try this scene on for size…

The story’s protagonist (Nicolas Cage) is having sex with a completely nude cocktail waitress, though he has elected to remain mostly clothed.  “Why don’t you fuck naked?” she asks during the act.  “Because I never disrobe before a gunfight,” is his reply.  And right on cue, the motel room door bursts open, a gang of thugs fly through, weapons drawn.  In a split second, the hero has his own pistol in hand.  He fires off a slew of rounds, wheels both himself and the woman in a circular motion to get better shots at any brute that gets too close.  He does this while remaining inside her.  In the midst of the fight, the hero is jolted from behind with a taser.  This, of course, brings the woman to orgasm.  What we have here is disposable filmmaking that rises to a level of… I don’t know… not really art, but something.

Cage plays John Milton.  A possible connection to “Paradise Lost”?  (What do you think?)  He’s on a mission.  His daughter has been killed by a satanic cult leader named Jonah King (Billy Burke), and his baby granddaughter has been kidnapped by the twisted devil-worshipper for the purposes of human sacrifice.  He enlists the help of a no-nonsense free-spirit named Piper (Amber Heard) recently fired from her latest job.  She reluctantly agrees, despite knowing little about this drifter who seems indestructible.  At the same time, Milton is being pursued by The Accountant (William Fichtner), a tenacious traveler who always looks out of place but never feels out of place.  I don’t want to give anything away, though by now you’ve no doubt deduced who Milton is, who The Accountant is, where the two come from, and where Milton is headed upon completion of his mission.

I’m not brimming with pride here, but I’ll admit I found the movie somewhat enjoyable, if for no other reason than it zipped down the narrative highway at a rapid enough pace so that my intellect didn’t have a chance to leap on board.  The film is what it is, cinematic warts and all.  It makes no apologies, nor does it ask an audience to like it. 

It’s important to note, however, that editor-turned-director Patrick Lussier (“My Bloody Valentine”) is no Tarantino.  He’s no Robert Rodriguez.  Hell, he’s not even the filmmaking side of Rob Zombie.  There is no wit-filled dialogue here, nor is there a distinct visual style that accentuates the bizarre premise.  Even the satanic cult angle seems lifted from any number of horror-movie remakes.  What it does have is an unbridled joy in its depravity.  When a movie with this much violence and this many mutilations is shot specifically in 3D, it couldn’t care less if you’re offended.

There are those who believe Nicolas Cage is destroying his career with some of his role choices, but he knows what he’s doing.  I don’t like all of his efforts either (i.e. the dreadful “Season of the Witch”) but he understands what’s asked of him, and what he’s comfortable playing.  He’s an ideal choice for Milton, portraying him with complete transparency.  No self-awareness. 

William Fichtner employs a similar approach with The Accountant.  If there’s an understated self-mockery to his performance, it’s more bred from his character than an actor’s realization of the plot’s inherent lunacy.  At first, Billy Burke seems an unusual choice for a cult leader, but he plays Jonah King just as he should… someone not quite sinister and darkly influential despite all efforts to canonize himself as such.  David Morse adds a touch of humanity to the mix as a kind soul who offers to take care of the very things Milton himself cannot.  And Amber Heard seems to have been cast solely by the studio’s PR department.  She looks fine in the promotional posters, and actually holds her own opposite Cage.

Some films speak to me.  Others engage a side of me that I’m not fully cognizant of until the moment those sides are unearthed.  Look, it’s not art, people.  It’s textbook guilty pleasure stuff.  When you’re watching a movie where the protagonist declines the offering of a beer until he can drink that beer from the skull of his archenemy, there’s a perverse pleasure in knowing that, at some point in the movie, he will quite literally do so.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Hall Pass"

Runtime:1 hr. 38 min.

Rated R for crude and sexual humor throughout, language, some graphic nudity and drug use

Cast: Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate, Nicky Whelan

Directors: Peter and Bobby Farrelly

One of the most effective traits of the Farrelly brothers' style of humor is their belief that comedies don't always need a "straight man."  Everybody's a nut. 

That economic approach to laugh-gathering has served the duo well, affording them the ability to pack their movies with as many jokes as their plots can hold.  "Hall Pass" clings mightily to this philosophy.  The film has its share of typical Farrelly-style laughs.  What it lacks, however, is a meaty enough plot to carry itself across the finish line. 

In a comic arena devoid of true "straight men", the closest thing to one is Rick (Owen Wilson).  He has a good job, a nice home, two great kids, a loving wife named Maggie (Jenna Fischer) whose patience with her increasingly neglectful husband is wearing thin.  ("You almost ready to head out?" he asks.  "It'll be a couple hours,” is her reply.  “Less if you help with the kids."  "Two hours is fine" he jokes.)  Adding to her stress is Rick's insatiable need to gawk at any remotely attractive woman who saunters into his libidinous crosshairs.  ("Going driving with you is like riding with a horny bobblehead!")

Rick's best friend is Fred (Jason Sudeikis), who is married to Grace (Christina Applegate).  Fred shares in Rick's visual "appreciation" or sorts toward the opposite sex, though is far less subtle.  (When unable to get any action, he retires to the family mini-van for an all-too-necessary masturbation session to Styx's "The Best of Times".)  With both wives fed up with their spouses' antics, they eventually take the advice of a self-help guru (Joy Behar) who advises them to offer the boys a "hall pass".  A week off from marriage, where they're free to engage in whatever affairs a female would have the unbridled kindness to offer them. 

We follow the guys on their seven day odyssey, complete with that "Law & Order" sound effect as we enter each new day.  Their journey toward sexual freedom begins on rough terrain, as the boys and their "entourage" of middle-aged-out-of-the-singles-game-too-long best friends debate the best places to meet hot chicks... Applebee's, Olive Garden, or Chili's. 

With no luck there, Rick and Fred hit the club scene, employing pickup lines Fred most likely spent way too much time working on.  ("You must be from Ireland, 'cause when I look at you, my penis is Dublin.")  With their would-be fortunes not changing, the guys enlist the help of an aging-but-engagingly-depraved hound (Richard Jenkins) who points out such nightclub social machinations as a woman who surrounds herself with more "plain" friends to make herself attractive.  Of course, it's only a matter of time before the husbands realize what treasures they have at home.

And that's sort of the drawback here.  It's a nice message, but way too obvious from the get go.  As a result, my interest waned pretty early on.  I did laugh a few times.  The Farrelly's have delivered what they've been specializing in for years now... toilet humor, nudity, crass yet funny dialogue.  I wasn't proud of everything that rattled the funny bone, but here's a litmus test for you... if you gauge your dignity by what you choose to NOT laugh at, then you officially have no sense of humor. 

Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis skillfully straddle the line between being crass and likable.  They’re well cast here, playing a couple clueless goofballs trying way too hard to achieve a level of social comfort that can only be acquired through not trying at all.  The humor is mostly there, but the story from Pete Jones (he of the Project Greenlight season one - "Stolen Summer" fame) doesn't quite have enough to hold our interest.  One of my main criticisms of action pics is that their plots are too often little more than clotheslines upon which action sequences are hung.  In a way, "Hall Pass" suffers from the same thing, except it's humor on the line. 

It's a close call, which is a tribute to the comic offerings of Peter and Bobby Farrelly.  The jokes are in place, but are leaned on too heavily by a paper-thin premise that can barely sustain even the most meager running time.  I admired their comic tenacity but by the final act, the Farrelly's have exhausted their tank, and are running on fumes. 

* * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

The Oscars - Pointless Predictions, and Who I Would Vote For

It's that time again. 

Time for me to predict what I think might have a shot at taking home the biggest prizes Hollywood has on offer this year.  (Believe me, I possess no inside knowledge, so I'd advise against using what follows as a blueprint for your own Oscar pools, if you are entering one.)

Here we go:

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Amy Adams - "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter - "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo - "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld - "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver - "Animal Kingdom"

Boy, at one time I really thought Melissa Leo was a lock here.  But as the event grows near, I'm more of the belief that Hailee Steinfeld is going to end up taking the prize.  Her laid back, engaging personality really works in her favor, especially since Leo recently rubbed several voters the wrong way by purchasing a glossy ad in the trades campaigning for the award.  That, coupled with competition from the tremendous work of Amy Adams in the same movie, and I smell an upset in this category.  My vote would still go to Leo based solely on her performance, yet...

Who I predict WILL win:  Hailee Steinfeld - "True Grit"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Melissa Leo - "The Fighter"

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

Christian Bale - "The Fighter"
John Hawkes - "Winter's Bone"
Jeremy Renner - "The Town"
Mark Ruffalo - "The Kids are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush - "The King's Speech"

Christian Bale has always been the frontrunner, still is the frontrunner, and will most likely end up taking the award.  The biggest potential for an upset would be Geoffrey Rush, though I think that with Colin Firth primed to get the leading actor nod, the Academy will give this one to Bale.  And of course, his performance was pretty tremendous.  (Yeah, that's always a plus!)  Jeremy Renner's role in "The Town" was a memorable one, though the movie itself faded from the public eye.  Mark Ruffalo will continue to be honored for his body of work.  John Hawkes is finally getting a little overdue recognition in Hollywood, but the nomination is his reward. 

Who I predict WILL win:  Christian Bale - "The Fighter"
Who I would VOTE FOR:   Christian Bale - "The Fighter"

Performance by an actress in a leading role

Annette Bening - "The Kids are All Right"
Nicole Kidman - "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence - "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman - "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams - "Blue Valentine"

Natalie Portman is the biggest lock of the night.  And it's hard to argue with that.  The nightmarish atmosphere of "Black Swan" was filtered through the unsettled fabric of her performance.  My vote?  That's a hard one, as this is actually--despite the seemingly inevitable outcome--the most competitive category in terms of the individual talent on display.  Bening, Kidman, and Williams give perhaps the finest performances of their individual careers.  This is definitely Portman's best work.  And Jennifer Lawrence's fierce persona carries the entire weight of "Winter's Bone."  Since Kidman has already won, Portman will win this year, and Williams will certainly win one day... my vote would probably go to Annette Bening.  She's the most overdue.

Who I predict WILL win:  Natalie Portman - "Black Swan"
Who I would VOTE FOR:   Annette Bening - "The Kids are All Right"

Performance by an actor in a leading role

Javier Bardem - "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges - "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg - "The Social Network"
Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"
James Franco - "127 Hours"

The second biggest lock of the night.  Colin Firth should take this one.  Javier Bardem and Jeff Bridges turned in mesmerizing performances in two very different movies.  Both have recently won, however.  Jesse Eisenberg's depiction of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was crucial to that movie's success, as the entire substance of the story revolved around his personality traits and fractured relationships, yet I don't see him pulling the upset.  If there IS a possible upset here, it could be James Franco.  My personal vote would come down to a toss-up between the two.  Firth is too well-respected, though, to go two years in a row with a nomination but no award.  My vote would tilt in his favor as well, for a performance that shows a historical world leader in the most human, complex, engaging light.

Who I predict WILL win:  Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"

Original screenplay

"Another Year" - Mike Leigh
"The Fighter" - Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson
"Inception" - Christopher Nolan
"The Kids are All Right" - Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg
"The King's Speech" - David Seidler

My vote?  Easy.  "Inception" all the way.  Hands down.  The screenplay for that movie was so complex, layered, intricate in detail yet never seemed (to me, anyway) to sacrifice the more human side of the story.  Nolan takes us into the world of the dream while never losing sight of the main character's emotional need to dive into such worlds in the first place.  But will it win?  It seems to take a back seat to both "The Kids are All Right" and the likely winner, "The King's Speech."  There is probably too much momentum to knock either of those entries from the pole position.  Yet...

What I predict WILL win:  "Inception"  (Whaaaaaat?) **
What I would VOTE FOR:  "Inception"

(**Yes, this is going to be my curve ball pick of the night, although conventional wisdom would say I'm full of cinematic shit.  But hey, if the decent-but-not-brilliant screenplay for "The Usual Suspects" can win in this category, is it really so crazy to think that just maybe...)


Adapted screenplay

"127 Hours" - Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
"The Social Network" - Aaron Sorkin
"Toy Story 3" - John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich
"True Grit" - Joen Coen and Ethan Coen
"Winter's Bone" - Debra Granik and Anne Rossellini

I loved "The Social Network."  Thing is, if you were to ask me to break down specifically why I find it so fascinating, the task is a bit head-scratching.  I'm not saying I'm wrong to have loved it... merely in awe of how Aaron Sorkin has taken the book by Ben Mezrich and extrapolated a mesmerizing character study of college kids that transform a night of inventive online antics into a billion dollar business.  The only thing more strange than Facebook's ubiquitous presence in our daily lives is how its founder(s) arrived at their destination without fully realizing they were on the road in the first place.  All the entries are solid here, but this one should go to "Network."

What I predict WILL win:  "The Social Network"
What I would VOTE FOR:  "The Social Network"

Achievement in directing
"Black Swan" - Darren Aronofsky
"The Fighter" - David O. Russell
"The King's Speech" - Tom Hooper
"The Social Network" - David Fincher
"True Grit" - Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

So this seems to be a two-man race between "The King's Speech" director Tom Hooper and "The Social Network"'s David Fincher.  Now, the Directors Guild of America recently awarded Hooper the top prize, and of course the winner of the DGA best director practically always wins the Oscar. 

I've read in various papers and blogs, however, that many believe this could be the year of a break in that tradition.  Fincher is predicted by many to take top honors.  But you know what?  I just don't see it happening.  True, Hooper's body of work isn't nearly as vast as the others in this category, but I don't expect "The Social Network" to have quite as much success as it did at the Golden Globes.  Tom Hooper may seem not quite "ready" to receive the honor, but I'd remind you this is the same Academy that took literally decades before honoring Martin Scorsese with a win, and never rewarded Robert Altman with a best director statuette. 

My vote?  Well, it would have been--you guessed it--Christopher Nolan, except he didn't receive a nomination.  So my second choice?  This may seem like a little bit of a surprise, but I'd actually cast it for Darren Aronofsky for "Black Swan."  All the directing efforts were stellar.  But when I consider the intended effect on the viewer each film had, I have to say that the claustrophobic typhoon of paranoia unleashed by Aronofsky in "Swan" stayed with me the longest.  I loved all the entries here, but it was "Swan" that had the most visceral effect on my psyche.  Yes, the vote would come with an asterisk, as Nolan would have been my top choice... but Darren Aronofsky's work has really grown on me.  I'd cast my vote in his direction.

Who I predict WILL win:  Tom Hooper - "The King's Speech"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Darren Aronofsky - "Black Swan"

Best motion picture of the year

"Black Swan"
"The Fighter"
"Inception"
"The Kids are All Right"
"The King's Speech"
"127 Hours"
"The Social Network"
"Toy Story 3"
"True Grit"
"Winter's Bone"

While overall I think the awards will probably be spread out this year--which always makes for a more interesting Oscar telecast--it looks like "The King's Speech" has, at the very least, maintained its momentum going into the final stretch.  "The Social Network" has lost a little momentum since the Golden Globes. 

The box office successes of "Black Swan" and "True Grit" could make them interesting dark horses in the race.  "The Fighter", "127 Hours" and "The Kids are All Right" are VERY dark horses, but I suppose stranger things have happened. 

"Toy Story 3" will get its recognition in the best animated category.  "Inception" won't get as much recognition as it should.  And despite the fact that it was a terrific movie, I can't name five people who have actually seen "Winter's Bone."

What I predict WILL win:  "The King's Speech"
What I would VOTE FOR:  "Inception"


The Oscar Telecast will air on ABC on Sunday, February 27th at 8:00pm.

"Barney's Version"

Runtime: 2 hr. 12 min.

Rated R for language and some sexual content

Cast: Paul Giamatti, Dustin Hoffman, Rosamund Pike, Minnie Driver, Rachelle Lafevre, Scott Speedman

Director: Richard J. Lewis

Barney Panofsky is a character we admire and pity in equal measure.  The biggest achievement in "Barney's Version" is that we never really judge him, even when afforded every opportunity to do so.  That's a tribute to Paul Giamatti, whose portrayal of Panofsky runs the gamut from charismatic to vulnerable so effectively and completely that our judgments--good or bad--are reserved for those personalities that surround him. 

Based upon the novel by the late Mordecai Richler, the movie opens with an aging Barney Panofsky--bitter, drunk, and phone in hand--making a call to his ex-wife's new husband in the middle of the night, offering up a slew of acerbic zingers.  From there, the film flashes back to Rome in the 70s.  The story spans some thirty years.  We bear witness to Barney's failed marriages...

The first was to a knocked up, flower-child free-spirit (Rachel Lefevere) whose promiscuity seemed lightweight compared to her flittering personality.  (After Barney realizes the child isn't his, he opts not to confront her about it, choosing instead to offer consolation.  Her response?  "Oh, Barney.  You really do wear your heart on your sleeve.  Now put it away, it's disgusting to look at.") 

The second was to the attitude-cloaked daughter (Minnie Driver) of a rich tycoon.  Barney was immediately attracted to her, but her father's unbridled disgust for both Barney and his father, Izzy (Dustin Hoffman), regardless of the public setting, became too much for Barney to bear. 

His new family's disdain is such a cross to bear that the moment he lays eyes on Miriam Grant (Rosemund Pike) at the wedding reception, Barney wastes no time in approaching her and striking up a conversation.  He is so smitten, so enthralled, that he follows her to the train station and professes his love for her.  Understandably, she rebuffs his advances.  We know, however, Barney will not be deterred.  Love at first sight?  ("I can't believe it happened!" he exclaims.  "It actually happens!")

Barney divorces wife #2, thanks in large part to an affair between her and his best friend, Boogie (Scott Speedman), then proceeds to woo Miriam in every way imaginable.  She finally agrees to dinner.  After a rough start (battling a bout of anxiety, Barney drinks himself into a stupor before the dinner, gets sick) they get to talking.  "I'm just gonna keep on talking.  And talking," Barney says.  "Because I'm so afraid of that little pause, where you say that you'd best be getting going.  I'm so afraid of that."  But the pause comes and goes.  She's not leaving.  She's won over.

Miriam is far more understanding and tolerant than his first wives, but perceptive and cautious, too.  "With everything you've done to pursue me, how do I know I can trust you?"  she asks earnestly.  He smiles, removes a cigar-clipper from his pocket.  "I'll just cut it off," he jokes.  The tragedy here is that he doesn't know the answer, but she (and we) do.

Barney Panofsky seems, at first, like the prototypical self-destructive personality, yet Giamatti doesn't really play him as one, opting instead to imbue him with a passion for the chase, an adoration for romantic idealism, and an unfortunate inability to grow as a person.  He can certainly love.  We see this not only in the early stages of his relationship with Miriam, but especially in scenes with his father.  There is no undercurrent of tension.  Barney and Izzy share an unfettered love and appreciation for each others' quirks and foibles. 

I've seen Rosamund Pike in a few movies, and she hasn't really stood out to me.  Too often she comes off as a little flat in her performances.  Not mannered per se.  (There's a fluidity to her line delivery that's comfortable.)  But she reminds me of a stage actor who has done virtually nothing other than period pieces, and now has trouble connecting emotionally to her surroundings.  I did find her more effective here than in the past, though I wonder if it's because she's playing off the consistently intriguing Giamatti.  I came to accept her portrayal as Miriam... I liked her understated delivery, particularly in later scenes as she patiently explains her need for growth to a husband who seems stunted in his.

The movie is like a demonstration of two cinematic tones.  The first half is sharp, witty, charming, and funny.  The second half becomes much more nuanced in its pacing, more melancholic, and distinctly sentimental.  Yet as Barney slips away into the cloud of Alzheimer's, we're privy to a truth Barney Panofsky is never fully able to comprehend...

That while all he wanted was to find someone who didn't see him as the awkward, insecure, flawed outcast he perceived himself to be... Barney ended up with something better.  Someone who saw those flaws crystal-clear.  Weighed the risk.  Measured it.  And ultimately embraced it. 

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Biutiful"

Runtime: 2 hr. 27 min.

Rated R for disturbing images, language, some sexual content, nudity and drug use

Cast: Javier Bardem, Marcel Alvarez, Eduard Fernandez, Diarytou Daff, Cheng Taishen

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

In our life's journey, our choices are far more important than our pace.  We have greater control over our choices.

It's a noble thought, wanting to make every life decision the right one.  On our own personal existential avenues, however, we learn down the road that life's right decisions will invariably amend themselves into more appropriate and necessary decisions.  Then one day we're hit with the cold reality that the right decisions and the necessary decisions often take on vastly different forms.

This is especially true for Uxbal (Javier Bardem), a survivalist of sorts on the streets
crisscrossing the seedy underbelly of Barcelona.  Alejandro Gonzales Innaritu's "Buitiful" is the harrowing story of Uxbal's attempt to make the best choices for his children as prostate cancer rapidly eats away at his life.  The film's strength comes from the belief that solidifying one's relationships is the safest passage to the beyond, even for those who have few relationships to begin with.  (After all, legacies are merely contemplated during mid-life crises.  I imagine the emotional and spiritual health of your loved ones is contemplated during the final days of your life.)

We know early on Uxbal is facing a medical crisis.  He is being examined in a clinic.  The doctor informs him that blood needs to be taken, then leaves the room as a lab assistant enters.  She proceeds to draw blood, but Uxbal doesn't trust her.  ("Is the syringe clean?  Here, get me another one.  Let me do it.")  It's a strong opening, telling us almost everything we need to know about Uxbal...

He has grown up on the streets.  He knows the dangers.  The atmosphere.  The aggression.  The consequences of various actions.  Uxbal is a study in occupational duality.  We learn his primary means of support is a variegated buffet of illegal acts... most notably human trafficking.  He seems like the shadiest of characters until we see him with his family.  Here he takes on the persona of devoted family man, and we come to understand that his involvement in illegal transgressions was how he must have survived his youth on those very same streets.  We're told he never knew his father, and his mother passed away when he was six.  He doesn't remember her. 

After hearing the grim diagnosis, Uxbal makes a series of decisions to help his children after he's gone.  Some are good, like taking in the wife (Diaryatou Daff) of a Senegalese immigrant recently deported.  Some not so good, like reuniting with his estranged wife (Maricel Alvarez), a bipolar disorder sufferer who works as either a masseuse or more, depending on her need for money.  We also learn that Uxbal has a kind of clairvoyant ability... he accepts monetary sums for communicating with the recently departed.

The emotional crux of the story hinges on one particular decision Uxbal makes.  It's a choice made not out of greed, but because his children will need the money after his death.  I won't reveal the decision, but it does have truly horrific consequences.  Uxbal is devastated.  How can he enter the afterlife with a heart so burdened? 

Alejandro Gonzales Innarritu ("Amores Perros", "21 Grams", "Babel") is a wildly innovative storyteller, though his filmmaking techniques do sometimes gravitate toward self-indulgence.  "Biutiful" is mostly skilled in its visual style.  The strictly handheld camera work is an effective tool for conveying the cold, harsh, gritty reality faced by those caught in the undertow of urban crime.  I also admired the lighting.  Sometimes Uxbal is lit with a warm glow, other times in gelid shades of blue... the effect captures the tortuous final journey of the human soul.

Unlike Innarritu's previous works, the film does not make use of a fluctuating timeline.  The story is conveyed in a refreshingly straightforward manner, though it does meander a little.  If there's a drawback here, I think it's that the movie seems to be juggling one too many balls in the air.  Personally, I could have done without the clairvoyance angle.  The whole idea of it seemed, to me, a bit superfluous.  Sure, Innarritu does add nifty visual touches to certain scenes.  The most effective shows the "ghosts" of the recently deceased resting against the ceiling.  A nice bit of symbolism--those souls unable to "free" themselves--but since it was already established that Uxbal had clairvoyant abilities, those effects--cool as they are--don't have much narrative resonance.  In the end, they add little to the story. 

Despite a couple reservations, I do recommend the film.  It's a powerful story of redemption and securing peace in the afterlife by amends in this life.  Playing a flawed, layered, tortured soul is itself a tall order, and Javier Bardem is terrific at carrying us along on his journey in spite of those complexities.  Or maybe because of them.  "What's out there?" he asks at the end.  It's a question that not only resonates for him in the afterlife, but it offers a newfound meaning for his offspring as they carry on in this one.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Unknown"

Runtime: 1 hour, 53 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sexual content

Cast: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Aidan Quinn, Bruno Ganz, Frank Langella

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

"Unknown" is an unapologetically preposterous movie, which is exactly what it should be.  If your premise hinges around a treasure trove of plot holes, your best approach is one that offers up the fewest excuses. 

Yes, the film is implausible.  It knows this.  And we know it, too.  We can sense that the "reveal"  will belie whatever logic is matched up against it.  The movie doesn't try to pass itself off as a realistic drama.  Instead, it attempts to stay just plausible enough to keep our interest intact.  This does require a suspension of our disbelief.  Sometimes we have to be willing to meet movies halfway.

The story opens as an airplane lands in Berlin.  Aboard are Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife, Liz (January Jones).  He's in town for a biochemical conference.  They take a taxi to their hotel, but Harris realizes he's left his attache case at the airport.  He heads back, but an accident occurs on his way there.  The cab plunges off a bridge, crashes into an icy river.  Harris is saved by the driver (Diane Kruger), though she darts off without word immediately following the rescue.

He awakes in the hospital, is told by his doctor that he's been in a coma for four days.  He struggles with the details of what happened to him, but he does remember bits and pieces of his life.  He leaves the hospital, returns to his hotel, sees Liz already at the conference.  But she doesn't recognize him.  "You must have me confused with someone else," she says.  "This is my husband..."  And emerging from a throng of guests is another Martin Harris (Aidan Quinn). 

Is the real Martin Harris crazy?  Is he who he says he is?  Who he believes he is?  Or is there a whole lot more going on than meets the eye?  To find answers, Harris turns back to the taxi driver, who he locates through another employee of the cab company.  In addition, he seeks guidance from a former member of the German Police (Bruno Ganz), who wants to believe Harris' story, but does ask a few common sense questions.  ("But how can these people create a random accident that sends your car off a bridge?  They're good, but they're not God.") 

Common sense would dictate that there is, indeed, more going on here.  Yet the film is shot in a cold, unforgiving manner that does give rise to the possibility that Martin Harris just might be hallucinating.  Plus, there are those burning questions that are impossible to answer.  If his life has, in fact, been taken over, how can the perpetrators have concocted such a random set of circumstances? 

One of the keys that makes the film work is the central performance of Liam Neeson.  He's quite adept at playing transparent characters.  That's a compliment.  Despite his imposing physical stature, Neeson is an actor that doesn't grandstand or pose.  Even in such roles as the heroic legend Robert Roy MacGregor, Neeson portrayed him as a quiet, unassuming family man who was pushed into conflict despite all efforts to remain neutral.  Here, he plays Harris as a simple man with a solitary goal... to get back his identity.  He doesn't complicate his character's situation with an added degree of resentment toward his perceived enemies or the apparent betrayal of his wife.  The truth is the only thing that matters, regardless of where it takes him.

Diane Kruger has been saddled with the thankless role of the plucky sidekick who finds herself unwittingly caught up in Harris' dilemma.  She's effective, though.  January Jones and Aidan Quinn somehow manage to keep their performances grounded.  They continuously insist that Harris is delusional, though both possess penetratingly bizarre poker faces that can madden the sanest of people. 

The most interesting character, however, is the aging former German Police officer played by Bruno Ganz.  He has his own reasons for helping Harris, though they're not revealed until late.  His best scene is shared with the always-reliable Frank Langella.  They play two relic spies who know what the other is thinking before we do... the scene they share morphs from suspense to poignancy. 

Some people refuse the suspension of disbelief.  I don't, so long as the movie asking it of me is competent enough to keep me entertained.  The lack of plausibility can (not always, but sometimes) be offset by skilled filmmaking.  The science-fiction thriller "I am Number Four" was also released this week... that one was not only incompetent and uninteresting, but also had an inexplicably bloated sense of cinematic worth.  "Unknown" is, at least, skilled in what is does and cognizant of what it is.  It's implausible, sure, but also crackling, fast-paced, and entertaining.  I didn't mind meeting it halfway.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"I am Number Four"

Runtime: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for brief language

Cast: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer, Dianna Agron, Callan McAuliffe, Kevin Durand

Director: D.J. Caruso

I have a problem with movies that expect me to be hip to their act from the get go.  The most curious thing about "I am Number Four" is that it doesn't seem to be trying very hard to engage my interest.

The film comes off as a bit too impressed with itself, treating its audience like rabid fans instead of common viewers whose interest needs to be captured.  It's like a door-to-door salesman who skips the pitch and moves right on to the deal-making handshake.

The story involves a hero I didn't like being pursued by villains I didn't fear emerging from a backstory I couldn't care less about.  Few movies cater to my apathy like this one.  And please, dear reader, don't ply me with how I need to read the Pittacus Lore novel upon which the film is based to better understand what's happening here.  From my perspective, there are only two things that can be extrapolated from the experience.  Either a) this is a poor adaptation of the novel, or b) authors James Frey and Jobie Hughes (a.k.a. Pittacus Lore) are far less imaginative that I think they are.  Pick your poison.

A lazy attempt to combine what seems to be a "Twilight"-type romance with a Michael Bay-style action epic, the plot involves a seemingly ordinary teenager named John (Alex Pettyfer).  Seemingly, of course, because he's actually an alien being from a planet called Lorien.  He has been born with special powers but now is being hunted by a race of tattooed beings known as Mogadorians.  So he, along with nine others, have taken refuge in various locations on earth.  John is number four.  (The survivors are being hunted in numerical order.  I'm sure there's a reason for this.  I don't know it.) 

He has moved to rural Ohio with his protector Henri (Timothy Olyphant).  Out of boredom, John enrolls in the local high school, befriends an extra-terrestrial-obsessed geek (Callan McAuliffe), falls in love with a budding young photographer named Sarah (Dianna Agron), which enrages the school jock (Jake Abel).  All the while John is being sought out by another survivor, Number Six (Teresa Palmer).

As the above cliches play out, we wait with minuscule interest as the dreaded Mogadorians get closer to their prey.  They take an unusually long time to locate John despite the fact that he is quite conspicuous at the high school, his budding superpowers gaining unwanted attention. 

The villains finally set a trap for him by kidnapping Henri, making a call and ordering John to come to a particular location before Henri is killed.  John complies, finds Henri in a dilapidated house... but the Mogadorians are nowhere in sight.  They've left the premises.  Seriously.  They actually stepped out for a moment.  (What, did they have some prior engagement they just couldn't get out of?  Did they forget that had a "thing"?  Great game plan.)  What we have here is a battle of wits between a refugee hero dying to get caught and a bunch of galactic buffoons who couldn't locate the ground from atop it. 

The director is D.J. Caruso, a filmmaker of distinctly modest skill who, at this point in his career anyway, is only as effective as the material he's been given.  He handled the suspense genre with "Disturbia" and made "Eagle Eye" fast-paced enough to almost make you forget what a ludicrous premise that was. 

This movie, however, is a mess from top to bottom.  From the blond-haired, blue-eyed casting choices that make the CW Network look like a cross-cultural melting pot to the muddy CGI effects to the very inconsistencies regarding the characters' superpowers.  (Sometimes blue rays fly from Number Four's palms, sometimes not.  Sometimes he can propel himself through the air, sometimes not.  Sometimes he can alter physical reality, sometimes not.)  Not nearly as much thought has gone into this as the filmmakers would have you believe.

The story is apparently the beginning of a would-be franchise.  "The survivors are better off fighting together," we hear John say in a final voice-over narration.  It's the kind of statement meant to imbue in us the impetus to dive further into this mind-numbing concept.  "We will fight.  Earth is as good a place as any in the universe.  I know."  I'll have to take Number Four's word for it.  I don't care enough not to.

*  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Illusionist"

Runtime:1 hr. 30 min.

Rated PG for thematic elements and smoking

Cast: Jean-Claude Donda, Eilidh Rankin

Director: Sylvain Chomet

"The Illusionist" is a richly drawn, visually engaging animation from director Sylvain Chomet ("The Triplets of Belleville").  It's a gentle story that waltzes somewhere between enchantment and melancholy.

We open in Paris.  The year is 1959.  A lifelong performing magician prepares to take the stage.  The crowd is already restless.  Before the curtain goes up, the magician must tame his rather rebellious rabbit, who doesn't take too kindly to awaiting his emergence from a top hat.  Eventually the lights come up and...

He's done this for nearly his whole life.  We're not told this, but we can sense it.  His posture, even when not performing, seems perpetually bent forward.  As though he's in a constant state of bowing... an appreciation of anyone kind enough to spare a moment of attention.  Yet an act of performance art that once held the interest of audiences worldwide has now given way to more "modern" performances.  Most notably, rock 'n roll musicians.  Not fully deterred, the magician continues to travel the countryside, seeking random employment where he can.

His travels eventually lead him to an isolated village in Scotland.  There, he befriends a young girl whose interest is piqued upon his arrival.  She is delighted by his act, though doesn't see it as performance art... still innocent enough to leave the possibility open that actual magic can exist.  The eager young girl surreptitiously follows him aboard a ship toward his next destination.  He is surprised, but doesn't shoo her away.  (There's a nice moment when a ticket-taker asks for her pass.  She looks around.  Nervous.  Then glances at the magician and points.  He hesitates, but grins, nods, waves his hand and voila... a ticket appears in his hand.  Her ticket.)

His reluctance to send her back seems little more than an appreciation for her innocence.  The possibility of joy and delight is void in his life now, and he appears willing to afford her the belief that he can pull miracles out of thin air, even at the cost of his own financial situation.  They can both receive joy from this friendship.

They end up on Edinburgh, take refuge in a second-rate hotel that seems a boardinghouse for lost and desperate artists.  (A lonely ventriloquist, a heartbroken clown, and a trio of trapeze artists who double as canvas painters.)  It's here where the magician must face the painful truth that enchantment will ultimately have to be husked from the ear of cold reality.

That must be painful for those artists who forever seek self-esteem solely from their craft.  I've known people like this, and have always felt somewhat bad for them, though I know they wouldn't welcome the sentiment.  (I don't like to think of myself an cynical, but the whole Peter-Pan-never-want-to-grow-up thing never resonated with me.  I just can't bear the thought of clinging to an idea I knew those I loved would eventually grow out of.) 

Working from a script by Jacques Tati, director Sylvain Chomet conveys the melancholic beauty of the story though marvelously textured animation.  (The Edinburgh cityscape is especially alluring.)  There is no dialogue here.  Well, there's a few sporadic bits in french and Gaelic, but it's not used in the conventional sense.  It's more like additional set pieces... we're given just enough to know what's going on.  The strength of the film is how much is conveyed with visuals alone.  There's an effortless narrative grace to animation that's not overdone with CGI.

The movie also incorporates various laughs.  Some are better than others.  I liked the scene where the magician, in order to make ends meet, takes a job in a department store display, pulling ladies' garments out of thin air.  But there are awkward attempts at humor, too.  At one point, the magician believes the girl has cooked his rabbit for dinner in a scene that seems forced and a bit out of place. 

Despite a few awkward moments, I enjoyed the movie.  It's enchanting, funny, and yes... sad.  (The final shot in the film contains a revelation of surprising strength.)  Despite the melancholic nature of the story, I left the theatre with an appreciation for what the movie reminded me of... that the wonder and joyous possibility afforded though art may be fleeting, but can live forever in the minds of those fortunate enough to think back to when magic was the focus of their universe. 

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Another Year"

Runtime:2 hr. 9 min.

Rated R for language

Cast: Jim Broadbent, Lesley Manville, Ruth Sheen, Peter Wight, Oliver Maltman

Director: Mike Leigh

The key moment in Mike Leigh's "Another Year" comes right at the beginning.  We see a depressed middle-age woman (played by Imelda Staunton) in a clinic for what she describes as sleep-deprivation.  The doctor asks her questions about her personal life.  What could be giving her stress?  She doesn't want to answer.  Merely wants a drug to help her sleep. 

We see her only one other time during the course of the movie.  It's in a session with the psychologist at the same clinic... a kind-eyed counselor named Gerri (Ruth Sheen).  Again, the patient refuses to discuss the details of her personal life.  She doesn't seem angry.  There's no passion in her face.  No fury.  No vitriolic reactions to her environment.  Instead, her eyes gently shift back and forth... as though seeking a portal of escape from the darkness within.  She leaves the session, and we never see her again.

We do, however, see another character just like her in the film.  A major character.  She's the counselor's assistant at the clinic.  Her name is Mary (Lesley Manville).  Mary doesn't reach the same level of depression as the earlier patient until the movie's conclusion.  We don't draw the parallels between the two characters until the film's final shot.

The aforementioned parallel is the kind of character observation that seems to dot the cinematic landscape of director Mike Leigh.  One can describe "Another Year" as a movie where barely anything happens.  That appears to be the way Leigh likes it.  He's more interested in following where his characters end up as opposed to dictating their fates.  It's safe to say this movie isn't for everyone. 

Leigh is so enamored with the idea of letting his characters dictate the narrative direction that he doesn't really designate a lead.  Mary emerges as the dominant character, but the story begins by centering around the uniquely happy marriage of the counselor Gerri and her engineer husband, Tom (Jim Broadbent).  They are nearing their retirement, and have one of those rare, comfortable, happy unions.  The story takes place during the course of a year, as we follow various interactions between the couple and their closest ties.  Friends and family.  All trudging through their own marshes of pain and insecurity.

We meet their son, Joe (Oliver Maltman).  A seemingly well-adjusted young man though taking his sweet time in finding someone to share his life with.  We're also introduced to Tom's best friend, Ken (Peter Wight) who we're told was a strong, handsome young man in his youth, but is now constantly nursing an alcoholic beverage while lamenting over the cruel ticking of life's clock.  He can't bear the thought of being his age and single.  The desperation drips from his face.  Later in the story we meet Tom's brother, Ronnie (David Bradley) who has recently lost his wife.

And then there's Mary.  A towering inferno of insecurity, Mary feels the need to fill any silence with an endless spillage of banal observations... anything to avoid the horrific possibility that those in her field of gravity will judge her.  She finds herself attracted to Joe, and is deeply hurt to discover he has recently taken up with a lovely, high-spirited young woman named Katie (Karina Fernandez).  Her negative reaction toward Katie is blatant and coarse.  Mary keeps getting her name wrong and dismisses her input with glib remarks, until we realize that she's not jealous of Katie because of her relationship with Joe.  She's jealous of Katie for the same reason she's jealous of just about everybody... because they're happy and she's not.

A character-actor of unmatched talent, Lesley Manville is skilled at making Mary's bad luck the result of her own self-loathing.  We never really sympathize with her.  She's too self-destructive.  Consider the way she responds to Ken's romantic overtures toward her.  Ken being equally desperate, his puppy-dog facial expressions would wear on the nerves of even the most patient of women.  Yet her disgust is delivered in such a gratuitously over-the-top manner.  Repulsion is, after all, a self-hating sentiment, regardless of the direction in which it is aimed.

What makes films like this interesting is not knowing where the story will end up.  In a sense, it doesn't really end so much as lead back to the beginning.  You could say Mary and the depressed woman at the outset are, in a figurative sense, the same person.  Mary reminds me of the goofy driving instructor in Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky".  Mike Leigh gives resonance to characters that, in other movies, would qualify as little more than quirky narrative set-pieces that give a story color.  I like the fact that Leigh is invested in those types of characters.  It's rare for a movie to focus their attention on such individuals.

It bears repeating that this movie isn't for everyone.  It's quite modest.  Deliberately-paced.  The film quietly takes in its narrative elements.  Like the title suggests, it's merely an observation into the lives of people we know, or could know.  Or could love.  Or could be.  If you're seeking an escape from day-to-day humdrum, look elsewhere.  But as one who struggles daily with life's predicaments, this film resonates like few can.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"Waiting for Superman"

Runtime:1 hr. 42 min.

Rated PG for incidental smoking, some thematic material and mild language

Cast: Bianca, Anthony, Daisy, Emily, Francisco, Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, Randi Weingarten, David Levin, Mike Feinberg, Bill Strickland, Eric Hanushek

Director: Davis Guggenheim

Davis Guggenheim's searing documentary "Waiting for Superman" takes the crisis of education, plucks it from the plinth of knotty socio-political debate--where its enormity often invokes a feeling of surrender--and strips it down into digestible heartbreak.  Acquiescence is simply no option.

We're introduced to five young kids from different cities.  We hear their stories, learn their ambitions, and feel their pain as they struggle in the nation's underperforming schools.  The movie's climax has us bearing witness to a series of "lotteries" to determine whether they will be accepted into various charter schools.  It's sort of an anti-climax.  Not anti-climactic, mind you.  (The scenes are gut-wrenching as all hell.)  But as we're watching fate's fickle hand at work, we're taxed with the depressing reality that it shouldn't (and needn't) come down to a roll-of-the-dice to determine one's future. 

Interspersed throughout their stories are the perspectives of various administrators, teachers, authors, and so forth, as the film breaks down--to varying degrees--the causes and possible solutions to the problem.  The most tangible input comes from Geoffrey Canada, a teacher and administrator whose prescient view of the rapidly-intensifying problem's root cause led to the birth of several highly successful charter schools located throughout the country. 

Solutions often come from out-of-the-box thinking, and of course there are those who oppose such approaches, most notably teacher's union president Randi Weingarten.   She is shown here not so much in a pointedly negative spotlight, but a narrow one.  "We're opposed to anything that divides people and undermines education," she states in response to a radical proposal in regards to tenure.  It seems an oddly canned answer with objections that appear, to me anyway, cloudy at best and spurious at worst.

The most polarizing figure, however, is Michelle Rhee, who was appointed by former Washington, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty to the position of chancellor for the city's school system.  A fiercely-independent woman with no qualms about introducing the most radical of solutions, Rhee quickly became the target of vitriolic protests from parents, teachers, administrators, and the omnipotent union.  One proposed idea in particular was that teachers could choose to surrender their tenure for the chance to earn a larger sum of money through merit pay.  It was such a threatening concept to the union that a vote wasn't even afforded.  Individuals certainly had their reasons for contesting to the idea.  (One of the objections, I think, that people have with merit pay is the notion of who or what determines the "merit.")  Although the whole devil-you-know-versus-the-devil-you-don't thing can be a pretty jagged pill to swallow when your child's educational future is on the line.

A lot of people seem ambivalent in regards to Rhee.  I don't really have a problem with her for the same reason, I think, that the movie doesn't.  Unorthodox approaches need to be, at the very least, acknowledged regardless of what corner they originate.  Many questioned Rhee's qualifications, pointing to her lack of experience in administrative duties.  But to tackle problems successfully requires the full spectrum of learning and imparting.  We need people self-important but also important.  Knowledgeable but eager to learn.  Strong but empathetic.  I don't know if her ideas would have been the most effective, but I think it's unwise to dismiss said ideas based on whether you believe she has the "right" to express them.  Opinions are always better debated than suppressed.

The movie gazes into the abyss of various possible causes to the decline, some in more detail than others.  At one point, Guggenheim points out that part of the problem is something referred to as "The Blob".  It's when the federal government offers funding to schools based upon their own guidelines, yet individual states have their own guidelines as well, which muddies up the works and impacts how schools are funded.  Yet the film curiously doesn't go into greater detail on the machinations of this monetary quagmire. 

The most powerful sentiment that the movie offers is that ideas to fix the problem often lie near our doorstep but we need the cognizance and determination to take hold of those ideas, shape them, mold them, and reapply them in various ways.  Too often, the film argues, we rest at the mercy of theorists who dish out rhetoric on why certain approaches--while offering up morsels of hope--will never be totally effective in the long run.  Success stories like the charter schools started by Geoffrey Canada weren't brought about through rumination over how they might factor into the "long run."  He saw an approach that he thought could have an impact, and implemented it at the grassroots level.

Guggenheim draws an interesting parallel to when pilot and astronaut Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier.  Theorists claimed it couldn't be done.  That the aircraft wouldn't be able to sustain the pressure... would disintegrate.  Many pilots, as a result, stayed grounded rather than attempting the feat.  We're shown a clip from an interview with Yeager, where he doesn't come off as some kind of mythic superhero who stared in the face of danger and laughed.  "I heard what the theorists said.  I just didn't see it that way," he stated in a refreshingly matter-of-fact way.

The movie argues the same thing.  The title doesn't reflect the answer, but the fallacy.  The solution needn't come from fictional heroics, the heavens, or some kind of deus ex machina.  Rather, it must be bred from intelligence, compassion, determination, a little out-of-the-box thinking, and from those who can stare into the cyclonic core of a problem as it demands surrender and say... I just don't see it that way.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Eagle"

Runtime:1 hr. 54 min.

Rated PG-13 for battle sequences and some disturbing images

Cast: Channing Tatum, Jamie Bell, Donald Sutherland, Mark Strong, Tahar Rahim

Director: Kevin Macdonald

I think what gives honor its strength is that it requires no reason.  No logic.  No tangible end game to ignite its usage.  You either have it or you don't.

Honor and fear engage in a feature-length game of chicken in "The Eagle" about a young Roman warrior who ventures into the unexplored north Britain territory to recover his lost legion's most treasured symbol.  Fear dominates the region at a time (140 A.D.) when the unknown darkness was itself the most formidable of opponents.  But at a Roman outpost arrives its new leader... a young centurion named Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) brimming with courage.  The fear of the undiscovered is palpable, but will undoubtedly blink in the face of such honor.

We're told at the outset about the Roman Army's Ninth Legion, whose unexplained disappearance in the Scottish Highlands has become such a humiliation to the Roman Army that Hadrian's Wall was erected along the northern edge of Roman-ruled Britain to protect the land from whatever lurked in the uncharted highlands of Caledonia.  The commander of the Ninth Legion was the father of Marcus Aquila.  Twenty years after the legion's fall, Aquila has just arrived at his new command post.  Still haunted by the events surrounding his father's demise, he throws himself into his command with unbridled fervor, eventually earning the respect of his soldiers.

After being wounded in battle, he is given an honorable discharge, which he greets with cries of personal anguish.  His servitude to the Roman Empire is his life, as are the questions that still echo in his psyche about how his father died.  Hero or coward?  The thought of a sedentary existence with little to do but ponder such queries is too painful to endure.  To restore his family's name, Aquila opts to venture out into the unexplored highlands to locate The Eagle, as well as the truth about how his father met his end.

The Roman political circle disagrees with this decision.  Why risk another life?  To what end?  But Aquila will not be deterred.  He is aided by a slave named Esca (Jamie Bell) who was awarded to him after Aquila ordered mercy during a gladiator spectacle.  We don't know exactly why he spared the young Brit's life but then again, neither does Esca.  That's key.  If the slave detected a specific motive in Aquila, he'd be more inclined to betray him.  Instead, he pledges his allegiance despite a background that imbues in him a pointed hatred toward everything Aquila stands for.  The two set out.

The goal is not only the Aquila family name, but the lost legion's golden emblem.  "What's so great about a piece of metal?" asks Esca.  "The Eagle of the Ninth is not a piece of metal," Aquila counters.  "It is Rome."  I did find it somewhat strange that Aquila seems to be the only member of the Roman Army who feels this way.  Perhaps the remaining centurions were more governed by fear than ignited by courage.  Aquila and Esca eventually find themselves face-to-face with a tribe of savages that may, in fact, be the same ones that slaughtered the Ninth Legion.

The movie is a serviceable adventure, though not quite as rousing as one would expect.  Plus, it loses steam right at the point in the story where it should be gaining it.  The director is Kevin Macdonald, a gifted documentarian ("Touching the Void", "My Enemy's Enemy", and the Oscar-winning "One Day in September") who has also ventured into the narrative storytelling arena ("The Last King of Scotland", "State of Play").  His documentaries are more effective, I think.  "The Eagle" is a solid, competent effort that somehow doesn't possess the rousing spirit someone like Ridley or Tony Scott could have injected into it.  That may seem like a cheap criticism toward an acclaimed director, but an adventure like this needs a less stolid approach to the material.

The movie is also hampered by the one-dimensional performance from Channing Tatum, a very likable young man though he is.  His job is twofold.  He must embody the spirit of a warrior, but also convey the emotional arc of the character through what he uncovers.  Tatum gets the warrior part right, but seems unable to connect to the character's emotional core.  Jamie Bell is a bit better at conveying the fluctuations in Esca's perspective despite not having as much dialogue.  (Bell also possesses an exceptional poker face.  There are stretches of time when we're never quite sure of his intentions.)

It's a close call.  The action scenes are handled with serviceable skill.  The pacing is decent, though the plotting gets a bit muddy in the second half.  Jeremy Brock's screenplay seems better at building up the tension prior to the journey than the actual journey itself.  I just can't quite bring myself to recommend the film.  I admired a majority of the craftsmanship, but never got swept up in the action.  The movie tells the story of a rousing adventure without every fully becoming one.

* * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

"Just Go With It"

Runtime:1 hr. 50 min.

Rated PG-13 for brief drug references, partial nudity, language and frequent crude/sexual content

Cast: Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Brooklyn Decker, Bailee Madison, Nicole Kidman

Director: Dennis Dugan

Adam Sandler has evolved from a raw, sometimes abrasive, often funny young comedian into a perfectly nice man.  So nice, in fact, that I feel a tinge of guilt whenever I see a Sandler comedy I don't enjoy.  He appears to be trying to display a softer side to his humor.  That's all well and good, but I don't watch comedies expecting one's personal evolution of character.  I just want to laugh.

I haven't laughed nearly as much in the last few Sandler comedies, and barely cracked a smile in "Just Go With It".  It's a comedy that expends much more energy in attempting to find the humor in the situation than it does actually delivering it.  Sandler has gone from living on the fringe of comedy to playing the straight man here, navigating a sea of borderline lunatic personalities.

The movie is based on a French stage play by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Gredy.  Movies like this can work, but they need to possess a rising tide of comic madness.  High energy.  Lunacy.  An undercurrent of desperation.  This version is D.O.A.  The characters seemed no more intrigued by the plot than I did.  A premise like this needs to hit the ground running.  You can't do that when you hit face first.

Sandler plays Danny, a successful plastic surgeon with an outlook on love so cynical that he has decided the best way to avoid a broken heart is to pose as a married man in nightclubs as a means to attract women he needn't call on again.  His method works for a while, until he meets the woman of his dreams... a tall, stunning, twenty-three-year-old N'Sync fan named Palmer (Brooklyn Decker).  He doesn't pose as a married man with her.  They spend a night on the beach but in the morning she finds his "ring" in his pants pocket, assumes he's married.  Uh-oh.  With a little quick thinking, Danny tells her he's getting a divorce.  Palmer wants to meet the wife anyway.  He enlists the help of his longtime assistant at the office, the kind-hearted single mother Katharine (Jennifer Aniston).  He wants her to pose as his wife.  She reluctantly agrees.  Through a series of plot developments, Danny, Palmer, Katharine, Danny's brother Eddie (Nick Swardson) and Katharine's kids (Bailee Madison and Griffin Gluck) find themselves taking a week-long vacation together in Hawaii.

(Out of sheer boredom, I began to calculate the amount of money Danny was spending.  Between the high-end designer outfits to make Katharine look more like "a plastic surgeon's wife", the plane tickets, the meals, the excursions, the $12,000 per night room... the price tag had to be nearing the six-figure mark.  That's a high price to pay for a happy ending.  Any happy ending.)

I know nothing about the material upon which this premise is based, but Allan Loeb and Tim Dowling's screenplay contains very few actual zingers.  It's more a cacophony of rambling dialogue in search of a punch line.  There's no real sense of urgency, either.  We never understand why Palmer seems so special, beyond the fact that she's played by Brooklyn Decker.  Sandler and Aniston do seem comfortable in their scenes together, though it takes an excruciatingly long time for their characters to catch up to their feelings.

I don't have a problem with Sandler being the straight man in a comedy so long as the comedy is funny.  I felt bad for him here.  Nor do I enjoy piling on the spotty-at-best movie career of Jennifer Aniston, as it seems tantamount to bludgeoning a puppy.  Acting-wise, she's pretty much tethered herself to her comfort zone.  Sure, she's likable.  But is it really asking too much for that likability to be at the service of something other than a comic crutch?

Nick Swardson and Bailee Madison have a little fun with the quirks of their characters, although said quirks do grow tiresome after a while.  The juiciest bits of humor come from Nicole Kidman as Devlin, a spotlight-stealing sorority sister of Katharine's who has an impeccable sense of bad timing, and Dave Matthews as her hubby, whose existence is to support Devlin's facade of vacuous success.

No points for guessing how the story plays itself out.  Danny overcomes his fear of heartbreak.  But if you ask me, he still has problems.  If you have the head-scratching temerity to dole out a six-figure dollar amount for a vacation to support a lie in an effort to win over a beautiful woman only to find out that the person you truly love is someone you've known a majority of your life... the potential for a broken heart is the least of your worries.

*  out of  * * * *  stars

Ten Movies about Love...

...that have stayed with me.

I know, I know... how can one possibly narrow down a category such as this.  You could reasonably argue that all movies are, in one way or another, about love...

When Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) chooses to go on the mission back in time to save Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) in James Cameron's "The Terminator", he does so because he has fallen in love with her.  And in the adventure story "Rob Roy", when Robert MacGregor (Liam Neeson) finally engages in a sword duel with the vile, foppish Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth), he does so to avenge the assault on his wife (Jessica Lange) and regain his honor. 

There are tons of other examples like that.  So, what I've done here is compile a list of ten movies that deal, in various ways, with one-on-one romantic relationships.  But even that, I've discovered, is no easy task.  I mean, there are literally thousands of movies that could fall into this category, and trying to rank ten of them is borderline lunacy.  As a result, I've opted to leave out the most obvious selections.  The highest-echelon romances won't be included here.  No "Gone with the Wind", "An Affair to Remember", "Sophie's Choice", "Moonstruck" and on and on.  (There are so many that could be included here, so don't be shocked if your personal favorite romantic movie isn't listed below.)

Also, I've decided to leave out the most-well-known-but-not-quite-classics.  These can include everything from the very good romantic comedies ("When Harry Met Sally", "Say Anything") to the decent romantic dramas ("The Notebook") to more modest fare ("Titanic") to the downright overrated ("Sleepless in Seattle").

So what does that leave?  Well, I'm not saying what follows are the best romantic movies.  Or even the most romantic romantic movies.  These are ten selections that resonated with me for one reason or another.

Let us begin...

# 10 - "When a Man Loves a Woman"

A movie about the struggles of overcoming substance abuse, it's the love relationship between Michael (Andy Garcia) and Alice (Meg Ryan) that is the true driving force to the story.  The film is about more than one spouse's addiction to alcohol.  It's about how her recovery has a crippling effect on the way he views the marriage.  ("It was so much better in the old days, wasn't it, Michael?  I'd get drunk, I'd fall apart, and you'd put me back together.  That made you feel good!  And that's what hurts!")  This movie deals with substance abuse, but isn't really about it.  It's about a love relationship, through and through.  The film is so rich in its details... so effective at crystallizing the truth that even change for the best can be brutal for the journey itself. 

# 9 - "About Last Night..."

This movie hit theatres in 1986.  That's crucial, I think, to its success.  It was released prior to the romantic comedy being homogenized down into an Aniston-friendly-PG-fare.  The screenplay by Tim Kazurinsky and Denise DeClue was based on the David Mamet stage play "Sexual Perversity in Chicago" which explains the healthy dose of terrific zingers...  "You know, Joan, if you didn't have a pussy, there would be a bounty on your head--" followed up by  "And you are a schizophrenic, psychopathic, maladjusted social misfit who is clearly in the middle of a very deep homosexual panic."  But "About Last Night..." is more than just funny.  It's also smart and honest.  I admired how it dealt with the relationships between the lovers and their closest friends and how those relationships altered as a result of their union.  Most movie romances too easily exist in a vacuum.  This movie is far more intelligent than most.

# 8 - "Brokeback Mountain"

I didn't know what to expect from this movie.  I didn't expect anything bad.  (I've always admired the work of director Ang Lee.)  I guess I just wasn't sure how I'd react to the impact of this type of story.  I myself am not gay, though I've never been put off by homosexual unions.  (Nor do I possess a suspiciously overzealous aversion to male nudity, though the film never quite ventures there.)  The movie does a nice job of walking a narrative tightrope between an honest depiction of homosexual attraction without presenting it in an overly self-aggrandizing manner.  The sex is dealt with, but not focused on.  This is more a story of a forbidden love that lasts for years and greatly impacts Jack and Ennis as their lives attempt to veer down more "traditional" avenues. 

# 7 - "Chasing Amy"

I'm a big admirer of Kevin Smith.  The main thing I take away from his work is that he is not cynical.  That's key.  It's what makes his "Chasing Amy" the best, in my opinion, of his Jersey Trilogy.  Yes, his dialogue is frank, explicit and funny.  Yet the characters he creates are not masters of irony.  They come right out with what they feel, warts and all.  Whether it's a gay black man detailing the veiled racism in the Star Wars Trilogy ("You got cracker farm boy, Luke Skywalker.  Nazi-poster boy, blond hair, blue eyes.  And then... you got Darth Vader.  The blackest brother in the galaxy.  We're talkin' Nubian God!")  or a comic book author debating the sexual preferences of Archie and Jughead  ("You're out of your mind, Archie is not fucking Mr. Weatherbee!"), Smith's characters revel in their respective passions.  But what makes "Chasing Amy" so effective are the blossoming feelings Holden (Ben Affleck) has for his lesbian friend Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams).  In the world of Smith, her sexual preference is no match for his feelings, and the movie is brave enough to explore what happens when he expresses those feelings.  Here is a movie far more interested in how these characters grow than whether or not they end up happy together.

# 6 - "Pride and Prejudice"

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
                      -- Jane Austen

As explained in the opening line of Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", marriage is a business yet the characters more often than not are unable to resist the temptation to treat it as a pleasure.  Joe Wright's film adaptation of the Austen novel has Keira Knightley as the vibrant, kind, lovely young Elizabeth Bennet.  She is smart, has strong opinions, can love but can be equally firm in her convictions and unforgiving.  Her introduction to the unassumingly handsome but not always charming Darcy (Matthew McFadyen) is fraught with misunderstandings, complications, and wrong impressions.  The feelings are there immediately, but it's only when truths are revealed and they see the goodness in each other do they fall into each others' arms.  This movie is a delight.

# 5 - "In America"

This one may seem like a stretch, as you could say it's more about an immigrant family struggling to build a life for themselves than about a romantic relationship.  It is, but the love between the husband Johnny (Paddy Considine) and the wife Sarah (Samantha Morton) is always vibrating beneath the surface.  Just prior to moving to America, they lost a son named Frankie to an illness.  They still have two beautiful daughters (Sarah and Emma Bolger) and Johnny spares no attempts to provide them with a better life.  Yet his struggles coupled with the still fresh feelings of grief from both him and his wife are beginning to erect an emotional barricade.  The wife and daughters befriend an artist in their apartment building dying of AIDS (Djimon Hounsou) and Johnny is resentful.  He confronts the man.  "Are you in love with my wife?" he inquires.  The answer is a lightning bolt into reality.  "Yes.  And I'm in love with your daughters.  And you.  I'm in love with anything that is alive."  The whole movie turns on that moment.  The emotional climax comes at the end, after his daughter defiantly orders her father to "say goodbye to Frankie, dad."  He asks his wife to join him on the apartment balcony.  The night is warm.  The moon glows brightly in the sky.  They gaze out at the stars, hold each other, and together... in each others' arms... they bid goodbye to their son.

# 4 - "Shadowlands"

"Shadowlands" tells the story of how famed "Narnia" author and religious apologist C.S. Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) lived a successful but passionless life as an instructor at Oxford University until he met a spirited American poet named Joy Gresham (Debra Winger).  The power of the story isn't in the romance between Lewis and Gresham, but in how that relationship opens things up for Lewis.  Their love points a spotlight on the manner in which Lewis has shielded himself from pain behind a facade of philosophical doubt and understated intellectual authority bestowed upon him by his profession.  The tragic events that unfold force Lewis to confront his feelings of grief, and imbues in him the strength and conviction to share that grief with her son, Doug (Joseph Mazzello) in a scene of remarkable power.  This is a love story that transcends generations.

# 3 - "All the Real Girls"

David Gordon Green's thoughtful, introspective look at a small town romance between a known "womanizer" named Paul (Paul Schneider) and his best friend's sister Noel (Zooey Deschanel) is modestly-paced but rich in detail, as the characters grow, emerge from their respective shells, shed attitudes and learn things about themselves through the perceptions of others.  Not a single false moment.  The characters are shown in full dimension, resulting in a variegated array of opinions from viewers.  After I first saw the movie, I overheard debates from other patrons about whether the feelings and attitudes conveyed by different characters were genuine, honest, and true.  That's rare.  Most movies demand you view their characters a specific way by the time the end credits roll.  This film observes its relationships the way a documentary camera observes its subject.

# 2 - "Before Sunrise"

I love this movie.  It contains my single favorite romantic movie moment.  (A lovely scene in a record store listening booth, as both young lovers-to-be steal glances at one another while Kath Bloom's "Come Here" livens up the atmosphere.)   There's absolutely no melodrama in Richard Linklater's film.  There are no betrayals, no forced sentiment, no grandiloquent speeches.  Taking place over the course of an afternoon and a night, it involves little more than two young travelers who meet on a train, strike up a meaningful conversation, agree to disembark in Vienna and spend some time together.  Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) are both young, full of opinions, eager about the future, untouched by cynicism and fate's fickle hand.  Of course, this leads them to the mistaken belief that once they part ways, they can simply agree to meet in a year at the same location.  Naturally, life intervenes, the follow-up meet never takes place, and...

# 1 - "Before Sunset"

...they don't meet again until nine years later in Paris, when Jesse, now a writer on tour, encounters Celine in her favorite obscure book store.  I was originally going to put these two movies as one, but that would have been grossly unfair.  The situations are similar... both movies involve two characters deep in conversation, but their life situations are so vastly different that the movies cannot be lumped together.  What began nine years earlier as attitudes empowered by possibility and unencumbered by the relentless ticking of life's clock, has now become more complex.  More thoughtful.  Optimism has been replaced by emotional complexity and a greater sense of wisdom.   Their lives didn't turn out like they had planned.  (Whose does?)  But they do have a sharper view of what they want at this very point in their lives.  She takes him to her apartment.  He agrees to stay a while, yet we know he has a plane to catch.  Nine years earlier, he made sure to get her back on the train and on to her destination.  Now?  "Baby," she says to him.  "You're going to miss that plane."  He smiles.  Doesn't move a muscle.  "Yes, I am."

Yes, love rules in the movies.  Happy Valentine's Day, readers!