Shooter

Shooter

3 Stars

Fresh off his Oscar nomination for “The Departed”, Marky Mark Wahlberg stars as a retired Marine sharpshooter framed for the attempted assassination of the president, and the successful one of an African Bishop in Antoine Fuqua’s new film, “Shooter.”

Bob Lee Swagger (Wahberg) lives in self-imposed exile in the Colorado mountains three years after a botched sharp shooting mission that resulted in the death of his spotter, Donnie Fenn. Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) goes to great lengths to find him, as Swagger is one of the very few sharpshooters who would be able to pull off a similar shot they believe will be used to kill the president (over a mile away). After being set up for the assassination attempt, Swagger’s only allies, disgraced FBI agent Nick Memphis (Michael Peña) and Fenn’s widow Sarah (Kate Mara), help him track down the organizers of the conspiracy and bring them to justice.

The film comes off as the second coming of “Die Hard.” Action flick centering on one man against the world with a somewhat interesting back story. And in that, it’s derivative. It’s an intriguing concept, and done well, but it’s the type of movie we’ve seen before in the action genre. It’s one of those flicks that you’ll be torn over. It’s good, but it’s familiar.

This film needed Wahlberg more than Wahlberg need this film. He can act, as he’s proven time and time again since “Boogie Nights” in 1997, right up to his aforementioned performance in “The Departed” last year. And he gives a fine performance in this flick. But he needs some career guidance. I mean really, Marky Mark, you’re so much better than this. You should do another comedy, like “I Heart Huckabees.”

Peña (“Crash”, “World Trade Center”) continues his rise to prominence as an actor. This isn’t exactly the best film to show off his talent, nor does he get to. But his talent is noticeable and being in a high profile flick will only help his career as a relatively unknown actor.

Fuqua became sort of a cinematic darling in 2001. He directed Denzel Washington to his Best Actor win in “Training Day” and the critics set the bar high for his next cinematic efforts. But unfortunately he fell victim to what I call the Shyamalan Syndrome. Fantastic film for their first major effort to get critical acclaim, and expectations were set too high and the following films, while good in their own right, just didn’t match those expectations. He can craft a good flick, but he has yet to really find his own voice, or stand out in anyway. But I’m rooting for him to do so.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad film that was given to us. It’s enjoyable, an entertaining way to spend a couple ours at the theatre. But you could really watch any other action flick and not really be missing out. It’s an ultimately forgettable movie that has little consequence. I can recommend it as a nice way to escape, but for serious cinema, you should look elsewhere.

Reign Over Me

Reign Over Me

4.5 stars

Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle give intense performances in Mike Binder’s beautiful and subtle ode to depression, “Reign Over Me”. And who would have thought that an Adam Sandler flick would bring a tear to my eye?

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) lost his family in the September 11 attacks, and has spent the last five and a half years grieving in his own way. One day his old college roommate, Alan Johnson (Cheadle), runs into him on the street and they start to reconnect. Though Charlie barely remembers Alan, they spend time together, with Alan using Charlie as an escape from his mundane life as a dentist and a married man. He eventually feels it necessary to get Charlie help, which he is reluctant to do. This culminates in a court case to determine what to do with Charlie.

Sandler has taken a crack at dramatic acting before in the little seen indie flick “Punch Drunk Love” and the even less seen major release film “Spanglish”, both to mixed reviews concerning his actual acting ability. But with “Reign Over Me”, he joins the ranks of fellow comedians turned dramatic actors, such as Jim Carrey, Jamie Foxx, Robin Williams and Bill Murray for turning out an engaging, dramatic and completely award worthy performance. His trademark goofiness is what enhanced the weight of his performance.

Sure Binder could have gone with a known dramatic actor to play a man barely living with grief, but it’s Sandler’s comfort with comedy and uneasiness in drama that really makes Charlie a relatable and sympathetic character. You can see the man he used to be aching to get out, but it’s repressed by the intense emotions he’s experiencing. Anyone can act. It’s tough to make it look easy. Sandler makes it look easy. He captures the spirit and the look of depression and you can tell he understands. And then you understand what he’s going through.

Cheadle and the rest of the cast all lend a different perspective to the essence of Charlie. Alan knew Charlie before the attacks, but didn’t know anything about his wife or daughters, aside from what he read in the papers following the attacks. This is why Charlie attached himself to Alan. Alan is Charlie’s most visible support system. The chemistry between Cheadle and Sandler makes for a great cinematic pairing, and I hope it’s not just a one hit wonder for the two.

Donald Sutherland, B.J. Novak (“The Office”) and Liv Tyler in their respective supporting roles are particularly engaging in their own ways, each giving something for Sandler to bounce off of.

I’m quite fond Binder’s recent cinematic offerings. “The Upside of Anger” in 2005 was a hidden gem, and this is just a beautiful peace of work. He has this way of crafting what could otherwise be a conventional, archetypal story and turn it into something new and intriguing.

As a critic, there are certain things you’re fairly certain you’ll never do. When I started out, I was certain I’d never sing the praises of an Adam Sandler flick, let alone his performance in particular. I’m routinely impressed by performers I had originally written off, but who would have thought Sandler would turn out to be one of those performers? I didn’t. That’ll teach me to write them off.

I Think I Love My Wife

I Think I Love My Wife

1.5 Stars

Good romantic comedies are hard to make. Good romantic comedies geared toward a male audience are damn near impossible to make. I can think of one good one, and it is not Chris Rock’s latest vehicle, “I Think I Love My Wife” (it’s “High Fidelity”).

In “I Think I Love My Wife”, Rock stars as Richard Cooper, a bored investment banker whose relationship with his wife, Brenda (Gina Torres, “Serenity”) has come to a stand still. Enter old college friend Nikki (Kerry Washington, “Ray”), who has come to him looking for help, first in getting a job, then in getting an apartment and it just spirals out of control from there. Thoughts of infidelity swarm through Richard’s head as Nikki tempts him throughout the course of their newly reformed friendship.

Rock is without a doubt one of the funniest stand-up comedians working today. But he’s a terrible actor. His background in stand-up is evident, he tells a joke on screen, then holds for laughs. This permeates through to the rest of the cast, and it drags everybody’s performances down. Even the great Steve Buscemi can’t escape this fate.

While Rock and fellow comedian Louis C.K. were able to construct a mostly funny strain of jokes into a somewhat coherent plot, it wasn’t enough. The writing was too all over the place. It wasn’t consistent enough.

Rock as a director has yet to impress me. His first film “Head of State” was a disaster, and this flick wasn’t much better. And it’s unfortunate, because he’s one of my favorite comedians, so I like to support him in what he does, but his other projects just don’t work. If he finds the right project, and I don’t know what that would be, but if he finds the right project, he could have a great movie. He just needs to find and do the right one.

This flick failed where “High Fidelity” succeeded. “High Fidelity” was a romantic comedy geared towards a male audience, and it was a group of guys talking about what guys go through in their love lives and it was something that guys could relate to. Maybe it was John Cusack’s “average guy” appeal that propelled that movie to a higher level. But Rock doesn’t have that. All the characters were basically stereotypes. The gorgeous forbidden fruit tempts the bored businessman away from his overbearing yet sexually disinterested wife, and his cheating business partner is rooting him on, yet telling him to be careful.

The only thing that I thought was smart or clever about the flick was the development of the Nikki character. She was always representing the forbidden, the taboo of our modern culture. When Richard and Brenda go shopping, Brenda buys plain under garments, while Nikki buys more risqué lingerie. Nikki is always shown smoking, with someone telling her she can’t. Richard has grown up, has responsibilities, and Nikki invites him out to the clubs one night. So she’s not just a sexual temptress, there’s more to her that could be seen as forbidden to Richard. I found it to be the cleverest thing about the movie.

Now, it certainly isn’t the worst romantic comedy ever made, it’s not even the worst romantic comedy this year. But if you want to laugh at other people’s love lives, one of my favorite pastimes, you could do much better than “I Think I Love My Wife.” Because I know I hate this movie.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End trailer

Zodiac

Zodiac

4.5 stars

More about the obsessive search for the killer than about the killer itself, “Zodiac” is a slow moving, subtle thriller from the mind of David Fincher (“Se7en”, “Fight Club”). Its strong cast and compelling script make this the first great movie of the year, and hopefully one to watch in the far off award season.

In the late 1960s into the early 70s, the self-proclaimed Zodiac killer terrorized much of Northern California with his seemingly random shootings and cryptic messages to the press. San Francisco Chronicle crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) was assigned to the case and soon took cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) under his wing, after he offers a unique insight into the case. Working with Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards), the case consumes the men as they try to figure out who the mysterious Zodiac is.

Star studded cast lists can really go either way, it can make a film really good, or the clash of the egos mentality on set could destroy a film. And luckily for us it’s the former not the latter. Gyllenhaal keeps getting better and better since his breakout performance in “Donnie Darko” six years ago. I hesitate to say “performance of his career” since we have yet to see all he has to offer, but I wouldn’t be surprised that at the end of his career, this performance is listed among his best. Downey, Jr. has been slowly making a return since his legal and substance abuse troubles several years ago, and with this performance he says “I’m back.” He channels his checkered past to play the broken down, chain-smoking, alcoholic Avery, and adds an air of intrigue and mystery to what could have been an archetypal and stale reporter character.

Keep an eye on the rest of the cast, including Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as cops in charge of other Zodiac related cases, Chloe Sevigny as Graysmith’s doting but frustrated girlfriend turned wife, and John Carroll Lynch as the prime Zodiac suspect. They all turn out great performances that pump up the caliber of the flick.

The story the actors tell is just as compelling as the performances they give. Based on Graysmith’s non-fiction books about the hunt for the Zodiac, writer James Vanderbilt scores a hit after a string of critical flops (“Darkness Falls” and “The Rundown” come to mind), and delivers a unique thriller. Where others may have concocted a sweeping fictional story about who the Zodiac is, and why he did what he did, Vanderbilt stayed with the real fear of the story- we don’t know anything about the Zodiac. We don’t know who he is, or what his motives were. And there is nothing more terrifying to humans than the unknown, especially the unknown that can and will kill you.

And what is great is that it totally redefines the “period drama.” That’s usually a designation applied only to grand epics set against the Civil War, or something similar. But why can’t a movie set in the 70s about a uniquely 70s event that captures the essence of the time period be considered a period drama? As we grow further and further away from certain distinct periods of time, and expand our capabilities of capturing the time period on film, the definition of a “period drama” becomes more and more broad.

It gets a little slow at points, but the drawn out cat and mouse aspect is one of the things that make it such a gripping film. I want to see more from everyone involved, as this is fantastic work, but no where near the pinnacle, from the entire cast and crew.

300

300

5 Stars

Zak Snyder’s cinematic adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel “300” is operatic, beautiful, violent, visceral, emotional, gorey, poetic and just plain bad ass. I could go on and on with adjectives, but the best way to describe it is “Gladiator” on acid.

“300” is the story of Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler, “The Phantom of the Opera”) and his courageous stand at the Battle of Thermopylea in 480 BC. At that battle, Leonidas led just 300 Spartan warriors against over one million troops under the command of Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro, “Love Actually”). He proved that it’s not so much how many troops you fight with, but where you fight that can be a deciding factor. As the battle progresses, it becomes clear that it wasn’t whether or not the Spartans won that mattered to them, it was what the battle meant, freedom, that was important.

It’s told as a myth, or a campfire tale. Exaggerated for effect, larger than life characters, stunning visuals emphasize the story, as told through the eyes of battle participant Dilios (David Wenham, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). Xerxes is portrayed as an eight foot tall behemoth, cruelly lording over his subjects and troops. The strange animals the Persians brought in to the fight (rhinos and elephants) are gigantic monstrosities that strike fear into the hearts of the Spartans. And the traitorous Spartan hunchback who betrays the Spartan weakness to the Persians is a grotesque monster who has no place amongst the chiseled, heroic Spartan warriors.

Zak Snyder showed so much promise with his take on “Dawn of the Dead” in 2004, and after a series of failed or struggling projects, including a remake of “Day of the Dead” and the long awaited “Watchmen” project (now slated for a 2008 release), he comes into his own with an adaptation of Frank Miller’s epic graphic novel.

Snyder took a page from the Robert Rodriguez (“Sin City”) book of digital filmmaking, and shot the entire flick against a blue screen. Where other filmmakers have failed to produce competent performances and a compelling story to match the stunning visuals (I’m looking at you George Lucas), Rodriguez and Snyder have been able to craft amazing movies with a visual style unparalleled by any of their colleagues, and are able to construct fascinating and wonderful stories to prove that it’s not just a complete orgy of effects.

When watching this style of filmmaking, I get mixed feelings. On the one hand, it’s beautiful, and a few practitioners have been able to do fantastic work with it. On the other hand, if it catches on we could get a bunch of overzealous young filmmakers who won’t take the time to actually craft a watchable movie, and then the style won’t be able to realize its full potential. Here’s hoping competent professionals like Rodriguez and Snyder take the time to perfect it.

Butler is the perfect Leonidas. He exudes the sheer masculinity of the Spartans. He breaks down the complex emotions of the Spartan mind to show the respect he has for his fellow Spartans and the utter disdain he has for the Persians. There’s a deep sense of honor and loyalty exhibited by the Spartan warriors that is heartbreaking when they’re at the final showdown. Dominic West (“The Forgotten”) as the backstabbing and conniving Theron was the perfect foil to that ideal set forth by Leonidas and his warriors.

“300” is a welcome departure from the standard “swords and sandals” epic that enjoyed a brief resurgence with “Gladiator,” but went awry with “Troy” and “Alexander.” It’s a re-visioning of the genre, and it’s a simply fantastic film, in every sense of the word. This is one to watch come awards season next year.

More Movie Trailers

Hey all you hooligans, got some more movie trailers for you... as usual, they're from Apple.com, so they're in Quicktime format. If you go to movies.yahoo.com, they're in both quicktime and Windows Media Player.

Grindhouse
Underdog
In The Land of Women
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres
First Snow
Fracture
The Ex
Lucky You
Across The Universe
Knocked Up

The Number 23

The Number 23

2 Stars

Oh what a tangle web Joel Schumacher weaves. And he almost gets too intricate with his new thriller, “The Number 23” starring Jim Carrey and Virginia Madsen.

“The Number 23” is a film about obsession and psychosis. Walter Sparrow (Carrey) is a dog catcher running late for a date with his wife (Madsen). While she waits for him, she stops by a late night book store and picks up an odd novel called “The Number 23” by an unknown author named Topsy Kretts. As Walter begins reading it, he finds an increasing number of strange coincidences between the book’s main character Fingerling and himself. This soon consumes him as he begins to explore the origin of the book, including the investigation of a 15 year old murder.

I couldn’t watch this film without films like “Se7en” or “Fight Club” (both directed by David Fincher) popping into my mind. It’s got that same sort of feel to it, a gritty psychological thriller with a huge twist ending looming on the horizon. And that’s the mark of faulty directing. I’m reminded of another director’s work, a particular director’s work. Schumacher didn’t leave an impression on me. I know he can handle the thriller. “Flatliners” was a fantastic film. But I can’t help but think this film would have been better under the direction of Fincher. Schumacher just could not get this film to work right for him. He didn’t leave his mark on it.

The script gets too smart for its own good. It wants to be clever in it’s revealing of the plot and the surprise twist ending, but this ploy is something we as Americans have become so accustomed to with the works of Fincher and M. Night Shyamalan, that we start to expect twist endings, and begin guessing them before the film is even halfway over. If it’s not done just right, then the ending will be very apparent. It wasn’t done right; I could see this coming halfway through, which was a detriment to the enjoyment of the movie.

Central to the flick’s plot is the titular number 23. It has this mystical connection to the life of Sparrow. Key dates in his life add up to be 23, or 32, 23 reversed. The number pops up on the signs, buses, jerseys and license plates he sees. It’s even hidden in the colour his walls are painted. The number 23 is just a myth. Like one character says in the flick, if you look for it, you’ll find it. Too many inconsistencies in the theory though. On some dates you have to add all the numbers, in some you exclude the year, in some you exclude the month and day, in some you exclude the day. How do you know which one you include? As long as you can get 23, it works. It’s stacking the odds in your favour.

So what elevates this film? Jim Carrey does. He’s grown so much as a performer since he hit it big 13 years ago with “Ace Ventura”. It’s curious as to why some critics and award shows are still unwilling to recognize his talent. This isn’t by any means his finest performance, but it is a damn fine one. I can only hope to see more of this sort of serious work from him in the future.

I thought it would have been funny or clever to include a hidden message in the review, maybe by circling every 23rd word in the review, you’ll get the meaning of life. But that would turnout just like the film I’m reviewing- utterly pointless.

Because I Said So

Because I Said So

1.5 Stars

Valentine’s Day is one of the many days of the year where the guy in the relationship gets the raw deal. Not only do we have to unload insane amounts of money on gifts for our significant others, but some of that money has to go to losing an hour and a half of your life to trite, glorified examples of so called romance. And this year is no different, as audiences are offered acting legend Diane Keaton wasting her talent alongside the likes of Lauren Graham (“Gilmore Girls”), Piper Parabo (“Coyote Ugly”) and Mandy Moore (“Saved”) in the clichéd romantic comedy “Because I Said So”, a movie which can coincidentally, given the day job of one of the stars, be described as “Gilmore Girls: The Movie!”

Keaton portrays Daphne, the overbearing, single mother to her married daughters Maggie (Graham) and Mae (Perabo) and the romantically challenged youngest daughter Milly (Moore). Daphne decides to take Milly’s personal matters into her own hands and posts a personal ad on an online dating service, and finds two potential candidates: Johnny (Gabriel Macht) who seems to genuinely like Milly, and Jason (Tom Everett Scott) who Daphne likes for Milly.

As I’ve already been cynically scathing, I’ll take a brief moment to highlight the positive aspects of the flick. It shatters the long held male archetypal characters and reverses it, with decent enough results. In a standard chick flick the hard edged musician with tattoos is supposed to be the jerk that the girl is with, and there’s the charming, mildly funny, successfully stable man who she’s supposed to end up with. They reverse the roles for us, showing us in the only moment of reality in the movie that the supposed “one” could be anyone; it’s not necessarily the classic prince charming.

Keaton has been proving to us for the past nearly 40 years that she has a phenomenal talent. Yet like most great actors, she’ll squander that talent every so often on meaningless drivel like this. This isn’t to say she’s particularly bad in the role; it’s just obviously beneath her. Though the collective talent of Graham, Perabo and Moore seem to march right instep with this kind of film, and I unfortunately expect to see more of the same from each actress.

Macht (“The Good Shepherd”) is one of those actors that I’ve always found myself wondering why he isn’t better known. He’s certainly got the talent, and paid his rom-com dues eight years ago with “Simply Irresistable”, so why hasn’t he moved on. He didn’t so much as phone in his performance, as it was almost just too easy for him to pull off.

The chick flick formula really needs to be refined. All the scripts feature striking similarities that it gets painful to watch. All four leading ladies have to do a song and dance to a Seventy’s pop staple. Someone spills an important food item all over themselves and the floor and it’s the funniest thing ever. And the standard ending of big revelation leading to big fight leading to big break up leading to tearful reunion is firmly in place, and clearly has no sign of going anywhere in the near future. And then there’s the “not-too-old for love” sub-plot they throw Keaton.

It really could have worked in the right hands, as far as the script is concerned. What “Field of Dreams” did for the father/son relationship, this one could have done for the mother/daughter relationship. Unfortunately it had the same air about it that “Gilmore Girls” does: insistent and annoying.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End trailer