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

Smokin' Aces

Smokin’ Aces

4 Stars

It’s almost Valentine’s Day and that means a slew of “chick flicks” will be released for girlfriends to drag their unsuspecting boyfriends to. But after you see a cheesy romantic flick, she owes you, and you can take her to “Smokin’ Aces”, the definition of a badass guy flick.

Buddy “Aces” Israel (Jeremy Piven) is a strung out Las Vegas showman and wannabe mobster. As he’s about squeal on the Mafioso who helped him with his frame, a $1 million bounty is put on his head, and oddly his heart. A huge cache of colorful characters decide to cash in, including bondsman Jack Dupree (Ben Affleck), crazy neo-Nazi brothers called The Tremors, and Georgia Sykes (Alicia Keys), posing as one of Israel’s many hired prostitutes. Meanwhile, FBI agents Carruthers and Messner (Ray Liotta and Ryan Reynolds) are charged with making sure Israel testifies as planned.

It’s violent, it’s bloody, it’s stylish and it’s sheer entertainment. Writer/director Joe Carnahan marks his return after a nearly five year absence since his debut with the fantastic “Narc”. He comes on with a visual style that seems like a restrained Tony Scott, which is good, as Scott tends to go overboard on a regular basis. Carnahan orchestrates a gritty, no holds barred crime action flick with plenty of laughs and plenty of heart. Not to mention one of the best twist endings in recent years. Unfortunately, he started to show his hand on the ending a bit too soon, leaving the audience to contemplate it before the major revelation at the end.

Piven (“Entourage”) as the conflicted, opportunistic and coked up Israel gives what could have been an Oscar worthy performance, but “Aces” just isn’t that kind of movie. Reynolds (“Van Wilder”) also gives a noteworthy performance as the cocky turned devastated FBI agent. His character runs the full range of emotions in this film, and Reynolds handles them all spot on. Even Affleck turned in a decent, yet brief, performance. I’m just curious as to how much longer Andy Garcia is going to keep doing an Al Pacino impression.

But beyond the stars, it’s the entire cast that makes this flick work. If even just one was off, it would have come down like a house of cards. But they all work together with Swiss watch-like efficiency that it can’t help but be just pure fun times.

Despite the good time I was having in the theatre, I couldn’t help but get the feeling I had seen this all before. He drew influence from the work of Quentin Tarantino, Tony Scott and Guy Ritchie. All had perfected that sort of big, ensemble, bombastic crime comedy/drama with “Reservoir Dogs”, “True Romance” and “Snatch” (respectively), and Carnahan took a page from each one of those films to craft his film. This doesn’t detract from the ability to enjoy his flick, or the fact that it is good in its own right, not by any stretch of the imagination. It just feels that in the 16 years since Tarantino came out with “Reservoir Dogs”, it would be high time for a reinvention of the genre.

The Queen

The Queen

4.5 Stars

Slow in pace but beautifully realized, “The Queen” paints a portrait of one of the most devastating events in modern British history, and how it affected the two most important people in the country, Queen Elizabeth II and freshly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair.

On August 31, 1997, Princess Diana, ex-wife of Prince Charles, heir apparent to the throne, was killed in an auto accident in Paris. “The Queen” concerns itself with the events between Blair and the Queen in the week between Di’s death and her funeral a week later.

What director Stephen Frears (“High Fidelity”) has shown us is the look from the inside. In 1997, it was easy for the British public, and indeed the world to stand from the outside looking in, judging the Royal family’s handling of the death of Princess Diana. But what we don’t get while we’re our own high horse is what Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and the rest of the family was actually going through. And this film shows a considerable amount personal grief over Di’s death, and personal conflict between their duty to the people, and their need to personally grieve.

Peter Morgan’s (“The Last King of Scotland”) screenplay is powerfully effective, if slow moving. But it shouldn’t be faulted for being slow moving. It’s more of a mournful, thoughtful piece about the people involved, than it is about plot development. It’s a plot we’re all familiar with, so it focuses all of its energy on telling the story, then developing it.

Helen Mirren (“Gosford Park”) recently won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Academy Award for her powerhouse performance as Queen Elizabeth II, and she is certainly worthy of all the accolades she is receiving. She handled the quiet, solemnity of her character with the proper amount of grace one would expect of the Queen. What marks a standout performance for me is if I can imagine anyone else in that role, and I couldn’t. She was perfect. Vegas odds makers have even stopped taking bets on the “Best Actress” category for this year’s Oscars, as they consider her to be a shoe-in.

The rest of the cast is simply magnificent. Michael Sheen (“Kingdom of Heaven”) was superb as the conflicted, opportunistic and eventually sympathetic Tony Blair. In the past 10 years, Blair has made some political missteps, in the eyes of his countrymen, and those must be overlooked to properly appreciate his character in this film. This was the Tony Blair of 1997, just five months into his first term, not the Tony Blair of 2003 who made the unpopular decision of backing President Bush in Iraq. Sheen did a fantastic job of portraying the rookie Prime Minister, and at times outshines Mirren, though unfortunately isn’t getting quite the same notice as she is.

James Cromwell (“L.A. Confidential”) as the bullheaded Prince Philip (Elizabeth’s husband) was a great dynamic for the soft spoken Queen. And Alex Jennings (“The Four Feathers”) was pitch-perfect as the shy, wishy-washy Prince Charles.

I can’t recommend “The Queen” for everyone. It’s not for everyone. It’s distinctly a British film. There’s so much in the film concerning British politics, culture and society that would just confuse those who aren’t familiar with it. It would be perfect for a more worldly crowd. It is, however, a beautifully made film with some of the finest performances of the year and would love to see it take home an Oscar or two.

More Trailers

Hey everyone, I've got some more movie trailers for you. I'm loooking forward to all of these flicks.

Black Snake Moan
Reign Over Me
The Lookout
Hot Fuzz
Live Free or Die Hard
Shooter
Seraphim Falls
Rescue Dawn

Dreamgirls

Dreamgirls

3 stars

Since “Moulin Rouge” was dubbed the second coming of the movie musical in 2001, audiences have been waiting for that second coming. “Chicago” was a hit in 2002, and now “Dreamgirls” 2006. But with it too being dubbed the second coming of the movie musical, I’m left to wonder, just how long will we have to wait for that genre to be fully realized in the 21^st century?

“Dreamgirls” is the story of a struggling girl group called The Dreams in the 60’s and 70’s, based on The Supremes. Pop superstar Beyoncé Knowles, relative newcomer Anika Noni Rose and former “American Idol” contestant Jennifer Hudson star as Deena, Lorrell and Effie (respectively) the groups founding members. The movie tracks their ascension to stardom, with the help of manager Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx) and their writer/choreographer C.C. (Keith Robinson). The girls start as the back up singers for soul star James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy), and soon eclipse him in popularity. On the brink of making it big, Effie catches diva fever and is asked to leave the group. From then on it’s torrid love affairs, drug use and backstabbing, everything you’d expect from a musical biopic.

Murphy is fantastic as Early, who is probably based on a composite of Wilson Pickett, Marvin Gaye and James Brown. He was a dynamite performer, hitting with dead on accuracy the on stage antics and mannerisms of a 60’s soul and R&B singer. Knowles in the Diana Ross inspired role of Deena Jones was impressive, both vocally and dramatically, and comes into her own as an actress. Foxx and Robinson are both engaging in their supporting roles

Hudson is garnering the most notice from award shows and major critics. And I for one don’t understand the accolades. It was her film debut, and it showed. She can sing, and I’ll give her that. She has an amazing set of pipes on her. But in a film, even a musical, vocal talent is only a portion of what makes a great performance. Her acting was right at where I’d expect a newcomer to be. It needs work. It wasn’t quite there for me. And for that, I can’t really understand why she’s getting the most notice.

Where this film really falls apart is the storytelling. Director Bill Condon adapted Tome Eyen’s stage musical, and it’s poorly structured. It reminds me of when a five-year-old is telling a story, it just comes across as “and then this happened, and then this happened and then this happened” with absolutely no grasp of flow or basic story telling elements.

There seemed to be a heavy emphasis on style over substance. It was flashy, shiny, and hits you with a beautiful visual presentation, but there wasn’t much more to it than that. It’s almost fitting that a former “American Idol” contestant stars in this movie, as the best way to describe it is a quote often used by “Idol” judge Simon Cowell: “Yeah it was good, but so what?”

I was entertained, and it was pleasing to the eye, but at the end of the flick, I didn’t really care. It was two shallow hours. It’s not a bad thing, but this film was made with higher intentions than sheer entertainment, and it failed to achieve those higher intentions.

Top 10 Films of 2006

Top 10 Films of 2006

1) Brick

Joseph Gordon Levitt (“3^rd Rock From The Sun”) stars in this classic/hype (modern) noir fusion juxtaposed into a high school setting. The talented young cast handles the archaic genre with a certain flair and earnestness that kicks you in the gut, and leaves you begging for more. Think “The Maltese Falcon” meets “The Breakfast Club.”

2)The Departed

Director Martin Scorsese delivers a gripping, compelling and slickly violent film, which could finally win him that Oscar he’s been long overdue for. Stars Matt Damon and Leonardo Dicaprio outshine their more seasoned costars, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen and the legendary Jack Nicholson, and deliver career defining performances.

3) United 93

Director Paul Greengrass gives us an unflinching, heartbreaking and gut-wrenching account of the final moments of the ill-fated flight that never reached its intended target on 9/11. I can’t think of a more fitting cinematic tribute to fallen heroes. It’s no frills movie making, and it delivers an emotional blow without delving into the politics of 9/11.

4) Clerks II

Kevin Smith finally does what he tried to do with “Jersey Girl”- balances his trademark wit and bawdiness with heartfelt sentiment. More of a piece on growing up, moving on and friendships than it is about sex jokes. But there’s no shortage of those, mind you. It almost pains me to say that it surpasses the original “Clerks”, just because that was such a landmark film.

5) Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Sacha Baron Cohen’s scathing satire of the American way of life forces you to take a
long hard look at the country you live in. Niiiiice! The funniest scene in the whole flick, involving a “Baywatch” book and a hotel, is one you want to forget as soon as you see it, but will be forever burned into your memory, and will make you both laugh and cringe just thinking about it. HIGH FIVE!!!

6) Find Me Guilty

Sidney Lumet shows us why he’s been making movies for almost 60 years, and that even a lunk-head like Vin Diesel can pull off a fantastic and engaging performance every once in a while. The funniest courtroom movie since “My Cousin Vinny,” but there’s a distinct, more intense tone to this one.

7) Thank You For Smoking

Absurd, crass, and just too funny to pass up, “Thank You For Smoking” is one of the sharpest, darkest comedies to come along in years. It will have you rooting for the bad guy the whole way through. Aaron Ekhart becomes a full-fledged leading man with his role as smooth talking tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor.

8) A Scanner Darkly

Insanely trippy and mind-blowingly good, Richard Linklater takes another crack at the roto-scoping animation technique he first tried in 2001’s “Waking Life”. The always spot-on Robert Downey, Jr. gives a magnificent performance in the tale of a new psychotropic drug in futuristic Los Angeles. And keep you’re eye on Keanu Reeves, he’s not as flat as he usually is.

9) Little Miss Sunshine

Proof that family road trip movies aren’t dead, they just need the right medicine. Equal parts heartwarming and heart breaking, “Little Miss Sunshine” is one finely crafted film. The film is most notable for its stars, including 10 year old break out Abigail Breslin and funny-man Steve Carrell, who plays it straight as the gay, suicidal uncle.

10) Blood Diamond

Leonardo Dicaprio gives the strongest performance of his career as Danny Archer, a diamond smuggler embroiled in a personal moral conundrum involving the location of a rare pink diamond. The one to watch though is the always engaging Djimon Hounsou (“Gladiator”) as the desperate Mende father trying to keep his young son out of the guerilla troops of Western Africa, and Archer is his only ally in doing so.

Embed This Video | Visit Fox Searchlight

The Nativity Story

I feel it necessary to start off this review by stating that I am an atheist. I choose not to have any religion in my life. But I’d also like to state that I can fully enjoy a religious themed movie. The Passion of the Christ was a good movie. But The Nativity Story just simply is not.

The Nativity Story is one of the most familiar stories in the Western world, and is routinely told at this time of year. It’s the story of Jesus’ birth. And this film from director Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen) covers his immaculate conception to his humble birth. Following the arranged marriage of Joseph (Oscar Isaac) and Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes, The Whale Rider), Mary is visited by The Angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig, Star Trek: Deep Space 9), telling her that she will carry and give birth to the son of God. She flees Nazareth for a brief period to gather her thoughts, staying with her cousin Elizabeth (Shohreh Agdashloo, 24) who is also miraculously pregnant. Mary returns noticeably pregnant, and is at first an outcast, but after Gabriel visits Joseph, he becomes a believer to. King Herod (Ciarán Hinds, Munich) orders every man to return to the town of their birth for a census, forcing Joseph to lead a very pregnant Mary back to the town of Bethlehem. They arrive just in time for her to go into labor, and are only able to find a manger to stay in. Jesus is born, everybody is happy. The end.

It’s the same old thing we’re drilled with time and time again, every December, with TV specials and recreations on the Discovery Channel. And that’s exactly what this feels like. I’m sure if I flip to TLC later tonight I would find “The Story of Mary” playing. It has only a slightly better production value than those made for TV movies, but only slightly better. But the whole production was very bland and mechanical, like they didn’t even try with it. It’s as if she, the producers and writer Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie) felt that the story was good enough as is, so there would be no need to do anything special to it, which is where this film fails. I’m not implying there should have been a car chase or a fight scene, just jazz it up a bit. Make me care about Jesus. Do something new.

The cast was walking through that. I didn’t get the feeling that they really even cared about it. That it was just a paycheck for them. The only actor that impressed me was Isaac. It’s sort of a breakout performance for this Guatemalan actor who is relatively unknown in the States. His was the most impressive and engaging in the film. He really captures your attention and emotion and holds it throughout. When the focus shifts to Mary at Elizabeth’s house, you want to go back to Joseph.

The most insulting part of the production is the three wise men. They’re used as comedic relief, as almost every scene they’re in (the exception being the manger scene) features jokes and “witty” banter. I fail to see why this film needed moments of levity. It’s ok to be serious. Especially with Jesus. You don’t mess with Jesus.

What it all comes down to is, was this film necessary? I think this film begs that question. It wants to have significance, but it doesn’t offer anything that you can’t get with a church sermon or a PBS special.

1.5 Stars

The Fountain

Modern science fiction has been greatly influenced by George Lucas. It’s become this big grand production of epic proportions. New age auteur Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) has dared to scale back the genre, falling more in tune with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Oddity, making The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz one of the more intriguing sci-fi films in recent years.

The base story of The Fountain is about Tommy and Izzy Creo (Jackman and Weisz, respectively). Tommy is a contemporary research scientist trying to figure out the cure for cancer, which his wife Izzy has. He believes he has found it in an ancient Central American tree. Meanwhile Izzy is finishing her novel set in 1500 Spain about Queen Isabel, who sends Conquistador Tomas on a mission to find the tree of life in New Spain (Central America). The third portion of the story is set in 2500, where Tommy has lived for the past 500 and is waiting for the tree to enter a nebula and be destroyed.

I could spend the entire review trying to explain the plot, but it’s too intricate to do so. Jackman is still trying to prove his worth and talent as an actor to the general film going public, and after this and The Prestige from earlier this year, I don’t think he has anything left to prove. He’s a very capable actor, and his scenes as present day Tommy were some of the most touching I’ve ever seen in a sci-fi film. Weisz continues to push herself as an actress, taking on challenging or different roles than what she could take, and thus stretching her dramatic range, making her that much more appealing as an actress.

Aronofsky is of the new generation of filmmaking, the millennial generation. Where Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and David Fincher led the pack in the 90’s, Aronofsky is in the company of Christopher Nolan and Richard Kelly on the front lines of 21^st century filmmaking. He retools a genre that’s become known for being bombastic, goofy and out there. He evokes drama and emotion from the genre and it’s simply moving. I can’t wait to see more of his work

The primary reason Aronofsky is so engaging as a filmmaker is his visual style. It’s not enough for him to present a beautiful and wondrous tale; he does so in a beautiful and wondrous way. The scenes set in the future take place in space in this sort of, bubble. The tree and some of the surrounding earth is floating in a bubble towards the nebula that was believed by the Mayans to be the afterlife. It’s one of the most beautiful effects created. The Queens palace in the 1500 set scenes is just as stunning. The room was lit by an amazing series of suspended candles, and it provides some of the most aesthetically pleasing visuals I’ve seen all year.

Aronofsky’s gift for making an intriguing web of a film is a curse upon his talent that sometimes he gets so far into his own world that he forgets that the audience isn’t inside his head with him. The futuristic scenes aren’t made clear in their narrative intentions till about halfway through the film, confounding the audience to their impact on the story. But it’s a treat to look at, so you almost don’t even mind.

It’s a welcome step outside the generic mainstream, which I can only assume is Aronofsky’s intention.

4.5 Stars

Bobby

Eerily released almost 43 years to the day after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Bobby is about the people present at the Ambassador hotel at the time of the assassination of JFK’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy.

The film tells somewhat interconnected stories of roughly 20 people who were at RFK campaign headquarters on the day of the California primary, including an aging singer (Demi Moore), two elderly doormen (Anthony Hopkins and Harry Belafonte) who have seen literally everything, a young couple trying to stay out of the war (Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan), and various hotel workers dealing with daily stresses compounded by the political event (William H. Macy, Christian Slater and Freddy Rodriguez).

To tell you all the stars who were in this movie would be to take up all the space that’s afforded to me. There’s so many, it’s easier to tell you who gave the best performances. Moore was engaging, Rodriguez was heartbreaking, Hopkins was amusing and Shia LaBeouf was just great as the young campaign worker worried about going to war. And the acid trip scenes were just amusing. In a movie littered with acting giants and stalwarts, the two standouts were a couple of relatively unknown kids in LaBeouf and Rodriguez. I see great things for both of them in the years to come.

One thing that I never thought I’d say, in all my years as a film fan and then critic, is could an Oscar nomination be on the horizon for Bobby director Emilio Estevez? This is Coach Bombay (The Mighty Ducks) having written and directed one of the best films of the year. It’s still taking me some time to wrap my head around that. But he did a fantastic job. He faltered with the pacing. It was scattered, and trying to corral the stories of 22 major characters is a lofty endeavor. I commend him for trying, but it was ultimately too much and got out of control, he was barely able to bring it back in for the closing.

Leaving that looseness aside, where the film succeeds, where Estevez succeeds, is in the presentation the film. He presents it in such a manner that really captures the spirit of the era, of Bobby Kennedy. He and his exquisitely talented cast put us back in an era of hope, an era of faith in our political leaders. RFK had come along at the right point in history. His brother was assassinated just five years prior, Martin Luther King Jr. just three months prior and he was seen as the hope of the nation by his supporters.

The tone of the country was mixed at that time. There was distrust going on. New Orleans District Attorney William Garrison was just starting his investigations into the JFK assassination. Dr. King and Malcolm X were dead, the country was in the midst of the Vietnam War. It was a nation of turmoil. And RFK was the hope. If anyone could have made the nation great, it was him.

It seems to be perfect timing on Estevez’s part to release this at this time in history. There are plenty of parallels between the time period of the movie and now. Country in turmoil, in the middle of a popular war, and there is possibly a candidate out there that could be considered the hope of the nation. A lot of people are looking at Barack Obama as a new kind of politician, to bring about change, and that he could be the next president.

In that capacity, capturing the late 60’s and relating it to present day, Bobby succeeds. That accomplishment alone overshadows the organizational pitfalls.

4.5 Stars

Casino Royale

Casino Royale is gritty, visceral, bloody, violent throwback to the stripped down James Bond flicks of the 60’s, a great diversion from the CG and gadget heavy films of the 90’s and 2000’s.

Casino Royale is about the start of James Bond’s (Daniel Craig) career. From the time he gets promoted to a 00 agent (license to kill) and his first major assignment, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who helps finance various terrorist organizations around the world. His investigation takes him to Madagascar, the Bahamas and finally to Italy to compete against Le Chiffre in a high stakes ($10 million buy in) poker game in order to take down Le Chiffre’s business, with the help of fellow M16 agent Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright).

The writers (Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis) and director (veteran Bond director Martin Campbell) had this idea that in order to compete for super-spy supremacy in the modern world of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who have their brains, their brawn, and little else to go on, a CG flick with more futuristic gadgets than Batman wouldn’t fly, and opted for a stripped down, no-nonsense film. Early on in the film, the free-style walking/movement technique known as Parkour is heavily used in a very long but very intense chase scene between Bond and an African bomb maker (who is played by one of the creators of Parkour). The most high tech gadget Bond is given throughout the whole film is the portable defibrillator in his glove compartment.

Obviously, when discussing a new Bond flick that features a new actor portraying the world’s most famous spy, discussion of his performance is a top priority. Everyone wants to know how he’ll do. And there has been no greater scrutiny of a casting decision than that of Craig for Bond. Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) comes in at a very close second to Sean Connery for best Bond. He’s got the swagger. The charismatic, cocky, “I’m the baddest mother” in the room swagger. But since he’s playing a younger, less experienced Bond, he also has an intensity and naivety to his performance that makes it much more than just another Bond, it propels him to a high plane. You actually take note of Craig’s talent for acting, not just his talent for portraying Bond.

Craig’s supporting cast is just wonderful. The beautiful and talented French actress Green (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven) is a mesmerizing Bond girl. Mikkelsen is one of the best villains we’ve seen since Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill. Wright, Giannini and Dame Judi Dench round out the stellar cast that help Craig slip into Bond’s tuxedo with ease.

But however impressive this film may have been, it was still a rookie film. It felt like a rookie film. Craig played Bond to the best of his abilities at the time, but he’s still trying to gather his full bearings. His second film will be simply amazing. He’ll be more comfortable with the character. And the film just didn’t feel the same without the beloved Q branch.

I would have accepted this film as just a straight spy film. It didn’t need the James Bond brand. And there are times when it doesn’t feel like a Bond film. Because when you think of Bond, you think beautiful women, fantastical gadgets, and vodka martinis, shaken not stirred. Giving Bond depth, emotion and multiple layers sends the franchise in a whole new direction. Only time will tell if that works for the cocky ladies man.

4 Stars