Big Daddy Kev's Movie Reviews

(5 BDKs)
See the movie opening weekend

(4 BDKs)
Definitely see it in theaters

(3 BDKs)
Matinee

(2 BDKs)
Rental

(1 BDK)
Watch it on cable

(0 BDKs)
Don't watch it

From Paris with Love
Genre: Action/Crime/Thriller
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

How is it possible that a ninety-two minute film, which is about 92% action, can bore its audience and leave them completely uninterested in its outcome? The film bored me to tears on top of the crying I was already doing when Travolta spouted off a line from Pulp Fiction. Well, story writer Luc Besson figured out a way with Travolta's latest From Paris With Love. Besson, most notably known for directing one of the greatest action movies of all time, The Professional, fortunately only took a story writing and producing credit here. I am not sure why the guy doesn't just get back in the directing chair again. He did such a great job with The Fifth Element and La Femme Nikita. Now, surprisingly enough, the director of this film (Pierre Morel) also directed Taken, which you need to go out to the video store and rent right now. Watching Liam Neeson kick-ass for an hour and a half was a real treat. That is why I am so disturbed that this movie wasn’t great.

First of all, the movie made absolutely no sense, was completely pointless and lacked any sense of story-telling. There was never a sense of direction or any plausible plot points. The whole film was Travolta killing bad guys for some purpose that was never fully explained. Now, wait, what could be wrong with Travolta killing bad guys for ninety-two minutes? Well, personally, the action sequences were horrendous. I thought maybe something was wrong with my eyes because I was having a hard time concentrating on the action scenes. That was the same issue I had with Marc Forester's Quantum of Solace. The actions scenes were shot with too many close-ups and the edits were horrible. I would have to focus on where the dead body was falling to find out what happen. Speaking of falling, I was riding home with my movie show co-host and he had a great point that the best action scene in the film was a scene where we didn't see any action, just bodies. That could not be further from the truth. The scene is played for comedic value and deals with a stair case. That is all I will give away.

At the beginning of the film, we learn that James Reece (played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers of Match Point fame) works for a U.S. Ambassador who is over in France. He is the personal assistant to the ambassador but on the side, to keep his life interesting, he does small special op jobs. He eventually wants to be a secret agent and work for the U.S. government as a spy. All he talks about is trying to prove to the government that he is special ops material. He has just settled down with a great girl, Caroline (played by the beautiful Kasia Smutniak) and was about to get married until his next mission came along. The phone call comes in and he is to pick up his "partner," Charlie Wax (John Travolta) at the airport. Reece has never met this man in his life but his mission is to show him around Paris and help him get his work down. What Reece doesn't know is that Wax is there for a dangerous mission that involves cocaine and terrorists. Once Reece picks him up from the airport, the rest of the film is non-stop action and gun violence until we reach some type of conclusion as to why Reece and Wax are working together.

People keep telling me how "fun" this film is? Really? I didn't have fun for one second while watching it. Frankly, it bored me and that is strange for a movie that is all action. The action scenes annoyed me to the point where they were not fun to watch. One of my favorite action films of all time is Face/Off, which has pretty much the same amount of action as this film. Though, Face/off does it with style and a great script.

Let's talk dialogue! Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who is actually a very good actor, had the worst delivery I have seen in a long time. This is especially apparent at the end of the film when the entire audience burst into laughter during the most serious and climactic part of the film. I could not take anything this guy was saying serious. It was shocking to me that the director could pass this dialogue delivery along as acceptable. It was downright horrific.

Travolta's part was the only remotely fun part of the film. He plays this guy who doesn't care about anything and just loves killing the bad guys. I guess you could kind of compare him to Castor Troy from Face/Off except he is working for the Government in this film. Someone had mentioned to me beforehand that he made a reference to "Royale with Cheese" in this film and I became all excited like a giddy school boy considering Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite films of all time. Then, once the dialogue was delivered in the film, it was a complete let down and a terrible use of the dialogue. If Tarantino saw this film, I think his head would explode! It was a line only put in there for the trailers to get Pulp Fiction fans interested. Well, it actually hurt the film. Travolta is just begging for a second career return and it is not going too happened with garbage like this. I asked a fellow critic in the parking garage if they had trouble watching the action and she said that the film makers probably did it on purpose because it was probably all stunt doubles and they didn't want you to see that it was not Travolta.

The entire movie is pointless and completely, for lack of a better term, stupid. There was honestly nothing remotely good about this film except for maybe a cool car chase scene between an Audi and a Volkswagen but we have already seen the outcome in the trailers. From Paris With Love receives a 1.5 BDK rating out of 5. Much like Travolta’s last film, it is Old Dogs bad.

Back to Top

Dear John
Genre: Drama/Romance/War
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

While Dear John delivers a surprisingly decent performance from Channing Tatum, the chemistry between both lovers was nowhere to be found. Everything in the film seemed to happen so fast and I do understand that there are instances where people fall in love at first site. I just don't by into two characters meeting each other and then five minutes later they are thrown into a happy, love-making, montage sequence that shows their progress. Considering these two characters only had two weeks to get to "know" each other before one left for war, I guess the writers had to show the development quickly. Still, it threw me off and I was not able to connect with their relationship, which left me a bit void of feelings for them in the first two acts. The third act did come around a bit but that was mainly due to my connection with the father figure in the film, played by Richard Jenkins. The movie also stars Channing Tatum (Step-Up, G.I. Joe) and Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia, Jennifer's Body).

Based on the novel Dear John by Nicholas Sparks, the film is yet another love story about two characters being torn apart by the tragic nature of life. I will be the first to admit that cried my eyes out watching The Notebook, which to me, is one of the greater love stories to have come out in my life time (since 1984). Actor Ryan Gosling and Actress Rachel McAdams nailed the characters and once the ending hit, I was so blown away the chemistry that I completely lost it.

Now, much liked Nights in Rodanthe, Dear John lacked a bit of chemistry. I was talking with someone recently who had read the book and actually really liked Dear John and they said the chemistry was probably lacking due to casting. Amanda Seyfried and Channing Tatum didn't really do much for me at all. The film's plot line revolves around John (Tatum) and Savannah (Seyfried) meeting at the beach during his two weeks off from his job with the military. John is stationed overseas in multiple locations and can never tell anyone exactly where he is located. Once John and Savannah first meet, they immediately hit it off and spend every waking second together for the entire two weeks. Once he is gone, for his 12 months of duty, they vow to write each other all the time. These letters, which are read to us via narration by both characters, are what keep both of them going. The only issue is that Savannah is getting tired of waiting around and can't stand the thought of him at war. This leads to complications in their relationship and the eventual downfall of both of their characters.

The film actually opens with a very interesting voice over by Channing Tatum's character, John, talking about how he was shot two times and the first two things that popped into his head were coins and the relationship he had with Savannah. You will see the coin portion pan out in the film but that was such a huge part of the story. John's father (played by Richard Jenkins) collected old and rare coins and throughout the film, John makes metaphorical references to himself as a coin. These coins have more emotion than the two lead characters, considering they are attached to the most emotional aspect of the film.

The most emotion that I felt in the film came from John's dad. His character was so tortured and so focused on his coins that he completely lost out on a great relationship with his son, John. That to me was much more painful and heart wrenching than the relationship between Savannah and John. All I wanted was for him to be nice to his dad and love him. Once the third act finally hits and you see what happens, that all comes about. That was the driving force behind all of the emotion in the film, which is a problem considering the stories main focus was on their love story.

One thing that really bothered me was the fact that John's character never truly seemed that attached to his military unit. It always seemed as if he was going through the punches. Therefore, when it came down to the decision he had to make where he was going to go to war for two years with his men or stay and live his love live with Savannah, it was hard for him to choose. From what we see leading up to that decision, John's main love is Savannah and the military is a just a job. So, after 9/11 strikes and John's unit is almost done with their overseas time, the unit makes a decision to continue on for two more years with John. He could have easily said no. I just wish the writers developed more of a struggle in his character to make that decision. All they would have had to do is shown more scenes of him and his unit having fun together to show how close they were. I wasn't buying his struggle. I mentioned this to some people as I left the theater and they all told me the same thing, that I don't understand what it's like to be in the military. That may be true, but I can understand a character and if the writers don't go deep enough, they can lose me.

The film has way too many montage sequences and I actually started to keep a tally. These should be kept to a minimum, if not done at all. All a montage is is a quick scene for the writers to basically pile on a ton of information in a short period of time. Team America made of this aspect perfectly and pointed out all of its flaws and how it affects the overall film. There were at least five montages that I was counted during the film itself.

Overall, Dear John is an average love story with a minimal amount of chemistry. You area better off watching this at home as a rental, hence the 2.5 BDK rating. I will give props to Tatum for pulling off a very decent performance, which goes against everyone calling him an awful actor.

Back to Top

The Last Station
Genre: Biography/Drama/History
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

The Last Station is a beautifully directed film about the final part of Lev Tolstoy's life delivering fantastic performances from Mirren, McAvoy, Plummer and Giamatti. Personally, I have never read a single word of War and Peace, which has over 1200 pages of story. Interestingly enough, the film barely focuses on that particular book which Tolstoy began writing in the 1860's and had his wife transcribing six times because she was only one who could read his handwriting. Now, that is information I received from the film. Therefore, I am not 100% certain that is true. The film is more focused on Tolstoy's marriage and the problems that erupted via outside characters who were trying to spread the Tolstoy movement. The idea was that "Love and be loved is the only reality in the world." Some of his followers took his words to the extreme but from the movies perspective, Tolstoy wasn't exactly the "model" follower of his words.

The film opens and we meet the characters of Valentin Bulgakov (played by James McAvoy) and Vladamir Chertkov (played by Paul Giamatti). Chertkov is a firm believer that Tolstoy's work needs to be shared with the world and will stop at nothing to make sure that happens. He hires Valentin to be Tolstoy's assistant basically to keep an eye on Lev's wife, Countess Sofya (played by Hellen Mirren). Chertkov wants Tolstoy to sign a second will, allowing the book rights to be public and Sofya won't stand for this. This is slowly tearing their marriage apart after an entire lifetime together. The film starts in the year 1910, which is also the year the Tolstoy died.

The film follows a parallel love story which shows the ups and downs of a new and old love. Valentin has fallen in love with a fellow Tolstoy follower, Masha (played by Kerry Condon). Before going to be Tolstoy's assistant, he made a vow to Chertkov that he would be celibate, which is to be considered a Tolstoyan thing to do. Though, as the movie goes on and Valentin works more closely with Tolstoy in his last year of life, he realizes that love was the key to everything he was saying. The struggles between Tolstoy and Sofya carry the most dramatic weight in the film.

The interesting aspect of the film was the depth of each character. Every character was given enough to screen time to show their strengths and weaknesses as individuals. We eventually get to see each character at their weakest and it was such an interesting dynamic that I haven't seen in a film in a long time. Each and every character had their own arc, including the "villain" of the film played by Paul Giamatti.

I was chatting with director Michael Hoffman and he was discussing the casting of the film and the fact that Christopher Plummer was 80 years when he played the part, which was the same age of Tolstoy in the film. If you look at early pictures of Tolstoy, you can see that Plummer nailed it. Seeing him go through marital issues and normal life consequences was extremely interesting. Throughout the film, he has to battle the evil forces of money grubbing individuals and the fact that his wife only cares about his well being.

James McAvoy deserves an Oscar for his performance in this film. Every little detail of his character came out on screen 100% of the time. I just loved his little quirks, i.e. his random sneezing, the way his face would change when he became nervous. His emotional arc is the greatest because he goes from what people say a Tolstoy follower should be, to what a real true Tolstoy follower really is. He learns that love is the most important aspect of life and truly the only thing that is real. Everything else is just an object.

I also want to point out the film's beautiful cinematography and amazing film score. The music really resonated with me throughout and became so catchy at some points, that I started humming it. Normally, a score writer does not want their music to be noticed during a film but that didn't bother me one bit.

One thing that Hoffman was trying to do was balance a bit of comedy into this very dramatic film. There were moments where I was literally laughing out loud. One scene in particular was when Tolstoy and Sofya are in the bedroom and they start making animal sounds together. You will definitely be laughing with them.

I give this film a 3.5 BDK rating out of 5. There are some dragging moments but all in all, the story is extremely interesting and was a fascinating look into the life of a man who I only knew by his books.

Back to Top

The Hurt Locker
Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller/War
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Are we 100% positive that this film is not real footage from the Iraq war? After seeing this film, I now feel that I can say that I have an idea of what it's like over in Iraq. Most people will say, "You don't know what it's like!" Well, The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense, realistic and through-provoking films I have ever seen. I personally have never been to war but we have all seen footage on television and heard war stories so we probably have a small 1% inkling of what it's like over there. Luckily, we have a film maker like Kathryn Bigelow to bring that realistic experience right to the screen so we don't have to go. Bigelow shot this film much like a documentary, which gives it that realistic feel that you are watching actual footage from the war. To be completely honest, there were times where I felt that I was watching someone's home video footage of their tour in Iraq. According to IMDB, Bigelow shot the film on a 16mm camera, which gives it that really gritty and dirty film look. It also helps that the film was shot in the Middle East in a city called Amman, Jordan. Adding to the realistic look of the film, Bigelow also chose to shoot the film on an aspect ratio of 100:1, which according to IMDB.COM was used a lot by Francis Ford Coppola during the filming of Apocalypse Now. To this day, that is the most grueling depiction of the Vietnam war. All of the scenes where Martin Sheen is floating in the boat or even the famous T.S. Elliot recital by Marlon Brando about "The Horror", were just beautifully shot.

Bigelow, who is married to Sir. James Cameron (Terminator films, Avatar (2009)), cast a group of relatively small-named actors for this film. That turned out to be a great choice because if she went for the big names, it would have taken away from the realism of the film. The actors she chose are basically just coming up and their status would not take you away from the film. For example, if she cast Brad Pitt in the role, it would take away from the realistic documentary film style. The film does have a couple of big names that pop up for a couple of minutes here and there but the main stars are Jeremy Renner (S.W.A.T. , Lords of Dogtown), Anthony Mackie (We Are Marshall, Notorious), Brian Geraghty (Jarhead, We Are Marshall). You will see small appearances by Guy Pearce (Memento) and Ralph Fiennes.

The film takes place in 2004 and tells the story of an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) squad in Baghdad, Iraq. The squad is part of the U.S. Army and their job is to locate and disarm IED's (Improvised Explosive Device). These are bombs that can be set off via cell phone or trigger from distances far away. They are placed in hiding usually on roads or in cars and are mostly used to kill large numbers of people. The squad consists of Sanborn (Mackie), Ellridge (Geraghty) and the bomb tech Staff Sergeant William James (Renner). Throughout the film, they go out during the day/night to locations where IED's may be hidden. Sergeant James is the guy who literally has to walk up to the bomb wearing a special suit and has to try his best to disarm it. Sanborn and Ellridge communicate back and forth with him and cover him while he is doing his job. The movie contains numerous realistic scenes involving disarming IED's. (*full definition of IED and EOD came from Wikipedia.com).

From the film's opening eight minutes to the last shot of the movie, you are just thrown into a world beyond your imagination. I know that is a cliché thing to say but there is no other word to describe it. I would rather be any other place on earth than where these guys were. If this movie does one thing, it will make you appreciate your life. Bigelow, using her documentary-style shooting, has created an environment that could not have been more realistic.

There are just so many scenes to talk about and I am not going to give anything away. I do want to bring up my new appreciation for Capri-Sun's and bugs. There is a particular sniper scene in the film, which is my favorite scene in the entire movie, where the three main characters are out in the dessert sniping terrorists from 850 meters away. As the scene goes on, you can tell it is getting hotter and they are getting thirsty. Their lips are cracking and bugs are flying all over their faces and hands. As they clean their bloody bullets for the next shot, they could care less about anything else. Sergeant James eventually gets a Capri-Sun for himself and Sanborn. As Sanborn is drinking his Capri-Sun, I immediately felt refreshed. That is how realistic this film is.

The Hurt Locker is a film you have to see in theaters. At the beginning of the film, Bigelow inserts a very important quote and she even highlights the most important part for you, "War is a Drug." Remember that quote as you are watching the last five minutes of this film. It will perfectly explain to you what these characters are going through, specifically Sergeant James. Jeremy Renner's performance as Sgt. James is just beyond real. He became a soldier and you never see past his character. At first, he is this completely emotionless guy but as the film goes on, you see how the war breaks him down. It is pretty wild to see his character development as he becomes the star of the film.

The acting, direction and writing were all superb. I would say my only complaint with the film is that it is a little long and it does become a bit monotonous at times. That is just me nit picking. The movie is one to see in theaters and it will be 100% worth your money, hence the 4.5 BDK rating. This is easily one of the best films of the year.

Back to Top

The Messenger
Genre: Drama/Romance/War
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

It has been one hell of a year for Woody Harrelson, starring in Zombieland and now this unbelievably written and acted film. Harrelson stars along song Mr. Underrated himself, Ben Foster, who blew up the big screen alongside Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in 3:10 To Yuma. Though, I thought Ben Foster's performance was very good, I didn't find it to be as explosive as Woody Harrelson's. Harrelson, who would be considered he supporting actor in this film, really hits that emotional level that I was hoping Foster would hit more in the film. Foster's performance was more of the subtle nature and that worked for his character. The subtleness worked for the character though because when he does have an explosive scene, it is something that was perfectly building up. It is obvious he has been through a lot and even when he does break down and tell his story, there are still bits and pieces that aren't told.

Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) and Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) have one of the worst jobs that I could possibly ever imagine. Shortly after Montgomery gets back from Iraq, he is assigned to a casualty notification team for the Army. Teaming up with Stone, their job is to go to the home of a deceased soldier who died in action. Anytime a soldier goes over to war, he is to put down an NOK (Next of Kin), who will be alerted if they are to expire in action. As Stone tells Montgomery, there are rules for this job, i.e. no touching the NOK, sticking to the script and they have to go in 2's. Stone requires Montgomery to wear a beeper at all times, in case a house call needs to be made in the middle of the night. On one of their jobs, Montgomery actually begins to fall for the widowed wife (Samantha Morton) of a deceased soldier.

The film felt very natural, as it is very dialogue driven. Foster and Harrelson pretty much carry this entire film with dialogue. I would be 100% wrong to overlook the performance of Samantha Morton though. Playing the widowed wife of a deceased soldier, she battles her own morals when trying to explain how it would be wrong to fall in love with Ben Foster's character. There is a scene in the film where both Foster and Morton are obviously falling in love with each other and are on the brink of kissing. She stops him and goes into a five minute scene about why this would be wrong. Foster's character just sits there listening and I will tell you right now, that it felt like one of the most realistic stories I have heard. I literally thought Samantha Morton was telling a story about her own life.

There is another scene similar to the one with Morton and Foster, where Harrelson does not say a word while Foster explains what happened to him over in Iraq. As he talks about the horrors of a mission in Iraq, Harrelson sits there listening on the verge of tears. It was truly a brilliant scene to watch and so well written by writers Oren Moverman and Alessandro Camon. It was refreshing to hear natural dialogue.

As Foster is falling for the widowed woman, he is also trying to deal with the fact that his ex-girlfriend, Kelly (Jena Malone) is getting married. She was the woman of his dreams and left him after he went off to war because she did not want to be that woman who loses her man during the war. Foster's character spends his nights in army boots and boxers, drinking beers and thinking about his life. I really felt like Foster had been to war and back because you could tell that part of him was gone. He has to live everyday with the fact that some of his men died in the war and he has the scars to prove it.

I give this film 4.5 BDK rating out of 5. If you are into natural and realistic films with great dialogue and brilliant acting, please check this one out immediately.

Back to Top

District 9
Genre: Action/Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

District 9 contains some of the most innovative film making and brilliant acting ever caught on film, considering the low budget and first time actor. This is a truly original film and one of the best science fiction films in years. Neill Blomkamp has created one of the most realistic interactions between a CGI character and a human being. The same thing could be said about the first Transformers flick but that was made for over $200 million. District 9 had a small budget of $30 million. How the hell did he get these aliens to look so realistic while interacting with the humans? There were times where it looked so real that I thought it could have been someone in a suit but based on the alien's body structure, it would have been in impossible. Turns out, after interviewing the star of the film, Sharlto Copley, that he improvised pretty much all of his lines and during the scenes where he was interacting with an alien, he was talking to a man in a gray suit. In post-production, they added the aliens into the film. Based on that little nugget, this movie will change science fiction films for a long time to come. The best part is that, much like earlier films this year like The Hurt Locker, there are no big stars and therefore you are able to watch the movie without thinking of who the actor is. Like I said in my review of The Hurt Locker, it just adds to the realism of the film and helps you suspend your disbelief much more.

To quote Peter Griffen, what really grinds my gears, are the articles coming out right about this film; specifically in Entertainment Weekly. Even if you just see the cover of this magazine, it contains a major spoiler. My advice is to stay as far away as possible from articles and trailers. To give producer Peter Jackson and director Neill Blomkamp credit, they did a hell of a job with the trailers. Even if you just watch the teaser or the two minute theatrical trailer, they barely give away any information on the plot. Much like the trailers, this plot synopsis will contain no spoilers.

Twenty-eight years ago, an alien spaceship randomly landed just over Johannesburg, South Africa. Currently, 1.8 million aliens live directly underneath that ship, which has not moved in over 20 years. These 1.8 million aliens live in District 9, which is a blocked off area and they are completely separate from the humans, except for the Nigerians who live within the fences. As we saw in the teaser trailer, the aliens accidentally landed there and they do not want to hurt the humans. One day though, it is decided that it would be a good idea to move the 1.8 million aliens to a tighter location, much like a concentration camp. A military based operation called MNU puts the order out and they begin to serve the evictions to the aliens. The MNU appoint an employee named Wikus (played by Sharlto Copley) to head head the mission but when he discovers something along the way, his life and the rest of the movie take a huge turn. Let's just say the aliens are not to happy with MNU and let the drama ensue. As a little side note, the movie is shot like a documentary with documentary style interviews and sometimes a very shaky camera. This all adds to the realistic effect.

As I write this review, I am still baffled as to how the hell Blomkamp created these realistic aliens. They are 100% flawless looking and the interaction is dead-on. To sum up this movie in two words; bad ass. When the last twenty minutes of this film hit me, I almost got out of my seat and started screaming because I couldn't handle the intensity and mind blowing feeling of the action that Blomkamp created. It is rather astonishing to see a film that cost $30 million, but looks like it cost ten times that amount.

Sharlto Copley deserves and Academy Award nomination for his performance in this film, which according to him was highly improvised. I was reading the Entertainment Weekly article and apparently he hired director Neill Blomkamp as a computer engineer years back and then Blomkamp wanted to return the favor by letting him try out for the film. Copley mentioned in the interview that he was also being used for test footage to help Neill figure out how he was going to shoot the film. Then, Neill just decided to hire him as the lead. This obviously turned out to be a great move because he did not have to hire major star power, which added to the realism.

One of the really cool experiences you take away from the film is the emotional ride. When you initially see the teaser trailer, you feel bad for the aliens because of how terrible the humans are treating them. Throughout the film, your emotions do change about the aliens, as do the main characters of the film. Trust me, this movie is much more than explosions and special effects. There are really dark themes and messages about humanity. It's rather genius if I may say so.

If you have six minutes to spare before heading to the theaters to see one of the best films of the year, head on over to Youtube and type in "Alive in Joburg" to watch Blomkamp's short 6 minute movie that he made back in 2006. District 9 is a follow up to that short flick and when you see the special effects in that movie, multiply those amazing effects by 100 and you get the new film’s effects.

This is my 3rd 5 out of 5 BDK rating of the year and it is an extreme, must-see film. I promise you that the last twenty minutes of the movie will just blow you away and you may even shed a tear at the last couple of minutes.

Back to Top

Edge of Darkness
Genre: Drama/Thriller
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

If the films Ransom and Payback were to mate, the end result would be Edge of Darkness, which is not a negative comment in the least. Edge Of Darkness has an awful last minute of film but the rest is a perfect vessel for Mel Gibson and Ray Winstone to be completely bad-asses. It isn't a great film by any means but contains enough thrills and twists to warrant a viewing. I won't give away the specific scene but I literally screamed so loud after one scene took place that the person next to me said their ears were ringing for the next five minutes. You will know exactly what scene I am referring to because the entire audience will probably scream with you. The film contains a lot of these jump-type scenes that will definitely make your heart beat faster.

Considering this is Mel Gibson's first starring role since 2002, where he starred in the amazing We Were Soldiers and the mediocre Signs, he has a lot to make up for. Personally, I enjoy Gibson in any role he plays whether it is the smart-ass cop in Lethal Weapon or the bad ass road warrior in Mad Max or even when he is reading women's thoughts in What Women Want.

The resume behind Edge of Darkness is quite ridiculous including the director of Casino Royale, Martin Campbell, which is arguably my favorite Bond film. Campbell is also directing the The Green Lantern starring Ryan Reynolds which is slated for release in 2011. Edge of Darkness is co-written by William Monahan, who also brought you the script for The Departed. Both of which are set in Boston and contain that great Boston accent that we all love. Interestingly enough, that accent is now just as cool as a British accent, at least in my opinion.

What drove this film was the dialogue and the intense and thrilling violence. Craven (played by Mel Gibson) is a Boston police detective whose daughter is brutally murdered right on his doorstep as they are leaving the house. Could you imagine walking out of your house with your daughter and some guy rolling up with a shotgun and blowing your only daughter away? What would that feel like for you? You will be completely shocked as to how her death takes place. The violence is completely over-the-top and you get a ton of blood.

Edge of Darkness is another one of those films that makes a normal person question their morals. We saw a ton of these back in day with Charles Bronson's Deathwish series. Would you seek vengeance if someone were to kill a loved one or let it be worked out in the judicial system?

As opposed to other revenge films, this movie actually has a great back story and purpose. There is a reason why Emma Craven (Bojana Novakovik) has been killed. The murderers try to cover it up by making it look like they were trying to kill Mel Gibson's character because he is a Boston Police Detective with enemies. Without giving away any spoilers, I will tell you that she was involved with a company called NorthComm, who worked closely with the U.S. Government in creating weapons. The trailers lead you to believe she was in some type of trouble with this company and that is all I will say. Detective Craven decides to take matters into his own hands and handle the business. He begins by going through her phone and trying to find information on where she worked. In his and everyone else's mind, the murderers were trying to kill him because he is a cop. It is not until his investigation that he finds that her murder had something to do with her being an activist. The company she worked for hires a private consultant to "handle" the mess and this man is played by Ray Winstone (The Departed, Beowulf). So, not only do we get the mean and bad-ass Mel Gibson but we get the detective work as well.

Mel Gibson nailed the role and the Boston accent to a tee. I loved his delivery and complete lack of emotion when taking out the bad guys. Listen, this movie may be completely illogical but we all know its true purpose is to show Gibson in a role where he is messing guys up. We saw this in Payback and we got the true emotional side of it in Ransom. This film is essentially the baby of those two previous films on his resume. His dialogue delivery with the accent made him come off as a man with nothing to lose. I don't know why but I kept thinking of those classic gangster movies and the guys with the high pitched voices every time he spoke.

I can't talk about performances and dialogue without bringing up Ray Winstone's performance. He has one of the smallest yet most effective parts in the film. Each time he is on screen, he means business. Every line of dialogue that came out of his mouth had perfect meaning and he truly had the biggest emotional arc in the film. What's funny is that you really never feel much for Gibson's character because you just want to see him messing guys up but you really connect with Winstone's character. You see his struggles and these struggles provoke his actions. For such a small part, he really blew me away.

My complaints around the film were that it felt a bit long and drawn out at times. It could have ended three or four different times. Also, the last minute of film is atrocious. You will see what I mean when you watch it. Throughout the film, as Craven is solving the case, we get to see visions of his daughter. Some of these visions were interesting; including a really touching shaving scene, but the way it was used in the last minute of the movie was absolutely horrendous and cheesy.

The violence in the film is absolutely absurd but in a fun and entertaining way. I guarantee that there will be reviews out there that talk about how outlandish or unnecessary the violence is in the film. I can see that but for the film's purpose of trying to shocking, over the top and thrilling, it works. A lot of the scenes will shock you and come out of nowhere which will have a jump effect on the audience. This leads to having fun during the movie and being entertained. The movie is just a look into the world of dirty politicians and CEOs of dirty companies. We look into their world and watch as Mel Gibson messes them up.

I give the film a 3.5 BDK rating out of 5. It is easily worth a matinee price and should be seen in theaters with a big crowd.

Back to Top

When In Rome
Genre: Comedy/Romance
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

While When in Rome does fall to the clichéd romantic comedy stereotypes, the hilarity that ensues from all of its characters makes this one worth seeing. There is nothing better than sitting down to watch a film where you don't have to think too hard. There is also nothing better than not knowing anything about the plot line. I knew it was a romantic comedy starring Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel but I was not aware of the exact plot. That leads me down an interesting path because in the first ten minutes, both characters are all already falling for each other. Both actors created enough chemistry from their first meeting to allow me to buy into their deal. A movie is like a contract because the film is trying to get me, the critic, to sign off on that contract. He/she throws up the first fifteen minutes of the movie and if I don't like what I see, I will tell him to go away. Now, for some critics, that may mean walking out of the theater but for most that just means you can't wait for the movie to end but you still sit through it. For When in Rome, the director laid out the opening sequence and I wanted to see more.

Now the ultimate question is whether or not I want to buy his/her product now that I have seen the finished product. That is where I come in. Since I was shown the product, I now get to tell you, the reader, whether or not you should make an appointment and spend your money. I would say yes, but only see it at a reduced rate (matinee). What sucks about these romantic comedies is that they all have to resort back to the same cheesy and clichéd formulas where everyone is happy. Can't one of these try to go a different route and be a little bold? That is why I really enjoyed The Break Up with Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn. It ended on a more realistic note where both characters are going to go their separate ways but there could be some type of future. Audiences hated that because it was not a happy ending. It ended in realism, which people tend to not like in cinema, hence the craze around Avatar.

There was literally a moment where a character was minutes away from saying the line we all knew was coming and I looked over at fellow critic Cynthia Fuchs and said, "please don't say it...please don't say it." After the character said the formulaic line I looked her and said "And I was really starting to like this movie."

The movie has great charm and great hilarity. Most of this comes from the vibrant performance from Kristen Bell and her hilarious lovers (co-stars) Dax Shepherd, Danny Devito, Will Arnett and Jon Heder. The story revolves around Beth (Kristen Bell) who is a curator at the Guggenheim museum in New York City. Her life is her work and she strives to create the best art shows for her guests. She is constantly under enormous pressure from her boss (played by Angelica Houston). She is also under pressure because she can't seem to find love. Her baby sister is now getting married to a man after only knowing him for two weeks, which just so happens to be taking place in Rome. The wedding is taking place right in the middle of Beth's next art show project and she has to go there and back in 48 hours. At the wedding, she meets a charming man named Nick (Played by Josh Duhamel) and he and Beth hit it off right away before he appears to have gone off with another woman. Thinking, he is just another one of those guys, she gets hammered and goes out to the fountain on love and takes five coins which were wishes of love from five different strangers. According to the legend, if someone takes these coins, the person who threw it in, will immediately fall in love with you. When she gets back to New York, she starts getting stalked by four of these five men who are constantly going out of their way to impress and have her fall in love with them. The issue is that their love is fake and under a spell. She fears that Nick maybe under this same spell but she can't be sure.

The film is surprisingly hilarious. Besides the last ten minutes or so, the movie had me laughing the entire way through. The jokes were really well written and there are so many celebrity surprises throughout the movie that you are bound to be entertained. The majority of the hilarious moments come from the four men who are under this spell and in love with Beth. Dax Shepherd plays a male model who loves taking his shirt off around her to show his amazing body. Jon Heder plays a crazy magician who tries to use magic to sweep her off her feet. Danny Devito plays a man who owns a sausage company and makes sexual innuendos about sausage when trying to get Beth to fall for him. Finally, we have Will Arnett playing an Italian artist who is obsessed with drawing Beth to help her fall in love with him. All of these supporting performances are what drive the comedic value of the film. Jon Heder's hilarious performance brought so many laughs and so many surprises. There is one surprise in particular that I think will freak audiences out, in a good way that is.

A lot of the humor is visual as opposed to dialogue driven. There is a particular scene which takes place at a restaurant called BLACKOUT in New York City. This is a restaurant where you eat in the complete darkness while the waiters and waitresses where night vision goggles. The lowered sense of sight is supposed to make you enjoy your food even more. The set-up for this scene was absolutely hilarious but as it ended, the jokes went completely good.

Bell is completely infectious and I could hear girls walking out saying that Josh Duhamel was "dreamy." I really think that even if you are a guy and your girlfriend wants to see it, you can at least look at Kristen Bell's smile for an hour and a half. She is beautiful to watch on screen and really sells her part well. She has this guy-sense to her though which allows her to be completely hilarious. She was so great in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as the t.v. show star dating Russell Brand.

Yes, you do get your typical romantic comedy formula but the jokes in between make it worth it. I actually also really bought into the relationship between Duhamel and Bell. The movie receives 2.5 BDKs out of 5.

Back to Top

Legion
Genre: Action/Fantasy/Horror/Thriller
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Usually, in a film where an explanation is necessary considering all of the build up before the ending, the writers and directors will give us an answer. Well, it seems as if we are supposed to figure out that answer on our own because Legion makes absolutely no sense and left me completely unsatisfied. I am all for an open ended movie but this is not the type of film you leave up to the audience. The whole purpose of this movie is to find out why a particular baby is important to saving humanity. All we keep hearing about is how important this baby is and the fact that the angels have been sent to kill it so that mankind can be erased off of the earth. So the film goes on and we get some pretty cool action scenes and you expect the writers to give you an explanation at the end. Nope, they just end the film after the fighting and nothing is explained. So what was the point? Why did I just sit through an hour and forty minute film that did not move forward in the plot department? You could argue that this film is meant to be pure action and I wouldn't mind taking that argument if 60% of the film wasn't boring, typical, dialogue.

Don't even get me started on the horrendous acting courtesy of Dennis Quaid. What happened to that guy? Every line he had in the film was a typical one-liner where he tried to be funny but every joke fell flat. Every character in the film felt like an archetype, to the point where I could predict most of their outcomes. The writers try to enlighten the audience with inside information on these characters' lives but the dialogue goes on for way too long. There were times where I was bored to tears waiting for the next action sequence to take place. All I wanted from this film were bad-ass action sequences and while those are delivered sometimes, it was not enough.

The basic plot line for the film revolves around the extinction of mankind. God feels that the human race is a failure and he sends his angels to exterminate everyone. Paul Bettany plays Michael, an angel who turns against God and the other angels to save the human race. The majority of the film takes place at a diner called Paradise Falls which is right in the middle of the dessert and a trailer park. In this diner, Charlie (played by Adrianne Palicki) is a waitress who happens to be eight months pregnant with a baby that is supposedly the savior of mankind. The issue is that Michael's brother Gabriel (played by Kevin Durand) wants to follow God's orders by exterminating the humans and killing the baby. Michael's goal is to get to the diner and help protect the baby from the possessed humans who are left on earth.

The father of Charlie's child is long gone and she is being taken care of by a guy named Jeep Hanson (played by Lucas Black). Jeep's father, Bob (played by Dennis Quaid), owns the diner, which is generally frequented by lost drivers or people just passing through the area. The film is set-up around this diner in which a number of characters have either stopped to eat or get their car fixed. I kept thinking of that movie Identity starring John Cusack and Amanda Peet. About halfway through, I started wishing I was watching that film instead. Tyrese plays Kyle Williams, a guy who was lost and stopped at the diner for directions. A family of three, consisting of a mother (played by Kate Walsh), a father (played by Jon Tenney) and a daughter, Audrey (played by Willa Holand) have stopped at the diner because their BMW has broken down. All of these characters are now going to be involved in saving the baby's life so that humanity can live on.

Can I say again that this movie made absolutely no sense? I am still trying to wrap my mind around what I just saw. How could the writers not explain why the baby was important? Isn't that the point of the entire film; for the audience to know how this baby is able to save humanity? As I was walking out of the film, my friends were coming up with great ideas as to how they could have twisted the story and explained the baby's importance. Any of these ideas would have worked, yet the writers leave us completely dry.

The best scene in the whole movie was cut short and you will see why. Doug Jones, who plays Abe Sapien in Hellboy, Hellboy 2 and also stars in Pan's Labyrinth, Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer plays a character called the Ice Cream Man. The set-up for this character is around five minutes long and then they don't utilize him to the fullest extent. He could have played a much bigger part. If you have seen the trailers, he is the guy whose arms start stretching and his mouth opens wide.

The best scenes were in the trailer, i.e. the Grandma crawling on ceiling, the Ice Cream Man and the bugs flying in the sky. The Grandma scene is extended a little bit but the main gist was caught in the trailers. She was a bit more frightening in the film, as were all of the possessed humans who had these "shark" teeth. I will admit that there are some great action scenes and Paul Bettany did the best job he could with the source material that he had. There were times where I was fist pumping because he would be taking possessed people out with automatic guns and missile but those scenes were very few and far between. There is also a fight sequence between Michael and Gabriel which I did enjoy.

Overall, I was extremely disappointed that nothing was explained but as we reached the ending, I didn't really care anymore. The dialogue and characters were so uninteresting and so stereotypical that I lost interest in the story. I just wanted to see action by that point and there were only a couple of good action sequences. I give the film a 1.5 out of 5.

Back to Top

Tooth Fairy
Genre: Comedy/Fantasy
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Note: Every once in a while a film will come along that is being completely clubbed by most critics, yet I somehow find something relatively positive to say about it. Keep in my mind that when you read this review, know that I know this is not a great film, but also keep an open mind to the style of comedy the film is going for. It KNOWS it's bad.

Yes, the film is completely sappy but The Rock's sarcastic tone and delivery made for a ton of great laughs and leads me to want to recommend the film. His character was very likable and kept you interested in the film. To be completely honest, this was a film that I was completely dreading. It screened the night before its release and I was expecting a complete bomb. I should be sitting here typing how awful the film is but instead, I am going to tell that I was laughing most of the way through. The joke of seeing a former wrestler with big muscles running around in pink and blue tutu is not what makes this film funny. It is the hilariously over-the-top dialogue delivered from Dwayne Johnson, Billy Crystal, Julie Andrews and even Seth MacFarlane (Creator of "Family Guy"). I truly feel that each of these actors knew exactly what kind of film they were making and they decided to have fun with it. I am all for seeing The Rock in action films like The Rundown but this was a fun role for him and I enjoyed his tone and delivery throughout.

I am trying to remember what age I stopped believing in the tooth fairy, which had to have been before I stopped believing in Santa Claus. The Rock plays Derek Johnson, a has-been hockey player who now plays in the minor leagues after a shoulder injury. Though, even in the minor leagues, he still has a following. The fans always call him the "Tooth Fairy" because when he checks someone into the boards, he knocks their teeth out. Clever huh? Not really, but I am willing to go with it. Ashley Judd plays Carly, Derek's girlfriend, who has has two younger children that Derek is trying to get along with. Shocker, the oldest son, Randy, doesn't want any part of him in his life. This is where the typical cliché moments come in handy, i.e. father figure is absent and a new man can step in.

One night, Carly's youngest daughter loses a tooth and she gets all excited that the tooth fairy is coming. Derek, being the negative non-dreamer that he is, tells her there is no tooth fairy. Big mistake! He falls asleep that night to awaken with wings in Fairy Land where he must now serve a two week sentence as a tooth fairy until he actually believes. The server of this sentence is Lily (Julie Andrews), the head fairy and Derek's case officer is a nerdy tall guy named Tracy (played by Steven Merchant). Derek can't break any rules and he has to wear a tight blue uniform. The cool part about the job are gadgets, which are given to him by a hilarious character named Jerry (Billy Crystal). The gadgets include magic fairy dust, invisible spray, shrinking formula and toys that can chase dogs and cats away.

Maybe I was just in a good mood, but this flick had me laughing the entire time. The Rock knew exactly the type of cheesy kids film he was making and he made the best of it. Sure, the film has a million problems, most of which are awkward character developments and over-the-top sappy moments, but the overall product was fun. I can't even begin to tell you all of the issues I had with the the movie but for some reason, the jokes worked enough on me that I wasn't truly bothered by it. Though, since this is a review, I do need to point out the film's flaws. The ending of the movie is complete and utter garbage. They milked the last couple of minutes with horrifically cliché moments where everything seems to be working out and everyone is happy. Then, they completely take it over the edge with a specific line of dialogue that The Rock says to Ashley Judd's character. That really angered me because I was enjoying what I had seen leading up to it. Some of the character changes in the film made absolutely no sense. I understand that the Rock's character had no hopes and dreams but as the film went on he becomes a really nice person and starts to believe. Then, when one bad thing goes wrong, he explodes on the children saying extremely harsh words which crushes all of their dreams and hopes. The dialogue and the explosion truly came out of left field and did not fit the character one bit.

Also, does every movie have to have a cheesy montage sequence where every character happens to better themselves and achieve some goal. I wish some of these films would have the balls to get rid of these because they all blend together. I guarantee that in the script for a film like this, it says "Insert happy montage where all characters improve on themselves." Now that I have all of my problems with the film out of the way, let's change back to what I liked about the film. Regardless of all of its issues, the laughter was there. The jokes all hit on time and I enjoyed myself. If you can step back and take your critic glasses off and laugh, you will have a fun time.

I wanted to hate every second of this film because I hate the very existence of movies like this. The joke where you have a muscular man set in a children's film is overplayed and unfunny. It worked back in the day with Kindergarden Cop but that joke is long gone and I feel like The Rock and writers knew that. So they went ahead and essentially made a mockery of the film. The film knows it's bad and it decides to use that to make jokes via one liners and puns. I give the film 2.5 BDKs out of 5, meaning to either rent it or see it as a matinée. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Back to Top

Extraordinary Measures
Genre: Drama
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

While Extraordinary Measures has a riveting premise, the overdramatic dialogue and style of shooting should warrant it an Emmy award. Even from the trailers, it was obvious the film had a very television look to it from the way it was shot and the music involved. I was riding home with my movie show co-host and we were breaking down all of the clues as to how the film looked exactly like a film my mom would watch on Lifetime. From the happy music in the beginning to the HD camera shooting, it just reeked of a TV movie. This would-be Emmy awarding film stars Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraiser (Encino Man).

What I found intriguing about the film was learning about Pompe disease, which is a bit similar to muscular dystrophy. I, unfortunately, knew very little about both diseases. The disease kills the use of your muscles and enlarges your internal organs and is just mind blowing. The fact that the average life expectancy for those with the disease was only nine years old is just so disheartening. We learn at the beginning of the film that this is a true story and it is based on a novel, which is entitled The Cure, which I found to be a bit of a spoiler when I read that. We all know the film is going to have a happy ending though, based on the trailers and other critics citing it as "uplifting."

The film tells the story of the Crowley family, which consist of John, Aileen, Megan, Patrick and their youngest son John. John Crowley (played by Brendan Fraiser) and Aileen were unfortunate enough to have two children born with Pompe disease. Megan (played by Meredith Droeger) and Patrick (played by Diego Valequez) are both in wheelchairs and have to have a breathing device attached to their throats. As the film goes on, we experience Megan at her transition from age eight to nine. John is fed up with the fact that there is no cure and is always furiously researching to find anyone who might be trying to find one.

He locates a scientist in Nebraska, who has been developing a new enzyme which could be put into the sick patient’s body and possibly save their life. Dr. Robert Stonehill (played by Harrison Ford) is your typical hard-ass who is extremely hard to get along with but eventually caves and wants to help. John Crowley and his wife (played by Keri Russell) seek his help and they both eventually get a couple of venture capitalists to donate money so that John and Dr. Stonehill can open a lab to produce this enzyme. The question is whether or not they can finish it in time to save Mr. Crowley's kids.

As I sit here and write this review, I am trying to figure out exactly how to describe what a television film looks like. What's weird is that the first moment I saw the trailer, I had that feeling. It was this high definition-cheap look that threw me off. The finished product didn't look like it had been through film processing and coloring. I guess the answer is more of a technical nature because from a first glance, it has that television look. Not to mention, the story seems like something ABC would run on their family channel. Fellow critic Brandon Fibbs walked out saying it was a "Hallmark movie."

Personally, I had a hard time buying Harrison Ford as a scientist. Throughout the entire film, he gets grumpy and then he gets happy. That keeps going back and forth. Each time he would be angry towards to Brendan Fraiser, he would eventually cave five minutes later. The issue is that when he yells and gets angry, I couldn't help but start laughing. His delivery and facial expressions just seemed completely over-the-top. The laughing was especially enhanced because of the dialogue he was spewing from his mouth. There is literally a serious scene in the film where he walks out of the office and Fraiser asks him where he is going. Ford responds with the fact that he has to "take a crap." There are three or four more lines like that in the film. The question is whether or not my laughter was at the film or with it and frankly it was more at it.

The movie was completely and utterly predictable. You could see every plot twist and character development from a mile away. In the back of my mind, about thirty seconds before a scene would take place, I felt like I had already seen the scene because the story was so similar and had the same structure as every other film of its kind.

On a positive note, the story did work emotionally for me. Regardless of the script being cliché, the characters and story itself really struck a chord with me. I wanted Megan and Patrick to be alright in the end. I wanted a cure to be found for their characters. Regardless if I knew the ending already, I was still emotionally grabbed. That is the main reason I gave the film a higher rating than I should have. Based on the film's cheese factor and some hilarious acting and dialogue choices, I gave it 2.5 out of 5. I would say it is a perfect rental to check out at home and should have been a television movie.

Back to Top

Creation
Genre: Drama/Biography
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Creation is wonderfully acted, directed and a film that will spark interest and intrigue in it's audience. We need more of these types of films in Hollywood. You would think that a film based on Charles Darwin would only sway one way, religiously, but director Jon Amiel throws away that notion and gives us both sides of the argument. As I sat down for the film, there was a Q&A with the director and author of the book, Randal Keynes. As Keynes was introduced, the host mentioned that he was the great Great Grandson of Charles Darwin. The crowd immediately gasped. He explained how he came about writing the story, i.e. finding a letter in a drawer that Charles had written about his dying daughter Annie. This letter helped Keynes learn about the person of Charles Darwin, as opposed to the scientist. As the director finished his introduction, he told the audience that the movie is not all about the science; that we were about to see the story of Darwin's family life. Amiel stated that the "science is embedded into the drama." The film stars Paul Bettany as Charles Darwin and Jennifer Connelly as his wife.

Anytime I think of Charles Darwin, I always think of the theory of evolution and the old man with the big beard. Amiel stated that this is most people's image of the scientist, which leads to the most refreshing element of the film. We get to see Darwin at home with his family as he struggles to write "Origin of a Species," while raising children and dealing with his marriage in the 1850s. The film focuses a lot around his daughter, Annie, who became very ill and passed away at a very early age. Much like A Beautiful Mind, which also starred Paul Bettany, Annie comes into Darwin's thoughts and he actually has legit conversations with her. These conversations lead to many frustrating nights for him as he tries to finish this book.

Darwin also had to deal with the fact that his wife was extremely religious. She still had faith in religion and she stated to him that while he was writing this book, that he was "killing God." If you don't know, Darwin's theory of evolution states that we came from evolving animals, which completely goes against the Bible. Darwin, who once was a religious man, slowly lost his faith after his daughter passed away. He even explains in the film that his loss of faith in religion was gradual, like the separating of continents. On one side, Darwin's supporters are urging him to finish the book and on the other side he had a pleading wife asking him not to publish it because she feared it would kill religion. Obviously, you can now see the heart of the drama.

Creation was such a fascinating film, considering we were able to see Darwin in this light. Amiel commented that Paul Bettany was the perfect actor to play the part considering how skinny and tall he was. Bettany, who is an extremely underrated actor in my book, is perfectly able to grab an emotional response from the audience. I truly believe that whether or not you believe in his theory, you can enjoy this film and relate to all of the characters. If you are on the other side of the argument, you will side with his wife, played by Jennifer Connelly in the film. An interesting side note is that Jennifer and Paul are married in real life, which adds a sense of realism to their relationship.

The storytelling here is rather amazing. We get to see Charles Darwin interacting with his family in a present and past atmosphere. Most of the past atmosphere comes from him dealing with Annie while she was sick. These scenes consist of Charles taking her to a doctor where she received hydro-therapy (where cold water is dumped on you) to wash away the sickness. Then, in the present, she visits him, much like Paul Bettany visited Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. You get to see how the death of his daughter affected his science and took him down a rather interesting path. You also have the intense dynamic of the husband and wife with two different religious view points.

There were some very interesting directing techniques used in the film. In one scene in particular, he shows a baby bird falling out of its nest. Then, the camera sits there over a twelve day period capturing how the earth and other animals react to this death, i.e. using the bird as food and soil. This is all shown to you in a five second clip and was truly fascinating. Amiel was trying to use this as a metaphor for Darwin's theory and it worked great.

The score for the film added a very serious tone and it flowed beautifully. I am real sucker for a good film score and if the notes hit at the right moment, my emotions will streamline with the film exactly. That is when I know I am watching good cinema. That score has to match up with the action and evoke an emotion out of me.

I really feel like this film should be seen because it will spark a ton of discussion and there's nothing better than a film that makes people argue. Check it out in theaters, hence the 4 BDK rating.

Back to Top

The Book of Eli
Genre: Action/Comedy/Family
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

On the surface, this is a really fun action flick but underneath you get this great twist and deep storyline that will stick with you when you leave the theater. The Book of Eli is the type of film that you have to see twice. Once you figure out the mystery of the film, you want to go back through and see all of the intricacies of the story line and watch how the characters react with the environment. I compared it to how I felt when I walked out of The Sixth Sense. Now before you go all crazy thinking I thought this movie was on the same level as that film, I am not. I am just comparing a similar feeling that I had. Remember, when you found out the end of The Sixth Sense and you wanted to go back and watch it again to see if Bruce Willis ever does interact with a person who is alive? Well, that is how I felt about The Book of Eli. The film does not deal with someone being dead or alive but there is a portion of the twist that makes you want to see the whole first part again to see how the characters react.

The trailers for the film are a bit misleading. I say a bit because you do get your typical bad-ass action flick where a character is roaming the earth messing people up. Denzel Washington plays a man who is crossing the country with a book in his possession that is of major importance. The nature of this book is the mystery that surrounds the entire film. The film takes place thirty-one years after an event that essentially ends the world. We are living in a post-apocalyptic era where surviving humans are scrounging for water and food. Denzel’s character has learned the nature of survival and anyone who gets in his path, he will destroy. There are great scenes where he will be fighting a half-a-dozen men at once and brutalize them all. The deeper meaning comes from the book he possesses and the fact that it could possibly save human kind.

The villain of the film, played by Gary Oldman, wants this book. Each day, he sends his road crew out to search the country for this one particular book, not knowing that Denzel’s character has it. Washington’s character happens to stumble upon Oldman and his crew while passing through their town and that is where the action begins. Oldman’s character essentially runs this town, much like a pimp, where he has hookers and is the sole person to go to for water and food. One of the girls that works for him, played by Mila Kunis, wants a way out and seeks Denzel’s help.

The action/violent scenes in the film are unbelievably awesome. These are the scenes that you are paying the hard earned money to see and you get plenty of them. Everyone is expecting Denzel to rough some people up and he does just that. The cool part is that there is a purpose to it all and you get to find that out at the end. His character is generally very quiet throughout the film but you still get that signature Denzel Washington role as you saw in Training Day or Man on Fire. Those are my favorite types of roles that he plays and he does them so perfectly. “I wish, you had, more time!”

You can never go wrong with Gary Oldman. The guy is perfect at playing any type of role whether it be Beethoven (Immortal Beloved), a pimp (True Romance) or a psychopathic killer (The Professional). He kind of combines all of those characters into the one he plays in The Book of Eli. His facial expressions and his signature teeth really allow him to be this evil bad-ass and he plays the perfect villain.

The look of the film, which is brought to you from The Hughes Brothers (From Hell, Dead Presidents, Menace II Society, was very dark and gritty. I really enjoyed their use of unique visuals and shots. One shot in particular happens when Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis come across a couple named George and Martha. There is a shootout during this scene where it appears that the camera does not cut once. Due to digital film making nowadays, you can make a bunch of cuts look like one. Regardless, the scene was absolutely amazing. I also really enjoyed a particular sideways shot that shows cars driving by. You will recognize it when you see it.

My problems with the film revolved around the slow-motion walking sequences. These really bothered me and there were way too many. It was as if the movie was trying to be cool but overdid itself at times. These prolonged sequences led to a slight boredom in the first hour of the film but the last act of the film makes up for those issues. Obviously, based on some problems, the film is nowhere near perfect but it still packs a great punch at the end and will you leave completely upside down.

Overall though, you walk of the movie wanting more. The twist ending and great action/fight sequences make the movie worth seeing, hence the 4 BDK rating (full-ticket price).

Back to Top

The Lovely Bones
Genre: Crime/Drama/Fantasy/Horror/Thriller
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

While the film's tone is a bit inconsistent, the beginning and ending are served up with great intensity and breathtaking cinematography. I made a little hack joke on the way out of the theater saying that I was very in between on this film because I neither loved it nor hated it. I do feel the film's positives out weight the negatives after having a completely slow and ridiculously inconsistent middle section. As I sat down to watch the film for the second time, the first act went by smoothly and I thought to myself that maybe I could love the film. Then, the awful middle section hits with one of the most out-of-place montage sequences I have ever seen. This montage sequence, starring Susan Sarandon, looked like it came straight from a comedy. It added this awkward comedic tone to this ultra dark story about a teenage girl who is brutally murdered at the age of fourteen.

Peter Jackson has already tackled one of the most beloved series of books of all time with The Lord of the Rings and is now taking on another beloved novel. Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones opens with a haunting first sentence that I wish Jackson opened the film with. The book opens with a narration directly from the dead fourteen year-old girl, Susie Salmon. She explains that she was fourteen years of age when she died and then proceeds to tell the rest of the story through her perspective. Forgive me for not knowing, but that is a rather unique way to tell a story. Jackson does use that line of narrative but doesn't put it onto screen until about ten minutes into the picture.

Susie Salmon (played by Saoirse Ronan - Academy Award Nominated Actress from Atonement) is your average fourteen year old girl who is looking for love. She comes from a great family, with caring parents (played by Mark Whalberg and Rachel Weiscz) and a snobby younger sister, Lindsey (played by Rose McIvey). One day, back in 1973, on her way home from school, her creepy next door neighbor, Mr. Harvey (played amazingly creepily by Stanley Tucci), stops her in a corn field asking if she wants to see his new underground fort he made for the kids in the neighborhood. Thinking it will be cool and high off the fact that the man of her dreams just asked her out, she goes down there. She is brutally raped and murdered and before entering heaven, she is stuck in an area called the in between where she is able to slightly communicate with her parents and family. She tries giving them signals as to who the murderer is. As the police investigate the murder, no one can seem to find any evidence to link anyone to the crime. The detective assigned to their case (played by Michael Imperioli) tries to help the family but there is just not enough evidence to put anyone behind bars. That doesn't stop Susie's father from trying to take justice into his own hands.

The Lovely Bones is neither a great film nor a good film. It has a ton of problems with the storytelling, script and some of its acting. That being said, I feel that there are enough good qualities to warrant a rating high enough to recommend people to watch it. The visuals, done by Weta Workshop (Avatar, Lord of the Rings) are absolutely stunning. These environments that Jackson created for Susie's character, while she is stuck in the in between, are extremely breathtaking. What is crazier is finding out that most of the time Susie was running around in the in between, she was actually on a green treadmill. It is the same concept as a normal green screen where an environment can be added but instead, they take out the treadmill, so it looks like the character is walking in and on top of this environment. This technique was also used in Robert Rodriguez's Sin City.

There are at least three or four amazingly intense sequences throughout this film. I don't want to give too much away but I will hint at the scenes. If you have seen the trailers, there is a great scene between Stanley Tucci and Rose McIvey that takes place in his house. There is rather brutal scene that deals with a safe being rolled down a hill. Another great scene deals with a flower coming to life and in this scene are Mark Whalberg and Stanley Tucci. All of these scenes mentioned will make your heart pound.

I have a problem with people saying this is an awful movie. Yes, it has bad elements but overall, there are a ton of positive elements to take home with you. It is a film that will spark discussion and thoughts. I am not apologizing for the movie but I just want people to realize some of the film's truly good portions. Stanley Tucci delivers an absolutely chilling performance as the cold-blooded killer. His mannerisms are so creepy and so wicked, especially during a scene that involves a bathtub. Jackson used a ton of close-up shots on hands and fingernails to portray the killer's creepy vibe. Tucci will hopefully be nominated for an Oscar but will ultimately lose to Christoph Waltz from Inglourious Basterds.

The film receives a 3 out of 5 rating, meaning to check out the matinee viewing. This will be a film that will make you think afterwards and does contain a great score and unbelievable visuals.

Back to Top

The Spy Next Door
Genre: Action/Comedy/Family
Released: 2010
Rating: Half BDK

The Spy Next Door is another attempt for Hollywood to throw unoriginal garbage down our throats to make more money. In this case, they are taking a classic action star and throwing him in a children's environment so that the audience can laugh while also getting an action packed film. Sounds original right? Not at all! The exact same film and story came out a couple of years back but instead of starring Jackie Chan, it starred Vin Diesel. That film was called The Pacifier and ironically enough, was on television the other day. Well, what better place to advertise The Spy Next Door then during that film. Did the studio stoop so low as to do that? You're darn right they did!

As I walked out of the screening for the film I saw a young child and his father walking along with huge smiles on their faces. The father looked down at his son and said, "So did you like the movie?" The young child looks up happily and says, "Yes." It was at that moment that I understood the film's true purpose. Until that moment, I was spewing hatred about the film inside of my head because I could not believe how bad it really was. Growing up, I had the pleasure of seeing all of the classic Jackie Chan films; i.e. Rumble in the Bronx, SuperCop, Operation Condor, Drunken Master, Rush Hour, etc. All of those amazing stunts and fight sequences were part of my movie going experience as a child. Therefore, seeing those in a children's film did not impress me considering he is much older now and barely doing any of his own stunts anymore.

The best part of Chan’s films back in the day was the closing credits with the outtakes. They always complimented the relatively serious film we had just seen and I always left the theater with a smile. The writers of The Spy Next Door definitely try to rekindle some of those feelings by opening the film with classic footage and shots from his earlier work and closing with the classic outtakes. Here's the issue; those are the only remotely decent parts of the film. The rest is painful, unfunny, terribly acted and just downright awful. I normally do not grunt in a movie theater but this movie almost made me sick it was so bad.

Let me introduce Bob (Jackie Chan), an international Spy working for the C.I.A., who comes to us directly from China. His boss (George Lopez) and one of his partners (Billy Ray Cyrus) have been tracking a Russian terrorist for a while. Now, Bob lives in a quiet neighborhood and dates the mother of three children, who happen to live right next door to him. The mother, Jillian (Amber Valletta) and three children, Farran (Madeline Carrol who was in Swing Vote), Ian (Will Shadley) and Nora (Alina Foley) believe that Bob is a pen salesman. It probably helps that he is wearing the cliché dark rimmed glasses. Bob has tried to tell Gillian on several occasions that he is a spy but something always comes up. He has decided to quit the C.I.A to live a normal life but when the Russian terrorist escapes from prison, he is forced to get back on the case before the terrorist depletes the entire world of oil. Here's the issue, Jillian has to go out of town to see her father at the hospital and by doing so, has to leave the kids with Bob. The kids hate Bob but once the mystery starts to unravel, the children become involved in the mission and his "true lies" start to come out.

The actor, who plays Ian, Will Shadley, is one of the worst child actors working in Hollywood. Every line of dialogue out of this kid’s mouth sounded like he was reading it directly from a cue card. In fact, most of the dialogue in the film sounded like that. Even Jackie Chan and Amber Valletta sounded like they were reading their dialogue. The only remotely good actress in the film is Madeline Carrol, who starred opposite Kevin Costner in last year's Swing Vote. There is a line of dialogue delivered at the end by the youngest daughter, Nora that made me burst out into laughter. Ironically, it was supposed to be the most serious scene in the entire film.

The movie is not funny in the least. All of the jokes revolve around slapstick humor and bad clothes. There is a joke throughout the movie where the writers must have thought they were George Carlin. After the Russian terrorist escapes from prison, he has no clean clothes. Therefore, his henchmen have to go out and buy him new ones. Throughout the film, we keep cutting back to him trying on new absurd clothes. The joke wasn’t funny the first time, second time, third time or fourth time.

I truly believe the writers knew the film had plot holes and just filled them as they went along. There were so many points in the film where I had this confused look on my face and then a character would explain something very simple and it would fix that problem. It was as if they were putting band aids on everything but the film was still bleeding.

I can see why a young child would like this because they probably have never seen Chan's stunt work before, which in this film, is impressive. Even if it was not him, the stunts were still really cool. I absolutely despised the film and give it 0.5 BDK rating out of 5 but if you want to take your younger kid to see it and you can withstand the torture, more power to you. That means you are a good parent.

Back to Top

Daybreakers
Genre: Action/Drama/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

While the film might have some flaws, it delivers a perfectly bad-ass vibe thanks to Willem Dafoe and gives the audience a new look into the vampire world. Vampires have become the new craze nowadays, especially because of Twilight and HBO's hit show, "True Blood." They are making a comeback like zombies, as we saw in 2009 with Zombieland. What I find interesting is how writers come up with new ways to tell vampire stories. The idea behind Daybreakers, at least in my mind, was rather unique and a very cool take on vampires.

In the year 2019, only 5% of the human population exists and have essentially become an endangered species. The vampire outbreak took place in the 2009 and in those 10 years, human blood was the main food source for the world. Now, 10 years later, blood has become endangered like the human race. Vampire scientists continue to struggle in finding a blood substitute to keep everyone "alive." We are shown pictures of a vampire who has been deprived of blood and they basically turn into these ugly bat-like creatures called "Subsiders."

Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire hematologist whose job is to find the correct blood substitute to help the vampires survive. His boss, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), runs the world's largest blood farm Pharmacy, where they farm human beings for their blood. We learn at the beginning that humans were given an option to assimilate and the ones who refused, were hunted down and bled out for the vampires. Dalton is approached by a former vampire named Lionel (Dafoe) who has found a cure by using sunlight to change back to human form. Lionel and his partner Audrey (Claudia Karvan) hide out in a largely human populated winery, testing ways to cure the vampires. Now, they have a vampire on their side and it's time to fight.

Some people may read this review and say, "Wait a second, you criticized Avatar for having cheesy dialogue and yet, you praise a film like for that fact." There's a difference in delivery and the type of film that dialogue appears in. When you are watching a film like Daybreakers, you are going in for a bad-ass vampire flick, i.e. blood, gore and things blowing up. Avatar was intended to be an Oscar-type film that told a story we have heard a million times before with awful one-liners throughout. The one-liners in Daybreakers, which mostly come from Willem Dafoe, are played for laughs and make you want to throw fist pumps. Now, I will criticize some of the dialogue delivery from some of the characters but we are not looking at an Oscar-type film here. This is supposed to be fun.

The film comes from directors Michael and Peter Spierig, who are twin brothers directing their first major motion picture. They had two smaller projects before this, but this time around they have major stars and a $21 million budget. One thing that kind of bothered me at times were the effects. Sometimes they would look really good but other times you could tell it was fake. The obviously fake effects weren't horrendous or anything but they weren't good enough to suspend my disbelief for the entire film. It kind of took me out of the film at times. One other minor complaint was that the film is only an hour and 38 minutes but I did sometimes feel that they repeated certain aspects which made it feel a bit longer but the ending makes up for that nostalgia/boring feeling.

Let's talk about Willem Dafoe. This guy was just full of classic one-liners, with my favorite being one he says to Ethan Hawke, "I don't bite." Yeah, that is cheesy but it worked for his character. He drives a bad-ass Trans-Am and he's the one with the crossbow. You could really tell that the Spierig brothers had fun writing his character. From Dafoe's opening shot, where he is behind a tree and all we see is his classic chin, to every other scene where he's killing off vampires, he was just so much fun to watch. I also really enjoyed Ethan Hawke in his more subtle but rather important performance. He is the only character that truly has an emotional arc in the film and I thought it was very well done.

Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was the attention to detail. If you watch the opening twenty minutes of the film closely, everything is perfectly catered towards vampires, i.e. teeth whitening products, blood coffee, underground walkways and cars that can drive in the sunlight. Those little things were very well placed and added to the movie's unique vision on the vampire world.

The different take on the vampire story and the action scenes throughout will satisfy vampire and action fans. I was putting my fist in the air, doing the rock-on devil horns sign, anytime a bad-ass scene took place. This is not a film that will win any awards but it is worth checking out in theaters if you are into the genre. It has been a while since I have seen a good vampire flick and it was a good way to kick of 2010. I give Daybreakers as 3.5 out of 5.

SIDE NOTE (Kind of a spoiler):

There is a specific slow-motion shot at the end of the film that the Spierig brothers directed so beautifully. If you get a chance, when you see the film, try to look at the shot as closely as possible. There is so much going on that I need to go back and see it one more time. It looked like a painting that had moving parts.

Back to Top

Youth in Revolt
Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Youth In Revolt has a hilarious opening act and then quickly loses steam to become a completely offbeat and ridiculous film that left me with a very middle of the road feeling. A lot of the complaints I hear from people these days is that Michael Cera always plays the same character in his films, which I whole-heartedly agree with. Though, most of the time it works especially in Superbad or Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. He has that offbeat comedic delivery where he says odd things that rekindle a person's past thoughts. For example, if I were to send out a tweet or a Facebook message right now about how I miss drinking Capri-sun's and eating animal crackers, people would respond back with a smile and remembrance of those items. All of the jokes that Cera makes in his films are geared towards people my age or older. After a while though, it gets a bit old. That takes effect in this movie where the comedy just fizzles out pretty quickly towards the end. Youth in Revolt stars Michael Cera (Superbad, Paper Heart), Portia Doubleday, Ray Liotta, Steve Buscemi and Zack Galafianakis.

Let's talk about movie trailers for a second. Take person A, me, who saw the trailer a zillion times on television or in the theaters. We all saw that scene where the car drives off the cliff and lands in the shallow lake while the cops are sitting there waiting. Like everyone else, person A laughed really hard at that scene in the trailer. Keep in mind that this joke in the film is one of the climactic jokes in the comedic structure of a comedy. Take person B, fellow critic Nell Minow from www.moviemom.com, who had not once seen a trailer for the film. She may have caught a gaze of a TV spot here and there but nothing that she remembered. Now, person A and person B are sitting right next to each other in a movie theater enjoying Youth In Revolt. The joke hits where Cera pushes the car off the cliff and it lands in the shallow water. Person A is sitting there, five minutes prior, saying to myself, "Ok, here comes that scene." Person B is enjoying the film, now knowing the fate of Mr. Cera's BMW. As the car hits the shallow water, Person B bursts into laughter for almost one minute straight while Person A sits there unfulfilled. That my friends is a classic example of how a trailer can ruin a great joke.

The film tells the story of the ultimate rebellion of a 16 year old boy named Nick Twisp. Michael Cera was born to play a character with that name, or author C.D. Payne (who wrote the novel), just had him in mind for the character. Nick Twisp is your average sixteen year old boy who has yet to lose his virginity and constantly talks about getting laid with his best friend. Though, Twisp is more of an intellectual and appears to be smarter than most. His mother (Jean Smart) and father (played by Steve Buscemi) are separated. His mother is now dating an overweight drunk named Jerry (Zack Galafianakis) who has gotten into a little trouble with a couple of sailors he sells a car to. They threaten the family, therefore Nick and his family have to take an unexpected vacation to a trailer park where he meets the girl of his dreams, Shenni Saunders (played by Portia Doubleday). To paraphrase what Nick says in the voice over at the beginning of the picture; In the movies the good guy always gets the girl but in real life the jerk always gets the girl. This couldn't be more true and while he is nice to her, he can never actually be with her because his family goes home after a couple of weeks. He knows that he has to step his game up so he creates an alter-ego named Francois to act as a bad-ass to win her over. This is teenage rebellion at it's finest.

The movie does have a rather strong first act. I found myself laughing extremely hard and I was well on track to giving this film a stellar rating. As I said in my Invention of Lying review, there is nothing worse than feeling the comedy being sucked right out of a film, like a vacuum. As the film goes on, the story begins to drag and become uninteresting, though what saves it from being a total disaster is that they sprinkle in a couple of great jokes every once in a while. The offbeat style of the jokes just gets old after a while. Then, when the climactic joke hits from the trailer, I was already bored.

What the heck were Zack Galifianakis, Ray Liotta and Steve Buscemi doing in this film? I don't want to spoil anything but Galifianakis could have been played by someone else and not had his talent wasted. That guy pretty much stole The Hangover and yet, they put him in this and he really didn't have a funny line the entire movie. The trailer promotes him as if he is one of the stars of the film. Actually, the way they promote him in the trailer is more funny than anything he actually does in the film itself. They say "starring Zack Galifia???? - uh..the guy from The Hangover." See, that's funny but his character stinks. Liotta and Buscemi are pivotal characters to the story but they could have been played by anyone. They completely wasted them.

The film got a little too weird for me at times. I just kept having this confused look on my face because some of the musical numbers and pieces of dialogue just threw me for a loop. The whole movie had this odd vibe to it like it was trying to be different. They even threw in these goofy animation sequences which looked like they were ripped right out of that movie Paper Heart, which also stars Michael Cera. My buddy Josh and I were talking about that on the way home and we are probably the only people in the world who saw that movie so everyone else will probably think it's original.

I will say that while watching the film, it did remind me of a summer fling I had when I was about 16 years old (Nick Twisp's age). There was nothing like having that feeling that I was the king of the world. You think that nothing can stop you and that she is the one for you. Now, I didn't blow up buildings causing $5 million worth of damage and have the cops chase after me, but I know the feeling he had. That was my first kiss, so I understood how awkward it was for his character. So for that, I was able to relate to Nick's character in that light. Once he turned into his alter-ego, Francois that is where I tapped out. By the way, that character of Francois is barely in the film. He pops up every once in a while but not enough to where he has a complete impact on the film.

The film honestly just falls into the "average comedy" category and will not go on to be anything of note in the comedy world, hence the 2.5 rating (rental/matinee).

Back to Top

Leap Year
Genre: Comedy/Romance
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Leap Year, like the The Proposal, was very predictable but unlike the latter, it was unable to pack enough humor and originality into the mix. I actually did like the characters played by Amy Adams and Matthew Goode but their dialogue was horrendous. Fellow critic Tim Gordon looked over at me during the film after a scene where Amy Adams disgustedly tells off Matthew Goode. Tim looks over and says, "I'll love you in two hours." That couldn't be further from the truth. All of these romantic comedies turn out the exact same way and the question is, when will people stop going to see them? Well, this movie maybe made me laugh 2-3 times out of the entire 90 minute film. To keep myself entertained, I started playing games in my head to see what scene I could predict next. Unprofessional? Probably, but what was I supposed to do. The movie was slow and bored me to tears at times. The only thing that kept me remotely interested was watching Amy Adams.

Now, I did go back and see this film a second time. The first viewing was on December 8th, 2009 and the second viewing was on January 6th, 2010. I wanted to have fresh outlook on the film before I gave my official review. I will say that I enjoyed the film a bit more the second time, but it is still a rather awful overall film.

During the second time around, I actually enjoyed the chemistry a bit more. You have to understand that all of these romantic comedies are exactly the same. You always have two characters who are the completely opposite of each other to the point where they actually can't stand each other in the beginning. As the film goes on, the characters are put into a position where they are constantly around each other to the point where feelings start to blossom. It has gotten to the point now where the trailers for these films, especially for Leap Year, give away "pivotal" plot points that allow the audience to predict the ending. For a while, I thought it was just me who could predict the endings because I watch so many movies but now it seems like everyone I talk to is like, "Oh, I already know the ending to that film." My mom called me the other day and asked me how the film was and before I could say anything she blurted out her prediction for the ending. The issue there is that she is 53 years old and in the key demographic for a movie of this nature.

Everything in this film fits perfectly into a little formula. All you have to do is plug in the two actors who will hate each other at first and then love each other later. Anna from Boston (played by Amy Adams) has been dating Jeremy for four years and he has yet to propose to her. He takes a business trip to Dublin, Ireland, leaving Anna in Boston. Her father, played by John Lithgow, reminds her of an Irish tale where, every four years, on February 29th, a woman can propose to a man in Dublin and the man will 100% say yes. She hops on a plane and of course, since this is the movies, the plane hits inclement weather causing them to land in Whales. She walks into a bar looking for a cab ride to Dublin and she meets Decklin, the owner. Decklin (played by Matthew Goode) offers to give her a ride to Dublin for 500 Euros because he needs money to save his bar. Decklin and Anna embark on a 3 day trip, in which they start to fall for each other. The question is whether or not she will marry Jeremy! Oh, the horror!

The script is terribly written and the movie is just downright predictable to the point where most of the jokes don't work. I will say that I noticed more of the jokes, the second time around. Goode's a-hole-type character worked better on me this time around and Amy Adams' does a fine job. The material they had to work with is just awful. You already know the ending from the trailers and the movie is not that entertaining. I would wait for the cable/rental viewing, hence the 1.5 BDK rating.

Back to Top

Crazy Heart
Genre: Drama
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

Crazy Heart is essentially the same story as The Wrestlerbut with much more heart and a better story. Since the film was already out in NY/LA, everyone was already talking about how amazing Jeff Bridges' performance is in the film. While I agree, it is 100% Oscar-worthy and one of the best performances of 2009, I want to point out how amazing Maggie Gyllenhaal is. Her performance as the love interest in the film was unbelievable and she looked amazing playing that part.

I find myself partial to film's about musicians because I have played guitar for over fifteen years but this movie seemed to nail it on the head. Am I saying that I can relate to a 57 year old alcoholic country music singer/songwriter? Yes, of course I am. I am only kidding but music is music and no matter who you are, you know how important it is in your life. Throughout the film, as we take this journey with Bad Blake (Jeff Bridge), we see him at his lowest low and watch him achieve a state higher than he has ever been. From the opening of the film, where Bad is playing a crappy bowling alley, we know that he had a big past. As the story unfolds and he starts playing more and more crappy bars, we learn about this beat up old man. He makes a stop at a bar in Santa Fe, where he meets Maggie Gyllenhaal's character, who writes for the local newspaper. She wants to do a piece on him and while doing her research, she actually does her research if you catch my drift.

Like her research, we start to learn about this fictional country music singer as he answers her questions. We learn that he had a falling out with a top-notch country star named Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) and that he doesn't want to talk about him. Throughout the film, he is always on the phone with his manager who is constantly trying to get him gigs but the biggest thing happening in his life is that he is falling in love.

I really enjoyed every aspect of the film from the music to the cinematography. The majority of the music in the film, especially the hit song "I don't Know", is written by T Bone Burnett. Burnett also wrote music for Walk the Line and O' Brother Where Art Thou. Bridges has a great line while he is sound checking in Phoenix during the film. He says to the mixer that everything sounds off and makes a comment that they always make the opening act sound like crap so that the main act sounds amazing. Going to 200+ concerts as a kid, I always noticed that same fact. I guarantee there is some truth to that matter. That was just a great line that brought me back to my teen years and questions I use to ask.

The film does have a lot of light-hearted scenes but also delves rather deeply into Bad's alcohol problem. There is a brilliant shot in the film where we seeing his character at his lowest and the camera is tilted at a canted angle at the head of his bed. We see him come into the show and slowly fall onto the bed with his face coming into the shot as a close-up. That to me just said, visually, how messed up he was.

Every performance in the movie was 100% amazing, including Colin Farrell who plays a country singer as well. He was perfect! It actually did appear that he was singing and playing the guitar for all of the songs.

There were times that I was so into the film that I actually would want to start clapping after Bad plays a song.

Crazy Heart is powerful and the title speaks for itself. The movie has a lot of heart but in a crazy way. I give this movie a 4 out of 5 and you should definitely check it out in theaters.

Back to Top

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Genre: Adventure/Fantasy/Mystery
Released: 2010
Rating: BDK

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a film that I more admired than loved. I admired Terry Gilliam's original thought process and ideas. I admired the brilliant performances from all of the actors. I admired the stunning and beautiful visuals. My issue is that I walked out of the film feeling as if the film was not complete. To me, there was never a strong message that was being delivered to the audience and the story was a bit damp for my taste. It was the characters, dialogue and ideas that made the film enjoyable though.

Now, when I say the film was not complete, I mean that in two ways. Obviously, the film is not 100% the way it was intended to be. How could it be, considering the lead star unfortunately passed away during film making. One of the biggest reasons I admire the picture is that he was able to still finish the film and have a remotely good finished product. For what Terry Gilliam had to work with, he did a fine job. The story just felt rather empty to me and once the conclusion hit, I was not entirely concerned with the climax.

Gilliam, who has directed some of the oddest and best films around, is known for his awkward and imaginative visuals. If you have had the pleasure to see Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or 12 Monkeys or even the Monty Python films, you know exactly what I mean. Dr. Parnassus had more a Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas vibe, than anything else.

For those not familiar with what happened to the script, let me shed some light. I was reading an interview recently which asked Gilliam how he was able to incorporate other actors into the story after Ledger's passing. The story revolves around a carnival type atmosphere where you have a traveling imaginarium which goes all across London giving live shows. In the show, Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), is supposedly thousands of years old. His daughter, Valentina (played by Lily Cole) is almost sixteen years old, yet plays a sex symbol and Parnassus' assistant, Anton (Andrew Garfield), leads the show. Dr. Parnassus also has another assistant to go along with the atmosphere, named Percy (played by Austin Powers star Verne Troyer). On the stage is a magic mirror that supposedly channels your imagination and can let you experience your wildest dreams. When you go in the mirror, you sometimes come out as a different person but you still think you are you. While you may be experiencing your wildest dreams, the mirror is essentially a trap for your soul.

Many years back, Dr. Parnassus made a deal with the devil (Mr. Nick) (played by Tom Waits). He struck a deal for immortality and with that deal, the devil would gain ownership of Parnassus' daughter when she reached the age of 16. The film takes place while she is fifteen going on sixteen and Parnassus being the betting man that he is, bets the devil that he can get five souls to walk in the mirror before the devil can. If he does so, Parnassus gets to keep his daughter. The deal is on and to spice things up, Parnassus and his gang have a new part of the show, Tony, who they found hanging off the side of bridge in London one night. Tony (Heath Ledger) has no clue who he is but is thankful for his life being saved. As the story unravels, we learn more about who Tony is and as Parnassus' daughter is falling for him, consequences start to head their way.

A lot of the film did not make sense but the performances and visuals were so strong, it kind of made up for it. For example, in the beginning of the film we see a drunk man go into the mirror and his face and body change in the dream world. But, there are other characters who go in the mirror, yet nothing changes at all. Though, when Tony's character goes in the mirror, he comes out as a completely different person, which is where the re-writes occurred. Considering Ledger passed away, they had to change it up a bit and have his person change but the character stay the same.

I read in an interview that after Heath's passing, Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law all came to Terry Gilliam telling him that they wanted to help complete the film. So now, every time Ledger goes into the mirror, he comes out as one of these actors. It actually worked quite well and added an extra form of entertainment to the film. Depp, Farrell and Law still play the character of Tony but a different part of the imagination, hence the different physical person.

Unlike The Dark Knight, where I couldn't recognize Heath Ledger behind the Joker's make-up, I had a hard time not thinking of his passing. It made me think about his performance a little more and what the film community had lost. It was odd because anytime Ledger would yell in the film, it reminded me of the Joker's voice. Now, that may be personal only to me but I found myself thinking of that the entire film. While his performance was great, I found that Plummer and Waits stole the show. Ledger already had one of the best performances of all time in The Dark Knight, so I did not feel bad thinking that. Waits played an amazing devil who looked just like a normal man except for his obviously drawn on mustache and funny top hat. Plummer played a perfect version of a tortured man who knew his mistakes, yet had to live a life of immortality. His performance was very painful and heartfelt and definitely stole the film for me.

The visuals that occurred inside the mirror were stunning! The colors and the ideas used in these scenes were utterly brilliant. My favorite scene involved inside the mirror was Jude Law's version of Tony. He walks on these big stilts which are hundreds of feet tall as he is running away from people. That scene just said imagination. Even Johnny Depp's quick scene had very unique visuals with a creepy Tom Waits snake.

It truly is a movie that I admire but I didn't love it. The story didn't really grab me but the visuals and performances were enough to warrant a viewing, hence the 3 BDK rating.

Back to Top

Sherlock Holmes
Genre: Action/Adventure/Crime/Drama/Mystery/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Sherlock Holmes might easily contain the greatest slow-motion explosion ever caught on screen. I actually yelled out because I couldn't control how bad-ass this scene was. Guy Ritchie is back to reclaim his director's chair after having some rather unimportant films in the past five years. Snatch was Ritchie's last best film, which he tried to top with RocknRolla but did not succeed. While I liked RocknRolla, it was too similar to his other work. Ritchie is now trying to direct a big time blockbuster and he pretty much succeeds in that department. It's hard to fail when you're leading man is the best and biggest star in Hollywood at the current moment.

Robert Downey Jr. plays the classic role of Sherlock Holmes, the witty and hilarious detective from London. The complete opposite of his character is his partner Dr. Watson (played by Jude Law), who simply wants to settle down from the intense detective work and get married to a beautiful young lady named Mary (played by Kelly Reilly). At the beginning of the film, Holmes and Watson complete a case by capturing Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who has already killed five women. They catch him in the act while trying to kill a sixth. Blackwood is sentenced to death and hanged shortly thereafter. After confirming his death, he somehow miraculously rises from the dead, gathering a group of black magic magicians attempting to take over the world. Lord Blackwood leads the way as more people continue to die, instilling fear in all of London. It is up to Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and Holmes' muse Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) to solve the case.

The film is essentially your typical detective story where you have two polar opposite characters that work well off of each other creating a comedic chemistry, while simultaneously trying to save the world. Yes, we have seen this type of film before and it follows all of the typical detective formulas. The difference is that we are told the story in Guy Ritchie's vision. We have his signature style of direction with quirky camera moves, edits and classic flash backs. At times, it has that Snatch/Lock Stock feel to it. Ritchie is the master of showing a premonition of a scene before it happens. Many times throughout the film, Holmes speaks about an action that is about to occur, i.e. how he will attempt to beat a character to a bloody result. Ritchie shows us this action in slow motion and then we see the actual event. I am a huge fan of those types of shots.

Robert Downey Jr. is so perfect in this role that he nails the character while also adding in a bad-ass spice to Sherlock Holmes. It was a mixture of Tony Stark and Sherlock Holmes which was perfect. This helps add to a great comedic chemistry between he and Jude Law's character.

My problems with the movie are pretty minimal and didn't affect my overall joy for the popcorn flick. Rachel McAdams' character is never really truly explained. I was telling the publicist on my way out that I didn't feel like they explained her character enough and a woman jumped in saying that it is all explained in the books. Well, that is fine and dandy if I had read the books but I am only watching this film from a movie stand point. This unexplainable character sets us up for a sequel but I feel like Ritchie should have given us a bit more depth and explanation.

The storytelling of the film is rather generic, which is fine considering the blockbuster nature of the film. I am sure Ritchie did not want to alienate a lot of people with his quirkiness. You still get his signature style with the slapstick style of music behind the violent scenes which come off as mostly funny. The movie truly never takes itself seriously.

This is a fun film to see over the Holidays with your family. I did find some parts to be slow but I will still give it a solid 3.5 out of 5 (matinee/full ticket price) I was recently in London so it was great to see the Old London as the Tower Bridge was being built. The film will give an appreciation for the beauty of the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben.

Back to Top

It's Complicated
Genre: Comedy/Romance
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

It's Complicated contains a line of dialogue said by Meryl Streep that is worth the entire price of admission. I promise you will laugh so hard when you hear it because it is something that you would never expect her to say.

It's Complicated is an absolute hilarious comedy, disguised as a grown-up romantic comedy, that appeals to all ages (except little kids obviously). The film has messages that teenagers and adults can both relate to, considering it deals with the divorce of a middle aged couple with teenage sons and daughters. Considering the richness of the script, as you watch the film you are dealing with many emotions (mainly laughter). As the film reached its midway point, a critic next to me mentioned that this was the funniest movie of the year. A critic next to that critic said, "Yeah, this and The Hangover." I would go as far as to say that this is on par with The Hangover in the laughs department. The film was almost too funny, if there is such a thing. I say too funny because there were parts where laughter drowned out some of the dialogue in the film. I almost want to go back and watch it one more time just to catch every single joke.

First of all, when did Alec Baldwin become the funniest man in show business? I know that he has taken some comedic roles over the past couple of year, notably in Along Came Polly and his amazing performance in The Departed. Though, I never really look at Baldwin and automatically think, comedian. I guess if you look back on his career, he has some great bits with Saturday Night Live. Either way, this film stamps him as the funniest man working right now. Minus one hilarious pot smoking scene, Baldwin owns every joke in the flick. His, I don't give a crap, attitude resonates brilliantly on screen.

Baldwin's character coins the plot line of the film to be brilliant and I 100% agree. Jake (Alec Baldwin) and Jane (Meryl Streep) have now been divorced for close to ten years after Jake cheated on her with a younger woman. He is now married to said younger woman, Agness (Lake Bell), where they have a child named Pedro, who occurred from her cheating on him. It truly is complicated. After Jake runs into Jane in New York City for their son's graduation, they have a one night stand that turns both of their worlds upside down. Both shocked by the amazing sex they just had, they kind of commit to having an affair, in which Jane now becomes the "other" woman. They both try to rationalize it every which way possible but Jane is pretty much aware of what the final outcome may be. Before the affair started, Jane had been working on the addition to her home that she always wanted and she meets a nice architect named Adam (Steve Martin) who begins to have eyes for her. Now, she has to choose between her ex-husband who is currently married or a recently divorced man on the rebound. Let the drama ensue.

Rarely, you come across a longer comedy (film is 2+ hours) that you do not want to see end. Every character in the film is absolutely hilarious and this all comes from the amazingly written script by Nancy Meyers (What Woman Want, The Parent Trap, Something’s Gotta Give). When I was in college, one of the subjects that was studied around film was what the audience knows vs. what the characters know. Meyers brilliantly lets the audience in on comedic secrets throughout that not all characters know. This makes you feel exclusive to the film and you are able to laugh at jokes that would only make sense by knowing something another character does not. I am aware that this technique is used in pretty much every film to date but it stuck out for me in this one.

The jokes are so continuous that I can't remember the last time I laughed that much. Even a simple line of dialogue of Meryl Streep's mouth had the entire audience howling with laughter. Streep and Baldwin, mainly Streep though, nailed their parts as middle aged divorcees. Streep yet again proved that she is the greatest living actress, this time combining her comedic talents with her dramatic talents. This is truly noticeable during a scene where Streep's character is talking to her therapist about whether this situation is right or wrong. As she is on the verge of tears, she tries to rationalize her actions to being lonely and it was just heart breaking.

The film is all about the choices we make in life and the negative/positive impacts that they have on us. We have all made decisions, where in the long run, you look back and say that you wish you had not done that. That is the feeling you have the entire film for Alec Baldwin's character. We take the small things for granted, like family, and as he watches Jane and the kids all back together again, he wishes he had not made that mistake of cheating. It is then that Meyers installs sympathy for that character, which helps the movie move along beautifully.

I can't end the review without mentioning the performance from John Krasinski. He plays the fiancee of Jane's oldest daughter. I am sure this had a lot to do with the script but every single line of dialogue out of his mouth was perfectly timed and received a ton of laughs from the audience.

This is easily one of the best films of 2009, ending on a very realistic note and not that Hollywood type ending. As the movie was coming to a close, I was clinching in my seat next to fellow critic Tim Gordon and we were both waiting to see where this was going to go. Meyers could have easily ended the film on the typical, everything is going to be alright note, but she was smart and decided to keep it open to interpretation. You will laugh, you will feel sympathy and you will probably miss half of the dialogue. I promise you will have a great time! It's Complicated receives a 4 out of 5 rating, meaning to definitely see it in theaters.

Back to Top

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
Genre: Animation/Comedy/Family/Romance
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

The film is so painfully unfunny that I saw grown adults and children, who were seeing the film for free, walk out of the movie. I actually did not mind the first film in the series and used to watch the cartoon when I was a kid. Personally, it was more entertaining to watch the groups of families as they were bored throughout the entire film.

Besides being unfunny, every single character in the film, even the chipmunks, are based around stereotypes. So much in fact, that every action of every character was predictable. You could predict the character arc of each character right from the start of the film. You have your nerd, your jock, your nerdy character triumphs overall character, etc.

The story picks up right where 2007's Alvin and The Chipmunks left off. Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), Simon (voiced by Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (Jesse McCartney) are international recording artists now, playing shows across the globe to thousands of screaming fans. Alvin has started to become a bit big headed, thinking he is the number one star. After an unfortunate action one night in Paris, their owner/friend Dave (Jason Lee) is put in the hospital and not able to take care of the chipmunks when they go back home. He asks his Aunt Jackie (Kathryn Joosten) to take care of them, but she also suffers from an unfortunate accident. All of these accidents are done in a slapstick type- way where the crowd is supposed to be laughing along the way. To be honest, I have seen enough of slapstick comedies where people are hit in the nuts. That joke is not funny anymore!

Now, the Chipmunks are being taken care of by Aunt Jackie's son, Tobey (Zachary Levi), who is a gaming nerd that hates leaving the house. He was always the nerd in high school who got picked on and this couldn't be a better set-up for Chipmunks starting high school. They are treated to swirlies and being made fun of on their first day of high school, to the point where they are afraid to go back. When the principal, Dr. Rubin (played by Wendie Malick), asks them to represent the school in a music competition to save the music department, they leap right on it. There's a catch though. The old chipmunks producer, Ian Hawke (David Cross), has found the next best thing and is going to bring them to the table to compete against the chipmunks. His new found talent just happens to be a group of three female chipmunks called The Chipettes, who consist of Brittany (Christina Applegate), Jeanette (Anna Farris) and Eleanor (Amy Poehler).

I was talking with fellow critic Dustin Putman (www.dustinputman.com) about this on the way home and we were trying to figure out why the producers would cast big named stars to voice the chipmunks. Their voices are sped up to the point where the voices are unrecognizable. I understand the stars do it for the paycheck but why wouldn't the film company want to save money and just use a no-name. Also, am I to believe that all of those stars are actually singing all of these classic songs? I guess the being sped-up aspect of it makes it sound better.

The music in the Squeakquel sounded like it had been lifted right out of a Top 40 music station. Practically, almost every song in the movie except the beginning and the end was a hit song from 2009. How will this movie stand-up in years to come with played-out songs? None of the songs used from 2009 are going to be considered classics, except maybe "Single Ladies" by Beyonce. The Chipmunks were doing renditions of Katy Perry and Flo Rida songs. Shoot me! Sometimes, they would add their own lyrics to the songs and these were completely unfunny. There is a scene where they are trying to break open a bag of cheese puffs and it was just so painful to watch.

Another issue I had with the film was the disrespect the writers showed to some of the most classic films of all time. There is a football scene where Alvin is playing on the Varsity squad. To intimidate the other player, he quotes The Silence of the Lambs and Titanic within a five minute period. He also has a pimple joke when referencing Apocalypse Now. I understand that the writers are trying to do that to please the adult members of the audience but personally, it comes across as offensive.

I love how the trailers and posters lead us to believe that Jason Lee will be in this film but he only has about ten to fifteen minutes of screen time. I would be curious to know how much money he made for being in a film for that long.

Alvin and The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel is an unsatisfying sequel to a very mediocre original film and receives a 1 out of 5.

Back to Top

Nine
Genre: Musical/Romance
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

I have seen the film and to be honest, I was not a huge fan. My full review is at home on my other computer, therefore I cannot access it at the moment. I will tell you that half of the songs in the film are completely boring. There are three songs that caught my ear, i.e. "Be Italian" and "Cinema Italiano". The movie felt like a light switch. One part would be completely vibrant and amazing and then the next part would be dark and boring. I will say that Penelope Cruz has a sequence in the movie that quite possibly could be hotter than any sex scene I have ever seen on screen. The crazy part is that she keeps her clothes on and she is by herself.

Full review coming Monday morning.

Back to Top

A Single Man
Genre: Drama
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

I would like to personally meet the cinematographer of this film, shake his hand and ask him if he worked for Orson Wells. The direction of this film looked so unbelievable that I think Spielberg, Scorcese, Coppola, Lynch, Fincher, Scott and Tarantino all combined and had a baby, spawning this man. I enjoyed the direction of the film over the story itself but I will say that Colin Firth's acting was superb and he deserves a nomination.

The cool aspect of film making involved in this picture revolves around the different colors. The color of the film would represent the different moods of the characters. Anytime Colin Firth's character was having a happy moment, the film would be beautifully vibrant. Then, when he would become depressed thinking about his lost lover (Matthew Goode), the film would take a darker tone. That to me was more interesting to watch than the story itself.

(The review for this film is very short because I saw it a month ago and held off too long on writing it. I want to see it one more time before I post a full review. This should give you an idea of how I felt though).

Back to Top

Avatar
Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

(NOTE: I saw the film a second time at a theater with a brand new digital 3D projector (AMC MAZZA GALLERIE in Washington D.C.) and the experience was worlds beyond the first time I saw it. I would like to revise my rating from a 2.5 (Rental/Matinee) to a 3 (Matinee) out of 5, still keeping my thoughts the same below).

Let me get this straight. James Cameron had eleven years to make this film and while he perfected the visual art form, he decided to tell a tired story that we have all heard before mixed in with an awful script and mediocre acting? Did I mention he tells a story that lacks emotional connection to the audience? Not once, did I feel a connection to any of the characters. That just doesn't seem right to me. If you are spending that much time and putting that much sweat into a project, I would want the most original story, killer dialogue and top of the line acting. I guess we can see now where all of the work went (partially into the marketing campaign stating this will change cinema). After all of my negativity, I will say something positive. The last forty minutes of the film are a complete and utter masterpiece. Is that ADD enough for you?

Avatar is easily the most anticipated movie of 2009 and it just pains me to tell you that it is just, OK. Besides the masterful last forty minutes of the film, I felt bored and a bit miserable at times. The plot was predictable and the characters were not interesting. At least I could look at Cameron's beautiful visuals for two hours until the action and greatness kicked in. It literally feels like the gears of a car changing once the film reaches the two hour mark. I almost felt like Cameron was sitting there thinking to himself, "This is getting really old. Let's try something different." He then ends the movie on the note that I was looking for the entire time.

The lead star of the film is a wheel-chair bound marine named Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington, who we saw earlier this year in the disappointing Terminator: Salvation. Jake had a twin brother who had been doing scientific work on a moon called Pandora, in which the U.S. Government is seeking an important item that could help the dying Earth. Human beings cannot breath the air on Pandora, therefore Jake's twin brother was working on the Avatar project, creating these half human-half Na'vi creatures, that could breathe the Pandora air. The human would sit in a portal and link to the avatar, being able to speak, move and do everything for it. The problem is that each avatar is specifically designed to fit the person who is running it. After Jake's brother passes away, they call Jake up for a 6 year mission to help the scientists interact with the Na'vi people using his brother's avatar. Considering they were twins, Jake would have no problem matching the DNA.

As in any movie where people invade a foreign area, there is going to backlash and problems. The Na'vi people have not been nice to the humans, considering we are trying to take an important resource from them. This obviously creates the tension and drama for the film because the humans are willing to go to war with the Na'vi for their precious resource. The mission is to send Jake in as an Avatar to convince the Na'vi to let the humans take their resource. Jake can relay information back to the home base so that we can better understand these beings.

That all sounds original and fantastic, which would have been great if it was not all told to you in the first five minutes of the film. Here is where the film takes the unoriginal turn. Jake connects to his avatar and immediately goes to Pandora, eventually falling in love with its people. He meets a female member of the Na'vi named Neytiri (played by Zoe Saldana from Star Trek) who he falls in love with and eventually wants to become one of them. He loves them so much that he actually wants to protect them from the humans, especially Col. Miles Quaritch (who is played amazingly by Stephen Lang). I will admit that he played a great villain and he deserved more screen time. The film also stars Sigourney Weaver as a scientist who is actually there to study the Na'vi for scientific purposes.

The film's biggest issue is that it is the classic example of "style over substance." I am aware that is a cliché, hence why I put that in quotes, considering it's been used a million times. In fact, I think Webster's dictionary should create a definition for that saying and have it simply say Avatar. I host a movie radio show here in Washington D.C. and as I was riding home with my co-host, we were discussing that you can have the best visuals in the world but if your story is boring you will lose your audience. I felt lost for the first two hours of the film and had to entertain myself by taking my glasses off and on. People will argue that the graphics are amazing and that was the point of the film. I understand that fact but if I am going to sit in a theater for two hours and 40 minutes and invest my time and money, I want to be entertained and fully embraced by Cameron's imagination. What I get are mind blowing visuals with a lackluster story and that is not something I want to recommend to people. The first two hours did not appeal to me one bit in the emotional department. Luckily, the visuals were something to look at but after a while it became monotonous and all seemed like it blended together. Luckily, he punches you in the face with a killer last forty minutes, which helped me not to totally hate my experience.

When it comes to the script and the dialogue, it all seemed too simple and childlike. This is mostly heard from the mouth of Michelle Rodriguez's character. While she may be great to look at, her character in the film was so annoying. She played this "bad boy" character where she had a foul mouth and tries so hard to be bad-ass, while failing miserably. There is one particular line at the end of the film where incorporates the word "bitch" into her sentence. This was supposed to be a pivotal scene in the film and it only ended up bringing embarrassing laughter. A lot of the dialogue in the film did seem childish and very dumbed down.

I guess what everyone wants to know is whether or not the film will revolutionize film making. While the CGI may be the best I have ever seen, it is only slightly better. There have been major improvements in CGI while James Cameron was perfecting his technology over the past decade. To be honest, look at something like Transformers, Beowulf, Disney's A Christmas Carol. Those are all phenomenal achievements in CGI. Yes, Avatar may be better but not by much. Sadly, it did not blow me away. If there was a high point graph that showed the highest point of CGI reached, the marker would move up an inch at most. It is one small step for CGI and not the end all-be all that everyone thinks it is going to be.

The camera James Cameron created for this film is 2 HD cameras combined into one lens to create a more realistic and better 3D experience. His camera was actually used for a completely live action film earlier this year, called The Final Destination, where the live action 3D looked phenomenal. The same goes for Avatar, which has unbelievable live action 3D but I didn't really see a difference in the animated 3D. You can tell this from one of the opening shots of the film, when lead character Jake Sully, is first getting to Pandora. I understand the 3D being used in this film is more for depth of field, as opposed to having things fly out at you. Regardless, the 3D didn’t feel much different from what I have been seeing. Though, I kept taking my glasses off and the visuals seemed much more vibrant that way. We all know how annoying those 3D glasses are but one of the big issues is that they darken the actual finished product. The film is absolutely beautiful and should be seen in it's full vibrant form. Maybe I need to check this film out in 2D.

Now, 3D is completely different from CGI. The CGI in the movie is the best I have ever seen. What makes CGI so outstanding is when a human character can interact with a CGI character and the interaction will look flawless and realistic. To me, this was perfected in the film District 9, where actor Sharlto Copley was essentially talking to nothing but a stick. Then director Neil Blomkamp dropped in the aliens creating a perfect CGI/Human interaction. That movie only cost $30 million to make, as opposed to James Cameron's supposedly $300 million Avatar. Now, in Cameron's defense, he created an entire planet of CGI, and while it looked beautiful, I do not find it to be revolutionary.

You have to understand my past with James Cameron to feel my disappointment. For the past couple of years, I have been telling people that this guy has never made a bad film. I would honestly say that it is because of James Cameron that I love movies so much. When I was in second grade, I had to get a good report card in order to convince my parents to let me watch Terminator 2: Judgment Day. I then went back as I got older and watched The Terminator, Aliens, True Lies and of course, Titanic. He had never made a bad film. For people who bring up Piranha 2, I heard he was actually fired from that set and did not complete that film. Therefore, that does not count. The reason I am rambling on about his movies is to show you how invested I was in Avatar being a great film. All of his other movies had emotion and characters that I liked. I cry every time I watch the end of Terminator 2 because I was so invested in Furlong and Schwarzenegger's relationship. He never let me become invested with the characters in Avatar.

The last forty minutes of the film are what I thought the whole movie would be. The effects, action and actors were all put to the test. The ending battle between the Na'vi and the humans was just mind-blowingly fantastic, which brings me to my plan for this film. I call this, the Kevin McCarthy "AVATAR" experience. If you want to take in the movie in the best way possible, all you have to do is the following. Book a reservation at your favorite restaurant at the exact same time the film starts. Purchase your tickets for the movie at the same time as the reservation and go to dinner. Keep checking your watch to make sure you walk into the film during the last 40 minutes. Sit down, enjoy those 40 minutes and walk out with a smile. You will be satisfied, I promise. See this way we all win. The movie company gets their money and we get our bad-ass 3D action flick that we had hoped for.

The rest of the film is a two hour, jumping through trees and shooting bow and arrow-fest until we reach the climactic 40 minutes, where in my opinion, the film completely shifts gears and becomes a great movie. There is a shot towards the end that was so epic that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It deals with a tree and that is all I will say.

This becomes a problem because I loved the last 40 minutes so much, but I was so disappointed with the first 2 hours. How should I rate something like that? My overall experience was disappointing and underwhelming. I give the visuals a 5/5 and the story/acting/script a 2/5 which brings my overall rating to a disappointing 2.5.

Back to Top

Did You Hear About the Morgans?
Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

It honestly amazes me that Hollywood releases the same film about ten times a year.

I was going to start off my review with something cheesy like, "I hope you haven't heard of the Morgans because they are sappy, unoriginal and boring," but I figured that would be an overused opening. Though considering that I just alluded to it, I still ended up opening my review with that statement. Either way, Did You Hear About The Morgans?, is just another romantic comedy where two characters who are having some type of romantic struggle, are put into a situation where they have to somehow work together and eventually learn a moral lesson. I almost feel like they have millions of these scripts lying around and they just plug in the actors and actresses who will best fit the part. I can just see a mad scientist (wait that is giving it too much credit) lurking over the script plugging in Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker. "Hmm...Hugh Grant hasn't had a hit in a while and Sarah Jessica Parker needs to step away from Sex and the City."

Well, now we have our finished product and while it may bring some laughter every once in a while, it is a lesson in sappiness. The film is filled with unnecessary plot points that serve only as catalysts to get these characters to a place where they finally figure out that they can't live without each other. Paul (Hugh Grant) and Meryl Morgan (Sarah Jessica Parker) are a recently separated couple living in the Big Apple. Paul is a big time lawyer, while Meryl is a star real estate agent who also happens to be a community figure. As with every romantic comedy, there must be a problem that brings these two characters together somehow. Well, after Paul cheated on Meryl, he desperately tries to get her back by asking her to dinner. This dinner just happened to occur on the same night that one of Meryl's clients was murdered. But wait! There's more! The killer notices Meryl and Paul walking by the murder scene and now is after them! The police are forced to throw them in the witness protection program, which moves them to a small town called Ray, Wyoming. There, they will experience the culture shock together while living with the Sheriff in town, played by Sam Elliot.

A mandate should be set in place that all romantic comedies, before they are released, shall be screened to a select group of people (like the Academy). If this romantic comedy is not as good or funny as Love, Actually, then it should immediately be tossed straight to D.V.D. I could only wish for a Richard Curtis romantic comedy. Love, Actuallyis pretty much The Dark Knight of comedies. That would make it easier on me as a critic and it would save the movie industry money. The only person who seems to be doing semi-successful romantic comedies is Sandra Bullock. Shockingly enough, The Proposal actually worked for me on some levels, even though it is yet again another romantic comedy where two people are placed in a forced situation.

What can I say about this film that isn't already obvious from the trailers? The movie is predictable, cliché, mostly unfunny and has the most unrealistic ending possible. Let me preface this by saying that I am not joking here. There is a scene at the end where Sarah Jessica Parker's character is delivering lines of dialogue to Hugh Grant in the climactic moment of the film. I turned to the co-host of my radio show, Josh Hylton, in disbelief hoping that her delivery was some type of joke and that she was going to change her tone mid-sentence and play it off. I turned out to be extremely wrong and it was the finalized delivery of that line. It was one of the soapiest, over acted, high school-type delivery I have ever heard. It sounded like a three year old was practicing Shakespeare lines.

I will point out a couple of positives before I end the review. There is a very clever opening sequence where the credits are rolling, Woody Allen-style, and all we hear is Hugh Grant's character leaving multiple voice mails. The jokes and writing in that section are actually very funny and gave false hope that the film could actually be good. Hugh Grant, though half of his jokes were horrendous, didn't really bother me. He was likable enough to sit through and occasionally had a good joke. God only knows why Sam Elliot was in this film but he was himself which is always entertaining.

Just go to your local video store and rent hundreds of other films just like it, that are better, i.e. Notting Hill, Love, Actually, The Proposal, Definitely, Maybe, etc. It has gotten to the point now where I am running out of things to say about films like this. I will take that as a cue and end my review by saying that the film receives a 1 rating out of 5.

Back to Top

Invictus
Genre: Biography/Drama
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Invictus is the product of a great story but that that is overshadowed negatively by mediocre performances and pacing issues. The film comes to you from veteran actor/director Clint Eastwood, who appears to be pumping a movie a year. The guy is in his late 70's, yet puts out more amazing work each year. Then, you take a look at someone like James Cameron, who hasn't made a film since 1998. I guess there's a fair balance because Cameron has been developing this new technology but maybe he should take some lessons from Eastwood. Now before I start sounding like I loved the film, let me say this is one of the weaker films I have seen from him, yet it still receives a positive rating. I heard someone say once that the reason Eastwood is such a great director is that he doesn't try to show off with the camera. He allows the camera to tell the story without trying to do anything quirky. Though, this time around, he has some pretty interesting angles which occur during the rugby matches. He was able to get the camera underneath the huddle.

I will be the first to say that I do not know much about rugby. We are given a major rule from one of the players saying that you can only pass sideways and behind. That pretty much sums up how to play the game. What's interesting about the film, being that it does focus around Nelson Mandela's Presidency, is how much the film is focused on the sport. This makes sense considering that Mandela essentially helped the country of South Africa mend it's differences by using a sport to combine it's people.

Those who are not familiar with Mandela's story may need a brief history lesson. He was wrongly thrown in jail for close to thirty years for doing absolutely nothing wrong. After he was released from prison in 1990, he quickly went on to run for office and was elected President of South Africa. Though the apartheid, or legalized racial segregation, had started in the 40's, he felt he could put a stop to it. He saw an opportunity to unite the country and that opportunity happened to be rugby. You can see when he attends his first rugby game at the beginning that he is stunned by the fact that the country appeared to be so divided.

The film is based on a book entitled "Playing the Enemy" by John Carli and tells the true story of the South African rugby team called the Springbok's, that changed the nation. The film and story take place in 1995 during the World Cup Championship of Rugby. Mendela is played by Morgan Freeman and the captain of the rugby team, Francois Pienaar , is played by Matt Damon. They essentially team up to change history.

The film has a ton of heart but that also comes off as a problem at times. I had a hard with something I like to call the "opposite effect," which was used a ton throughout the film. This is when Clint Eastwood obviously sets up a scene making the audience think something negative is about to happen and then all of a sudden, the positive occurs. I understand this is a true story but as a director, you want to keep your audience guessing. I caught on to this early on in the film, so sometimes throughout, I was able to predict a positive outcome which kind of hurt the film at times for me.

While I was watching the film, I checked my watch and realized the film had 40 minutes left to go, even though the major part of the story had already been told. All I could do was sigh and see what more Eastwood could do with the story. There is a game at the end of the film between South Africa and New Zealand that clearly went on for far too long. Rugby is a sport that I haven't really gotten into so I was kind of confused throughout the games as to what was actually occurring.

The cheese factor was a bit high for my taste. I am sorry, but sometimes, a really cheesy moment will just make me burst out into laughter and there are a couple in this film that were so forced and thrown down your throat. In particular, a shot by shot scene of an South African child trying to work his way up to some white South African cops to listen to the rugby match. At first, the cops are very mean to the little boy, showing the effects of the apartheid and the hatred people had. As the game comes closer to victory, you can see the separation between the two part getting smaller and smaller. All of a sudden once a happy moment occurs, the cops and the child who once hated each other were somehow now miraculously united because of this game. Eastwood went as far as to have the cop put the child on his shoulders and run around laughing and playing. I understand that Eastwood was trying to show us that this sport was bringing the country together but that scene came off as more of a hallmark card metaphor. There are a couple of those throughout that bothered me.

As I was taking notes on this film, I came across things that I kept writing down that really bugged me about the movie. Other than one awful scene, the musical choices for the film were actually very well done. I really enjoyed the opening song and the ending song but there is a song in the middle that plays during a helicopter scene that was just horrendous and did not fit the film. It was called "Colorblind" and started off with these weird vocals that just threw me completely out of the film.

Morgan Freeman has always been a great actor but I don't understand why he couldn't nail the Nelson Mandela accent. He kept cutting in and out and it was a bit distracting. You could hear his normal voice sometimes mixed in with Mandela's accent. It just seemed a bit sloppy for me.

What I really enjoyed about the film, and what kept the film in the positive range, was learning about Nelson Mandela. As he was in prison, he read a poem called INVICTUS, which helped him through the hard times. As he gets out, people start pointing that he is now shaking hands with the same people who wrongfully put him in jail for 30 years. There are so many great statements throughout the film that are so inspiring that just make you want to be a better person. To be honest, I never really knew too much about the man and now I feel that even though he had those twenty-seven awful years in prison, they actually made him better man. It was the little things that he did that made him who he was. It was the simplest of things like having his security guards smile while they guarded him.

The one statement that really stood with me was when he said "Forgiveness liberates your soul." I have always felt this way about anything in life as well. There is no point in arguing, being mean to people or seeking revenge. That only creates an endless cycle and it was Mandela's mission to stop that cycle. This is one of the biggest reasons that I enjoyed the film. I really thought Mandela's message came through strongly. Now all Eastwood had to do was speed up some of the scenes and end the film about 15 minutes early and it could have been great. We are left with a great story, some terrible cheese and some pacing issues, equaling the film out to a 3 out of 5.

Back to Top

The Princess and the Frog
Genre: Animation/Family/Fantasy/Musical/Romance
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

The Princess and The Frog gave me the exact same feeling as eating my mom's freshly baked sugar cookies. Like my mom's sugar cookies, this delightful treat took me back to my childhood when I used to watch the classic 2D animated Disney films growing up. My favorite was always Aladdin because I had a bit of a crush on Jasmine. Yes, I know she is an animated character but that was the only girl I really knew of back then that I thought was actually gorgeous. Nowadays, I am more of a Natalie Portman type of guy.

We have been so overloaded with CGI animation these days, ever since Disney/Pixar released Toy Story back in 1995. That amazing film (which had an even better sequel) spawned over a decade of CGI animated film after the other. At first, it was great. We had this new technology and we were able to bring digital characters to life and give them heart. The pinnacle of this time period was last year when we were treated to Disney/Pixar's Wall-E, which transformed a garbage disposing robot into one of the most memorable characters ever seen on screen. After that film, I honestly did not know how much more CGI animation I could take. Up was great and I really enjoyed Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, but I needed something else. As always, Disney comes to the rescue with their first 2D animated film since 2004.

This film is actually a spin-off of the classic story, "The Frog Prince," where a prince is turned into a frog and has to kiss the princess to become a man again. What's funny is that Disney actually opens this movie with the lead character, Tiana (voiced by Anika Noni Rose), as a child being read the story of "The Frog Prince." Tiana's mother (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) is reading the story to Tiana and her friend, Charlotte (voiced by Jennifer Cody). Tiana swears that she will never kiss a frog, or she thought!

Growing up, all Tiana and her father ever wanted was for Tiana to open her own restaurant in New Orleans, where the story takes place. After he father passes away, she makes it her only goal. Trying to save up enough money to by the lease on the place, she works double shifts like her father. Until one day, a prince comes to town and stirs things right up. Prince Naveen (voiced by Bruno Campos) is visited by a mysterious man named Dr. Facilier (or the Shadowman). Naveen and his assistant, Lawrence (voiced by Peter Bartlett) mysteriously switch places and the Prince is turned into a frog. Thinking that Tiana is a princess, he asks her for a kiss and she too, turns into a frog. Now, they must embark on this wonderful and delightful adventure to make themselves human again. But remember kids, this is a Disney movie so they have to learn a message along the way and that message is great.

Let me start off by saying bravo to the animators. Let me stop my entire review just to say, BRAVO (with loud clapping hands and hoorays!). First of all, the process these animators go through to create one second of film is unreal. Considering there are 24 frames per second, each frame has to have a different movement. I was talking with a Slashfilm.com's writer Brendon Connelly, who was invited to the Disney Studios in California recently. He explained that even within one second, there are multiple movements which each require their own 24 drawings. So, if Tiana is walking with Princess Naveen, both of them require 24 drawings for one second of film. I know this is old news and how it's been done for years, but wow.

The film is beautiful, both on the visual side and substance side of things. You usually hear people say "style of substance" when it comes to certain movies. This movie was style and substance on the exact same high plane. The uses of greens, purples, reds and every color imaginable bring this wonderful story to life. One of the cooler aspects of the animation was the character of the Shadowman. As we see right from the start, we see that even when this character is walking around, his shadow is doing its own evil business. We learn later on that he is part of a cult group of shadows and once all of these shadows are released they play a key creepy aspect to the film. Keith David beautifully nailed the performance to a tee and the animators even gave him the gap between his front teeth.

The throwback was great to the 2D. One scene that I really loved was a scene where these three hunters are hunting frogs. It gets to that classic Disney point where the frogs start playing games with the hunters and making them beat themselves up. I just remember as a kid seeing those classic Disney bruises. They weren't black and blue, but a weird hairy bump on the characters head. What's funny is how violent the scene is but considering its slapstick nature, it is played for laughs.

Every character in the film was wonderful in their own right. I didn't feel like the main focus was on the love story, as much as it was on every character in the film. Each character had their own special screen time, whether it be the hilarious firefly, Ray (voiced by Jim Cummings), the musical alligator, Louis (voiced by Michael Leon Wooley) or Mamma Odie (voiced by Jennifer Lewis). Each were special on their own and completely enriched the story.

The film will make you feel great, laugh and leave you with an overall warm feeling. The themes of need and wants are splashed all over the film and this will go down as a great Disney classic. To me, the film was flawless. A lot of it had to do with the fact that it was great to see that beautiful hand drawn animation again. The film receives a 4.5 BDK out of 5 and should be seen right now!

Back to Top

Up in the Air
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

In George Clooney's 3rd and final film of 2009, he hits a home run with Reitman's hilarious, yet realistic script. The guy is on fire, starting off with the not-so-funny Men Who Stare at Goats and then moving on to Wes Anderson's masterpiece, Fantastic Mr. Fox. Now, he stars in Jason Reitman's 3rd and best film, Up in the Air, playing a corporate guy who flies around the country firing people. His sole job is to walk into a company he has never seen before and fire an employee so that the company doesn't have to do it themselves.

Reitman's script is so clever, hilarious yet is still able to drive home a realistic story about a man that essentially goes through a mid-life crisis. Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a guy who has pretty much written off a "normal" life and lives in a very sheltered existence. This existence is a bit ironic though, considering that he is flying from city to city each week. His idea of success is reaching 10 million frequent flier miles. Only a select few people in the world have reached this goal and he feels this would be a major accomplishment. So much, that he has pretty much disregarded his family and friends. When he actually does go home, his apartment is very bleak and empty, as if no one actually lives there. It might as well be another hotel he is staying in. He would much rather be in an airport or in a city he's never heard of. He barely keeps in touch with his sister Julie (Melanie Lynskey), who calls him often, but now she is getting married to a man named Jim (Danny McBride), whom he hardly knows. They have a quirk of their own and have Ryan carrying a cardboard cut out of the two around the country to take pictures in front of famous landmarks.

Bingham has pretty much turned off any type of emotion towards another human being but his life is completely changed when a new woman enters his company by the name of Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Keener has an idea that the company should start firing employees via the Internet which would pretty much keep Bingham from being up in the air. He would have to sit in a cubicle for hours during the day firing people on a computer screen. He obviously doesn't feel this is right and takes Keener out on the road with him to show her how his job works. While out, he falls in love with a woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga) who flies around the country as much as he does, creating drama throughout the film. Natalie, being a younger woman, eventually becomes someone that Ryan can talk to. She seems like a person that can finally make him realize that he doesn't need to be alone. He needs to be with people.

Up in the Air contains some of the most classic dialogue I have seen in a film in a long while. Reitman co-wrote the script with Sheldon Turner (who has actually written some duds, i.e. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Longest Yard, which is a different turn from adapting Diablo Cody's Juno to the screen two years ago. He mentioned in a press conference that he had been working on this script before Thank You for Smoking and that directing this film at a later time in his life worked out for the better because he now has a kid, a home and a mortgage. That makes perfect sense considering the films focus on this character who seemed so content in this lonely life. He totally lost the reality of what it was like to have family and friends. He also joked in the press conference that his dad and producer of the film, Ivan Reitman, wrote the best line in the film. You will know it when you hear it. (hint: it has something to do with texting).

Though Clooney was great, Anna Kendrick stole the entire film. What's funny is that I saw this movie over a month ago and I lost my notes because my phone had to be reset. Though, I still remember everything I wanted to say about it because I haven't gone a day without thinking about the movie. Kendrick's performance was so quirky, cute and hilarious at the same time. Her best scenes are when Clooney's character puts her to the test and actually lets her fire people in real life. You could feel her nervousness. Even though I have yet to experience the feeling of firing a person, I felt that was as close to reality as it gets. If you have ever fired anyone and see this movie, shoot me an email at bdkjunkies@gmail.com to let me know if it was realistic. You will see some great cameo performances during the firing scenes; Sam Ellion, J.K. Simmons and Zack Galafianakis.

The movie always has this clever feel throughout, while also portraying this serious story about this lonely man. Reitman perfectly balances that out for the audience so you are able to have a good time with the movie, yet walk away feeling like you saw a realistic story as opposed to the same Hollywood garbage we always see. The characters are very easy to relate to and you could put yourself in any of their shoes.

This film receives a 5 out of 5 and I promise you won't stop thinking about it after you see it. It has been over 4 weeks and I think about it everyday.

Back to Top

Armored
Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Armored is amateur film making at its finest. Director Nimrod Antal, who is also directing the upcoming Predators film, does show promise with interesting shots and intense action scenes. My problem was that he chose to shove metaphors down your throat. He would try to have a visual to show the downfall of a character and then he would continue to use that visual throughout the film and it became really old. For example, Columbus Shorts' character tells Matt Dillon's character that he doesn't want blood on his hands if they go through with this heist. Therefore, throughout the entire film, we see two or three characters with close-ups on their hands showing blood, signifying the wrongdoing of their actions. It seemed as if the director was trying to be smart but came off as way too obvious.

Along with Columus Short (Stomp The Yard) and Matt Dillon (Crash), Armored also stars Lawrence Fishburne (The Matrix), Jean Reno (The Professional- such a great film), Amaury Nolasco (Transformers), Skeet Ulrich (Scream) and Milo Ventimiglia ("Heroes").

The film is set-up like most heist films where you have a character who is reluctant to be involved at first but something drags this him/her into the mix. Columbus Short plays Ty Hackett, who recently lost his mom and dad and his now raising his little brother Jimmy. Hackett was just over in Baghdad and is now back working at an armored security company, transporting millions of dollars daily. His Godfather, Mike (played by Matt Dillon), has been there for him and Jimmy since their parents have passed away. Mike also works for the armored security company and comes up with a plan to steal $42 million dollars during one of their runs. We hear a story in the beginning of the film about a heist that occurred in 1988 where the armored security men stole the money and made up a story that they were jacked. Ty, who is a bit reluctant at first, gets dragged into the mix with Mike and his other men, which include Baines (Lawrence Fishburne), Palmer (Amaury Nolasco), Dobbs (Skeet Ulrich) and Quinn (Jean Reno). Baines goes crazy and ends up killing a homeless man at the beginning of their heist and this changes everything. Anytime murder is involved, people are liable to change their ways.

The film's first half is riddled with cliches and awful metaphorical dialogue that came off as, "hey look, we are trying to be smart here." In the first half of the film alone, we here some of the most overused lines in history. Dillon rattles off a line to Columbus short about how the times are changing but everything stays the same. Columbus Short rattles off a line to Matt Dillon about how the world's weight is coming down on him, referring to how the bank wants to take his home and leave him homeless. We also get the typical cliché about how Short's character doesn't want blood on his hands during this heist. While, it is promised to be a clean heist, we know there will be issues and the director likes to show them off.

The second half of the film is actually pretty entertaining and fun. Once murder is brought into the mix of the film, every character starts to get a little medieval, except for Columbus Short. What seemed like fun characters in the beginning of the film, all of the armored men turn out to be cold blooded killers, which to me, was a flaw in the story. Never once did any of these men seem like nasty people. The real drama starts when a cop is shot. Once this happens, the situation gets real and everyone starts panicking. Throughout the second half, we are dealing with Columbus Short and this bloodied cop trying to get out of the situation, while the other men are still worried about the money. I couldn't help but think of Tim Roth in Reservoir Dogs, while this bloodied cop lays in the back of this armored truck. Tim Roth's acting in the back of that car in Tarantino's film was just tremendous and probably the most realistic rendition of a man taking a bullet, ever.

So, half the movie sucks and the other half is a little bit above average, which mathematically works out to be about a 2.5 BDK rating on my scale. There are just way too many plot holes and unoriginal story points to warrant a viewing in theaters.

I do want to point out that even though the director's script and shots were, at times, amateurish, there were a few shots in the film that I actually did enjoy. One in particular is when a character is running away from an armored truck that is chasing him. This is in a steal mill and we get these tracking shot which is behind a bunch of long steel tubes. As this character is running, the camera gets glimpses of his face through the steal tubes. When you see the film, the character running is Columbus Short. That and there was a long cut shot in the middle of the film that takes place between Dobbs and Ty which was really well done. See, the movie does have some endearing qualities, but not enough.

Over the years, I have developed this weird sense where I am able to tell when I am completely into a movie and then get thrown out. During today's film, there was a good chunk where my brain just wasn't into the film. I was too distracted by the flaws of the movie to be able to enjoy and this generally happened in the first half. Once the action and intensity ramped itself up, bringing the cop into the mix, my brain was drawn in. You can tell a movie is good when you are not thinking of anything else during it. That only happened about half of the time during this film.

Back to Top

Brothers
Genre: Drama/Thriller/War
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

The Amazing Sam Cahill! In short, the film is better than the trailer but the trailer gives the entire movie away. Even though you have seen everything, Brothers is worth seeing for the performance of Tobey Maguire. Jim Sheridan has finally removed Tobey Maguire from his Spider-Man mask and turned him into a brilliant actor. Not once, did I think of the character of Spider-Man. Maguire completely owned this film and gives a performance that will leave you completely breathless; if I may use that cliché.

Brothers is a classic case, much like Funny People, where the trailer gives away too much information about the story line. In the Brothers trailer, we are told that Sam Cahill (Maguire) and Tommy Cahill (Jake Gylennhal) are brothers, hence the title. Sam is a marine and is about to ship off for his second tour in Afghanistan. Over there, he falls to the terrorists and his family, including his wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and two children, are left thinking he is dead. Sam and Tommy's father, Hank Cahill (played by Sam Shepherd), has always been hard on the children, favoring Sam as the better son because he joined the armed forces like his father. Tommy always felt like the outcast that didn't amount to anything, considering the opening section of the film is him getting out of prison. To make up for his mistakes, he starts to take care of Grace and Sam's two kids, while slowly falling in love with Grace. Right as they are finally clicking and everything is back to normal, Sam is found to be alive by the military and is coming back home. Can you sense the drama?

Sherdian tells the story in a linear fashion, cutting back and forth to Grace, Tommy and the kids to Sam while he is being held captive by the terrorists in Afghanistan. His helicopter went down but he survived the crash and was captured. While we are watching Tommy take care of the kids and Grace, we see the torture that Sam goes through.

There is a great scene in the beginning of the film where Tommy's character has just finished his jail sentence and the entire family is now eating dinner at Sam and Grace's house. Tommy's dad is egging him on about how Sam is more successful and wondering why Tommy didn't turn out that way. To me, that turned out to a problem in the film, where I thought everything was a bit forced and shoved down your throat. You have this typical cliché story where one of the sons is more like his father and the other is the outcast. Yet, they are all having a nice dinner and the father can't leave Tommy alone. It just felt a bit overdone just to create tension for the film's purposes.

Anyway, that scene at the dinner table shows Tommy as the unstable one. Later on in the film, once Sam gets back from his "prison sentence" (Afghanistan), he is the unstable one. We see Tommy as the well put together gentlemen who everyone respects now. As simple as that may sound, it was a great 360 in character development for me. I enjoyed how much the characters had changed over the course of the film.

Tobey Maguire's performance was so fascinating to watch. Not only was it intense but it lifted any suspicion of whether or not the guy could act. It appeared that once he came back from the war that he lost a ton of wait. You can see it in his face and tell it by the fact that his wedding ring now slides off his finger, as opposed to being stuck like in the beginning of the film. The best part of his performance were his eyes. They were so frightening to look at when he would get ticked off. As he starts to question whether or not his brother slept with his wife or not, the tension builds and we get this amazing last thirty minutes that will take your breath away.

My biggest issue with the film, besides the fact that everything was in the trailers, was that it felt very over the top at times. There is a specific scene that completely through off my suspension of disbelief. It takes place at the dinner table after Sam is back from the war. One of the children, Isabelle, gets out of her seat and rambles off these two lines of dialogue that were so forceful and hurtful that it threw Sam over the top. I can understand why she said these things but she's too young to put together such a brutal line of dialogue. It just felt like the perfect line to say and not something that would be thought of in real life. It was almost too harsh, like the things the father says to Tommy in the beginning of the film.

I do have to mention the amazing performances by the Cahill children in this film. Isabelle Cahill (Bailee Madison) and Maggie Cahill (Taylor Geare) deliver very realistic child performances. It is usually very tough to find child actors who can help carry an entire film. This happened last week with Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Road, where the character carried the entire film. The children were not annoying in the least bit and actually turned out to be a great emotional aspect to the film. Kudos to the casting person on this film for getting them.

Overall, the film delivers great performances, an intense story but feels overdone at times. It is like your steak coming out just a little overdone but you eat it anyways. I would say see the film because it does tell a great story, even if it is a bit cliché. Funny thing is that Natalie Portman's character says "I'm a total cliché" during the film, which I thought was a bit ironic. I give this film a 3.5 out of 5.

Back to Top

Everybody's Fine
Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Everybody's Fine is a simple film that goes down hard. Robert De Niro proves yet again that he can play any role out there and just nail it every single time. Though this role could be a little comparable to his character from Meet the Parents. Now could not be a more perfect time to release a film of this nature, considering the holidays are approaching and families will be together. It makes you appreciate the family you have. Though, the trailers and ads for the film promote it to be a holiday film, it is not.

Director Kirk Jones, who also directed Waking Ned, is remaking the 1990 Italian film Stanno Tutti Bene. This point interested me because I personally had never heard of the original. It is as if Hollywood is now sneaking these films to the U.S. And making them seem like originals.

De Niro plays Frank Goode, a father of four "children", who has recently lost his wife. His children, who appear throughout the film as their younger selves and present day versions, are spread all throughout the country. Robert (played by Sam Rockwell) lives in Denver and plays percussion in a symphony. Amy (played by Kate Beckinsale) lives in Chicago, works in advertising and has one child. Lucy (played by Drew Barrymore) lives in Las Vegas and works as a waitress in a bar. David lives in New York City and is aspiring artist.

All four children were supposed to come over to Frank's house for a weekend but all cancelled due to some reason that they fabricated. Frank has always been the type of father that wanted everything to be perfect, which eventually lead to the children only telling their mom the negative aspects of their lives. Since the kids won't come to Frank, he sets out on a trip to visit all four children. Going against the fact that his doctor says he is not in good health to be traveling, he takes buses and trains to each city. Frank has a condition that he takes medication for because he used to work in the telephone wire business, where he put PVC piping on the telephone wires. Breathing in those fumes over the years has diminished his health.

The telephone wires play a giant theme throughout the film as they essentially connect each city that he visits. He explains that he was responsible for a million feet of telephone wire and pontificates on how many negative conversations took place between those wires. One of the movies main story lines revolves around the fact that Frank's son David is nowhere to be found. As he travels from city to city, we hear the negative phone conversations happening as we see montages of telephone wires. Since Frank only hears the "good" news from his kids, we get to here the "bad" news via the telephone wires.

The film has this easy going sense to it but delivers such a complicated story. I have never seen something so dramatic go down so easy in my life. So much so, that I had a beautiful crying session at the end that wasn't because I was sad, but because I was happy for a particular character. There was a part of the story line that finally gets solved and they couldn't have ended it on a sweeter note.

Now, the ending of the film itself is a bit cheesy and cliché, which was one of my problems with the movie. It was already telling the story in a unique way with it's use of telephone wires. Kirk Jones also had a great vision where we would meet the children at a young age first and then they would become the older character during the same scene. There is a great scene where he is talking to his kids as their younger physical selves but they are older mentally. Those were all great aspects of the story telling but then Kirk Jones ends it on this typical family cliché moment which kind of hurt the film. Talking with a fellow critic, the original version of the film ends on a less cliché moment.

De Niro, amongst Barrymore, Rockwell and Beckinsale all deliver very natural performances. Family is such a hard thing to put onto film and they did a great job keeping it realistic. The whole movie I just kept asking myself, "Why do they keep lying to their father?" It all turns into a bit of a mystery which keeps the movie along very nicely. The pacing was actually perfect and did not leave me bored for one second.

Everybody’s Fine receives a 3.5 BDK rating out of 5. The ending was a bit painful in the cliché department.

Back to Top

The Road
Genre: Adventure/Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

I once heard Quentin Tarantino interviewed, where he was asked if he liked a particular film called Zodiac. He paused and kind of grunted for a minute before saying that he "admired" the film. To me, that was a nice way of saying that it was well-made but needed much improvement. Well, today, I am going to steal Tarantino's review of Zodiac and use that term for The Road (it is ok that I am stealing because it was an interview on the show I work for). While the film contains beautiful cinematography, a non-annoying lead child star, great source material and an overall pleasant message, it still suffers from pacing issues. Those pacing issues make the film seem longer than it really is.

The other day I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine regarding long, slow films. Now, The Road is roughly two hours long, yet feels much longer. Take The Godfather Part II for example, which was well over three hours long. Not for one minute during that film, was I bored. I enjoyed every second and that was a testament to Coppola's directing and pacing. With The Road, director John Hillcoat shots the movie brilliantly but it just drags on and on, at times, which all goes back to the fact that I did "admire" the film. I just didn't love it.

The film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Cormac McCarthy and tells the story of a father and son's survival after a massive disaster. This disaster has essentially ended the world and human beings have basically become extinct. Food and water are very scarce which has lead some people down the road of cannibalism. The characters in the film do not have names but the father is played by Viggo Mortensen and the boy is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee. They are the center of the film and we are also entertained by smaller roles by Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce and Robert Duvall. Duvall actually plays an older blind gentlemen that the father and son come across. This is kind of where you first see the dynamic between the father and the son. The son is really open to helping people. The father is very protective and feels that everyone is evil.

One of the reasons I really enjoyed the film was that dynamic between the father and son. Both learned from each other and grew as characters throughout the film. It is very tough to find a lead child actor for a serious movie. Director John Hillcoat said in an interview that was one of the major challenges in making the film. He wanted to find a child actor who could help carry the film. If you think about it, both Viggo and Kodi have to carry each other throughout the film. Both are learning from one another.

Hillcoat also talks about how the movie is more focused on the father/son and not the disaster that ended the earth. I was reading through the production notes that is one of the main factors that brought the director and actors on board. We have already seen a million disaster movies that show all of the earth being destroyed. This focused on the aftermath. Click here to listen to my interview with John Hillcoat explaining this fact.

Another positive was the stunning cinematography. The film has this amazing post apocalyptic look to it that truly makes you feel that the world has ended. This is obviously shown anytime we are taken to the past before the apocalyptic event. We go from the dark post-apocalyptic world to a normal world before hand. The change is very noticeable and interesting to watch. Some of the best cinematography actually occurs post the tragic event. There are brilliant shots at night time where the father and son are crossing over a swamp-like area. While they are crossing, there are burning fires in the background which illuminate their bodies. It was rather stunning.

You are probably wondering if I liked all of those things, why is my rating only 3.5 out of 5. Well, the pacing is just so slow at times. Hillcoat does throw in some very intense scenes where the father and son are put in danger. He also throws in interesting cameo performances from Robert Duvall as well as Guy Pearce. Those are the sparks of this dark film. I just had trouble watching a two hour film where it literally dragged on and on, much like the cargo the father and son were dragging. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad film but it does make it a slow one.

Overall, if the film had been cut a little tighter, I feel this could have been the perfect movie. The performances are outstanding and Kodi Smit-McPhee gives a movie stealing performance. The film receives 3.5 BDKs.

Back to Top

Fantastic Mr. Fox
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

While this may not be a film for everyone, I enjoyed every frame of it. I was reading through the production notes and of the crew was quoted as saying that this is not a film that done by moments, it is done by frames. Fantastic Mr. Fox is writer/director Wes Anderson's (Bottle Rocket, The Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited) first animated film, but being Wes Anderson, he did it with his own signature style of direction. Using the classic stop-motion animation, he brings to life Roald Dahl's story about a family of Fox's trying to survive against the man. Dahl is also responsible for writing one of the most beloved stories of our time; Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

The story revolves around Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), his wife (voiced by Meryl Streep) and his son Ash (voiced by Jason Schwartzman). Mr. Fox and his wife used to go around stealing chickens and such but have not resorted to a more normal life. He now writes for the Gazette but no longer wants to be poor. Their son Ash feels as if he is always being disrespected and is always wondering why his father will not consider him to be an athlete. To make matters worse, the family move into a tree, against their attorney's (voiced by Billy Murray) wishes. Ash's cousin, Kristopherson (voiced by Eric Anderson) comes to live with them and he begins to impress Mr. Fox. While there are family issues occurring, Mr. Fox decides he wants to do one more score and live on the wild side. His house sits right in front of three of the men named Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Bean is famous for his alcoholic cider that everyone craves. Mr. Fox doesn't realize that he will be pulling job on three men who can now threaten him and his family's lives.

Everything about this film felt fresh. The animation, while being choppy, felt so smooth at the same time. There were major parts of the film where I forgot that I was watching stop-motion animation and thought I was watching live action. Anderson shot the film, pretty much exactly the way he shoots his other movies, except this time he has puppets.

When I say I loved every frame of it, I mean just that. Each second of film has 24 frames and they had to fill each frame with a motion. Sometimes he would use the same movement for two frames and that is why you see that choppy look. The cool part is that when you do sit back and think about it being stop-motion, you have to think about all of the work that went into making an 88 minute film, frame by frame. The movement is so fluid. I just love the little things like the champagne bottle being opened or the montage sequence where they are all being flooded out by Bean's cider. That really blew my mind. I just had this wow face the entire movie. It is one of those movies that I would love to go back and just study.

All of the characters were witty and hilarious. One of my favorites was the rat (voiced by Willem Dafoe). He played Mr. Bean's security man. In one particular shot, when Mr. Fox has broken into Bean's house, there is a great silhouette shot of Mr. Bean standing at the door in the dark. As he takes a puff from his cigarette, his face finally appears. Something that little was just so fascinating.

The movie knew it was quirky and this is shown by the text that appears screen with Mr. Fox's plans and ideas. There were so many unique shots throughout the film and of course, how could you not fall in love with Mr. Fox's signature whistle and sound.

I was talking with Wes Anderson about the film and he was saying that since the story is short, he had to write a first and third act to surround Dahl's work. After seeing the final product, it is truly genius how he melded everything into one story. His first and third act felt like they belonged there all along.

This might be the Wes Anderson movie that will get his name out to bigger audiences. It still has that quirky Wes Anderson vibe to it but overall, it is a family film that is actually very well-written and voice acted. Streep, Clooney, Schwartzman and the rest of the cast were perfect for their parts.

I give this film a 4.5 out of 5.

Back to Top

Ninja Assassin
Genre: Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Ninja Assassin is completely mindless but the action scenes will definitely satisfy any fan of the genre. Turn your brain off and turn up the blood splatter! In the words of Rain himself, the film is "kickass." I guess the same could have been said about Roland Emmerich's 2012 but this film was an hour shorter and understood that the audience only wanted good ninja action. The script is absolutely horrendous, as well as the acting. There are also story points that were completely unnecessary but the ending and beginning action scenes help you get over any problems the film may have had.

My liking of this film is the same reason that I liked Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando. While both films were completely over the top and horrifically written, the action scenes were able to save the entire movie. One thing that Commando has over Ninja Assassin were the classic one-liners. Who could forget "Don't disturb my friend, he's dead tired" or "Let off some steam Bennett." Besides the fact that both films having great action scenes and awful scripts, they both had lead action stars teaming up with a female lead to help solve the mystery.

The star of the film, Rain, is actually a famous pop singer from Korea, who has released five albums and sold millions of records. He is basically the Asian version of the Beatles and is now starring in his first feature American role. He plays Raizo in the film, one of the world's greatest ninjas. The kick is that the film takes place in modern day and the thought of real ninjas roaming around in dark outfits, is pretty ridiculous. We learn from the beginning that ninjas are not a myth and are 100% real. Raizo's character is a Ninja on-the-run who has left his clan because he feels that their ways are not right. He feels that people are wrongfully put to death by his master. As the film crawls (no pun intended) through its modern story, we are treated to flashbacks as to how Raizo became who he is today. We see that he was brought into this ninja clan by a father figure and had an absolutely brutal upbringing. He eventually leaves that clan and begins to protect a woman named Mika, who works as an agent in Berlin. The Ninjas are after her and Raizo and it is up to him to protect her. We all know the story points are only there to lead us to the great action scenes.

The film comes to you from director, James McTeigue, who brought you the amazing V for Vendetta. Therefore, you can expect some extremely stylized action. The entire film of Ninja Assassin is as bad-ass as that last scene from Vendetta when V takes out all of those bad guys that are circled around him.

The film's problems can be completely over looked by the great action scenes. It also helps that the Wachowski Brothers produced the film, as they are well versed in great action as we saw in The Matrix. I almost feel like they could have cut down the film by thirty minutes and just strung together all of the bad-ass action scenes. There is a pointless plot that happens throughout the film which is an investigation by the Berlin government. One of the agents tries to uncover the mystery of the ninjas and it just seemed pointless. All people want to see from a film like this is violence and ninja stars and luckily you get plenty of that.

Sometimes when I watch a film, my eyes will start bothering me and I always immediately think it has something to do with the fact that I have had my contacts in all day long. But this film, at times, has action scenes that take place the dark. Considering that the ninjas where all black, it was tough at times to see the action. This distortion really hurt my eyes at times and the only way you could see people dying was to keep your eye out for he blood splatter. I never thought I would say this as a critic but the blood splatter made the movie better. From that perspective, it knew what it wanted to be and just went completely over-the-top. When you see the opening sequence, you will see exactly what I mean.

There is one particular scene in the film that deserves a 5 out of 5 rating. This particular scene takes place right at the end around a huge set of fire. Every fight sequence within this ending series is amazing and according to Rain, the fire was 100% real. There is one particular shot where Rain is fighting someone and they are behind a tent. All we can see if there shadows being reflected off of the fire. As they fight, we can only see their shadows but once Rain starts cutting the guy up, you see the blood splatter on to the cloth of the tent, signifying his death. That was just so bad-ass.

Listen, this is probably one of the worst scripts you will ever see on screen. The story is pointless but there are enough ninja stars and guns to keep you satisfied. It is ultra-violent, completely over-the-top and stupid fun. I walked out of the film with another critic and we had huge smiles on our faces. We knew it wasn't a good film but we had a fun time. The film receives 3.5 BDKs out of 5.

Back to Top

Old Dogs
Genre: Comedy/Family
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Old Dogs was so bad that I seen films that have been remade with more originality. In fact, Michael Haneke's shot for shot remake of Funny Games appeared to have more originality than Old Dogs, which was painful, predictable and completely formulaic. I truly hate having to use the word formulaic so much in my reviews but that is just the state of cinema we are in right now. This is a film that every scene could be predicted from a mile away. The sad part is that the trailer actually featured a relatively funny moment where Seth Green is being held by a gorilla while singing. While that is not funny nor original, it was the only comfort I had watching the film, knowing that scene may bring a smile to my face. Old Dogs is a complete waste of good talent, including a not-so-funny part from the late Bernie Mac. Wasn't Soul Plane supposed to be his last flick? This must be a really old dog that has been sitting on the shelf for a couple of years. Old Dogs also stars Robin Williams, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, Seth Green, Luis Guzman, Matt Dillon, Justin Long, Dax Shepherd and a surprisingly good-looking Lori Loughlin (she played Aunt Becky on "Full House"). All of these actors are better than this movie.

Charlie (Travolta) and Dan (Williams) run a sports marketing firm who are trying to land a $47 million deal with Nissan. They have been best friends all of their lives, as we see from the beginning credits, which features pictures of the two in high school and college. This deal with Nissan will be career defining and nothing should get in their way. But wait, it's a movie, so of course some issue will come up. Well, how about this for an issue! Charlie always tells a story about how Dan was divorced from his wife after fourteen years and then went down to Miami with Dan to get his mind off of it. Down there, he got married and divorced again within 24 hours. It has been seven years now since Dan has seen Vicki (Kelly Preston) and this time, she comes with some extra baggage. To make a long story short, Vicki is going to prison and needs someone to watch the kids. Oh wait, did I mention that they are Dan's kids as well? The rest of the film is Dan and Charlie taking care of Dan's two kids, while also trying to land this multi-million dollar deal. This leads us to the all-time important question about whether family or work is more important. Considering it's a Disney film, where do you think they will go with it?

The movie is downright painful to watch. Yes, there are a couple of funny scenes throughout but I was mainly laughing at how terrible the dialogue or acting was. It was obvious that both Travolta and Williams did this for a pay check. I can't tell you how many times I almost threw up my movie theater nachos in disbelief that I was hearing dialogue so awful.

Walt Becker, who directed the film, also directed Wild Hogs. Considering the genius of that film mixed with the genius this current masterpiece, I hope his IMDB page is true in saying that he is currently working on Wild Hogs 2: The Bachelor Ride. After seeing this film, I don't know if I can handle another. Becker's direction just seems so sophomoric, which actually worked for his first film Van Wilder. With Wild Hogs, the direction felt like it belonged more in a college film. Anytime he would shoot a flash back scene to Dan's crazy nights in Miami, he used that awful quick paced Saw-style of editing which completely threw me off.

Also, what was up with Bernie Mac's role? This came out of nowhere and was completely unnecessary. Since Williams' character is a new father, he is having trouble connecting with his kids. Therefore, for some odd reason, Travolta decides it would be smart to hire a puppeteer to help out. Williams' character puts on a suit to have tea with his daughter, which is actually being operated by Travolta behind the scenes. It was so odd, completely unfunny and just a waste of Bernie Mac, John Travolta and Robin Williams.

The film is littered with scenes of terribly painful dialogue and scenes that make you want to cringe. These are scenes where things are said that would only be said in a perfect world. In the Old Dogs world, there are problems and then there are solutions right around the corner. It is as if everything is tied up into a nice little bow for you and the characters.

Now, I gave the film a 1 BDK out of 5 because there were maybe two or three scenes that actually made me laugh. Both lead characters take a ton of different medications for different medical issues they have. At one point, their pills get mixed up and Travolta's character takes a pill that makes his face start twitching. Eventually his face turns into a "Joker" like face and he has this awkward smile for a while. That was so stupid it made me laugh. The rest of the laughs were to keep my self entertained. This is a film that will actually make you feel embarrassed to watch it.

*******SPOILER-ish thoughts**************

Talk about unoriginal. How many times has a character gone out for a big job and something goofy happens which actually makes the job interview go better? How many times have we seen a film where you have two best friends, one of which is the laid back guy and the other who is the anxiety filled friend? How many times have we had a film where a character finally realizes what is right and leaves the big opportunity that the entire story was resting on. I felt like I had scene this film a million times before and I am frankly getting tired of saying that. Hollywood needs to do something else.

Back to Top

The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Horror/Romance/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Check out my interviews with stars Edi Gathegi and Jamie Campbell Bower

The film is completely full of itself and loses track of the serious story, focusing more on glorifying the characters as sex objects. This sequel appeals more to the demographic (young teenage girls) than the last film did. It was as if the Beatles were doing a live show in the theater, anytime one of these characters would take their shirt off or appear on screen. It got to the point where I felt lost and not connected to the story anymore because they were focusing more on making the audience sigh and gasp.

New Moon is going to be a film that will help me become a better critic. This is a film where I am going to have to separate my disappointment, which was based on extremely high expectations, from the actual quality of the film. From a disappointment standpoint, the film is a major let down from the first one, which I found to be intense and powerful. There was such great chemistry between the characters of Edward and Bella in Twilight and that, to me, was completely lacking in the sequel. In the first film, their love felt so painful and real. You knew it would be tough for the two to be together but they somehow make it work. I once heard someone say that Twilight was essentially "Romeo and Juliet" meets vampires and that could not be further from the truth. So much so, that the filmmakers of New Moon placed a "Romeo and Juliet" book right by Bella's pillow as she wakes up in an earlier scene of the film.

Now, looking at it from a quality standpoint, it is not a horrible film in the least. The special effects are completely ramped up this time and you get well edited action sequences that will definitely satisfy people. You can tell the film was done on a higher budget (according to movieinsider.com - this one cost $50 million as opposed to the first film's budget of $36 million) and the cinematography was 100% better. I will say that the acting quality went down in my opinion. I almost feel like these actors have now realized how big of a deal this franchise really is. Therefore, they seem to overact a lot throughout the film and it got to a point where it seemed like they were overacting. There was some quality cinematography and great montage/action sequences.

Well, we already knew Chris Weitz could direct relatively decent polar bears in The Golden Compass, so why not give the guy a shot at directing some great looking werewolves in New Moon. Weitz takes the directing chair over from Catherine Hardwicke and then Weitz will hand it over to 30 Days of Night/Hard Candy director David Slade for Eclipse; the third book and film in the series. All films are based on the novels written by Stephanie Myer.

In case you missed the first film in the series, Twilight tells the story of Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). Cullen is a vampire who, in this fantasy world, can walk in the daylight and has no fangs. Yet, he sparkles when he is exposed to sunlight. Bella is moved to a small town called Fork, where she falls in love with Cullen, who also attends her high school. Cullen is reluctant at first, considering the fact that she is a human, but they can't help their love for each other. The first film ends with a battle of the vampires where Edward is forced to kill a vampire named James (Cam Gigandet), which then closes with a cliff hanger that shows us that James' girlfriend, Victoria, will be back for her revenge.

New Moon picks up right where Twilight left off. Edward and Bella are madly in love and it is now her birthday and she has been invited to the Cullen's for a party. Keep in mind, the Cullens do not feed on humans; only animals. Unfortunately, Bella gets a paper cut at the party, leading one of the vampires in attendance to almost attack her. This scares Edward to the point where he feels it is necessary for them to be apart. He says his goodbye and mentions that he will never see her again. This obviously kills Bella and leads her to seek friendship from her old friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), where she learns quick that if she feels adrenaline or danger, that Edward will pop up in her mind to tell her to not be reckless. Considering that Jacob is a good mechanic, she brings a couple of beat up dirt bikes to his place to fix. This forces her to spend time with Jacob but she has no clue of his dark secret. As she continues to be reckless and put herself in danger, Jacob is getting dragged deeper and deeper into a werewolf cult. Meanwhile, Edward is long away but when danger comes calling, he will be immediately affected. Let the love triangle begin! The film also also stars Peter Facinelli, Dakota Fanning, Edi Gathebi, Jamie Campbell Bower, Michael Sheen and Ashley Greene.

The biggest issue with the film is how uneven, slow and monotonous it was at times. It felt like it was all over the place and that it did not have a main focus, much like this movie review you are reading right now. The monotonous angle comes from the fact that the entire opening act deals with how Bella and Edward can't be together. Then, it proceeds to Bella and Jacob and they go through the same issues because of his werewolf issue. There are many scenes that occur between these characters where they are professing their love for one another and it just got old fast.

Also, what was up with the gratuitous shots of Jacob taking his shirt off or Edward walking in slow motion. It was obvious that the producers wanted to milk the audience for what it was worth. To me, these shots hurt the film and came off as distracting and cheese. They were like the cheesy slow motion shots you would see on "Baywatch", except instead of Pamela Anderson you have Jacob walking around without his shirt on while wearing a pair of jean shorts. It just felt very over the top and just begging for little girls to scream about it. That to me was distracting from the film's serious story line.

What happened to the chemistry? In the first film, I was so involved in Bella and Edward's struggle to be together. From the minute this movie opened, I felt that chemistry was lost. When Edward is telling Bella he can't be with her, I didn't feel it emotionally. Maybe it was the word choice or maybe it was the acting. Either way, I didn't feel it there. I felt a little at the end of the film but nowhere near the emotions I felt while watching the original film.

On to the positives. The fight sequences and werewolf transformations looked amazing. Weitz definitely had some great shots in the film. One in particular that blew me away, occurs after Edward leaves Bella. She sits in front of her window of her room while the camera turns around her at a 360 degree angle. This camera spins around three or four times as the months pass and we see how the weather outside changes to signify the new month. That shot was very well done. There is also a great montage sequence that occurs between Bella, Victoria, Jacob and Bella's father, Charlie. The music and way this sequence was edited was very well done.

Overall, I was a bit disappointed. The Twilight Saga: New Moon receives a 2.5 BDK rating, unfortunately.

Back to Top

The Blind Side
Genre: Drama/Sport
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

I would like nothing more than to sit here and tell you how awful this film was. That I was so bored and that I could not stop laughing because of how cliché and formulaic it was. I would love to go on about how awful Sandra Bullock's accent was and how awful the cheesy one-liners were. See, I could do all of that but I would be lying to you. Those are all feelings I had when I saw the trailer and they are now washed away. The only feeling I have now is that I just saw a great story portrayed on screen with a, excuse my french, bad-ass performance by Sandra Bullock. Bad-ass you ask? How could that be? Well, this was a character who was absolutely relentless, caring and would stop at absolutely nothing to protect her family. Even if that meant standing up to a group of people that could clearly kill her, just so that she could protect her son.

The Blind Side tells the true story of Baltimore Ravens offensive tackle, Michael Oher. Before he signed to a professional football team in 2009, he had an extremely rough start to his life. He grew up in a bad area of Memphis called Hurt Village, where his mother was addicted to crack and his father was non-existent. We learn early on in the film that his father actually killed himself by throwing himself off a bridge. Oher (portrayed by Quenton Aaron) was practically homeless at the age of 17. Having nowhere to go, he is admitted to a private high school in the hopes that he would play sports. One night while walking around looking for a place to keep warm, Leigh Anne Touhy (played by Sandra Bullock) is driving home with her family. She notices him on the side of the road and with her good heart, offers him a place to stay for the night. This night turns into much more and the Touhy family invite him to become part of the family. Leigh Anne recognized his talent and placec him on the high school football team where he started to excel. This is the story of how he went from having nothing to having everything.

The dynamic of the film lies within the Touhy family. Leigh Anne and her husband Sean (who is played by Tim McGraw) took this child into their home, without knowing anything about him. They just felt it was right to help him out. Even the children, S.J. And Collins were willing to let him into their family. Now for the film's purposes, it was a very sped up process. I am sure in real life, the transition was not as smooth as it was portrayed in the film. S.J. (played by Jae Head), is the younger child of the family and he immediately clicks with Michael. They have this younger/older brother type bond. I must say that S.J.'s character provided the film with some great comic relief. He was absolutely hilarious and had some great lines. He added that perfect balance of comedy to this very dramatic story.

Sandra Bullock came off as one of the more realistic mothers I have seen in a long time. She really reminded me of my own mother in the sense that she was so caring for her children. She would do anything for them, especially a child she had never met before in her life. She was willing to give up this rich life style that her family had, to help raise and protect this child who had absolutely nothing. Considering her husband owned and operated a chain of Taco Bells, Pizza Huts and KFCs in Memphis, the family was rather well off. Bullock was just so commanding and definitely the leader of that family. Even the husband knew that and he was just along for the ride.

Besides the obvious, the film is very sports oriented and if you live in Washington D.C., you are going to love the opening sequence of the film. It contains a great voice over by Sandra Bullock, whose southern accent was not annoying, where she explains how a blind side relates to a quarterback on a football team. The example used contains footage of John Riggins and Joe Theisman during a game where Lawrence Taylor injured Theisman because his blind side was not protected. The other great angle on sports were all of the real college football coaches who appeared in the film. There is this hilarious montage sequence of college coaches from LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ole' Miss, etc. Anyone who is a sports fan is going to love this scene. It was great to finally see Lou Holtz joke around.

Listen, this film follows every cliché and formula imaginable but the story is so sweet and heartfelt that you can't help but enjoy yourself. Each time Sandra Bullock is on screen, she is absolutely relentless and forceful. She really took this role seriously and you can tell this is one of those roles she will always remember. Even Quenton Aaron was great and this was one of his first staring roles. I have read interviews that he had to drop 100 pounds of weight to get the part.

People keep asking me how Tim McGraw was in the film. To be honest, I know the name but I had no clue what he looked like. Therefore, the entire time he was playing the dad, I had no clue that was him but his performance was fine. I give The BLIND SIDE a generous 4 BDKs. Make sure you stay through the credits for a great digital photo album of the real family and Michael Oher.

Back to Top

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
Genre: Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

In short, the sequel is not as good as the first but serves as a fun and exciting action adventure follow up. After waiting ten years, the Saints are finally back and this time it appears that they have gone to a comedy academy. This film definitely had more of a lighter tone than the first, which sometimes helps it and sometimes hurts it. It is obvious that this film was made for fans of the first film and writer/director Troy Duffy definitely puts a ton of references in for the fan boys. Let me say right off the bat, that The Boondock Saints was the ultimate college movie for me. I used to watch it all the time and just bow down to the action sequences. There was nothing better than watching Willem Dafoe put on his head phones and listen to opera music while dancing around a crime scene. And of course, who could forget the famous firefight scene with Willem Dafoe, Billy Connelly, David Della Rocco, Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus is one of my favorite scenes of all time. That scene, alone, is better than the entire first film. It is a scene that I can watch alone and just break down into tears because of how bad-ass it is.

The film picks up where the first film left off. If you continue to read further down in my review, I give a synopsis of the first film. It has been eight years since the MacManus (Flanery and Reedus) brothers paraded through Boston taking out mob bosses, drug dealers, etc. Connor and Murphy are now living in Ireland with their father (played by Billy Connelly). A priest is murdered in Boston, in the exact same execution style as the Saints. The executioner uses two guns to the back of the priests head, leaving pennies on his eyes. This obviously upsets the Saints, so they make a trip back to Boston to clear their name and take on the bad guys once again. Along the way, they pick up a hilarious sidekick, named Romeo (played by Clifton Collins Jr.—he might be the best EYE actor ever), who is apparently a huge fan of the Saints' work. He serves as the comedic relief for the film, replacing their good friend Rocco, who was killed in the first one. Throughout the film, we are treated to great flashbacks to their father's life and we start to learn why the Saints were chosen to take out the mob bosses, drug dealers and the scum of the world. You also get two nice surprises at the end.

My biggest issue with the sequel is the character of Eunice Bloom, played by Julie Benze. The first film struck so many nerves because of Willem Dafoe's amazingly unique performance. That is a tough act to follow and now there is a new cowboy in town; no pun intended. Benze's character has an awful southern accent that just seemed a bit to over the top for my taste. There was a joke in beginning of the film where a police detective uses the F word in her presence. She goes on to say that you can't break that rule when you first meet her and from that point on, she awkwardly adds the F word in to all of her dialogue. This comes off as awkward and pointless.

The film actually builds on itself and gets stronger as the time goes on. The film's opening is a bit sloppy and director Troy Duffy definitely shows off his new directing techniques with fast paced editing and quick camera shots. We quickly learn that this film is not taking itself seriously, as we are treated to gratuitous shots of Connor and Murphy taking showers with rock n' roll music playing in the background. That to me was Troy getting a good laugh out of the audience.

The film's strong points lie within the back stories of Ill Duce (played by Billy Connelly). He is the Saints' father and everything to do with his side of the story is amazing. Duffy shot these scenes with an old style filter, where we are taken back to Italy where he was raised. We quickly learn how their father's life was shifted one night and how The Boondock Saints came to life. That to me was great closure and a great back story to know. It also plays an important role in the film's ending, which was truly a treat. The last twenty minutes of the film were pure bliss.

The first film pretty much went straight to D.V.D. because of the Columbine shootings occurring right before the film's release. The government wanted to crack down on violent games and movies. Considering the nature of the original film, no film company would purchase the movie, forcing a straight to DVD release. Fortunately for Troy Duffy, the film went on to gross over $100 million on DVD alone.

There is just something about vigilante justice that has always interested me. Any time I see good people killing off terrible people in films, my brain somehow shifts to the mindset that what they are doing is correct. In the first film, the Saints are taking down mob bosses, drug dealers and just downright, awful people. In case you have not seen the first film, The MacManus Brothers consist of Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus). They get into a bit of trouble in the first film before being sent a message from God that their purpose on earth is to wipe out bad people. They start doing just that, going from crime boss to crime boss, killing them all off. This splits the community, much like it splits the audience.

Is it right or wrong what they are doing? If they are keeping murderers off the street, is that such a bad thing. F.B.I. Agent Smecker (played by Willem Dafoe) eventually caves and starts to help the boys out and actually assist them in the final murder of the first film, where the Saints are reunited with their father, A.K.A. Ill Duce (played by Billy Connelly). This final murder takes place in a courtroom while a crime boss is on trial. All three say their family prayer before putting three bullets into the back of his head. Duffy always plays some bad-ass music behind these murder scenes and it was that style that brought a lot of fans in.

I give this film a 3.5 BDK rating out of 5. If you are a fan of the first film, like I am, you will have a fun time. There are so many inside jokes and references to the first that it made me feel like I was part of a secret fraternity. I had seen the first one so many times that I even picked up on the simplest of jokes. A character in the film uses the word symbolism in a scene, which was an obvious reference back Dafoe's hilarious pronunciation of the word in the first film. I did miss the back and forth between Bob Marley and Willem Dafoe, but they do expand on Marley's part in this film and he is still rather funny.

Back to Top

2012
Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Believe it or not, this film was worse than Transformers Revenge of the Fallen. 2012 felt like it lasted for 2012 minutes and then some. Not only were the effects mediocre but the script, acting and overall experience were just horrendous. Yes, there are a couple of scenes with great effects and minor intensity but not enough to save this film from disaster. The rest of the film is a laughably worse version of other Roland Emmerich films that we have already seen. 2012 is essentially the exact same film as The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day. They just replaced it with different actors and changed the setting. Instead of Will Smith, we have John Cusack taking on the cliché role of the father who is never there.

It was honestly as if Roland Emmerich reached into a bag and pulled out every cliché possible, mixed it in with visual effects and then plopped onto the film reel. The film is entirely too long for it's own good and makes a complete mockery of itself and its actors. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor (Love Actually, Children of Men), Oliver Platt (Lake Placid), Thandie Newton (W.), Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover and Amanda Peet (Saving Silverman).

There has always been this myth that the world would end on December 21, 2012, at least according to the Mayan Calendar. To give the film some story, we start off in 2009 where in India; a scientist has discovered that our earth's core temperature is rising. He passes this news off to a geologist named Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor). Based on this news, they realize that the world will come to an end in the year 2012. This news is brought to the President of the United States (played by Danny Glover) and a plan is set in motion where the higher ups of the world will be made offers to be on a special vessel which will help the survival of the human race. The only problem is that it will cost one billion Euros and only the elite can afford such a price.

Move to 2012 where we meet limo drove/author Jackson Curtis (Cusack). He plays your typical cliché father who his divorced from his wife (Amanda Peet). They have two children together and of course she has already moved on to another husband. He decides to take his kids to Yellowstone Park for a family vacation and finds that the Government has taken over this land. There is smoke coming from the ground and it is about to erupt. There he meets a "crazy" man named Charlie (Harrelson) who happens to be a radio broadcaster. He knows the world is coming to an end and has a map of where these vessels are located. As the world starts falling apart, Jackson and his family embark on a mission to the vessel locations to save themselves.

In the beginning, the film is self-aware that it is a disaster movie, making stupid jokes about the end of the world. Even characters make references to other "disaster"-type films. One of my favorite awful lines was when Cusack is refers to their current plane and says "We're going to need a bigger plane." I literally wanted to put my face into my hands and leave the theater. There was even a band on a cruise ship singing a song about the end of the world. It all seemed a bit laughable but it does turn and become a serious thriller, which is one of the reasons the film did not work.

This is a disaster film that relies heavily on special effects and action sequences. If you don't have effects that look great, why put them in? I couldn't believe some of the amateurish effects I was seeing. There were scenes where I honestly though that Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which was made in 1991, looked better than scenes in this film. All of the blue screen effects were awful. That is where Emmerich needs major improvement. Anytime it is just a shot of destruction or water piling over a city, he doesn't have an issue. You have seen all of the best shots in the trailers though. Obviously, this is a trailer based film and gains a ton of interest based on that 2 and a half minute clip. So of course he meant to put the best looking things in the trailers. I will give him credit for an amazing 5-10 minute sequence where Cusack and his family are escaping California. Both sections, when they are in the limo and the plane, were very well done.

The biggest issue with the action scenes is that everything happens at the perfect time. You knew that every intense scene would be alright at the last second. When they are driving through California as it is being destroyed, they miss everything right at the exact moment. That even happens during every flying scene. I understand that the director is trying to build tension for the audience that way but once you do it three or four times, your audience will adapt to the structure. He needed to change it up a bit.

Emmerich always includes scenes where characters call loved ones that they haven't spoken to in ages, to wish them a farewell. This literally happens in every one of his films! I think back to Jeff Goldblum's phone calls in Independence Day. There are at least five or six of those in this film. I just don't understand why he keeps making the same picture.

2012 receives a 1.5 BDK out of 5. Wait for it to come on T.V.

Back to Top

Precious
Genre: Drama
Released: 2009
Rating: BDK

Right after Precious ended, I stopped and talked to the publicist to give my thoughts on the film. I then immediately took my phone out of my pocket, opened up my contacts section and scrolled down to "home." I have a cute little picture of my mom and dad holding our poodle, who is called Rudy. I hit dial and my mom answers and I start rambling about how much I appreciate how well she raised me and that I am grateful that I had a home to go to that I was not afraid of. I thanked her for the fact that my father and her treated me right and let me be free with my education. I hope that this film has a similar impact on others.

The film is based on a novel called Push by Sapphire and tells the story of Clarice "Precious" Jones (played by Gabourey Sidibe), a 16 year old girl with two kids (one already born and the other on the way), hopes and dreams. The issue is that her kids' father have the same father as "Precious". Ever since she was three years old, her father and mother have been abusing her, physically and verbally. Precious' first child lives with her grandmother because her own mother (played by Mo'Nique) won't allow "it" to stay there. She calls the child "Mongol", which is short for Mongoloid because it has Down-syndrome due to the incest factor. This all sounds rather pleasant so far, right? To be honest, I would say that Precious' home had similar evil connections to the dark pits of hell.

After getting suspended from school, Precious' principal informs her of an alternative education called Each One Teach One where she can get her GED. The only issue is that she has never truly learned to read or write. Her mother has been on welfare for most of her life and has only filled Precious’ life with negativity about education. Her mother feels that she does not need an education and that she, like her mom, could skate by on Welfare. She constantly tells Precious how dumb, fat and idiotic she is and that education is a waste of time. This all changes when Precious meets Ms. Rain (Paula Patton). Ms. Rain teaches the AB course at "Each One Teach One," where she prepares students for the GED. While continuing to be abused by her mother, Precious attempts to turn her life around. Doors begin to open for her as she sits down with her social worker (played by a dressed down Mariah Carey) each week.

I know a lot of press have been talking about Mo'Nique's Oscar worthy performance and yes all of the hype is 100% true. It is one of the finest performances from an actress I have ever seen. I can't remember the last time I saw a rawer, realistic and down right disturbing performance from an actress. It is easily on par with Heath Ledger's supporting acting role last year and is the sure win for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. I almost want to say that is so much of a lock that I will quit movie reviewing if she doesn't win. When the film ended, I was speaking with a fellow critic (Brandonfibbs.com) about Mo’Nique and he said he would consider it among the top villains he has seen. That is what started up my thoughts on Heath Ledger. Her performance has that same scene stealing effect on the film that Ledger’s Joker did in The Dark Knight. It was that same relentless evil where you know the character will never change. They were just both inherently evil.

Yes, a lot of the attention is on Mo'Nique but I feel like more people should be focusing on the performance from Gabourey Sidibe, who plays "Precious" in the film. This girl has never been in a feature length film, yet carried and dominated an entire picture where emotions are flying all over the place. You will be depressed one minute and laughing the next. Her facial expressions and delivery were completely on point. I have never seen an actress that had facial expressions that powerful. She carried all of her negative weight on her face.

Besides the performances, the movie is extremely well directed by Lee Daniels, who beautiful recreates Harlem in 1987. He gets the grittiness and dirtiness of the city down pat. I really enjoyed the jittery camera angles and minor details throughout; such as turning windows into T.V. Screens or having pictures in a photo album come to life.

Considering the film is based on a book, the filmmakers did a great job with Precious' voice over. To be honest, the way her voice over was read, it made me feel like I was reading the novel. It was one of the few films that actually felt like it stayed true to the source material. I have not read the book, but now I feel like I have.

Precious is one of the more powerful films of the year and will make you appreciate your family and the life you have had so far. The film receives a 4.5 BDK rating out of 5.

Note: I did not put this in my full review because it is a bit nerdy but I want you to pay attention to a particular scene where Mo'Nique is talking down to the character of Precious. This happens towards the beginning of the film and Precious is standing on top of the stair case and Mo'Nique is at the bottom yelling at her. It was a very unique shot because normally the person who is doing the down talking is shot at a higher angle. Lee Daniels shot this from a lower angle making Precious look like she was the truimphant one. Just an interesting side note I wanted to share with you.

Back to Top


BIG DADDY KEV IS A MEMBER OF THE WASHINGTON AREA FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION