What's Left?: Cinema Soups' Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2009

As the film year reaches its midpoint, you may be wondering, well, what's left?

Well, my friends, there are many things to look forward to. And we will explore some of the most anticipated (at least in this blogger's eyes) films of the rest of the year in this two-part series. So, let's dive in!

Let's start with the big banana - the film everyone has been anticipating, the film that will shatter the earth and cure all diseases. Well, maybe not that last one. James Cameron's "Avatar" has been in production forever. There's been so much hype surrounding Cameron's supposedly ground-breaking new motion capture technology used in the film, yet we have not even seen a simple trailer, and the movie comes out in December! The average person who does not follow internet movie hype has probably never even heard of it. And the movie's budget is supposedly around $300 million + ! Things just don't seem to add up. How will the movie live up to its hype? How will it ever make its money back? What the heck is it even about? Well, I think we have an answer to that last question- albeit a vague one. "Avatar" follows a man named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) as he explores a new world called Pandora. But in order to get into this new world, he has to make a duplicate of himself called an "avatar" which will disguise him from the Na'vi race (see left picture) on Pandora's planet. Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana are also set to star. I can't wait, but, let's just say, I am a little more skeptical than most film buffs. "Avatar" opens wide December 18th, 2009.

Next up is Spike Jonzes's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's book "Where the Wild Things Are." You can hear me rave about the trailer here. There really isn't much more to say. The film looks beautiful, emotional, and creative. Hopefully, it will entertain children and adults alike, and do gangbusters at the box office (wishful thinking). I also hope that it is as good as the trailer makes it out to be. I fear that the movie studio may try to tinker with it and tarnsish Jonze's vision. Sigh. Sometimes, you just got to let the director do his thing. And usually great things happen (EXAMPLE). Here's hoping that great things will happen when "Where the Wild Things Are" opens on October 16th, 2009.

When I first heard about Lone Sherfig's "An Education," I thought the film was going to be typical, shlocky Oscar bait. However, once the trailer (embedded below) appeared, my mind changed in an instant. The film, unlike many award hogging character dramas, does not seem to be drenched in its own self-importance. Rather, the film seems light, funny, and powerful without feeling pretentious or heavy-handed. "An Education" follows Jenny (Carrey Mulligan), a young girl about to set off to college in the 1960s, as she engages in a relationship with an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) much to the dismay of her overbearing father (Alfred Molina). And, as the trailer suggests, Jenny soon learns that "sometimes an education isn't by the book." Well, let's hope this film is one "for the books" when it arrives in theaters on October 9th, 2009.

Well, that's all for part one of this series. Expect part two to be up sometime next week.

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below!

"The Hurt Locker" Review

“The Hurt Locker,” now playing in limited release, hammers its audience with unrelenting suspense, shocks them with its amazing authenticity, and illuminates them to the day-to-day struggles of a bomb tech soldier in Iraq.

The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow (“Point Break”), mainly follows Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) as he is transferred to a new bomb tech unit in Iraq due to the unfortunate death of the unit’s previous leader (Guy Pearce). While working to diffuse bombs, the reckless and over confident James comes into conflict with his comrades, the no-nonsense Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the timid Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).

“The Hurt Locker” is an action movie. There’s no doubt about that, but it’s a decidedly different type of action movie – an action movie that is rooted in character. To be honest, “The Hurt Locker” may be one of the best mixes of character drama and suspenseful action in recent years. Bigelow does not make one false step in her direction. And while Mark Boal’s script does have its problems, Bigelow maneuvers around them with dexterity and confidence. In other words, she makes the script’s small hiccups disappear and moves the film along at a near impeccable pace. The film truly is a triumph of directing.

Part of what makes Bigelow’s direction so fantastic is her keen eye for suspense. When the film starts, the audience is quickly thrust into a suspenseful action sequence. As the sequence continues, both the stakes of the situation and the realness of the characters are established. Thus, the suspense continues to build until the sequence reaches its explosive conclusion. And with each new sequence, the characters become more fleshed out and relatable – making the suspense subsequently higher each time. Also adding to the suspense is how realistically the film is shot. Bigelow has the geography of her scenes perfectly laid out. The audience knows where each character is, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. And when Bigelow and cinematographer Barry Ackroyd use hand held cameras, it is coherent, unlike most recent Hollywood action films.

Something that further separates “The Hurt Locker” from recent action films is its performances – which are uniformly solid. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Sergeant James. He perfectly embodies the character’s unpredictability and sells the movie’s main thematic idea: “war is a drug.” James has an addiction – an addiction that frightens his comrade Owen Eldridge. The relatively unknown Brian Garaghty shines in his portrayal of Eldrige and beautifully conveys the character’s fear and awkwardness. Anthony Mackie also fares well in his performance as Sergeant Sanborn, but his character feels a tad undeveloped. When Sanborn has a fairly emotional scene near the film’s closure, it does not feel earned. Thankfully, Mackie’s acting chops save the moment from completely falling flat.

While the script has its flaws, it is still fairly well-developed. Screenwriter Mark Boal’s dialogue really sells the authenticity of the film. And by focusing on three different soldiers, Boal is able to show how different people react to war and high risk situations. It also enables him to weave a few different ideas around the film’s main thesis – the aforementioned idea that “war is a drug.” And – excluding one distracting sequence in the film’s middle – Boal does not stray from this idea or the film’s overall plot.

In conclusion, “The Hurt Locker,” directed with great skill by Kathryn Bigelow, is one of the year’s best films.

A-

Leave your thoughts in the comments below! Anyone can leave a comment. Just use the "Name/Url" option where the "URL" is optional. You can even make up a screen name if you don't want to put your real name down.

Really America...

...You made this number one at the box office this weekend.

I understand it's a children's movie. I really do! The point is that there are probably better (funnier, more inventive) children's movies out there. Now, this all sounds extremely hypocritical considering I have not even seen the movie, but sometimes you can just tell. I could tell from the trailer that the film was going to be super annoying and filled with bathroom humor, cute animals, and nonstop furry action. In other words, it is manufactured to make money and get a few cheap laughs from kids without truly challenging their imaginations or capturing a childlike state of wonder.

sigh...

Meanwhile, this October, what looks like a truly inventive film will come out! It's a film that looks like it will challenge children's imaginations and capture a childlike state of wonder.

In case you have not seen it, here is the trailer for Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are," based on the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak.

What a beaute! This trailer almost made me cry. It beautifuly captures the wonder, fear and innocence of a childhood. And it's just a trailer! I hope the film lives up to my expectations when it hits theaters October 16th. One thing is for sure. It will defenitely be better than G-Force.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Reminder: you don't need a Blogger account to comment, just use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url."

Peter Jackson Talking About Hollywood's Slump

Recently, at the San Diego Comic Convention (which is now really a movie convention), Mr. Peter Jackson (director of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) talks about Hollywood's recent creative slump, and the unique power of film.

See for yourself:

Amen, Mr. Jackson. Amen.

Thanks to In Contention for the video.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. (Just a reminder: there's no need to get a Blogger account to comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Optional Url."

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" Review

In “Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of the “Harry Potter” series, the characters in J.K. Rowling’s massive epic are finally given some room to breathe. Instead of trying to cram several elements into one film, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves are able to pare things down to the absolute essential. Thus, instead of feeling bloated like Yates’s previous Potter venture, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” this film feels more developed.

The film – obviously a continuation of the previous five – sees Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) continue his relationship with Professor Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), develop feelings for his best friend’s sister, and learn more about the Dark Lord Voldemort’s past. That plot synopsis will either make sense to you, or it will not. If it does not, I suggest going to the beginning of the series and start your “Harry Potter” adventures there. It is important to note that this film does not stand on its own. If a newbie were to walk into this film, they would be terribly confused. This is a continuation of the previous five (as I mentioned above) and one really needs to see the previous installments before diving into this one. In fact, one of the best things about this film is how continuous it is with the rest of the “Potter” films. While the rest of the films feel like separate entities, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” feels much more connected to the other films in the series. Several elements from the previous film, such as the Marauder’s Map, the Room of Requirement, and the Invisibility Cloak, all return and create a wonderful continuity between this film and the ones that precede it.

The acting – as almost always in the “Potter” films – is top-notch. It seems as if the producers have managed to cast nearly every famous British thespian by now. It is a joy to watch such greats as Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and Julie Walters create such vivid characters in each film. While much of the adult cast is not given a whole lot to do, they still put in solid performances and never act like they are “above” the material. The newest addition to the all-star cast is Jim Broadbent, who plays Harry’s new potions teacher – Professor Horace Slughorn. Broadbent adds a level of nuance to the performance by expertly mixing the character’s broad comedy and tragic regret. And it’s all in his face. Broadbent is such an expressive actor that one can clearly see all the emotions that are running through his characters.

While the adult actors have always been great, the teenage actors have certainly evolved from there rather flat performances in earlier films. Although Dan Radcliffe – who really improved in film number five – is not given much to do in terms of emotion, he manages to give Harry a more proactive feel. But this film really belongs to Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, the two young actors who play Harry’s best friends Ron and Hermione. Grint, in particular, is able to really flex his comedic muscle in scenes involving his annoyingly clingy girlfriend Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave). Meanwhile, Emma Watson really gains more control over her characterization of Hermione. While Watson has been known to overact in past films, she strikes a much better balance in this film and is able to convey teenage heartbreak without it seeming childish or melodramatic. And that is a really hard task to accomplish. Also, Tom Felton adds some much need complexity and conflict to the character of Draco Malfoy. And Evanna Lynch still feels perfectly cast as the wonderfully eccentric Luna Lovegood.

As one can tell from reading my descriptions of the performances, this film involves a good amount of teenage romance. This element both adds and subtracts from the quality of the film. While the humor and angst conveyed through the romance sub plots are a nice relief from much of the darkness of the film, they sometimes feel a bit too fluffy – particularly in the film’s middle section. Being a Harry Potter devotee, I do not mind it because I think it deepens the characters, but I can definitely see how it could annoy some non-fans and it does cause the pace to lag in a few scenes. Also, the relationship between Harry Potter and Ron’s sister Ginny Weasley (played by Bonnie Wright) does not work at all. It feels forced, awkward and sometimes even creepy. Radcliffe has absolutely no chemistry with Wright, and Wright feels miscast. She does not really embody the spunkiness of the Ginny we see in the books.

Even though the pace is still a bit uneven, David Yates has definitely improved as a director. His scenes have more rhythm and pack more of a punch. Although he still ends some scenes rather abruptly, the scenes feel more complete and less rushed than his previous work in “Order of the Phoenix.” And the film looks beautiful. Director of Photography Bruno Delbonnel and Yates give the film an interesting visual look that makes it stand out from most recent blockbusters. It’s so pleasantly surprising to see a studio give this much artistic freedom to a film with such a high budget.

It is also great that the filmmakers took more artistic license when adapting from the source material. Many fans have complained that the film’s ending feels anticlimactic due to the excision of a big battle scene. While I can understand this disappointment, it does not bother me. To me, the ending of “Order of the Phoenix” – with all of its crazy wand effects – feels vapid and emotionless, while this most recent film’s ending feels more psychological and impactful.
In conclusion, the “Potter” films will never be masterpieces like Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The source material’s complexity, as well as several inconsistencies in direction and writing, prevents it from being so. Still, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” manages to capture the characters from the books and present them in an artful way. And that’s more than one can say for most Hollywood films.

B+ [More of a B in terms of quality, but I really enjoyed it as a Potter fan, so I gave it a boost.]


Thanks for reading! Leave your opinion in the comments below.

A Few Words on "The Proposal"

1.5 stars out of 5/ D+

"The Proposal," a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, may be the laziest film of the year. The plot revolves around a rich book editor (Bullock) who brides her assistant (Reynolds) to marry her, so she will not be deported to Canada, her native country. What could have been a delectable comedy treat ends up being a predictable, unfunny mess. In fact, the script is so formulaic it could be mistaken for a math equation. Uptight business woman. Check. Cute Dog. Check. Batty Grandma. Check. Unexpected couple. Check. Crazy Male Dancer. Check. The bad part is that nothing in that equation is funny. Ryan Reynolds tries to make something of the material, but instead just ends up making a bunch of confused facial expressions. And Sandra Bullock is not funny at all. Honestly, she may be the least funny person in Hollywood at the moment. Meanwhile, Betty White (the aforementioned batty Grandma) brings some charm to the film, but mostly comes off as over the top and annoying. In conclusion, "The Proposal" is one of the most unoriginal comedies of the year. By the end of the movie, I wanted to be deported to Canada, just to escape the film's consistent mediocrity.

Ranking the Harry Potter Films

Now that there are six of them, ranking the Potter films has become all the rage. So, I've decided to take a crack at it. From Best to Worst.



1. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." This film beautifully directed by the enormously gifted Alfonso Cuaron (see "Children of Men") is by far the most human and visually engaging of all the Potter films. Instead of settling for the sap of the earlier films, Cuaron and his team put the focus on the characters. The relationship between Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Harry is very well rendered. It's a shame that David Thewlis has been given so little to do in later films, as he is easily the best of Harry's on screen mentors. On a different note, the time turner sequence is my all-time favorite sequence in any Potter film.



2. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'll keep this short since I will be writing my review later this week. I think that this is the film that best captured the characters from the books. David Yates is really growing on me as a director.



3. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." David Yates's Potter debut is good, but not great. Imelda Staunton - who plays control freak Dolores Umbridge - really raises this film up a notch. Her rise to power is scary, and pink. I feel like the pace lags a bit in this film mainly due to how many scenes were crammed in. Yates unfortunately gives the film very little room to breathe. Thankfully, the young actors show vast improvement in this version, particularly Dan Radcliffe's Harry. The acting in this film defenitely makes up for the lackluster finale. I would have preferred a psychological duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, not a second-rate fireworks show. Overall, this film works due to Yates splendid work with the actors. The political undertones are also a nice touch.



4. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Director Chris Colombus manages to capture the magic of introducing Jo Rowling's deeply imaginative world. The beautiful thing about "Sorcerer's Stone" - both the book and the film - is that it is seen through the eyes of a child. We feel the same childish delight that Harry feels as we see Diagon Alley, Platform 9 and 3/4, and Hogwarts for the first time. Unfortunately, the film is almost a bit too cheery at times. Colombus's love for sap is evident here, but rarely enters gag-inducing territory. The computer effects in this film are also noticably bad. And don't get me started on the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione all scream at the same time like they popped out of one of Colombus's previous films "Home Alone."



5. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." This film - directed by Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") is the worst adaptation for the books. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is all wrong. What's with the screaming and man-handling Harry? Ick. Also, the characters go nowhere in this film. Harry is as blank as ever. Hermione is useless except for a few quick facts before the tasks. Ron is the only one that develops, but after awhile, he just returns to comic relief. That being said, the film's action set-pieces are the most memorable of all the films. The dragon scene is breathtaking, as is the underwater task. The third task, the maze, is changed, and for the better in my opinion. I love the creepy atmosphere of the maze attacking the contestants. Voldemort's return to power is also pretty neat, but in the end, this movie feels pretty limp in terms of character development - which is obviously one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Kudos to Miranda Richardson for her all to brief appearance as gossip journalist Rita Skeeter.



6. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Coincidentally, this is also my least favorite of the books. And since Chris Colombus and screenwriter Steve Kloves slavisly adhere to the book, I didn't like the movie too much either. If you are going to adapt this book, the only feasible way would be to make it like a puplpy horror flick, but instead Colombus films it in his light, sentimental tones that annoy me so. While that angle works for the first film's sense of wonder and discovery, it feels stale in this one. Also, I don't think Ron does anything but eat and act scared of spiders in this movie. Literally, that's it. And don't get me started on the final scene - which is by far the stupidest and most gag-inducing scene in Potter film history. "There's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid!" Who writes this stuff? Apparently, Steve Kloves did not. It was all Colombus's doing. Ugh! I hate that scene. Everything does not need to be tied up in a pretty little sentimental bow, Colombus. Okay? RANT OVER. All my qualms aside, I do think Kenneth Branagh is absolutely smashing as the phony celeb wizard Gilderoy Lockhart. Dobby's pretty awesome too, and I like the basilik scene.



In conclusion, I think the Potter films have many strengths, but obviously some work much better than others. Expect my review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" later this week.



Feel free to leave comments. You don't have to be a registered member of Blogger. Just use Anonymous or "Name/Url" in which the Url is optional. I am eager to see how others would rank the Potter series.

Character Actor Profile: Tom Wilkinson

Have you ever seen someone in a movie, swear that you have seen them before, but cannot quite put your finger on the actor's name? You're not alone. So, to bring these underappreciated actors and actresses to forefront, I've decided to start a series highlighting some of my favorites. In this series, I will pick out three different films starring my character actor of choice and review his or her performance.



My first pick: Tom Wilkinson



Mr. Wilkinson has a very extensive filmography (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0929489/). From horror films ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose") to light English comedies ("The Importance of Being Earnest") to comic book adaptations ("Batman Begins"), he seems to sneak himself into several films a year - almost like a mouse infiltrating a neighborhood of different houses, except Mr. Wilkinson is far from unwanted.

In Tony Gilroy's "Duplicity," Wilkinson plays Howard Tully, a corporate executive for a major pharmaceutical company. It does not take long for one to notice how much fun Wilkinson is having with the role. He embodies Tully with a sense of crafty calmness, an almost perfect contrast to Paul Giamatti's Richard Garsik (Tully's corporate enemy) who is an sleazy, dim-witted neurotic. Wilkinson gives you the feeling that Tully is in complete control - without an ounce of worry. This characterization is a joy to watch and - more importantly - makes perfect sense once the film has made its final reveal.



In 2007's "Michael Clayton" - also directed by Tony Gilroy - Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a lawyer at a well-established law firm. But, like most Tom Wilkinson roles, that would be just a bit too normal. So, of course, Wilkinson's character is suffering from a psychological breakdown after investigating a case involving a chemical company. Wilkinson nails the obsession of the character. His performance feels BIG, but never devolves into histrionics. The film's opening - a monologue by Wilkinson as the camera is racing through the law firm - is almost chilling in its intensity and brings the audience into the film immediately. And the intensity hardly ever lets up - especially when Wilkinson is on screen.

Perhaps Wilkinson's most critically acclaimed performance isin Todd Field's "In the Bedroom." In the film, Wilkinson plays Matt Fowler, a man stricken with grief after the death of his son Frank. Wilkinson - along with Sissy Spacek who plays his wife - beautifully convey the grieving process. The interactions between Wilkinson and Spacek are scarily realistic. Instead of going completely over-the-top, Wilkinson - with help from the great screenplay - depicts Matt's grief through simpler, quieter moments where the character is clearly just trying to get his son's death off his mind. This performance is one of Wilkinson's few leading roles, and it is easily one of his best.

So, what do you think? Are you with me in praising Wilkinson for his versatility, or do you think he is massively overrated? Are there any other character actors that you feel don't get enough praise? Feel free to answer these questions in the comments.

Also, you do not need a Blogger account to leave a comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional.

"Public Enemies" Review

3.5 out of 5/ B –

“Public Enemies,” the latest from director Michael Mann (“Heat,” “Miami Vice”), follows the life of John Dillinger, the notorious bank robber during the Great Depression. The film opens with Dillinger (Johnny Depp) rescuing some of his buddies from a prison in Indiana. Once they escape, they return to their favorite pastime: robbing banks. Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup), a police administrator, and Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) start “the United State’s first war on crime.”

With the new threat of Purvis’s police force – which would eventually evolve into the FBI – one would think that Dillinger would be a little worried about his lifestyle, but this is not the case. As he says to one of his cohorts in the film, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.” Needless to say, Dillinger does not feel threatened by the workings of Hoover and Purvis. Bank robbing, to him, is like a job, and he knows how good he is at it. When Billie Frechette (Marion Contillard), Dillinger’s love interest, asks him about his profession, he answers with an almost candid professionalism, “I’m John Dillinger and I rob banks.” It is this adventurous, daring spirit that attracts Billie – whose life, according to her, has been, for the most part, rather dull. At the same time, she is frightened by Dillinger’s dangerous lifestyle, but eventually is gently soothed by his promise of protection. Cotillard perfectly displays Billie’s naivety in believing Dillinger and carries it through to the film’s powerful conclusion. Contillard’s power in the final scene alone easily confirms that she is best in show.

Depp’s performance – while not as memorable or as detailed as some of his past performances – is still interesting. He manages to infuse Dillinger with a coolness and confidence that suggests feelings of invulnerability within Dillinger. It is these traits that allow Depp’s Dillinger to easily win over Cotillard’s Billie.

Cotillard and Depp’s performances, as well as the uniqueness of their character’s relationship, ensure that the romance between Billie and Dillinger is the best part of the film. Their relationship, unfortunately, seems to be the only idea in the script that was fully developed. While the public’s fascination with Dillinger is mentioned and seen to good effect in a couple of scenes, it is never fully explored. Mann also hints at some ideas regarding police ethics, but they do not really come into play until the third act. There are also some interesting lines about Dillinger’s moral code when bank robbing. The problem is that none of these ideas are developed enough for them to resonate. The only idea that feels fully rendered is Billie and Dillinger’s aforementioned relationship, and even that feels a tad incomplete when Cotillard’s character disappears during the film’s second act. Instead of using one or two ideas, Mann insists on exploring five or six, and in a better screenplay, that could have worked, but Mann and screenwriters Ronan Bennett and Ann Bidermann inject too many side characters. Some of these characters are introduced briefly at the beginning of the film, disappear, and then play a major role in the film’s conclusion. This makes the film feel cluttered and hard to follow. The excess of side characters stifles not only the ideas that film may be trying to get across, but also the characterization of the main characters. While this does not hurt Cotillard and Depp, it does hurt Bale, whose character comes off as dull and unthreatening.

Because Bale’s Purvis is so uninteresting, it makes the scenes involving him and his amateur police force feel unnecessary. One wishes Mann might have spent more time probing the psyche of Dillinger, instead of trying to sloppily weave the two narrative threads together, thus giving the film’s first half a rather sluggish pace. Once Dillinger and Purvis meet in a scene near the film’s half-way point, the pacing picks up and the weaving of the two narratives feels more natural. While the film is still plagued with an excess of characters in its second half, they do not affect the pace at which the story is conveyed.

The film’s second half also showcases some of the film’s best sequences. One of them, a thrilling chase through the woods, while somewhat convoluted, is both original and suspenseful. However, it is the film’s last few sequences that are its most memorable. Everyone knows that Dillinger eventually dies (no spoilers here), but the sequence depicting his assassination is both visually enticing and sharply conveyed.

Speaking of the film’s visual merits, many have complained about Mann’s aesthetic for “Public Enemies.” Mann shot the picture on video instead of film in order to give the story a more realistic feel. Many think that the visuals in the film look too murky and unfitting for a period piece, but I appreciated that it gave the film a distinctive look – a look that will make the film memorable when compared to other crime films. Unfortunately, this visual style – along with Cotillard’s great performance – may be the only things that the film is remembered for. In conclusion, “Public Enemies” falls short of greatness.

"Brothers Bloom" Review

3 out of 5 stars/C+

“The Brothers Bloom” could have been a good film. The script is nearly impeccable and the performances are both fun and inventive, but director/writer Rian Johnson fails in translating his script to the screen.

The film follows two con men, Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and his reluctant brother Bloom (Adrian Brody). Bloom is sick of always being a character in Stephen’s complex cons and yearns to live a normal life, but Stephen is able to convince him to help with one more con, then he will allow Bloom to go on and live a normal life. The victim of their con is Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz), an eccentric lonely heiress who eventually begins to have romantic feelings for Bloom – a feeling that is mutual. Bloom isn’t just wooing her as part of the con. So, like most complex con films, twists and turns ensue. Oh, and explosions too. Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), a Japanese explosives expert, aids the Brothers with her rather "unique talents."

The script for “The Brothers Bloom” is beautifully rendered. Despite a few abrupt shifts in tone, the film is masterfully structured with full-fledged character arcs that are set up from the film’s opening and carry through to the film’s closing shots. The characters are wonderfully original, especially Penelope and Bang Bang. Too often, female roles in films are reduced to lazy stereotypes, but Johnson keeps things fresh with these two characters. The casting is nearly flawless. All of the actors fall into their roles seamlessly, except, perhaps, Robbie Coltrane (“Harry Potter” films) whose performance as the Belgian, a crafty church curator, comes off a bit too forced and silly. Of course, Kikuchi’s role is also quite silly, but she strikes a better balance than Coltrane. The true star, though, is Rachel Weisz who is able to show her talents as both a comedic and dramatic actress.

The problem with “The Brothers Bloom” lies in its execution. In order for an audience to fully become invested in the characters, they need to be engaged. Johnson fails to engage his audience. The comedic rhythm of the film is off. This causes most of the well-written and genuinely funny jokes to fall flat. This problem worsens thanks to Johnson’s bizarre – yet refreshingly original – sense of humor. Since the comedic rhythm is off, the audience does not exactly warm to the film’s aforementioned humor. Another problem is the film’s pacing which is far too leisurely for a quick-witted con film. If Johnson might have established a quicker, more frantic, pace, maybe the film’s humor would have worked better. Instead, the film feels disengaging, and – at times – boring. The audience only half feels for the characters, so the film’s emotional pull at the end only half resonates. Therefore, one could say that “The Brothers Bloom” is a half-good movie.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Review

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC IN MY REVIEW OF "TRANSFORMERS REVENGE OF THE FALLEN." I DO NOT SUPPORT SEXIST VIEWS OR RACIAL STEREOTYPES.

1 star out of 5 / D

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” arguably the best film of the year, manages to be not only a simple story told at an epic length, but also a wonderfully shallow comedy that pokes fun at those crazy teens and their wacky hi-jinks.

The story, brilliantly elongated by explosions – ranging from big to really really big, continues the adventures of Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) as he goes off to college. Meanwhile, those darn Decepticons – a team of transforming robots who are at war with the good Autobot robots – are up to their dastardly deeds again, this time aided by an evil robot with one heck of a grudge. His name – the Fallen. But those screenwriters (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Ehren Kruger) are clever enough to keep the details on the down low. Instead of letting exposition slowly ooze out as the story continues – a rather tired approach – they realize that it is better to give the audience all of the information in one scene. Oh, and they make sure it is conveyed really quick. No dilly-dallying with plot detail. Those who care about the plot can try to piece together all the fragments of exposition. Meanwhile, the smarter audience members can enjoy the explosions and robot fighting.

And, boy, aren’t those explosions exciting?! Director Michael Bay (“Transformers,” “Bad Boys 2,” “Pearl Harbor, and “Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II”) creates some of the most memorable action sequences in years. Bay, unlike many Hollywood hacks (i.e. Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron), realizes that the most taut of action sequences do not require suspense. The characters would have to be developed in order for thered to be true suspense. But character development is lame! Thankfully, Bay and those crafty screenwriters know this.

They also know that the audience does not like genuine relationships between characters. We don’t want Sam and his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) to have a relationship that really means something. Fortunately, the screenwriters only put in a few easily ignorable lines about “true love.” The rest of Sam and Mikaela’s relationship is all based on lust – the way it should be. After all, women should only be seen as pieces of meat and witless dingbats. Thankfully, Bay and his screenwriters share this wonderfully sexist view and use it to great comedic effect in several scenes involving Sam’s dimwit mother and her comsumption of brownies with pot in them

Of course, the mother’s crazy antics aren’t nearly as gut-bustingly funny as the hilarious “twin” robots, who not only talk jive, but also have yellow teeth and openly admit to not being able to read. But, aren’t they adorable? When they triumphantly save the day at the film’s climax, the audience in my theater cheered. That’s right, kiddies! You can save the day too, but only if you conform to the racial stereotypes that society sets for you. This message, along with humping dogs and a guffaw-inducing midget joke, makes “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” excellent, wholesome family entertainment. And that demographic will ensure that the movie becomes a bonafide box office hit.

But, reader, are you naïve enough to think that this movie was only produced to make money? Surely, the quality of the film would suggest otherwise.

"Terminator: Salvation" Review

2.5 out of 5 ----- C

“Terminator: Salvation,” the fourth entry in the “Terminator” franchise, is average in almost every way. Of course, many films coming out of Hollywood are average, but the average ness of “Terminator: Salvation” is particularly annoying because the film still has many good elements. It just did not meld together so well.

The film takes place after Judgment Day, an almost apocalyptic event where the Terminator company SkyNet launches nuclear attacks against the United States. As the film opens, the character of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is introduced. Marcus is a criminal who is put on death row. While in prison, he meets with Serena (Helena Bonham Carter), a representative of a company called Cybeydyne. While meeting with Serena, Marcus agrees to donate his organs to Cyberdyne once he is executed. The film then flashes forward to 2018, and Marcus wakes up in an empty valley in Los Angeles. He soon meets up with Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), a young man who is fighting for the Resistance, the opposition to SkyNet. But the film centers on John Connor (Christian Bale), a man – who according to his mother – is supposed to lead the Resistance against the machines.

With such respected actors, one would expect thefilm to be at least solid. Unfortunately, a host of talented actors does not necessarily make a good film. And while Sam Worthington is given a decent role with a full emotional pay off, Anton Yelchin suffers from an underwritten part. He still makes the best of it though. Christian Bale, however, does nothing to challenge himself. He adds no depth to the character of John Connor. The audience learns nothing about him other than he is driven and angry – a lot. Therefore, his character garners very little sympathy from the audience.

Many of these problems can also be blamed on the screenplay. The script is full of good ideas, but it feels like some studio executives got their hands on it and added things that would make it more appealing to a broader audience. For example, there is a pseudo-cameo at the end of the film that feels gimmicky and obviously CGI-enhanced. And whenever the film hits an interesting idea, it is interrupted by an action scene that feels repetitive or at times – just boring. Action is fine – heck, “Star Trek” is a very good movie and over half of that movie is action – but when there is little to no emotional attachment to the characters, then the action does not work. And while a few actors did some interesting work with such undeveloped material, the audience never feels invested in the main plot.

While director McG does very little to convey the emotion of the characters, he should be credited for at least giving “Terminator: Salvation” an interesting look. The whole film seems to be drenched in beige and grey dryness. Unfortunately, the dryness of the art design also permeates into the film’s characters and action pieces. In other words, “Terminator: Salvation” is boring.

"Up" Review

4 out of 5 stars ------ B

Pixar’s “Up” is – in many ways – the studio’s most adult picture to date. The film opens with a montage detailing the life of Carl Fredricksen, a young man with an intense passion for exploration and adventure, and his marriage to the even more ambitious Ellie. The montage elicits almost every emotion from the audience, whether it is joy at the sight of Carl and Ellie married, or grief and sadness when Ellie finally passes away. The montage is brilliant in its simplicity. Director Pete Docter, having already established the couple’s chemistry in a quick introduction, lets the images speak for themselves.

After the montage, the story kicks in. Carl, stricken with grief from Ellie’s death, has become disgruntled and almost cynical about life. Annoyed by the hotshot businessmen trying to tear down his neighborhood, Carl decides to fly away from his now monotonous life and explore Paradise Falls, a landmark in South Africa that he and Ellie had always wanted to visit. He does so by tying a myriad amount of balloons to his house. Unbeknownst to Carl, a young Wilderness Scout named Russel is also along for the ride.

The first thirty minutes of the film – including the montage mentioned earlier – is almost completely serious in tone, but does contain some moments of wry humor that prevent the film from becoming a downer. The introduction of Russel brings some much needed comic relief, but it is Carl who is the emotional root of the story. The characterization of Carl (voiced by Edward Asner) is one of Pixar’s best. He is both realistic and relatable and certainly follows Pixar founder John Lasseter’s philosophy: “Part of what makes a great movie is character growth.”

With such an emotionally charged and well conveyed first act, one would expect the second act to struggle a bit. And it does. The film is still very much rooted in its characters, but suffers from a couple of missteps. When Carl and Russel arrive in South Africa, they not only meet a colorful ostrich, but also a colony of talking dogs controlled by a failed adventurer named Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer). Talking dogs are tolerable when they are used in restraint, but the writers of “Up” insist on having an entire colony of talking dogs. One of the dogs, Dug, works, mainly due to his dopey humor. However, the others do not. The other talking dogs feel clichéd and unnecessary. But, at its core, “Up” is a heartfelt adventure story, so maybe the excessive use of talking dogs can be forgiven for the mere sake of adventure. Maybe.

However, with or without the talking dogs, the adventure aspects in “Up” work. The film has fun paying homage to adventure films (i.e. the Indiana Jones films), while carefully weaving in complex character arcs and emotional ideas. The character of Carl starts off one way, makes a realization at the film’s emotional climax, and is a completely different person by the film’s close. One of the few things that stay constant about Carl is his love for adventure. While Charles Muntz seems to only go on explorations to become famous, Carl and Ellie explore because of the thrill they get from it. These character traits create an interesting contrast between the two elderly characters.

Of course, much credit should go to the animation team for creating such detailed, interesting characters and landscapes. Carl’s grand balloon escape is especially exciting thanks to the awe-inducing visuals. Much credit should also go to the simply rhythms of Michael Giacchino’s score which creates a light, fluffy atmosphere that mirrors one of the film’s main settings, the sky. This score, along with the epic sounds of Giacchino’s other recent score (“Star Trek”), shows his versatility as a composer.

In the end, there is a lot to appreciate about “Up.” Sure, the pacing of the film may have felt a bit uneven, and the talking dogs may have been one of Pixar’s few painful slips into convention, but when one is comparing it to any other animated film, there really is no competition. Pixar has always strived to craft their films to the very highest quality, and “Up” is no exception.