Originally Reviewed – 7/26/2011

Even been asked, “Sooo…what’s your story?”

It’s a hard question, isn’t it.

Where do you start? What do you include? More interestingly, what do you omit? Some may think to start at the very beginning but then the story goes on forever, boring the listener to tears. Maybe you include just the important details, the events that impacted you most directly but you then run the risk of sounding like a blowhard, never betraying the missteps that also shaped your psyche. Everything from personal triumphs to momentary setbacks to the minutia that makes us, “us”, all of our stories are much more complex then we realize.

Now imagine answering that same question to a theatre full of five hundred people. Some in attendance have never heard of you, some know bits and pieces of your tale, and some have been following your story your entire life. Who do you target? Your long time followers have their own interpretation of your life, bringing a head full of demands as to what you should include. Do you cater to fan service? What about those who know a bit about you and simply need you to fill in the blanks while staying true to what they know. And let’s not forget the newbies who need everything re-explained, much to the chagrin of the veterans of your story. How do you satisfy that entire theatre? How do you keep everybody happy.

That is the primary challenge facing director Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) in the origins story / franchise reboot X-Men: First Class and while the movie has some issues with character development, plot structure and pacing, the end result is a satisfying first chapter in the long running superhero story.

Right off the bat, this review has to assume you, the reader, are a member of the X-Men newbie club, so forgive me if I’m reluctant to give away what most people already know. X-Men: First Class is essentially a tale of two friends, one by the name of Charles Xavier, a professor of mutation with telepathic powers (James McAvoy) and the other a Holocaust survivor with the ability to manipulate metal, played by Michael Fassbender. These two unlikely friends, in conjunction with a team young mutants and a special division of the CIA, look to take down the nefarious Dr. Schmitt (Kevin Bacon), an energy absorbing mutant whose end game is to take the Cold War to a whole new level. Much like Captain America, X-Men: First Class is based in revisionist history and while the new take on events like the Cuban Missile Crisis works as a device to push the story, I couldn’t help but laugh at the generous leaps the film takes to make it all work. The plot is contrived, silly and fairly ridiculous but luckily it knows it, doing its best to stay out of the way.

Luckily, like I said at the outset, this is really a film about the relationship between McAvoy and Fassbender and in that respect, the two leads do a great job. McAvoy plays the part with a surprising amount of charm mixed with the empathy comic fans expect from the long standing character. Despite his mutation, Dr Xavier has a strong sense of the human condition and wants nothing more than to co-exist with the dominant species, a drive that is portrayed perfectly by McAvoy. Fassbender, on the other hand, brilliantly balances his desire for revenge with his burgeoning friendship with Xavier. Both McAvoy and Fassbender are fine actors and it’s good to see them in a high profile role that allows them to really get entrenched in some quality characters.

Sadly, the same can’t be said for the rest of the cast. Kevin Bacon is fine as the evil doctor but the rest of the young mutants play the parts to type. In this film, we get introduced to many of the classic characters, but rather than examining each story, the film does it all montage style, convenient for time purposes but bad for character development. As a result, these kids, while well acted by the youngsters involved, never rise above their powers, creating characters that are a little difficult to connect with. Luckily, Vaughn, who I thought did a relatively poor job with Kick Ass, directs with a confidence and focus that I haven’t seen in his previous work. While there are characters that just exist for the sake of the action and scenes that look as though half got left on the cutting room floor, Vaughn does the best he can with the script he was given. Although I can’t help but think a more seasoned director could have given the movie a more even flow, Vaughn does an admirable job with the sheer amount of material presented.

X-Men: First Class is an enjoyable yet uneven ride that is complimented with fine action, entertaining set pieces and two great performances by the leads. Fassbender and McAvoy both have chops to spare and propel the film past the breakneck pacing, giving the audience something interesting to latch onto. As I mentioned earlier, films of this type are innately difficult, especially given the popularity of the source material. While it could be easy to nitpick the ludicrous story, critique the scenes that end unexpectedly and laugh at the awfulness of the Beast costume (seriously, what the heck was that), the goal of the film was to cement the relationship between the stars of the franchise and tell us how the team got together. To that end, X-Men: First Class is a genuine success, even if it ends up being the ultimate compromise: when you attempt to please everybody, nobody is fully satisfied. An easy film to pick apart but a hard one to provide any insight on how it could have been better, X-Men: First Class is am enjoyable introduction to the world of mutants and men.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 7/19/2011

Woody Allen, as of late, has been hit or miss. From critical highs like Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona to box office bombs such as Whatever Works and Cassandra’s Dream, to describe Allen’s work as a writer / director in this decade could be kindly described as “uneven”. Although nobody can deny Allen’s skill in writing and humor, many have thought that he may be a relic of a time gone by, tossed aside by slicker, smarmier and more adult comedies. Maybe the days of wit and charm belong to bygone age, taken over by comedic cynicism and if so, Allen may just have been a victim of the passage of time. Well, I’m here to tell you there’s still room for Allen, charming witticisms and films that make you feel good with simple, sweet stories. The film that changed my mind is Midnight in Paris and not only is it the best Woody Allen film since 1994’s Bullets Over Broadway, it’s certain to find a place on my Top 10 films of 2011.

Midnight In Paris stars Owen Wilson who plays Gil, a disenfranchised Hollywood screenwriter who would like nothing more than ditching the corporate writing machine to elope to the enchanting City of Light. Finding himself tagging along a Parisian holiday sponsored by his fiancé’s family, Gil wanders the streets of the night-swept city looking for the mystery, romance and magic the French city is known for. Gil is a classic Allen character. Glib, unassuming and kindheartedly quirky, Wilson plays the part with his standard country boy charm and thanks to the expert direction of Mr. Allen, he translates on screen as completely charming daydreamer. While Gil has a standard Hollywood fiancée, played by Rachel McAdams, the third point of this Parisian love triangle Is native girl Adriana played in usual fantastic fashion by Marion Cotillard. Adriana, like much of the viewing audience, is caught up with the bumbling Gil and takes him on a series of late night adventures that not only changes his perspective of his current relationship yet changes his thoughts on nostalgia and its effect on living in the now.

Now, for those of you who have had your fill of the standard romantic comedy love triangle flicks, take heart. There’s much more to Midnight In Paris than a standard rom com, thanks to a delightful script by Mr. Allen. Not only do you find yourself drawn to the plight of Gil and the beauty of Adriana, you find yourself drawn to city itself. The best Allen films have always featured its city as a major character and Midnight is no exception. While there are moments where you think a caption reading, “Courtesy Of The Parisian Tourism Board” is going to flash on screen, the city is featured in a loving way, adding a dose of much needed character to a script that, aside from a brilliant twist thirty minutes in that sets the tone for the entire rest of the film, is fairly by the numbers. No worries, I won’t give away the twist but suffice to say, if you have any interest in the film at all, do not let a friend ruin it for you as doing so would considerably lessen the magic. My only quibble would be that the characters of Gil’s fiancé, mother and father aren’t nearly fleshed out enough to make them any more than foils to Gil’s nocturnal adventures, a small point when compared to the fun and complexity of the two main leads.

While I’m aware I’ve already used this word once in my review, the most succinct way I can describe Midnight In Paris is delightful. Although many film fans will cringe at the tidy way the film wraps up, I felt myself wholly satisfied that our main characters don’t fall off a cliff or die in a tragic bus accident. Sometimes, it’s good for things to turn out exactly like we want and in the case of Midnight In Paris, the strength of the characters make the easy ending more than acceptable. Fresh, charming and yes, a touch magical, Midnight In Paris re-cements Woody Allen as a relevant director, able to provide laughs, feeling and insight in equal measure. More than a standard date night movie, Midnight In Paris is an absolute joy to watch and is easily one of my favorite films of the year.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 7/8/2011

Oh Michael Bay, how I dislike thee. Let me count the ways….

Is it your innate ability to take something as simple as a goofy movie about an unlikely duo breaking into Alcatraz to stop a renegade general from launching chemical weapons at the population of San Francisco and turn it into an overblown mess?

Is it the way you eschew character development for flipping cars and uninteresting gun battles?

Is it your skill in filming in a place full of haunted spiritual power like Alcatraz while using none of that energy to elevate your movie beyond hack one liners and random violence?

Or is it your complete lack of respect for the intelligence of your audience.

You know? It just might be all of the above.

Welcome to The Rock, a loud, obnoxious and overblown film that does nothing but blow a few things up in the City by the Bay. Starring Nicholas Cage as a chemical weapons expert, Ed Harris as the rebellious general and Sean Connery as a convicted escape artist, The Rock does its best to be everything at once and in the end, fails to be anything at all. While the movie does have some bright spots, the entire experience is plagued with some head scratching decisions concerning story, character development and plot holes the size of Ghirardelli Square.

The main problem with The Rock is that the film suffers from having too much story. Yes, you read that correctly, too much story can be a bad thing. If the writers had kept things a little simpler, Bay would have had more opportunity to flesh out the situations and actually have them make a lick of sense. Some fans may claim some suspension of disbelief is in order for this genre to work but I find it hard to believe that Sean Connery, after being given a hotel suite, lavish food and a suit in return for helping the FBI sneak into Alcatraz would need to go on a fifteen minute car chase just so see his daughter. Couldn’t he have also demanded, “Hey, I’d like to see my daughter”? Sorry, but no amount of “loosing myself in the movie” will explain how the general with his team of heavily armed mercenaries was able to walk into a military installation and steal chemical weapons. Did the Army not have the budget for surveillance cameras? Silly leaps of faith like this cause the film to crumble under its own preposterousness.

Of course, if you can get past the ridiculous story, the characters don’t help the cause either. Harris is over the top as the general but the biggest issue is that his performance never gives the audience any direction. Harris has held the city ransom for a hundred million dollars, to be paid out to the families of men killed under his command. While a little ambiguity is fine, the audience doesn’t have a clear antagonist to root against. Should they see him as a hero going outside the rule book to prove a point or do we see him as a villain, willing to put an entire population in harms way for monetary gain. Having a complex villain is fine so long as his motivations are clear but in the case of The Rock, you never really know what the general’s end game is, making him frustrating to watch.

Cage, as the chemical expert, suffers from the same issue. Half the time playing the role weirdly funny and the other half as an action bad ass, Cage flip flops between the two performances, again, causing our brains to hurt from inherent confusion. Sean Connery is the only lead who doesn’t have this issue as he completely ignores any direction and simply plays himself. I imagine he realized there’s no real character to immerse himself in, so he just spouts the lines in his Scottish accent and the result is classic Connery. Despite the weakly drawn characters, the relationship between Connery and Cage is the best part of the film, featuring two actors who are genuinely having a good time. However, even this fun chemistry is destroyed by horrible one liners, cheesy jokes that fall flat and action scenes that, aside from a few exceptions, fail to deliver even the most modest of thrills.

In the end, The Rock is just plain stupid. Stupid marines holding a group of stupid tourists hostage while they bully a stupid government into paying up for a stupid cause, this movie is like a disgusting stew: throw every ingredient you can think of into a pot, boil it all down to the bare essentials and force us to spend over two hours eating it. With bit characters that go nowhere, plot jumps that make no sense and an ending that was telegraphed hours beforehand, The Rock is all noise with little impact. Alcatraz deserved better than this.

Score – 30%

Originally Reviewed – 6/22/2011

Throughout all the bombast and squall of the summer movie season, quiet little jems often get bowled over by the ever-present noise of the local mainstream cinema. While 2011 has been no exception to this, the quality of mainstream movies has actually been pretty decent. With popcorn munchers like Thor, X-Men: First Class and Super 8 all impressing audiences and critics alike, this summer has been a good one for movie lovers who lack access to independent cinema. Sad thing is that this influx of decent summer blockbusters has pushed the indie scene to the background even more than usual for this time of year, despite there being some quality films to be seen. One of those diamonds in the rough is the latest film starring Ewan McGregor, Beginners, a film that examines the balancing act between living in the past and taking hold of your future with mostly delightful results.

McGregor plays Oliver, a late thirty-something artist who lives alone, has a dog he talks to (and talks back via adorably funny subtitles) and has shut out much of the outside world due to a crippling shyness. The film opens with McGregor settling the affairs of his recently deceased father, played near perfectly by Christopher Plummer. This opening scene sets the tone of the film, showing us that while there’s going to be some serious meat to be digested, it’s all layered with a candy coating of wry humor. McGregor is pretty fantastic in this role, reminding me of how good an actor he really can be when given the opportunity. Displaying a great deal of subtlety in his very restrained performance, McGregor goes through the emotions of pain, loss and burgeoning love in a very real and connected way.

Of course, without some fine supporting acting, McGregor’s great work would have been wasted. After the initial introduction to the character of Oliver, the film splits in two, one half detailing the relationship between Oliver during his father’s coming out and the present time, centering around a new relationship with a charming actress named Anna, played by Melanie Laurent. The flashback scenes detailing Plummer’s admitting he’s gay at the age of 75, his subsequent newfound zest for life and the effect it all has on his now older son is easily the strongest stuff in the film, balancing reality and whimsy in equal doses. Inspiring, sweet and poignant, the zeal for living Plummer displays reminds us all it’s never too late to taste the sweetness life has to offer.

On the other side of the coin, the parallel story of Oliver and Anna falls into familiar territory. The impossibly cool couple roller-skates in office buildings, tags up buildings and go to parties with equally cool people, all very fun and interesting but difficult to connect with if you don’t live in Brooklyn or wear American Apparel short pants. Without the excellent work of both McGregor and Laurent in their respective roles, this hipster romance could have been intolerable but with some lovely chemistry and good direction by Mike Mills, the two hold together.

From personal experience, the older you get, the more closed off you tend to become, especially towards relationships and the people you surround yourself with. Like an emotional survival instinct, it gets harder and harder to trust someone for fear of experiencing that same old pain of rejection, especially when you expect things will eventually fall apart. Through the present life of Oliver trying to connect with a maddingly charming woman and the flashbacks of his father breaking free of those emotional bonds in his twilight years, Beginnings shows us both the joy of being open to the world and the consequences of being closed off. Although the film has a small hint of trying to be too clever for the room, the meat of the feature is something we can all take a big bite out of. A celebration of life combined with a cautionary tale of how easily it can be squandered, Beginners may have tried too hard to be everything at one, but when the sum of the parts is this emotionally satisfying, I find it hard to find fault with any of it.

Score – 85%

Originally Reviewed – 6/7/2011

Daniel Day Lewis is an actor that I always look at with a crooked glance. While you can’t argue his energy, passion and work ethic, I sometimes feel the guy needs to be toned down a bit. Fiery eyed and wild in his delivery, most know him for his over the top turns in films like Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood. Although these are both fine movies in their own right, they feature an actor whose been given free reign. Rather than coaxing a more controlled performance from the actor, they allow him to scream, yell and borderline overact many of the scenes he’s in. Lewis is an actor that needs good direction and without that, he sometimes goes off the rails in his high energy performances. Now, many DDL fans will say that’s simply his style, that Lewis has an intense energy that can’t be contained. To these people, I say look no further than his earlier work, culminating in one of his finest performances to date, the portrayal of Irish painter Christy Brown in the fantastic My Left Foot.

Born with only the use of his left foot due to cerebral palsy, My Left Foot documents the life of Christy Brown, from childhood to his first attempts at painting to the completion of his novel, all accomplished with the use of his remaining working appendage. No ghost writers, no friends working the brushes, just a man and his dreams, creating wondrous works of art despite his handicaps. The film is not only accurate to the life of Brown but true to the nature of the man and the family that supported him. Born in 1930’s Ireland, Brown came from a low income family who didn’t put him in a home, as any family of means would’ve done during that era, but rather take him in as one of their own, giving him a childhood filled with love and patience. This car and attention is faithfully reflected in the film, a wise decision by director Jim Sheridan, who would go on to direct Lewis in both the excellent In the Name of the Father and The Boxer. As the film goes on, we start to feel both Brown’s physical and emotional struggles, creating not just a pitiable character, but a complex one, filled with the same type of frustrations, fears and desires as anybody else. In short, the film is well directed, well written and full of complex yet easily relatable emotions.

Lewis plays Brown in his adult years, and delivers a career making performance, giving the character a very human interpretation. Brown is no sad sack and neither is Lewis’ portrayal, letting his character experience the whole range of human emotions with his signature intensity while still remaining grounded in the role. Playing a character stricken with cerebral palsy, Lewis is limited in his bodily motions, forcing him to rely on solid acting technique to convey Brown’s emotions, the most effective being his steely gaze. Even today, Daniel Day Lewis has an extraordinary way of using his eyes to convey emotions and this film is no exception. The rest of the cast is equally wonderful, including Hugh O’Conor as the boyhood Brown, Ray McAnally as his gruff father and Brenda Fricker in an Oscar winning turn as Christy’s loving mother. Fricker in particular plays her role perfectly, especially one scene where, after hearing Christy struggling to speak with his speech therapist, laments on how much hope there is in his voice. Filled with fear that her son will never be normal, pain at the thought of losing him to a more independent life and worry that he will be ultimately let down in his goal to communicate, the scene is heartrending and deservedly Oscar winning.

Modern day fans of Daniel Day Lewis, take heed. Better yet, take a rainy afternoon, rent yourself the following films in this order and make a day of it. Watch A Room With A View, In the Name of the Father and the movie I just reviewed and take notice. Pay attention to how Lewis, given the proper direction, can generate that intensity and power he’s known for without the need to overwhelm the actors he’s paired up with. With excellent direction, heartfelt acting and a story that makes you think, My Left Foot is a triumphant film that makes you feel not pity or sadness but joy at the successes of this modern day marvel. Not only a star making role for Daniel Day Lewis but a landmark movie for the Irish film industry as a whole, My Left Foot is a powerful story of not only overcoming physical obstacles, of besting the traps and trips that reside within us all.

Score – 90%

Thus far this century, women have been given a raw deal when it comes to comedic films. Gone are the hilarious comediennes of the Mae West / Lucille Ball stamp, being replaced by boorish fellas in gag inducing misadventures, mostly at the expense of their female counterparts. In cinema, comedy has been male dominated for decades and any time a female lands a comedic role, it’s usually in some sappy rom com or an overly sweet made for Lifetime picture. Women are rarely allowed to be cringe inducing, maybe due to societal paradigms, lack of taste for it by audiences or both. Luckily for most of us, that limitation has finally been shattered in what just may be the funniest comedy of the year, Bridesmaids, a hilarious, honest and, yes, fairly gross film that cements lead and co-writer Kristen Wiig as a genuine comedic film star.

In Bridesmaids, Wiig plays Annie, long time friend and maid of honor to bride to be Lillian, played by Maya Rudolph. Immediately you can tell that these former Saturday Night Live cast mates have a natural chemistry and the result is an instantly believable friendship. They talk frankly about the male anatomy, discuss sexual partners and it becomes obvious from the get go that this isn’t going to be your standard sweet female comedy. The language is raw, unrelenting and usually gut bustlingly funny. While Rudolph plays the part of a bride on the cusp of moving from the middle class to high society rather well, Wiig is the star of the show. In the role, Wiig displays uncanny comedic timing and is easily relatable as an emotionally disconnected bridesmaid, mining comedic gold from the depths of pain and longing. Just as her best friend seems to be on the rise, marrying rich and meeting fabulous new friends, life is falling apart all around Annie. Her bakery has failed, her boyfriend has left and she’s relegated to sleeping with a Porsche driving douche who glibly states he really wants her to leave right after making love. The character’s comedy is rooted in real drama and while her decent is borderline melodramatic, Wiig plays it straight, making the moments when she drunkenly makes a scene on a plane or gets the entire bridal party sick with food poisoning not only hilarious but emotionally resonating. A tough balancing act to be sure, but one Wiig pulls off brilliantly.

Of course, this isn’t a solo effort and the rest of the bridal party, while shoehorned into strict archetypes, makes the freefall of Annie even more fun for the viewer. The main antagonist of the film is Helen (Rose Byrne), Lillian’s newest friend from the upper crust who does everything she can to make Lillian’s wedding over the top and magical, much to the chagrin of Annie. This immediate clash of wills and status provides the catalyst for the rest of the film and while Byrne plays the part almost too structured, the dichotomy between the snooty Helen and the grassroots Annie makes for some exceedingly entertaining rifts. The rest of the bridal party rounds out nicely featuring Wendi McLendon-Covey of Reno 911 fame as Rita, an ex-partier mother of three, Ellie Kemper as the almost virginal newlywed and Melissa McCarthy as the rough-necked wild card. While the entire cast is perfectly suited for their roles and pulls them off wonderfully, it’s McCarthy who deserves extra recognition. Stealing every scene she’s in, McCarthy is a joy to watch rampage in and around the many situations the bridesmaids find themselves in. Crass, raw and unabashedly rude, McCarthy not only pulls off the sight gags but much of the final denouement, a tricky feat to be sure but one that she knocked out of the park. High marks also has to given to Chris O’Dowd as the Wiig’s eventual love interest, Rhodes. Being the only male in an all girls party can be a tricky pitch to hit but O’Dowd plays it perfectly, injecting the right mix of Irish charm, patience and good guy sweetness into the role. In a word, Bridesmaids is the best cast movie I’ve seen thus far this year and I doubt another comedy will be able to beat it.

But none of this fine comedic acting would be worth it without some fine material from Wiig and co writer Annie Mumolo and some smart directing by Paul Feig. I’d be interested to find out what percentage of the movie was off the cuff, as it really feels like these women are naturally conversing much of the time but my guess would be a careful mixture of improv and an actual script. Feig does a great job in allowing these ladies to not only be very funny but be very real within their characters. More of a female buddy comedy than anything else, Feig tows the line between gross out humor and real pathos, creating a film that is satisfying on all fronts. This is not a “stupid comedy” by any stretch and one that gives the viewer a chance to laugh and feel in equal measure.

At the outset of this review, I spoke about the paradigm of females being relegated to either objects of male desire or the butt of their jokes. With a blend of fine acting, hilarious comedy and moments so crude you’ll be shocked that they actually agreed to do it, Bridesmaids not only smashes through that barrier, it redefines what it means to be a female fronted comedy. While I hesitate to say this is a landmark film, this is certainly the first step towards comedic equality in filmmaking. Easily the funniest movie you’ll see this year and on par with the equally side splitting The Hangover, Bridesmaids is comedy gold from beginning to end and establishes Kristen Wiig as a brilliant writer and comedic actress. Although the more conservative critics may tisk tisk about his film being too gross, to crass and too “unladylike”, it’s exactly that close-minded nature that Bridesmaid attempts and succeeds at breaking down. Women can be just as crude, silly and irreverent as the boys and in this critic’s opinion, it’s about damn time.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 5/26/2011

These days, it seems as though the term Marvel has become synonymous with box office gold. With properties like X-Men, Iron Man and Spiderman raking in the dough, it’s hard to think of a summer without a Marvel film featured in it, when in fact, the juggernaut hasn’t been rolling for very long. When Marvel Studios released its first film, Blade, in 1998, DC was the king of the comic film scene, featuring successful adaptations of Superman and Batman. With Blade and 2000’s X-Men making huge box office splashes, Marvel cemented themselves as real players in the comic book movie genre. While some films have been great (Iron Man, Spider Man 2) and some have been miserable (The Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra), Marvel is on a bit of an upswing as of late with its all encompassing Avengers project. The latest film in that pantheon, Thor, tries to keep the streak going and despite some minor issues, does a reasonably good job of maintaining the quality, providing a solid B grade entry into the Stan Lee family of films.

Directed by long time Shakespearian Kenneth Branagh, Thor is a tale of two worlds, one the skyward planet Asgard and the other our very own planet Earth. On Asgard lives our protagonist, Thor, a cocky yet charming heir to the throne, played by first timer Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth plays the part very well, injecting charm, likability and a sense of immaturity into the character in equal doses. Hemsworth not only looks the part but gives the character some much needed depth, important for the long term development of the character. Thor isn’t the most thoughtful of god people and when he saunters off to the land of the Front Giants to, for lack of a better word, start some shit, his father banishes him to the far off land of Earth, making his brother Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, the new heir. What follows is a fairly interesting, if not totally predictable battle for power, that’s not unlike the Shakespeare that remains Branagh’s bread and butter. The clash works quite well and although you can see the end result coming a mile away, the strength in the characters more than makes up for it.

In fact, if I have one knock against Thor is that the story is completely and totally predictable. Once Thor lands on Earth, stripped of his godly power, he comes across a team of scientists knocking around the desert looking at storm patterns. This unabashedly contrived meeting sets up the rest of film quite neatly; you have Natalie Portman as the brilliant scientist / love interest, Stellan Skarsgard as a fellow scientist / mentor and Kat Dennings as their assistant / comic relief. As you can see, each character has an archetype to live up to and while this makes for a pretty predictable storyline, each actor does a fine job with the role given. The comedy generally works, the chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman is strong enough and it’s genuinely enjoyable watching Thor stomp around modern day Earth, smashing glasses, being overly polite and adjusting to our primitive society. My only quibble would be Thor’s Asgardian friends, a band of warriors who are so underdeveloped, I couldn’t give you their names if I had gun against my head. The film also does a nice job of jumping between Asgard where Loki is vying for political position and Earth where Thor is just trying to cope with being once again mortal. It’s this nice balance of Shakespearian style familial in fighting and culture clash that moves the film along, although not at the pace most comic fans have come to expect.

On that front, one only has to look toward director Kenneth Branagh for answers. Responsible for some of the best adaptations of Shakespeare ever put to film, including a masterful version of Henry V, Branagh is comfortable letting the actors tell a story, providing a slower, more patient comic book flick than we’ve come to expect from the genre. Summer popcorn fans needn’t fear, though, as the film is nowhere near a Victorian drama. The action is frenetic, there are some top notch special effects in play and the film moves along at a very nice pace; just don’t expect the itchy trigger finger of Iron Man. On the action front, it’s not anything you haven’t seen before, but when I first saw the trailer, I thought, “A hammer? What can one do with a hammer?” Evidently, quite a lot as Thor summons lightning and smashes baddies all about a desolate planet, providing just enough visceral fun to make the film a true summer popcorn flick.

Thor, while falling slightly in the original storytelling department, more than makes up for its faults, providing fun action, an interesting tie to Norse mythology and enough eye candy to keep even the most jaded summer moviegoer entertained. While not quite on the level of the A list Marvel properties, Thor was a nice change of pace for me, providing thrills, pathos and humor in equal measure. Branagh has not been known for big budget action films and while I doubt he’s going to become the next Michael Bay, maybe somewhere along the lines of a Jon Favreau is not completely out of the realm of possibility. A fine opening to the summer popcorn season, Thor is some of the best action you’ll see in theaters this summer. That is, of course, until the next Marvel flick comes rolling into the spotlight.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 5/21/2011

Growing up, one of my favorite games was always Oregon Trail. The simple story of a pixilated frontier family braving the open expanses of the untamed West always filled me fascination. At first, you cruise along; you hunt for buffalo, stop at towns to buy supplies and ensure your family of travelers is well fed and medicated. After awhile though, things always go south. Two oxen die of cholera, start traveling slower. A wagon wheel looses a spoke, burn a day fixing it. Ma gets a stern case of the rickets, you slow to a crawl so she can recover. Soon, the game ceases to be a leisurely stroll through the undiscovered country; it becomes a war of attrition. Constantly juggling dwindling supplies, disease and your biggest enemy, time, you really start to feel the hardships of a trail worn traveler. What the game doesn’t do is explain what happens when you take the path not blazed. Played on a fairly steady track, you constantly move westward towards California. In the latest film by director Kelly Reichardt, you not only get a feel for the hardships facing those frontier pioneers, you become part of their family, living, breathing and sometimes even suffering through the monotony of the westward plains.

The party of travelers you reluctantly join in made up of three families, the Tetherows, played by Michelle Williams and Will Patton the Gatelys (Paul Dano , Zoe Kazan) and the Whites (Neal Huff, Shirley Henderson). The party is led down toward California by Meek (Bruce Greenwood), a crusty old veteran of the Wild West. Cocksure, unwavering and stubborn, Meek takes the family of gold seekers down a supposed shortcut that looks more and more unfamiliar at every turn. During this introductory act, you can immediately tell this is going to be a grind to get through. While the landscape and scope of this unclaimed country is stunningly photographed, the opening slow pans set the deliberate pace for the rest of the film. Reichardt is in no rush to tell the story and instead turns her patient eye towards creating suspense through stillness. Many in the audience I saw it with started to squirm after the first twenty minutes and while the lack of action can be infuriating to those unprepared, anybody who has seen Reichardt’s other work know exactly what to expect. For me, the quiet of the filmmaking made every moment, from a conversation drenched in flickering campfire light to a slow track across an acrid plain, wrought with tension. The film can be excruciating at times but if you let the stillness work its magic on you, the movie’s ultimate mood is enveloping and at times breathtaking.

Naturally, some good performances didn’t hurt either. The star of the film is Michelle Williams as the mother and head matriarch of the lead family. Her, along with her husband, played by Will Patton, are distrustful of the trail worn Meek, questioning his judgment at almost every turn. Meek has assured them that this path is the easiest route but as they progress, he becomes less and less confident of where they’re heading. Water is scarce, food is scarcer and tensions start to run high. Williams possesses a quiet intensity that colors her character with a smolder that burns beneath her pledge of duty to her husband and family. Williams plays the part to balanced perfection but once the party, at a moment of near desperation, capture a Native American with the choice to either kill him or put aside their fear and to help them fine water, she fully discovers the character’s potential. With the first half playing out almost like a living painting of a landscape, the second half deals solely with the prejudices of the traveling party. Meek wants to kill him, the father wants him to help and while I won’t spoil what the family chooses to do, the arc William’s character undergoes during the process is worth the price of admission alone.

While the ending split the audience I saw this film with in two, half enjoying, half hating, I felt that the conclusion was an appropriately ambiguous end to an emotionally challenging film. Not a film for those who need their movies all sown up in a tidy bow, Meek Cutoff is an example of high art meeting high tension. Although the film certainly isn’t for everybody, and the glacier slow pacing even caused me to sigh now and again, Reichardt is a brave filmmaker who isn’t afraid to let good actors work in a still space and for that, she has my respect. Framed much like the traveling moments of a Cormac McCarthy novel, more than once I thought, especially towards the end, that Reichardt just might be the one to direct a version of Blood Meridian, an adaptation many experts think to be impossible. Slow, tense and in the end, intellectually thought provoking, Meek’s Cutoff is a film lovers movie, a piece of quiet beauty, stunning style and exceptional emotional quality. The text scrawl of, “Jeb has died from scurvy” in Oregon Trail will never read the same again

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 5/11/2011

Super sleuth movies can be a tough nut to crack. These days, audiences often expect more from their James Bond style heroes than dashing looks, nifty gadgets and flying fists. Ever since the Bourne series of films, the standard for being a covert operative has been raised to not only examine the missions but take a look at the person doing all that butt kicking. Films that take the time to develop those characters tend to do well and films that don’t, people cease to care about. No matter how much fun it can be to watch somebody leap from a car going ninety miles an hour while bullets fly by, audiences connect with people, not super humans with guns. Hanna, the latest film from director Joe Wright, wisely takes the standard “guy/gal on the run from baddies” storyline and creates an interesting character that audiences will want to see more of in future installments. Let’s just hope that if Wright and company actually turn this into a franchise, they surround our heroine with something more interesting to do.

Opening in the snow encased wilds of Northern Finland, we meet Hanna, a 16 year old girl who lives with her ex-CIA father, played by Eric Bana. Hanna is there for one reason and one reason alone: to become a teenage ass kicking machine. Bereft of technology or modern advances, Hanna has traded blogging on Facebook for bow hunting elk and high school swim meets for training in hand to hand combat. This unusual entry into the world of our central character helps set this film apart from the other entries in the genre. Not only do you get a young girl with enough fighting skill to take down a small army, you get a vulnerable one. Hanna has never even seen a piece of technology before and when she sets out on a journey to take down corrupt CIA operative Marissa Wigler (played by Cate Blanchett), much of the fun is not just the chase but her interactions with this crazy world of science we all take for granted. While much of the character development is us watching her struggle with light switches and electric blenders, high marks have to go to Saoirse Ronan for giving the character a sense of helplessness to even out her deadly assassin side. The character is fresh, interesting and fun to watch as we not only see her carry out her mission but learn about modern life in a way that is always engaging

As for the mission itself, this is where Hanna starts to fall apart in places. Hanna marks director Joe Wright’s first foray into the action genre and the inexperience shows when the fists start flying. While the action involving Hanna is appropriately primal, especially given the young girls upbringing, the fight scenes start to stale as the film marches on. Hanna fights some henchmen, Wigler is on the hunt and it all boils down to a conclusion that left me a little cold. Despite some very nice camerawork and some great use of one take shots, the action in Hanna isn’t anywhere near as involving as the character herself. Action is deceptively difficult to do and while Hanna doesn’t fail completely, it definitely lacks a certain punch in rhythm and pacing. While these shortcomings do hinder the film as a pure action movie, Hanna is well directed, nicely shot and finely acted by the principal cast. A neat little action thriller that tries to rise above the malaise of the genre, Hanna has a great central story and enough visceral thrills to keep it moving along. While not the best film Wright has ever or will ever do, Hanna still succeeds on the strength of its star and leading lady. A character I wouldn’t mind seeing again in the cinemas sometime soon, Hanna serves its purpose as an indie fan’s action flick.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 5/5/2011

Sometimes when a director moves from the indie space to the Hollywood arena, their message gets a bit muddled in transition. Ideas get churned up in the studio machine, producers make suggestions based on marketing material and actors make demands based on image, notoriety and celebrity. While I wouldn’t know from firsthand experience, I can imagine that it isn’t easy having a critical hit made on a modest budget just to have a studio turn around and hand you six times the money to make your follow up. This is exactly what happened to British director Duncan Jones. Made with a budget of about $5 million, Jones’ first film, Moon, was received with rave reviews from critics and audiences alike. Leading man Sam Rockwell got some Oscar looks and Duncan’s debut made him a director on the rise. So when Jones got a tidy sum of 32 million dollars to made his second film he chose a twisty science fiction script about an army soldier who is tasked with replaying the final eight minutes of a horrific train accident over and over again in an attempt find the person responsible. The film became Source Code and while the result is a neat little story that features a fine performance by its star Jake Gyllenhaal, the film doesn’t quite reach the heights of Duncan’s previous effort due some unfortunate missteps in the script.

Throwing the viewer right into the fray from the first frame, at first not much is known about the army soldier played by Gyllenhall. Luckily for the audience, the combination of the character’s army persona and Gyllenhall’s natural likability help the audience quickly connect to our confused protagonist. Bewildered, lost and finding himself following orders from a far off officer well played by Vera Farmiga, the soldier now known at Private Colter Stevens find himself getting zapped over and over into the body of a recently deceased schoolteacher, a passenger on that doomed train. The goal? To find out who planted the bomb and, with this information, prevent another disaster from occurring. At first I thought reliving the same eight minutes over and over again would become tiresome but Jones does a great job in keeping each reiteration fresh, making smart decisions in when to change things up and when to cut to the chase.

While on this time bound merry-go-round, Stevens encounters an attractive young woman named Christina, played by Michelle Monaghan, who eventually becomes his love interest. While I understand the point of having a romantic lead, this is where the film starts to teeter on its own wheels. Again relying on the instant likability of the two stars, the film fails to give the burgeoning relationship any grounds for existing, other than to provide an anchor for the emotionally charged second half. Still, Jones obviously knows how to work with actors and directs both Gyllenhall and Monaghan well enough to give the audience something to latch onto. Sure, we have no idea why they fall for each other but they are likable enough for us to not really care.

Already on shaky but acceptable ground, the film really starts to hit the skids when it tries to explain its science. Once the initial shock of the soldier repeatedly reliving a disaster wears off, the film wisely starts to explain how all this time jumping is possible in the first place. While watching the film, I found myself nodding my head, saying, “Yeah, yeah, that makes sense…but no, it really doesn’t” and once that happened, I found myself thrown out of the action. It also doesn’t help that the explanations are rushed, confusing and slightly illogical, depending completely on the audience’s total suspension of disbelief. Compelling stars and good acting may be enough for us to believe the relationships but the leaps of faith asked of the audience concerning the science is too far a jump, even for a speedy action flick.

Still, through all this pseudo science and baseless romance, I found myself enjoying the film very much. As the second half ramps up the drama and the mystery of the bomber begins to unravel, I found myself caught up in the action. I even thought the relationship worked at a very basic level, a huge credit to Jones’ skill with directing actors. As it led up to the conclusion, I felt oddly entertained. Yes, the movie got lost in its own science but thanks to a few key scenes, including a wonderful moment when Gyllenhall calls his father, I felt the humanity of the piece in full force. And as the final shot filled the screen, completely telegraphed but still satisfying, I felt glad that this story somehow, someway worked in the end, despite the lack of character development and confusing techno-babble.

The ending came. And it went. Yet the film kept going.

As the reality of the situation dawned on me, a stifled “no” escaped my lips. The shot I had just witnessed was an end, an untidy, messy ending to be sure but a deeply human one just the same. So why was the film still going? And why are they doing that? And what is Farmiga talking about here? And Gyllenhall is going to do what??? Every minute of that ending drew more ire from me, getting me to the point where I could do nothing but mutter, “End already”, through my clenched teeth. In the short seven minutes between the supposed ending and the actual one, I went from satisfied acceptance to baffled, confounded and really pissed off.

In the end, Source Code contains 86 minutes of an enjoyable if illogical action thriller capped off with seven minutes of an ending so reproachfully tidy, there might as well been Care Bears and unicorns dancing about while the credits rolled. While exiting the theater, my first thought was that the ending had to be the brainchild of some studio executive sitting in a pristine office somewhere in Hollywood. Surrounded by market research, Excel charts and demographic data, this studio peon had to have conjured up the hamfisted conclusion to a movie that was shaping up to be a better than average science fiction flick. It was hard to imagine the director of the daringly disarming Moon could have thought this up and if he did, this mistake did the film and the audience a huge disservice. Regardless of who’s responsible, Source Code is still an entertaining film, even if it suffers from an illogical plot, stunted character development and a burning desire to appease everyone all at once. While I still think director Duncan Jones is an extraordinary talent who infuses his films with a very human flavor, I hope his next project allows the audience to wonder not in confusion of the plot or annoyance at the ending but at the uncanny way he allows his characters to live on the screen.

Score – 60%