Inception

Ah, this is a tricky one. The good or the bad first? Okay- the good. The premise is brilliant-don't think of this as a heist film- it's a dream fim. I went in not expecting much because the guy who directed Memento did this. But it's also the guy who did The Dark Knight. I hated Memento (so many holes in the story) and loved The Dark Knight. The idea of levels of dreams and being in the world invented by someone's mind and the concept of perceived versus real time alterations, etc,- all very intriguing and thought provoking. The idea of being able to plant ideas by using dream manipulation- well, scifi aside, it works. If you can relax and enjoy the ride, it will all make sense in the end. That part of the story ALONE would have been enough. The movie does drag on for 2.5 hrs and why? I'm gonna tell you. Because 20 minutes is wasted on unnecessary murder. I love a good cinematic shoot em up as much as the next person. But here, it got to the point that the useless gun fighting just wore me down. I mean it WORE ME DOWN. I finally just shut my eyes and waited for the noise to end. Then I'd go, ahhhhh that's over for 4 minutes. There was no point in beating up the audience with a lot of unnecessary, time eating, plot killing gun action. The film would have been brilliantly inventive without it. The acting by everyone is great- with one exception. Ellen Page. She needs to get a facial expression. No kidding. She is in the company of MASTERS in this film- DiCaprio, Watanabe, Caine, Cotillard, Berenger, Gordon-Levitt and the creepy Cillian Murphy. Page is so boring to watch- she's like a 13 year old in history class looking out at the playground. She could not hold up to what was around her. (Michael Cera is NOT Michael Caine). So in short, it is totally worth seeing, take a little more thought than most people go to the movies to do, and is absolutely STUNNING in its visuals. It's a great premise, a great story, well filmed and well acted. But the negatives are the wasted time in gun battles and watching Ellen Page struggle. Have fun!

2012

I start out this review by saying the usual- it is what it is. Lots of explosions. Lots of implausible science. Lots of overacting. Lots of predictable situations. The world is going to end in 2012. Everything is falling apart. There is some vague Noah's Ark ideology. And that's it. But what there is of it is indeed spectacular. In fact, if you are going for a plot or story, you will be very disappointed. It is a special effects film- no more, no less. And for some of us, that is enough.

Star Trek

When you take on an iconic series, then you better do a great job. And the writers and director and actors have done just that. The viewers (most of them) KNOW these characters. I doubt there are more well known characters on TV than Captain Kirk, Spock, etc. We know their quirks and their mannerisms. Fortunately, there is enough of a nod to their personalities that the audience feels at home. The plot requires a bit of attention. But what is fun is feeling like you are finally watching a home movie that explains HOW these people got to the 1966 television series. Even Captain Pike is in it. You never doubt that this IS James T Kirk. Just younger. Star Trek lost me when it moved on past Shatner and Nimoy. It no longer had the sass, for lack of a better word. Initially, in 1966, it was just silly with bad makeup, shoddy sets and sometimes, even worse acting. But it grew up. And this movie will make old viewers happily nostalgic. I can't wait for Star Trek II and I hope this cast goes on for a long time.

Quantum of Solace

bang bang bang bang bang bang- WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR?-punch punch punch- I SAID WHO ARE YOU?- bang bang bang- BOND keeps killing people, find him- bang bang- owwwww that hurt- bang- runrunrunrunrrunrun- look into my steely blue eyes- kaboom bang run punch. There's the review. There is no finesse, and it's like following a confusing map that someone has spilled coffee on - you'll get there, but you wish the lines were clearer. I love the rugged Bond, but there has to be a story with some dialogue in this somewhere. Even Bourne has more personality than this. If Daniel Craig wasn't such a good looking guy in his rugged beat up way, this would have been just tedious mayhem.

RockNRolla

RockNRolla is the new Guy Ritchie (and soon to be the former Mr Madonna) movie. Fortunately, Madonna isn't IN it, so it doesn't suck. It goes back to the formulaic "give them a bunch of puzzle pieces, throw them on the rug, put out some clues and shoot a bunch of people before we put the puzzle back together" formula. It's not as smooth as "Lock, stock" or as witty as "Snatch", and it feels like a cousin of those tighter, more imaginative films. But that's what being in the same realm as Madonna will do to a creative man, I guess. Maybe he is back on path. Maybe not. But it's like Danielle Steel- either you like the formula or you don't. It's a good movie, well acted, but the predictability of it all makes it seem like Ritchie was a man learning to walk again. Hopefully, he will ditch the formula or at least make it better the next time. If you see it, be prepared to hide your eyes from some of the gore. It was good enough but disappointing in how it felt like Ritchie was just leaning back trying to finish it.

The Incredible Hulk

Sometimes, a movie skates through because "it is what it is". This applies to most Adam Sandler movies, family cartoons, and any other movie with someone from Saturday Night Live in it- especially if the film is based on a skit. This is an action movie with a ton of cgi, based on a comic book, and is geared to the average 10 year old boy. But in today's world of grand theft auto, there is a possibility that even a 10 year old boy will find it as boring as watching paint dry. Edward Norton's massive talent is wasted on this film- Liv Tyler is NO match for him as his girlfriend. I hardly recognized William Hurt. It's not like you don't know what this movie will do next. But the story is boringly told- relying on nothing but ammunition and growling. It will make a ton at the box office- but if you read the negative reviews closely enough, they will tell you why you just might not like this. It is bombastic and overdone, repetitive and lengthy, and frankly, not worth your admission. It is what it is- and you know exactly what that is and it should be easy enough for you to decide it 2 hours of cgi and violence is worth it.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Outlandish, cartoonish and flamboyant are words that you could use to describe this return of Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford reminds us all of what age can do- he walks like his prostate is the size of a grapefruit, and he looks stiff and old. So it's a good thing they brought the young'un in there- Shia laBeouf- so that at least one character gets a move on. Karen Allen was dragged out of her knitting studio (really) to come do this film. And I am really glad they did. Ms Allen has not had any plastic surgery- NONE- not a laser, not a botox, not a collagen flappy mouth, and she comes back as a woman who could honestly and truly be believable as a long ago lost love. She doesn't look anorexic, and she doesn't look meemaw either. She just looks like a nice 58 year old woman who still has a beautiful smile and the same personality. It is beyond pleasant and feels real. Ford, however, looks like he just opened up the ark. The action is in the typical serial form with a big action scene about every 11 minutes. Most of it is just suspension of belief- no reality, some obvious and jumpy cgi scenes, and creaky acting. But it is what it is, so to speak. I'd see it again because it's like a college reunion where you see people you like- it is just fun and the fact that nothing is what it seems is irrelevant.

Red Belt

This is, of course, not just a jiu-jitsu movie. It is a story about character, and how it is difficult to be true to yourself if your honor is not making you any money. Chiwetel Ejio gives a masterful, controlled performance as the martial arts studio owner who, by a twist of fate, saves the life of a movie star, played wonderfully by the unlikely Tim Allen. Ejio unwittingly gives up a money making idea which is stolen from underneath him. Though, in our hearts, we know that Chiwetel's character would never actually DO that himself, we are also angry that this man has had his idea pilfered-in typical hollywood fashion. It's a David Mamet film, so the dialogue is said in his stylisticly choppy, almost without emotion, fashion. It's annoying, but the film is so interesting you can get through it. I don't think it has gotten the audience it should have, so it'll be out on DVD soon. I think this is the start of a good dramatic career for Tim Allen- he is no longer puckishly cute and it works for him. I'd highly recommend this film.

The Bank Job

I'm giving it 4 stars- and here's why- it's a great movie. It is what an action movie is supposed to be- it has an involved plot, lots of plausible action, is loosely based on an event that actually happened, has great acting, doesn't star anyone so recognizable that their face interferes with the storyline, and the pace is non-stop. It is never, ever boring. Not for a second. It is a very adult film, with nudity, sex scenes, subthemes involving prostitution, etc- so it isn't one of those 'Take the kids but shield their eyes" films. It is a NO KIDS film. There is violence- both graphic and implied. There are some torture scenes. And the plot requires your attention. There was a bank heist like this in 1971, but some of the film's characters are made up (like the main female lead!). BUT those are penny ante details that you don't need to care about. It is about a small group of part time petty criminals being recruited by one of their former gang to rob a small bank in London. It is a really good movie and deserves 4 stars for being such.

In Bruges

I really liked this movie. It wasn't what I thought it would be because I read nothing about it before I saw it. Colin Farrell plays an inept assassin under the tutelage of an experienced killer- but his first attempt to kill someone goes terribly wrong, and it haunts him. The story unfolds in beautiful Bruge- in Belgium. It is a fairy tale background for a gritty and grimly violent film that, nevertheless, is very funny in spots. And despite the lack of frank sexual acts, it is a very adult film that cannot be shared with kids of any age. I was going to give it a 4, but the fact that Colin Farrell is SO recognizable, as is Ralph Fiennes, is a major distraction. I liked not knowing the other actors. It was weird to see Fiennes play such an immature and depraved (and silly) character. I never lost sight of the fact that it was Ralph Fiennes. Or Farrell. I highly recommend this movie.

There Will Be Blood

This film stars Daniel Day-Lewis as a oilcatter back when oillcatting was really work. No Red Adair to call when the well blows up. I digress. The plot is involved enough, yet simple enough that midway through I turned to Alex and said "I am just not sure what this movie is really about". I wasn't lost, I understood the action, I just couldn't figure out what the message was. It took until the very last scene for me to understand it. And once I did, it was intriguing and was such an intricate study of a man that we meet midway in his life- with no explanation of his past in order to understand his future. Does that make sense? We walk in on Day-Lewis as he inherits a child, and we leave him when he is done with everything. He is a man of retribution. If you must know the plot, which is from a book called "Oil" by my favorite author, Upton Sinclair (whose father was an alcoholic), go read it online. It actually might help. The scenery is grim and rough, just like the people who work in the fields and subsist on the miserably dry land. The costuming is perfect. The sets were built without a level and with an eye to authenticity. If the guy playing the twin brothers looks familiar- he was the brother in Little Miss Sunshine (that's to save you from spending 2 1/2 hours wondering how you know this guy). Every performance is perfect. It is probably as good a film as you will see this year. And I can't really explain why. In yet another film, the score is too intrusive and seems to be used as filler for action in some scenes. If there is a negative, that is the only one. No children in this one. It has several scenes that simply cannot be put in the head of a child no matter how grown up they may seem.

Cloverfield

**guest review by Hollis**

Ok. I will try and keep this as spoiler-free as possible, in case you haven't seen this yet and are planning on it. First, let me say, I liked it. However, I knew some of the background of the movie, and wasn't expecting anything other than what the movie was. If you're looking for traditional storytelling, or having everything explained to you ... well, you won't find that in the movie. Cloverfield is the story of a monster attack on Manhattan (J.J. Abrams's take on Godzilla), told from the perspective of a hand-held video camera operated by a regular person who, with a group of friends, is trying to get out of the city. And that's it. Like any event documented by a bystander, there are no explanations, no backstory (well, almost none), and what you see is what you get.

J.J. Abrams is the same guy who created Lost, so there are all the corporate conspiracy theories, and "super"-plots (a larger story that the movie is only a part of) that you would expect. In fact, Cloverfield has a huge viral marketing campaign that goes along with it - if you haven't been paying attention to it, there's a brief summary here - http://movies.ign.com/articles/845/845649p1.html
If you want answers to a lot of the movie's questions, you're going to have to dig into the external stuff. You still won't get all the answers, but the bigger picture will become a little clearer. Oh, and it's not done yet ... new info is still being added ... which has already lead to people speculating that there may be a sequel at some point. But who knows.

Ok, back to the movie itself. The use of the hand-held cam is both a plus and a minus - it definitely puts you more "into" the movie with the characters, but the shaky camera work can get annoying. I had to look down at the seats in front of me for some of the scenes because they were so shaky - so it didn't turn into a barf-a-thon. If you get motion sick easily, I would take some preventative measures. The movie is relatively short - kind of realistic to the length of a camera battery, although you'll wonder in some scenes how the camera has managed to survive so well (whatever brand of camera that is - you should definitely buy it!) The monster is really cool - not totally unique since you can see other creatures that it references - but definitely fun to watch. Some of the scenes were very 9/11-esque - especially towards the beginning - in fact, when the attack first occurs, one party-goer says "is it another terrorist attack?" I don't know if the film will get a different reaction in NYC, but I bet some people will be having flashbacks.

The acting was good - very believable. There are no recognizable faces here, which makes for a much better movie ... it was refreshing to truly believe in a character, as opposed to trying to suspend disbelief so that you aren't just watching Tom Cruise in yet another outfit. Also, I just have to say, I give some of the female actors props for running around in high heels for as long as they do. *That* made me wince as much as anything - I would have had those suckers off in the first 5 minutes.

So, bottom-line - if you liked Lost, enjoy digging up plot information for yourself, and piecing together clues (oh, and big monsters attacking NYC), then you'll enjoy this movie. In fact, do some of the background work before you go see it - it helps. If you need a plot with character development and a traditional story arc, well, maybe you should wait for the new Indiana Jones film.

No Country for Old Men

The Coen Brothers strike with a screen version of Cormac McCarthy's book- and they strike with a bloody, violent, graphic, heart thumping vengeance. A modern day (1980s) western composed of white drug runners, border Mexican drug gangs, and people who live in the rugged and conveniently lawless areas of the west Texas-Mexican border , it uses the talents of Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin to bring it grittily to life. The body count is large for such a "small" film. The title tells the story. No one expects to live a long life here and when money comes in an opportunistic form- well, what is there to lose by taking it? Ah, Bardem-a more heartless villain has never appeared in film. With the exception of the vile Natural Born Killers, there just isn't another person as cold, disconnected and methodical as the villain played by Bardem. The story has a very nuanced reference to the VietNam War and how it has produced killers like the ones portrayed by Bardem and Woody Harrelson (botoxed and smooth as a baby butt). It is hard to watch yet you will watch it- every gory, bloody, bone crushing second of it. And the end? It made perfect sense.

American Gangster

Probably the best movie we've seen so far this year. Violent, gritty, moral and amoral. A movie where, finally, there is no equivocation about good and evil. And a movie where the audience leaves feeling there is some justice in the world. The human propensity to addiction is difficult to digest- most humans have the ability to be addicted- to have their lives ruined by substance abuse. And we pity the weak. But we have no sympathy for the dealer- the supplier who cares for nothing but his money. Russell Crowe does a fantastic job here- controlled, decent, and yet his ex-wife sees his doing his job as evil as a drug dealer's because it means he ignores his child. She could not be farther from the truth, because a man as hard working and decent as this character is a role model for a child. The script is so well written that it doesn't tip you off - you sit hoping that the ending will be just. Go see it.

3:10 to Yuma

A good western is hard to come by. They often come across as trite and laden with cliche. The Unforgiven was a great western. This is not great but it is good. It does have some hilarious moments where the gun fight is so unrealistic that you find yourself groaning. I know I could be a better shot than some of those people. But because of the cast-Russell Crowe and Christian Bale being the big guns in this- the western is better than it would have been had they cast Johnny Depp and Leonardo di Caprio. There is a lot of action- almost too much. If this many people got killed in the west, then we'd be sitting in a bar in St Louis rather than living on the west coast. I liked it much more than Alex did.

The Bourne Ultimatum

I loves me some Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. Every time. There must be about a 50 point IQ difference between Damon and Affleck. There is no other explanation as to why Damon can appear so smart and intense in films and Affleck seems dumb or smarmy. This is so much fun. The action is non-stop, the plot is easy to follow, and the result is exactly what you expect it to be. I never read the book, because why would I? There's some American logic for you- but if Damon is going to be in the movie, then I don't actually CARE about the book. Good for you Matty. Oh- Hollis and Alex both did not like the hand held camera shots. I was watching Matt Damon and I didn't notice.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

This is a rather dark film, but then every one of the books at this point are. The problem with this film is that the book cannot be captured in one movie. So many details are left out. SO many emotions are explained in the book that really cannot be conveyed in such a short time. As a film version of Cliff's notes, it is a good movie. Certainly Daniel Radcliffe is a far better actor now than the miserable actor he was in the first one. The usual special effects are there. If you haven't read the book, then the movie will seem spectacular. So I will have to say it is a very good movie. But the book is better. As I am sure will be the case for the last few movies of this series. If you liked Harry before, you will like this now.

Live Free or Die Hard

YEAY! Bruce is back as Bruce the bad boy working for the good of mankind. A doomsday (ludicrous but who cares) scenario involving computer hacking occurs. Bruce saves the day. What more is there to know? Die Hard is one of my most favorite movies of all time. And this one is better. The explosions and car chases and helicopters and guns- what more could a girl ask for? Bruce looks great- maybe a little botox around the cheeks (face)- and he is in great form. It is as if Die Hard was yesterday. I can't recommend this movie enough. If you like action films, then this is a must see for 2007. KABOOM!

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

is a great movie based on the same book. The Potter books get darker with each book- the characters richer and the fantasy world more complicated. My only gripe was that the climax of the movie was an afterthought- that in the book, the climax is sinister and lengthy and loaded with symbolism. Had I not read the book, I wouldn't have known the end of the movie was coming. But the kids in it are growing up and becoming better actors. That's a relief!

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

has it really been a year since we left Ron, Hermione and Harry to fend for themselves? The kids are a year older in this- a pivotal year as all of them are maturing nicely. The kid who plays Potter is a slightly better actor this time. Though still directed by Christopher Columbus, this film definitely is darker, the kids more savvy, and the special effects are smoother. It is a superior effort to the first film. It follows the book rather rigidly, so if you are an avid reader of Potter books, the plot will be known to you. But it is a lovely film. Certainly not for small children (under 8 minimum). There is gore, violence, a frightening snake the size of Godzilla, and some wounding and paralyzing that would make little kids scared for years. But anyone over 8 or 9 would certainly be riveted by the special effects and story. J K Rowling is so gifted to have dreamed all of this up. Go see it and enjoy it- though it is a bit long, you won't notice.