Inception (2010)

Ladies and gentlemen, class is in session! For the next two and a half hours, Christopher Nolan will be your teacher. Turn on your thinking caps and watch closely. For those of you in Hollywood, please take notes- creative and original thoughts are not dead in the industry after all! Inception is not just a triumph in modern filmmaking but also a masterpiece for storytelling and pushing the envelope.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are ‘extractors.’ They use special technology to enter the minds of others through dreams in order to steal secrets. This corporate espionage is profitable but dangerous work. After failing an assignment, one of their targets (Ken Watanabe) turns the tables on them with a job offer. Not only does he offer a hefty sum of money, he also tells Cobb he can use his connections to clear his name of all charges in relation to his wife’s death, allowing the extractor to finally return to the US and be with his children.

There’s just one catch- instead of stealing a secret, Cobb must plant an idea in the mind of corporate rival Robert Fisher, Jr. (Cillian Murphy). This is an infinitely more delicate and dangerous assignment but Cobb will do anything to return to his children. Assembling a specialized team (including the acting talents of Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Dileep Rao), Cobb constructs an intricate plot three dream layers deep. Time is limited and the team is being hunted by agents of Fisher’s subconscious defenses, leaving no room for error whatsoever.

To call this film intricate is an understatement. Wrapping your mind around the rules of dream-sharing and extraction comes easy enough but director Christopher Nolan invites you to go even deeper. The multi-layer plan is harrowing and you have to stay sharp in order to keep track of which level you’re watching, as action on all dream levels is intercut. If you’re not prepared to think as much as you observe while taking this gem in, it’s very easy to get lost. Perhaps this is why I am especially fond of this film.

Trying to make a popular thinking man’s film is a tall task. Most of what Hollywood produces anymore is sophomoric at best in an attempt to hit as wide an audience as possible. It’s almost a case of the chicken and the egg. Which came first: Hollywood’s shameless cranking out of easy-to-digest films for broad audience appeal or a broad demand from audiences for easy-to-digest cinema? Either way, Hollywood has been coasting for far too long and the few visionaries willing to make films with deep thought attached are slowly waking people up to this truth.

Christopher Nolan has been nudging his viewers towards more than just simply watching movies. Most of his films to date involve some interesting philosophical or intellectual discussion within the film, causing you to think with the characters and for yourself. But does Nolan stop there? No. The questions he poses in his films and the issues and scenarios he raises will keep you thinking long after the movie is over. Here is a director capable of getting his audience to enter into discussion after the credits roll and then segue that discussion from the film to the concepts within the film. How many other directors are able to get you talking about heady issues like dreams, perspective and the subconscious?

The technology behind dream sharing is utter science-fiction but it’s presented in such a matter-of-fact way that it’s never an issue. It’s usually hard to sell a lone element of sci-fi in a film but it is handled brilliantly here. Unlike The Matrix, where a whole world of technology needed constructing and explanation to sell the idea, Inception slips this vital technology right under our noses. We just breathe it in and immediately believe it. Perhaps it’s because we know it’s all about dreams. Perhaps not. Whatever the reason, Nolan’s ability to sell us on his world is critical and the fact that virtually no one complained about it makes him a master magician.

This film rolled around for years in Nolan’s mind and his passion for the story really comes through. He wisely adds an element of subconscious mystery and emotional torment to Cobb that prevents the film from being little more than a heist film with a twist. Leonardo DiCaprio rises to the occasion and delivers one of the best performances of his career. The rest of the cast performs just as admirably and they really exceed expectations. DiCaprio is the biggest star in the film but he never overpowers the rest of the players. Ellen Page shows that she can play more than just quirky youthful roles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt proves that his best acting days are not in his past.

Another display of great filmmaking is how few special effects are used during the film. Despite the bizarre nature of dreams, Nolan keeps everything very realistic within the dream world. This keeps you immersed in the action and fully invested in the characters. They’re not jumping between buildings or traveling at superhuman speeds. Nolan’s rules for dream behavior require a realistic approach. Watch the fight scene in the rotating hallway knowing that there was no CGI involved and you will be awestruck.

Action, suspense, emotion, intelligence- it’s all here. I did initially dock the film a bit for what seemed like a few poor effects shots in the subconscious limbo world but a second viewing may see those points given back. Inception is a film worthy of a second viewing. Heck, it’s worth an unlimited number of viewings. This is an instant classic and already the leading candidate for best film of this new decade. Christopher Nolan singlehandedly gives moviegoers hope that Hollywood can still make movies that move us. Let’s just hope that Hollywood is sharing the same dream.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

I’m starting this review off with a disclaimer: this is going to be an incomplete review. The reason? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an incomplete film. Unlike the first six Potter flicks, Hallows Part 1 is an unfinished story. After seeing Part 2 in July 2011, I will be able to give you a true assessment of the last and most ambitious installment to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Until then, please accept these reflections of the first half of the tale…

In the wizarding world, adulthood comes at age 17. Harry has been on the fast-track to maturity his whole life, but the cutesy fun and enchantment of Hogwarts is behind him now. Lord Voldemort’s strength and influence are growing beyond measure. After a daring escape from his aunt and uncle’s house, Harry teams up with his pals Ron and Hermione on a secret mission to locate and destroy Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes, artifacts that contain pieces of his soul.

The road is long, dangerous, and pushes the teenagers to their limits. Relationships must be mended, obstacles overcome, enemies defeated. In many ways, this is the Harry Potter film I have been waiting for. No more silly school scenes with ghosts romping through the hallways; no more lessons from alliteratively-named professors involving absurd-sounding spells; and no more help for Harry. The young wizard and his friends are out of their element and totally clueless about what to do. Harry has done a good job relying on instinct and improvising over the years but reality hits him now like a cold brick in the face.

Hallows Part 1 is interesting because there are stretches of time that are slow and sprawling while other parts all but suffer from information overload. It’s an intriguing balance because the film never feels as long as it really is. This is good because the audience doesn’t get restless, but bad because, when the credits roll, we’re still capable of taking in more. It doesn’t help that the cutoff point is also unsatisfying.

Having read the book, I had a few ideas of how the film could be split with momentum to bridge the gap. No matter where the filmmakers decided to make the cut, Part 1 was always destined to feel incomplete but I think they got it wrong here. Harry’s progress is limited at best and we fade to black with a tragedy for Potter & company but a triumph for Voldemort. It’s a pessimistic and deflating way to say ‘come back next summer for the conclusion!’ Maybe I was foolishly hoping for a Lord of the Rings kind of ending because those films found a more organic jumping point than strict adherence to the books would have dictated.

Staying true to the book is a noble task, even though a myriad of minor details and set pieces are either rushed over or changed, but it may also hurt Hallows in the long run. There is no self-contained story arc within the first half of this tale. Discovering the truth behind the Deathly Hallows is the closest thing we get but that only develops in the second half of this film. Despite a minor victory or two along the way, nothing is resolved and we leave Harry just as clueless as when the film began.

There is also a problem of perception for the audience to work past. Fans of the book series, especially those who read the book shortly before taking in the film, will be dissatisfied by some of the little changes. Comparing a movie to its source book is inevitable but it’s also wrong to do. Film and the written word are two entirely different beasts. Even I have to admit that, all along, I have been basing my ratings for the Harry Potter movies partly as adaptations of the books.

This is unacceptable as a movie lover because books are almost always better because they allow you to create your own artistic vision for the story. When watching (and in my case, reviewing) a movie, you should only be concerned with whether or not the film functions properly and tells a good story; don’t let the details they leave out from the book affect your opinion of the movie. How good was the story the movie told? That’s all that matters.

As far as movies go, Hallows Part 1 does pretty well. Most of the visual effects look sharp and the use of more handheld cameras really pays off in capturing the gritty reality of Harry’s new life in hiding. The locations selected for Harry’s cross-country trek are beautiful and haunting in their isolation. Finally, the young stars of the series carry themselves differently this time. They’re clearly up for the challenge of making a more adult Harry Potter film.

More adult it certainly is! With a little more salty language and a surprising scene involving some supernatural sensuality, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is not for anyone under the age of 15 (at least that’s my opinion). It’s a pretty bold departure from the tone and style of previous installments but it’s the right move. After a little bit of stalling and a fair amount of set up between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, we finally come to the meat and potatoes. We have to wait until next July for the rest of the main course, but at least it is finally here.

I don’t know if I will re-watch every Harry Potter film before seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2, but at some point I will definitely need to re-evaluate them all. This way I can be sure that my ratings for each film reflect their accomplishments as films and not as adaptations. I’m reserving too much judgment on Hallows just yet because the story isn’t finished. I did dock it a quarter-point though for not explaining the existence of the mirror fragment Harry gazes at throughout the film. I know where it’s from (and so will anyone who has read the books) but this was the first appearance of it in any of the films.

I will probably grade Part 2 as a stand-alone component as well and then write up a true review for both halves combined. One consistent review for one consistent storytelling and filmmaking vision only seems right. Until then, you better believe I will be eagerly awaiting the final chapter.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

I labored over what rating to give this film, I really did. I didn’t buy into the hype of its solid predecessor, probably to the ire of a few comic geeks and fanboys, but I still acknowledged its merits. Now shed of the restrictions that come with an origin story first installment, the Iron Man franchise is given a chance to expand its territory and flex a little summer movie muscle. Fortunately, Iron Man 2 doesn’t fall flat like so many sequels before it have.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has an awful lot on his plate. Since revealing himself as Iron Man, he has spent six months using his unbeatable suit to bring us as close to world peace as possible. What thanks does he get for this? Firstly, the US government is jealous and trying to force Stark to hand over his suit designs for military use. Second, a Russian man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) creates his own arc reactor and deadly weapons to exact revenge on the Stark family name. Oh, and there’s also the nasty little fact that palladium core of Stark’s mini-arc reactor is poisoning him, with death just around the corner.

There are other bumps in the road as well. A shifty defense contractor is willing to hire Vanko as a consultant in developing new mechanized drones to one-up Iron Man. Stark also continues his rocky relationship with his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Finally, he’s being hounded by a mysterious organization called S.H.I.E.L.D. as well. With all of this going on, what the heck is a superhero to do?

Here’s my beef with Iron Man 2- the main conflict between Stark and Vanko (and later a team of artillery-laden drones) is more or less a retread. The fact that Iron Man has brought about world peace illustrates the fact that the only thing that can possibly pose a threat to him is another super-suit. In Iron Man, second-in-command of Stark Industries Obadiah Stane built a similar arc-reactor-fueled suit in an attempt to take out Stark/Iron Man. This time around it’s Vanko with a suit-like weapon and an eventual full suit of his own.

The only difference here is motivation. Stane sought to eliminate Stark because his reckless behavior and crisis of conscience were bad for business. Vanko just wants revenge because his father was cast away with no credit for designing the original arc reactor with Tony Stark’s dad back in the day. Revenge is a perfectly acceptable motive (and honestly, it’s way cooler than greed) but you can’t deny that the means of exacting that revenge are a smidge redundant. It works for this sequel but Iron Man is going to need to come up against a different kind of villain in the future if the series is going to stay fresh.

Vanko isn’t the only storyline in the film, which is a helpful distraction. The pursuit of Stark by S.H.I.E.L.D. is interesting because it throws very different personalities together that create sparks and some witty banter. His struggle to find a new power source for the arc reactor in his chest is interesting and it fits the mold of superhero sequels in that it makes Stark reassess himself and his priorities. Fortunately this (and a little daddy issue resolution) is as serious as Iron Man 2 gets.

Batman Begins ushered in a new era of ‘serious’ comic book films. Iron Man is a breath of fresh air because, while still playing things rather serious and realistic, the filmmakers pump in a lot of sarcasm and fun into the mix. Instead of sulking over his new-found responsibilities, Tony Stark embraces his role as Iron Man. He plays it up for the camera and genuinely loves what he does. He’s a bit narcissistic but that’s part of the character’s allure.

Another reason Iron Man is so different is that he doesn’t have a secret identity. There’s no duality here like with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. Tony Stark has one consistent personality in and out of the suit. He’s not trying to blend in. He’s already told the world he is Iron Man and is milking it for all it’s worth. None of the other major superheroes walk around exposed like this and it makes for a completely different story experience.

Chances are, Iron Man 2 is everything you were hoping for in a sequel- it’s bigger, louder and every bit as fun, if not more so. It’s not as deep as the first installment, but did it have to be? We know what Stark stands for- peace, justice and a party every other night. The filmmakers aren’t bogged down with crafting an origin for half of the film so they fill it with what the summer movie crowd likes- explosions, special effects and a little bit of silliness. I mean, seriously- Daft Punk’s “Robot Rock” playing during a fight scene? Chuckle City my friend.

In many ways, Iron Man is the ideal summertime popcorn superhero. Deep thinkers can hold off for the next Batman movie and fanboys can always latch onto the next B-list or lower superhero flick that gets made. Iron Man made it cool for superheroes to be a little corny again. Iron Man 2 feels like the kind of movie the filmmakers wanted to produce the first go around but couldn’t because they literally had to do an origin story. The plot is undoubtedly a tad repetitive but I think I’d rather watch this sequel again over the first one any day. Besides- I can’t think of another time when I have ever seen my mother-in-law bobbing her head to AC/DC songs. That alone has got to count for something.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Crass, crude, offensive, politically incorrect- pick any negative adjective you like and it could probably be applied to Ben Stiller’s action-comedy Tropic Thunder. Despite any complaints people may have about the content of this film, Stiller manages to balance the potentially offensive with the undeniably amusing.

A Vietnam War veteran’s book is being turned into a major Hollywood film. The dysfunctional cast includes Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller)- a former action star trying to resurrect his dying career; Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.)- an Australian method actor looking to snag his sixth Oscar by undergoing a pigment alteration treatment in order to play a tragic black soldier; Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson)- a popular rapper looking to segue into screen stardom; Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black)- a drug-abusing comedian looking to break his type casting; and Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)- a young actor getting his first big film role. Personalities clash, the first-time director is in over his head, and the production is weeks behind schedule and in danger of going over budget.

Profane studio executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise) orders the director to pull it together or his career will be finished before it even starts. Taking the grizzly Nam vet’s advice, the director rigs hidden cameras in a remote Southeast Asian jungle rigged with explosives for special effects. They then drop the actors in the middle of the jungle with a map that will lead them to a helicopter and a list of scenes to act out along the way. Armed with prop rifles that only shoot blanks, the squabbling actors find themselves in real war-like conditions when they discover they’ve been dropped into the middle of the Golden Triangle- a hotbed of heroin production and dangerous drug lords.

The film starts out with fake previews and commercials for the various cast members. Alpa Chino has an ad for his brand of energy drink, Speedman gets a preview for his latest installment to an action franchise, Portnoy has a preview for a flatulence-happy family akin to The Klumps, and Lazarus gets a plug for his latest Oscar-bait film about a pair of 18th Century gay monks. While seemingly random at first, they set the tone for the kinds of characters were going to be watching for the next 100 minutes. In hindsight, I must admit that the amount of absurdity packed into these shorts is more consistently funny than the rest of the film.

Don’t get me wrong- the rest of the film is funny but it’s not continuously funny. All of the actors play their parts well and it’s beyond fun watching the unabashed skewering of the major types of actor egos and attitudes. Stiller and company go for broke and hold absolutely nothing back in their relentless actor-bashing. This leads to several politically incorrect discussions that ruffled special interest feathers, while also making some very interesting observations about the industry.

Case in point- Lazarus admonishes Speedman for going “full retard” with a serious role he took to gain credibility as a dramatic actor. He dispenses a list of actors who went ‘part-retard’ and won awards but those who go ‘full retard’ never do. Offensive? Possibly, but the conversation is about belittling actors, not belittling those with disabilities. Plus, it’s an R-rated comedy for crying out loud!

The other controversial element is Robert Downey, Jr. playing in blackface. Technically though, Downey is playing an actor who is playing in blackface. That doesn’t make it any less shocking but it opens the door for some hilarious back and forth between Lazarus and Chino- the real black actor. You can’t help but admire Downey’s devotion to such an absurd concept. He shows no sign of hesitation and delivers every line with the utmost seriousness. The part of Lazarus could have sunk this film had it been put in hands less capable than Downey’s. He and Tom Cruise really steal the show.

Tropic Thunder is laced with references to war movies and action flicks but this isn’t Hot Shots redux. Instead of merely referencing scenes from popular genre films, Stiller takes time to build a satire of those moments. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few throw-away jokes and deliberately-placed clichés though. Sadly, it’s this same lampooning of war movies where the film gets stale. Predictably, the actors have to band together and learn to function as a unit, just like real soldiers would. It’s a necessary component of the story because it helps the actors break down some of their barriers and pretensions but it also slows down the humor.

While Tropic Thunder is a pretty good film, it’s built the wrong way. As the film progresses, the characters get more serious and bond, which causes the film to decrease in humor. You want a film to be consistently funny the whole way through, if not get funnier towards the end. While it may achieve the right kind of action movie climax, it fails to reach a comedy climax. There are plenty of moments that will leave you in stitches but most of them come before the half-way point. It’s worth seeing, if you can stomach a mountain of obscenities and political incorrectness, but it doesn’t quite live up to the hype.

RATING: 3 out of 5

No Country for Old Men** (2007)

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert when it comes to film. I am passionate about it and I try to learn about the craft and its history when I can. Every now and then a movie comes along that makes me feel like an outsider. In some cases it boils down to too much hype or my subjective opinion. These cases are easy to identify because there are usually a number of professional critics and moviegoers who share my outlook. Then there are films like the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men. Praised for its artistry and themes by many, I stand confused and wonder if I missed something.

While hunting, Llewellyn Moss comes across the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong in the wastelands of West Texas. Moss finds all but one man dead and makes off with over $2 million in drug money left at the scene. Later that night, he suffers a guilty conscience and takes water back out for the lone survivor to ease his suffering. This decision proves life-altering, as men connected to the botched deal show up to reclaim their money at the same time. Moss escapes but leaves his truck behind. The drug lords use the plates to identify him and hire a vicious hitman to track him and the money down.

The hitman, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), is inventive, super-intelligent and relentless. Using a transponder hidden in the money, Chigurh tracks Moss down and they begin a deadly game of cat-and-mouse spanning both sides of the border. In the midst of all this, aging lawman Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) does what he can to protect Moss and his wife, finding himself always one step behind and picking up the pieces of a new breed of lawlessness he can’t comprehend.

I’ll put a little praise out there first- Javier Bardem is spectacular as Anton Chigurh. He earned his Oscar, no questions asked. The cold indifference toward his victims is chilling enough but Bardem really gets across how smart the man is too. Here is not just a desensitized killing machine; Chigurh ponders philosophy, determinism and chance with his victims. Nothing creeps us out like a bad guy smart enough to be a college professor and yet doesn’t bat an eye while killing someone.

Here’s the trouble- Chigurh is the kind of frightening villain that requires a strong protagonist. Lewellyn Moss is not that person. Even without passing moral judgment on his actions (leaving a man in the desert heat, taking money that isn’t his, and not reporting a crime scene), Moss does not come across as a likeable guy whatsoever. He’s stubborn, defiant and I’m pretty sure he was poaching instead of hunting. Nothing he does early on tells me I should care about this man.

But then Chigurh comes along and all but forces you to care about Moss. Not because he’s in the right or in any way an innocent victim, but because, subconsciously, we know that we shouldn’t pull for the psychotic killer chasing him. It makes for a frustrating experience. When Chigurh comes close to his prey, the intensity ratchets up and you can’t help but find yourself on the edge of your seat. You want to shout at Moss to stop being such an idiot, but you’re still on the edge of your seat.

Speaking of Chigurh catching up to Moss, this is just one example of how much chance and luck fills the story. Moss coming across the carnage of the drug deal is believable. Going back to give a dying man water hours later is a stretch at best (and also did nothing to redeem Moss’s character for me). Obviously, Moss needs to go back or there would be no story, because the drug lords wouldn’t have tracked his plates and Chigurh probably never would have found Moss with his transponder. Said transponder is the lone element of the film that reminds you that the story takes place in the 1980s. Chigurh had to be less than a quarter of a mile away from the cash in order to pick up a signal. He may have been able to track Moss down over time but, frankly, he got lucky to find him at all.

The only likeable major character in the film is the lawman. He spends most of the movie wondering what’s gone wrong with the world that criminals keep getting more violent and using more frightening means to do their dirty work. His musings on crime and violence are interesting but they’re also made a moot point later in the film when another former lawman tells him that all the old-timers say the same thing when a new generation finds ways to break the law. The question is still out there as to whether or not crime will ever stop getting uglier but the answer is that ‘uglier’ is all relative anyway.

While much of the film is an exciting game of cat-and-mouse, the third reel leaves something to be desired. There’s some finality and resolution but that last reel feels anticlimactic in a number of ways to me. I understand that not every story needs to have a clear-cut ending but the film seems to end too suddenly after a very slow stretch of dialogue. It’s one of those endings that make you go ‘huh?’

No Country for Old Men is a very good film about very sketchy people. Maybe Hollywood and the Academy enjoyed embracing their darker side with this film. That could explain why it won Best Picture. Or maybe it just wasn’t a strong year for Oscar nominees. Whatever the reason, I don’t quite see what everyone else saw that made this such an award-worthy film.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Invictus (2009)

Hollywood finally gets around to casting Morgan Freeman in the role few would doubt he was always meant to play- Nelson Mandela. This Clint Eastwood-directed biopic is not what you might expect. Rather than a straight biography of Mandela’s rise to power, the larger focus here is sport and diplomatic relations. It may seem like an odd choice for Eastwood to pursue but it all makes sense in the end.

South Africa, 1994: apartheid has fallen and Nelson Mandela has been elected president in the nation’s first truly democratic elections. Whites, accustomed to being the ruling class, find themselves overwhelmed by the country’s black majority. The newly empowered black populace wants to make up for years of oppression by punishing whites and whites are terrified that this is their unavoidable fate. As president, Mandela steps in to unite both sides, determined to serve all South Africans and not just those who put him in office.

Mandela looks to the near future for a chance to bring the country together. In 1995 South Africa will play host to the Rugby World Cup. Mandela meets with the South African team captain François Pienaar (Matt Damon) and asks him to help unite their people through sports. They take the skeptics and dissenters head on. The team, despite being despised by blacks as a symbol of apartheid, makes in-roads with many as they travel the country and teach young black children how to play rugby. The lone black player on the team serves as the children’s rallying point and hearts across the country begin to warm to the scrappy set of underdogs as the tournament grows closer.

Biopics like this are a slippery slope. History has documented Mandela’s successes and failures as President of South Africa, so I can’t judge this film based on Mandela’s push for diplomacy and unity. That’s historical fact. It’s easy to get caught up in the emotion of his plan but that’s not what makes this film good. It’s the presentation of this story that matters.

The story itself is true, so very little can be said about the writing. However, the pace moves pretty well, with only a few slow spots along the way. Thankfully, the fact that it’s based on true events eliminates the bitter taste of what would otherwise be called clichés. Sports dramas are particularly vulnerable to clichés- underdogs, come-from-behind wins, powerful and tide-turning speeches by a coach or player. All of these things have come to be predictable, sometimes to the point of rolling our eyes.

The difference is always whether the story is true or not. True underdog tales may feel predictable but why would anyone make a movie about a team that remains terrible or falls far short of its lofty goals? The way I see it, if it’s a true story, you can’t say that it’s full of clichés; only that it is filled with truth.

Matt Damon (bulked up even further from his Jason Bourne days) does well as the South African rugby captain. He seamlessly portrays Pienaar’s journey from wide-eyed and overwhelmed by Mandela’s vision to a confident leader pushing his team toward greatness. Morgan Freeman is still the big draw here though. He captures all of Mandela’s sly wit and craftiness that reminds me of Ben Kingsley’s more charismatic moments in Ghandi.

Eastwood proved he could capture sports in action with Million Dollar Baby’s boxing scenes and he doesn’t disappoint here. We don’t just watch the action from the sidelines. Clint finds ways to take us on the field, giving viewers an up-close look at a brutal sport that is still foreign to most Americans. The physicality and pacing of the games work to the film’s benefit, giving us a healthy dose of adrenaline in the midst of diplomatic scheming.

I was caught off guard with the final match of the World Cup though. Unless I missed something, it wasn’t made clear that it was the final match until the trophy presentation. A little more clarity could have helped hammer home the importance of the action. Other than this, there isn’t much to complain about with Invictus. Audience familiarity with underdog sports dramas may water down the impact of the rugby team’s accomplishments but only a cynic could brush off the diplomatic triumph.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Leave it to a family gathering with my in-laws to derail my mission of watching every single Disney animated film in uninterrupted, chronological order! Then again, most of you probably didn’t even realize that I have been working towards this goal and it has been taking me longer than it ought to in the first place. Coupled with the fact that this is one heck of a fun movie, I don’t mind going off on a tangent just this once.

First and foremost, I must warn you that this is going to be something of an incomplete assessment of the film. It has been years since I last saw the original Toy Story and I have only ever seen bits and pieces of Toy Story 2. I have been assured by several people familiar with the whole series that the events of Toy Story 3 don’t hinge upon the events of Toy Story 2. If this is true, then it is already a good thing that Disney managed to make each film with a self-contained story. After being brought up to speed on a few of the carry-over characters from the sequel, our journey commenced.

Andy, the child to whom the toys belong, is all grown up and heading off to college. After all these years, Andy is still hanging on to some of his all-time favorites. Andy’s mom tells him that he needs to put whatever he is not taking with him in either the attic, the trash, or donate it to Sunnyside Daycare. Surprisingly, Andy elects to take Woody to college with him and puts the rest of the toys in the attic. The only problem is that he packs the toys in a trash bag, which his mother mistakenly puts out for collection. They narrowly escape but do not realize what Andy had intended.

Having seen the mix-up, Woody tries to convince the gang that Andy really still wants them. Not believing him, Buzz takes command of the dejected toys and they sneak into the box headed for Sunnyside. Woody gets taken along for the ride and they discover a brand new world. The leader of the Sunnyside toys, Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear welcomes them with open arms and introduces them to a paradise of endless play. Woody leaves, determined not to let his original owner down. The rest of the toys soon discover that Sunnyside has a dark side. Word of this gets back to Woody, who plots a daring break-out attempt.

While the story isn’t chronologically consistent (it’s been 15 years since the first and Andy definitely was not a toddler!) that doesn’t really matter. Nobody ever said that time has to pass at the same speed within this story world and that of the real world. All that matters is the story that’s being told. Said story is definitely not what I was expecting. While I recall the original Toy Story having a few dark moments, it was nothing compared to what’s in store for you here.

Toy Story and its sequel (from what I’ve seen of it) are about Woody saving Buzz or Buzz saving Woody. Those films were all about finding a sense of belonging. These themes are still at play here, only Woody is now trying to save everybody, but the sense of belonging plays second fiddle to the toys learning to cope with the fact that they are no longer needed like they used to be. They have to transition into a new role and it is difficult for them to accept their fate. These are far more adult concepts than the first film (and probably the second too) dealt with.

There is no question in my mind that this film was made for the generation that grew up with the first two Toy Story films. Sure, it exists to entertain the new generation that was born in the past 11 years but the Pixar team was wise to give the original devotees a little more than just another rescue to watch. While I usually despise adult humor making its way into children’s movies, none of the double-entendres go too far and there is still plenty of innocent humor for the kids.

Sad as it is that some of the amusing background characters from the first installment are no more, it’s a smart move. Had Andy held on to all of his toys, there would have been too much going on. Toy attrition opens up the door for a bunch of great new characters. Some of them only have seconds to shine, but shine they do! From a melodramatic, premium plush hedgehog to a flamboyantly metrosexual Ken doll, it’s clear that the filmmakers and actors had fun pulling out all the stops.

The animators even pull out a few stops of their own, adding to the Toy Story legacy. The first installment of the series was the first full-length feature film entirely created with CGI. It was bold new territory that looked amazing. The animators take full advantage of the advancements in CGI over the past 15 years and elevate their game even further. The toys have always looked spot on but what floored me scene after scene was the richness of the textures. Some of the materials the toys are ‘made’ out of look real enough to touch. I can only imagine how real it must have looked in a good 3-D showing.

Even though I haven’t seen Toy Story 2, I have to say that I was very impressed with this film. It doesn’t feel recycled or needless. The story is sharp and has something for every age demographic. There is plenty of humor for kids and grown-ups alike and the balance between the two is as good as it gets. The animation still wows and the action will keep you interested start to finish. The fact that, after 15 years, Disney is still capable of making us care about these toys is something special.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Rescue Dawn (2006)

It seems that every war has its share of incredible stories. The intensity of battle brings out the best in some men despite the utmost trying circumstances. The Vietnam War is almost exclusively viewed in a negative light. Tales of atrocities were commonly reported and hold fast in the American psyche. Rescue Dawn is just the opposite. Here is a Vietnam-era tale of boldness and bravery that not only astonishes but uplifts.

German-American Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), a pilot in the US Navy, is shot down over Laos in February 1966 during a covert mission. Despite his best efforts, he is captured by a communist militia. Since US operations in Laos were illegal, the Laotian government isn’t too keen on being nice. They offer his freedom if he signs a document for release condemning his country. Refusing, he is tortured and taken to a rural POW camp in the middle of the Laotian jungles.

Dengler’s fellow inmates include two Americans- Gene DeBruin (Jeremy Davies) and Duane Martin (Steve Zahn)- and three men of Thai descent. There is little hope of rescue, as America and Laos did not have diplomatic relations, so the prisoners advise Dengle to get used to being chained down much of the time, fed meager portions and to avoid upsetting the abusive guards. Refusing to concede, Dengler plots a bold escape that could lead them all to freedom.

The first thing that struck me about this film is the way it looks- old. I don’t know if it’s due to the equipment director Werner Herzog chose to use or just an immaculate attention to detail, but this films looks about 20 years older than it really is. Oddly enough, this older look makes the whole film more visually believable. I see no digital grading to make the jungle greens pop or any of the crispness that modern film-making technology lends to a film. It all looks very old-school and I love it.

Another key factor is that everything looks authentic in this film. The sets are almost all on-location and everything down to the costumes and hair styles of the characters (pre-capture that is) looks era-appropriate. Herzog avoids falling into the trap of allowing any modern elements from creeping into his historical picture. This prevents any action or war movie clichés from putting a crimp on the intense tale being told.

Filming on location in Thailand really gives the film the mood it needs. The thick jungles surrounding the POW camp are haunting with an abundance of heavy mist and animal noises. Inside the jungle you can’t help but feel claustrophobic as the dense vegetation threatens to swallow up our subjects. As vile as the Laotian prison guards are, Rescue Dawn shows just how menacing an antagonist nature can be.

Christian Bale, Jeremy Davies and Steve Zahn are well up to the task of taking on the jungle though. The transformations they put their bodies through to look like starving, unkempt POWs are shocking. Christian Bale seems to be the modern master of dire and determined protagonists. Jeremy Davies exudes a chilling aura as the lone doubter of the escape plan. He speaks with the freakish conviction of failure that can only come from someone who has been cooped up for too long. It’s Steve Zahn though who surprises the most here. Normally seen in humorous or outlandish roles, Zahn is perfect in his muted performance as the most shell-shocked of the bunch.

The only minor fault I could find, which didn’t even come close to taking me out of the mood, was an instance or two of sub-standard effects in a few early scenes. I can understand using some CGI instead of tracking down or rebuilding working models of Vietnam era airplanes. Some things are just easier with today’s technology even if they don’t look perfect. The rest of the film is paced, shot, acted and directed fantastically.

War-time and action escape flicks aren’t exactly anything new. It’s the perfect sub-genre for thrilling audiences but it has also grown stale thanks to an abundance of inferior films that just don’t work. That leads to some critics and moviegoers to cry foul when they feel a film like Rescue Dawn is predictable. Werner Herzog can’t help it that Hollywood has thrown nearly every conceivable permutation of escape flick at us already. If we want to be honest with ourselves and the film, all we can do is judge the film by its presentation. The ‘based on a true story’ tagline almost always adds extra weight and meaning to these kinds of productions, especially, in this case, when we watch a story unfold that most people have never even heard of.

Rescue Dawn is a flat-out tour de force of everything done right in a wartime escape movie. You will find yourself cringing at the brutality of the POW camp, on pins and needles in anticipation of the escape and on the edge of your seat as it unfolds. In many ways, this film is like a Vietnam version of The Great Escape but I won’t even think of comparing the two further. Both are true stories that probably fudge a few historical facts here and there but they both make for compelling drama. Track this gem down and treat yourself to one of the best war films since Saving Private Ryan.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Hurt Locker** (2008)

For all the clamoring about James Cameron’s Avatar during 2009, there were always audible whispers about this gritty little war film. Critics loved it and lined up in droves to throw their annual society honors at it. Sure enough, The Hurt Locker became something akin to The Little Engine That Could. While war films are by no means strangers to Oscar glory, this eventual Best Picture winner took a long and winding path to playing David to Avatar’s Goliath.

For Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), war is a drug. As frustrating as his duties may be, diffusing improvised explosive devices in post-invasion Iraq is what makes the man tick. James takes over as the team leader of a three-man Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit after the previous leader was killed in action. His new partners, Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge get more than they bargained for with James. He knows his stuff and is willing to take on risks that his crew views as reckless and a danger to all of their lives.

The rest of the film is a series of vignettes, each one showing a dangerous assignment or encounter that befalls the EOD squad. As Sanborn and Eldridge get closer to the end of their tour of duty they become increasingly frustrated with James’ wildcard antics and tempers flare. From diffusing a number of frighteningly complicated artillery bombs to being ambushed in the middle of nowhere, there is very little rest for this war-weary trio.

To call this film intense is an understatement. Director Kathryn Bigelow and her team of filmmakers pull out all the stops to present an in-your-face experience. The opening segment presents you with the grim reality of war- there are no guarantees that anyone gets out alive. We take this prologue into our journey with James and his new partners. Never are we given the option of taking comfort that all three will make it to the end of their tours. This leaves you with a constant unsettled feeling that is frustrating to no end but also a terrific achievement.

One critical ingredient to The Hurt Locker’s effectiveness is its lack of a Hollywood star on the EOD team. Jeremy Renner became a big deal after this film but he and his co-stars were relative unknowns in the industry, mostly nabbing supporting roles in modestly successful films. This gives the characters an everyman feel. They look, talk and act like regular people, making it easy for audiences to connect with and care for these men. They’re no angels, but how effective would a film about a squeaky-clean bomb squad really be?

The way the film is shot adds to the anxiety and emotion. Rarely does the camera cut away to a safe distance. Instead we are forced to take in all the fear, anger and confusion in an up close and personal way. Time rarely skips ahead in each vignette and when it does it’s never by much. This prolonged exposure to the realities of war is draining and just might leave you as breathless as the soldiers.

We get only the briefest of glimpses into the struggle for soldiers to reintegrate back into society. In this case, war and the skills learned during combat are drugs that cannot be given up. Some may view this as pro-war propaganda but it’s really just a case of ‘old habits die hard.’ Anyone engaging in a specific line of work for a long time will struggle to adjust to a new setting that is fundamentally different. If anything, this should raise awareness for supporting our troops when they return to the States to move on with their lives. While it is certainly frustrating to watch, I think the filmmakers are subtly making valid points for us to pick up on.

Despite laying a few ideas before us, The Hurt Locker does not take any kind of political stance on war. It’s not pro-war even though characters like James enjoy what they do. It is also not anti-war despite all the carnage and frustration we see. This is a rare thing, especially for a film centered on the Iraq war. Several films about the recent conflict have been released but many faltered in their one-sidedness. The Hurt Locker plays out like a polished documentary. The audience is like an embedded reporter, sticking beside the soldiers through all the trials and tribulations. There are no sides to take, no inferences to make; all we can do is digest what befalls us.

Filming on location in Jordan with hundreds of Iraqi refugees as background extras adds an enormous amount of realism to the film. There are no pre-fab sets or obvious special effects to create scenes of desolation and endless sand. The actors aren’t just acting as if they are struggling with their environment; they are living in it. That’s real sweat, real heat fatigue, and real dehydration on the screen. That kind of authenticity can’t be beat.

There are only a few pieces to the puzzle that didn’t fit right for me. There is one scene where James leads his EOD trio on an unauthorized reconnaissance mission during the night. This sort of bold action does not make sense to me. It emphasizes James’ rogue status but it doesn’t feel like anything a real soldier would do. There also aren’t any emotional revelations in dealing with ‘addiction’ to war. The soldiers play it close to the vest and just deal with getting through their assignments. We see growth and development on a team level but not on an individual level.

Perhaps this is what held me back from throwing The Hurt Locker into the upper echelon of my rating scale. It’s expertly filmed, perfectly cast, and the writing flows with spot-on realism. The heat of battle is largely an emotional vacuum (save for aggression and fear) but it would have been nice to see a little more internal struggle. I have not yet seen all of the 2009 nominees for Best Picture but I have little doubt that any of them can compete with the intensity of this very worthy winner.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

(This film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in 2008 but did not get distribution in America until 2009, allowing it to compete for the 2009 Oscars)

Avatar* (2009)

This is it- the biggest movie of all time! Boasting one of the largest budgets in film history, a legion of devoted fans, revolutionary 3-D technology and (as if I could forget) the highest box-office gross of all time. There’s no doubt about it- films don’t get much bigger than James Cameron’s Avatar. But is it really one of the greatest films of all time? Is this sci-fi adventure and the technological wizardry behind it really, as some have proclaimed, the future of film?

Set 150 years in the future, Avatar is the story of a paraplegic soldier’s chance at redemption. Jake Sully’s recently-murdered twin brother was to be part of a special mission to the Alpha Centauri star system. His brother was a scientist preparing to travel to the moon Pandora, where he would use a remote mental link to operate the body of a native creature (known as the Na’vi) specifically designed to mesh with his mind. Rather than lose out on the millions of dollars it cost to produce the Na’vi avatar body, the RDA Corporation, who are funding the project to help smooth over relations with the natives while mining for a precious mineral, hires Jake as a replacement.

After arriving on Pandora, Jake is faced with conflicting motives. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) finds him an inadequate replacement for his brilliant scientist brother. The head of RDA’s security force and the company on-site administrator see him as a chance to gather valuable information on the Na’vi. They promise to fund an expensive surgery to restore Jake’s legs if he’ll report to them regularly on the natives. The largest deposit of the valuable mineral is located underneath a giant tree the Na’vi use as their home. RDA wants access to the deposit without starting a war that will turn off stockholders. All plans go awry when Jake is separated from the team on his first outing. Attacked by vicious, wild animals, Jake is saved by the Na’vi. Initially wary to his presence, they grow to accept him and Jake grows to sympathize with his new-found, blue-skinned friends.

James Cameron spent years both developing the kind of 3-D filmmaking equipment he wanted and waiting for CGI technology to advance to the point he needed in order to make Avatar a fully-realized product. Cameron’s patience and innovation are quite possibly unparalleled and they pay off gloriously in terms of technical achievement. Instead of using 3-D to throw stuff out of the screen at the audience, Cameron uses it to add miles of depth to the background. Yes, a few things pop out at you but Cameron never uses it purely as a gimmick.

The flora and fauna of Pandora are impressive. Cameron fills his world with lush vegetation that looks fantastic by day and mesmerizing by night. The animal life is creative, though some of the creatures have features that don’t seem to make sense for such a dense jungle setting. On the whole though, Pandora is a feast for the eyes. Even the Na’vi are impressive and the use of motion capture really brings each character to life. The only times the technology really betrays Cameron’s intents are when human characters are digitally constructed and when characters or creatures move quickly off the screen. In the case of the latter, I am not sure if the blurriness I saw was something that plagued all screenings or if the 3-D projectors being used in the theater I went to simply weren’t the best on the market.

As impressive as Cameron’s blitzkrieg of effects on your eyes may be, the fact that most of this world is artificial kept me from drinking the Kool-Aid and joining the shameless masses of Avatar devotees amusingly called ‘avatards.’ You can throw all the special effects and CGI you want on the screen but the simple fact remains that, in stories involving flesh-and-blood people (or in this case humanoids), there is just no substitution for the real thing. Sure, all the characters’ movements were plotted and performed by real people but it’s harder to care about them when they are ‘painted’ over by computer effects. It’s difficult to put into words but there is some kind of visceral quality lost in the translation that is motion capture.

Another key ingredient that Avatar lacks is a unique and compelling story. You’ve heard plenty of people call this movie a hybrid of a number of films- Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully, etc. It seems that the deeper you root into sci-fi, the more borrowed elements you will find in Avatar. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s extremely difficult to make a film anymore without borrowing or paying homage to what has come before in your particular genre. The problem here is that the ‘going native’ narrative has been done enough times that it is extremely predictable. Even if you never saw the original theatrical trailer that gave away every major plot point in chronological order, you never have much doubt as to what is going to happen.

This brings me to the crux of the matter- Avatar is not the future of film. A technical bonanza, yes; the future of film, no. Here’s why: the 3-D technology Cameron created improves the movie-going experience without actually improving the movie itself. It’s really cool to look miles beyond the edge of the movie screen but it’s not an essential element to telling the story. It’s just an extra ingredient to make the theater experience a little more special. Think about it- stripped of its 3-D effects, Avatar is just an environmentalist action movie with good computer animation. Until a film actually needs to utilize the third dimension for story purposes, 3-D is still technically just a gimmick (albeit a revamped and smartly-employed one).

Avatar could have very easily been made without all the whiz-bang technology James Cameron slaved over but I seriously doubt that it would have been received in the same way. He had a story that he wanted to tell and he knew he needed massive amounts of CGI to do it. Cameron also knew that computer animated films are a dime a dozen anymore so he decided to step up the game a notch or two. The story and characters aren’t the main attraction here. It’s really an advertisement for the next generation of CGI and motion capture technology. Cameron is offering us a new way for films to be made. Will all films need 3-D? Certainly not. But when a film comes along that deserves the 3-D treatment, it’s a safe bet that it will be worth getting lost in.

Don’t get me wrong- Avatar is still a good film. Over-hyped, but good. It wears its politics on it sleeves, which might aide in winning or losing you depending on your ideology, but most of that can be shrugged off for the sake of taking in a colorful action movie. And let’s face it- when it comes to action, James Cameron is one of the best in the business.

Repeat viewings won’t be able to recapture all of the magic (at least not until everyone has 3-D TV’s) because Avatar was meant to be seen in 3-D. If you didn’t see it in 3-D, you missed out. But fear not! Cameron is currently planning two sequels, so there will be future opportunities to see his creation in all its glory.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Gran Torino (2008)

Promising it would be his final acting role, Clint Eastwood goes out with a bang as a racist retiree who decides to clean up the neighborhood. A powerful and gripping ‘issues’ film, Gran Torino does not hold the key to solving the racial divide in America nor does it claim to. What it does deliver is a gritty, realistic look at gang-ridden suburbs and fantastic performances from all the major players.

Walt Kowalski is a hard man. His work on the Ford assembly line has left him with a gorgeous car, a 1972 Gran Torino, which he treasures. His upbringing and service during the Korean War has left him full of racist notions that he almost giddily dispenses in foul-mouthed tirades. The recent death of his wife has left him on his own. His children don’t care much for him, which is fine; he thinks they’re a bunch of selfish brats anyway. On top of it all, the neighborhood has gone to pot. Most of the homes once owned by ‘respectable’ white auto workers are now populated by low-income residents of Hmong descent.

After Walt catches the neighbor boy attempting to steal his beloved car, things change. To make up for his would-be crime, Thao Vang Lor works odd jobs for Walt, who puts him to good use fixing things and doing yard work around the neighborhood. When the Hmong gang that pressured Thao to steal Walt’s car start making their presence felt, Walt decides to push back in an attempt to protect Thao and his sister. The gang underestimates the ornery old man and matters escalate all the way to an explosive climax.

Let’s get the negatives out of the way first. Some aspects of the film are predictable. An old racist overcoming bigotry to care for his minority neighbors? Yeah, we’ve seen that before. Youth foolishly taking on a wily old soldier? Sure, it’s been done already in one form or another. The resolution? Most of you will see what’s coming a long ways off but there are enough surprises for you that keep the ending fresh. So there are a few weaknesses inherent to the story. Most of what Hollywood produces is at least partially derivative anymore (the fact that genres exist should tell you this).

It all comes down to the execution and, unless you’re an extreme cynic, Gran Torino will knock your socks off. If this truly is Clint Eastwood’s final time in front of the camera, it is a bittersweet swan song. Clint channels some of his most iconic curmudgeons to bring Walt Kowalski to life and never lags for a second. At 78 years old (during filming), Clint still has all the grit and spit necessary to dazzle you. He may have gone soft over the last decade but he never lost the acting chops that have made him a legend. This is full bore, hyper-masculine Clint freakin’ Eastwood. Anybody got a problem with that? Didn’t think so.

As hard and fierce as Kowalski is, it’s clear that Clint had a lot of fun with this role. On top of this, he has a reputation for being an actor’s director. He knows the craft and his passion certainly helped the supporting cast of unknowns step up to the plate and deliver. The younger leads don’t look like they are in over their heads next to Clint. In fact, they exude the acting confidence to take him head on. That is a hallmark to Clint’s ability to connect with and get the most out of his actors.

This is not a film for the faint of heart or for the politically correct. There is a fair amount of intensity and violence in Gran Torino. If you’re not prepared to see what havoc gangs can unleash, don’t watch this film. It might be wise to avoid this film if you are trying to shelter yourself from racial epithets- Eastwood’s Kowalski pretty much uses them all. You might even learn a few new ones to boot. As repugnant as Kowalski’s racism is, the absurd amount of derogatory remarks he throws out is actually amusing in an Archie Bunker kind of way. It’s been said that we laugh at what we don’t understand. Perhaps that’s why I found Kowalski hilarious- there’s absolutely no understanding the depths of his bigotry.

Gran Torino was critically praised yet passed over by the major award circuits. Part of me understands this because the film is loaded with clichés and predictability. But the way Clint takes all these perceived negatives and cranks out a powerful and emotional film worth watching is awe-inspiring. Perhaps no one wanted to honor his portrayal of the world’s biggest racist but the fact remains- Clint Eastwood rides off into the sunset having delivered one of the best performances in his career.

I think that everyone should see this film. Even if it makes you squeamish with its violence or shatters the shield of political correctness society tries to place over our ears, you will be better off having seen Gran Torino. Clint clearly has plenty of gas in the tank when it comes to acting, so it’s sad that this is his last acting role. Then again, how many actors get to go out on top quite like this?

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Previously I listed the 2002 stinker The Master of Disguise as the worst movie I have ever seen. Believe me when I tell you that, scary as it may seem, it does actually get worse. I’m not even going to tease you about this one- Manos: The Hands of Fate is quite possibly the worst film ever made and hands down the worst I have seen so far. I warned that anyone reading my review for The Master of Disguise would get punched by me if I discovered that they still watched that dreck. If I discover that you have read the following review for Manos, I will simply stare at you in pity.

A couple and their young daughter are traveling through the country when they take a wrong turn. Instead of their intended destination, they stumble upon a run-down house with unusual inhabitants. The caretaker is a creepy man named Torgo. He stammers around with large knees and mutters incomprehensible nonsense most of the time. Another man, known only as “The Master” hides in the shadows plotting to take the woman as his own. Torgo falls in love with the woman and promises to protect her for his own from The Master.

After discovering The Master in his sleeping quarters with a slew of zombie-esque female servants, the couple tries to leave. This plan goes awry as The Master and his wives are determined to take what is due to them. In the end, Torgo is mutilated when he tries to protect the woman from The Master. Her husband fairs no better and ends up The Master’s new servant as his wife and child become part of his den of zombie wives.

Not only is it derivative, Manos: The Hands of Fate is also painful to watch. Travelers stopping at the wrong place is not a new plot and certainly wasn’t back in 1966. A creepy sorcerer-like man with a crew of zombie wives probably makes it stand out after the clichéd lead-in but Manos’ lead-in is horrible. For at least two or three straight minutes (possibly even longer) you are forced to watch the couple drive around, gazing out of their car windows, driving through beautiful country sides and off into the distance. Apparently these opening minutes were supposed to include the film’s credits. Why the credits were scrapped but not the plodding opening minutes is a mystery larger than that of who is the master and why does he have zombie wives? Strike one.

The innocent family is fine. Sure, the husband is a nitwit who doesn’t act like a true man or father, but he plays convincing enough prey. Torgo, as I found out, was supposed to be some kind of satyr creature but the actor wore the leg devices backwards (explaining the huge knees) and never wore the footwear designed to make him look hoofed. On top of this, the actor stammers around and delivers his lines as if he were high. (Further research on the making of the film only seems to confirm this) The result is that the character is full-on creepy but totally nonsensical, making it seem even more ridiculous that the family would impose upon him to stay the night. Strike two.

Then there is The Master, a Frank Zappa lookalike who wears a flamboyant red costume with a giant hand on it. He never says too much but has mastered the art of the ominous stare. His powers are- well, we never really see what his powers are, how he uses them or to what purposes they serve aside from collecting a horde of zombie-esque wives from ill-fated passersby. We see so little of him, in fact, that we can only rely on his equally impressive collection of ominous stares that he is one bad dude. Strike three.

The populo minutiae are equally disappointing. First there is a young couple who are constantly making out along various roadsides for no seeming point whatsoever. (The truth is that the actress in this scene was supposed to play a larger role but broke her leg- the director just found a way to keep her in the film) Then there are the police who hear gunshots and strange noises off in the distance but turn back once they reach the edge of darkness. (The reason behind this is that the film was shot at night and the actors literally couldn’t see if the ground in front of them was safe) Strikes four and five.

Hold on- did I really just get to strike five already? I haven’t even begun to rip apart the atrocious production values! (They stink, by the way) Granted, Manos: The Hands of Fate is an independently produced film. It was written, directed and produced by Harold P. Warren, a Texas manure salesman. He also stars in the film as the head of the family falling victim to The Master. Thankfully, Warren realized he was better at selling crap than making movies and never made a follow-up.

You may think it harsh of me to lambast a low-budget, independent film. There are tons of burgeoning filmmakers who don’t have access to Hollywood’s bankrolls. The difference is that most of these burgeoning filmmakers actually have an ounce of talent. Manos is merely a collection of horror clichés wrapped with a ribbon of wackiness. There is never a sense that the filmmaker knew what he was doing. To say that the pace lags suggests that it ever even gets out of first gear. When it’s not insufferably boring and slow, Manos confuses the bejeebers out of you.

All of this and I even watched the Mystery Science Theater 3000 lampooning of it! The MST3K guys say it best during their treatment- minutes into the film, one of the characters shouts out “Do something!” at the screen. This comment could be appropriately inserted to a majority of the film’s 74-minute run time. This is sad. If you don’t watch the MST3K version, Godspeed you brave, brave soul. Then again, be warned- if you don’t turn it off during the opening non-credits sequence out of sheer boredom, you may end up staring lazily off into space like one of The Master’s zombie wives.

Manos: The Hands of Fate is 74 minutes of strikes. I knew this was said to be one of the worst films ever made when I watched it but I thought that meant a Plan 9 From Outer Space kind of bad. I was sorely mistaken. This is one movie that even I will never ever watch again if I have a choice. Consider yourself warned!

RATING: 0.25 out of 5

W. (2008)

Common wisdom suggests that hindsight is 20-20. But how soon is too soon to attempt hindsight? Director Oliver Stone takes on that question with W., a biopic about George W. Bush. Never before had a Hollywood film been made about a sitting U.S. President’s time in office.* Given all the flak Bush faced during his two terms in office, what with a controversial election and an unpopular war in Iraq, many wondered whether or not Stone was attempting to craft a serious biography or merely stoking the anti-Bush flames during a crucial election year. The answer surprised just about everyone.

W. never lingers too long in one era. The film begins in 1966, where Bush is being initiated into a fraternity at Yale University. We see glimpses of his young adult life, filled with arguments and issues with his accomplished father. Flash-forward to 1977, where Bush decides to enter the family game of politics. He loses his first bid for Congress but makes a name for himself by bringing in the most votes ever for a Republican in his Texas district. We jump ahead next to the 1980s. While jogging, Bush collapses and has a religious experience. He becomes a born-again Christian, helps his father during the 1988 presidential election and becomes part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

After laying all this foundation, the films jumps into more familiar territory. Bush runs for Governor of Texas, though against his parents’ wishes. This later propels him to running for President and two of his most defining moments: 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Stone devotes extra time to the meetings and counseling between Bush and his staff before making the call to invade Iraq. The film ends after Bush’s infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, leaving out any details of Bush’s second term in office.

Whatever you may think of it, W. is an interesting look at a controversial public figure. Uncompromising is the best word I can find to describe it but not in the way that you may be thinking. Oliver Stone is known for his very liberal political leanings, so many wondered if he was even capable of creating an accurate depiction of Bush’s life. While Stone does include a few of Bush’s less-flattering moments in W., he never piles it on. Those negative moments (binge drinking in college) are balanced with positive moments (meeting his future wife) and everything is shown from a neutral perspective. It seems like Stone was able to keep his personal opinions of the man out of the picture while nailing down pivotal life events that make Bush tick.

Josh Brolin may not look exactly like George W. Bush but he hits the accent, mannerisms and facial expressions quite well. His performance does walk a fine line between acting and imitating though, as Bush is played up to be more dim-witted and naïve than he is in real life. I can actually let this slide because Bush always carried himself in public as a regular guy and attempted to project a casual demeanor. That’s the Bush America knew from their TV screens from news coverage, sound bites and collections of his more amusing moments.

There’s more to Brolin’s Bush than what American’s know, however. Supposedly based on information gathered from sources close to the Bush family and administration (but notably not anyone with an actual firsthand account of the events depicted), we get to see the troubled side of Bush’s life. A rebellious young man, the eldest (but not the favorite) child in a large family, struggling to earn his father’s respect while being his own man; the long road to achievement and success; and the struggle to make the decision to invade Iraq. Seeing these events play out humanizes the man and you just might find some of your preconceived notions of him changed.

Elizabeth Banks does a fine job as Laura Welch Bush but several of the supporting players either don’t fit right or don’t get the job done. James Cromwell barely looks like George H. W. Bush and it seems like he never even tries to recreate elder Bush’s voice or mannerisms. On the flip side, Richard Dreyfuss has the look of Vice President Dick Cheney but completely overdoes it. It is clear that he relishes portraying a man that he hates (Dreyfuss is notoriously liberal) but his sneering, shifty performance is comical at best.

Then there are Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. Newton appears to take the MadTV approach to her character (no, it’s not even good enough to suggest a poor Saturday Night Live act)- horribly stereotyped and totally off-character. Jones’ Karl Rove is a creepy Gollum-esque man who is constantly coming out of the shadows to whisper advice into Bush’s ear. You would think that these head-scratching hack jobs would derail the film completely but they only appear a few times (but enough to be memorably bad).

Again, I come back to the only way to describe this film- interesting. Some on the right will claim it goes too far to make Bush look bad. Some on the left will think it fails to go far enough. The rest of us will tilt our heads to the side and quietly wonder what exactly we just watched and whether we had any right to expect anything out of this film. It's only due to its uncompromising nature that I can put my finger on a rating and I'm not even sure if it's the right one, to be perfectly honest.

W. doesn’t make any advancements for film or acting but it makes a niche for itself in the biopic genre. It will be interesting to see if films about sitting Presidents become a trend or if Oliver Stone’s oddly-timed biopic will become little more than a footnote (or even an afterthought) of cinema history. I guess, as with what history’s assessment of George W. Bush’s presidency, only time will tell.

RATING: 3 out of 5

*Documentaries don't count and the only other film released about a sitting President was PT 109, which was about John F. Kennedy's time during World War II and not his time in office.

Swing Vote (2008)

Every four years, Americans take to the voting booths and elect a President. Some races have been landslide victories while others have been flat-out nail-biters. Candidates and pundits like to tell us that every vote matters and Swing Vote latches onto that election-time mantra. The result is an amusing, thought-provoking, and subtly cynical look at the American electoral process.

Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a single father in New Mexico. He doesn’t strike you as the kind of man who has a lot of ambition. He lives in a trailer, he drinks too much, and he just got fired from his latest blue-collar job. When the Presidential election comes around, Bud’s daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) tries to get her father excited about his civic duty to ‘help shape the country’s future’ by voting. Bud promises he’ll vote, seeing as it means so much to his little girl. Realizing that her father isn’t going to vote, Molly sneaks into their polling place and attempts to cast a vote for her father. Just as the vote is being registered, the polls close and the machines are unplugged.

The next morning, Bud and Molly wake up to find that the election is down to the wire- a virtual tie! In fact, the whole race comes down to New Mexico and the popular vote was tied as the polls closed. However, authorities learn that when the poll shut down the voting booths, Bud’s vote was in process but not recorded. This means that he needs to re-cast “his” vote, which will determine the outcome of the entire election. Over the next few weeks, Bud is hounded by the Republican and Democratic candidates, courted by campaign advisers, and scrutinized by the media. In the end though, he has to make a choice.

Let’s face it- the likelihood of this scenario playing out in real life is virtually nil. Sure, some elections have come down to a matter of a few thousand votes in the past but it’s a statistical improbability that a state's popular vote would be separated by just one vote. But Swing Vote is not trying to present this as a serious situation; it’s merely asking ‘what if?’ By keeping things light, the filmmakers are able to keep viewers interested and they are also able to get plenty of jabs in at politics and the media.

I loved watching the flip-flopping that the Democrat and Republican vying for Bud’s vote resort to in a shallow attempt to win him over. Republican incumbent Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and his Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) end up switching their stances on ideological issues as the media reports Bud’s casual remarks about several hot-button political issues like abortion, immigration and the environment. It’s funny but it’s also sad because it shows just how shallow politics can be. I highly doubt party big-wigs will ever make such dramatic policy changes but it emphasizes the fact that professional politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected.

I must also take the time to give the filmmakers credit for playing their story out largely right up the middle. Let’s not forget- this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. This film could have easily been critical of just one side of the election. Fortunately, swipes are taken at both Republicans and Democrats. I approve of this equal-opportunity skewering because neither party is faultless or blameless. Ever.

I do feel like the film has a slight bias to the left though. Much of the media scrutiny that Bud is faced with revolves around his fitness to be the one to make such a crucial decision. He’s not the brightest crayon in the box and fits the lower-class bumpkin mold that seems to be a stereotype of Republicans and conservatives of the South and Southwest. The media pundits take aim at the fact that Bud has never shown any enthusiasm towards political decisions. I couldn’t tell if this cynical look at the main character was meant to reinforce how elitist and out of touch the media is or if this was a way for the writers to get their own opinions out in a veiled way.

Swing Vote is critical of everyone to a point. The politicians are obvious targets and the media are rightfully portrayed as vicious and opinionated. But it’s hard to tell where the filmmakers draw the line for calling us, the electorate, out. Because his decision matters the most, Bud is expected by everyone to research the issues and stances of the candidates. It’s only natural for everyone to want the crucial voter to be informed but this also makes a likely majority of the public to be hypocrites.

How many people actually research their choices before voting? How many simply read the propaganda sent in the mail or airing on TV commercials? I certainly hope people seeing this film will come away with it determined to take the civic duty more seriously. The filmmakers probably have this same goal in mind. Perhaps they are not looking at Bud the same way the media does. Lord knows that millions of “Bud Johnson’s” vote every year. Maybe the message here really is apolitical.

Still, Swing Vote leaves a semi-bitter taste in your mouth because it does paint a slightly negative picture of the general public. As a part of the general public, I take some offense. Sure, we’ve got a lot of work to do before everyone in the country can make accurately informed decisions but we’re not all as bad as Bud Johnson. The truth is, though, that every single one of us could be found 'objectionable' by our peers if put in the same situation.

You’ll laugh, you’ll squirm, and you’ll never believe this premise to be possible. In the end though, Swing Vote is worth watching, especially as our election cycles grow ever more contentious.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Thankfully, after the angst-ridden Order of the Phoenix, the Harry Potter series gets a lot less hormonal and a little more interesting. Where Phoenix was almost pure stall tactic, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince features a significant amount of setup for the seventh and final installment of the wizarding saga. While it may run short on stand-alone plot, Prince has enough pop, sizzle and intrigue to make up for it.

While Harry Potter is in his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Lord Voldemort is gaining power and influence throughout the magical world. Harry keeps himself busy with a lot of things: captaining the Grffyndor Quidditch team, crushing on his best friend’s sister, mastering Potions class thanks to the margin notes of a former student calling himself the ‘Half-Blood Prince,’ and not to mention secret meetings with Headmaster Dumbledore regarding Voldemort’s past. You know, just another year in the life of Harry Potter.

Meanwhile, saucy Slytherin student Draco Malfoy has a secret assignment from Lord Voldemort. Despite his best efforts, Harry figures out that he’s up to something. Naturally, everyone dismisses Harry’s suspicions of Malfoy because the two have been rivals for five years running now. Harry finds himself torn between exposing his fellow student and helping Dumbledore uncover a terrible secret about Lord Voldemort’s past that could be the key to his undoing.

While this sounds like an awful lot to inject into one film, it’s actually not. Half-Blood Prince is two and a half hours long. Learning about Voldemort’s past is stretched out throughout the film but the titular Half-Blood Prince component is largely glossed over and the big reveal is anti-climactic. The book featured more build-up for the Prince and the film fails to deliver that. Everything else is wedged somewhere in between these pieces.

My initial take on this film was that it was every bit as much a piece of filler as Order of the Phoenix. Additional viewings have brought me back from that assertion. While all the romance, class work and suspicion of Malfoy are mostly superfluous, Voldemort’s history is important to take in. It may seem like a big waste of time but it’s laying the groundwork for the next chapter. In terms of setting up back story and mythology, Prince is very much like Prisoner of Azkaban. Cogs are set in place and pieces are put in motion. It’s subtle at first but easy to recognize later on.

Half-Blood Prince is not, however, Prisoner of Azkaban’s equal. Where the third installment had a footloose quality to dispensing the necessary information, Prince holds your hand similar to Dumbledore assisting Harry through the apparation process. The information given to us is more important than before and its nature is much darker so the filmmakers take care to make sure we download and process it properly. I was a little dissatisfied with this approach but it was also one of the shortcomings of the book, so we’ll leave it there.

As important as uncovering Voldemort’s secret is, there is a surprising lack of urgency presented in the film. Perhaps it only comes off that way because I have read the book and know what’s coming, but I was hoping for Harry to be a little more frantic in his approach- you know, the way he persistently goes after Malfoy. That whole plot line was a little uninteresting because in the book it was unclear what Malfoy was up to. In the movie, there is no subtlety and Malfoy’s methods are revealed early on (though the ends he is working for remains a secret until the final reel).

I like the brooding tone of this film. It works because Harry is now 16 years old and author J.K. Rowling wrote Harry very age-appropriate for what he is tasked with. I wasn’t as crazy about the first two Potter books or films because I’m not big into childrens stories. I understand that the target audience was for kids but I can’t help but prefer a dash of darkness, having cut my popular fiction teeth on Stephen King. The filmmakers go a little overboard on the digital grading but they get the mood right nine times out of ten here.

I like Prince for bucking a few trends for Potter stories. First, Voldemort only appears in flashbacks. Just like Prisoner Azkaban, Harry isn’t predictably thrown into some kind of confrontation with the Dark Lord in the end only to miraculously escape. It’s nice to be outside of Voldemort for a change. Second, I actually enjoyed the further reduction of Hogwarts classroom instruction. All the spells were cute in the beginning but alliterative charms and cleverly coined incantations sound goofy coming out of the mouths of teenagers.

One thing I didn’t like about the film was the ending. A key scene from the book is cut out that provided both a moderate amount of resolution and a terrific launching point into the seventh and final chapter of the Harry Potter series. Instead, the filmmakers deliver an awkward fade-to-black moment that works on a ‘okay, things are really uncertain now’ level but there is no driving force leaving us to believe that we are about to embark on the final leg of the journey.

In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is par for the course. You would think that it would be easier to judge this film, having digested five films before it. The story is sufficient enough to not be disappointing but the effects are a little off too much of the time. Perhaps I will be better able to put my finger on this film once I see how all the groundwork laid out here plays out in the two-part finale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Until then, this one is right up the middle.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5