Self/less

So....mortality....kinda sucks, huh? We only get one crack at this life so you might as well make the best of it with what little time we have, right? Well, what if we weren't limited to just one go-around? What if we had another chance, maybe multiple chances? It's a potential-filled dilemma, one with countless layers. If we could, should we? I missed 2015's Self/less in theaters but was able to catch up with it on DVD.

A real estate mogul who has piled up fortunes on top of fortunes in a career spanning 40-plus years, Damian Hale (Ben Kingsley) is quickly dying of cancer that is spreading throughout his body. With doctors telling him he only has months to live, Damian undergoes a dangerous medical situation called 'shedding' where his mind/psyche are transported to the body of a much younger man, a body grown/built genetically in a lab. So while his body may have failed him, his mind won't, giving him a chance to live on and accomplish so much more as a younger version of himself (Ryan Reynolds). New and improved Damian dives into his new-found life, celebrating, partying and living life like he was actually running out of time. It all seems too perfect...and it is. Damian begins to feel funny, begins to question exactly what's happened. Can he figure it all out before something even more dangerous happens to him?

Ever heard of a movie called Seconds? Ha, well I have! I even reviewed it for you! You can read my review from 2010 HERE. It's got 6 whopping views so...yeah, it's a threat to go viral any second. 'Self/less' is a tweaked remake of the 1966 flick from director John Frankenheimer and starring Rock Hudson. It's a very 1960's movie with a fabulous ending, one that almost saved the movie for me. But that's my rule. If you're going to remake a movie, do one that has little to no reputation or has a ton of untapped potential. This version? It takes the basic premise and goes from there, doing its own thing.

What if you weren't tied to your physical being? What if your conscious could be moved to another vessel? In this frightening age of science, who knows? Maybe that's not too far away...if it hasn't happened already. Director Tarsem Singh turns in an unsettling, creepy thriller with that potential-filled premise. It received pretty negative reviews -- although fans seem to like it -- and bombed at the box office, making just $12 million. Not good. I liked it though, taking the remake and stylizing it and building up some great scenes of doom. It moves at a lightning-pace early on once Damian goes under the procedure, and I wish it would have slowed down a little bit, let it breathe and develop. It's always entertaining though and worth a watch.

This Ryan Reynolds fella, he's been in the news lately for a little movie called Deadpool. Heard of it? Yeah, it's doing pretty well in theaters. He's always been an immensely watchable actor through drama or comedy, but his HUGE movie never seemed to come along until Deadpool. As young Damian, Reynolds is us, he's the viewer. He's trying to piece it all together, knowing the pieces just don't quite fit...but not quite able to figure out why. I'll always think of Reynolds as motor-mouth, fast-talking Van Wilder, but he's shown previously and does it again here that he's quite capable of heavier drama into anti-hero territory. A very solid lead performance!

Now officially into badass, screen legend territory, Kingsley has some fun and gives the film some muscle early on as older Damian, a ruthless businessman who sees his clock running out. Just wish he'd been around longer! The always-solid Matthew Goode plays Albright, the suspiciously smooth doctor who offers the seemingly-dangerous medical procedure that moves psyches without too much risk. Victor Garber is a welcome addition as one of Damian's business partners and friend, making key appearances at the beginning and end. As for the rest of the cast, I don't want to give away too much about what's going on so...look for Natalie Martinez and Derek Luke in key supporting parts!

My theory I write about often is my Christmas Eve theory. Sometimes it's more fun not to know what your presents are. The build-up, the anticipation! 'Self/less' is a rare movie where the payoff works. So does the build-up. The mystery and all those unanswered questions do a great job building the tension as young Damian begins to figure out exactly what's happened. My biggest issue is that 'Self/less' didn't know how to wrap things up. The last 25 minutes or so degenerate into unnecessary action pyrotechnics with car chases (that's actually pretty cool) and a chase and gunfight. I liked that simmering tension and unease through the first 80 minutes more. So thankfully, my issues aren't deal-breakers. An enjoyable thriller with a cool premise and good cast. Worth a watch for sure.

Self/less (2015): ** 1/2 /****

The Walk

Heights scare the bejesus out of me. Let's get that out of the way early. I'll do roller coasters, I'll go up in skyscraper, and the upper upper deck at a baseball game doesn't do me in. But something about heights, it just gets me. So naturally 2015's The Walk seems a perfect fit for this guy, doesn't it? Putting aside my genuine fear, I still had to check it out!

Working on the streets of Paris in the early 1970's, 20-something Philippe Petit (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a street performer who specializes in sleight of hand, magic, his mime-esque performances and above all, performing tricks on a rope he ties up and acts as a street-improvised "high-wire." He's worked for years to improve and become great as he performs his high wire act, but for several years now, he's had one huge dream. Philippe wants nothing more than to string a high-wire at the very top of the newly-built World Trade Center towers in New York City. It seems impossible for any number of reasons from the whole it's illegal to do it to the obvious and inherent dangers, but Philippe will hear none of it. He will get it done no matter the risks. Assembling a small crew of friends and accomplices to help him pull off his "coup," Philippe begins to put it all together, hopefully pulling off the impossible high-wire act.

I saw the trailer for this film from director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump) and was instantly hooked. The camera flies up the still under construction World Trade Center, finally revealing where it is at the top of the tower when a man walks out toward the ledge and proceeds to almost walk off, only to stop and balance off a steel beam. How about that for going for the jugular, huh? I must have seen the preview for Zemeckis' film each time I went and saw a new flick in theaters. Finding out it was based on a true story, I went into curiosity lockdown, not wanting to know what really happened on the World Trade Center in 1974. If you don't know already, I recommend doing the same. Go in with a clean slate and no knowledge of where 'Walk' is going.

So how does the finished product measure up against the impressive trailer? It's a good film, a very interesting story, but not one I loved. I liked it. In a way, 'Walk' is impressive because it is simply a story about a man trying to achieve his dream. Though there is a love interest, it isn't a love story. There's adventure, but it isn't an adventure film. It is a solid, well-told character study of a man -- Philippe Petit (<--- avoid="" don="" if="" nbsp="" p="" pesky="" spoilers="" t="" those="" want="" you="">
Long since removed from his Third Rock from the Sun days, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best actors working out there. He dove headfirst into this role, both learning how to speak French and more importantly, to look like a competent high-wire walker. It is a performance bursting with energy, Petit coming to life with a glee for life, a stubbornness to do what others say he can't, and maybe an obsession. The French accent gets laid on a little thick at times, and through no fault of his own, the performance does hit some overdone moments, but I'll give credit. It is a very interesting part for a very talented actor. Petit is an artist who isn't doing his death-defying stunt for publicity or fame or money. He sees something beautiful and simply wants to do his act, do something profound and beautiful, while paying tribute to something so awe-inspiring as the towers of the World Trade Center.

The rest of the cast is solid, but nothing flashy. Charlotte Le Bon is Annie, Philippe's supportive girlfriend who begins to realize how truly driven her boyfriend is to accomplish the walk. Clement Sibony plays Jean-Louis, Philippe's closest friend, confidante in his "coup," and right-hand man in putting it all together. Oh, he's also the official photographer! Their motley crew of assistants and accomplices is headlined by the always solid James Badge Dale as J.P., a New Yorker with some connections, and Steve Valentine as Barry, the inside man working at the World Trade Center. The team also includes Cesar Domboy, Ben Schwartz and Benedict Samuel. And last but not least, Ben Kingsley is excellent in a supporting part as Papa Rudy, Philippe's mentor and teacher who tries to teach him all the ins and outs of being a high-wire performer.

Admission of guilt...I didn't see 'Walk' in 3-D. Maybe I should have. Why? Well, there's that whole walking between the World Trade Center towers scene....if you're into that sort of thing. It's an incredible sequence that really puts into perspective the absolute insanity of what Philippe is attempting to do. He can do everything humanly possible and still fail because the wind picks up, he loses focus, his equipment fails, any and all. The build-up can be a touch slow in the process getting to this point, but the high-wire finale is well worth the price of admission (3-D or not). My counter is that the actual build-up to the act is far better. What Philippe intends to do is HIGHLY ILLEGAL so it's not like he can just walk up to the still under-construction tower and do his thing.

The end result? An extended sequence of about 25-30 minutes of Philippe and his team of accomplices getting into place. It develops like a heist sequence and for me at least, was absolutely as intense and riveting as the actual high-wire act. A spectacle movie with some character and heart, it's a flick well worth catching up with. As for the 3-D, that's up to you. A good movie is a good movie regardless of where or how you see it.

The Walk (2015): ***/****

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Ender's Game

Originally published in 1985 from author Orson Scott Card, the novel Ender's Game has become a fan and cult favorite for readers over the last 25-plus years. For years, it never got that big screen adaptation, that big-budget science fiction flick that would appease diehard fans and newbies alike. Well, we got it, and maybe with the advances in technology, it was worth the wait. Hitting theaters a few weeks ago and struggling a bit at the box office as I write this review, 2013's Ender's Game.

Fifty years into the future, Earth has moved on from an alien invasion by a race known as the Formics. The war and invasion was costly, millions of people killed in the blink of an eye and the subsequent attacks. Five decades later, the International Fleet continues to prepare for a counterattack, turning to children and teenagers to lead the defense. Among the trainers are Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and his right hand officer, Major Anderson (Viola Davis), always trying to find the child best suited to lead the defense of mankind. Among the thousands of trainees, Graff thinks he's found the right subject, the perfect individual to lead the defense, a young boy named Ender Wiggins (Asa Butterfield), the youngest of three children who is brilliant in his analysis and clear-thinking in almost all his actions. He displays all the characteristics they're looking for, but is he really the best choice? Is he almost too smart? Can young Ender keep his own demons under wraps to live up to his potential?

I never read Card's novel the movie is based on. Deal with it. Okay, that's a little harsh. Just want to get that out there. I'm not a fan, haven't read it, and went into this movie without any expectations of what this movie had to live up to it. From director/screenwriter Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), 'Game' is a pretty entertaining, polished, well-told science fiction story that I loved for half of its 114-minute running time. It has a ton of potential, plenty to the point I'm still looking forward to checking out Card's original novel. 'Game' asks a lot of questions, some pretty dark considering this is a movie at least somewhat aimed at a teenage audience. On a familiar level, there's growing up and discovering who you are as a person, but there's much more. It's living and dealing with your flaws, embracing on them or working at them, becoming part of a group or becoming a leader and on a far bigger level, the loss of a few for the savior of many. It's pretty heady stuff.

Visually, 'Game' is what a science fiction film can be when computer-generated images are used to aid a story rather than overwhelm it. The CGI blends seamlessly at all times here, a future down the road some but not so far removed from the 2013 world we know now. When Ender is sent to Battle School, we're introduced to a West Point-like culture in Space Station form floating through space far above Earth. The school and its tech-heavy hallways and corridors looks familiar, like something we've seen in countless other sci-fi movies, but with a new spin. The coolest thing is the Battle Room, an expansive, enclosed zero gravity circle where the Armies of the Battle School learn strategy and battle theory, all while floating through space while still doing battle. As we see more, I thought it's cool to see that Ender and his fellow trainees use touch screen-like technology to lead armies of spaceships, drones, fighters and thousands of people. It ain't too far removed from iPads, iPhones and any number of other modern tech items. Yeah, it could have a cool charm if it had been made in the 1980s, but how about 2013? It's a pretty ideal time for a story like this with that sort of technology.

A very talented young actor, Butterfield is excellent as young, talented, even troubled Ender Wiggins. The movie depends on him so that he steps up to the plate is a huge positive. The fact that the character has touches of the Christ figure -- the One to save us all, the Savior -- is subtle without beating us over the head with the message too. The young actors are solid across the board, especially Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit) as Petra, a fellow Battle School student who befriends Ender, and Abigail Breslin making the most of a stereotypical part as Ender's worrying sister, Valentine. As for the rest of the students, look for Aramis Knight, Suraj Partha, Moises Arias as a violent rival for Ender, and a handful of other parts that all handle themselves really well. It's encouraging to see this many young actors perform so well, and all in one movie.

The focus is on the child parts, but the adult actors don't disappoint either. Harrison Ford has a good part, playing against type a bit, as Colonel Graff, the commanding officer who's intentions are not perfectly clear. How far is he willing to go to accomplish his goals? What is he willing to sacrifice? Viola Davis provides the perfect counter, a voice of reason and clear-thinking, to Ford's Graff. Ben Kingsley is poorly used as Mazer Rackham, a legendary pilot who provides quite the example for the young students. Nonso Anozie has a fun part as Sergeant Dap, the drill sergeant hovering over the students with an iron fist.

So what's the problem? It's hard to peg. I think there's just too much going on for its own good with a movie that runs just under two hours. The training sequences become repetitive quickly, and then all the sudden we're at the finale! There's the ending and then a quasi-twist that continues the movie for another 10 minutes that limp to the finish. It's not a bad movie by any means. There's a lot of positives, A LOT of them, but I came away mildly disappointed because the start was so strong. I still feel very comfortable recommending it, but I could have recommended it more if that makes any sense.

Ender's Game (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Iron Man 3

Okay, so can everyone agree that Robert Downey Jr. was born to play Tony Stark, the coolest of the Avengers, Iron Man? No?!? What's wrong with you? The first movie, released in 2008, started up a superhero franchise that was fun and exciting and action-packed with lots of cool characters. The series is almost a perfect companion piece to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy in all their cynicism and darkness. Now it's five years later and we've got our third flick for Downey, 2013's Iron Man 3. Will it be the last?

It's been several months since Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) helped the Avengers turn back Loki and his alien minions in New York City, but Tony is still struggling with what he saw and did. He hallucinates, can't sleep at night and exhibits all sorts of signs of PTSD. He may have found something to bring him out of his funk and in a big way. A mysterious terrorist dubbed the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is unleashing attacks all across the world, defying anyone to stop him. Governments can't stop him, countries just waiting to be attacked. Tony steps up to the plate, telling the Mandarin to come and find him. Iron Man will put an end to the worldwide tyranny. Tony gets more than he bargained for when an attack is unleashed on his coastal home. His life is torn apart and he is feared dead by everyone who knows him as well as international media outlets. Forced to work from the ground up, can Tony rebuild from the ashes to take down this new, seemingly unbeatable enemy?

Now heading into this third Iron Man installment -- this one from director Shane Black -- I was under the assumption that it would be the last of the series, excluding the Avengers sequels. Downey Jr. has said he won't continue with the Iron Man series, but he'll be there for the Avengers 2 and 3. Good news there! I went in here with mild expectations. I liked Iron Man 2, but on a second viewing liked it a little less. Reviews were fairly mixed for this third installment, but that didn't seem to matter. It is currently the fifth highest-grossing film of all-time. Woo, money! I came away disappointed with this one though and can't quite put a finger on it. It's entertaining enough if a little long. Self-indulgent? Sure, most superhero movies are. Something else is missing though. It's more than a little schizophrenic, wasting a deep cast and some really solid moments.

What's above questioning? Though the script doesn't know what to do with most of the characters, Downey Jr. steps up to the plate. This is Tony at his most human. He's been beaten down, and even though he helped the Avengers win in NYC, it took a physical and emotional toll on him. Once the Mandarin unleashes his debilitating attack, Tony/Iron Man almost has to start over. It's cool and refreshing to see this other side of a character you feel like we've gotten to know pretty well. What sets it apart is somewhere in Tony's head is the smarmy, smart-ass, ultra-billionaire Tony Stark we all know and love. This is a great character however you cut it. Black's script has its issues, its flaws from the get-go, but delving into a familiar character in a way we haven't seen before certainly makes it a worthy film.

The rest of the cast is loaded, however misused or underused. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, now in charge of Stark Industries and trying to work out her relationship with Tony as much as possible. She's given little to do for much of the movie, but gets her chance at the badass spotlight late. Don Cheadle is basically completely wasted as Rhodes, Tony's friend who's been tasked with piloting the Iron Patriot, the military's version of Iron Man. Jon Favreau returns as Happy, Tony's former bodyguard, but it's a background part here. Paul Bettany also returns and has some fun as the voice of Jarvis, Tony's robotics assistant. Young Ty Simpkins has a good part as Harley, a young boy who comes across Tony at his lowest.

Maybe the weakest part of 'Man 3' is in the Villain Department.The always solid Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, a brilliant scientist who has developed the technology to manipulate human DNA and create super soldiers. Pearce is a good counter to Downey Jr., his cocky demeanor a worthy foe to Tony's similarly cocky attitude. Kingsley is a great addition to the franchise too as the underused Mandarin, a mysterious international terrorist with no qualms about death on massive levels. Rebecca Hall plays Maya Hansen, an engineer who worked with Aldrich in the past and is now caught in the middle between right and wrong. James Badge Dale is perfectly creepy as Savin, Aldrich's enhanced henchman. Two separate twists disappoint but for different reasons. One is really, truly stupid and messes with the whole tone of the movie while the other doesn't come as nearly a big a surprise as it had to be intended.

It's a superhero movie. The technology is supposed to be goofy and not in any way reality. Somewhere along the way, this one really disappointed me. Aldrich's super soldiers are a cool concept, seemingly indestructible killing machines brimming with dangerous amounts of energy in them. Maybe it's taken too far, maybe it's the relatively unexplained motives of all the bad guys (other than POWER and WORLD DOMINATION), or just the general excess of the finale, but I didn't go along with this movie as much as the previous two. The action-packed finale at a cargo shipping yard has about 50 automated Iron Man suits and Tony and Rhodey and Aldrich and Pepper and everything going on. It was just too much.

There were parts I liked, most of them dealing with Tony. The intro scene goes back to Bern in 1999 as we meet a younger but still cocky Tony, including a nice nod to the first Iron Man as we meet Shaun Toub's Ho Yinsen who we later meet in a cave with Tony in Afghanistan. Stark's monologue at the beginning and end is fitting, a man learning who he is and how he get there. Mostly, I felt like this was wasted potential. A somewhat disappointing conclusion to the trilogy (if it is the conclusion) but still worth watching for the always fun Robert Downey Jr.

Iron Man 3 (2013): ** 1/2 /****

The Last Legion

Colin Firth is first and foremost an actor. He is not a movie star in the typical sense. The 52-year old actor has films like The King's Speech, A Single Man and many more dramatic movies to his name. Then, there are the departure films, like 2007's The Last Legion.

It's 460 A.D., and the Roman Empire is struggling through some perilous times. After years away from Rome and Italy and all its issues, veteran soldier Aurelius Antoninus (Firth) is being called back to the city. He has been tasked with a dangerous mission, protecting the recently appointed emperor, Romulus (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), a teenage boy. With a legion of loyal soldiers, Aurelius settles in, preparing anything he can to protect the boy emperor. Multiple factions are working against the boy though, including a Goth leader (Peter Mullan), who wants nothing more than to turn Rome on its side and take power. When the coup-like attack comes, Aurelius must turn to his most trusted men while also relying on one last legion of Roman troops in Britannia.

Despite the generally lukewarm reviews and less than impressive Netflix rating, I went into this historical epic with somewhat high hopes. Director Doug Lefler has crafted an enjoyable epic story that at its best feels like an old-fashioned epic from the 1950s and 1960s. It runs only 102 minutes so we're not talking a 3-hour mega epic here, just a solid, fast-moving story. There is something appealing about that throwback quality, especially one set in the declining years of the Roman Empire. Lefler filmed 'Legion' in Slovakia and Tunisia, giving his story an exotic feel to it that genuinely gives the impression of a moving story that has characters all over the known world. I also liked composer Patrick Doyle's score, big and booming like an epic demands. It's the good guys and bad guys, and there's no room for that messy middle ground.

Unfortunately, that throwback quality only goes so far. For me, that point was about the 55-minute mark. The entire movie covers a ridiculous amount of ground -- more on that later -- in a movie that doesn't even come close to the two-hour mark. For the first hour of the movie, that isn't a problem. The pacing is actually a benefit as Firth's Aurelius and a small group of soldiers protects Romulus apparently all over the Empire. Then out of the blue, Aurelius and Co. decide they need to go to Britannia (that's England) to seek the aid of the last remaining loyal legion of Roman troops, the Ninth Legion. That's fair. A legion of troops would be helpful in putting down a coup. But once arriving in Britannia, Aurelius and his followers must now battle a Britannic leader who has long sought the sword that will one day "rule the Empire." Basically, the story throws out the first half of the movie, going down a completely different road. Too bad, the first hour was highly enjoyable.

That's the biggest issue hamstringing this otherwise enjoyable flick. It just tries to do far too much. The final battle between Aurelius, his followers, the lost legion, and the forces of the diabolically evil Vortgyn (Harry Van Gorkum) ends, and that's it. A final scene connects the story to a well-known story in history and literature -- no real spoilers here, it does come as a pleasant surprise -- but in the process basically disregards the entire first half of the movie. Reading up on the movie, it seems it was originally intended to be anywhere between three and four hours. Can we believe that? Who knows, but a little extra meat on the bone sure couldn't have hurt. That way, it could have played like a two-part miniseries at least. That's wishful thinking though. The movie is what we have, not what it could have been.

A saving grace is the casting, starting with Firth. Far from his typical role, Firth represents himself well as the aging veteran who can still hold his own on the battlefield. I was especially impressed with how he handled the action scenes, more than holding his own. Ben Kingsley looks to be having some fun as Ambrosinus, a philosopher, teacher and warrior who works as Romulus' guardian/protector. Indian beauty Aishwarya Rai plays Mira, a warrior from Constantinople traveling with Romulus. Aurelius' Roman soldiers include Rupert Friend, Nonso Anozie and Owen Teale. Before being discarded at the movie's halfway point, Mullan is a solid villain with Kevin McKidd capably taking the reins as scarred Goth warrior, Wulfila, who would like nothing more than to kill the boy emperor. Also look for John Hannah as a Roman senator with a long history working with Aurelius.  

For the most part, I liked this flick. There are times the action/violence feels toned down -- like 'Legion' was going for a PG-13 rating more than an R rating -- but the battle scenes are fun, exciting and fast-moving in a bloodless way. The final battle in Britannia is similarly epic, but I keep coming back to the somewhat disjointed feel of the story. The movie struggles to find any sort of rhythm, and that ends up being a major issue.

The Last Legion (2007): ** 1/2 /****

The Assignment

An international terrorist who took countless lives and wounded that many more during his infamous career, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez earned a nickname over the years. He was simply dubbed Carlos the Jackal. His name became synonymous with fear and terror, and his terrorist actions have become a part of pop culture lore, including 1997's The Assignment, a generally forgotten but very well done thriller.

Having searched and tracked for terrorist Carlos the Jackal (Aidan Quinn), longtime CIA agent Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland) has become obsessed with bringing the fugitive to justice. For him, it's even become personal after a chance encounter with the man. Jack concocts a plan though when he meets Annibal Ramirez (also played by Quinn), a U.S. Naval officer, who is a dead-on physical lookalike for Carlos. With help from a Mossad agent, Amos (Ben Kingsley), with similar intentions, Jack goes about convincing Annibal to help take out Carlos. They start at the bottom though, teaching him everything they can so he's ready. Their training is too good though. As he prepares to help set up an ambush of the real Carlos, Annibal realizes he has become everything he hates about the man he's supposed to kill.

Here's another case of some movie detective work paying off in the end. First released in 1997, 'Assignment' did little to no business in theaters and never gained much of a following. From director Christian Duguay though, it certainly deserves better recognition than its got since then. I'd never stumbled upon it, heard it mentioned, absolutely nothing over the years, and with the cast involved, there should have been some mention -- box office struggles or not. Where the movie succeeds is its brutal honesty (to me at least) in its portrayal of some all-around nasty characters. It's a dog-eat-dog world where some innocent lives are expendable if the end result is valuable enough. Dark, brutal, cynical and never pulling a punch, this is a criminally underrated flick.

Much of that brutality and cynicism comes from Irish actor Aidan Quinn. An immensely talented actor, Quinn nonetheless just hasn't appeared in many big, mainstream feature films so it's always good to see him. His dual role is both good and bad. In general, he doesn't seem like an obvious choice to play a Naval officer with Cuban blood, physically at least. His Carlos part -- limited though it is -- comes across as stereotypically cartoonish. It made me think of Tony Montana; heavy accent, hot-headed, callously ruthless. Thankfully, much of the story's focus is on his lookalike counter. The Carlos character is a means to the end and simply gets the ball rolling.

Where Quinn especially stands out is his portrayal of Annibal Ramirez, the Naval officer with a beautiful wife, Maura (Claudia Ferri), and family thrust into this most unlikely, dangerous and even suicidal mission for his country's best interest. To say the least, it is an intense, uncomfortable performance. We see a strong-willed man crumble in front of us and then build himself back up into a completely different person. Quinn does a great job as Annibal as he we see his demons and anguish rip him apart. Sutherland as the driven, even obsessed Shaw has a sinister edge that keeps you guessing. Just how far is he willing to go to get the job done? In a smaller part (read: underused), Kingsley is a scene-stealer as Amos, the Mossad agent with a human side who bonds with Annibal and his trials and tribulations. Three very well done and above average performances from three actors who dominate the screen throughout.

Certain scenes especially stand out from the rest here. Shaw and Amos' brutal training sessions put a twist on the same old, same old training montage sequence. Once Annibal's mission is put into play, the pace ratchets up with one extended chase sequence (on foot and by car) setting the bar high in terms of action. The finale too is especially memorable, and with a well-hidden twist or two waiting. Filmed in Canada, Israel and Hungary, 'Assignment' does have a low-budget look at times with some pretty cheap CGI at other times, but in the end, the personal, human element makes a better, far more positive effect than any negatives. Well worth a watch. Highly recommended.

The Assignment <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Lucky Number Slevin

I don't know what to say about 2006's Lucky Number Slevin.  On a friend's recommendation, I got around to seeing this movie with my latest Netflix movie. Besides the impressive cast, I went into this movie looking forward to it based off a trailer that made it look like a fast-paced, stylish, shoot 'em up case of mistaken identity.  Well, sort of.  The trailer basically flat out lies to you.  It's smarter than just a good old-fashioned action movie.  Is it good though? I'm not sure.

This is a smart (maybe too smart), well-written movie that is meant to deceive you. It just is, plain and simple.  It involves an epic case of mistaken identity, think of North by Northwest on steroids or some sort of performance-enhancing drugs.  The movie is very much one for movie afficionados, paying tribute to other movies like Hitchcock's classic and many others.  I felt like it did enough to stand on its own, and be enjoyed without all the references, but I couldn't help wondering if maybe things went too far.  In hopes of deceiving the viewer, the end result is both easy to predict and convoluted to follow along the way. Make any sense? Yeah, I didn't think so.

His whole life basically crashing down around him, Slevin (Josh Hartnett) visits a friend's apartment in New York City. He is almost immediately kidnapped by thugs from the Boss (Morgan Freeman) who believes that he's Nick, his friend, who owes him some $96,000.  Slevin tries to explain but finds out the only way out of this predicament is to pull off a hit for the Boss. The target? Kill the son of a rival gangster, the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley). That's not enough though because the Rabbi also wants to see him, also believing he's the friend, Nick. Apparently Nick owed some $33,000, and the Rabbi wants it back. An extreme case of mistaken identity, and Slevin is left in the middle. What to do? Run to the police for help or go along with the plan and hope to somehow make it out alive?

Throwing the shoot 'em up angle out the window from the trailer, this is much more a modern film noir than it is an action flick.  All the noir conventions are there in a story that introduces characters as quickly as it can.  Director Paul McGuigan has made a stylish, well-done, and always intriguing movie.  The problem is that I think McGuigan and this movie know it too. Is it a bad thing if a movie knows that it's freakishly stylish and very smart?  Can dialogue be too quick-paced, too rapid fire, too comically smart?  'Slevin' has some great dialogue, but I felt like groaning at times because it's too smart. The filming techniques used include flashbacks, flash-sideways, and in general the most non-linear story line you're going to find.  Usually a good thing, but there's a such thing as too much of a good thing.

The cast though is impeccable. It'd be hard not to be with this many big names. Hartnett's performance as Slevin has taken some heat, but it's a supremely cool part for the actor. He's suave and cool even as all these ridiculously crazy situations are thrown at him.  Freeman and Kingsley are and always will be cool, and seeing them as rival gangsters is a treat.  A one-on-one between them late in the movie is classic.  There's more.  Bruce Willis is a scene-stealer as Smith, a mysterious hired gun seemingly working for both sides. Lucy Liu is the good girl, the neighbor who takes a liking to Slevin and tries to keep up with him as everything is thrown at him. Then for good measure, Stanley Tucci plays Brikowski, the detective desperately trying to piece everything together before it is all too late. These are all fun parts for very talented actors who look to be having a lot of fun making the movie.

I am all for a movie that is trying to deceive you, trying to throw you a curve when you're expecting a fastball.  Lucky Number Slevin's sole purpose seems to be doing that exact thing.  The only problem is that it tells you it is trying to confuse you in a great opening sequence that runs almost 15 minutes before any characters are introduced.  It explains the Kansas City Shuffle, a con that makes you think you're going right when you're really going left.  That's the whole movie right there.  Can you predict the twist? I would think not in any sort of specific detail.  But big picture? I thought it was ridiculously easy to see where things were going.  'Slevin' tries too hard to confuse you, and ends up giving away too much in the effort.  Not a deal breaker, but the attempt doesn't work as well as it should.

That said, the ending is well-executed as all the little details, all the little pieces of the puzzle start to click together for good.  That is the key to the whole house of cards standing up.  Do you go along for the ride?  It would be easy to take the movie apart plot hole by plot hole, but what's the fun in that?  I enjoyed the movie through all its flaws and all the ridiculousness.  The cast is too good to pass up so I'm going to give this movie a mild recommendation, almost in spite of itself.

Lucky Number Slevin <---trailer (2006): ** 1/2 /****      

Shutter Island

When a big budget movie comes out and I find out it's based on a book, I typically try to read the book first before seeing the movie.  It isn't a hard and fast rule, but it always helps when I've heard of the author or know the book is held in high regard.  For that reason, it took me a month and a half to see Shutter Island in theaters.  When I saw previews for a thriller from director Martin Scorsese, I was hooked, but I paused when I heard it is based on a novel by Dennis Lehane and features quite a twist.  My thinking has always been with books/movies, if I'm going to be surprised, I'd rather be surprised by a book.  

After reading the book, I can say the twist worked very effectively and I never saw it coming.  In a way, seeing the movie after finishing Lehane's novel almost made the theater viewing feel like a second time around.  Scorsese sticks extremely closely to the storyline with a few small exceptions and one MAJOR exception, but on the whole, the highly respected director more than treats the subject matter with respect.  As for the twist, knowing it going into the movie certainly influences the viewing.  No two ways about it, this is a good twist.  Hints are dropped left and right, but they are incidental moments that mean nothing without the knowledge.  It's not a twist for the sake of having a twist, instead providing a moving and surprising ending.

It's 1954 and U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Scorsese favorite Leonardo DiCaprio) has been teamed up with a new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), on a strange investigation.  In Boston Harbor on a small island called Shutter Island, a violent criminal escapes from her cell at Ashecliffe Mental Hospital.  Daniels and Aule are called in to investigate the escape which as the evidence is revealed seems more and more like a disappearance.  Nothing adds up concerning the escape, and the head physician, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) seems to be hiding something.  Nothing on the island is what it's supposed to be, and Daniels and Aule begin to wonder what they've gotten themselves into.

Several reviews I've read said Scorsese's newest movie has some Hitchcockian cues, and I'd be hard pressed to argue that, especially making some comparisons to Vertigo.  I think the closest thing you can compare Shutter Island to is Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear, but even then, it's a loose comparison.  The director has created a visually stunning movie here, full of doom and gloom on this island out in Boston Harbor.  The cinematography is beautiful in a dark, terrifying sort of way, a foreboding that everything is not quite right.  Lots of play with dark and light, shadows and smoke make the story uncomfortable to watch at times like a good thriller should.

However, after watching the trailer, reading the book, and now having seen the movie, I think it was marketed wrong.  It's advertised as a scary movie, but it really isn't.  Sure, there's some 'Gotcha!' moments, but as a whole, it's a moody, dialogue-driven movie.  The creepiest parts of the movie by far are the flashbacks and dream sequences as Teddy deals with some demons from his past as he investigates this peculiar case.  The island setting contributes to this because as the marshals begin to uncover things there's no place to go, they're trapped and at the mercy of the hospital's staff.  That feeling of claustrophobia just adds and builds on this sense of doom that starts from the opening shot and never really lets up.  Kudos to the soundtrack (can't find a composer) that at times is loud and ominous at times, and quiet and soothing at others.

Early in his career, Scorsese's favorite actor was Robert De Niro, but now DiCaprio has stepped into the spotlight as the favorite.  I loved him in The Departed, and here he even continues on with that Boston accent.  Other than that, it's a great performance.  His Teddy Daniels is a man who's good at what he does, but sometimes at a cost.  His mental stability is questioned because of his past when his wife died in a fire started by an arsonist.  The character is basically the viewer, trying to piece things together as they're presented.  DiCaprio hasn't made a ton of movies for being such a huge star, but this quickly climbs to the top of the list in my opinion.

With a Scorsese movie though, one star wouldn't be enough, and here his supporting cast is pitch perfect.  Ruffalo gets the workmanlike role as the new partner trying to keep up with Teddy's investigation.  It's a thankless part, but he's rewarded in the end.  Kingsley matches DiCaprio step for step as Dr. Cawley, the head physician at Ashecliffe in a role that keeps you guessing.  What's he really up to?  He is steering the marshals away from something or steering them where he wants them to be?  A consummate pro like Kingsley handles it with ease in a part that I hope gets him some Oscar buzz for best supporting actor.  Michelle Williams plays Dolores, Teddy's dead wife who he still sees in his dreams in a very moving part.  If that trio wasn't enough, add Max von Sydow, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Elias Koteas, Ted Levine, Emily Mortimer and John Carroll Lynch.  Other than von Sydow, none of those mentioned are in more than a scene or two, but they all bring their A-game with their brief appearances.  Audiences may have issue with the movie, but it's not because of the cast.

I go back and forth with movies with a twist, but when handled well I have no issue with them.  This is clearly one handled well.  It's the type of story that leaves you confused and questioning everything you saw and will almost certainly make a second viewing almost mandatory to see all the clues and hints.  Even knowing it's coming in the movie, it still surprised me because it is handled so well.  The reveal is by far the best scene in the movie and the most powerful/emotional too.  Scorsese did make one addition -- the movie's final line -- which I thought was unnecessary, but other than that, I have no issue with a twist that seems to divide audiences right down the middle.

A little different for Martin Scorsese, sure, but with one of the best directors ever, it's fun just to see him work.  This is a movie that works in term of story and also on its own as a strong movie with casting, cinematography, and atmosphere.  It doesn't really matter the order, but read the book and see the movie!

Shutter Island <----trailer (2010): ****/****