Hitchcock

A movie about the making of a movie? Yeah, that doesn't necessarily sound that interesting. Oh, it's about all-time great director Alfred Hitchcock and one of his most respected classics? Okay, I'm a little more interested now. I was curious but skeptical going in, but I ended up liking 2012's Hitchcock a whole lot.

It is 1959 and highly respected Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is coming off one of his best movies in terms of critical acclaim and audience success, North by Northwest. He's thrown for a loop when a reporter asks if he's going to retire now that's he 60 years old. Hitchcock vows his next film will be his best, a unique, doozy of a flick that audiences have never seen the likes of before. He finds his source in a novel called Psycho, a story loosely based on a real-life murderer. The subject matter is highly controversial, especially for a 1960 audience, and he struggles from the get-go to get the backing to produce his movie. Instead, he and his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren), fund the movie themselves, putting their own money up as backing. Casting, the actual filming, the studio, the censors, all will prove difficult in getting his film made, but it's also threatening to tear up his longtime marriage and partnership with Alma.

Released in 1960, Psycho was a film that earned lukewarm reviews but rabid audiences ate it up and helped it take off. It earned four Oscar nominations -- including Hitchcock for director, Janet Leigh for supporting actress --and quickly became a classic with a story and style that helped rewrite the thriller/horror genre. While it's remembered as a classic now, it had a checkered production as Hitchcock struggled to get backing (studio head Richard Portnow) while also doing battle with the censors (played by Kurtwood Smith) to make the movie that he wanted to make. From the infamous shower scene to the on-screen depiction of violence and sex, it is a gem of a film. Enough with background though. Is a movie about a movie interesting? Sometimes stories based on facts like this can play like reading an encyclopedia, but this one is interesting from the first scene right to the end.

I know there's a lot of great acting performances out there, but I'm genuinely surprised Hopkins did not earn a Best Actor nomination. He certainly deserved it. For one, he's almost unrecognizable as the famous English director. Looks are just one aspect of the performance, one that isn't a do or die moment. What's more important is that Hopkins becomes Hitchcock. The speech patterns, the personal, little mannerisms like holding his suit, pursing his lips, it all adds up to bring the puzzle pieces together. When Hopkins is on-screen, you can't take your eyes away from him. It also isn't a hero pic, portraying the director as he was, an incredibly talented if mercurial director who had tendencies that drove people up a wall at times. On the other hand, he was so talented those people had to put up with him at times.

The movie is significantly better for it. While it is about the making of Psycho, it's more so about how the making of Psycho affected Hitchcock's marriage to Alma Reville, played to perfection by Helen Mirren. While filming, Hitchcock had his quirks. He was always searching for that perfect platinum blonde (Kim Novak, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren), sometimes at the expense of paying Alma any attention at all, something that plays out as Alma works with smooth-talking screenwriter Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). Neither Hitch (he at one points says "Hitch....never mind the cock") nor Alma is below playing some head games, testing their marriage when the pressure of making their movie successful is already wearing on them. We see Hitchcock in all his glory and flaws -- holding grudges, being a peeping tom among others -- but it adds to the movie, making it more than just a documentary. Hopkins and Mirren are two pros at the top of their games, great lead performances.

Working with director Sacha Gervasi is a very talented supporting cast beyond his two stars. I was worried some because the actors are playing....well, actors, and actors much of the audience will be familiar with. Scarlett Johansson is excellent playing Janet Leigh, the star of Psycho who bonds quickly with Hitchcock during filming, Jessica Biel also solid as Psycho co-star Vera Miles. Toni Collette is solid too as Peggy Robertson, Hitch's much-maligned assistant who is nonetheless someone the director counts on in a big way. Michael Stuhlbarg is very good as Lew Wasserman, Hitch's agent trying to help him through the troubled production. Michael Wincott is perfectly creepy as Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Norman Bates character, James D'Arcy playing Anthony Perkins. In a cool storytelling device, Gein actually "talks" to Hitchcock, apparently giving the director inspiration in bringing his movie together.

I liked this movie. Good style, solid characterization and an inside look at a classic film. I loved the bookend storytelling too, Hitchcock actually talking to the audience much like he did in his Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. It's on-screen narration that works so well, setting things up. In a cool visual with the narration, the final scene gives a hint to Hitchcock's next film, another classic remembered fondly with Psycho. Just a good solid film overall, most memorable for Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren.

Hitchcock (2012): ***/****

Stolen

I can give credit when it's due. The overall quality might not be there, but Nicolas Cage churns out the flicks like one crazy dude. Since 2010, Cage has starred in nine movies, and according to his IMDB page, he's got six others in pre/post production and development. There's been some duds in the group, but there's some decent ones too. Take 2012's Stolen, nothing flashy but entertaining throughout.

An accomplished bank robber and thief, Will Montgomery (Cage) has created quite a reputation for himself to the point a New Orleans FBI officer, Tim Harlend (Danny Huston), has become obsessed with catching him. In the aftermath of a successful job, Montgomery is caught but refuses to give up where he hid the $10 million he made away with, also refusing to turn on the rest of his crew. He serves an eight-year sentence, and upon his release tries to reconnect with his daughter, Alison (Sami Gayle), but she is kidnapped by a member of his crew, Vincent (Josh Lucas), who has fallen on hard times and wants his share of the cut. Montgomery maintains he doesn't have the money, but now it's a matter of life and death. Can he find Alison in time before Vincent kills her? If not, can he pull off a job -- with the police and the FBI tailing him -- to steal enough to appease an insane Vincent? The clock is ticking.

Does the basic plot sound familiar? A man forced to rescue his kidnapped daughter from some rather nasty people? Yeah, it sure sounds like Taken to me too. It isn't spot-on of course with more than enough differences to make it interesting. The weird thing is how little a release it was given. IMDB reports it had a budget of around $35 million, but when it was released in September 2012, it was shown in only 141 theaters (major releases typically are shown on thousands of screens) and banked just $180,000. What happened? Were reviews that bad? Did studios have that little faith in it? I can't really find a reason. It's nothing crazy good by any means, but I liked it enough to give it a mild recommendation.

With the cast and crew assembled here, there's definitely potential for a solid action thriller, and to a point, I think 'Stolen' is very entertaining with some third act flaws. Director Simon West has shown he can do a solid action flick with films like The Mechanic, The Expendables 2, Con Air, Tomb Raiders, and this one is certainly in that vein. It barely breaks the 90-minute mark, clocking in at 95 minutes, and from the word 'Go' it never slows down. It's enjoyable because this breakneck speed never stops. Cage robs vault, goes to jail, is freed and then spends an hour-plus racing around New Orleans looking for his daughter. There are plot holes, but the pacing is so ridiculously fast that the problems are never around long enough to really be an issue. Beyond that, this movie isn't meant to rewrite the action thriller. Just sit back and enjoy it.

I don't know the exact year or the movie where Nicolas Cage went wrong, but at some point he went from an actor able to play drama, action, even dark comedy effortlessly to an actor who seems unable to do anything more than a caricature of himself. He has a scene with Lucas early on that goes down that over the top, goofy road, but thankfully it's just one scene. As an action hero, Cage handles himself quite well here. He's a good bad guy (He's a father! He can't be completely bad!) just trying to save his daughter. The over the top moments are kept to a minimum thankfully although there has to be at least six different scenes where Cage is running for all he's worth. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's because he's such a ridiculously slow runner, but couple it with his 110 percent effort at running so slowly, it's quite a visual. I got sidetracked, sorry. Moral of the story, but Cage is pretty good here.

I liked the rest of the cast too. Besides the goofy New Orleans jazz daddio hat he keeps wearing, Huston is pretty good as the FBI investigator trying to catch Montgomery while balancing out an odd admiration he has for the master thief. Mark Valley plays Fletcher, Harlend's assistant. Lucas gets to ham it up as Vincent, the thief seeking revenge. Maybe that's where Cage's caricature went, go figure. Montgomery's team includes Malin Akerman as Riley, the getaway driver, and M.C. Gainey as Hoyt, the electronics specialist.

Things do fall apart some in the final showdown between Montgomery and Vincent at an abandoned amusement park. 'Stolen' almost goes down a pretty dark road with its ending before tapping the brakes. Mostly though, it reminds me a lot of so many 1970s action crime thrillers that were packed to the gills with almost non-stop action. Credit to Mark Isham's jazzy, fast-paced score for keeping that action going. Good but not great, just a solid popcorn flick. Sit back and watch Cage race through New Orleans.

Stolen (2012): ** 1/2 /****

Wrath of the Titans

Released in 2010, Clash of the Titans was your pretty standard big budget, CGI-filled blockbuster with a huge if wasted cast. Read my review from last fall HERE if curious. It was entertaining enough in a generic blockbuster sort of way, interesting in the moment but fairly forgettable after that. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what it is. Enter stage left, the unnecessary sequel, 2012's Wrath of the Titans.

It has been 10 years since half-God, half-man Perseus (Sam Worthington) helped save the world from the warring gods, defeating the Kraken and preserving peace. But now the gods are at it again, all sorts of hellish creatures and demons escaping from the underworld. Now Perseus lives with his son, Helius (John Bell), and wants nothing to do with the situation, even when Perseus' father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), asks him for his help in defeating the enemy. When Zeus is betrayed by his own brother, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and his son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez), god of war, only then does Perseus join the fight. Even the half-god, half-man has no idea what awaits him this second time around.

Here's my problem both with this movie and the movie industry in general. Yes, this will sound stupid, naive and did I say 'stupid'? Novel concept, but basically movie's are based off the $ they generate, right? The 2010 Titans was a pretty solid, self-contained story with ridiculous amounts of CGI, some halfway decent characters, and a solid cast. Not to say it was a classic -- it most definitely was not -- but it was enjoyable enough. Generic, a little dull at times, but good in that inoffensive sort of way. I'm doing a hell of a job selling it, aren't I? There were no unsolved stories, no real mystery so why make a sequel? You guessed it. 'Clash' made almost $500 million worldwide. So away we go with a sequel, and yes, I realize I'm shooting my theory in the foot because I'm admitting I paid to see it. I like movies. Sue me.

'Wrath' is basically the same exact movie as 'Clash' except with a few new characters, new love interest, and a wide assortment of weird, cool and odd mythological characters. My hope writing the review of 'Clash' was that with a sequel, characters would get to develop some and a possibly longer run-time would allow the movie and story to develop and breathe...a lot. No such luck, the sequel actually clocking in at seven minutes less (99 to 106) and still somehow managing to feel longer. Go figure....anyways, it's the same formula. Video game-like action, cardboard cutouts of characters, far too much reliance on CGI, and no real interest in a story. It's all disappointing because just like 'Clash,' 'Wrath' certainly has the potential to be really good. It's there. It just needed to be worked with even a little.

Getting little to no help from a script, the cast does their best to work things out. I still believe Worthington is a budding HUGE star just waiting for the right role. He's a bright spot again as Perseus, the hero fighting for his father and son, willing to throw it all on the line. It could have used more of his subtle humor in an otherwise deathly serious movie. A little campy humor couldn't have hurt. Neeson again is awesome as Zeus, Fiennes excellent as the sneering, waffling Hades, and Danny Huston plays Poseidon, the three most powerful Greek gods. Rosamund Pike steps into the love interest part, playing Andromeda, a female general and kick-ass fighter while Bill Nighy gets to be quirky and eccentric as Hephaestus, the scientist/creator of the weapons of the gods.

The best thing going for 'Wrath' is the casting of a quasi-sidekick for Perseus, Toby Kebbell playing Agenor, son of Poseidon so another half-God, half-man roaming the countryside looking for trouble. He injects some much needed energy into a sometimes surprisingly slow-moving story as the roguish anti-hero. Kebbell has some fun with the part, not playing it so straight-laced and button-down. It doesn't have to be physical humor, but something to lighten the mood up a bit, and Kebbell does it well. His exchanges with Worthington's Perseus provide some of the movie's better highlights. Can't say I'm excited for a third Titans movie, but if it's on the horizon, I hope Kebbell returns.

The shame of it all is that 'Wrath' has a chance to be good. We get creature fights with a fire-breathing, two-headed hell-dog straight from Hades, a trio of Cyclops warriors, a running fight with a Minotaur through catacombs and labyrinths that all look alike, and an epic showdown with Kronos, one of the first God/Titans who's been imprisoned for years. Now he's released as a gigantic, immense creature made of rock and spewing lava. Pretty cool finale with him facing Perseus. There's nothing to tie it all together though. The CGI looks good, but gets tedious quickly. The story drifts from episode to episode, and the characters aren't particularly interesting. Gotta go with the same rating as 'Clash.' Lots of wasted potential, but you can certainly do worse.

Wrath of the Titans <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 /****

Clash of the Titans (2010)

English actor Sam Worthington is at an interesting point in his career.  After toiling in relative obscurity on British TV and movies since 2000, the 35-year old actor now stands poised to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars...with the right part.  Where does he go from here? He was by far the best thing about Terminator Salvation and outdoing Christian Bale, managed to hold his own against James Cameron's CGI work in Avatar, and then followed it up with 2010's Clash of the Titans.

An updated version of a cheese-fest in the form of 1981's Clash of the Titans, this is a movie that was remade solely because there is CGI now.  That's it.  There's no other reason to remake the movie.  I haven't seen the original, never really having an interest in it.  But there was potential here if nothing else. It's Greek mythology, and it is nearly impossible to ruin that.  The gods up on Mount Olympus interact, controlling the world with an iron fist, the backstabbings, betrayals and hook-ups that a modern soap opera would be jealous of.  The movie never amounts to much though, a somewhat entertaining movie if nothing else.

The son of a mortal woman and the most powerful of all the Greek gods, Zeus (Liam Neeson), Perseus (Worthington) is saved by a Greek fisherman (Pete Postlethwaite) and raised as one of his own with his family. As he grows up though, a war develops and builds between the ego-tripping gods and the frustrated mortals.  The gods are ready to wipe out the mortals if they don't receive their due, especially lord of the Underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), even threatening to release the monstrosity of a beast, the Kraken. The only option is to sacrifice an Argonaut princess, Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), but Perseus finally embraces his demi-god status to help the mortals win.  With a small group of Argonaut warriors at his side, Perseus heads out into the wilderness in hopes of finding a way to defeat the angry gods and the Kraken.

One of my concerns when I first started reading about the movie was some choices in casting.  As much as I like Worthington, I wasn't sure he was the right choice to play Perseus, son of Zeus. He basically gets to play the only character with any sort of actual development so he's got that going for him.  Like so many other characters though, it is only taken so far.  We've got to have a reason to root for him, and Worthington -- through his own fault or that of the script (more on that later) -- never really provides that reason. He handles the action sequences well enough, but I wish they could have done more with the main character in what looks like it will be a franchise with Clash of the Titans 2 scheduled for a 2012 release.

The rest of the cast -- without a ton of huge star power, not a bad thing -- is more hit or miss.  Neeson, Fiennes and Danny Huston play Zeus, Hades and Poseidon, the most powerful of the Greek gods. Neeson is the best of the three but is really around only to say 'Release the Kraken!' Fiennes glares and looks mean, and I don't believe Huston actually says a word (unless I missed it). Gemma Arterton is a bright spot as Io, Perseus' guardian angel of sorts who looks over him. Mads Mikkelsen is also a big positive as Draco, the Argonaut warrior who questions Perseus' status. A stock character, and one you've seen before, but a good one. His Argonaut squad includes Liam Cunningham, Hans Matheson, and Nicholas Hoult. There's also a CGI warrior -- a Djinn fighter -- who's pretty cool. Along for the adventure are two hunter/fighters brothers, Ozal (Ashraf Barhom) and Kucuk (Mouloud Achour), two very underused characters.

This was a summer blockbuster in 2010 so what should we expect from this flick? Action...lots of action.  Because there is no really good, detailed way to say it, the action scenes are both good and bad.  The potential is there with CGI creating all sorts of mythological characters for Perseus and Co. to battle (giant scorpions, Medusa, the Kraken, Hades' winged attackers), and the CGI looks solid for the most part.  However, the action is from the 'Let's over-edit this scene so it is indecipherable to watch and/or follow!' school of editing. Look it up, the school actually exists. Edited so quickly that the viewer can't see anything is never a good choice as a film-maker.  When the action and editing is slowed down enough where we're able to keep up, it's good stuff.  There just isn't enough of it.

Something was missing from this movie, and maybe it wasn't just one thing; maybe it was lots of little things.  For a blockbuster with all the makings of an epic, it clocks in at just 95 minutes before an extremely long 11-minute credit sequence.  That is not long for an R-rated comedy, much less a historical/mythological epic.  The look of the movie is too clean, too neat and tidy. The musical score is lacking, receding into the background too much where a good score would drive the action. Mostly though, I just never got fully into the movie. With a finished product that's barely 90 minutes long, there just is no time to take a breathe here.  Characters vanish as soon as they appear, and the ones that do stick around aren't given a chance to develop or interact at all.

A decent enough, entertaining movie, but one that is pretty forgettable in the grand scheme of summer blockbusters. Hopefully with the sequel, the cast, script and director actually get a chance to stretch out and get comfortable. The first movie certainly had the potential to be pretty good even if it ultimately wasted that potential.

Clash of the Titans <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

The Kingdom

Almost ten years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it can still be difficult to watch anything even remotely tied to the attacks. Actual footage of the planes flying into the World Trade Centers are still surreal to me because it is hard to fathom anything like that ever happened. I've mentioned before in reviews that movies in any way associated with the conflicts since in Iraq and Afghanistan have struggled, even movies based in the U.S. just involving the people involved. Maybe the wound is still too fresh, and who knows when -- if ever-- these movie will be easier to watch.

Even knowing how difficult these movies can be to watch, it is a shame that they have struggled to find audiences.  Many of them are very good to great movies.  The Hurt Locker is an obvious one, but there are countless others, including 2007's The Kingdom. I think it is a film that works better as a straight action movie than a current issues movie. Any "message movie" released since 2011 is going to sound downright preachy, and I was glad to see at IMDB's Message Boards that a fair share of viewers felt like they were watching a propaganda movie.  Up to you to decide for yourself though in that regard.

In an American compound in Saudi Arabia, over 100 people are killed and several more hundred wounded during a two-pronged terrorist attack.  Back in the U.S., FBI Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) is frustrated with the lack of forward movement being taken by the government to investigate the attacks. He pulls some strings within the Saudi government and gets an investigation team headed overseas, Fleury at the head of the group. From the start though, Fleury's four-man team is met with roadblock after roadblock. Saudi officials -- including lead officer Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) -- can only offer token assistance, regardless of how they feel about the attacks and the loss of life. Fed up with his limited timetable and little results, Fleury starts to push back, wanting to desperately catch the men responsible for the attack.

For some reason I'm struggling to put into words, there's something wrong with this movie. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't like it as much as I thought I would either. It's more than a little formulaic in a paint-by-numbers police procedural sort of way. The message (if it was intended this way) is somewhat heavy-handed and does come across as blatant propaganda at times.  The thing that bothered me most though was the simplicity of the whole thing. These four FBI agents basically track down the most sought after terrorist in the world in the matter of a few hours once their handcuffs are removed by limitations and local police procedure. Really? That's it? Yes, I realize this is a movie and not reality, but it is all too straightforward.

Netflix thought I would love this movie, no doubt because I've highly rated other similar men/team on a mission movies. The cast was a big drawing point for me, but in its execution it was somewhat disappointing.  Foxx has come a long way from his days on The Jamie Foxx Show, proving again he's capable of leading a solid cast in a Hollywood big budget picture. Also impressing is Chris Cooper as Grant Sykes, a bomb technician and high explosives expert. He's that wily veteran who's always ready with some smart ass comment. Sykes is old school and doesn't care if he pisses you off as long as he gets the job done. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner though I felt like they were miscast. Bateman plays Adam Leavitt, an intelligence analyst, while Garner is Janet Mayes, a forensic examiner. Neither actor is given a lot to do with their character, but they felt entirely out of place to me in this movie.

The best performance though hands down goes to Barhom as Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, the Saudi police officer working almost as the team's liaison during their investigation. Having seen what the terrorists can and will do in his country to innocent people, Al Ghazi is fed up with the system, and generally being hamstrung by policy and procedure that limit his actions.  The chemistry Bahrom has with Foxx is top-notch, these two men with completely different backgrounds working together, finding out they're not so different after all.  Their scenes together crackle, some great dialogue back and forth about their ideals, principles and motivations.  This Saudi character humanizes the movie in a way that surprised me. Other small supporting parts go to Ali Suliman as Haytham, Al Ghazi's right hand man, Jeremy Piven as the State Dept. official just trying to get the team out of country safely, Kyle Chandler as an FBI agent, Richard Jenkins as the head of the FBI, Tim McGraw, and Danny Huston. 

Where the first 75 minutes or so dawdles along at times, the pacing picks up to a frenetic pace in the final 35 minutes. One of the team is kidnapped in a high-speed attack on a highway, leaving the other three and the two Saudi police officers to pursue the kidnappers into the city. We're talking car chase followed by a rip-roaring shoot-out with a lot of firepower and a cool hand-to-hand combat scene.  The ending itself offers a bit of a surprise too, a happy ending with a 'P.S.'  I won't spoil it here, but it's a realistic ending. For all the victories that may be achieved in this war, there will always be another fight.  It is an eerie ending, a frustrating finale.

Director Peter Berg is one of the more underrated directors out there, and he doesn't disappoint here.  On the DVD commentary, he mentions that an ending from one of the early drafts of the script called for a whopper of a twist. As they leave, the whole team is killed in another terrorist bombing.  The ending as is now is pretty solid, one that doesn't need that extra shock value.  That's what the finale would have been; a shocker if Berg went with the alternate. This was a good movie that could have been better, and one that is saved by the power of its ending.  Better when it focuses on being an action movie than a message movie.

The Kingdom <---trailer (2007): ***/****

Children of Men

When talking about movies and books, one thing my Mom has always been a fan of is dystopian stories like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, The Road, I Am Legend, and any number of other ones.  Well, the like for books about the end of the world or a world about to die rubbed off on me.  Like any genre, these flicks follow a formula that can get repetitive and dull, but when handled right everything clicks into place.  I remember thinking 2006's Children of Men looked like a good movie, but just never got around to seeing it (I notice that trend a lot with movies I want to see). Well, I caught up with it, and it was worth the wait.

Watching this movie, I had that feeling you get every so often when checking a movie out for the first time.  It's 40, 45 minutes in, story is moving along nicely, the characters are interesting, and the setting unique and entertaining, even thought-provoking.  So you sit back and think 'Hey, I really like this movie...I hope they don't mess it up.'  Well, director Alfonso Cuaron didn't mess it up.  This is a gem of a picture, a movie that struggled in theaters but will almost certainly become a cult favorite in the coming years.  It's got everything going for it, and as I write this five days after watching it, I like the movie more now than I did right after. How often can you say that?

In the year 2027, the world is slowly crumbling as the remaining population continues to deal with an unexplainable situation that has made the world sterile.  A child hasn't been born in 18 years, and the Earth is dying a slow death with no one to step in as the next generation.  A somewhat well-to-do government worker, Theo (Clive Owen), is approached by his ex-wife, Julian (Julianne Moore), who needs help. With the underground movement she's involved with, Julian needs to transport a young black girl, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), out of the country. Still tortured by his past, Theo somewhat unwilling agrees to help, but quickly realizes he's stepped into something bigger.  Somehow, some way, Kee is pregnant, and there are some who want to use the teenage girl for personal gain.  All that stands in their way is a stubborn, resolute Theo.

I'm going to start by saying more movies should be made this way.  Nothing gets sacrificed at the expense of making something else stronger or better.  Cuaron establishes this premise and does just enough to let us know as viewers what has happened without going overboard on detail.  No reason is given for the world's infertility, and none is really needed.  It's happened. Deal with it.  There are allusions to the rest of the world being gone, countries destroying themselves through in-fighting and chaos.  There are pockets of humanity left, but can they hold out?  Who knows for sure, but we know that Great Britain is trudging on, struggling through what the world has become.  And in under 2 hours, Cuaron creates this incredible world, a place where England is the country we know, but somehow it isn't.  It's recognizable, and at times like a completely different planet.

Having seen a grand total of ONE of his movies, I can say that Cuaron is an incredibly talented director.  Lost amid the great story and interesting characters is a beautifully shot, incredible looking movie.  In the age of ultra-editing and choppy cuts through everything, he goes against the grain.  Several times through the movie, he uses long uncut shots that are hard to fathom.  We're talking shots that go on for minutes without a single cut, and not dialogue minutes, action minutes as Owens' Theo walks through downtown, or drives through a forest, or most impressively, maneuvers through a war zone.  Cuaron's camera follows the action in these incredible shots that must have been nearly impossible to set up with camera and crew, cast and stuntmen, explosions and gunfire.  Ambitious to even tackle or attempt shots like these, the director nails them again and again, especially the finale as Theo and Kee navigate through a war zone, a scene that has to be seen to be believed.

So the movie's all crazy cool camerawork and no heart, right?  That would be a big N-O.  I loved the cast, from Owens as the star to some great parts that amount to extended cameos.  Clive Owens is one of the more underrated stars in movies right now, and on top of that, he's ridiculously cool.  His Theo is the perfect anti-hero here, a man thrust into a position he wants nothing to do with but realizes he has to do so.  He's dealing with past demons that at times can cripple him, but he must overcome.  As for the rest of the cast, Cuaron certainly keeps you on your toes.  You never know who or when someone might be dispatched.  Moore is solid as Theo's ex-wife, an idealist who wants to right wrongs, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Luke, Julian's possibly treacherous right hand man, Ashitey as young, pregnant Kee, Danny Huston as a source of Theo's also working in the government, Pam Ferris as a former nurse working as Kee's protector, and Peter Mullan as Syd, a corrupt soldier who will look the other way for some cash.

And then there's a part from somebody called Michael Caine, a favorite here at 'JHP.' I could have sworn Caine was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, but maybe I'm confusing movies.  Anyways, he at least deserved a nomination. It is a small part over two extended scenes -- maybe 15 or 20 minutes all told -- that shows what that caliber of actor can do with little screen time.  He plays Jasper, a hippie, pot-growing friend of Theo's who has come to terms with the end of the world and plans to enjoy his last years on Earth, laws, government and police be damned.  It is the type of part that makes you remember a movie for those little touches it adds to make it that much better, even if it is only a little bit.  That's this movie.  Lots of little things working together to form a gem of a finished product.

Children of Men <---trailer (2006): ****/****

Robin Hood

Some characters from historical literature have just had more of an impact than others, characters like Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans, Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, King Arthur, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn just to name a few.  One that I started reading about when I was younger who still remains a favorite is Robin Hood. Countless books have been written about the legendary outlaw and even more film versions that include stars Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, and even a Disney animated version that I love.  Well, they can't all be winners, like 2010's Robin Hood.

A pairing of director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe with a great character like Robin Hood seemed like a no-brainer to me (Gladiator for anyone confused) even though I never got to see it in theaters. Going into this, I should say I'm a fan of the legend, the myth of Robin Hood. Like so many movies dealing with stories already known by audiences (Bond, Batman, Hulk), Scott goes with a reboot, telling the story of how everything we know about a character -- in this case Robin Hood -- came to be.  So basically, it's an unofficial prequel.  Bigger than that though, the title character is almost a throwaway addition.  This movie could have been any 12th Century archer fighting royalty.  I wanted to like this movie, and it just didn't happen.

After fighting for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) in the Crusades for 10 years, archer Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns home to England with three of his closest friends and allies he's fought these many years with. Completing a mission he told someone he would honor, Robin rides to the town of Nottingham where he meets Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law, Marion (Cate Blanchett). He agrees to say on with them, posing as Marion's dead husband so they can hold on to their land.  Bigger things are at work though as a treacherous Englishman, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is pitting new king John (Oscar Isaac) against his people while also arranging a surprise invasion from the French. Standing in their way is Robin himself, ready to defend England to the last.

I made the unfortunate decision of watching Scott's Director's Cut, clocking in at 156 minutes instead of the theatrical 141 minute-version.  Bad choice.  I'm all for historical epics in just about any form, any historical time period, but there's both too much going on here and not enough at the same time.  Maybe the best thing going for the movie is the cast, but there's too many worthy actors here so they're in and out of the story too much.  After the introduction of all the players and settings, basically an hour goes by before any conflict is even introduced.  Then when it is presented, it's another 30 minutes before SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  Maybe I was expecting a different movie, but I was bored to tears and only stuck with it because I kept waiting for it to get better.  Insider tip? It doesn't.

With Scott directing and Crowe starring, Gladiator is one of my all-time favorites.  Reviews even identified this one as Gladiator with a bow and arrow.  Playing the title character (although he's only identified as Robin Hood once), Crowe makes this otherwise dull flick somewhat interesting.  The man is cut out to star in historical epics, and he makes Robin a believable leader, a man capable of convincing others to do something they never would have on their own.  Crowe also looks to do most of his own stunts -- fighting and horse riding -- so he gets points just for being cool.  As Marion, Blanchett is like a female equivalent of Crowe, an actress cut out for period pieces.  The two of them have some definite chemistry, but it gets lost in an endless series of scenes that go nowhere.

The name recognition alone for the supporting cast is great, but that's about all they get.  Over 80 now, von Sydow is still the man and just by being in the movie makes it better.  William Hurt looks like he stumbled into the wrong movie playing William of Marshal, a royal caught in the middle of a possible English civil war. Strong is a great villain, a man with NOT ONE redeeming quality, making it that much easier to hate him. Matthew Macfayden is the sheriff of Nottingham, relegated to background duty here. Huston makes the most of a quick appearance as the Lionheart. Robin's not so merry men include Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (singer Alan Doyle). I would have loved to see a movie more about Robin and his men in Sherwood Forest, but I guess I can add that to my list of complaints.

One thing that still surprised me about this movie was the PG-13 rating because without the R-rating, the action and violence seem pretty tame, almost boring.  I don't need decapitated heads or gushing blood, but it felt very whitewashed here.  Not that the action is top-drawer by any means, but it was certainly more watchable than just about anything else here.  Like the rest of the movie, it just didn't impress.  On scale alone, this movie gets some points but other than Crowe, Blanchett and an underused supporting cast, I've got to pass on this one.  A disappointing result, and a surprising one too.

Robin Hood <---trailer (2010): **/****      

X-Men Origins Wolverine

Superheroes have always been around whether it be in comic books or on TV shows.  It was only in the 1970s that superhero movies became extremely popular with the success of the Superman series.  Other series followed, especially Batman starring Michael Keaton.  But the trend of the last 10 years or so is the franchise reboot that extends beyond superheroes into franchises like James Bond.  How did these characters become the famous superheroes audiences came to love?  Series like Superman, Batman, and Spiderman (with several more coming down the road) have all gone down that route.  Joining them now is the X-Men series with 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Growing up I was always aware of the X-Men cartoon and the action figures, but I never really got it into (I was more a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles man).  The same goes for the movies that came out in the last 15 years, aware of them but not really interested.  So heading into 'Wolverine,' I had nothing more than a very basic knowledge of the series and its characters with no notions of what the story should be like some diehard fans might have.  So take my review with a grain of salt because of that, but I loved it.  I wasn't sure what to expect, but it's the type of action movie that handles everything extremely competently, blending action and character into a highly enjoyable mix.

In 1845, young Jim Logan kills his father in a fit of rage and is forced to run away with his half-brother Viktor.  They are not normal like other kids and seem to be some sort of mutants.  They don't age and together fight in the Civil War, both world wars and Vietnam.  It's during the Vietnam War that Viktor (Liev Schreiber) kills their commanding officer so along with Logan (Hugh Jackman) they're sentenced to death.  A normal man can't kill them though and put back in their cell, they are rescued by an Army colonel, William Stryker (Danny Huston), who offers them a way out and a chance to use their freakish abilities.  Both Logan and Viktor quickly sign up.

Working for Stryker with a team of fellow mutants with superhuman abilities, they do all sorts of extremely difficult jobs that no human would be able to do.  But after years of doing someone else's dirty work, Logan walks away from the team and moves to a lonely mountaintop in the Canadian Rockies with his girlfriend, Kayla (Lynn Collins).  Six years pass before a pissed off Viktor shows up and kills Kayla, driving Logan back to Stryker for help in defeating his half-brother and enemy.  Stryker offers a dangerous procedure for him where a substance called avantium will be injected into his body, making him nearly invincible.  Logan agrees and though he barely survives the procedure, comes out on the other side as super-warrior Wolverine.  Watch out, Viktor, here he comes.

What little I knew of the X-Men, I knew Wolverine was a bad-ass with his razor sharp claws and gnarly looking mutton chops (yes, those qualify as bad-ass).  Jackman gives the character a dark edge that is needed for a story like this, and it never hurts when an actor does most of his own stunts.  The stunt coordinator on the DVD special features says that the star did 90% of his own stunts, and it looks like it.  Not having seen the first three X-Men movies, I'm only going off clips I've seen, but Jackman looks like a new person here.  This dude is ripped and looks like he would rip your head off if you messed with him.  It's still a little weird seeing such a tough guy though sing and dance on Broadway though.  Something just doesn't add up there, but as long as he makes movies like this one, I'm not one to complain.

Now every superhero needs an arch nemesis and Wolverine is no different, getting two opponents, Schreiber's Sabretooth, and Huston's Stryker.  Schreiber is another great actor in a long line that's venture into the action genre, and he doesn't disappoint, producing one of the coolest villains I've seen in awhile.  Sure, he's the bad guy, but he's not that bad really, and I found myself rooting for him to team back up with Wolverine.  Huston plays Huston, a slimy bad guy you know is a bad guy from the moment he's introduced.  It's just a matter of time before his real motivations are revealed.

If anything, this movie has too many cool characters.  Jackman, Schreiber, and Huston are very strong leads and carry the movie, but that's just the start.  Only in the movie for about 30 minutes is Stryker's team of mutant assassins, all who make a lasting impression in a very short time.  There's Wade (Ryan Reynolds), the smartass swordsman, Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), expert with any gun, Dukes (Kevin Durand), the strongman, Wraith (Will.I.Am of the Black Eyed Peas), a man able to appear and disappear at will, and Bolt (Dominic Monaghan), a powerful mind able to manipulate electricity.  There's also Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), a younger mutant able to use kinetic energy to explode objects.  All I'm saying, it's a good thing the rest of the story is good because all these characters are more or less left behind after the first 30 minutes.

But what I liked most was that with the development of all these great characters, they then dropped them into some expertly-handled action scenes that use a fair share of CGI without overdoing it.  After being betrayed by Stryker, Wolverine goes on the hunt and the movie never really slows down after that.  It's never long between fights among Wolverine and Stryker's henchmen, including Agent Zero, as well as Viktor who always seems to pop up at the worst possible time.  The movie gets started on the right note too with one of the best opening credits sequences ever, showing Logan and Viktor's fighting in a long list of wars.  These indestructible warriors make quite the team as they dispatch Confederates, Germans, more Germans, and North Vietnamese soldiers.

A perfect example of what a superhero movie can be when handled the right way.  Characters are fully developed without sacrificing anything in terms of story, style or action -- of which there is a lot.  Jackman and Schreiber are the high points in this flick, but the cast as a whole is very impressive.  At least one spin-off has been confirmed with one of the supporting characters, and as Jackman points out in the special features, "I love playing the character, and as long as there's a demand for more, I'll keep playing him."  Good news for superhero movie fans everywhere.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009): ***/****