Edge of Tomorrow

When I think of Tom Cruise, I think of any number of movies from Top Gun and Risky Business to the Mission Impossible series. He's the type of movie star who if he's in a movie, I'll give it a shot. What genre has provided some of Cruise's best work? That would be the science fiction genre, including Oblivion, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, and a new entry to the list, 2014's Edge of Tomorrow.

It has been five long, bloody years since an alien race dubbed 'Mimics' has landed on Earth, specifically all across Europe. Banding together, mankind is finally seeing some victories coming together, their forces pushing back to the point that an immense, world-encompassing invasion of the European continent is fast-approaching. Among the military forces is Major William Cage (Cruise), a PR man who has done his best to promote the war, get the people behind the effort. Through an argument with a superior officer, Cage finds himself not as a PR man, but as a front-line infantry soldier ready to lead the first wave of the invasion. The attack is horrific, a surprise invasion not so surprising. Cage himself is killed when a new kind of Mimic strikes, but he isn't quite dead. He wakes up at the same point a day before, experiencing the identical day down to each personal interaction. A figurehead of the fighting forces, an international hero, Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), knows exactly what's going on with Cage. Can this inexperienced soldier hold the key to Earth's salvation?

Wow, this is the sort of story and premise you hope for in a really well-written, well-executed science fiction film. Heck, in any film. It will be difficult to review this sci-fi flick from director Doug Liman without giving away at least some sort of spoiler so be forewarned. I'll be discussing the major twist that propels 'Edge' into the guts of its story, one you no doubt may have heard about, but still....I WARNED YOU!!! SPOILERS!!! So what is the oh-so-original premise? This description minimizes how good the movie is, but this is Groundhog Day with a sci-fi edge. Through a mishap in battle, Cruise's Cage is reborn at the same instance every time he dies in battle. In other words, he can die seemingly infinite times only to be thrown back a day later before the invasion and do it all over again. His death literally signifies a "Re-do" button for not only himself, but the world as a whole. Life goes on, getting a fresh start each and every time Cage dies.

So yeah, that could be called a gimmick. 'Groundhog' is a classic, loved by fans. Another somewhat similar movie, Vantage Point, used a storytelling format that rewound the story so we could see it from a different perspective. I saw that one in theaters, the audience audibly groaning by the second or third "rewind." That most assuredly is not the issue here. The screenplay isn't content to be just smart. It takes the story somewhere, and once we learn what Cage is going through, we don't see everything. We see snippets of his seemingly never-ending life of one day. He dies on the beach in countless ways -- the battle showing all the countless ways he can meet his demise -- and starts over, meeting his squad leader, meeting his fellow soldiers and then is thrown into the battle. Some "days" we see a lot, others bits and pieces. It is a difficult premise to explain but just know that in the end, it is worth it. We're introduced to it, and then the story breathes.

Look, here it is. I like Tom Cruise, and yes, I know everybody doesn't feel that way. He's an actor and a movie star, and I especially liked his performance here. Where I described the story's background a little bit, I'm not going to delve too much into Cruise's Cage or how he ends up in the situation he does. I will say it surprised me because he plays against type early on, an unlikely hero thrust into a situation that could save or doom mankind. Nothing big, right? Joining him is rising star Emily Blunt, her Rita a modern day Rosie the Riveter of sorts, except she's right at the forefront of the fighting. She may not look like a prototypical action hero, but it ends up working exceptionally well. On top of that, her chemistry with Cruise is spot-on. There is a simple, effective chemistry between them that simply put....just works. Another big positive, the possible developing relationship between them is kept in the background, hinted at but never addressed head-on. Two very good performances that don't get lost in the epic qualities and scale of the science fiction story.

Who else to look for? Brendan Gleeson is the face of mankind's defense, his General Brigham the commander of the United Defense Forces. Bill Paxton plays Master Sergeant Farell, Cage's new squad leader who becomes the face of Cage's improbable dilemma. In the squad, look for Jonas Armstong, Tony Way, Kick Gurry, Franz Drameh, Dragomir Mrsic and Charlotte Riley.

As cool as the premise is (and it is very cool), I especially liked some of the quieter moments, even the scenes with some truly dark humor. In the second half of the movie, Cage and Rita are talking, Rita discovering that the two of them have been in this situation countless times before. Cage remembers. Rita doesn't. What if they stopped trying over and over again to save the world? What if they just ran away? Scenes like that add some emotional depth to a story with style and interesting story to burn. I didn't love the last 20 minutes or so, but there is a relative twist added that I thought worked especially well. The final scenes had a timeline discrepancy that I can't quite wrap my head around, but that's a minor thing.

Big picture? This is what you look for in a science fiction flick. With touches of Groundhog Day, Starship Troopers and more recently, Source Code, 'Edge' is excellent. History buffs will no doubt get a kick out of it too, the current invasion of Europe resembling D-Day right down to the tiny details. By the time the troops actually hit the beaches, it's like a modern-day attack on the beaches at Normandy. A very cool movie with lots to offer.

The Edge of Tomorrow (2014): ***/****

Wild Target

You don't need to be a huge star, a huge name to be popular with audiences. Take Bill Nighy, a British actor who's starred in Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Valkyrie and countless other movies. How many moviegoers could actually pick him out of a lineup? He's an immensely talented actor as he shows in 2010's Wild Target.

A middle-aged man living outside London, Victor Maynard (Nighy) lives a quiet, dignified life. There's a catch though; Victor comes from a long line of hired killers and assassins. He's good at what he does, and there are no assassins better than him. He's managed to keep his identity and appearance hidden over these many years, working through middlemen and phone calls. Victor has now been tasked with killing Rose (Emily Blunt), an accomplished thief who duped a well-connected mobster, Ferguson (Rupert Everett), out of $900,000 with a fake Rembrandt. Ferguson wants her dead, and Victor intends to oblige. Tracking her down though, Victor instead sees one of Ferguson's henchmen about to kill her....and shoots him instead. Rose already knew she was in trouble, but she mistakes Victor for a police officer. Now, he's protecting the girl he's supposed to have killed already.

This is going to sound immensely stupid, but I've got to say it just the same. Now, obviously this is a British-made movie -- both cast and crew -- that was filmed on location in England. But any-hoo, this is a very, very British movie. The humor goes two ways. Some is incredibly dark, subtle stuff. Chasing Rose, Victor walks into a fitting room, fires blindly into the room, hits a target, realizes it isn't Rose and simply walks away. It's played for laughs, but for the most part it works. If you're going to do a movie about a hired killer, go really dark or really goofy and stupid. For the most part, director Jonathan Lynn leans toward the dark, but it's pretty funny dark. There's also some far goofier humor that reminded me of some Benny Hills antics, and that's not always a good thing but more on that later.

The best thing about this flick was Nighy as hired assassin Victor Maynard. The highly skilled, loner hired assassin is a familiar character that's been in hundreds and thousands of movies. It is a familiar part, but Nighy makes it his own. The history helps as we learn his family is a long line of accomplished killers, his father teaching him the tricks of the trade as he grew up while his mother (Eileen Atkins) similarly helped, but now she just worries about him and why he doesn't have a wife. Victor is the prim and proper Englishman, a quiet, dignified and distinguished gentleman....who just happens to kill people. He lives in a quiet, perfectly manicured country house where dust and dirt are mortal enemies, even his furniture covered in plastic. He has no real friends though, living his own isolated life, making his post-hit predicament a tad more interesting.

And here comes some of that British humor, almost all of it good. We get a flick with three people on the run and a long line of people pursuing them. Some parts are better than others, but they're all having a lot of fun. Blunt is one of my favorite actresses, and she's a great counter to Nighy's button-down killer. She's a kleptomaniac, stealing things non-stop. Her more brash, colorful personality bristles at the all-business Victor, and their scenes together produce some really funny moments. Also on the run is Tony (Harry Potter's Rupert Grint), an apparently homeless young man who witnesses the shooting and oddly enough, becomes Victor's apprentice. Everett is underused as the humorous but sinister Ferguson with Gregor Fisher as Mike, his much-maligned, much-beaten up henchmen. Also worth mentioning is Martin Freeman as Dixon, a brutal, sadistic killer with no qualms about his victims, and his dimwitted henchmen Fabian (Geoff Bell). Lots of characters, lots of fun, some better utilized than others.

'Wild' packs a whole lot into a 98-minute movie. The first 45 minutes are pretty frenetic with chases and shootouts and twists and turns. The second half of the movie slows down a little too much for my liking as Victor, Rose and Tony retreat to his isolated country home. We get to know the characters better as they bond on the run, but the pacing drags in a big way. Mostly though, I liked this flick from beginning to end. It's fun watching Nighy's Victor improvise on the fly, especially as he wavers between helping and killing Rose. Funny, quirky movie that doesn't try too hard and while it treads the fine line, it isn't too cute.

Wild Target (2010): ***/****

Looper

Here we are again. Want to start a fight on the Internet? Say something, anything, and someone will disagree with you. That's minor stuff. How about a smart, well-written movie about a complicated topic like time travel? For better or worse, there are certain rules to time travel (via the movies at least, I can't say I've time traveled....that I know of, ooohhh!!!!) so we get fun time travel (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted) and serious time travel (Terminator, Lost, Planet of the Apes). Our newest entry? That's 2012's Looper. Let the arguments continue!

It's 2074, and time travel has been invented and quickly deemed illegal. Organized crime still uses time travel though, sending people back through time 30 years to be killed and disposed. Waiting for them back in 2044 are hired killers called 'Loopers,' one of which is Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). At a prearranged time and place in the countryside, Joe waits with a blunderbuss shotgun for his victim to appear in front of him. He shoots, kills them and burns the body, getting his payment in silver for his work. There is a rule though that's been dubbed 'Closing the Loop.' At some point, your future self will be sent back, and the Looper has to kill his future self no questions asked. Joe is good at what he does, and even though he knows it's coming, he's still stunned when his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), appears in front of him. He's so stunned though that future Joe escapes. Joe has broken a rule, and now his employer is gunning for him. His only solution? Kill his future self and make up for it.

That is a very limiting plot description. Describing the job director Rian Johnson did both directing and writing the script for 'Looper' could be an entire review in itself. It is a phenomenal script, smart, interesting, always entertaining and doesn't get too bogged down in the inane details that Internet-goers just love to argue about. Go ahead, try reading the message boards at....well, anywhere. It's beyond painful to read. Cut away any number of arguments and disagreements, and it comes down to this. There just aren't a whole lot of smart movies out there. More than that, there aren't many smart movies that are entertaining too. This one is. It presents an incredibly unique, well thought out premise, and lets it breathe a little. It's an action movie, but it's not packed to the seams with action. The script will no doubt present some opportunities for "discussion" (does that exist on the Internet?), but they're all for the good if you ask me.

With his script and film, Johnson has created his own unique world. His script, his rules. All the Loopers work for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a man from the future sent back through time to run the Loopers for the man in charge. He finds troubled teenagers and "puts a gun in their hand." Working for Abe are a small army of  'Gat Men,' hired killers who help him keep his grip over the city. Who do they work for? A mysterious man in the future called the Rainmaker. No one knows how he came to power or any of his background. He simply puts everything in motion and rules with an iron fist. Then there's the "tweak" of the future. A small percentage of people have telekinetic powers. It's nothing major, just an ability to hold things up with your mind, but the people are looked upon strangely just the same. Johnson does a great job with all these little touches that give this future version of life touches of reality.

I loved the style of Looper from the very beginning. It's set in 2044 Kansas City which doesn't look too far removed from modern day. Some sort of cataclysmic event has changed how we live, but it's never spelled out for us in great detail. This is our modern world with a slight tweak here and there. The technology is basically the same with a few advances -- hoverbikes, advanced helicopters -- but there's also been a step back. Vagrants and homeless people live on the streets in large numbers. Food is scarce. In a sense, the world has righted itself to a point. The wardrobe is worth noting too. Gordon-Levitt's Joe has a retro look; leather jacket, shirt and tie, jeans. He almost looks like a man right out of the 1950s. The Gat Men hunting him look like stylized wild west gunfighters, all using a long-barrel pistol and wearing black clothes and ankle-length dusters. In the gunfights, we see dusters swooping through the air, something simple that looks incredibly cool.

And oh right, the characters. I almost forgot about them. Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors, and he turns in another solid performance here as Joe, a tragic, scarred character if there ever was. He knows his road will not end well, and he's trying to put his life on the right track. How then does he react when he sees his future self appear in front of him? How would you react? Understandably a little freaked out. Willis does a fine job too in a particularly nasty part as future Joe. Having seen what happens with his life, future Joe wants to right and wrong, and that involves killing several people. The physical similarity isn't perfect with Gordon-Levitt wearing some eye/nose makeup, but it's good enough. The scenes between the two are perfect, especially a mind-bending conversation at an isolated country diner. Joe is talking to himself from the future. Really try and wrap your head around that. Pretty cool premise, huh?

Joining the duo in the cast is Emily Blunt as Sara, a single mom trying to protect her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may hold a key to the future. Gagnon delivers an incredible performance as Cid, layered and nuanced like an actor with 20, 30 years of experience. It's a great part. Paul Dano has a small part as Seth, a fellow Looper, while Garret Dillahunt and Noah Segan play Jesse and Kid Blue, two of Abe's Gat Men. Piper Perabo nudes up as Suzie, Joe's quasi-girlfriend and stripper/dancer.

Now for a little time travel analysis, but even I'm not exactly sure of every single detail so bear with me. You meet your future self. The logical thought is that everything you do in the moment should already be a memory in your future self, right? Well, because you're meeting your future self, aren't you changing that memory? 'Looper' finds a logical way around that. Future Joe's memory (Willis) is cloudy, things changing as Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt) does different things. Young Joe learns something, Future Joe is instantly aware of it because it is in fact....a memory. Head hurt much? Yeah, mine too. Willis' Joe delivers a perfect line for anyone who gets too hung up on the time travel aspect, plot holes or not. He explains "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Call it a cop out, but it works for me.

I really enjoyed this movie, especially the ending. It can be taken one specific way, but who knows? It leaves the door open for interpretation. Joe makes a choice that he thinks should right things for the future, but anything could happen. Time and the universe have a way of course-correcting (thank you, TV's Lost). The movie itself is a gem though. I loved the premise, the style, the characters, seeing Gordon-Levitt become Willis in a highly stylized montage, and I loved the ending. Can't recommend it enough.

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

The Five-Year Engagement

There are romantic comedies -- good and bad -- and relationship dramas. While they may deal with similar subjects, the approach to them is basically just the opposite. Laughs as opposed to some sort of real drama, right? So while I liked parts of 2012's The Five-Year Engagement, I have trouble reviewing. It tries to be both, but handicaps itself in the process.

Having been dating for a year now, Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) are deeply in love. Nearing their year anniversary, Tom proposes to Violet, and she accepts, setting off  a whirlwind series of events all geared toward their wedding (obviously, duh? I'm struggling here). Soon after the proposal though, different detours start getting thrown at the soon-to-be married couple. Violet's sister gets pregnant with Tom's best friend's baby -- they get married -- and Violet is offered a position in the psych department at the University of Michigan. Tom, leaving his job, and Violet decide to put their wedding on hold for now, pulling up their roots and moving. But upon moving, one detour becomes another and that wedding seems a long way off all of the sudden.

This is a funny movie. It is. When I laughed, I laughed a lot. This is also a movie that tries to be realistic and dramatic and somewhat true to life. So which is it? 'Engagement' can't decide. It tries to be both and fails in both measures. Director Nicholas Stoller -- co-writing with Segel -- can't make up his mind. There are some really odd, out of place attempts at physical humor (a car door opens and smashes Violet in the face, Violet gets shot in the leg with a crossbow, Tom lands on a snow-covered fire hydrant, Tom loses a toe to frostbite) that just don't mesh with the rest of the story. We see these attempts at laughs work in some cases and fall epically short in others, and then we do a 180 into the drama as the couple tries to work through their problems. A movie that picked one route would have been better.

My biggest reason for giving this flick a shot was the Segel and Blunt casting. As actors on-screen, I've liked both of them in just about anything I've seen them in. For the most part, they have a believable, at times lovable on-screen chemistry. Tom is a successful chef at a San Francisco restaurant while Violet is seeking her doctorate, Tom deciding he's willing to sacrifice his job to see that Violet can pursue her dreams. That not surprisingly produces some fireworks as Tom begins to hate their new arrangement while Violet doesn't know what to say to fix things. What starts off as a loving relationship quickly deteriorates, and 'Engagement' is driven to the point where neither character is particularly likable. The success no doubt depends on how much you are or aren't rooting for this couple, but by the end, it just gets tedious.

A saving grace from the tedium is the very funny supporting cast. Our engaged couple meets a whole lot of people over the course of 5 years, some of them very funny. Look for Chris Pratt as Alex, Tom's best friend, and Alison Brie as Suzie, Violet's sister who ends up with Alex.  Pratt especially is a scene-stealer, the inappropriately honest best friend turned responsible father. Rhys Ifans has some fun as Winton, Violet's psych professor and co-worker, with Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart and Randall Park as her fellow doctorate students. Providing some of the film's best laughs, Brian Posehn plays Tarquin, Tom's deli co-worker and friend in Ann Arbor, while SNL alum Chris Parnell plays Bill, the knitting, hunting friend.

Maybe the worst thing going for 'Engagement' is that at 124 minutes, it is just too long. It has the same problem Bridesmaid did last year. It is funny in snippets but gets bogged down in too many characters, situations and developing detours. Yes, it's five years for the engagement, but maybe 25 minutes could be cut away. We see the problems Tom and Violet are having again and again and again. Cut some of those scenes out, especially when it becomes increasingly easier to not like these two. As for the funny scenes, they're great, especially Tom's first hunting trip with Bill, Tarquin's rehearsal dinner toast, Alex's engagement party slide show to Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire, and a montage of wedding preparing done by the guys. Unfortunately, the funny is held down by the much longer portions that just ain't funny. There's a good movie somewhere in there.

The Five-Year Engagement (2012): ** 1/2 /****

The Muppets

I grew up watching anything Jim Henson got his hands on....okay, maybe not The Dark Crystal or Labyrinth. But Sesame Street? Fraggle Rock? The Muppets? Oh, yes, most definitely. Fraggle Rock's basic weirdness excluded, I loved everything Sesame Street and The Muppets could throw my way from TV shows to feature length movies. So last summer when I saw a new Muppets movie was being made, I was psyched. Enter 2011's The Muppets.

Growing up, young Walter (voice of Peter Linz) has always been a little different, but he's always gotten along best with his brother, Gary (Jason Segel), who's planning a trip to Los Angeles with his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Gary goes along with hopes of seeing the Muppet Studios, but instead he accidentally hears some startling news. A greedy businessman, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), has bought the decrepit studio and plans to knock the place down. The only way out? Use a part of Richman's contract against him, but to do so, Walter has to reunite the long since departed Muppets. Can he find them? Naturally he starts at the top, looking for one Kermit the Frog.

It is clear from the script that he co-penned, but Segel was and is a huge fan of the Muppets dating back to The Muppet Show, The Muppet Movie, and yeah, basically anything with Muppets in it. Henson's creations have been out of the limelight for far too long if you ask me so there's a sense of nostalgia just watching this movie. The script actually plays that angle up as the old gang gets back together. Are the Muppets even famous anymore? Will anyone recognize them, much less welcome them back? Segel's script pays tribute to previous Muppet entries -- inside jokes, somewhat edgy humor for puppets, recurring gags -- but never goes overboard. Basically, if you have enjoyed watching the Muppets at any point in your life, something in this story will appeal to you.

While I feel ridiculous criticizing this movie in any sense, the positives outweigh the negatives for the most part. Why's that? Because it's the Muppets, and we get to see the old crew back together! Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, the Great Gonzo, Rolf the Dog, Animal, Swedish Chef, Sam the Eagle, Dr. Bunson Hunnydue and Beeker, and any number of other guys I'm forgetting. It's not a long movie so some characters get thrown by the wayside, but what's there for each is prime. Kermit as usual plays straight man to the antics, Miss Piggy loses her mind, and Fozzie is hilarious (as always). There's just a comfort level with seeing these characters again.

Now anyone new to the Muppet franchise should beware of wave after wave of cameo appearances. Cooper is hysterical as maniacally evil Tex Richman, insisting his henchmen laugh maniacally because he can't. Rashida Jones plays a maligned TV executive who puts the Muppets back on TV. Also look for Jack Black in a scene-stealing part as himself, Alan Arkin, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Zach Galifianakis, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, singer Selena Gomez, Whoopi Goldberg, The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons, Emily Blunt, Dave Grohl as a replacement Animal, and Ken Jeong. And because Netflix/rental DVDs refuse to include special features on discs, apparently the deleted scenes feature many, many more cameos.

Brace yourself for the sacrilege. I have to criticize a Muppet movie. God bless Jason Segel and his Muppet fandom, but the hamfisted, forced story of his Gary and Adams' Mary is painful to watch. It's got to be hard being upstaged by Muppets, but basically anytime the story left focus from them to the humans....dullsville. It didn't help either that the song and dance numbers are awful. Maybe I'm spoiled with the original The Muppet Movie, but those original songs are classics. The Rainbow Connection does make an appearance here thankfully. As a topper, the new character, Walter, doesn't bring much new to the group. Still, this is a Muppet movie, and with fart shoes! Check it out HERE. The parts that do work -- Fozzie's Muppet cover band, Animal in Anger Management to control his drumming problem, the 'Muppet Man' dupe -- are spot-on. Too bad there couldn't have been more of those moments.

The Muppets <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

The Adjustment Bureau

You forget your keys somewhere and are therefore a couple minutes late to wherever you were going. Driving to work, you take a different route and as a result avoid a horrific car accident. You take one road instead of another, and some how, some way, cancer is cured. Free will. Predestination. Are we supposed to do something in our lives or is it up to us? Do we control our own fate? It's a question based in personal beliefs, convictions, principles, religion, and so much more.

In an age of mindless action movies and thrillers, I'm glad to see movies like 2011's The Adjustment Bureau. It is based off a short story titled Adjustment Team that was originally published in 1954 by science fiction master Philip K. Dick. This is an atypical mainstream movie. It is a thriller, but one without gunplay, explosions and random nudity. For the most part, it is a smart thriller. It is unique and at times thought-provoking in its discussion of free will and destiny. No doubt it will divide people, and the ending certainly leaves something to be desired, but taken on the whole it is a good movie.

A politician on the rise in the state of New York, David Norris (Matt Damon) is on the fast track to bigger and better things. He has risen up from a checkered background as a kid to become the youngest Congressman ever, and now stands poised to become a U.S. Senator. For David though, he has gone off his supposed life plan when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a beautiful young dancer with whom he clicks with immediately. David was not supposed to meet Elise because his interactions with her will divert him from his supposed path. When he sees this going on -- mysterious men in suits and hats altering his life and those around him -- David doesn't believe what he sees. It's just too ludicrous, too out of this world. These men will stop at nothing though to get David back on his right path.

The idea behind the Adjustment Bureau -- the actual team of men altering people's lives, not the actual movie -- is one of the most original, unique concepts I can think of in any cultural form; film, television, literature.  What makes it work is that it is never spelled out exactly what's going on. The Bureau is headed by someone called the Chairman who has these agents who look after people, making sure they stay on their paths and avoiding detours. Are they guardian angels? Are they human at all?  They aren't killers or murderers, and for the most part their methods are peaceful if obviously a bit invasive.  The agents have some sort of other-worldly ability and face certain limitations. All things considered though, they get people to do what they should in life, often making them forsake (unknowingly) what they want to do or at least think they want to do.

This movie from director George Nolfi (making his directorial debut) reminded me of last summer's huge hit Inception. It is smart, well-written, and thought-provoking. Criticize it for whatever you want, but I thought at its best it shows that you can make a smart movie without resorting to lowest common denominators. Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips -- who I don't always agree with -- made a great point in his review. There are no guns, no explosions, nothing BIG in this movie. It is personal and emotional, letting the drama we're watching on-screen fill in for any loss of pyrotechnics. I'm not wording this as nicely, smoothly or efficiently as I'd like to here so hopefully I'm getting my message across.

On screen relationships can make or break a movie, simple as that. For 'Bureau,' Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are a match made in heaven. Their chemistry in every single scene is tangible. You feel this connection between these two people.  The dilemma here is that their characters are not supposed to be together in any way. Damon's David is supposed to do huge things that won't happen if he stays with Blunt's Elise who similarly will see her hopes and dreams dashed if she stays with him. Thrillers so often lack any heart, any real reason for us to support or root for characters. That's definitely not the case here.  And as it goes bringing up interesting questions, what is more important? Living up to your potential, your supposed plan? Or should you be happy with someone you love?  It is a decision so many have to make at some point in their life. Any criticism I have with this movie (the big one's coming up in the next paragraph), Damon and Blunt are immune. Together, they are about as perfect as an on-screen couple can be.

I don't remember when I started thinking like this about movies, but it hits me more and more over the last couple years. I'm sitting there enjoying a movie -- in this case thinking should I go 3.5 stars or bust out 4? -- and I begin to wonder....how are they going to wrap this up? How will this movie end?  The build-up is near perfect, but the end reveal disappoints in a big way. I suspect this movie didn't have the balls to do a downer ending (I'm talking rrrrrrrrreal downer of an ending), but the route they went felt like a cop-out to me.  It is just too simplistic with the background and explanation we've been offered in the past.  It isn't a movie killer, but it does take it down a notch overall.  It is too contrite, too happy.

It is hard to judge here the members of the Adjustment Bureau because we know little to nothing about them, even in the end when everything has been resolved more or less.  Mad Men star John Slattery plays Richardson, Terence Stamp is Thompson, the long-time vet of the Bureau called in to deal with the Norris case, and Anthony Mackie is Harry, Norris' personal agent/angel/bodyguard/overseeer. Mackie is the best of the group as Harry, someone who is torn by what he's been taught to do and done for years with his beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.  Mackie is an actor destined for stardom it seems, and this is another strong part for the 33-year old actor. Also watch for Michael Kelly as Charlie, David's friend, co-worker and campaign manager.

I go back and forth with movies like this. Do I want everything explained to me? A little bit. The explanation almost always disappoints though, letting you down because it doesn't make any sense.  The other end of the spectrum can be as equally frustrating when a movie leaves it up to the viewer to figure things out for themselves.  Adjustment Bureau falls in the middle, doing a little of both. Some questions are answered, others are not. I guess that's the best we're going to get.  A really good movie that could have been great with a few tweaks, especially that ending.

The Adjustment Bureau <---trailer (2011): ***/****