Next

So when did it all hit the fan for Nicolas Cage? I'm thinking it was somewhere around 2006 with the all-time classic remake The Wicker Man. He went from an actor who could play quirky roles to a quirky actor who just made (mostly) bad movies. There's been some good ones mixed in but not too many. Here's one of those quasi-duds, 2007's Next.

Working as a mildly successful performer in Las Vegas under the stage name Frank Cadillac, Cris Johnson (Cage) goes about his job and life as quietly as possible. Why exactly? Cris has a special power, one he's trying to keep under wraps. Cris can see two minutes into his own future, knowing exactly what awaits him around every corner and turn. His small-time gambling tendencies have caught the attention of the FBI, including Agent Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore), who wants to use Cris to help stop a terrorist attack. A nuclear bomb is believed to be transported into the U.S. and hopefully Cris can find out where and when it will be used. On the run for a run-in with the FBI in a casino, Cris is trying to figure it all, trying to piece it all together. It may all be connected to a mysterious woman (Jessica Biel) he can see far further into the future than his usual two-minute limit. Can he do it in time with millions of lives at stake?

When this science fiction-ish thriller was released in 2007, my brother-in-law saw the movie and said he liked it. How did he think I'd feel about it? Well, to put it lightly, I wouldn't like it....AT ALL. That recommendation -- or lack of -- helped me steer clear of 'Next' but I guess seven years or so was a long enough wait. This thriller from director Lee Tamahori is loosely based on a short story, The Golden Man, by Philip K. Dick. Is it good? Well, I'm curious to read Dick's short story because as I feel like I write far too often....a whole lot of potential that never really adds up. It's not a long movie, wrapping up nicely in a little under 90 minutes if you take away the closing credits. The biggest flaws come from an overuse of the gimmick, Cris' ability to see into the future. The idea is cool but it adds up the most crippling flaw of all in the finale.

It's Sixth Sense Syndrome again. Movies aren't content anymore to just have a regular old twist ending. It has to be a twist ending that completely comes out of left field with no warning. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to fit within the rules of what we've been told to this point. If you're going to have a character that can see into the future in a tight time window, so be it. Run with it. Don't adjust on the fly, and if I've got this twisting, steaming pile of an ending remotely figured out, that's exactly what happens here. A cop-out ending, and that is about the worst thing you can do as a writer/producer/director. Grow a pair and stick with an ending. The point here seems to be to completely confuse the viewer and manipulate them into thinking one thing only to have the carpet pulled out from under you. Now that's a way to create favor with your audience! Just an awful ending.

What I brought up earlier in the introduction is that Nicolas Cage has started to play a caricature of himself over recent years. Quirky overall, stilted acting, even more stilted line deliveries, violent, arm-throwing reactions. Maybe the oddest thing about Next? Cage is the least of the movie's concerns. His voiceover narration is a little overdone at times, and his hair looks pretty hair implant(y) but it's an interesting character. I would have loved some more background other than a few passing lines about his growing up, but the Cris character is certainly interesting from the get-go. Now that said, the script does provide Cage countless opportunities to run. Run away, run to someone, run down a mountain. There's just something truly hilarious about Cage running, trying to sprint at least, because he could be the slowest running actor in Hollywood history. He's pumping and pushing...and looks like he's running in quicksand.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare so well. Julianne Moore feels out of place and forced, her FBI agent whiny and worn down. Jessica Biel tries her best with a poorly written character but there just isn't any interest there. Her mystery woman supposedly holds the key to it all, but it amounts to nothing more than a damsel in distress though. Well, that's not completely fair. There's also her in various stages of undress, under a bed sheet, sporting a post-shower towel. That kind of PG-13 rated "nudity." Also look for Thomas Kretschmann as Mr. Smith, the uniquely named and very dull bad guy, Tory Kittles as Moore's FBI agent assistant, Jose Zuniga as a Vegas security chief, and screen/TV legend Peter Falk making an appearance as a friend of Cris. Except he's on-screen for about 85 seconds and then shuffles off. What's the point?

It is a movie that is missing something. We get little to no background for anything from Cris' history or even a remote explanation of his power to the complete lack of reasoning behind this upcoming terrorist attack. MacGuffins are one thing as Alfred Hitchcock proved time and time again, but you've got to draw a line somewhere, don't you? At no point does 'Next' find a rhythm or pacing, and it feels rushed from start to poorly executed finish. Meh, not good, just not good with wasted potential. Steer clear.

Next (2007): * 1/2 /****

Non-Stop

Terror at 30,000 feet!!! There's all sorts of crazy, scary, terrifying situations out there. But what about those situations where you simply can't get away from it? Like literally, can't get away, like on a plane flying at 30,000 feet. There's a fun, little sub-genre of movies like this, including Air Force One, Flightplan, Red Eye, and most recently, Non-Stop.

A former police officer from New York City, Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a Federal Air Marshal who's been at it for years. After some family troubles years before, Marks struggles with the job, drinking heavily to the point his coworkers are aware of it as well. Boarding a six-hour flight from NYC to London, Marks is ready for whatever could be thrown at him...until now. An hour or so into the flight, he starts to receive ominous text messages from an unknown sender. His threat? Unless $150 million is deposited in a bank account, someone on board will be killed every 20 minutes. It has to be a joke, right? How could a killer get away with it? What could their escape plan be? Marks isn't sure how to proceed, but with the clock ticking, he's working against time. Can he find the supposed killer before he strikes?

I'm going to be honest here. When I first saw the trailer for director Jaume Collet-Serra's film, I will....I'll say, less than enthused. It looked exceptionally goofy, even dumb, in wasting a premise that sounded like it could be pretty cool. Now all that said, a local theater shows movies for $5 on Tuesdays so....yeah, I gave it a shot. 'Non-Stop' ends up being a lot of fun, taking advantage of a simple, straightforward premise. A killer on-board a plane? How could he possibly plan on getting away even if his plan somehow succeeds? At 106 minutes, it's basically the perfect length -- not too quick, doesn't overstay its welcome. The style is there, texts popping up on-screen as Neeson's Air Marshal interacts with the terrorist. With the exception of a quick introduction and the closing scene, the entire movie plays out on the plane as it flies across the Atlantic, almost like a stage play. Above all else, it is entertaining. It's fun, and sometimes that's all you need.

Another chapter to the Liam Neeson Badass chapter has been written. As I've written before, I'm a big fan of Mr. Neeson no matter the part, but I love him in these more commercial movies more than the more dramatic period pieces. It's like picking pizza though. There's not really bad pizza, just less good. Neeson was cut out to be an action star. It just took years to figure it out whether it was the Taken movies, The Grey, Star Wars, Unknown, and now here in Non-Stop. His grizzled Bill Marks is worn down, beaten up and struggling with alcoholism, but through it all, he still knows how to do his job and do it well, even when it seems he can do no right. Now in his early 1960s, Neeson for lack of a better description is a badass. It's fun to watch him on-screen, especially in ass-kicking mode. His weathered face, his gravelly voice, it all adds up and in a good way. Likable, believable and a hell of a good action star.

One of the biggest selling points for 'Non-Stop' for me was the catch. With a story like this, you know there's going to be a big twist, a big reveal, something that lays it all out there. There just is so deal with it. Here, the premise is a whodunit? Who is the person behind the diabolical plot that threatens to claim the lives of 150 people on-board this commercial airliner? Everyone in the supporting cast is a possible suspect so that's part of the fun. Can you piece it together before the big reveal? I had an inkling, but I couldn't peg this one. For starters, look for Julianne Moore as Jen, the fellow passenger who needs a window seat and ends up next to Neeson's Marks. Also look for Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, Linus Roache, Nate Parker, Corey Stoll, Anson Mount, and Omar Metwally among others as assorted passengers and crew on-board who may or may not be working with the Air Marshal to find out exactly what's going on. Shea Whigham also makes a quick appearance as an agent on the ground communicating with Marks. It's a fun group with some solid variety. I was kept guessing until the very end as to who was behind the plot at 30,000 feet.

And then there's the reveal. I didn't love it, but it's a realistic ending so that's a win in itself. I was worried about some ridiculous, far-fetched twist coming out of left field. Thankfully, that never comes to fruition. So while I didn't love the ending, I didn't hate it each other. It was getting to the finale that's pretty cool. We see the responses, the contingency plans, the technology available from texting to filming video with a phone, all how it affects Marks' situation that gets progressively worse with each passing moment. This is a good, old-fashioned thriller with some nice modern touches. Uncomfortable, full of tension and adrenaline, with a lot going for it across the board. An easy movie to recommend.

Non-Stop (2014): ***/****

Don Jon

Is there a bigger rising star out there right now than Joseph Gordon-Levitt? The child star of 3rd Rock from the Sun has turned himself into a legitimate dramatic and comedic actor since then with countless roles like The Lookout, The Dark Knight Rises, 500 Days of Summer, Inception and Looper. Well, he's stepping behind the camera now, starring in while also writing and directing 2013's Don Jon.

A mid-20 something who works as a bartender (that we never see), Jon Martello (Gordon-Levitt) has a pretty good life in his eyes. He cares about his body, his friends, his family, his apartment, his muscle car, his church, his ladies and most importantly, his porn. While he has quite the active social life with a seemingly endless string of one-night stands, Jon actually prefers watching porn more than the actual act of sex with a woman, typically seeking out porn after hooking up with a girl. That trend may change though, whether he wants to or not, when he meets Barbara (Scarlett Johansson) one night at a club. They click immediately, start dating and eventually become exclusive...until Barbara walks in on Jon watching porn. To keep her, he promises to stop watching it, but that promise may be tougher than he was counting on.

I'm not sure what I was expecting heading into this movie. I saw the trailer. I was intrigued from the cast to the pretty racy story and a lot in between. Director/writer/star Gordon-Levitt received almost uniformly positive reviews for his film, and I did know what it was about. I swear. So what happened? I really didn't like it. It's funny, but not funny in the way you'd think it would be. Who knows? Maybe it was supposed to be funny in a painfully awkward way, but I was groaning and groaning early and often.

Let's start with the style. It's start with the narration, Gordon-Levitt's Jon reciting how cool his life is. How he cares for his muscle car, cleans his apartment obsessively, goes to church every Sunday and then has dinner with his family, on and on. We see him walk down the same hallway, across a street and up the stairs to church and ultimately....masturbate while watching porn. Gordon-Levitt even removed some more graphic porn to avoid an X-rating for his final cut. I don't know what it was. It's a boys club type story. Jon's narration is aggressively forthright, brutally in your face and highly, graphically sexual. Definitely not a movie for the faint of heart or anyone who blushes easily. The repetitive style seems to reflect Jon's repetitive lifestyle, but that doesn't make it interesting. If anything, it made me feel bad for Jon (but that's a personal judgment). A 90-minute movie plays like one recurring message, a message that is tedious already and doesn't get any better.

Did you watch MTV's Jersey Shore during its infamous run? I'm not proud to admit it, but I did. It was like a trainwreck episode in and episode out. Can you see where I'm going with this? Gordon-Levitt's Jon could have been plucked right out of the show without missing a beat. Above all else, above any other criticisms I had, I just didn't like the main character. He's such a cliched stereotype of a club-hopping, one-night stand seeking tool with his muscle shirts and heavily-gelled hair that it's hard to sympathize with him in the slightest. He preens, struts, smirks and mumbles his way through life. There are moments that provide some laughs, his weekly confessions at church totaling up the times he had sex with a girl and times he masturbated while watching porn especially. You laugh, but it's almost uncomfortable. Confession cures all though, right? Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a very talented actor, but I couldn't stand this character.

Scarlett Johansson is my big crush out there so her part here was a big selling point. Her part is excellent if frightening in its craziness as more and more is revealed. Shallow dude moment, but she looks good....craziness aside. Julianne Moore has an interesting part as Esther, a woman Jon meets at a night class he's taking. Moore is okay in the part, but I'm not sure if it is the right casting choice. Tony Danza and Glenne Headley are high points as Jon's parents, his Dad getting in constant screaming matches, his Mom nagging him about finding the right girl and settling down. Brie Larson is good too as Jon's younger sister. Also look for Rob Brown and Jeremy Luke as Jon's best friends.

In a 90-minute movie, the first hour was rough to get through while the last half hour was far more tolerable. It doesn't play like an instructional guide to how to be a Club Tool, actually exploring some human emotions. Personally, it was a case of too little too late. The ending does provide a saving grace of sorts, but the first hour left such a bad taste in my mouth that it was hard for the story to recover. A valiant effort from Gordon-Levitt but one that falls short in the end.

Don Jon (2013): * 1/2/ ****

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

There are romantic comedies, and there are dramas. It seems it's one or the other when it comes to stories about love, marriage, relationships, but without any real middle ground. When movies with some laughs produced from dramatic situations come along, scoop them up, like 2011's Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Married to his wife, Emily (Julianne Moore), for over 20 years with three kids and leading a supposedly happy life, Cal Weaver (Steve Carell), is dealt a shocker when Emily asks him for a divorce. Cal doesn't know what to do other than to agree, especially when Emily says she slept with a co-worker. In his mid 40s, Cal now finds himself basically starting life over, discovering everything isn't so easy as a single guy. One night in a bar he meets Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling), a successful 20-something who is quite the ladies man. Quick enough, Jacob has Cal acting like the confident guy he can and should be, but even then Cal feels like he's missing something. Jacob meanwhile has a problem of his own, he's fallen hard for Hannah (Emma Stone), and has no idea how to handle this new situation.

Finding a middle ground between raunchy sex comedy and hardcore, depressing drama, 'Crazy' in terms of quality is better than most of either of those two extremes. It finds a nice balance in between the two. It tries to take an honest look at the world of love, from Cal and Emily's 13-year old son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo), who's fallen in love with their 17-year old babysitter, Jessie (Analeigh Tipton), to the younger audience of Jacob and Hannah, and then capping it with the married couple in their 40s. In taking a fairly honest approach, the risk is that we won't like the characters, and at different points, that's true. These people are not likable in a lot of instances. There were times I wasn't rooting for anybody. But it is honest, and it shows people for what they are, human, just people looking for some sort of happiness whatever that may be.

With an ensemble cast working together in a movie that's 115 minutes long, there are times where it feels certain stories and characters get the short end of the stick. Still, it's a talented ensemble so it's not a major issue. Similar to his performance in 2007's Dan in Real Life, Carell shows he's capable again of comedy and drama. He plays that John Everyman as well as anybody, and his chemistry with Moore -- even through the trials and tribulations -- is real and believable. Gosling gets a showy performance as Jacob, a smooth ladies man (womanizer comes to mind) who effortlessly gets women, Stone's Hannah presenting a bit of a challenge and a change of pace. Also look for Marissa Tomei as Kate, one of the women Cal meets as he tries to jump-start his single life. Like What Women Want, Tomei plays slightly crazy, and I'm thinking...why can't she get better roles? Kevin Bacon plays David, the co-worker Emily sleeps with, making the character more than just a stereotype. He's got genuine feelings for Emily, it just happens to be a bad situation.

My issue with this story comes from any number of little things. Cliched comes to mind more than a few times, and some "twists" that are thrown at us don't really work. Check that, one toward the end really works. I didn't see that one coming at all. The story though has things happen for the sake of moving the story along. Sitting in a bar, Gosling's Jacob hears Carell's Cal giving a sob story about his situation and instantly steps to the plate, helping him become an older, stylish version of himself. Yes, Jacob says Cal reminds him of his father, but we're supposed to believe he's going to help a complete stranger because of that resemblance? Jacob is charming and smooth, but his character bugged me. 'Man-whore' comes to mind describing him, but oh, he's cute! Let's ignore that.

Then there's the last 30 minutes or so as the story takes a route I really wished they hadn't. Babysitter Jessie loves Cal, takes naked pictures of herself, her parents (Beth Littleford and John Carroll Lynch) find them with 'Cal' written on an envelope, and the fireworks start. Basically the whole cast comes together for a kooky, hair-brained, off the wall "fight" that is in itself, pretty funny. But it is so far removed from the tone of the rest of the movie, it ends up feeling out of place. And the ending, more characters doing things they would only do in a movie. Cal takes the microphone from Robbie at his 8th grade graduation and proceeds to tell the audience about his love life. Oh, and Jessie later gives Robbie the naked pictures of herself. Another oddity if you ask me, and kind of creepy.

This is a good movie. It is. The cast is very good, the script for the most part is well written, and on-screen chemistry helps make up for a lot of the movie's flaws. But they're there. No doubt about that. Hopefully you can look past them and enjoy the movie for what it is.

Crazy, Stupid, Love. <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

In a career that has spanned five decades since he shot to stardom in the 1970s, director Steven Spielberg has quite the impressive filmography under his belt with a handful of classics and a few more not quite but close classics. Easily one of his best is 1993's Jurassic Park, a great film that is as good now in 2011 as it was 18 years ago. It opened the door for all sorts of new movies with new technology.  It's exciting, action-packed, and unique.

Of course, then there's the 1997 sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park which isn't as bad as some critics out to be but at the same time is nowhere near as good as it could/should have been. It's unfair to peg this movie as the one that opened the floodgates, but it's certainly one of the first series/franchises that turned a great stand-alone movie into unnecessary sequel one after another. That's my biggest issue with so many franchises. Harry Potter? Those sequels needed to be made to finish out the story. Jurassic Park? The first film is pretty much perfect as it is, and didn't need sequels.  But you wouldn't be reading this is someone didn't want to make piles of money so here we go.

It's been four years since the disaster at Isla Nuba and mathematician Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is still trying to put the experience behind him. He is approached by InGen head and creator of Jurassic Park John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) with a proposition. There were actually two islands where dinosaurs lived, and he wants Malcolm and a small team to go to the second island and investigate, see how the creatures are living without human interference. Malcolm refuses...briefly, until he finds out his girlfriend, Sarah (Julianne Moore), a geologist, is already on the island so he agrees to go along. Finding Sarah proves to be the easy part as a financially struggling InGen sends an expedition to the island at the same time. Their objective? Capture dinosaurs so they can be exhibited for a world-wide audience. Malcolm, Sarah and the little team are caught in the middle as T-Rex, velociraptors and more are on the hunt.

I've long been a fan of Michael Crichton's novels, but this is one of the few I haven't read, mostly because I'm not a huge fan of the movie to begin with. If I didn't like the movie much, could the book save it at all? Eh, maybe down the road I'll get to it. My main issue with the movie though is that it is basically a carbon copy of the first movie, but without the energy or excitement. It is the definition of an unnecessary sequel. The script is bad, full of laughable one-liners and equally laughable scenarios, and the action/chases don't know when to stop, an orgy of adrenaline and drama that goes overboard whenever it gets the chance. If you're trying to repeat success, add something to it, don't just settle for the status quo.

What saves this from being a complete waste of time is what else? Surprise, surprise...the dinosaurs, and more specifically the dinosaurs eating people.  You really just can't go wrong with that formula.  The surprise factor of the first movie -- seeing dinosaurs, even if they are CGI -- has worn off some, but the little kid in you can't help but smile when a dinosaur (check that, any dinosaur) comes on-screen. Then think of a T-Rex and its awesomeness, and then a pack of raptors working together...yeah, definitely can't go wrong there. There are characters around who are meant to be dino-bait, and Spielberg certainly finds some unique ways to kill the baddies.  So throw out the action scenes that drag on end into tedium, you've still got a whole lot of badass dinosaurs killing people. Good stuff. Oh, and throw in John Williams' epic, sweeping and iconic score for good measure.

The more I see of Goldblum, the more I suspect he's not acting. He's just playing himself. His Dr. Malcolm isn't an ideal choice to lead a movie, but his character is still pretty cool.  Moore plays Sarah, the girlfriend who -- no disrespect to Moore, just the character -- could have been played by anyone.  She has to run around with Malcolm and look worried.  Oh wait, that's everyone, cardboard cutouts of characters. My bad.  Vince Vaughn and Richard Schiff are good as the other member of Ian and Sarah's team while screen veteran Pete Postlethwaite is a scene-stealer as Roland Tembo, a big game hunter leading InGen's expedition, his desire to bag a T-rex driving him into danger. Look for Arliss Howard and Peter Stormare as two bad guys you just know will meet a nasty fate as well with Attenborough briefly making an appearance as Hammond, still cool and clueless as ever.

There are just elements of unexplained weirdness here that make you question 'Really? That's the best you got?' The biggie for me has always been Malcolm's daughter, Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester), who secretly travels with dear old Dad to the island, not realizing the danger she's put herself in. You'll notice if you look at her IMDB page that she is an African American actress. Not a racist comment, just a comment because the movie never addresses this. Is she adopted? Did Malcolm steal her from a black family? Mostly though beyond just a weird race angle is that her character is annoying and doesn't serve a purpose. Malcolm's already worried about Sarah, and then you throw in another reason. That's great. She also takes out a raptor via a gymnastics act. That ranks high on the list of all-time stupidest movie scenes ever.

The movie on the whole is a mixed bag. Certain scenes are just bad, and action scenes -- like two T-rex's attacking a camper -- just go on too long, not knowing when to pull the plug. If this was any old dinosaur movie, it'd be pretty good in a 'so bad it's good' fashion. But it isn't, following one of the all-time greats, Jurassic Park. Very watchable and generally a pretty dumb movie, but you can do worse.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park <---trailer (1997): ** 1/2 /****   

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): ****/****