Kingsman: The Secret Service

Does the name Matthew Vaughn ring a bell? Well, it's not necessarily a household name...yet. A director, producer and writer extraordinaire, Vaughn has been behind such movies as Layer Cake, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, The Debt, and even the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot. His most recent flick, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service, is pulling in the dough. Who knows? It might not be too long before Vaughn is definitely a household name.

Part of a secret spy organization working in England with a history dating back to the early 20th century, the Kingsmen, gentleman spy Harry Hart (Colin Firth), codename: Galahad, is on a mission in the Middle East, when a fellow young agent is killed saving his life. Back in England, Harry meets the agent's young son and some 17 years later saves him from a nasty encounter with the police. Why the encounter so many years later? Harry recruits young Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin (Taron Egerton) to become the newest agent, the newest Kingsman. Having grown up on the streets, Eggsy is intelligent, tough and quick-thinking, but he hasn't always lived up to his potential. Now, Harry needs him to live up to it if he hopes to beat the other candidates. Trouble is on the horizon in the form of Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), an internet billionaire with a horrific plan to alter Earth's future. The key to it all, that could be feisty, stubborn Eggsy.

Let's give Mr. Vaughn credit where it's due. This is a guy who knows what kind of movie he wants to make, sets out to do it, and screw anyone who gets in his way. No, I'm not saying he's some sort of movie studio bully. It's just that Vaughn makes movies unlike just about any other movie currently in theaters. Helter-skelter, schizophrenic, stylish, smart and equal parts stupid, this is just a ridiculously fun and entertaining movie. It most assuredly is NOT for everyone. The violence is cartoonishly over the top and stylized, the humor a little low-brow at times, but my goodness, what a fun movie.

The British spy movie has a long and rich history, starting obviously with the James Bond/007 franchise. It's the rare movie that is able to put a new spin on the spy genre, but 'Kingsman' does it with violent glee and fun. This is a smart movie, poking fun at the genre without venturing into spoof territory (thankfully). The script from Vaughn and Jane Goldman is self-conscious, some great dialogue scenes between Firth's Harry and Jackson's Valentine discussing the backgrounds of the gentleman spy and the maniacal villain trying to take over the world. Fans of the genre will get a kick out those moments, the quieter, smarter and lower key moments that balance out the general craziness of the rest of the movie.

Reviews were generally pretty mixed about star Taron Egerton, but I came away impressed with the young British actor. He definitely holds his own in the dramatic scenes with quite the cast surrounding him of dramatic star power. When it comes to the action scenes, Egerton shows off his physical prowess, blending in seamlessly. It doesn't hurt that he's got that cocky smirk ready with a snap to disarm a scene with ease. How about some star power though? Constantly wearing the layered look and showing off a flat-brim hat and rocking a lisp, Samuel L. Jackson is clearly having a ball as Valentine, the villain with a plan to save the world by some horrifying means. This isn't a nutso villain. His plan is certainly...interesting, but he's also squeamish around blood, a bit of a goof and loves a good McDonald's cheeseburger. Also look for Sofia Boutella as Gazelle, Valentine's foot-less hench-woman who uses bladed prosthetic legs as deadly weapons. 

The casting of three British actors was what originally caught my eye and kept me interested as a release date drew closer. Enter Colin Firth, Michael Caine and Mark Strong. One of the most talented actors currently working in film and the prototypical British gentleman (on screen at least, he may be a wild man in his personal life), Firth absolutely nails the movie. Let's call it Liam Neeson Mode, a highly respected actor taking on a more fun role. He plays the straight man to all the shenanigans, but man, is he having fun. The same for Strong as Merlin, a fellow Kinsgman and a drill sergeant of sorts, barking out orders with a bit of a Scottish brogue as his potential agents navigate training. Oh, and that Michael Caine guy. Have you heard of him? It's a smaller part, but an essential one. How can you go wrong with that trio? I submit that you CANNOT. Also look for Mark Hamill and Jack Davenport in supporting parts.

The history of the Kingsman would be an interesting prequel in itself, a group of agents and spies with code names from the legend of King Arthur, all criss-crossing the world to stop all sorts of diabolical plots. A highly recommended movie with some ridiculously stylized violence, some great one-liners, style in general to burn, and a 'Screw you' type of attitude. It's the type of movie that doesn't care if you like it. It's just interested in being a ton of fun.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014): ***/****

The Imitation Game

Ever heard of Alan Turing? Until about 24 hours ago, I hadn't although I unknowingly was quite aware of his ridiculously important historical contributions. How about something called Enigma? Yes? No? No matter how you answered, here's an easy recommendation as the movie awards season jumps into the full swing. History, World War II, just a film fan, check out 2014's The Imitation Game.

It's 1939 and World War II isn't going well for the Allied effort, especially in England as the German Luftwaffe wreaks havoc with its bombing all over the country. British intelligence is working hard behind the scenes, a huge effort meant to crack one of Germany's essentially unbreakable code, the Enigma. A brilliant mathematician and professor, Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) is working with British intelligence to break Enigma, but the effort seems impossible. There are literally millions and millions and millions of possibilities to break Enigma, and Alan and a small group of cryptanalysts have a limited window each day to break it before they have to start from scratch the next morning when the Enigma settings are changed. Turing especially is confident he can do it, but as the war rages on and the casualties pile up, even Turing's difficult personality may prove to be the biggest roadblock.

Here's another example of how powerful and interesting and truly, downright interesting history can be. Based on a true story -- with some artistic license taken here and there -- and from director Morten Tyldum tells a truly remarkable story, one that the British government kept under wraps for over 50 years after the end of WWII. The soldiers did the fighting, civilians back home built much of the materiel, the politicians fought and negotiated, all of it essential to the war effort. 'Imitation' does a great job of showing how Turing, a single man, drastically changed the course of the war for the Allies. It is a large-scale story in terms of content but small-scale in its focus. This is a movie about Turing and the men and women in intelligence who helped to break Germany's seemingly perfect code, saving millions of lives and cutting years off the war. Oscar bait? Sure, but it's a goodie.

That Benedict Cumberbatch fellow, he seems to be an actor with some potential (besides having a really cool name). Though he's been working in film and television since the early 2000s, he seems to have hit his groove as an actor, able to do fun blockbusters like the Star Trek sequels and as he shows here, act his freaking butt off. What a performance, one that will hopefully earn him an Oscar nomination, if not a win. It's always tough portraying a historical figure, even if it is one without a ton of name recognition. This is a brilliant, tortured man who was years ahead of his field, an individual who developed one of the first computers, one that helped Turing and Co. eventually break Enigma (relative spoiler I guess). The story also takes a personal detour in the second half of the movie, Cumberbatch truly bringing the individual to life.

It's the little nuances that Cumberbatch does so well, so effortlessly. His Turing is a socially awkward, brilliant individual with a troubled background. He commits himself to his work in almost dangerous fashion. It is an entire commitment. He hits people in the wrong way because his Alan is short, curt, abrupt and believes entirely in himself. All negative, right? He adds these little snippets as he tries to put his pride aside (although I wouldn't consider it pride in Alan's eyes, he just thinks he's right) that humanize him. We see that a lot in his scenes with Keira Knightley's Joan Clarke, a similarly brilliant young woman who doesn't get the respect she deserves because she's a woman and obviously can't be good at math. Kudos to Cumberbatch though, delivering a low-key performance that isn't necessarily a huge LOOK AT ME part that nonetheless steals the movie.

The 'Imitation' cast is uniformly solid. The queen of the period piece, Knightley is perfectly at home in the WWII story in providing an ideal counter to Cumberbatch's Alan. Their chemistry is smooth and easy, two individuals with different backgrounds but plenty of common ground. The other individuals working with Turing include an excellent Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech, and James Northcote. Charles Dance and Mark Strong are very good too as intelligence officials, one more helpful than the other in assisting Turing's seemingly impossible plan to break the code. Rory Kinnear makes a quick appearance in a flash-forward of sorts as we see Turing living in England in the 1950s.

Let's say this. 'Imitation' tries to accomplish a lot. A LOT. The actual story is astounding that this happened. It wasn't a handful of people but thousands, but THIS HAPPENED. The story never feels disjointed which is a big compliment when you consider how much ground is covered, three-plus years is the crux of the story during the WWII portions. It's fascinating watching Turing's early-model computer come to fruition, the frustration when breaking the code doesn't happen both inward and outward, and eventually when it does happen the unintended consequences. Think of this. Okay, they've broken the code. They now CAN'T ADMIT they've both broken it because then the Germans would know they have broken it. What do you do now? How do you put the code to best use without revealing it has been broken? It is those moments where the movie is at its strongest.

So yeah, we've got some good, old-fashioned Oscar bait here. This is a good movie with a fascinating, always interesting story with some great performances. It isn't though, a great movie. When the story reveals a secret part of Alan's life, but it takes away from the power of the WWII/Enigma story. It is a tragic secret that alters Alan's life in a huge way but at times it feels tacked on like the story didn't exactly know how to handle it, especially in the finale. It is a complaint but nothing even remotely being close to a dealbreaker. Still a must-see movie.

The Imitation Game (2014): ***/****

Welcome to the Punch

You would recognize the face if not the name. Mark Strong has been working in film and television since the late 1980s, early 1990s, but over the last four years he's become a far more recognizable face, a talented actor who's finally getting his due. This year, he even starred in an AMC cop drama, Low Winter Sun. I've become a big fan of Strong, and it's been more than cool to see him get some starring roles in film too, like 2013's Welcome to the Punch.

A young, motivated detective in London, Max Lewinsky (James McAvoy) has been working a case for months, desperately trying to catch infamous bank robber and thief Jacob Sternwood (Strong). Following one successful robbery, Sternwood is even cornered by Lewinsky but shoots him in the leg and manages to escape, the police unable to find him. Three years pass, and a 20-something who turns out to be Sternwood's son is caught on a tarmac with a gunshot wound. How did he get there? Who did it to him? With one phone call, he calls his father, the police following the clues to his hideout in Iceland. Now, Sternwood's son is in intensive care, Lewinsky suggesting they make that fact known through the criminal underground. The bait has been laid out for Sternwood's return, Lewinsky waiting to strike. As things come together though, the rivals realize they may need to work together to take out a common enemy.

Ever hear of this one? Yeah, me neither. According to IMDB, 'Punch' was released in theaters in the U.S. on four screens over two weekends last spring. It grossed a whopping $6,787 over that two-week release. Not bad, huh? So yeah, that's why we've never heard of it. I only stumbled on it at Netflix, and I'm glad I did. From director/writer Eran Creevy, 'Punch' borrows from some previous crime thrillers (British and otherwise), sampling everything from Michael Mann to Guy Ritchie. It's only 99-minutes long, but covers a lot of ground in that short(ish) running time. Very stylish, much of the story taking place at night, filmed in the shadows, dark clubs, dank alleyways, with some cool characters (even if they're familiar, seen them in other movies), a twisting story and some ridiculously stylized, cool action scenes.

If there is a complaint, it's easy to peg. Creevy's script tries to accomplish a lot. Sampling from the crime thriller genre, there's a lot of familiar characters, lots of familiar situations and not enough time to deal with it all. We get police partner drama, Lewinsky working through some personal drama with his partner, Sarah Hawks (Andrea Riseborough, of Oblivion). We get police corruption, Lewinsky having to decide who among the force (David Morrissey, Daniel Mays, Jason Flemyng, Daniel Kaluuya) who is clean and who is corrupt. Oh, there's also conspiracies involving an upcoming election, a social issue about police in England working unarmed, and a huge international corporation who may or may not be involved with the election. To say it is slightly convoluted would be slightly underselling the story, but it does all come together in the end. Just bear with it at times and go with it.

Not so surprising is that the best part is the focus on the rivalry between McAvoy's Lewinsky and Strong's Sternwood. The young, driven cop and the experienced, grizzled criminal are archetypal characters in the crime thriller genre, and more than that, those two different characters being forced to work together is a whole sub-genre from 48 Hours to Midnight Run and many others. They're familiar characters, but McAvoy and Strong breathe some life into them, giving the twisting and turning story some sort of base to come back to. McAvoy's Lewinsky has spent years brewing over the showdown that Sternwood that didn't go his way. Strong's Sternwood has left his past behind, only to be thrust back into it when his son gets involved in a crime where the details are more than fuzzy. I liked both characters -- and that goes a long way -- and liked it more when they're forced to put their differences aside and work together to take out a common enemy. Familiar but good.

Now onto something that may come out of left field. I like action scenes. I know...blew me away too. There's got to be something appealing about an action scene -- shootout, car chase, fist fight -- to make it memorable. The biggest thing going here? Composer Harry Escott's score is ridiculously appropriate for the action, the characters and the story. It's big...real BIG and not subtle at all. Listen to the entire soundtrack HERE. It makes the action -- more than solid in itself -- an experience to watch. There's some quick, hyper editing I typically don't go for, some epically slow motion sequences, all things we've seen before, but it Just Works here. The word that kept coming up was 'visceral.' These action scenes make you feel the action, a shiver up your spine, a goosebump on your arm. It's that cool factor that's just hard to explain, but hits you in the right way.

Without rewriting the genre, 'Punch' is able to be its own film. I liked it a lot, partially because I love police dramas and crime thrillers, but also because it is a genuinely good movie. Definitely worth checking out.

Welcome to the Punch (2013): ***/****

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

John Carter

Based off a novel, A Princess of Mars, by author Edgar Rice Burroughs, 2012's John Carter made headlines for all the wrong sort of reasons. Budgeted for around $250 million, it tanked in America, making around $75. It succeeded overseas and other markets, helping regain some of its losses (barely). So what happened? I don't know for sure. I loved the first hour, and yeah, there's also a second hour....unfortunately.

A Civil War veteran from Virginia, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is searching the Arizona desert for a cave that legend states is packed with gold. Pursued by Apaches and the U.S. Cavalry, Carter finds the cave only to be transported to a different planet. He knows it as Mars, but there he finds a race/species of 12-foot tall barbarians called Tharks. Carter discovers he has the ability to physically leap hundreds of feet into the air at will, impressing the Tharks with his prowess. Trying to discover how, why and where he is though, Carter finds himself involved and fighting in another war as warring factions fight for control of this supposedly dead, far-off planet.

I didn't go into this Andrew Stanton-directed science fiction-fantasy-western-epic with high expectations, but I was certainly curious to see what the fuss (or lack of) was all about. The genre-bending premise sounded intriguing. Early on, I loved it. 'Carter' was like a blend of Star Wars, Avatar and Dances With Wolves. How's that for a deadly trio of films? The exploration of a "new" planet was great, seeing the disbelief in John's eyes as we do the same. It's somewhat like Earth, but not quite. We meet a new race/species -- the Tharks -- and see their culture and way of life. We see warring factions -- the people of Helium vs. the fighters of Zodanga -- and John must come around with how he fits into it all. Is he willing to fight again, to fight for something that doesn't impact him?

That's the first hour. I loved it. Those scenes especially reminded me of the things I liked most about James Cameron's Avatar. And then there's the rest of the movie. A visual spectacle, a treat for the eyes, a genre-bending story, and you know what? I didn't care. I was bored. I had no interest in this war for control of Mars. None. The last 70 minutes therefore tended to drag for me. I don't know how/why it all changed so quickly, but it did. While I liked Kitsch's John Carter, I didn't have a whole lot of interest in his plight, much less that of the Helium survivors vs. the Zodanga city-state. A battle for sole power of a planet? It should have been cooler, but I would have just settled for even a little interesting.

Just 31 years old, Kitsch is trying to carve out a niche for himself as an actor and movie star. This is a good part in that direction. A tad wooden at times, I liked his performance although I could have done with more in the way of flashbacks. Lynn Collins plays the love interest, Dejah, the princess of the King of Helium (Ciaran Hinds). Collins is quite the heroine -- no damsel in distress -- and looks good doing it, but she doesn't have much chemistry with Kitsch. As for the Tharks, look for Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, and Samantha Morton lending their voice talents. Mark Strong plays Matai Shang, a space-manipulating being who leads destruction of planets one-by-one. Also look for Dominic West, James Purefoy and Bryan Cranston in supporting parts. West has some fun hamming it up as the villainous Sab Than, the puppet for Matai's intentions.

A swing and a miss here for the most part. A framing device with John's nephew, the future author Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara), is a great introduction and gets things moving well enough. The movie is gorgeous, New Mexico and Utah combining with some impressive CGI to stand in for Mars. Michael Giacchino's score is appropriately epic, and in general, the movie has the feel of an epic from the 1950s/1960s albeit with some great CGI. On the whole, the movie never connects on any sort of emotional level. The first hour though is highly enjoyable, making it worth at least a mild -- very mild -- recommendation.

John Carter <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 /****

The Guard

One of my favorite actors currently starring in movies, Brendan Gleeson is from that oh so familiar sub-group of actors....the character actor! Duh dun duh! He's perfect in those supporting roles that typically have him play alongside the lead instead of being the all-important lead. Thankfully, some studios saw that the Irish actor is extremely talented. In 2008, he co-starred with Colin Farrell in In Bruges (a great movie), and has continued with a lead role a few years later in 2011's The Guard.

In his quiet town on the Irish coast on the North Atlantic, Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Gleeson) goes about his duties "policing" the town. He's unorthodox and doesn't have much of a filter in communicating, but he's a good cop nonetheless. With a new officer on staff, McBride (Rory Keenan), Boyle investigates an odd murder, an outsider shot in the head and left to rot. Boyle and McBride wonder if it's a possible serial killer, but there's bigger things afoot. An FBI agent, Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle), has arrived to help the investigation. Everett believes the murder was involved with a huge drug deal that could net half a billion dollars in cocaine. Now the country cop must deal with the American agent, the time wasting away as the deal approaches.

A dark, indie Irish comedy was a new one for me. I can't think of another Irish movie I've even seen, but I picked a good one to start with. According to Wikipedia (and when are they ever wrong?), 'Guard' is the most successful indie Irish film of all-time.  First-time director John Michael McDonagh is working with familiar territory here, the fish out of water agent/officer forced to work with the eccentric, hometown police officer. But familiar is not a bad thing because McDonagh and the cast make it worthwhile. It feels like you've seen it before, but still manages to have that unique, unseen quality. The kinda quirky tone and eccentric qualities to it all work (think Irish Fargo in a way), and the Spanish guitar-themed score just adds to the quirkiness.

There was some pre-Oscar buzz that Brendan Gleeson would be nominated for an Oscar for his role as Sgt. Gerry Boyle, but that never materialized. Maybe because it's a comedy, the performance didn't get a ton of publicity. And if it isn't an Oscar-winning part, it is a very good one just the same. Gleeson's Boyle is somewhat proud of his racist prejudices, drinks on duty, samples drugs, visits prostitutes, but as an officer he always gets the job done. All vices aside, he is a good cop...even if his techniques are a little off-the-wall. His lack of a censor or filter provides a ton of laughs. He isn't necessarily racist, just curious and generally inexperienced with anyone non-white and non-Irish. A sub-plot with his mother, Eileen (Fionnula Flanagan), helps humanize him too if you're having trouble liking the character. It's just more proof that characters actors are more than capable of becoming lead actors.

The more familiar territory does come with Gleeson's Boyle working with Cheadle's Wendell as the investigation into the drug deal develops. Boyle isn't angrily racist, he's just prejudiced by stereotypes. He assumes Wendell doesn't like to swim, grew up in the projects, and that all drug dealers are black and Mexican. To his credit, Wendell doesn't flip out on him. The dynamic though is what makes the buddy cop relationship work. Differences aside, they'll get the job done. Gleeson and Cheadle are two immensely talented actors in whatever role, comedy or drama, and their chemistry is what makes that familiar story worth watching. Toward the end, Boyle asks Wendell if he's been shot before, and the exchange about the pain involved is priceless. The button-down American agent and the eccentric Irish cop? Can't go wrong.

Developing his story, McDonagh has some fun with his villains too, making them more than just underworld thugs. The trio is led by Sheehy (Liam Cunningham) and includes London enforcer Cornell (Mark Strong) and sociopath killer O'Leary (David Wilmot). The basic characters have been done before, but never quite like this. Sheey leads his crew in a discussion of everyone's favorite philosophers and said philosopher's most famous line. Strong's Cornell almost blows up on cops he's cutting a deal with them, asking them why he'd skim off the top a few thousand dollars when a $500,000,000 drug deal is on the line, also claiming he got into drug trafficking, not carrying heavy things. Given an option to run or fight, Cornell states "It's like f'ing Christmas!" and opts to stay. They're villains, yes, and rather nasty ones, but they're not run of the mill by any means. Other solid parts include Michael Og Lane as Eugene, a youngster who always helps Boyle, and Dominique McElligott (of Hell on Wheels) as Aoiffe, a prostitute Boyle visits.

I was somewhat surprised by the direction the film takes in its last 20 minutes. It was already pretty dark comedically, but it leans just more straight dark dramatically in the finale. The confrontation on a dock at the drug deal is a good action scene, added by a spaghett-western like score playing over the shootout. But what's really surprising is the open-ended quality of the ending. It leaves it open to the viewer to decide what happens, much like 2008's In Bruges. What ending works for you is what it comes down to. A really good, really funny comedy.

The Guard <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

I love reading, always have and hope I always will. So when I saw a trailer this past summer for a spy movie based off a book from English novelist John Le Carre, I wanted to check out the book before seeing the movie. I can't tell you how much I struggled through the book, forcing myself to finish it because if a movie was made, the source novel has to be good, right? Thankfully, 2011's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was infinitely more enjoyable than its source novel.

When a mission is badly botched in Budapest, Control (John Hurt) and his right hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), are forcefully pushed out the door at MI6. A new power system rises to the top, and most of a year later with Control dead, Smiley is approached with an important mission. More and more intelligence points to a high-up official in British intelligence being a mole working deep, deep undercover for Russia. The suspects have been narrowed down to four key individuals, but none of them seem any more likely to be the mole than the others. With the help of a younger but very capable agent, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley is tasked with exposing the mole. Can they do it in time?

Le Carre's book is something else. Countless characters, seemingly endless passages of dialogue on top of dialogue, and a non-linear story that I for one had trouble keeping up with. I hate calling a book dull or boring because it sounds very high school, but I struggled to maintain an interest in the very slowly developing story. Even when things were revealed, I had to re-read and double check just to make sure I'd read right. It defines a low-key, subtle spy story with little sense of urgency. Thankfully the movie streamlines the characters, the dialogue and the story, all the while remaining true to Le Carre's novel. It certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and it has its flaws, but 'Tinker' is quite the thinking man's spy movie.

Let's start with the tone and look of the movie. Like the novel, it is incredibly low-key, almost comatose in its development. For a story revolving around a high-level mole, no one seems particularly worried. The story utilizes flashbacks and bounces around constantly, throwing new characters in and out of scenes as needed. You know, just know, they're somehow related, and for the most part they do fit together in the end. It is a self-assured movie, and will probably lose some viewers with its leisurely pacing. The look of the movie is incredible from the sets and costumes to the camera work. The spies all wear suits and ties, constantly smoke cigarettes, and always have some liquor close by. This was the Cold War fought by gentlemen, not the gung-ho, shoot 'em up James Bond and Jason Bournes. These spies did their best when not seen by their opposition, slinking in and out as quickly as they arrived.

My biggest motivation for finishing the book was the cast assembled in director Tomas Alfredson's spy drama. I'll begin with Gary Oldman as George Smiley, a part that has already started to earn the actor some Oscar buzz for Best Actor. Like its story, Oldman is understated beyond belief as Smiley, a veteran agent with years of experience under his belt. He's experienced more than most can dream of, and the wear and tear shows. Pushed out of a job he was damn good at, his Smiley holds some earned resentment at the government and superiors that turned their back on him. Above all else, he is a professional though. He's a dogged investigator, able to piece together clues and information as needed, always thinking how the pieces fit together. I love Oldman as an actor -- playing good or bad guy -- but it's great seeing him truly acting, not just hamming it up. Great lead performance.

That's saying something considering the rest of the cast. The treacherous suspects include Alleline (Toby Jones), Haydon (Colin Firth), Esterhase (David Dencik), and Bland (Ciaran Hinds), both Jones and Firth making the best impressions. Cumberbath too holds his own at Oldman's side, an agent with a possible secret of his own, and Hurt is Hurt, legitimizing his small part because he's John Hurt. One of my new favorite actors, Mark Strong, has a solid supporting part as Prideaux, an agent who's stumbled into a botched mission and must pay the consequences. Another favorite of mine, Tom Hardy plays Ricki, a "scalphunter," an agent usually relegated to the more sinister missions, this time trying to move up a level with some info he stumbled into. Kathy Burke and Stephen Graham have key parts as former Intelligence members Smiley investigates. Not a false performance in the bunch, an ensemble working perfectly together. Not showy at all, just professionals doing what they do, seemingly effortlessly.

The movie isn't perfect though, but I did enjoy it considerably more than Le Carre's novel. Problems persist though. We learn little to nothing about the suspects so even when the mole is revealed, it makes little impact. A throwaway line explains the reasoning in a weak wrap-up. I would have liked some reasoning, some background on these men, allowing us to connect emotionally in some way whether it be hatred, respect, whatever. The story drifts at time -- like the novel -- in an 127-minute movie. Still, it's almost a must-see movie because it is so rare to see a movie of this quality, especially among the spy genre. The ending especially is a winner, a montage set to French song La Mer, later Americanized by Bobby Darin's Beyond the Sea. Style and acting to spare, just know what you're about to watch.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Revolver (2005)

With The Transporter, Crank and The Expendables series among a few other stand alone movies, Jason Statham is first and foremost an action star.  If anything of late, he's being typecast in the same part over and over again, not even an all-around action star. When given the chance to actually act, he's more than capable. He's just not getting that chance too often.  Working with frequent collaborator director Guy Ritchie, he got his chance in 2005's Revolver.  

After serving seven years in solitary confinement, Jake Green (Statham) is released from prison, and using a simple, effective and brilliant "formula" builds himself a fortune in just two years. He's got revenge on his mind, going up against Macha (Ray Liotta), the casino kingpin who helped put him away for all those years. Green does it in a flash, taking him for a cool fortune, but now Macha is gunning for him. Two loan sharks, Avi (Outkast's Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore), mysteriously step to the plate offering to help Green survive...for a price. With no other options, Green agrees. Can his formula that helped him rise to fame help him now when he needs it the most?

Well, let's talk about Statham because other than his part -- and one supporting player -- I basically hated this movie. An action star of few words, this is a huge departure for the British actor. Statham shows he is more than capable of acting, not just beating the crap out of people in highly choreographed action sequences. His Jake Green, an ex-con looking for revenge, is battling with some inner demons of epic proportions.  He believes he's got it all figured out, but everything around him is trying to tell him otherwise. One monologue about halfway through is a great dramatic moment as is a late scene where Jake -- alone in a claustrophobic elevator -- forces himself to battle through his demons and issues. In a movie that defies a simple description, Statham's performance is lost in a maze of symbolism, metaphors and a pretentious existentialism that drove me nuts.

I like Guy Ritchie. I do. Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, RocknRolla, Sherlock Holmes, all entertaining, enjoyable movies. This isn't his best work. It's funny that the story focuses so much on ego and handling your own ego because the movie feels like a huge ego trip for the director. Look at me, I'm talented! With a Ritchie film, a certain amount of over-the-top style is to be expected, and that's fine. His personal directing style is aggressive, even in your face at times. How many directors have classical music playing over frenetic and/or slow motion action? There's convoluted, and there's this story. Characters drift around, pitting themselves against each other, guys shoot at each other, and somehow it's supposed to make sense. As near as I can figure, Avi and Zach are trying to "save" Jake from himself, but it is the most ridiculously complicated plan ever.

Okay, stories meant to confuse you, forcing you to piece things together. Thoughts? I'm all for it. I appreciate a movie that forces viewer interaction.  Ritchie makes his story not only confusing, but as mentioned before, pretentious. According to Wikipedia (the end all, be all for info), Ritchie was highly interested in Kabbalah while filming, taking some of those teachings and putting them into his story. Jake Green's reasoning for revenge -- which is never explained -- will open doors to something bigger. I thought I was getting one movie and got another. 'Revolver' is all about expanding your mind and refusing to be kept down by your own ego, your own greed and needs. Once you truly allow your mind to see, the potential and possibilities are unlimited. Really? That's where this movie is going? It took two hours of violent, pointless detours to get to that point? Yeah, I'll pass.

Not knowing what I was getting into when I picked this movie, my reasoning was Ritchie directing and the cast he assembled. Behind Statham's strong lead, Liotta is a good choice to play Dorothy Macha, gambling kingpin, if somewhat underused. In most of his roles, Liotta can be intensity on a crazy level, but here it works. It's needed. Over the top, yes, but we need this crazy, live-wire to counter Statham's Green. Benjamin and Pastore are supposed to be these mysterious, all-knowing loan sharks, but their "background" is left unexplained until the end so I never connected with either character. Terence Maynard is a scene-stealer as French Paul, Macha's right hand man, while Ritchie favorite (and JHP favorite too) Mark Strong is Sorter, Macha's personal hired killer, the best money can buy. Andrew Howard too is very good in a small part as Billy, Jake's brother caught up in the craziness.

I wanted to like this movie. I like Ritchie and much of his cast. There apparently was a reason Netflix didn't think I would like it though, and they were right.  A story with a more profound message that's trying to say something is rarely a bad thing. With Revolver though, it's wrapped up in a convoluted story with needless departures from the story that looking bad now, were unnecessary and served no purpose other than to confuse us intentionally. Some reviewers are quick to jump to "If you don't get it, you're stupid" (which is always a classy response; some people just don't like movies...doesn't mean they're dumb). Maybe it would be better with a second viewing where everything can be pieced together, knowing what's coming. On first viewing though, it wasn't good.

Revolver <---trailer (2005): * 1/2 /****

Syriana

When Syriana was released in 2005, reviews were almost uniformly positive, speaking of a dramatic story that was intelligent, well-written, and smart. I'm usually a tad-bit skeptical when I hear descriptions like that so I was wary going into the movie when we rented it after its DVD release.  Call it whatever you want, but less than 30 minutes into the movie, and I was bored to tears. I stopped the movie, not willing to wait it out until it got better. Well, since then I'd see the DVD at video stores or at Netflix, and I felt like in a weird way it was judging me.

So here I sit in late July 2011 having revisited the movie, a political, current issue thriller with a non-linear story focused on oil and all its effects on the world (mostly bad if you don't watch the news).  My second viewing -- first all the way through to the end -- was basically the same as the first viewing with a more stubborn point of view on my part. I was going to stick it out through hell or high water, fighting off the need to take a quick nap as the story developed s..l..o..w..l..y.  That's 'slowly' for those who didn't get it. I watched it all the way to the end, re-read reviews, read some plot descriptions and came away feeling the same way. Not impressed even though I felt like I should have liked it.

Before writing and directing this 2005 thriller, Stephen Gaghan was most well-known for his work with the screenplay for 2000's Traffic. It is easy to draw parallels between the two movies with a handful of stories -- seemingly different but all heading in the same direction -- with the oil business taking over for the drug trafficking business.  Syriana demands you pay attention to every scene (novel concept, huh?), but I say that having paid attention and still coming away confused. Call me naive or stupid in my movie-going and viewing ways, but just because everything is needlessly complicated and even unexplained does not mean a movie is "smart." It just means that someone, in this case writer/director Gaghan, wrote a weaving story that takes some odd routes to get there. He's clearly talented, but I felt lost with this story from the word 'go.'

The plot can be divided into four main storylines, sometimes connected and others times not so much. First, there's aging, veteran CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has caused some trouble for talking aloud about a problem he sees in the Middle East. His superiors are noticing him for the wrong reasons, sending him on a dangerous mission into the Middle East. Second, there is Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), an oil company representative involved with a multi-billion dollar oil company merger, but problems arise almost instantly, and his beliefs and morals may come under fire. Third is Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an energy analyst working closely with the possible future emir of an immense oil field, Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) who isn't going along with U.S. interests. Last, there is young Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Muslim teenager searching for who he really is in turbulent, chaotic times.

As much talent is involved though with all these characters, the only one that left a truly positive impression was Clooney as Agent Barnes, a long-time field agent for the CIA who is at a bit of a crossroads in his personal life and his career. Clooney gets a bad rap at times for being a movie star, not an actor, but I think his acting ability is criminally underrated. At this point in his career, his Barnes is confused, frustrated and fed up, forcing him to make decisions he normally would not. The problem with the rest of this talented cast is that no one really comes to life.  You don't see Bryan Woodman, you see Matt Damon. Not a dig at Damon because it's a problem across the whole movie. In addition to all those names above, there are also supporting parts for Christopher Plummer as a high-powered oil executive, Chris Cooper as a high-strung oil rep, Amanda Peet as Woodman's wife, Tim Blake Nelson as an oil rep clearly in the crosshairs for his actions, William Hurt as Stan, an old source from Barnes' past, and Mark Strong as Mussawi, an overseas contact Barnes will use on his mission.

A day since watching the movie, I'm struggling to put into words why I struggled to get through this movie. At just over two hours, it feels much longer than that.  The non-linear story (read: confusing) is too disjointed and never gets into any sort of rhythm. As one portion of the story actually gets interesting, it jumps to another story. Mostly though, my issue comes down to boredom and lack of any emotion at all. Call it smart, call it well-written, call it educated. I was BORED, downright bored. I fell asleep again watching this movie...twice...forcing me to rewind and watch over what I'd missed. As for the emotion, there isn't any. The movie and all its intertwining stories keep you at an arm length. There are quick instances where you feel connected to the story or the characters, but they're fleeting moments. So I was bored and didn't really care about any characters, good combination, don't you think?

What next? I don't intend this as a 'I'm not smart so I'm going to lash out at the movie that threw me for a loop' rant regardless of how it sounds. Gaghan's script looks at all these different ways that oil affects the world, mostly in a negative way as greed, terrorism, corruption, betrayal and murder take over.  Is this supposed to be surprising, or am I just missing something? Am I that cynical? Is this supposed to be innovative, groundbreaking or in any way a new look at the world? I don't feel like it takes a stance that hasn't or hadn't crossed my mind at some point.

The one saving grace is the ending, brutally efficient in its effectiveness.  Honest and violent, it just works as we finally see the personal, human side of all these things.  Lives are lost in an instant because there are bigger concerns and worries at play, more than one individual's life.  It isn't enough to save the movie as a whole, but it does help Syriana end on a positive note, even if it is a little too late.

Syriana <---trailer (2005): **/****

The Eagle

My initial reaction when I saw a Channing Tatum movie was a less than favorable one. I believe my exact thought went something along the lines of "That guy has the acting range of a cardboard box." Maybe, I could have been more critical, but I'm not sure. I knew him as that guy in the dancing movies (Step Up) who in GI Joe: Rise of Cobra was a less than thrilling choice to lead the cast and movie. Even then, I was curious to see him in 2011's The Eagle, a historical period piece of all things.

The movie was released in theaters in February, made with a budget around $25 million. In a far too quick run in theaters, 'Eagle' made just $18 million so not exactly a rousing success for any studio. It's somewhat predictable to see why it wasn't successful. This could be off base, but you don't hear a lot of demand for a movie about the Roman Empire from a teenage audience (typically the people going to see a Tatum movie). More than that though, the story is predictable, the action incoherent to follow, and long stretches of a 114-minute movie could have been cut without the movie suffering. A bright spot though? Channing Tatum shows he can act.

In 120 A.D. in Britain, the 9th Roman Legion disappears, never to be seen again, the unit's golden Eagle -- their standard/flag in battle -- lost to the ages. Some 20 years later, Marcus Aquila (Tatum) is stationed at a remote outpost in Britain, helping his small command hold off a vicious Druid attack. Marcus is the son of the 9th's commander, and he would like nothing more than to clear his family name and bring the long missing Eagle back to Rome. Rumors persist that the standard is somewhere to the north deep in enemy territory, and Marcus intends to go after it. With help from his slave, a Briton named Esca (Jamie Bell), he heads past Hadrian's Wall in search of the Eagle, ready to do battle with anyone that presents themselves in front of him in his quest.

Playing a Roman centurion, Tatum has his work cut out for him. This part could go one of two ways. One, it is an action-oriented part so his physical presence will certainly help flesh out the performance. Two, it is a part that does require some actual acting as his Marcus is a garrison commander who must inspire faith in his men. Tatum handles the action and physical nature effortlessly, and handles himself well in the acting department (or at least as well as could be expected). Thankfully he doesn't try a stiff English accent (Roman soldiers spoke proper English, right?) so only a few lines are cringe-worthy, most of them shouts and commands to his men in the heat of battle. How many times can you yell 'Hold the circle' before it loses all meaning? I counted four. A minor criticism though for a surprisingly decent performance. Not award-winning stuff, but still good.

Aiding Tatum's cause is rising star Jamie Bell as Esca, his Briton slave.  The duo have an interesting Odd Couple/buddy relationship that has its ups and downs through the movie. At its best, it gives the story some interesting back and forth, a little cat and mouse game where one is always trying to get the upper hand on the other.  It doesn't always work, and there are some advances in the story that don't always make sense. Bell's Esca changes his mind seemingly when the wind shifts, and you're never quite sure of his intentions. Even when everything is revealed and resolved in the end, I'm still not sure it all made sense. Also joining the cast is Donald Sutherland as Aquila, Marcus' uncle living in Britain, Mark Strong as Guern, a supposed survivor of the massacre of the 9th Legion still living in Britain, with Tahar Rahim and Ned Dennehy as members of a northern tribe hunting Marcus and Aquila.  

The age of the 1960s historical epic is long since past so it's still fun to see a movie like this hit theaters. Roman soldiers lining up against masses of warring, heathen-looking barbarians is one of those iconic images from so many 60s epics.  Here though, 'Eagle' is undone by director Kevin Macdonald and a key choice he makes in his action scenes. He goes down the route of ultra-fast, ultra-quick editing that makes his battle scenes a mess of blurry swords being swung, soldiers/barbarians getting hacked up, and it's over so quick that you barely even notice it.  I've never understood the motivation of a director who films his action sequences like that. Getting the idea across of the chaos of battle is one thing, but actually show what's going on, and that might impress more.

The movie can be broken down into four mini chapters, some of which work better than others. One, Marcus arrives in Britain and helps defend his post. Two, a wounded Marcus heals at his uncle's villa. Three, Marcus and Esca search for the Eagle, eventually getting captured by a tribe. Four, they escape and race back to safety. Parts one and two are the more enjoyable parts, but by the time Marcus and Esca are captured there is a 25-minute stretch of pure boredom. It throws the pacing off so much that the rest of the movie struggles to regroup. The ending itself is nothing to brag about, and the chase never amounts to much in the way of excitement.

A sucker for historical epics and period pieces, I wanted to like this one more. Composer Atli Orvarsson turns in a memorable score that reminded me of another movie, but I couldn't place it. Still good though. The on-location shooting in Scotland was a great choice, giving the movie an authentic feel and look of wide open stretches of vast nothingness. The movie feels authentic down to the weapons and uniforms, but it just isn't always an interesting enough movie.

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

The Way Back

The timing of this review wasn't intentional to go back-to-back on prisoner of war movies, but that's just my bad luck or planning I guess.  To call 2010's The Way Back a prisoner of war movie isn't quite fair though because that only serves as a jumping off point. More than the POW angle, this is a story about survival, about man testing his limits in the hopes of getting back home, trudging through hell and back to get there.  Appropriately enough, it is a good movie (if flawed) and was in theaters for about an hour and a half.  The DVD was released recently, and I was able to finally catch up with it.

As the special features on the DVD point out, the atrocities committed by the Germans in concentration camps during WWII have been well documented.  To the east though in Russia, similar atrocities were committed...we just don't know about it.  It is a little slice of history generally forgotten by the masses as hundreds of Russian gulags kept thousands of people imprisoned through the war.  'Way' is based on a non-fiction book by Slawomir Rawicz called The Long Walk documenting his story of escaping from one of these gulags with six companions and their desperate, even unbelievable, 4,000 mile walk to freedom. The book's accuracy and general honesty has been called into question ever since it was released in the 1950s, but true or not, the story is one worth telling.

Accused of spying and sabotage against Stalin, a young Polish man, Janusz (Jim Sturgess), is sent to a Russian gulag buried deep in Siberia. There he finds hellacious conditions where even the strongest struggle to survive. Seeing no hope, he escapes with six companions, including mysterious American, Smith (Ed Harris), and a Russian criminal from the streets, Valka (Colin Farrell). Short on supplies, food and water, their plan is desperate, but they figure what worse could happen to them back in the camp?  Knowing if they're caught they will be executed, Janusz and his group head south, even picking up a young Polish refugee, Irena (Saoirse Ronan), along the way. As they put hundreds and eventually thousands of miles behind them, they wonder, can they actually escape to some sort of freedom?

On a purely visual level, this is one of the most breathtaking movies you will ever see.  Janusz and his fellow escapees end up traveling over 4,000 miles from deep in Siberia to freedom in India.  Actually look at a map and see how far that is.  It's insane what he accomplished (or claims he accomplished).  We start in the snow-swept mountains of Siberia, wind whipping around at all times, and then move south into the green, rocky hills surrounding Lake Baikal.  Continue on into the wastelands of Mongolia and the Gobi Desert into the Himalayas, one of the biggest mountain ranges in the world.  'Way' is an incredibly beautiful movie to watch, shots composed with an eye to impress and leave that lasting impression. Consider the movie a big winner on that account.

Survival stories are movies and stories at their most basic.  No extra, unnecessary plotlines, no wasted departures, just putting one foot in front of the other and keep on moving. Keep on breathing even though you want to give up. Director Peter Weir has a bare-bones type of story here, men already pushed to their limits forced to go even deeper into their mind, heart and soul to keep going, to push on.  That's good for awhile, but at 133 minutes it isn't always the most interesting story.  By a certain point, you're either rooting for these characters or you're not. I assume it was Weir's intention to beat you over the head, to exhaust you with this survival trial the same way the characters are going through it.  Mission accomplished because at times this is an exhausting story.  I won't say tedious because things don't repeat themselves, but seeing a man plunge to his absolute lowest can only be done so many times.

Before the movie even starts, a title card says that in 1942 three men walked into India having survived a 4,000 mile trek to get there.  I thought it was a poor decision to give that much information away from the get-go, especially because seven people escape the gulag.  We now know four aren't going to make it. It's just a matter of which ones.  Character development is not high on the list of things going for this movie.  Sturgess as Janusz simply isn't given enough information to be a real human being.  He felt like an idea of a character to me.  Harris and Farrell are the scene-stealers, Harris' Smith the most mysterious but also most sympathetic while Farrell's criminal Valka is the most interesting.  SPOILERS When he departs a little over halfway through the movie, my interest level went down END OF SPOILERS  The other four are fairly interchangeable, including Dragos Bucur as Zoran, the funny man and complainer, Alexandru Potocean as Tomasz, the artist, Gustaf Skarsgard as Voss, the priest, and Sebastian Urzendowsky as Kazir. Mark Strong is also very good as Khabarov, but his character gets left behind at the gulag.

Where does this movie fall then?  Above average for sure, but not a classic or one I'd revisit anytime soon.  With on-location shooting in Bulgaria, Morocco and Australia, it would be worth it just to watch the movie as a visual travel guide.  I'm unfamiliar with his other work, but composer Burkhard von Dallwitz does a subtle score that is memorable in its simplicity, its ability to match up so well with the visual. My only suggestion would be to cut about 20 minutes from the movie.  There is so much positive here that I have to recommend it, including a beautiful ending, moving in its execution as everything comes full circle.

The Way Back <---trailer (2010): ***/**** 

RocknRolla

Before I saw Sherlock Holmes last winter, my knowledge of Guy Ritchie was limited to knowledge of a couple cult classic British crime stories, his marriage to Madonna and subsequent disastrous movie starring Mrs. Ritchie.  I liked Sherlock Holmes but didn't love it, and looking at his short list of movies none of them really jumped out at me, especially 2008's RocknRolla.  I remember seeing the trailer and thinking it looked like an annoyingly ultra-stylish story that knows it's cool and is going to take every opportunity it gets to show you how cool it is.  But then I really looked at the cast, and thought I had to at least give it a try.  I'm glad I did.

Ritchie has taken all sorts of abuse over the years for everything from his directing style -- as a Tarantino rip-off -- to his not-so private life with Madonna.  And even in a period piece about one of literature's most famous characters, Ritchie was able to make it an ultra-stylish period piece.  Not having seen Snatch or Lock, Stock... but knowing their reputation, it seems Ritchie is most at home in the London underworld where heavy accents and dialects dominate and everyone and anyone will turn on you for a buck.  RocknRolla is at times convoluted, at times overly concerned in its style, but in the end a very enjoyable, very entertaining British crime caper.

When a business deal goes south, two members of a British gang called the Wild Bunch, One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba), find themselves in needs of some quick cash, turning to an icy accountant (Thandie Newton) for some inside information.  The man they owe, criminal kingpin Lenny Nelson (Tom Wilkinson), doesn't necessarily need the money, but principle is principle.  Lenny, with right hand man Archy (Mark Strong), is caught up in a real estate deal with a Russian businessman (Karel Roden), who loans Lenny a famous, lucky painting of his until the deal can be completed. The painting wastes no time disappearing, and Lenny is up the creek, even more so when he finds out his stepson, drugged out rocker Johnny Quill (Toby Kebbell), is the thief. So it goes as all these crooks work to save their own backsides, a vicious cycle as One Two and Mumbles end up stealing the money that Lenny is due from the Russian, the painting playing a key role, and in the end everyone is going to run into each other.

Screwy enough for you?  There were times as all these various storylines cross and re-cross that I wondered if I was watching a Seinfeld episode.  But like the best Seinfeld episodes, Ritchie fixes everything in the end as all these characters, storylines and predicaments come together, everything tied up nicely with a bow.  Confusing at times, surely, but never to the point where you feel lost.  Because there is so much going on, you're not always sure quite where everything is going, but it's fun to go along for the ride.  At a certain point, you just go along and enjoy some really cool characters interact in some very stylish ways.  The London criminal underworld never looked so good.

The characters I included above covers about half the actual cast.  Jeremy Piven and rapper Ludacris have two small parts as Johnny Quill's former manager roped into helping Lenny get his painting back.  Tom Hardy plays Handsome Bob, a member of the Wild Bunch and friend of One Two and Mumbles.  There's other characters that drift in and out, but those are the biggies.  Two main storylines dominate all the action, Wilkinson and Strong as the kingpin and his tough as nails assistant trying to track down a stolen painting (the ridiculousness of the premise somehow works perfectly) while Butler, Elba and Hardy keep going after piles of money just waiting to be stolen.

Going away, my favorite parts of RocknRolla was the Wild Bunch.  They have a great dynamic among all the members of a gang that isn't low-level crooks but isn't top-shelf thieves either.  They're somewhere in between, knowing their place in the underworld.  Butler has struggled finding good roles since the success of 300, but this is a very funny gem for him.  Elba is equally perfect in an underused part as Mumbles, and Hardy (another great supporting part along with this summer's Inception) has a great twist to his character that produces some very funny results.  The high point for the Wild Bunch is a robbery gone bad when two Chechnyan thugs do everything they can to protect the cash they're guarding.  A running, chaotic chase scene with some great dark humor, knock down violence runs for almost 10 minutes and is the runaway favorite for the best scene in the movie.  Watch a portion of it HERE. The end of course says the Wild Bunch will be back, and I'm looking forward to it.

As strong as the cast was, I was skeptical going into this movie and ended up really liking it.  Almost every member of the cast is given their own chance to shine and none disappoint.  Wilkinson is his smarmy, intimidating best, Strong's narration is dripping with subtle humor, Newton is a sexy femme fatale that film noir would be jealous of, Butler, Elba and Hardy have a chemistry that speaks to longtime friends, and in the big picture, the stylish elements never go overboard.  Ritchie has a real winner here.  If I can offer any advice, watch the trailer below, but don't hold it against the movie. Don't do what I did, and hold it against the movie.

RocknRolla <---trailer (2008): ***/****

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): **/****      

Sunshine

A bit in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" has a character exposed to the immensity of outer space, our galaxy and much further on.  The kicker is that everyone who sees how big the universe is thus feels as small as an ant and kills themselves.  It's funnier than it sounds, trust me.  But the size of space is hard to comprehend, one of many things that flashed through my head while watching 2007's Sunshine.  A sci-fi story that is a lot more at times -- and a lot less at others -- asks a lot of questions, some harder to answer than others.

The science portion of the science fiction angle has this ability to drive a lot of viewers off as they claim "Oh, that's ridiculous.  That could never happen."  Well thankfully, I've never been a science whiz and when I see something that doesn't quite make sense, it usually drifts over me and is gone as quick as it appeared.  Sunshine has its fair share of those moments, but the build-up and the tension and the character dynamics are so interesting to watch, the science of it all can be superfluous at times.  I was loving this movie, absolutely loving it, for about an hour, and then director Danny Boyle adds a twist so unnecessary and out of place that it almost ruins the whole movie.  Stew on that for a little while.

Some 50 years into the future, the sun is dying much faster than ever predicted, leaving the Earth in a state of winter at all times, the planet basically freezing to death.  Aboard an immense space ship, the Icarus II, eight astronauts navigate from Earth to the Sun carrying a bomb, a massive payload the size of Manhattan Island, that it is believed will create a star within a star by exploding the bomb within the sun.  The voyage is millions of miles away, and the Icarus II has been moving toward its goal for some 16 months.  But as the ship passes Mercury, an odd distress signal is heard, that of Icarus I, the first ship sent to accomplish the mission before mysteriously disappearing.  What happened to the first ship, and could it happen to the second before the mission  is accomplished, dooming Earth to its fate?

A great ensemble fills out Icarus II's crew, starting with Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada), the ship's captain, Harvey (Troy Garity), 2nd in command and communications officer, Searle (Cliff Curtis), ship's doctor and psych officer, Capa (Cillian Murphy), the physicist in charge of the bomb, Corazon (Michelle Yeoh), the biologist, Cassie (Rose Byrne), the pilot, Trey (Benedict Wong), the navigator, and Mace (Chris Evans), the no-nonsense engineer. On a journey with no outside world to escape to that will take years, the crew develops tendencies and routines, fighting amongst themselves while balancing out the scale of their mission. The first hour of the movie as we see these characters and get to know them is by far the best part, seeing this dynamic among eight people as they risk their lives to save millions.

Deep space provides all sorts of open doors for a movie to walk into.  It's unexplored, and anything could exist out there.  It takes years to travel the millions of miles between Earth and the Sun so rescue isn't just around the corner.  These astronauts are on their own.  That premise is what drives the story.  The future of the Earth depends on this crew and their ability.  Add in an absolutely beautiful visual movie, a very moving if underused score by John Murphy (listen HERE) and you've got all these great elements to work with. About halfway through, I thought I was watching one of the best sci-fi movies ever, only to have a curveball thrown my way.  It helped following the movie reading scathing posts on the message boards that I wasn't the only one who hated an unnecessary late twist.

SPOILERS for this paragraph SPOILERS  The disappearance and then reappearance of Icarus I is a perfect addition to the story, in theory.  It's like Christmas Eve, you're curious what those presents are, but it's almost more fun not knowing what's inside.  How did the Icarus disappear? Did they kill each other? Did the Sun destroy them? Was it an alien? It's better not knowing here.  It is that sense of mystery of what space could contain.  ANYTHING.  Then in need of repairs, the Icarus II docks with I, and over the last 30-45 minutes we see that it was the deranged captain (Mark Strong) who took out his crew and now plans to take out II, hoping to be the man who last talks to "God," or in reality the sun and all its power. What was one of the best science-fiction movies ever now devolves into a teen slasher film.  Really? That's where you wanted to go with this?  The ending still remains incredibly moving in its execution, but it's almost an afterthought. END OF SPOILERS

There are good twist, great twist, stupid twists and unnecessary ones.  This one was stupid and unnecessary in so many ways. It almost completely ruins what otherwise could have been a classic movie about space, space travel, and all the emotions and feelings that race through the human mind when faced with an impossible, nearly suicidal task.  Almost completely ruins. The first hour and the last five minutes are so good I'm still recommending this one.

Sunshine <----trailer (2007): ***/****

 

Sherlock Holmes

Never one to pull punches with his movies, it was not surprising to hear that director Guy Ritchie's take on famed and loved literary character Sherlock Holmes was going to veer slightly from the classic image of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. The somewhat accepted version of Holmes is a rather stately gentleman who is an expert in using little clues to solve much bigger mysteries. He is well-dressed, well-spoken and highly intelligent. Enter Richie who takes Holmes and does a complete 180 with him, most of the time for the better in the recently released Sherlock Holmes.

The casting choice for Holmes could be seen as an odd one -- American actor Robert Downey Jr. -- but that's the least of the movie's troubles. I shouldn't say that, it sounds too negative, but the movie does have it's flaws. Downey Jr. takes Ritchie's idea and runs with it, transforming the renowned detective into a scruffy brawler who is nonetheless a highly observant, highly intelligent individual who is as likely to throw a punch and down some booze as he is to solve a case. To say the least, Downey Jr. makes him an eccentric and to the movie's benefit.

Working with his sidekick and roomate (more on that later) Dr. Watson (Jude Law), London detective Sherlock Holmes prevents a serial killer, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), from killing his sixth female victim in an exciting opening sequence. Blackwood is imprisoned and hung some three months later with Watson pronouncing him dead at the scene. It's not long though before the police come in search of Holmes' help. Blackwood has apparently risen from the dead and looks to keep a promise he made to Holmes; he'll continue to terrorize London and then later England, the U.S. and the entire world. Not a believer in black magic in the least, Holmes goes about solving the mystery which gets murkier when a woman from his past, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), gets involved.

Sherlock Holmes received somewhat mixed reviews but is still raking in the cash in theaters. I love going to the movies and was excited to see this one, but still came away like I had missed something. It was a movie I wanted to love but only ended up liking it. Thinking back on it, I can't even figure out why which confuses me even more. Maybe it was the audience I saw it with, but the humourous elements fell short. There were some chuckles here and there but never any laugh out loud moments. Making Holmes a brawler works in two early scenes as he explains in voiceover how he'll win the battle through slow-motion and then does it in the matter of a second or two. But with the exception of the finale, the action seems oddly out of place and even slows the movie down.

The casting is not surprisingly the best part of the movie. Downey Jr. has another successful franchise on his hands if he wants it (yeah, yeah, the ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel) and breathes life into a character that might have been rather stuffy with another actor. Playing loyal Watson, Jude Law matches Downey step for step and scene for scene. His Watson is the straight man to Holmes' antics, but he's also an ally -- sometimes unwillingly so -- in Holmes' adventures. As for the roommate thing, I'm still trying to decide if Ritchie tried to make the two characters come off as gay. There's obviously a bromance going on here with Holmes and Watson bickering like an old married couple, especially now that Watson is engaged. Their relationship is played for laughs and works nicely, providing some of the movie's best moments and many of those already mentioned chuckles.

Rounding out the lead trio, Rachel McAdams handles herself well as Irene Adler, a female version of Holmes, an ass-kicking con woman who's duped Sherlock at least twice. It's not the best-written part and she disappears for extended segments in the 1st hour, but McAdams makes the most of it. One other fault that comes to mind is the lack of a strong villain. Strong's Blackwood just isn't given enough development, and the explanations in the end for his other-worldly abilities take his character down another notch. As an intellectual, he's a perfect foe for Holmes but the part feels underwritten. Eddie Marsan has a good part as a London inspector, Robert Maillet plays an enormous thug who keeps crossing paths with Holmes and Watson, and Kelly Reilly is Mary, Watson's fiance who must fight with Holmes for his affection.

I'm definitely going to have to think some more about this one because it has all the elements of what could have been a really exciting, very professional movie. Composer Hans Zimmer assembled an atypical score that works nicely, including a catchy theme for Holmes. The cast is very reliable and the story is interesting enough, but something just didn't click for me. I'd still recommend seeing it, but it's not a very strong recommendation. I liked this movie, but I wanted to love it.

Sherlock Holmes <----trailer (2009): ** 1/2 /****