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 /****

Stolen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Ah, the sequel, where movie studios go for what they hope is a sure thing with audiences. But with a few exceptions, like Empire Strikes Back and Godfather II, the sequels are never on par with the originals which are often enough classics in their own rights. Now I won't go as far as saying the first National Treasure movie is a classic, but it sure was entertaining. So 3 years after the original, NT: Book of Secrets came was released to even bigger business.

Looking at successful sequels, the key has to be doing just enough new stuff while keeping the spirit and casting of the original intact. 'Secrets' tries to improve on a lot of things while still dealing with a historical subject as Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) once again tries to unravel a mystery that could lead to a supposedly mythological treasure. Along with Cage, all of the cast from the original is back, something that's always nice to see. And why wouldn't they come back? It's a sure thing in terms of the $, but for whatever reason, actors/actresses always want to branch out from successful franchises.

As for the additions, director Jon Turteltaub follows the Bourne movie formula, when you have a new character, cast one of the best actors available in Hollywood. So here we get Academy Award winner Helen Mirren, Academy Award nominated Ed Harris, and always reliable Bruce Greenwood joining an already impressive cast and blending in seamlessly. These are the types of roles that will never add any awards to the trophy cases, but instead the roles that the actors are clearly having fun with. It's the type of thing that shows so clearly on-screen and helps bring the movie up a notch.

Several years since the original discovery of a huge historical treasure, Benjamin Franklin Gates (Cage) is on the touring circuit talking about his ancestor, Thomas Gates, and his involvement with the Lincoln assassination and his chance meeting with John Wilkes Booth. But at one presentation, Mitch Wilkinson (Harris) presents a missing page from Booth's diary claiming that Thomas was the architect of the assassination plot. So teaming up with sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), his dad Patrick (Jon Voight), and ex-girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger), Benjamin goes about proving his great-grandfather's innocence.

The trail once again takes them all over the world with pit stops in Paris, London (including sneaking into the Queen's study at Buckingham Palace), George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Washington D.C. and even Mount Rushmore. Benjamin figures the only way to prove Thomas' innocence is to find the treasure he kept from falling into Confederate hands, but some key evidence could be in the 'book of secrets,' a book passed down from President to President with essential info, things like Area 51, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate. Hot on their trail, FBI agent Sadusky (an underused Harvey Keitel) gets involved, especially when Ben's plan involves kidnapping the President (Greenwood) at a party.

Much like the first movie, 'Secrets' moves along at a break-neck pace that never allows you to slow down and comprehend how ridiculous the whole thing is. This time around, Benjamin does seem to figure out the clues a little quicker, a little bit more outlandishly, which can be annoying and a little too coincidental for me, but not enough to take away from the enjoyment of the story.

Wearing an odd-looking toupee or some sort of hair extension, Cage reprises his role as treasure hunter Gates. Over-the-top and scenery chewing, he's at his best, including a scene in Buckingham Palace where he must make a scene to attract the attention of security. Bartha is perfect again as Riley, now trying to step out of Benjamin's shadow with his own book. Kruger unfortunately has been made into a whiny movie girlfriend, but her character is still a good fit because she counters Ben so well. Voight gets some very funny lines with Mirren as his estranged wife. The two veteran actors give a sense of history between their characters without saying much at all. As the villain, Harris isn't at his best, but come on, it's Ed Harris. He's awesome even if he was just reading a telephone book.

Comparing 'Secrets' to the original is where the problems come up. Not major problems but certainly enough to be noticed. At times, the story just feels like a rehash as we get clue, Benjamin figuring out clue, chase scene, and then finding another clue. Of course, that's not a bad thing because the first movie worked so well with that formula, but it's not great either. So it's not enough to force me to give a negative review, but at least enough to bring it down a notch, just a little notch. Still a movie that's worth seeing if for nothing else so that you're ready for National Treasure 3, due out in 2011.

National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets <----trailer (2007): ** 1/2 /****

National Treasure

Following the huge mega enormous success of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, it wasn't long before any number of similar adventure stories with a historical edge were on the market, in books, on TV and of course at the movies. Some were clearly rush jobs to capitalize on the success, but others were done right and benefited from it, like 2004's National Treasure.

With a very similar style to Da Vinci Code, National Treasure is a never slow down, rocket paced adventure story with a historical background. When comparing movies, 'Treasure' is light years ahead of the movie version of Da Vinci Code which just took itself too seriously. The Disney-backed movie doesn't have to worry about that with over the top, ridiculous action and bad guys that never seem that scary.

Of course any movie with Nicolas Cage in the lead automatically gives a movie a bit of the tongue in cheek feel to the proceedings. How couldn't it with the actor's great delivery of cheesy one-liners and a constant need for Cage to run at some point during the movie? No two ways about it, these are the roles Cage is perfect for. He's not so much acting as playing himself, or at least what I like to think he's like in real life.

Cage plays Benjamin Franklin Gates who as a pre-teen is told by his grandfather (Christopher Plummer, perfect in a one-scene cameo) about a treasure dating back to ancient times that's been involved and moved through history over the last several thousand years. First, it was the Egyptians, then the Knights Templar in the Crusades and then the Freemasons once the treasure apparently reached the U.S. The Gates family has spent almost 200 years searching for this mythical treasure, and Benjamin, now an experienced treasure hunter, seems to be getting closer to it.

Following a clue to the Arctic Circle with millionaire and all-around questionably moral millionaire Ian Howe (Sean Bean), Ben finds another clue that says the map to the treasure is on the back of the Declaration of Independence. After a falling out with explosions of course, it's a race between Ben and his sidekick Riley (Justin Bartha) against Ian and his henchmen as to who can get steal the Declaration first. The movie from there on out is basically one big chase with elements of a heist movie thrown in for good measure.

The chase takes Ben and Riley to Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and a couple hidden locations in those cities that I won't spoil here. Trying to steal the Declaration, they also pick up a 3rd member, Dr. Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), a fellow history geek working as a supervisor at the National Archives, and a 4th, Ben's dad (Jon Voight) That's part of the fun though, instead of just an exciting chase movie, you get an exciting chase movie with history which is fun to see even if it's not historically true.

Director Jon Turtletaub filmed in all those cities at locations like the Archives, the Lincoln Memorial, Independence Hall, and even a chase below New York City. Could I tell you half of what the clues were? Nope, I don't even remember them. The story moves so fast it's hard to keep up. Keep this in mind, Cage is the good guy and Bean is the bad guy. And dddddone.

Because it is a fun Disney action movie, you have to know there's a happy ending. Even the FBI agent, Sadusky (Harvey Keitel), tracking them down is a pretty amiable guy. Bean is good as the semi-menacing villain meant to look meaner than his character actually is. As I said before, Cage is pitch perfect, Bartha gets all the good one-liners as the smart ass sidekick, and Kruger looks good in a part that doesn't require her to do much more. Voight similarly looks to be having a ball with his fun supporting role.

Here's another review that might sound negative, and it definitely qualifies as a guilty pleasure, but it's a non-stop thrill ride that's a lot of fun. Shut the old brain off for 2 hours and enjoy. The actors seem to be having as much fun on-screen as we're supposed to be watching it, and that always helps. Good old-fashioned action/adventure with some cool historical elements added into the mix.

National Treasure <----trailer (2004): ***/****

Knowing

That question pretty much sums up my feelings on Nicolas Cage in one quick statement. In the late 1990s and into the early part of the next century, Cage made a list of pretty good movies, some guilty pleasures and others genuinely good stories. But then he seemed to hit a road block of sorts since with such classics as The Wicker Man, which I love but can admit is a horrible, god awful movie, Ghost Rider, Bangkok Dangerous, Next, and The Weather Man. To be fair, I haven't seen The National Treasure movies, but they're on my list.

For my latest Nic Cage movie, I rented Knowing which came out in theaters this past March. The reviews were generally positive, especially Roger Ebert's review which slobbered all over the movie, and my sister and her husband (both of whom I typically agree with about most movies) really liked it. So I begin by saying I wanted to like it, I like Cage even with his recent string of bombs, and the story sounded promising, but oh how I hated this movie, especially the last hour.

The commercials and the trailer built this movie up a ton, giving just a hint of what's to come. Any apocalypse story is A-ok by me, I'll give it a shot. MIT astrophysicist Dave Koestler (Cage) is a single father trying to raise his son Caleb (a good part for 11-year old Chandler Canterbury). Caleb's school is opening a 50-year old time capsule with each student getting a drawing from a student in 1959 imagining what the future will look like. Some have spaceships, others robots, but David finds that Caleb's is a list of seemingly unrelated numbers. It's almost by accident that David figures out what the numbers mean.

The sheet predicts all sorts of disasters, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, plane crashes, with a freakish accuracy. It predicts dates, amount of people killed and even the location of the incident. But as David looks over the list, there's a handful of numbers at the end, events that haven't happened yet with astronomical casualties listed with the dates. Is there any way he can stop these events from happening, even when he finds the last number prediction could mean the end of the world?

Where to start, where to start? The first hour is as exciting and tense as a sci-fi/thriller/horror movie should be, and that's from someone who typically avoids any sort of movie that might scare me. The two disasters David figures out, a large jet crashing near a freeway and a horrific subway accident, are prime examples of how CGI can be used to enhance a movie instead of distracting from it. Two great set pieces to get the ball rolling. But then the story takes a nasty turn with its predictions of the end of the world. From here on in I'm giving away major plot points so don't read on if you don't want the rest of the movie blown.

In trying to figure out what the deal is with the numbers, David investigates into the life of the little girl who wrote them down. Unfortunately, she died years ago, but her daughter Diana (Rose Byrne) is still around and is also a single parent, raising her daughter Abby (Lara Robinson), and trying to get past all the things her mother told her as she grew up. All that's fine, their involvement does serve to explain where the numbers came from, but the explanation drove me nuts.

Some of the freakier parts of the movie has these mysterious figures appearing out of nowhere to tell Caleb and Abby things, whispering in their ear. It's from them that Diana's mother got the numbers, predicting all sorts of disasters over the years. So what are they, some sort of mysterious religious cult, fanatics looking to destroy the Earth? Nope, they're some sort of aliens from another galaxy/star system looking to protect Caleb and Abby from destruction. Scaring the bejesus out of kids is usually a good way to get them on your side I've found. So instead of Cage trying to solve the world, we get 30-40 minutes of him looking for his kid as the world goes all to hell. "Awesome."

The problem with all this is that the explanation completely negates the first hour. If these light aliens/spirits/deities just need the two kids, what was the point of predicting all the disasters? Couldn't they just have come along and taken the two kids away? Ah, who knows, I'm getting frustrated just thinking about it again. Needless to say, the ending pissed me off to no end. Not the destruction of the Earth because of a solar flare shot from the Sun, that was pretty cool, but everything leading up to it.

What could have been interesting from the storyline is the idea of fate/destiny vs. free choice. Is everything we do influence where we end up in life, or are we supposed to accomplish something in our life and no matter what we do, that one thing is going to happen? But the movie never explores that option. Is Cage's David supposed to find these numbers so that he can put Caleb on the route to safety, or is it all just a random group of events? Interesting ideas, but that's it, nothing more.

Too bad with this movie because as I wrote before, I wanted to like this movie, and after the first hour I was enjoying it. Even the prediction of the Earth being destroyed made the 2nd hour look interesting, but in the execution the story went all over the place with no set idea of the message it was trying to get across. So instead of a great ending, with a huge downer, we get a happy ending with Caleb and Abby running through some wheat field to a beautiful tree in the middle of the prairie. Could it be heaven? Who knows for sure. All I knew was that I was glad I didn't waste $11 to see this one in theaters. Avoid Knowing like the plague.