St. Vincent

So that Bill Murray guy, he's got Saturday Night Live, Stripes, Caddyshack and Ghostbsters to his name. Not a bad career right? Yep, for most, but Murray did all those over about a 10-year stretch. What's weirder? He's in icon status now and probably has more popularity in 2014 than he did 10 or 15 years ago. If he keeps starring in movies like 2014's St. Vincent, that popularity is going to go nowhere but up.

Living in his old Brooklyn home, Vincent MacKenna (Murray) is content to live as a crotchety, grumpy, retired old guy. He goes to the horse track, drinks regularly at the local bar and spends some "quality time" semi-regularly with Daka (Naomi Watts), a pregnant Russian stripper/prostitute. Nothing wrong with all that, right? Well, his cozy, grouchy existence is about to be thrown for a loop. Vincent has some new neighbors next door, a mom, Maggie (Melissa McCarthy), starting a new job as a nurse, and her 12-year old son, Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher). His standoffish, downright rude interactions get things started off on quite the positive -- that's sarcasm -- but Vincent can only do so much. Looking to provide as best as she can, Maggie has to take some long hours, some long shifts...and Oliver needs a babysitter. In steps Vincent who oddly enough gets along with young Oliver pretty well and pretty quickly. No way that oddball friendship works, right?

Ever heard the name Theodore Melfi? Yeah, me neither. To be fair, you shouldn't have. Melfi is a longtime producer who has also directed some short films. This 2014 comedy/drama is his feature film debut, and for good measure, he also wrote the screenplay. It's quite the successful debut with universally positive reviews and a decent box office showing as it picks up some word of mouth while also getting a more major theatrical release. The biggest thing I can say/warn about is that this isn't your typical indie comedy full of quirks and eccentricities and oddballs. All those things are there, but it isn't the exact same movie you've seen over and over again. It is familiar. It is predictable, and you've most likely seen similar movies before. Now all that said...I loved this flick from beginning to end, predictability or not.

Go figure that Bill Murray is really, really good here as Vincent MacKenna. This isn't hamming it up goofy Carl the groundskeeper. This is an excellent acting performance. Rocking an understated, not laid on too heavy Brooklyn accent, Murray gives some real depth to Vincent. You think you know everything about him from the moment you meet him, but credit to Melfi's script. There's a whole lot more going on with Vincent than what we see at first. Yes, he's an alcoholic, he gambles too much and he's rude, crude and politically incorrect, but don't judge too early. Not always likable, not easy to hate, he's a normal guy in his older years struggling with those years passing by.

In the predictability department, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that Murray's cantankerous fogie bonds pretty quickly with Oliver. This is a kid in a new neighborhood and school without many friends, and he doesn't seem too put off by Vincent's standoffish act. They click instantly. Vincent teaches Oliver how to defend himself, to stand up for himself. Is it cliched? Yes, 100 percent, but it is handled in expert fashion. It's got a touch of Gran Torino (Eastwood in the old guy role), but a lighter touch. Young Lieberher is excellent too, a natural, easygoing and likable presence as Oliver. He's not the disgustingly adorable little kid that seems so prevalent in movies. He's just a kid, and that makes all the difference. For Murray, maybe there's an Academy Award nomination in his future. Hopefully at least.

There isn't a weakness in the cast, starting obviously with Mr. Murray and Lieberher. I really like Melissa McCarthy, and it's cool to see her do a funny but still pretty dramatic performance. She gets the laughs, but she doesn't count on the physical, often overdone humor that has limited the potential of a movie like Identity Thief. Watts has some fun as the Russian stripper/prostitute who's pretty clueless but gets along with Vincent just the same. Also look for Chris O'Dowd as the religion teacher at Oliver's school, Terrence Howard as Vincent's bookie, Dario Barosso as Oliver's bully turned friend, and Kimberly Quinn as a nurse Vincent sees once or twice a week. An excellent cast full of interesting, sympathetic (some not as sympathetic) characters that all add that human touch to the story.

I'll give Melfi's script credit. For the most part, it is fairly to pretty predictable. You always kinda have a sense where things are going...until you don't. The script throws the audience for some loops about the halfway point that worked pretty well. Some reviews I read thought it got a little too sentimental, but I thought the tone and story departures worked pretty well. It comes back to a straightforward thought that isn't the most uplifting thought, but it is honest. That thought? "Life ain't tidy." It's rarely easy to fix or solve. Life has problems, often unforeseen problems, and you have to decide how much you want to work to fix those problems. I loved the movie from beginning to end. A good sign of its impact on audiences? The credits feature Murray alone on-screen sitting, just singing and doing some odds and ends.

Nobody in the theater left. We all sat and kept watching it until the end. A testament to the movie, especially to Murray's awesome lead performance. I loved this movie and can't recommend it enough.

St. Vincent (2014): ****/****

Lee Daniels' The Butler

The names of the U.S. Presidents are instantly recognizable, names synonymous with the history of the United States, especially that building where the president leaves, whatever it's called. The White House I think? What about all the people who work at the White House, who keep the place running? And no, it's not just the nameless/faceless individuals who get killed during terrorist attacks in movies like White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. I kid of course as we jump into 2013's Lee Daniels' The Butler, the true story of one of the White House's longtime butlers.

Growing up as a young boy with his sharecropping family in 1926 Georgia, Cecil Gaines has his outlook on life forever impacted when his father is shot down by a white man, the land owner where the family work, after raping his mother. Cecil is taught to be a house worker, a butler, and grows up finding jobs here and there working as a butler for the rich and well-to-do, eventually ending up at a Washington D.C. hotel. It isn't long before a grown-up Cecil (Forest Whitaker) has created quite a reputation for himself, earning an interview and eventually a full-time job at the White House, working with the sizable staff to make sure the President's home is a crisp, clean operation on a day-to-day basis. It's the late 1950s though, America heading into a turbulent time in its young history. Cecil has an inside look at America's involvement at home and internationally, all the while trying to raise a family with his wife, Gloria (Oprah Winfrey).  

This wasn't a movie I was dying to see, but I was nonetheless curious, even intrigued to see it. Loosely based on the true story of Eugene Allen, 'Butler' is director Lee Daniels' second film since his 2009 movie, Precious, that really put him on the map. It received pretty solid reviews and was a surprise success in theaters, earning over $167 million. I'm not really sure what to take away from it overall. I can appreciate what the message is going for, what it's trying to stand for and say about American history, yet that said, I didn't especially like it. What it's trying to do is admirable. What it accomplishes? Still mulling that over. Some of that can be chalked up to the script which tries to accomplish a ton in a 132-minute movie.

What I didn't question was Forest Whitaker in the lead role. Playing Cecil Gaines, Whitaker is our window as an audience into a whole lot of American history. We see his mindset, his frustrations, his motivations, his friendships, his rivalries, all of it. It isn't a flashy part, far from it, just a very straightforward, effective part. Whitaker's Cecil is a family man who wants to provide for that family, especially his wife, Gloria, struggling with alcoholism as she misses Cecil, his oldest son, Lewis (David Oyelowo, a good performance with some odd moments as a 37-year old playing a 15-year old), who dives headfirst into the civil rights movement, and his youngest son, Charlie (Elijah Kelley). His narration as a lead characters gets to be a little heavy-handed at times, but that's the script and not on Whitaker's shoulders. A very solid performance for Whitaker, a man trying to get by and live in some extremely turbulent times.

Beyond the family though, the supporting cast is mostly a long list of historical characters and bit parts that aren't around long enough to resonate. We meet a handful of Presidents including Dwight Eisenhower (Robin Williams), John F. Kennedy (James Marsden), Lyndon B. Johnson (Liev Schreiber), Richard Nixon (John Cusack) and Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman), even meeting Nancy Reagan (Jane Fonda). These little episodes are pretty cool, but they're also gone as quick as they started. Because of that pacing issue, these scenes, appearances and story developments aren't as effective as they could and should have been. In storytelling technique, 'Butler' reminded me of the classic Forrest Gump, bouncing around to a lot of stories, a lot of key moments in American history, the story giving us a window into those moments. Where Forrest Gump blended the humor and drama though, 'Butler' stays on the dramatic path, and it wore on me. This can be a heavy, dark movie to get through at times.

Give the movie credit. It tries to do a lot. Ultimately though, I felt like it tries to do too much. A story focusing on Cecil's 30-plus year career at the White House would have been fascinating in itself. The same for a man trying to care for his family through the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement, into Vietnam and beyond. Doing both ends up making things too bouncy to the point neither story gets the attention it deserves. Much time is spent with Oyelowo's efforts in the Civil Rights movement, Cecil and Gloria worried and angry back home. Moments that feel like they should resonate well and carry the movie feel rushed, not letting those moments breathe. Much like the recent The Monuments Men, this feels like a story that would have been better suited to a miniseries. The effort is admirable, the execution tolerable. Moments like Cecil interacting with his fellow butlers (Cuba Gooding Jr. and Lenny Kravitz) ended up resonating more with me than most of the far-more dramatic scenes. Also look for Terrence Howard , Mariah Carey, Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Redgrave in odd, out of place parts.

That's the biggest issue. It doesn't pick a route and stick with it. Moments that work among portions of story that drift too much, kinda a necessity with a story that covers six decades in a man's life. I also resented something from the final scene, a written, on-screen message thanking all the men and women that have helped gain "our freedom." As a white individual, this message hit me the wrong way, and I admit I may be over-analyzing. Is this a movie meant solely for an African-American audience? Should I not be watching this movie? It's a mixed bag in the end, a generally interesting movie that ultimately doesn't live up to its potential.

Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Prisoners

It was a movie that seemed like it was a sure thing to snag some Oscar nominations. Powerful, dramatic acting, incredibly dark subject matter, and a whole lot of talent assembled for a cast. And what did 2013's Prisoners get nominated for? Exactly....one, that nomination for Best Cinematography. Okay, yes, that's fair. It's certainly a visually interesting film, but nothing else?!? Come on now. So....anyways, yeah, this was an excellent movie.

On a gloomy, rainy Thanksgiving Day, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk down the street to celebrate the holiday with their neighbors, the Birch's. After dinner as the Dovers get ready to go, they realize their daughter and the Birch's youngest daughter are both missing, nowhere to be found. Minutes turn to hours, hours to a day, and there's no trace of either girl. The police are called in, including lead detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a suspect, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), found just a few hours after the disappearance was first reported. Looking for clues/evidence tying Jones to the girls though, the police come up empty and are forced to release him after a 48-hour hold. Keller remains convinced that Jones is the one who kidnapped the two girls and decides to take drastic measures to bring them back. All the while, Loki becomes progressively more obsessed with the case, leads drying up in one dead end after another. The clock is ticking for the two girls.

From director Denis Villeneuve and writer Aaron Guzkowski, this movie is a doozy. Movies about serial killers, murderers, diseases running rampant, they can all be uncomfortable in countless ways. But as for a movie about someone kidnapping two young children? Unsettling doesn't begin to describe that ever-developing story. I watched this one, and I couldn't help but think of my five-year old niece. This is a movie that isn't intended to entertain (obviously) but one you appreciate. Audiences responded to the film, 'Prisoners' earning $122 million, and it's easy to see why. The acting here is what acting is all about. It's human and real, and when it calls for some big, dramatic moments, it doesn't feel authentic. It is authentic, credit to Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins for making a film with a bleak, dreary look that doesn't pull any punches. Deakins picked up an Oscar nomination for his cinematography. Tough to see him winning against Nebraska or Gravity, but he deserved that nomination.

The 2013 film year was very loaded when it comes to acting, especially for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Maybe the issue here was deciding between Jackman and Gyllenhaal in nominations? These are two powerhouse performances and for different reasons. A family man and middle-class dad torn apart by his daughter's kidnapping? A detective with a troubled childhood past who similarly becomes obsessed with finding two missing girls? These are great parts, both actors stepping up to the plate and delivering. Jackman handles his role in the right way with scenes that could feel forced or overdone. He's driven down a road that most would never want to even contemplate, but he's going to get his daughter back. He doesn't care what he does, if it's right, morally or in the eyes of the law, or what his decisions will ultimately do to him. I thought Gyllenhaal's part was underrated, reminding me some of his part in Zodiac. His detective is tough, brutally efficient and the pressure is starting to wear on him, especially with Jackman's Keller pressuring him to close the case and bring his daughters back.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast though. It is a halfway decent group if you're into that sort of thing. Maria Bello plays Keller's wife, Grace, progressively losing her mind as hours turn into days, needing her husband more than ever as he takes desperate measures to get their child back, Dylan Minnette playing their teenage son. The parents of the second kidnapped girl are played to perfection by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis while Zoe Borde plays their teenage daughter. Dano seems to be typecast a bit as the possibly crazy/unhinged guy but there's a reason. He's good at it, really good. We're never quite sure of his intentions, his background, his motivation, Melissa Leo playing his aunt. Also look for Wayne Duvall, Len Cariou and David Dastmalchian in key supporting parts.

Beyond the general uncomfortable feeling in tone and emotion that basically permeates every single scene in a 153-minute movie (It never drags), what makes it especially memorable and tolerable is that the story becomes a whudunnit story. Yes, obviously, we want to see the girls rescued. But as clues and leads and evidence dry up, we also want to see who did the kidnapping. Why did they do it? Guzkowski's script does a great job keeping us guessing right until the reveal. Hints are dropped here and there, but it's difficult to peg everything down as it comes along. Uncomfortable? Yes, but the mystery aspect makes it interesting on a far different level.

It all builds to an impressive reveal and finale, including a great final scene. Some viewers/critics call it ambiguous, but it really isn't if you think it through. I very much liked this movie, or at least as much as you're supposed to like a movie about child kidnapping. Appreciate it for the top to bottom strengths of the cast.

Prisoners (2013): ***/****

The Company You Keep

Fully content to direct films as he likes and sees fit while also staying in the background of the Sundance Film Festival, it's easy to forget what a legend Robert Redford really is. He's one of the few remaining legitimate screen legends from the 1960s and 1970s. When he does make a film -- directing/acting -- moviegoers and fans should jump. Or as the case with 2012's The Company You Keep, he does both, directing and acting.

A single dad with an 11-year old daughter and his own private law practice, Jim Grant (Redford) is still adjusting to a new life since his wife died over the last few years. He's approached one day in his office by a young journalist, Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf), investigating a story about the recent arrest of a woman who was part of a murder/bank robbery in the late 1970s, the woman a member of an underground peace movement. Jim is less than interested in helping, making Ben that much more curious. He investigates further and finds out why. Jim Grant is not who he's saying. In fact, he may have been a part of the underground movement and one of three suspects at the bank robbery turned murder. The FBI is quick to pounce, but it's already too late. Jim is on the run and looking for someone from his past. Ben meanwhile is continuing his investigation and starts to question if maybe he's stumbled upon something else.

Not surprisingly, I think the best thing going for this film was that Redford and his talents are associated with it. While it received mixed reviews -- 56% at Rotten Tomatoes, 6.3 at IMDB -- and wasn't given much of a chance in theaters, 'Company' is successful because it is content being exactly what it is. No explosions, no gunfights, no real chases, just a smart political thriller that for the most part kept me interested throughout. I think at times it is a little sluggish, lacking a certain energy. On the other hand, it is always refreshing to watch a well-made thriller that doesn't resort to any common denominators. As many other reviews point out, it may be most successful because it shows what happened to the 1960s/1970s revolutionaries. Full of fire and brimstone 30 and 40 years ago, what did they do after their revolutionary times had passed? It's an interesting premise and jumping off point.

So hold the gunfights, explosions, chases and ultra-quick editing, and what is Robert Redford's character? It reminded me slightly of Jason Bourne, a man on the run and desperately trying to evade his pursuers until he can prove what he needs to prove. In his first acting role since 2007's Lions for Lambs, Redford doesn't disappoint, bringing a character to life we think we know all about only to learn more and more. We see him with his second life of sorts, caring for his 11-year old daughter, Isabel (singer Jackie Evancho). We learn he regrets certain incidents from his past and is desperately working to right wrongs. Like few others, Redford does it with relative ease, a cool factor on display like few others working in film or in any other era. Now 77 years old, Redford is as cool as ever. His acting roles are fewer and far between of late so appreciate them when they come along.

Oh, by the way, most of Hollywood is also in this movie. Apparently a whole lot of very talented individuals wanted to work with Redford because he assembles a cast that is ridiculous top to bottom. I'm coming around a bit on Shia LaBeouf who does a fine job here as an investigative journalist, Ben, who finds out a story needs to be fully investigated before reporting on it. It's an interesting character arc. Who else? How about Stanley Tucci basically making a cameo as Ben's hard-edged, tough editor. How about Terrence Howard as the lead FBI agent pursuing Redford's Jim with Anna Kendrick as a young agent on his team? Oh, and there's also Chris Cooper as Jim's younger brother, Brendan Gleeson as a former police chief with lots of info, Stephen Root as a friend seeking Jim's help and Brit Marling as a college student Ben meets in the course of his investigation.

Wow, that's a pretty impressive cast. Huh? Oh, there's more? Yes, it continues. There are other key parts with Julie Christie playing a woman from Jim's past who he desperately needs to talk to with Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Richard Jenkins all playing key figures from Jim's revolutionary underground past. And yes, Susan Sarandon plays an accomplice of sorts to the murder that sets the ball in motion. With this much talent, some of the parts are really just extended cameos, but the pure acting depth here is amazing to watch. Yes, maybe it is only a scene or two, but it's fun to watch all these very talented actors and actresses do their thing.

If there is a weakness here, it's in the final 30 minutes of a 122-minute long movie. The build-up can be slow at times, but the mystery and all the unanswered questions pick things up as needed. Unfortunately in the final half hour, the script resorts to too many past ideologies and principles that drove these characters back in the 60s and 70s. It doesn't quite limp to the finish line, but it's not quite the snappy ending I was hoping for. Things are wrapped up a little too nicely, a little too tidy. That said, I still feel very comfortable recommending this film for any number of reasons, ranging anywhere from the very impressive cast to the general throwback feel of a good, old-fashioned political thriller. A good movie, and that ain't a bad thing.

The Company You Keep (2012): ***/****

Dead Man Down

Having directed the huge 2009 hit The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Niels Arden Oplev made an interesting decision. He stepped away. The film broke box office records, but Oplev was in no rush to get behind a film camera again, instead working some in television. He's finally returned to movies, coming back in strong fashion with 2013's Dead Man Down.

Having infiltrated a small-time but growing criminal empire, Victor (Colin Farrell) is a trusted member of a crew run by Alphonse Boyd (Terrence Howard). Alphonse's crew is in trouble though, one of his most trusted men having turned up. Clues are sent in the mail to Boyd, someone clearly intent on torturing him before unleashing their final attack. Living in the apartment building adjacent from his, Victor meets Beatrice (Noomi Rapace), a young woman still recovering from a horrific car accident -- at the hands of a drunk driver -- that left her with a heavily scarred face, even with plastic surgery. What seems like a potential friendship is something else though. Beatrice saw Victor murder a man in his apartment and now intends to blackmail him with that information. In this case though, Beatrice may have stumbled into something far bigger than she intended.

From director Oplev, 'Dead' was a real winner for me. Not surprisingly, it received pretty mixed to negative reviews and didn't do much damage at the box office, earning about $18 million. I'm a big Colin Farrell fan though, and the trailer caught my eye in a big way. Add in my general gullible qualities when it comes to even remotely decent crime thrillers, and I must have been a fish waiting for a line in the water with this one. I liked it a lot, and for all the reasons a lot of critics/reviews didn't. The story is convoluted and does depend on some rather crazy plot twists. As a positive though, much of the script from writer J.H. Wyman is a gem, filtering out little bits of information with each passing scene. In other words, pay attention to those first 45 minutes because very little is spelled out. It all comes together nicely, the momentum picking up at the 45-minute mark or so.

What appealed to me most -- along with the casting -- was a reliance on style. The story is there (a must) and doesn't disappoint, but it's that brutally dark style incorporated by Oplev and cinematographer Paul Cameron. This is apparently a world without sunshine. The movie is filmed almost entirely at night and indoors in poorly lit rooms and apartments. When it does go out into the day, it's always cloudy and gloomy, reflecting the general gloominess of the story and its characters. Add in Jacob Groth's gloomy, trance-like score too for a nice touch. It's a nasty world they're living in, a dog eat dog world where everyone looks out for themselves first. Rapace's Beatrice is constantly yelled at and insulted by a group of kids because of her scars. There's gangsters, gangsters and more gangsters, all ready to dispatch each other with the slightest provocation. That general darkness in crime thrillers (in any movies really) has always appealed to me, and it's handled nicely here.

It seems there are diehard fans of Colin Farrell and those that can't stand him. Well, I come down in the diehard camp then. With just about every new part, I like him more and more. Even in average flicks like Total Recall, he's a bright spot. How about a film with a good script and a good part for him? He isn't going to disappoint too much. His character here as Victor reminded me in some ways of his part from London Boulevard (another film I thought didn't get a fair shake), a tragic character who's been down quite the path and is trying to right a wrong no matter how he can. Farrell is excellent at that tragic antihero, Victor's backstory certainly putting him into that category. He does a lot without much in the way of dialogue, expressing a lot with a look here, a worried glance there, an intense outburst breaking the silence. In a very good movie all around, I thought Farrell was the best thing going here.

Adding some depth to the character is Rapace's similarly layered performance as Beatrice. The original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Rapace's Beatrice enlists Victor to exact her own form of revenge but instead finds herself dealing with a similarly flawed, troubled individual. The dynamic between them is spot-on, underplayed nicely without going for any obvious genre conventions. Howard too is very good as Alphonse, a criminally smooth bad guy, Howard's silky voice putting his victims at ease before he strikes. Dominic Cooper is a scene-stealer as Darcy, Victor's friend and a member of Alphonse's crew trying to climb his way up. Also look for Isabelle Huppert as Beatrice's worrying mother, an excellent F. Murray Abraham as a man from Victor's past helping him out, James Biberi as Ibir, an Albanian gangster working with Alphonse, Armand Assante as a higher-up gangster disappointed in Alphonse, and Luis Da Silva Jr. as Terry, Alphonse's right hand man.  

Because I do my best not to spoil new movies I really like, I'm trying not to reveal too many twists and turns here. If there's flaws, they aren't big enough to derail the movie. That's part of the fun, going along with a story that slowly parcels out information with each passing scene. There is action, quick and hard-hitting but not overtly graphic, with the finale packing in an impressive, artsy shootout in a mansion packed with gangsters. I was worried about where the movie was leading, what kind of ending we were in store for, but it worked on just about every level I could think of. I liked the whole movie a whole lot. Well worth seeking it out.

Dead Man Down (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Red Tails

What the 54th Massachusetts was to the Civil War, the Tuskegee Airmen -- the 332nd Fighter Group -- was to World War II. It was a unit of soldiers in the Army Air Corps made up entirely of African American soldiers with segregation still alive in the armed forces. The first African American aviators in the army, the unit was forced to deal with prejudice and racism on the small scale and the large scale; rivalries from other units, doubting commanders above who questioned if they could actually handle aerial combat. It struggled in theaters, but 2012's Red Tails does a solid if unspectacular job at telling their story.

It is 1944 in Italy, and the 332nd Fighter Group, commanded by Colonel A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) and his executive officer, Major Stance (Cuba Gooding Jr.), is wasting away. Headquarters refuses to give the African American fighters a chance to prove themselves, sending them on patrols over already-taken land, giving escort to planes well behind enemy lines. Finally after months of arguments over the issue, the 332nd, including squadron commander Marty 'Easy' Julian (Nate Parker) and close friend and the group's best pilot, Joe 'Lightning' Little (David Oyelowo), are given a chance. They're given little room for error though so when assigned as bomber escorts for a key mission, the 332nd knows the unit's success hinges on the mission being accomplished.

Much like 2006's Flyboys, 'Red' is a unit picture that has the tone and message more of the 1940s-1960s than a 2012-released war movie. Maybe its my cynicism at modern audiences, but stories like these just don't seem to appeal to audiences in a huge way anymore. Current war movies have to be ultra violent, realistic and offer something new. Stories that look at our armed forces in a heroic way? That premise might not fly as much. From director Anthony Hemingway, 'Red' does its best to honor the Tuskegee Airmen as best as it can. Without doing anything groundbreaking, it manages to be entertaining and exciting, going back to the well one or two times too often on war movie cliches, conventions and characters. Still, it's a solid movie.

The movie comes from George Lucas' studio -- Lucasfilms -- so that should tell you a lot about the movie. Especially the three more recent Star Wars movies, Lucas' movies seem more interested in impressing than just telling a developing story with interesting characters. In other words? A world-class script isn't essential. The background here is simple; tell the story of the Airmen as heroically as possible. The script doesn't do any favors though. The acting can be atrocious at times -- script or actors? Both? -- and the line deliveries are laughable. At one point, a white American bomber pilot actually says about the black Airmen "They're sacrificing glory to save our asses!" Subtle this is not. There's also the epically evil German pilot, played by Lars van Riesen, who ends up being the face of the German war effort. He sneers, growls, and at one point says in amazement 'Those pilots are colored!' For goodness sake, the man even has a facial scar. Could this movie be any more obvious?

Filling out the cast is a relatively unknown cast with two major stars (well, sort of) having what amounts to cameo parts. Thanks to the script, the cast never really develops 3-D, red-blooded characters. Instead, 'Tails' stays in that comfortable comfort zone of stock characters. Parker and Oyelowo are worth mentioning, rising above their familiar characters. As squadron commander, Parker's Easy struggles with command, turning to booze, while Oyelow's Lightning is a hot-shot pilot who gets a love interest, Sofia (NCIS: LA's Daniela Ruah), an Italian woman who can't speak English. Oh, awkward budding romance! The rest of the pilots are pretty bad, including Junior (Tristan Wilds), the youngster trying to prove himself, Joker (Elijah Kelley), seemingly trying to channel Chris Rock's voice and pitch, and Smokey (hip-hop artist Ne-Yo), doing his best drawling Bill Cosby impression. Howard has to deliver a few key monologues, Gooding Jr. has to smile a couple times and smoke a pipe. Andre Royo and Method Man are solid too as the 332nd's mechanical support staff.

So by this point, it sure sounds like I'm ripping the movie, but I did enjoy it enough to recommend it. Most of that positive karma comes from the aerial sequences as the 332nd tangles with German fighters over Italy and Germany. For the most part, I'm guessing much -- if not all -- of these sequences were done with computer-generated images, but you know what's good about that? I can't tell for sure. The CGI is seamless, making the aerial combat exhilarating to watch as these 1940s fighters and bombers swoop through the air with clouds of flak, shrapnel and bullets flying through the air. Clocking in at 125 minutes, 'Red' has plenty of time for these sequences, and we're the better for it. The slower, duller and cliched portions down on the ground seem a long way off when the dogfighting begins.

Mostly though, I think 'Red' tries to do too much even with a two-hour running time. Lots of characters, lots of history, and it still manages to get an unnecessary love story jammed in there, a subplot in a German prisoner of war camp, and scenes back in Washington showing the bureaucracy of running a war. With all that said, it's still an enjoyable enough movie. Probably not for everyone, but I liked it just enough to recommend it. Also worth mentioning? Check out Gooding Jr. in a made-for TV HBO movie from the late 90s about the Tuskegee Airmen.

Red Tails <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 ****

Four Brothers

Released in 1965 and starring John Wayne, The Sons of Katie Elder is an all-around underrated western and one of my favorite Duke movies. It's different from most westerns, and the sense of camaraderie that develops among the four main characters -- brothers reunited after their mother's death -- is a high point. I know I'm not exactly timely on the subject, but 2005's Four Brothers is a quasi-remake of the 1965 western, albeit set in Detroit as opposed to 1870s west Texas.

A likable and talented cast, a director with some solid movies to his name, and a story that worked well in its original form and should have worked here. Those were three things I thought would carry this movie. Soon after viewing the movie, I'm still surprised at my initial reaction to 'Brothers.' It is not just a bad movie. It is truly awful. I can't remember the last movie that disappointed me this badly. As things moved along, I laughed out loud at several scenes (scenes not meant to be funny either) and groaned at others.  No two ways about it, this movie stinks to the high heavens.

A well-known and highly respected foster parent, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan) is killed in a grocery store robbery, shot down by the two robbers. Four of her foster kids -- long since grown up -- including Bobby (Mark Wahlberg), Jeremiah (Andre Benjamin of Outkast), Angel (Tyrese Gibson), and Jack (Garrett Hedlund) return home for her funeral. They want to know what's being done to bring in their mother's killers, but quickly realize the case is being brushed aside. Led by the fiery, hot-tempered Bobby, the brothers start investigating on their own, finding out that this wasn't just any random act of violence. Two Detroit detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) are close behind, trying to stop the brothers before more blood is shed.

One of my first reactions -- and there were a lot, mostly negative -- was that director John Singleton was trying to make a movie that was a throwback to the crime thrillers of the 1970s, blaxploitation flicks and seedy movies about the underworld, gangsters, and crime across the board. That's fine with me. The 1970s produced countless great crime movies. A tribute movie released in 2005 could have been a good idea, a movie honoring those that came before it. Instead, 'Brothers' gets so bogged down in cliches for characters and story, and trying to be cool, the whole movie falls flat on its face.

There are a lot of places to I could start off with and rip this movie apart. I'll start with the one that disappointed me the most. I've found myself defending Mark Wahlberg to haters of the actor for many of his roles, but this is the first performance I've seen of his that just does not work. He's supposed to be this born troublemaker with the most checkered of a past, but we never find out why. His Bobby also tries too hard to be ghetto, to be tough, and the effort does not work at all.  Gibson is the best of the bunch as Angel, but it's still not a great performance. Hedlund is a talented actor on the rise, but his James Dean impression is awful. One half of Outkast, Benjamin doesn't make much of an impression as Jeremiah, the one brother that seemingly amounted to something.

So with four main characters, none of them actually redeeming in any way, we've got a list of supporting characters that are ripped from the Screenwriters Cliche Guide textbook, stock characters used to death in the 1970s and ever since. Howard is the cop with mixed emotions, trying to balance his duty with what he believes is right. Charles is his crooked partner (no reasoning/explanation provided). Sofia Vergara plays Angel's girlfriend, Sofi, a character that requires her to be a fiery, hot-tempered Latina.  Stereotype much? The worst though is Chiwetel Ejiofor as Victor Sweet, the ridiculously over the top local kingpin, so hammy and over the top you can't even take the character seriously. Ejiofor is a gifted actor, but whether it's his interpretation or just poor writing, this is a character that is simply beneath him.

The acting handicaps the movie almost from the start, but there's so much more that is wrong here.  The brothers lead their own vigilante investigation, making jumps from one thing to another without a reason given. More than that, nothing is ever established in stone as to exactly what's going on. There are bad guys and badder guys, and apparently they all wanted to knock off this sweet old foster mother. I think I know what was going on, but then again, by about an hour in, I just didn't care. Awful movie, couldn't be more disappointed. Stick with The Sons of Katie Elder.

Four Brothers <---trailer (2005): */****  

Iron Man

Here's a novel concept for you. When casting an action movie, a superhero movie, don't just pick the biggest, burliest actor around and hand him a script full of ridiculous one-liners. In the last few years, the big budget action flick has gone down a different route, cast some of the best actors in Hollywood and give them a starring role, actors like Christian Bale, Edward Norton, and Robert Downey Jr.

For one, it's fun to see these actors in roles that aren't so buttoned-down and right out of a purely dramatic product. I'm all for the Oscar winners, but seeing a movie and being entertained can be enjoyable too. The changing trend though isn't just to cast a big name actor and let the thing go. The two most recent Batman movies come to mind as examples of then filling out a supporting cast that equals the star power, like Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Cillian Murphy and on and on. Following this formula is 2008's Iron Man, one of the best superhero movies out there.

Born with a brilliant mind and the resources to build quite a life for himself, Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) has everything in life; money, cars, women, huge houses and a generally ridiculously over the top lifestyle. As head of Stark Industries -- the world's biggest weapons manufacturer -- Tony puts his skills in engineering and innovation to good use, creating all sorts of new weaponry that hopefully can bring peace to the world. Demonstrating one of his weapons in Afghanistan for U.S. armed forces, Starks' convoy is ambushed and he's captured by a terrorist group dubbed the 'Ten Rings' led by the power-hungry Raza (Faran Tahir).

Kept as a prisoner in a mountain cave, Stark is forced into building the very weapon he was demonstrating for the terrorists. But with some help from another prisoner, Yinsen (a small but memorable part for Shaun Toub), Stark builds a complicated suit of iron with weapons and hydraulics that helps him escape, but not before he sees piles of Stark Industries weapons in the caves. Returning to the states, Stark builds another suit, even more complicated, and goes about righting wrongs that his company has done with help from a close friend and army contact, Col. James Rhodes (Terrence Howard). What's worse, all the evidence points to his partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), as the one selling the weapons.

For a long list of reasons that would take two or three posts, I really enjoyed this movie from start to finish. The top reason is by far Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in an inspired bit of casting. Over his career, Downey has had his fair of struggles with drugs and police, but he's always been a great actor which he shows off here. He somehow makes Stark a likable fellow with a perfect blend of humor, toughness and genuine sympathy. Topping it off, Downey seems to be enjoying himself and doesn't take himself too seriously. His introduction to flying is one of the movie's best scenes (about seven minutes into this clip which continues into Part 7) and just keeps on building.

Anyone who's read any of my reviews of newer movies knows that CGI is one my biggest pet peeves in action movies...when it's handled poorly and overused. Not so here as the CGI elements blend seamlessly into the story like this scene with Iron Man tangling with two fighter jets. The ending gets a little crazy but it's never too much. The action in general is fast-paced but coherent, and overall not overdone. For a 126-minute long movie, there isn't a ton of action to begin with. Large chunks of the story are spent on Stark developing and creating his suit, and they're great chunks of the story that bring the character to life.

The supporting cast is mostly three roles, Bridges' Stane (the obvious villain), Howard's Rhodes, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, a woman who basically tries to keep Stark's crazy life as controlled as possible. Paltrow hadn't been in a big budget movie since 2004 as she started a family with Coldplay's Chris Martin, but it's great to see her back with a good role. She's got chemistry with Downey but also holds her ground with him. Bridges revels in the bad guy role, and Howard is a good second banana as Rhodes. Howard has been in the news for basically having his part recast without him knowing it which is a shame because as much as I like Don Cheadle, Howard was a good fit.

Every so often a movie surprises you, and this one qualifies for me. Great casting, some phenomenal action sequences and across the board a hugely entertaining movie. I knew little to nothing about the character from comic books and still loved it. Also, stick around for a post-credits scene at the end of the movie with Samuel L. Jackson making an appearance. You won't be disappointed. And more good news, Iron Man 2 due out in May 2010. Count me in.

Iron Man <----trailer (2008): *** 1/2 /****

Hart's War

Following WWII, a whole sub-genre of movies came out dealing with a part of the war that you'd think would be hard to turn into a movie, the prisoner of war story, examples being The Great Escape and The Bridge on the River Kwai. There were others, but those two have stood the test of time over the years. But at a certain point, the stories must have dried up. Then came 2002's Hart's War.

A mix between a courtroom drama and a prisoner of war story, the movie walks that fine line between both types and is mostly successful although there are major problems with the ending. Money was clearly spent on making Hart's War look and feel authentic from the winter locations in the Czech Republic to the gaunt appearances of the actors. As much as I love 1963's The Great Escape, I can admit those prisoners sure looked like they were living a decent life. Not so much here.

It's December 1944 and Lt. Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell) is escorting an officer to the front lines. A Senator's son, Hart is destined to work at a desk until the end of the war so he takes his chance to get away from HQ. But on the road, his jeep is attacked by German paratroopers posing as American MPs and he is sent to a German Luft Stalag, a prison camp. Right away, something is wrong because the ranking American officer Colonel McNamara (Bruce Willis) bunks Hart with the enlisted men even though there is an open bunk in the officers barracks.

That's the least of Hart's problems though when two new prisoners are brought to the camp, two black fliers, Lt. Lincoln Scott (Terrence Howard) and Lt. Archer (Vicellous Reon Shannon). The prisoners' true colors come out, and it's not long before Archer is framed for robbery and summarily shot by the German guards. It looks like a frame-up organized by Sgt. Vic Bedford (Cole Hauser), the ringleader of the racist prisoners. Only a few days pass before Bedford's dead body is found in the compound, Lt. Scott standing over the body. In a court martial/murder trial, Lt. Hart (a 2nd year law student at Yale) is assigned defense council for Scott in a case that looks like it will have no hope of being fair.

The first hour or so hits all the right notes of a tense prisoner of war drama. Like Hart, the viewer is seeing everything for the first time. The conditions are cramped, the food is of low-quality, and it's freezing cold in the German winter. Even when the murder/courtroom drama is introduced, the movie still stays on the right track. It's a twist that comes with about 30 minutes to go where the story comes apart. It even goes beyond Lt. Scott's trial in a twist that doesn't quite make sense and stretches the imagination just a bit too far.

SPOILERS if you don't want to know the twist, stop reading SPOILERS Col. McNamara is using the trial as a diversion for an escape attempt combined with some sabotage of a nearby munitions plant. There's no real hints of what's to come, and when it does come on-screen, it's never fully explained. For example, where did McNamara and Co. get their hands on German uniforms, and then rifles and explosives for God's sake? It's a prison camp deep in Germany, and I don't care how bad the war is looking, German guards wouldn't trade cigarettes for rifles and explosives. End of SPOILERS.

Anywho, on to the rest of the movie. The casting is good, especially Farrell in one of his first starring roles. His Hart is a torn character, one trying to prove himself because of who his father is but also what he did under interrogation after being captured. He's put on the defensive right away, and at least for me, he's the one I was rooting for in the end. Being appointed defense counsel, Hart is put in a lose-lose situation, especially when he finds out the trial is a sham. As his opposite, Willis has the less developed character but still makes the most of it. McNamara is a career soldier, a West Pointer who wants to prove he's still in the war.

Two other parts are key to the movie's success, especially Howard as Lt. Scott. Locked away in a cell for long portions of the movie, Howard rises to the occasion when given the chance. His testimony on the stand is one of the best scenes in the movie and really illustrates what black soldiers/fliers had to go through in the South during WWII. The one good thing about the ending is Scott's reaction which could have come off as cheesy and cliched, but Howard sells it. The other important part is Marcel Iures as Colonel Visser, the German commandant who does everything he can to keep the camp running and in order, even if that means helping an inexperienced Hart at the trial.

As a fan of WWII POW movies, I wanted to love this movie and for about an hour I did just that. I really got the feel of what living in a prison camp must have felt like, especially that feeling of claustrophobia and being packed into an environment you can't get out of. The courtroom drama is not as good but still worthwhile, and that's what makes the sudden shift in story so disappointing. A good movie, but certainly a flawed one.

Hart's War <-----trailer (2002): ***/****

Triple Cross

The mid 1960s were a ripe time for historical movies with international casts, huge stories, and big budgets, from Roman times epics like Spartacus and The Fall of the Roman Empire to more modern stories like The Longest Day and Battle of Britain. The problem is that many relied too much on the stars to make something of the movie with nothing to back them up. One that comes through and doesn't just rest on its laurels is 1966's Triple Cross.

Behind the lines spy stories from WWII can be hard to mess up when translating stories to the big screen. There's typically going to be a strong villain, Germans or Japanese depending on the perspective, and a natural tension that livens up any story. Based on the true story of British criminal/spy Eddie Chapman, Triple Cross drags at times but ultimately comes through with a quality WWII spy story.

In the months leading up to WWII, British safecracker extraordinaire Eddie Chapman (Christopher Plummer) is stealing his way across the country, taking anything and everything he can from personal safes in houses and apartments. But vacationing on the Channel Islands, Chapman is captured and thrown into jail where months later he still resides when the Germans invade and take over. Fed up with his lot, Chapman offers his services to the German army as a spy. His English background and speaking abilities would clearly serve the Third Reich.

After some initial debates and tests, Chapman is sent to work a specialized German intelligence unit led by Baron Von Grunen (Yul Brynner), a career soldier and German colonel who doesn't necessarily agree with the Fuhrer and the Nazi party but nonetheless does his job. With the Baron's team are the Countess (Romy Schneider) who starts a relationship with Chapman, partially for herself but also for the job, and Colonel Steinhager (Gert Frobe), a former police officer suspicious of Chapman's intentions. The British turncoat goes through training and ends up as a trusted agent to Von Grunen, but what are his motivations?

Credit goes to Plummer for doing so well with this part because up until the 1:00-1:15 mark, you're not sure of his intentions. Is he a loyal Brit taking advantage of the situation to get back to England or does he intend to help the German war effort? Or is Chapman just looking out for himself and a chance at a big payday courtesy of the British and German intelligence outfits? Plummer plays the part so smoothly it's hard to figure out the character. He typically played a character like that, extremely smug, often overconfident that makes it hard to like him, and even when the intentions are revealed, you're not quite sure if you can believe them.

Directed by Terence Young and with Frobe as a supporting cast, the James Bond trio is completed with the casting of Claudine Auger (Domino in Thunderball). Kinda pointless trivia, but I thought worth pointing out. Trevor Howard also makes an appearance as the 'Distinguished Civilian,' no joke, a British higher-up working with Chapman on his possible collaboration with the British and Germans. It's the typical staunch, sophisticated British upper class role that Howard played so often and so well. Brynner too stands out in the cast as the intelligence colonel who sees the direction the war is going.

What I liked about Triple Cross was that the story doesn't settle for the spy adventure status-quo. One scene really jumped out for me when the Germans supposedly send Chapman out on his first mission, parachuting him into England. Thinking everything is legit, Chapman abandons his orders upon landing only to discover he's been dropped in Nazi-occupied France as a test. Scrambling to send the radio signal he was supposed to transmit an hour earlier, Eddie finds himself in a race for his life. And that's what is so nerve-wracking about spy movies. One slip up, even just a throwaway comment, can bring on your doom and when that dooms comes from the Nazis, you know you're in for it.

At times a little slow-moving and hard to follow, Triple Cross isn't the perfect spy thriller or even a very good one, but it is entertaining. Christopher Plummer and Yul Brynner provide memorable leads, and the based on a true story (loosely from what I've read) provide a nice backdrop for this WWII thriller. It seems the US version has been cut some so that might explain some flaws, but it's still worth checking out in its current form.

Triple Cross (1966): ***/****