Unfinished Business

I'm a big Vince Vaughn fan. I think his part in Wedding Crashers is criminally perfect, one of the best comedic performances I can think of, well, ever. His selections since that infamous 2005 comedy have been pretty hit or miss, including most recently his much-maligned part in HBO's second season of True Detective. But while the source material isn't always good, I typically like Vaughn. So with some nerves, I dove into 2015's Unfinished Business, a comedy that got lousy reviews and did awful in the box office. And away we go!

Dan Trunkman (Vaughn) is at a crossroads in his career. Told he will be getting a 5 percent commission decrease at work on business deals, Dan decides to up and quit, vowing to start his own company in the same field from the ground up. Two employees follow him out the door, Timothy McWinters (Tom Wilkinson), a longtime employee in his late 60's who's let go because he's too old, and Mike Pancake (Dave Franco), a young interviewee who actually wasn't employed but just interviewed for a position. Dan swears he'll get something going....that never really happens. Not right away at least as a year later, Dan is still trying to close his first business deal, a prominent one hanging in the air just waiting to get the handshake done. The problem? His former employer is similarly tracking the same deal, and the only way to get it done is for Dan, Tim and Mike to head to Berlin to wrap things up. Let the international hijinks begin.

Well....the trailer looked pretty funny. That's good, right? 'Unfinished' earned an impressive 11% at Rotten Tomatoes and barely cracked $10 million at the box office. I thought the premise sounded funny, the cast was pretty talented and was looking for some good laughs, so not a whole lot of demands. From director Ken Scott and writer Steve Conrad, 'Unfinished' just doesn't have enough laughs. The story is all over the place, trying to be a hard R-rated comedy while also mixing in some family drama that is dead on arrival. Pick one or the other and stick with it. If you pick wrong, so be it but at least you're not trying to appeal to all sides. It rarely ends well going with both options, and even at just 91 minutes, this comedy gets a tad sluggish along the way.

There are haters and/or doubters out there, but I love Vince Vaughn. He's at his best dealing out lightning-quick jabs, almost always delivered in a subtle, underplayed fashion that leaves you burned later because that insult was so damn good. Playing father and businessman Dan, Vaughn -- like the script -- is kind of trapped in no man's land. His character just seems irritated a lot, mostly because everyone around him is an idiot. He gets his usual rants and ravings in and has a good running bit about being part of a hotel art display, but too often he's left to play the straight man to the antics and shenanigans all around him. His selections in films have left something to desire over the last 10 years, but when given the opportunity, he shows he can still kill it with an impeccable line delivery. I just wish there had been more of that.

As if his co-workers weren't bad enough (more on that to come), Vaughn's character and the movie across the board is undone by the family drama inserted into a comedy that preached an R-rating and looked to be raunchy, nasty and dirty. No such luck, or not enough, or no balance among it all. You choose. There's his loving wife (June Diane Raphael), his bullied, overweight son (Britton Sear) and his daughter (Ella Anderson) who stands up for her older brother. It is a plot line with no life, no energy and would seem more appropriate for a Full House episode.

So Tom Wilkinson and Dave Franco as sidekicks...yeah, that sounds good. But that damn script again has its way. Franco delivers one of the most uncomfortable parts I've ever seen, his Mike Pancake (Yes, that's his name and the joke is beaten to death) a pretty slow young man who's innocent, naive, looking to get laid and, well, seemingly mentally challenged but all at the expense of one joke after another. It is painful. PAINFUL. Wilkinson is a pro but his character is similarly poorly-written, an older, married man who's looking to get a divorce and have some crazy European sex too as long as he's got the chance. So....yeah, that's not good. In tiny snippets, the trio does have good chemistry but they get buried under a sea of repetitive jokes that are short on actual laughs.

Rounding out the cast but given little to do beyond being cliched cardboard cutouts, look for Sienna Miller, James Marsden and Nick Frost as assorted other characters that do stuff.

Just a big disappointment overall. There was some potential for a halfway decent comedy, but that never really comes around. Not enough laughs and too many dumb twists and awkwardly forced family issues to be an enjoyable comedy.

Unfinished Business (2015): * 1/2 /****

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson is one goofy, talented, eccentric director with a legion of devoted fans who love just about everything he does. I'm a fan of Anderson's films, but I don't love them. His humor can be too off the wall, his humor too subtle at times. Well, then there's 2014's The Grand Budapest Hotel, a hysterically dark, truly off the wall flick that Anderson fans will no doubt appreciate.

It's 1932 in the Republic of Zubrowka, and the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), has taken a protege under his wing, Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), a talented refugee working as one of the hotel's Lobby Boys. Zero is fascinated by everything about Gustave from his gentlemanly ways to his knowledge of anything and everything, especially his "relationships" with rich, older women who visit the hotel to specifically see him. When one of his favorite guests, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton), dies mysteriously, Gustave and Zero rush to her countryside villa to be there for the funeral. They're both stunned when they find out that Madame left almost everything in her will to Gustave, including one lucrative painting. The rest of the family is less than pleased and just a day later, Gustave is arrested for the murder of Madame D. With help from loyal Zero, can he escape jail and prove his innocence?

If there was ever a movie where a story/plot description could be misleading, this is it. Yes, the story is key with its twisting and turning reveals, its countless characters, its flashbacks within flashbacks. But as anyone who's seen a Wes Anderson movie, it is also far more than that. His movies are never just stories, using the screenplays as a huge jumping off point into a stylishly visual movie that basically defies description. With an Anderson flick -- when it works -- you can just sit back and let it wash over you. Very much qualifying in that department, 'Budapest' succeeds on a stylistic level on its own. The visual is stunning at times. Anderson uses his familiar shooting technique, the camera shooting much of the action as if it was a stage play. It's more than that though. The camera and all its movements become a secondary character.

Some of these shots make the movie feel like a throwback to the days of pre-computer special effects. I imagine Anderson used some CGI at different points, but he never really relies on it. The pure variety of shots 'Budapest' uses is impressive in itself. Our first introduction to the hotel and its surrounding areas is done via miniatures, a little set built up that looks like a dollhouse. From there, the tone is set. Just about every scene looks like a painting painstakingly crafted by an artist full of bright, vivid, Earthy colors. Anderson films with his cast, close-ups as they ride a motorcycle, as they race down a mountain on a sled. It's clearly an effect but it appears almost effortless in execution. The closest, best description I can come up -- and I intend it as a compliment -- is that 'Budapest' looks and plays like a children's picture book, the story bouncing from page to page with almost reckless abandon. Style to burn, an essential element to Anderson's formula for success.

The extreme depth of the cast here shows what a director Anderson must be, one who actors and actresses desperately desire to work with. He has his fair of regulars who show up here, but this is a movie that belongs to Ralph Fiennes. Working with Anderson for the first time, Fiennes is an epically successful scene-stealer. It's a part that's hard to qualify because it works on so many levels. There's a rhythm to the dialogue that Fiennes takes to easily, his delivery rarely varying no matter who he's addressing. It's more than that too, Fiennes committing physically with some great visuals, a pitter-patter to the on-screen movements. His running style especially cracked me up, including one scene where he's confronted about the murder of Madame D. Gustave runs away, but he runs as a gentleman under control, not a man running for his life. There's too many funny scenes to mention, but almost all of them work. This is most definitely a character though, a gentleman who is vain, loves older women because they've gained life experience (among other things), full of pride, a strong boss, a loyal friend. We pick up all these little things that just work so well.

This performance comes through best in the scenes between Gustave and young Revolori as Zero, the Lobby Boy refugee who's lived on his own for years. Not quite father-son, not quite a brotherly relationship, it's somewhere in between, the protege and his mentor. The duo brings the screenplay to life from the drama to the laughs, the physical, almost screwball comedy to the international chases. I loved both characters, even the quasi-rivalry that develops when Zero meets a beautiful young baker, Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), who Gustave is enchanted with as well. Just a great chemistry, a great one-two punch that carries the movie throughout.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast. It is a doozy. In a framing device, Tom Wilkinson plays the author of a book about the hotel, Jude Law playing his younger representation, interviewing an older Zero, played by F. Murray Abraham. Because part of the fun is stumbling across the stars on-hand here, I won't go into a ton of detail as to their background or who they are. But just to list them is pretty crazy in itself so pull up a chair and get comfy. Some appearances are no more than a scene or two, but they're there just the same. There's Adrien Brody, Mathieu Amalric, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, and Bob Balaban, among others who will no doubt catch your eye. If that cast doesn't do something for you, maybe movies aren't your thing.

As I've learned with other Anderson movies, these simply aren't for everyone. The humor is either something you go along with or just don't. 'Budapest' covers a ton of ground in its 100-minute running time, scenes transitioning with a stylish title card, Alexandre Desplat's effortless score pushing the story along, sight gags galore dotting the road. If you like it, I think you'll love it. Just a goofy kind of perfect, vastly different and a step above just about everything else hitting theaters. Highly recommended.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014): *** 1/2 /****

The Lone Ranger

It is a character who's name is instantly recognizable, the Lone Ranger. First appearing in radio serials in 1933, the Lone Ranger has seen has his own very successful TV show in the 1950s, a brief run as an animated star in the 1960s, a disastrously bad (so I've heard) film version in 1981, and most recently, a reboot of the character of sorts, 2013's The Lone Ranger. Where does it stand? Well, it was one of the biggest financial disappointments of the year. Give it a try though, keep an open mind and I think you'll like it. I did.

It's 1869 in Colby, Texas and a young, naive, idealistic new district attorney, John Reid (Armie Hammer) arrives in town ready to clean up the area. The country is expanding, the railroad racing across the state, and Reid wants to be a part of it, to bring some civilization to the area. A problem has arisen though, a sadistic outlaw, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), escaping from custody. Reid heads out with a posse of Texas Rangers to catch Cavendish, but they're ambushed and Reid is the only one to survive, albeit getting shot in the process. He awakes to find a Comanche warrior, Tonto (Johnny Depp), looking out for him, claiming that Reid is now a Spirit Warrior, a man who passed to the other side and come back to normal life. Tonto too is searching for Cavendish with his own reasons for revenge. Forming an unlikely partnership, Reid -- disguising himself because Cavendish believes he's dead -- and Tonto decide to work together to find Cavendish, all amidst the railroad issues and cavalry intervening with a possible Comanche uprising.

Released last summer in theaters, 'Lone' had quite the checkered history in actually getting to theaters. When it did reach audiences, it flopped. Odd to think of any movie that earned $260 million internationally being a flop, but when a film had a budget somewhere between $225-250 million and another $100-plus on promotion, well, it's a flop. Well.....I liked it. For me, my enjoyment started because it is an entertaining movie. Plain and simple, it's entertaining. More than that though as a western, it knows where the genre has come from. Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid if not up there with his best, but it samples spaghetti western master composer Ennio Morricone's scores from Once Upon a Time in the West and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in some nice nods to genre classics.  'Lone' was also filmed in Monument Valley, made famous by director John Ford, and even some of the shots are reminiscent of iconic Ford shots. It's nice little touches that this that start 'Lone' off on the right foot.

With a film directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp, my worry was that I would be watching a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean: Western Style. The end result is a positive and negative. Yes, it is in the same vein of the Pirates movies. It's big and loud and colorful and schizophrenic at times. There's a lot of characters, a lot going on, blending in the drama with some laughs and some action. In other words, 'Lone' tries to be that perfect summer blockbuster, succeeding for the most parts. What then are the biggest issues? A framing device in the story department comes up short, an aged, wrinkly Tonto in 1933 San Francisco telling the Lone Ranger's story to a little boy, is forced and tries to lighten the mood too much. The elements of the mystical and spiritual are overdone as well, Tonto's insistence that John is a Spirit Warrior good but just used too much. Also, is Tonto a spirit himself? Just have fun with the story. Don't overdo it like that.

One of the original hero/sidekick duos, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are two pretty cool characters no matter what Ranger incarnation we're talking. I wasn't sold on Hammer (The Social Network) as John Reid, but he grew on me with each passing scene. The same for Depp, the casting looking like he'd play Capt. Jack Sparrow in the west. His Tonto is quirky, a little off in the Capt. Jack vein, but it is most definitely a fun part. He definitely doesn't deserve the flak he's received, including a Razzie nomination for Worst Actor. I also don't think it's fair to criticize Depp for being cast as a Native American. Is it in poor taste? It's a movie. Cool your jets. Above all else, I liked the chemistry between Hammer and Depp. Hammer's John is somewhat suspicious of Tonto, wanting to do things his way. Depp's Tonto thinks John is a little off himself, his idealistic motivations having no place in the wild west. They're funny together, both given some background to humanize them a bit, Tonto's background providing some of the emotional background.

Who else to look out for? Fichtner is very creepy as the infamous outlaw Butch Cavendish who enjoys eating his victims' hearts as they die. Look for James Frain and Leon Rippy in small parts as members of Butch's gang. Tom Wilkinson plays Latham Cole, the railroad executive placed in charge of advancing the rails as fast and far as possible. It's Wilkinson so you know he's up to something. Otherwise, why would he be here? Ruth Wilson is solid too as John's sister-in-law, a past love, who married John's brother, a Texas Ranger, played in a nice supporting part for James Badge Dale. Also having some fun is Helena Bonham Carter as Red, a brothel owner with an ivory leg, siding with John and Tonto in their troubles while Barry Pepper plays a God-fearing, gung-ho cavalry officer working with Cole to control the Comanches. Even Stephen Root makes an appearance late as a higher-up in the railroad company who's checking on the progress his company is making.

Again in the vein of the Pirates series is the rollover in the action department. What's there is surprisingly gruesome in terms of on-screen violence, if not particularly graphic. So be forewarned, this may not be the movie for younger kids. Mostly though, the action is flashy and fun, big and entertaining, gigantic action sequences full of CGI, crazy stunts and scenarios that no real-life human being could accomplish. The opening sequence where John and Tonto meet is pretty cool, the duo chained together and trying to stop a runaway train. The same for the finale, a train packed with silver lode being chased by another train, anyone and everyone jumping on and off one train and then the next, one ridiculous thing after another. It's goofy and fun right from the start, keeping things entertaining throughout the 149-minute running time.

Fans of the Lone Ranger will hopefully enjoy this one. I didn't come in as a huge fan with high expectations, just looking for a fun movie. It is, doing the Lone Ranger justice from his capable, maybe super-horse, Silver (his "Hi-yo, Silver, away! providing a good laugh), and of course, the Lone Ranger theme -- listen HERE -- from the William Tell overture, all those touches you're looking for in a movie with this iconic character. It's a reboot, but because of the financial struggles, this will probably be it for the series/franchise. So what are we left with? A movie that is overindulgent, goofy, schizophrenic and a whole lot of fun with some great characters, good laughs and lots of entertaining moments.

The Lone Ranger (2013): ***/****

The Green Hornet (2011)

A serial radio star to a TV series to comic book hero to feature film vigilante, the character of the Green Hornet has certainly made the rounds since his introduction back in the 1930s. For the most part though, he's always been a serious vigilante, an anti-hero not to be trifled with. So what about 2011's The Green Hornet? It's not a bad film by any means, but it ain't that good either. Moral of the story; a comedic story about a masked vigilante might not have been the best choice.

When his father, a well-respected newspaper publisher, dies, 20-something Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) is left to take stock of what he should do with his life. He's left in charge of the newspaper, but he has no idea where to even start. Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), his dead father's mechanic and designated coffee maker (surprisingly funny background there), and finds a kindred spirit of sorts. Intelligent and talented, Kato is similarly drifting along and similarly didn't like Britt's father. One night vandalizing a statue of Britt's dad, the duo beats up a bunch of thugs robbing a young couple and an idea is born. Teaming up, could they be a crime-fighting duo that cleans up Los Angeles' mean streets? Enter the Green Hornet and his masked sidekick, Kato.

This is a difficult movie to review for a couple reasons. While I'm not a diehard Green Hornet fan, I do consider myself a fan. The reviews were decidedly negative for this 2011 venture, and the box office (about $98 million) was less than impressive. It's difficult though because somewhere in this mess of a movie is a good movie. Somewhere. I'm not sure where. The parts that work are very funny, and the instances where it's a little (not a lot) spoofy are very entertaining. The parts that don't work? Well, they really don't work, grating on all that positive karma built up. In the end, it's a mixed bag. I'll slightly recommend it -- with some measured things to remember -- but know going in that this is far from a great or even very good movie.

What does work? That's tricky because Rogen playing the Green Hornet is both good and bad. He wrote the script with longtime friend Evan Goldberg and like their previous positive ventures -- Pineapple Express, Superbad -- there is an easy-going comfort level. The best thing going for 'Hornet' is the hero-sidekick-partner relationship between Britt and Kato, but only at its best in the quiet moments. When they discover they both hated Britt's father, when they develop the secret but ultra-cool persona of the Green Hornet, when they become friends, that is when the movie is clicking on all cylinders. Like Michael Cera and Jonah Hill in Superbad, Rogen and James Franco in Pineapple Express, Rogen and Goldberg know how to write scenes of dialogue between two guys and make it seem natural. It's just too bad there couldn't have been more of that here in 'Hornet.' The cool factor with the pimped-out Black Beauty, their ridiculous but stylish "disguises," all those little things had potential.

Instead, we get lots of overly goofy, even downright dumb spoof-like scenes mixed in with an abundance of overdone, exaggerated action scenes. Rogen is guilty here of resorting to annoying Rogen. He's a legitimately good comedic actor when he underplays his scenes. That's not the case here. He's yelling and screaming and waving his arms, hamming it up like his life depended on it. Thankfully, Chou at his side as Kato is an underplayed gem, the best part in the movie. As for the action, director Michel Gondry puts the gas pedal to the floor. Big, slo-mo explosions, lots of excessive, quick-cut hand-to-hand combat, and a surprisingly brutal streak when it comes to on-screen violence. 'Hornet' isn't guilty of a spoof. It's too dark at times for that. In terms of humor and pushing the limits, it goes far beyond spoof into some sort of odd purgatory beyond. What is it exactly? Hell if I know.

In some odd, what the hell is she doing here casting, Cameron Diaz plays Lenore Chase, Britt's babely, eye-candy secretary, an aspiring investigative reporter. I question what drew Diaz to the part because she's a better actress than this part requires. Similarly in an odd part, Tom Wilkinson seems to have been blackmailed into taking this small part as Britt's bastard of a father, but he's gone by the 10-minute mark or so. Looking like he's genuinely having some fun, Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) plays Chudnofsky, the king of L.A. crime always trying to figure out how to be more intimidating, more scary to his victims/clients. David Harbour is the possibly shady district attorney, James Edward Olmos looks bored as a veteran journalist, and Edward Furlong (he's alive!!!) makes a stretch of an appearance as a meth dealer. Franco too delivers an uncredited funny cameo as Danny Crystal Cleer, a club owner who incurs Chudnofsky's wrath.

I don't know. I went in with measured -- even lowish -- expectations, and I came away disappointed because at times I really liked this movie. The pacing at 119 minutes becomes an issue, and the lack of focus doesn't help too. Spoof superhero movie? Kind of. Hardcore drama? A little. Funny? You bet when the comedy is done right. A mixed bag in the end. Still, you do get to hear the Green Hornet theme -- listen HERE -- and that's never a bad thing.

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

Batman Begins

Here at Just Hit Play, I try to be timely if nothing else. So with the huge-mega-ultra-gigantic-Titanic-epic summer blockbuster (<----intended seriously, not sarcasm) The Dark Knight Rises due in theaters this Friday, we're doing a little movie recapping, starting with 2005's Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan's first venture into the Batman series. This weekend's film will no doubt be a huge success, but that's only because Nolan set the bar so high with his first two entries, and this first one? Still a goodie.

Years since his parents were murdered in a robbery, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is still searching for answers; some kind of resolution for his feelings of guilt, fear and desire for vengeance. After traveling the world and even training with a mysterious warrior, Ducard (Liam Neeson), at an isolated monastery in the Himalayas. Returning to impoverished, crime-torn Gotham City, Bruce creates a crime-fighting identity -- Batman -- to help combat the city's problems, using everything from Wayne Enterprises (his deceased father's company) to aid the cause. His impact is immediate, but other more sinister personalities await, including Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy) who intends to cripple Gotham like nothing the city's seen before.

The superhero franchise reboot is nothing new recently. Over the last 15 years, Superman, Spiderman and Batman have gotten reboots with a long list of other superheroes getting their own chance at a franchise -- some more successful than others. What sets 'Begin' (and The Dark Knight) apart is a straightforward authentic feel. There is no tongue in cheek, campy angle to the superhero proceedings. That's not a bad thing in the least. Nolan takes what Batman fans know -- Alfred the butler, the Batmobile, the Bat cave, Detective Gordon -- and keeps it on the straight and narrow. The score from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is epic without being overdoing it -- listen to the main theme HERE -- and the scale of the story has that epic quality without losing focus on the personal aspect; the characters. Simple you would think, but it's always surprising how many movies forget about that aspect.

What has made these movies so popular though -- for me at least -- is they are dark, dark and DARK. Like I mentioned, many people know Batman through the campy 1960s TV show or even the 1990s franchise ventures which we won't address right now....maybe ever. Unfortunately, the Batman comics are cynical and did I mention, dark? The TV shows and movies never took advantage of that aspect until here. Gotham City has been polluted by crime, poverty and corruption throughout the government (Tom Wilkinson is great in a small part as mobster Carmine Falcone), the city literally being torn apart. In general, Nolan (who also co-wrote the script) doesn't seem interested in any obvious laughs or tongue-in-cheek quality. Bad guys and good guys in a city in squalor. This would obviously get ratcheted up a notch in The Dark Knight, but 'Begins' certainly gets the ball rolling.

Having worked in film and TV since the late 1980s, Christian Bale had been at least a somewhat recognizable name for years. Not surprisingly, this put on the A-list of movie stars. Playing instantly recognizable superheroes tends to do that, huh? I like Bale as an actor, but he makes Bruce Wayne/Batman a likable character from the start. A superhero is one thing, but a tortured superhero? That's money in the bank. He has no super powers -- just a mansion and secret cave full of badass gadgets -- and must rely on his own skills as a fighter when trouble arises. Because of his past though, Bruce blames himself for his parents' death and feels he must do something to right that wrong. Without the humor of Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, Bale does a great job at putting a new, entertaining spin on a character that just about everyone knows.

Now on the other hand, if you're not a Bale fan, this cast almost certainly has something else to offer you. If there is a better casting job than Michael Caine as Alfred, Bruce's butler at Wayne Manor, I can't think of him. Caine is a professional, and even with his supporting part manages to dominate his scenes, making it look easy in the process. Same goes for Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Wayne Enterprise's resident technological genius. Gary Oldman is limited by screentime as Jim Gordon, one of Gotham's few clean cops, but not surprisingly makes it worthwhile. Neeson as Ducard is a gem in the casting department, Murphy sinister and creepy as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, and Ken Watanabe as mysterious ninja Ra's Al Ghul is only around for a little. Rutger Hauer plays Earle, the CEO of Wayne Enterprises in Bruce's absence, Katie Holmes is Rachel, Bruce's long-time but secret love and an assistant D.A., and Linus Roache plays Thomas Wayne, Bruce's brilliant, philanthropic father in a few quick flashback scenes.

It is a Batman movie though so there is some just assumed badass-ness (real word?) because of the character. The action scenes are brutal and don't feel forced, quick cut without being an indecipherable blur. Fans of Batman will no doubt get a kick out of seeing the reveal of the Bat Signal, of the Batmobile zipping through Gotham, all those little things that help make a good character great. 'Begins' sets the bar pretty high, but not quite high enough. As good as it is, it merely set the stage for The Dark Knight, an instant classic. Just the same, it's a great place to start. And don't forget about that last scene before the credits, featuring a perfect lead-in to the sequel. Superhero origin stories can be tricky, but this one knocks it out of the park.

Batman Begins <---trailer (2005): *** 1/2 /****

Duplicity

How far can charm take a movie? A story, an actor, a soundtrack, they can all have charm, but to what point? Usually it's a jumping off point to at least liking a movie, and hopefully somewhere in the process, you like something more. Thanks to a misleading trailer, I watched 2009's Duplicity, thinking I was getting a light espionage mystery relying on the charm and star power of two bankable stars. Even charm -- or lack of -- could save this one.

Two former intelligence agents, Ray (Clive Owen) from MI6 and Claire (Julia Roberts) from the CIA, have a bit of a history together...a checkered one at that. Several years ago in Dubai, Claire drugged Ray and took some valuable information he had hidden away. Now they're meeting up again but under different circumstances and different emotions. For one, they've fallen for each other, well, sort of, if they can trust each other. Wanting to retire to a life of luxury, they've decided to go into corporate espionage, working from the inside as two warring corporations (run by rivals Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) do battle over a new product that could revolutionize the market with billions of dollars at stake.

For starters, the trailer for this flick definitely made it look like a light, even romantic comedy a la Spy vs. Spy with Owen and Roberts going toe to toe. Yeah, about that...not quite. It's not like that at all, and it's not even close. Instead, director Tony Gilroy (of the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton) has crafted a twisting, weaving and generally pretty dark story about a corporate espionage where everything is not what it seems. I'm not claiming the movie isn't any good because the trailer was misleading. I'm claiming the movie isn't any good because it's dull and drifting with characters who aren't even close to sympathetic territory and a story that wraps itself up in its own cleverness.

Not surprisingly, the message boards are divided as to the quality of the movie. Some claim it's stupid and boring because the story isn't linear. Then there's the posters who blindly defend it because it's smart. Can both sides be wrong and right at the same time? I resent it when holier-than-thou moviegoers claim someone doesn't like a movie because they "didn't get it." It's also mindblowingly dumb to claim a movie is dumb because you simply didn't understand it. The odd thing about Duplicity is that nothing really works, and both sides are in fact very right. The story is flashback heavy, bringing us up to date (as much as possible) with how the characters got into this spot. Then, there's the current story, Ray and Claire working from the inside. None of it is particularly interesting, and it doesn't change much over the course of a slow-moving 125 minutes.

As far as bankable stars go, it's hard to top Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Their parts in Duplicity are lacking in so many ways, and neither looks that interested in the story or their characters. Like the story, they look bored with the proceedings. And charm? Chemistry? Yeah, I'm still looking for that. The two stars never click, their scenes lacking any real passion. Their relationship gets repetitive almost immediately, two intelligence agents who struggle with trust issues because their job requires it of them. Roberts questions Owen, Owen flips, Roberts reveals she's joking and trying to pull a fast one on them. Repeat to your desire three or four more times, the joke falling short over and over. As for Giamatti and Wilkinson, it's about what you'd expect. They're playing themselves in extended cameos, neither given a chance to do anything.

More than a few times during the slowly developing story I was close to bailing, but I stuck with it and was at least partially rewarded with the ending. It features a twist that works in terms of the story and characters, but also is surprisingly entertaining and unique. It is far from a happy twist either, adding a dark element to the already pretty dark proceedings. Not enough to recommend the movie, but enough to say 'stick with it' if you're struggling mightily to make it through like I did.

Duplicity <---trailer (2009): */****

The Debt

In the closing days and months of WWII, Nazi officials saw the end in sight and started to plan their escapes, retreating into new lives, knowing that their actions would eventually catch up with them. Intelligence agencies from countries around the world did their best to bring these men to justice as seen in movies like Marathon Man or The Boys from Brazil, and most recently 2010's The Debt.

It's 1997 and Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson) and David Peretz (Ciaran Hinds) have been holding onto a secret for 30 years. Now that secret might be coming out. Rachel's daughter has a written a book about her mother's exploits as Mossad agent in 1965, working with Stephan and David as part of a three-man team to bring a Nazi war criminal to justice. What they told though happened isn't the truth, and now after 30 years of inner turmoil, it may finally be time for that hidden truth to reveal itself. What will be the price? At what cost can their struggles be revealed?

A smart, well-written thriller. They seem few and far between actually arriving in theaters, don't they? Director John Madden has done it though with this thriller, crafting a story that weaves in between 1965/66 and 1997 fairly effortlessly. Early in the story, we're thrown for a loop as an audience, seeing what we believed happened only to find out later that it wasn't based in the truth. The East Berlin setting of 1965 is dark and gloomy (appropriate) with the flashback occupying much of the movie's middle portions only to bounce back to 1997. The look of the movie is great, and as a whole, it's more content in telling a human, interesting and still entertaining story than getting wrapped up in gunplay and explosions thankfully.

A surprising problem though is the division of the story between the two separate years. In the 1965 portion, Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas play Rachel, David and Stephan. All three do a fine job with their characters, Mossad agents on a nearly suicidal mission deep in Communist-run East Berlin. Worthington especially makes a positive impression, showing he's more than only an action star, and Chastain too carries herself very well. Even with the mystery though of what happened on the mission, these 1965 Berlin scenes lack a certain energy. We know some sort of twist is coming yet somehow it isn't all that interesting. There's also the always reliable, always cliched love triangle thrown into the mix, one of my all-time least favorite plot devices.

So with a story that has three main characters, we're really seeing six characters, not to mention Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau, a Nazi war criminal who played a major role in the Holocaust (and loosely based on Josef Mengele). Of the two storylines, I was more interested in the 1997 plot. Mirren is one of the best actresses working in movies today, and Wilkinson is no slouch either. Hinds has the least screentime but does not disappoint either. I can't explain the differences because all the acting is above average and pretty top-notch. The more current story just came across better to me while the rest back in Berlin drags at times.

What divided many reviewers/critics was the ending after the twist and an additional surprise are thrown into the story. I for one, liked it a lot, thinking it was a very emotional fitting end for the character. There is a certain amount of viewer interpretation allowed in the ending, but this is where the debt in the title comes into play. These characters have suffered with a decision they made some 30 years back and are now forced to deal with it. The solution is no easier than the original problem, and the final scene is incredibly moving. Credit goes to composer Thomas Newman and his score, balancing the tense scenes (kidnapping Vogel in Berlin) to the quiet moments. A flawed movie in terms of story, but the acting is worth mentioning on its own.

The Debt <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

It's already been 15 years since the first Mission: Impossible movie was released in theaters in 1996, and boy, how the time flies. The highly successful franchise spawned sequels in 2000, 2006 and the newest entry in the series, 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Espionage and action galore. Fans will not be disappointed.

Busted out of a Moscow prison, IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is quickly assigned another mission. With a short window of time, Ethan must break into the Kremlin and get out with an important file that could trigger a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The mission goes under on a double cross, the Kremlin blown up in the process, and now Ethan and his team are being blamed. Who's responsible? A brilliant Russian scientist/analyst, Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who intends to "balance" the world by unleashing a nuclear missile in the United States. As he searches for the device and the launch codes, a disavowed Ethan and his team are the only thing in the way of stopping global nuclear war.

First off, I'm a sucker for spy movies of any sorts. When they are quality spy movies? Like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm the fish. I love where the series has gone, keeping things fresh. The first was a twisting smart thriller, the second an action extravaganza, the third more of an old-fashioned popcorn movie, and the fourth a mix of them all. 'Ghost Protocol' is the combination of all of those things, blending a twisting, turning story with crazy action and ridiculous amounts of entertainment. It's got the smart qualities that have been present in all the M:I movies, the style, charm and gadgets of the Bond movies, and the stylized action of the Bourne movies. All the while, it keeps things entertaining and maintaining its own unique flavor and style.

Through the ups and downs of his career, I've long been a fan of Tom Cruise (even when he was jumping up and down on Oprah's couch). He is an actor, but he's also a movie star, and those are few and far between nowadays. He's aged obviously since 1996, but he's still Tom Cruise. Ethan has a revenge motive here, giving this very capable secret agent an even darker edge. He's looking for vengeance while also clearing his name. More detail on this later, but he also does most if not all of the crazy, ridiculous, off-the-wall stunts. And don't be confused. They are crazy, ridiculous and off the wall. His IMF team includes Brandt (Jeremy Renner), a supposed analyst, Benjy (Simon Pegg), the tech expert, and Carter (ass-kicking and sexy Paula Patton), an agent new to the scene who's also got revenge on her mind. Also look for Lost alum Josh Holloway in a small but cool part and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson as the U.S. secretary of state in a one-scene cameo. Even franchise alums Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan appear, albeit very briefly.

A whole review could very easily be devoted to just M:I4's action sequences, and there are a lot. Big, flashy action movies have been watered down by CGI and in general, a quality of 'been there, done that' and most specifically 'seen that.' Director Brad Bird and his script take your typical action sequence, and amp up the ante. We've all seen countless car chases so what do you do? You have a car chase in a Dubai sand storm. Heist-like situation? How about having it in the world's tallest building where you have to scale it from the outside? All I'm typically looking for in an action movie is to try and do something different, throw something at us as an audience we haven't seen. If it flops, so be it. You tried. When it works though? You've got a real winner on your hands.

Where to start with Ghost Protocol's action? The movie opens with the Moscow prison break continues to the Kremlin infiltration, jumps to a chase through Moscow in the dead of night and then goes globe-hopping to Dubai and Mumbai. It's not of the hyper-kinetic Bourne variety either. You can see all of it....which is kinda nice. The action is the type where 18 different things are going on, all dependent on the other happening at the precise, necessary time, especially the ending involving a Mumbai parking garage with rising and falling platforms. As with any movies, you need one character laying things out, explaining the ludicrous nature of what's being attempted, Renner's Brandt handling it nicely.

The high point though -- and it isn't even close -- is the middle portion of the movie, the mission taking the team to Dubai and the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, to pull off a switch with international assassin Moreau (Lea Seydoux) and Hendricks' man, Wistrom (Samuli Edelmann), and a briefcase full of nuclear launch codes. Ethan has to scale part of the massive building 130 stories up, just a pair of high tech "glue" gloves holding him up. Credit to Cruise for doing most of his own stunts hundreds of feet up, but in general to Bird for providing one of the adrenaline-pumping sequences I can remember. Total it runs about 20, maybe 25 minutes, including the fallout when things don't go quite as planned, culminating in the sand storm car chase. The movie's action is a step above on the whole, but this extended sequence will certainly be a major factor in this spy flick being remembered down the road.

My first reaction was to give this 4 stars, but I can't quite go there....yet.  Maybe down the road I will. All the movies can be judged/criticized/loved/hated on their own so it's hard to compare them. Initial thoughts, it ranks with the original 1996 movie as the best of the series. This is what movies should be like. Fun, damn entertaining and just an enjoyable experience. Throw in Michael Giacchino's score -- using the retro theme from the TV show, listen HERE, and a great title sequence -- and everything here is firing on all cylinders. Cruise leads a great cast, and original action like you haven't seen before. GO see this movie....NOW.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

The Conspirator

In one of the United States' biggest tragedies, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated April 14, 1865 by the actor John Wilkes Booth just a week after the Confederate surrender to Union forces at Appomattox Court House. Over the coming months, a trial was held with eight prisoners held accountable for the Lincoln assassination, but also a bigger plot, one to kill the Vice President and the Secretary of State. Among the prisoners, a lone woman, Mary Surratt, a boarding house owner who's story was told in 2010's The Conspirator.

Stunned by the assassination of President Lincoln, Civil War veteran and inexperienced lawyer Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) is assigned the impossible. Just weeks after Lincoln's death, Aiken is assigned as defense counsel to Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), the owner of a Washington boarding house believed to be involved with the assassination plot. The country is still mourning the tragic and sudden loss of the President, and there are cries for revenge, for retribution, including against Surratt who claims she's innocent. Even Aiken struggles to come to a conclusion, balancing out his personal feelings to his country with his obligation as a lawyer. With Surratt's life very much on the line, Aiken must decide what to do, choosing whether he can actually defend this woman in a court that seems rigged to watch him fail.

It is the rare historical period piece that hits theaters over the recent years so you have to enjoy them when they do come along. When there's the talent involved here -- with director Robert Redford -- it's an almost must watch situation. The look of the movie is impressive from the uniforms down to the locations that give you the feeling of being in 1865 Washington. 'Conspirator' is at its best setting things up, bringing the time to life for history buffs and viewers being introduced to a new subject. Composer Mark Isham's score isn't a classic, but it is both epic and moody as needed.

What doesn't work so well is based in the pacing. It starts with an obvious but still major problem. I've always liked history -- and have been to Ford's Theatre several times -- so I'm familiar with Mary Surratt's name. Whether you are or aren't (or even just read the Wiki link above), there isn't much mystery here. You know how it's going to end so so-called "twists" don't produce that desired result. Getting to the ending though, the story gets bogged down in the repetitious, yawn-producing courtroom scenes. The story revels in the period accuracy, and it sounds like the speech patterns of the 1860s, but that doesn't mean it is always interesting. The pacing is leisurely to say the least, and in general doesn't have much urgency. When you know where the movie's going to end up, some sense of tension or question would have been nice.

For a movie called 'The Conspirator,' I came away surprised. If anything, it could be called 'The Conspirator's Lawyer.' McAvoy does a very solid job as Aiken, the real-life figure assigned to defend Mrs. Surratt.  The story focuses far more on him and his personal struggles than those of Surratt. Wright similarly is good if not great as Mary, portrayed as a martyr of sorts, an almost too angelic one. It just would have been nice to see her more, get to know her better as opposed to a one-note religious woman looking out for her kids' well-being at her own cost. McAvoy is torn apart inside, trying to figure out how to defend his client, putting his career on the line to see how far he can go. Their scenes lack a certain energy, but McAvoy makes the best impression in the courtroom as he desperately tries to do his job.

Working with a director -- and in general Hollywood legend -- with Redford's talent, I'm assuming actors are knocking down his door to get parts in his movies. McAvoy and Wright clearly have the biggest roles, but a handful of other parts rise above their smallish screentime. Tom Wilkinson (a British senator from Maryland?!?) plays Senator Reverdy Johnson, a man who believes even the guiltiest among us deserves a trial. A nearly unrecognizable Kevin Kline is Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the movie's villain (because every movie needs one. An underrated actress, Evan Rachel Wood is memorable as Anna, Mary's suffering daughter trying to help her mother while Danny Huston plays Joseph Holt, the prosecuting attorney. Colm Meaney is wasted as General Hunter, head of the commission/trial. Among other smaller parts, Justin Long and Alexis Bledel fail to make much of an impression as Aiken's friend and a long-time girlfriend. Norman Reedus is the only other one of the conspirators to get more than a line or two.

It is the rare period piece so I always feel like I should enjoy these movies no matter the quality. I came away disappointed here with a historical story that should have been more interesting. There are aspects of the trial that shine some light on the cover-ups and whitewashing that was done to Surratt, efforts handled so a guilty verdict would come along no matter how ridiculously fixed things were. As a director, Redford is clearly in Surratt's corner, but he never actually spells it out mostly because as history, we'll never know for sure of Surratt's innocence or guilt. With a small footnote in our nation's history, I just wished the movie had been more enjoyable.

The Conspirator <---trailer (2010): **/****

The Ghost Writer

An incredibly gifted director, Roman Polanski is nonetheless known more for his personal life than his feature films. Convicted of the statutory rape of a 13-year old girl, Polanski fled the United States and has lived in Europe and around the world since the mid 1970s.  An obviously dividing personality, but regardless of his past actions in his personal life, Polanski is a great talent behind the camera.  I've only seen a few of his movies and know of him more through reputation than anything, but 2010's The Ghost Writer sounded like an interesting premise. 

A fair share of reviews I've read took some offense to a not so thinly veiled dig at former British prime minister Tony Blair.  I shouldn't even say 'not so thinly veiled' because besides a name change, a prominent character IS Tony Blair. It takes a lot more than political differences to chase me away from a movie, but I wanted to point it out.  Some reviewers even said Blair should sue Polanski and the moviemakers for the portrayal of a character that rings oh so familiar to the former PM.  Lost in those reviews is a solid thriller that struggles at times with its destination but is aided by several strong performances and an excellent gotcha! ending.

With several major save projects behind him, a writer known simply as the Ghost (Ewan McGregor) takes on a job that will pay him $250,000 but will also be his biggest challenge. Former British prime minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) is writing his memoirs, but the publishers are worried about how the project is going having invested $10 million in the rights to the book. The Ghost accepts the job, traveling to a small fishing island community of the east coast in the U.S. to get to work.  He meets Lang's wife (Olivia Williams) and assistant (Kim Cattrall) and quickly realizes he's stepped into quite the murky situation. That's just the start though as the Ghost finds out more about the previous ghost writer's mysterious death, all the while as Lang's name surfaces in reports of illegal actions taking during his term involving terrorism and the C.I.A.  Has he bitten off more than he can chew?

This is a cold, stark finished product.  It is always cloudy, damp and raining, the sets are minimalism at its finest, and the camera isn't invasive in the least.  Polanski puts the camera in the scene and lets his actors do the heavy lifting.  But throw all those things together, and you get a movie that will interesting is never exciting.  You're curious what McGregor's writer has stumbled into, but the reveal is such a slow burn that it loses any momentum built up getting to that spot.  There were times I was reminded of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller -- especially because of composer Alexandre Desplat's score -- but something I can't put my finger on bothered me about the movie.  I was never bored, but the 128-minute run time is a little long in the tooth.

From Sean Connery to Daniel Craig and every James Bond in between, actors who have played British superspy 007 have dealt with typecasting.  I grew up watching all of the Bond movies, especially Brosnan's ventures as he took over the reins.  Since leaving the part though, we've seen less of Brosnan unfortunately.  The man can act plain and simple if he would just be given a chance.  Acting-wise, I think he is the best thing 'Writer' has going for it.  If anything though, he is criminally underused in a part that demands you pay attention to his character.  His former Prime Minister was a celebrity more than a politician, and just watching him you can see his appeal to voters.  However, the story requires him to disappear for vast stretches of time right as things are getting interesting.  So overall, he is underused, but what's there is pitch perfect.

So while Brosnan isn't in the movie as much as I'd like and the pacing is a little off, I can recommend this movie because of the acting.  McGregor is one of my favorite current stars in Hollywood, and you can always count on him to do something interesting with his part.  Williams and Cattrall are the wild cards because you just don't know quite what they are up to or what their agenda is.  If this was a 1940s film noir, Williams would be the perfect femme fatale, and Cattrall (who I'm only aware of because of Sex and the City) gives off this sexy vibe as the assistant who clearly isn't telling us everything we need to know.  Not enough for you?  Two supporting parts in the final hour come out of nowhere but work well nonetheless.  Eli Wallach (chugging along at 95 and still cool as ever) plays a man McGregor interviews about some shady goings on, and Tom Wilkinson plays a former friend of Lang's who clearly is involved in something bigger because...well..because he's Tom Wilkinson.

So what is everyone up to? What is Brosnan's Lang really shooting for, if anything?  McGregor slowly pieces everything together as to what's really happening in a twist that I didn't see coming.  I don't know what I was expecting, but I was thinking something bigger.  We're not talking Keyser Soze or Sixth Sense level twist, but it's solid.  Better than that though is the final scene which supplies a real doozy of a shocker.  It's the one time Polanski foreshadows what is about to happen with his camerawork -- very subtle though -- in a great final uncut single shot that made me jump.  Lots of potential that doesn't live up to all of it, but still a solid thriller with a great cast.

The Ghost Writer <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

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): ***/****

The Ghost and the Darkness

I'm pretty sure I walked by them more than a few times without giving a second glance.  Housed in the Field Museum in downtown Chicago, the Tsavo maneaters were two lions who terrorized a stretch of railroad construction in 1898 in Kenya.  The story of these two lions has translated well into the movies, including 1952's Bwana Devil and more recently 1996's The Ghost and the Darkness. 

Engineer Col. John Patterson (Val Kilmer) has been assigned to a build a bridge over the Tsavo River for the Kenya-Uganda Railway in Tsavo, a region of Kenya.  A man-eating lion kills several workers, but Patterson quickly dispatches it and the work continues.  Almost two months pass and the bridge is almost completed when once again a lion starts killing workers.  As he looks to kill this second animal, Patterson discovers it is not one, but two lions causing the terror.  And unlike most male lions who hunt alone, these two travel together.  With pressure from the railway company to complete the bridge on time, Patterson gets help from famous hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas).  But as the bodies mount, they begin to wonder; are these lions or some sort of evil spirit -- dubbed the ghost and the darkness -- sent to drive the railway away?

Based on the true story of the maneaters, this adventure only plays fast and loose with some of the facts, the big one being that a hunter like Remington -- a fictional character -- ever showed up in Tsavo to help Patterson.  In the actual story, Patterson kills both of the lions and then completes his bridge.  That's too easy though, isn't it?  Then we couldn't get the cool twist in the story of the old, grizzled veteran (Douglas) working together with the suave, sophisticated engineer (Kilmer) to take out a common goal.  Completely factual?  No way, but what movie is?  Based on the true story, but with some artistic license.

Director Stephen Hopkins faces the challenge any director filming a story like this must handle.  Steven Spielberg doesn't show Jaws until well over halfway into the movie.  Hopkins doesn't go that far, but starts off the movie just hinting at the presence of the lions as a shadow in the tall grass or a deep growl in the distance.  And even when the lions are shown in full view, they're no more terrifying than any other animal.  These aren't freakishly large specimens.  They look pretty typical although as the natives name them, there's a sense of something deeper, something darker at play.  Maybe they could be messengers of death, who knows.

Poor Val Kilmer, he's a very likable lead in this role and for most of the first hour he carries the story.  But once Michael Douglas shows up, it's over.  Douglas' Remington is a former Confederate soldier who lost everything in the war and became a world-renowned big game hunter.  He pulls off a slight accent well and maybe more importantly looks the part of a globe-trotting, experienced hunter.  This is Douglas at his best.  Just like Gordon Gecko, he's a little crazy and over the top, but it works.  He steals the movie even with Kilmer doing fine work alongside him.  The two definitely have a good chemistry going, including one campfire scene late in the movie after a successful hunt.

Deciding on where to make the story, Hopkins or the studio, whoever really, made a wise choice in settling on Kenya and Tsavo National Park where the story actually took place.  The locations are beyond breath-taking whether it be the rail camp and the mountains as the background or the two hunting trips that take the story away the camp.  Hopkins and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond film Africa as big as it really is with huge stretches of expansive land broken up by rolling hills, rocky buttes, and grassy savannas.  Certain scenes look like paintings that you could freeze frame and use as travel posters for African vacations.  Add a phenomenal score from composer Jerry Goldsmith (sample HERE) that has a beautiful African theme to it sung by a group called The Worldbeaters, and you get a sense of the culture and place the story is set in.

The back and forth attempts to catch and kill the lions provide the movie's more nerve-wracking scenes.  Patterson comes up with an ingenious plan (watch it HERE) to trap them only to see it epically fail.  Remington is able to trap them, but a jammed rifle fouls up the plan.  Even working together, a foolproof plan is developed (HERE) only to fail, all adding to the idea that these aren't any ordinary animals.  A really exciting, enjoyable movie that also features some good performances from Tom Wilkinson as the a-hole railway owner and John Kani as Samuel, a native supervisor on the railway. Definitely worth a watch.  The trailer below is a fan-made trailer because the actual one is awful with some funny sound effects.

The Ghost and the Darkness <----trailer (1996): *** 1/2 /****

Cassandra's Dream

In an episode of Seinfield, Jerry proudly announces that he's never seen an episode of I Love Lucy. While I can't compare to that -- I've seen quite a few episodes -- I can counter with something of my own. Until this weekend, I'd never seen any of the 30-plus movies that director Woody Allen has made. From what I knew about him and his personal life (kinda creepy) and the types of movies he's made, I just never sought one out. It wasn't intentional, just happened.

Netflix recommended a Woody Allen movie for me and with an interesting premise and two actors I like in leading roles I thought I'd give Cassandra's Dream a chance. From what little I know about Allen, his directing tone has changed over the years from comedies to dramas including Match Point in 2005. So with no background in the director's filmography, I didn't have high expectations going in but ended up loving the movie.

Two English brothers, Ian (Ewan McGregor) and Terry (Colin Farrell), find themselves in deep trouble in the money department for vastly different reasons. Ian is sick of working in his father's restaurant and wants to move on to bigger and better things including a hotel venture in Los Angeles. On top of that, Ian has fallen in love with a young model, Angela (Hayley Atwell), and wants to start a new life with her. Terry is an alcoholic, pill-popping gambler who finds himself $90,000 in debt when a poker game gets out of hand. Trying to make payments on a house for his wife Kate (Sally Hawkins), Terry doesn't know where to turn. The brothers have a streak of luck though as their uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson) is visiting from China.

Uncle Howard is loaded with plastic surgery clinics dotting the globe. But he's in a desperate situation too as a former employee, Martin Burns (Philip Davis) is scheduled to testify in a case against him with a possible lifetime jail sentence on the line. With nowhere to turn, Howard offers to give Ian and Terry whatever money they need...if they kill Martin. In terms of storytelling, this is similar to Sidney Lumet's 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead,' another crime amongst family story. It's ripe with tension as your average John Smith is forced into actions that before would have seemed improbable.

SPOILERS What works so well is the suspense and tension that Allen builds. It's almost a full hour before Howard's proposition is brought up so by then as a viewer we've gotten to see Ian and Terry and their backgrounds. Both with their own flaws, there is empathy for them and their predicaments. Ian's ambitions are boundless but he needs some $ backing, and Terry just wants to make his wife happy but his vices get the best of him. What is unique is that the murder (yes, they do murder him) is almost an afterthought. It's the build-up and the resulting guilt and inner turmoil that step to the forefront.

With a story like this, it's hard not to compare it to a movie like Dial M For Murder, and in a positive way 'Cassandra' feels like a Hitchcock movie. The brothers break into Martin's house, ready to kill him when he returns from dinner. Then, the phone rings. What do you do? By the way, the ring startled me like something out of a horror movie. Later, Martin arrives home but with a woman. Do they kill both? Just another wrench into their otherwise seamless plan. In the aftermath of the murder and getting the money, Ian is able to put their dastly deed behind them while Terry is torn up with guilt. It all builds to an ending that does work although it feels rushed a bit like Allen just wanted to wrap things up.

Considering McGregor is Scottish and Farrell is Irish, the relationship between the two English brothers is the lynch pin of the movie. A fair share of critics didn't find the dynamic between the two actors believable, but it worked for me perfectly. Ian's smooth and calm, thinking everything out, while Terry is more emotional, more spur of the moment. McGregor and Farrell physically look nothing alike, but does it matter when their interactions are so believable? Wilkinson is only in the movie for two or three scenes but makes the quick appearance instantly memorable, especially the scene where he presents the brothers with his plan. John Benfield and Clare Higgins play the brothers' long-suffering parents who want the best for their children.

Getting average reviews from critics and so-so to downright bad from fans, I'm thinking I liked the movie because I haven't seen any other Woody Allen movies. The dialogue is quick and snappy, the cinematography is beautiful for filming in dreary old England, and the cast is solid from top to bottom, especially McGregor and Farrell. Maybe it isn't up to par with other Allen classics, but I've got nothing to compare this to, and I loved it. So take that Woody Allen devotees.

Cassandra's Dream <---trailer (2007): *** 1/2 /****