In the Heart of the Sea

Whether you've read it or not, everyone has heard of Moby Dick, the classic novel by author Herman Melville, right? Right?!? I'd hope so. If not, go check out a library. What many folks don't know is that Melville's story is partially based on a true story, the tragic story of the Essex (don't read if you don't want to find out some MAJOR SPOILERS). It's gotten a feature film adaptation getting somewhat mixed reviews, but you should decide for yourself with 2015's In the Heart of the Sea.

It's 1820 on Nantucket and the whaling ship the Essex is set to embark on a long voyage that will last at least a year and could stretch as long as two or three. The ship has a new commander, George Pollard (Benjamin Walker), who's relatively inexperienced but who will be aided by a very capable first officer, Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). With a crew of 21, the Essex sets sail on a voyage that will take them south through the Atlantic and west into the Pacific as they seek to fill their hold with hundreds of barrels of oil they will produce by killing as many whales as they can track. After months at sea though, they have little to show for their work, forcing Walker to give the orders to go further out into the Pacific where reports of waves of whales offer an enticing potential for success. What awaits though in the vast expanses of the unexplored ocean? Even the experienced sailors on-board the Essex couldn't predict what awaits them.

This recent release from director Ron Howard is based on a book of the same name by author Nathan Philbrick. SPOILERS AHEAD SPOILERS Writing in a simple, straightforward style (much appreciated!), Philbrick goes into detail of the time, the people and the tragic events that took place. While thousands of miles away from land in the Pacific, the Essex was attacked by an immense sperm whale and ultimately sunk, leaving the crew stranded at sea with limited supplies and no real hope of rescue in sight. Knowing it is the truth, it is a terrifying story to read, to know that these men experienced that pure terror. Melville's novel actually ends about halfway through the real-life story so don't think you've read and/or seen it all already! An interesting, uncomfortable read, but one that's worth it if you're a reader. RELATIVE END OF SPOILERS

Howard has tackled a pretty massive undertaking in turning the story and Philbrick's book into a feature film. The book itself isn't that big -- about 250 pages -- but it covers a ton of ground, both in terms of story, character and setting the time period. 'Heart' then has to cram all that into a movie that's about two hours long. It was originally scheduled to be released last March but was pushed back to a December release, and that's never a good thing. The story itself is interesting, and the acting is solid throughout with a cool storytelling and framing device, but it's missing that special something. The music is okay but nothing too memorable. The visual look of the movie is interesting, a bluish/green hue permeating the story. But when taken as a whole, 'Heart' doesn't have that one thing to take it up a notch or two from good to great or even really good.

Where it succeeds is the scope and scale. An early shot of the Essex is startling, a ship that's 87 feet long and barely makes a blip on the ocean's expanse. This is a little ship in a big old ocean. Long establishing shots of the ocean are unsettling, especially considering where the story is heading. There's no easy rescue available. If something happens, these men are on their own. That premise hits you at your very core, makes you realize how desperate survival really can be. The whale attack on the Essex is a quick, unsettling scene that I wish was actually a little longer and more drawn out to really let it breathe. The tension-building and foreshadowing of what's coming is highly effective, a massive whale bigger than any ever seen doing something that has never been seen just waiting in the unexplored depths of the ocean to strike. So yeah, the scope and scale are on point, but as for the more emotional moments...

They just aren't there. I felt very little connection with any of the characters, an issue with the immensity of the story. You've got so much to do as a director, so many goals you want to achieve, but what do you cut? Unfortunately here in 'Heart,' it's that emotional connection that allows us to get to know the characters, to sympathize with them through their horrifying trials at sea where death seems far more welcome than living at so many times. Hemsworth is solid, a capable officer seeking a captaincy of his own with one more successful voyage. Walker too is good as Pollard, a rivalry developing between the two men about how to command, a deep-rooted issue going back to both men's backgrounds and history. This puns sounds so horrifically forced and gimmicky considering the film's title, but it has very little heart. Characters pass away or disappear and we couldn't identify them if we tried. The scale/scope is excellent, but I wish it had evened out some.

Also look for Cillian Murphy in a solid supporting part as Matthew Joy, the Essex's second officer and a longtime friend of Hemsworth's Chase. Tom Holland plays Thomas Nickerson, a teenage Nantucket boy going on his first voyage. In a cool storytelling device, Ben Whishaw (Q in the Bond movies) plays Melville, seeking out a much-older Nickerson in late 1840's Nantucket, Brendan Gleeson as solid as always as Nickerson with Michelle Fairley playing his wife. Among the crew of the Essex, we see a couple faces pop up several times but never get to know them well either. Also look for Jordi Molla as a Spanish ship captain with a warning for the Essex crew as they prepare to head out to the Pacific.

Like so many historical epics and period pieces, 'Heart' seems like a prime candidate for a miniseries of some sort. Maybe a two or three-part series that would have been able to explore in more depth the the time the story takes place in, some more whaling background, the Essex's crew, the attack, and their desperate fight for survival in the wake of the improbable attack by the immense sperm whale inspired Melville to write Moby Dick. A good effort but ultimately a disappointing effort that doesn't live up to its potential.

In the Heart of the Sea (2015): ** 1/2 /****

The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

Edge of Tomorrow

When I think of Tom Cruise, I think of any number of movies from Top Gun and Risky Business to the Mission Impossible series. He's the type of movie star who if he's in a movie, I'll give it a shot. What genre has provided some of Cruise's best work? That would be the science fiction genre, including Oblivion, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, and a new entry to the list, 2014's Edge of Tomorrow.

It has been five long, bloody years since an alien race dubbed 'Mimics' has landed on Earth, specifically all across Europe. Banding together, mankind is finally seeing some victories coming together, their forces pushing back to the point that an immense, world-encompassing invasion of the European continent is fast-approaching. Among the military forces is Major William Cage (Cruise), a PR man who has done his best to promote the war, get the people behind the effort. Through an argument with a superior officer, Cage finds himself not as a PR man, but as a front-line infantry soldier ready to lead the first wave of the invasion. The attack is horrific, a surprise invasion not so surprising. Cage himself is killed when a new kind of Mimic strikes, but he isn't quite dead. He wakes up at the same point a day before, experiencing the identical day down to each personal interaction. A figurehead of the fighting forces, an international hero, Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), knows exactly what's going on with Cage. Can this inexperienced soldier hold the key to Earth's salvation?

Wow, this is the sort of story and premise you hope for in a really well-written, well-executed science fiction film. Heck, in any film. It will be difficult to review this sci-fi flick from director Doug Liman without giving away at least some sort of spoiler so be forewarned. I'll be discussing the major twist that propels 'Edge' into the guts of its story, one you no doubt may have heard about, but still....I WARNED YOU!!! SPOILERS!!! So what is the oh-so-original premise? This description minimizes how good the movie is, but this is Groundhog Day with a sci-fi edge. Through a mishap in battle, Cruise's Cage is reborn at the same instance every time he dies in battle. In other words, he can die seemingly infinite times only to be thrown back a day later before the invasion and do it all over again. His death literally signifies a "Re-do" button for not only himself, but the world as a whole. Life goes on, getting a fresh start each and every time Cage dies.

So yeah, that could be called a gimmick. 'Groundhog' is a classic, loved by fans. Another somewhat similar movie, Vantage Point, used a storytelling format that rewound the story so we could see it from a different perspective. I saw that one in theaters, the audience audibly groaning by the second or third "rewind." That most assuredly is not the issue here. The screenplay isn't content to be just smart. It takes the story somewhere, and once we learn what Cage is going through, we don't see everything. We see snippets of his seemingly never-ending life of one day. He dies on the beach in countless ways -- the battle showing all the countless ways he can meet his demise -- and starts over, meeting his squad leader, meeting his fellow soldiers and then is thrown into the battle. Some "days" we see a lot, others bits and pieces. It is a difficult premise to explain but just know that in the end, it is worth it. We're introduced to it, and then the story breathes.

Look, here it is. I like Tom Cruise, and yes, I know everybody doesn't feel that way. He's an actor and a movie star, and I especially liked his performance here. Where I described the story's background a little bit, I'm not going to delve too much into Cruise's Cage or how he ends up in the situation he does. I will say it surprised me because he plays against type early on, an unlikely hero thrust into a situation that could save or doom mankind. Nothing big, right? Joining him is rising star Emily Blunt, her Rita a modern day Rosie the Riveter of sorts, except she's right at the forefront of the fighting. She may not look like a prototypical action hero, but it ends up working exceptionally well. On top of that, her chemistry with Cruise is spot-on. There is a simple, effective chemistry between them that simply put....just works. Another big positive, the possible developing relationship between them is kept in the background, hinted at but never addressed head-on. Two very good performances that don't get lost in the epic qualities and scale of the science fiction story.

Who else to look for? Brendan Gleeson is the face of mankind's defense, his General Brigham the commander of the United Defense Forces. Bill Paxton plays Master Sergeant Farell, Cage's new squad leader who becomes the face of Cage's improbable dilemma. In the squad, look for Jonas Armstong, Tony Way, Kick Gurry, Franz Drameh, Dragomir Mrsic and Charlotte Riley.

As cool as the premise is (and it is very cool), I especially liked some of the quieter moments, even the scenes with some truly dark humor. In the second half of the movie, Cage and Rita are talking, Rita discovering that the two of them have been in this situation countless times before. Cage remembers. Rita doesn't. What if they stopped trying over and over again to save the world? What if they just ran away? Scenes like that add some emotional depth to a story with style and interesting story to burn. I didn't love the last 20 minutes or so, but there is a relative twist added that I thought worked especially well. The final scenes had a timeline discrepancy that I can't quite wrap my head around, but that's a minor thing.

Big picture? This is what you look for in a science fiction flick. With touches of Groundhog Day, Starship Troopers and more recently, Source Code, 'Edge' is excellent. History buffs will no doubt get a kick out of it too, the current invasion of Europe resembling D-Day right down to the tiny details. By the time the troops actually hit the beaches, it's like a modern-day attack on the beaches at Normandy. A very cool movie with lots to offer.

The Edge of Tomorrow (2014): ***/****

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): ***/****

Troy

Made by a respected director with a strong ensemble cast and using the original epic story as its source, 2004's Troy certainly has a lot going for it. So what happened in theaters? I guess it's a shame to call a movie that made over $130 million a failure, but when that movie cost $175 to make....yeah, that's a failure. Too bad because the end result -- no matter the money -- is a huge, well-made and entertaining epic, a throwback to the 1950s and 1960s in terms of scale.

Sometime around 1,000 B.C., Trojan princes Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom) are visiting Sparta and its king, Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson). Paris falls madly in love with the king's wife, Helen (Diane Kruger), secretly taking her with them as they return to Troy. Finding his wife gone, Menelaus goes to his brother, Agamemnon (Brian Cox), seeking help in getting her back. The Greek king has amassed quite an empire and sees an opportunity for it to grow bigger. He assembles an army of thousands of ships and over 50,000 men, sailing across the Aegean Sea to attack Troy. The fortified and high-walled city awaits what the Greeks can throw at them, including the most powerful warrior of his time, the legendary if moody Achilles (Brad Pitt). The coming battle will be unlike anything the world has ever seen.

Based on the original literature epic, Homer's Iliad, Troy is a movie made on a massive scale. Director Wolfgang Petersen assembles quite the cast, built lavish sets with even more lavish costuming, and for lack of a better description, makes everything BIG. That's good and bad. It is an impressive movie to watch at times, but in its scale, it loses some of its heart. Troy keeps you at arm's length. At times, far too much is going on. Even at 162 minutes, some subplots feel disjointed and rushed, others completely pushed to the side. Composer James Horner's score is all right, but it pales in comparison to some of his best works. Josh Groban's song 'Remember' is played over the credits too, listen HERE. Positive and/or negative, Troy is missing that special something. It is a good movie, but that missing ingredient isn't there to make it a classic.

It would be hard to have a better jumping off point than Homer's Iliad in turning any form of literature into a feature film. For starters, there's a reason it's called Greek tragedy. No matter if you're good or bad, in the end it likely won't end well for you. No time is wasted on petty arguments. Greek tragedies and epics are interested in the big picture. We're talking power and glory, love and betrayal, murder and backstabbing. Petersen faces a monumental task in bringing the story to theaters though. The Iliad takes place over a decade. The movie? Seems like the siege of Troy takes place over a long weekend. With so many characters and so many stories bouncing around, some can't help but be left behind. This is a story that would be suited to a four or five part miniseries...at the least. On the positive side, Troy is about the people, not the people and the Greek gods. Wise choice there, Mr. Petersen, wise choice.

The best dynamic in the movie is between Brad Pitt and Eric Bana, warriors on opposite sides of the war who are on a collision course to face each other. Buffed up with about 30-40 pounds of extra muscle, Pitt went through quite a transformation to look like half-man, half-god Achilles. In the acting department though, this is far from his best work. It's a despicable character, but Pitt doesn't bring a ton of energy to the screen until about the halfway point. Bana is the main reason to see Troy as Hector, the honor-bound prince of Troy who sticks by his family when it would be incredibly easy to leave. Both men live by a personal code and principle, holding some similarities while also being vastly different. Those differences make for an interesting rivalry to watch unfold.

And then there's the rest of the cast, apparently everyone in Hollywood getting a part here and there. Playing Greek king Agamemnon, Cox is the most villainous of all the characters, a power-obsessed ruler willing to sacrifice anything as needed to achieve his goal. In this case, that's pouncing on his brother's request for help. Gleeson as the spurned and scorned Menelaus is surprisingly sympathetic in an underused part. Bloom and Kruger are pretty together, basically a means to get the story moving before being dumped in the trash. Bloom does a fine job turning Paris into a whiny weakling capable of doing anything right. Yes, that's sarcasm. Also look for screen legend Peter O'Toole as Priam, the aging Trojan king, Sean Bean as Odysseus, another Greek king and close friend of Achilles, Garrett Hedlund as Patroclus, Achilles' young nephew and warrior-to-be, Julie Christie in a one-scene cameo as Thetis, Achilles' mother, Saffron Burrows as Andromache, Hector's loving wife, Rose Byrne as Briseis, the Trojan girl who catches Achilles' eye, and Vincent Regan as Eudorus, Achilles' right-hand man in his unit of Myrmidons.

Part of the fun of these ancient/biblical epics was the spectacle in watching them, a cast of thousands filling the screen. That fun element is robbed some with an overabundance of CGI throughout, thousands of CGI creations filling out the Greek and Trojan armies. Battle scenes are still a sight to behold, immense scale as the two warring sides throw charge after charge at one another. Like the movie on the whole, it's just missing something. What is it? I can't quite figure it out yet, but I'll get there. In the meantime, I'll like the movie, but not love it.

Troy <----trailer (2004): ***/****

The Guard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe House

Denzel Washington is one of a rare breed in Hollywood. He's an Academy Award-winning actor who has shown that regardless of the role he's in, he is truly an actor. On the other side, he's also a movie star, a true movie star. There aren't many actors/actresses around who have the cache that Washington does. Oh, he's in a new movie? Sign me up. It doesn't hurt that with 2012's Safe House, it's also a good movie.

Having been stationed in Cape Town, South Africa for 12 months, CIA agent Matthew Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is at the end of his rope. His lone task is to care for and watch over a CIA safe house, one that in his year on duty has seen absolutely zero visitors. That is, until now. One day, a CIA extract team (led by Robert Patrick) arrives at the safe house with a prisoner, Tobin Frost (Washington), a rogue agent suspected of selling intelligence secrets to the highest bidder. Before the interrogation can begin though, the safe house is attacked with Tobin as the target. Weston takes him out and finds himself on the run, needing to hide long enough until help can arrive. What isn't Tobin telling him though? And how did the attackers know the time and place to attack? Someone most definitely wants Tobin dead, and Weston may be the collateral damage.

An espionage thriller set in South Africa with Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, and a crew of more than reliable actors in supporting roles? Oh, count me in. From director Daniel Espinosa, Safe House doesn't break new ground in the genre. There is a familiarity with the story and characters, but not that overdone feel of having seen everything done before and done to death. With its washed out colors and quick editing, it has the look and feel of a Tony Scott flick crossed with a Jason Bourne movie. It isn't like those movies, just similar. Espinosa handles the twisting, fast-moving story very professionally. As a viewer, you're always aware the revelations are coming (somewhat predictably), but the enjoyment comes from the ride along the way. The action is impressive, but there's not too much. The twists make sense and fit logically into the story. And the characters? Stock characters from the spy/espionage genre, but good ones at that.

Much of the appeal from Safe House will no doubt come from Denzel Washington as spy come in from the cold Tobin Frost. Washington isn't the type of actor who's in 9 or 10 movies a year, picking and choosing his roles more carefully. When they come along, you've got to enjoy and appreciate them. When he's on-screen, Washington is effortlessly cool, making him an ideal choice to play a possibly rogue agent looking to come in. Tobin is a master manipulator, highly intelligent, very capable of handling himself, and ready and willing to use a wide network of associates and contacts to help his cause. His motivations are kept in the dark to a point -- left in the dark -- but it's clear he's fed up with living a hidden life. He's the one who sets the action in motion, and when it starts, it never slows down. There are very few must-see actors, but Washington is one of them. The actor and character leave you wanting more.

As his counter, Ryan Reynolds shows again why he's one of the rising stars in Hollywood. We meet him in the beginning; an inexperienced agent looking for actual field work, wasting away in a pointless job. He keeps secrets about his job from his girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder), hoping to get reassignment somewhere. As he's thrust into the world he's only dreamed of up to this point, we see a transformation, a young agent learning in a do-or-die situation. His comedic abilities as an actor have never been in question, but with parts like this and 2006's Smokin' Aces, Reynolds shows he is very capable of being an action star. Let's not talk about Green Lantern which looked like all sorts of awful. Most importantly though, Reynolds isn't overshadowed by Washington. Their scenes together keep things flowing when the bullets aren't flying. Tobin is playing Weston to a point so can the inexperienced agent figure it out and fight back?

Who else to look for? Washington is the drawing card, but there's no drop-off between him and the rest of the cast. Back in Langley at CIA headquarters, Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga play CIA supervisors trying to piece everything together. What exactly is going on in South Africa, and who's on who's side? Ruben Blades makes a quick appearance as Carlos, an old associate of Tobin's who helps him out as he tries to get out of South Africa. Patrick helps legitimize the small part as Keifer, the leader of the CIA extract team, with Liam Cunningham briefly appearing as an MI6 link to Tobin. Two other worthwhile parts include Vargas (Fares Fares), the killer tasked with killing Frost and Weston, and Keller (Joel Kinnaman), another safe house operative looking for any sort of excitement.

With a 115-minute long movie, director Espinosa keeps things flowing and never really lets up in the action department. Expansive, loud shootouts, harrowing car chases through Cape Town's crowded streets, and knock down, brutal hand-to-hand fights pepper the story throughout. The editing is lightning-paced, but you're always able to keep up and see what's going on. Thankfully, the brakes were tapped before 'Safe' reached Bourne-editing territory. The shaky camera never goes too far, but you do feel like you're there with the action. South Africa is an exotic, different location for the thriller as well, not the typical backdrop for an espionage story. A classic? No, but it's an above average flick with its fair share of unique qualities.

Safe House <---trailer (2012): ***/****

28 Days Later

Not quite a zombie movie, not quite an end of the world apocalypse story, 2002's 28 Days Later falls somewhere in between. What it is? An oddity among horror movies with a bit of science fiction thrown in. I'm not sure what to make of it though, and even now I'm not positive how much I liked and/or disliked about it.

A virus has gotten loose in England, turning normal everyday people into raving, murdering psychotic lunatics that seemingly cannot be stopped. Some 28 days after the outbreak, a man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in a hospital bed to find a world unlike anything he's ever seen. The streets of London are completely empty like the people have been swept away. He's attacked by several infected people and barely survives thanks to Selena (Naomie Harris). They also meet Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his teenage daughter, Hannah (Megan Burns). On the radio, they hear a looped message about an army unit to the north holding out and surviving. Could there be more survivors? It may be a pipe dream, but they can only hold out for so long in London and decide to make the dangerous journey.

For coherent purposes, let's say this. Fans/haters debate whether this is a zombie movie because it's a virus and not a product of some bizarre quasi-apocalypse. I will be calling it a zombie movie because....well....I can't think of a better description. Is it possible for a zombie movie to be an art-house zombie movie? If so, director Danny Boyle accomplished it here. This is most assuredly not a run-and-gun, kill hundreds of zombie type movie, far from it. It instead focuses on a small group of survivors in a ravaged world occasionally running into zombies. The musical score is great, featuring some indie rock (including THIS epically appropriate song), the camera angles are different and aggressive, and there is a message to the story in a bizarre way. Don't expect Dawn of the Dead is all I'm saying.

Through this quasi-art house film comes all these different elements. In some truly remarkable set pieces, Boyle creates a whole new, unique world. It's believable watching this movie that there are few people left behind. The opening 15-20 minutes has Murphy's Jim walking through a completely vacant London in some of the coolest, most unsettling shots I've ever watched. To Boyle's credit, as a viewer I felt isolated. Can you imagine that setting, exploring a world you know well but it isn't quite that world? There is an emotional depth, an emotional quality to this movie that surprised me. Extreme fear and terror, complete isolation, looking for a reason to survive, it's all there. One scene has the small group trying to fix a flat tire as a dozen or so infected people sprint at them. Creepy much? A perfect chase scene that will assuredly get the blood pumping and the adrenaline flowing.

So why then with all these positives do I feel like I'm missing something? Reviews were almost uniformly positive, Netflix thought I would 'Really Like' it, and I typically go for movies like this. The little things I can put my finger on? Boyle films with video, producing a grainy, amateurish look that I didn't go for. He also uses the ultra-fast editing technique where any scene with movement is just a blur. But more than those things -- which I can go along with if I'm enjoying a movie -- is that I was disappointed with where the story went. There are moments where you're glued to your seat wanting and needing to know what comes next, and then whole scenes that lack any energy, killing the momentum that was just built up moments before. The ending too disappoints, a different tone from the whole rest of the movie. The DVD offers several better, darker finales.

With this low budget movie featuring a small cast, there are only 15 or 20 speaking roles in the entirety of the 113 minute long movie. Murphy is all right as Jim, supposed to be an everyman of sorts but lacking any real personality. Harris and Gleeson are the best things going here. Harris' Selena is a survivor who learned quick how to preserve her own life no matter how drastic or gruesome the measures are. Gleeson is a single father looking out for his daughter above all else. Christopher Eccleston plays Major West, the leader of a small group of soldiers holding out for the present and hopefully much longer into the future.

So all in all, some major positives and a few glaring negatives. The movie is good, no doubt about that, but I still came away disappointed. I did like it, but there was the potential to love it. Interested enough to see the sequel though, 2007's 28 Weeks Later.

28 Days Later <---trailer (2002): ** 1/2 /**** 

Mission: Impossible II

Not to rehash the same intros repeatedly, but one of the best and worst things that can happen to a movie is to be immensely popular.  Naturally if a movie is highly successfully, it is safe to assume there will be a sequel if the story called for it. A smart, intelligent and always entertaining spy thriller, 1996's Mission: Impossible was a huge hit worldwide. Based loosely off a 1960s TV show, the hit turned into a series, including the first sequel, 2000's Mission: Impossible II.

Why so much hate for this sequel? From the first time I saw it, I loved it and still do. It is one of the best action movies I've ever seen.  Apparently not everyone felt that way. This sequel is basically everything the original was not. It takes the series/franchise in a completely different direction.  Where the first one depended on a twisting and turning plot with deception and betrayals, the sequel is first and foremost an action movie. Story, character and plot are basically all left by the wayside. It is a polarizing movie, one fans either love or hate. Action fans should definitely check it out though.

IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has handled his fair share of crazy, even insane missions before, but he's now faced with one that has millions of lives at stake. A pharmaceutical company has accidentally created a virus -- dubbed 'Chimera' -- that potentially could wipe out the population of whole countries. The virus has been stolen by a rogue IMF agent, Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), who intends to sell the virus and its antidote to the highest bidder. The only hope Hunt has is to get someone to work from the inside, who he finds in the form of Nyah (Thandie Newton), a professional thief and former girlfriend of Ambrose. Working with a small team (including Ving Rhames' hacker Luther Stickell), Ethan heads to Sydney to stop Ambrose, but the clock is ticking.

Through the ups and downs of the last five or six years, Tom Cruise just hasn't been in the public eye as much, especially in actual movies.  Reprising his Ethan Hunt role, Cruise is at his best. The character is somewhat odd over the course of the three M:I movies in how much he changes, but he's always interesting.  For starters, Cruise does most of his own stunts. His introduction rock climbing is insane. Watch it HERE, and that's him doing all that climbing hundreds of feet up with no safety net. It sounds so simple, but an actor doing his own stunts -- some truly impressive ones at that -- gives the movie a feeling of reality, of legitimacy as we watch. Say what you want about Cruise and his personal life or off-screen stuff, but he is a legit MOVIE STAR, and there are too few of those out there.

An action legend in Hong Kong, director John Woo has only made a handful of ventures into American films with some hit or miss efforts. While many directors can be classified as 'workmanlike,' just getting through the movie, Woo has a style all to himself, and that's a good word to describe him...style. Interested in story and plot twists and character development? John Woo might not be the director for you. He is a master of creating an intricate, over the top action scene that is just pure fun to watch. All his trademarks are here; the slow motion shootouts, the hero blasting away with two pistols, the ever-present doves (and less classy pigeons) floating through his scenes. The plot may suffer at times -- apparently Woo's final cut was three and a half hours long -- but one thing you never have to worry about is the action.

The Chimera virus, the history between Ethan and Ambrose and Nyah and Ambrose, all that is just a reason to get to the action. The last 40 minutes of the movie are a sight to behold for action fans. Does any of it make sense? No, not really. Did a nameless henchman on a motorcycle need to attack Ethan? No, but how else do we get our hero in a motorcycle chase? This extended sequence has it all. We're talking martial arts and hand to hand combat, shootouts in slow motion with hundreds and thousands of rounds being fired, and that motorcycle chase that is just hard to beat. The showdown between Cruise and Scott is epically and appropriately ridiculous, including a motorcycle jousting scene. Yes, you read that right. Woo knows action, plain and simple. There is something visceral and animalistic about seeing gunfights, explosions and chases, and Woo plays to that notion time and time again, upping the ante repeatedly.

So while I could just describe how cool each and every action scene is -- appealing to the 13-year old boy in my head -- I'll hold off. The action is crazy. Tom Cruise is cool, Scott a great villain, Newton gorgeous as the eye candy, and Rhames provides some comic relief and one-liners as Luther. Richard Roxburgh plays Stamp, Ambrose's menacing right hand man, John Polson plays Billy, the crazy Aussie member of Ethan's team and Brendan Gleeson is the pharmaceutical CEO with $ for eyes. Even Anthony Hopkins makes a quick appearance as Ethan's supervisor/handler. The soundtrack features songs from Limp Bizkit, listen HERE, and Metallica, listen HERE, along with a score from Hans Zimmer reminiscent of his Gladiator score. Sydney looks beautiful, and did I mention the action?

Also excited to report that a fourth M:I movie, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, is due in theaters this December. Not gonna lie, I'm more than a little psyched for it.  For now, stick with the first three movies, all good in their own right.

Mission: Impossible II <---trailer (2000): ***/****

Green Zone

After the highly successful The Bourne Identity, director Paul Greengrass stepped in and did something rare with the trilogy.  The three movies got better with each new movie, thanks to a frenetic shooting style and the always reliable, always cool Matt Damon as super spy and hit man Jason Bourne. The movies were so good in fact that when Greengrass teamed up with Damon for 2010's Green Zone, it looked like Bourne visting Iraq for a tour of duty. Unfair? Maybe, but at its heart it is a popcorn thriller that reeks of professionalism and style.

What worked against any possible success this movie could have had was that the story is based in 2003 Iraq just weeks after the U.S. invaded the country.  In the years since 9/11 and the subsequent events, there hasn't been a movie dealing with those topics in the Middle East that hit theaters and just dominated the box office.  The memories are still fresh, and as viewers we can still look on the evening news for reports of what's going on.  Add to that issue that many Americans don't believe we should have ever gotten involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Greengrass is really up against it with this movie.  A movie about a war we should never have been involved in has been like box office poison over the last nine-plus years.  But give this one a chance on DVD. It's more than worth it.

Leading an Army team in Baghdad assigned the mission of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) thinks something is up.  Intelligence reports keep coming in telling where to find these WMDs, but Miller and his team keep coming up empty.  Fed up with the failure, Miller seeks additional information.  Is everything being done that can be done, or do these weapons actually exist?  He gets more suspicious when a Dept. of Defense official (Greg Kinnear) tells him to drop it. With some help from a CIA agent (Brendan Gleeson) who knows more than he's letting on, Miller starts his own investigation and begins to think a huge cover-up is to blame for the lack of any evidence of Iraqi WMDs.

With a story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, only people completely clueless to recent history don't know how this movie is going to end. Now in 2010, the events taking place seem like they're from a long time ago, and Greengrass doesn't shy away from showing the idiocy of U.S. involvement in Iraq.  He has some fun with President Bush's Mission Accomplished speech as the war continues in Baghdad and casualties continue to mount. There's no way to tell this story without a cynical view because we do know the end result of the search for WMDs.  The government here is trying to cover things up, the soldiers on the ground are the ones paying for it, and the truth is a sidebar that no one really seems interested in.

About halfway through the movie, I thought of what the cast reminded me of, Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  Damon is the good, Kinnear the bad, and Gleeson the ugly.  (No offense, Brendan, I meant more about motivation than appearance).  Damon is an ideal choice to play Chief Miller.  He dives into the role as always and convinces us as viewers that he knows what he's doing.  Drama or comedy, I don't know if there's a better actor out there right now.  Kinnear is that sneaky, sketchy government official you know has an ulterior motive.  Gleeson is underused but still makes a strong character, a CIA agent playing things close to his chest.  Also in the cast is Amy Ryan as a journalist duped liked everyone else, Jason Isaacs as a Special Forces soldier going up against Miller, and Khalid Abdalla as Freddy, Miller's Iraqi translator.

My biggest pet peeve about the Bourne movies was Greengrass' ultra-hyper shooting style that makes what's on screen impossible to keep up with.  Fight and chase scenes are a blur with just hints of what's going on.  I've always felt like showing everything in a manageable fashion is an obvious way to impress the viewer.  If something cool is on-screen, show us!  Don't cut it to the point of making in indecipherable mess.  Green Zone continues that trend, but it's not awful, just noticeable.  That said, the last 20 minutes are fast-paced and chaotic (in a good way) with some great action as Miller races through Baghdad at night in hopes of capturing an Iraqi general who may hold the key to the WMD problem.  The aggressive shooting style certainly does give the movie a realistic, right there with the soldier feel, but pulling back even a little couldn't hurt.

So for an exciting, well-made thriller that only grossed $35 million in theaters, what could have been changed? Basically change the setting, and you've got a hit.  It is exciting from the word go, and the pacing never slows as the mystery begins to unravel.  But it is still uncomfortable watching a movie about the conflict and fighting in Iraq when it feels like we're still so wrapped up in it all.  Maybe like so many Vietnam movies, it will just take a grace period before people can appreciate the quality of the movies.  Green Zone is definitely one worth checking out though.

Green Zone <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Dark Blue

On April 29, 1992, three members of the Los Angeles police force were acquitted for their involvement in the Rodney King case, setting off six-days of rioting across the city that accounted for 53 deaths, thousands of injuries and over a billion dollars in damages. Using the week leading up to that acquittal as the setting for his script, James Ellroy -- who also wrote L.A. Confidential -- turns in another winner with 2001's Dark Blue, a story that deals with all the corruption and wrongdoings going on in the LAPD.

Working off Ellroy's novel for 'Confidential,' that 1997 movie earned a nomination for writing so Ellroy goes back to the well for Dark Blue, which explores some of the same topics. But setting the story around the Rodney King trial gives the movie an extremely tense feeling because as a viewer we know what's coming when the jury finally makes their decision. And with Chinatown (1930s), Confidential (1950s), and here with Dark Blue (1990s), it's like a timeline of corruption for Los Angeles.

Assigned a case usually given to homicide, detectives Eldon Perry (Kurt Russell), a veteran officer and a 3rd-generation cop, and Bobby Keogh (Scott Speedman), a new officer on the force, are investigating four murders at a Korean grocery market. But as they look into the brutal killings, the evidence doesn't add up, and they find out some of their superiors may have been involved with the case. As Perry and Keogh investigate, another higher-up officer, Arthur Holland (Ving Rhames), is trying to take the detective duo down because of what he believes is years of corruption, fabricating evidence and arresting people just to shut down cases, guilty or not. Perry's SIS supervisor, Jack Van Meter (Brendan Gleeson), is doing his best to keep his detectives out in the field. With the jury decision looming, Perry and Keogh do whatever they can to close their own case.

Procedural cop stories are a dime a dozen in both movies and TV and because they're so popular there is probably no end in sight. The better ones tend to dig into the real nitty-gritty day to day lives of the officers and beat cops on the streets. Russell's Perry grew up wanting to be a cop and isn't above bribing, blackmailing or fabricating evidence to get a warrant. He's as politically incorrect as possible, but did he become this way because of what he sees doing his job or because that's how he always was? These questions bounced around in my head a lot while watching, mostly because Russell is such a likable character that he makes Perry sympathetic at times and easily hatable in others.

Playing a darker character than he typically plays, Russell carries the movie with his performance. He's racist, alcoholic, sometimes trigger-happy and will close his cases and catch the bad guy rules/morals/policies be damned. All of this comes to a head as the race riots start in L.A. in an ending that could have been overly theatrical but ends up working because it shows a man that's been pushed too far. As his friend and boss, Gleeson steals just about every scene he's in as Van Meter, the incredibly corrupt long-time officer who lets other do his busy work for him while he reaps the benefits. Speedman is a bit of a weak link in the story mostly because he's not up to his co-stars in ability. Rhames has a small but integral part and handles it well, but don't expect two hours of Russell and Rhames going toe to toe.

Director Ron Shelton chose to film the movie in Los Angeles, often going into the roughest neighborhoods in the cities to get shots he needed. The decision pays off, giving the story that gritty, realistic feel it needed to be successful. The riot scenes especially stand out as Perry tries to drive through the mayhem tearing the city apart, all the while trying to catch two suspects looking to make a quick getaway. Not having been old enough to realize what was going on in 1992, seeing Shelton's depiction is downright frightening with the final shot an especially haunting one as L.A. burns.

Nothing too original here, nothing you won't have seen before if you're a fan of procedural police movies, but that doesn't mean it's not worth seeing. Formulaic doesn't mean bad in my book. Kurt Russell in the lead gives a fine performance and Brendan Gleeson matches him in every scene. It's not flashy in its execution, but Shelton's movie is always solid and worth a rent.

Dark Blue <---trailer (2002): ***/****