The Martian

I'm gonna tweak an intro I like to use from time-to-time. I've used it before talking the ocean and huge bodies of water but am twisting it up a bit to outer space concerning a film in theaters that's raking in the dough and piling up positive reviews. Rightfully so as well. So what's scarier than outer space? How about being trapped in outer space millions of miles and months and potentially years away from rescue? Yeah. Pretty...freaking...scary. So goes 2015's The Martian.

It's two-plus weeks into a NASA mission on Mars when a horrific storm forces the six-man crew to abort ahead of schedule and head back to Earth. In the evacuation though, one member of the crew, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), is struck by a piece of flying debris and swept away. The Ares crew leaves before they too are lost, suspecting that Mark was killed in the accident...but he wasn't. With the crew having left Mars behind, Mark wakes up the next day, wounded, running out of oxygen and very much on his own. All he has is a habitat that isn't intended for long-term living and with stockpiles of supplies but only to a point. If he intends to survive, he's got some serious work to do. A potential rescue is at least four years away -- it takes awhile to get to Mars -- and that's only if he can somehow get in touch with NASA. If he can. First things first, Mark has to provide for himself with the food and water (even rationed) scheduled to run out long before any potential rescue arrives. The clock is ticking...

'Martian' is based off a best-selling novel by Andy Weir. I read it this past spring and I loved it. LOVED it. Mark Watney quickly climbed onto my list of all-time favorite characters. At different points reading Weir's novel, I felt physical ill I was so nervous, my eyes teared up with extreme worry about Mark's fate and what I took away most, I laughed out loud over and over again. It's one of the best books I've read in years, funny, emotional, smart and dramatic, all rolled into one. So how about the movie...

It's a gem. Director Ridley Scott is at the helm of an excellent, almost great movie. I don't have any huge flaws to call into question, but I can't call 'Martian' an all-timer. It's just really, really good from beginning to end. Scott has had a string of so-so to meh to not very good movies, but this is the veteran director at the top of his game. It can be daunting adapting any novel, but the effort here is spot-on. Filming was done in Wadi Rum in the Jordanian desert, giving the film a startling, far-off look to the "location" shooting on "Mars." I really liked composer Harry Gregson-Williams' score, unassuming and quiet that more than suits the action. We don't need aggressive, in-your-face music telling you how to feel. You need quiet, companion music that underplays the emotions and action.

When I read Matt Damon had been cast as Mark Watney, I was skeptical -- a little -- because the character is in his late 20's and though it suited Damon regardless of age, something didn't seem spot-on about the choice. Well, I'll admit when I was wrong. Mr. Jason Bourne himself was a perfect choice. Part of the appeal of the Watney character is his response to his isolation and potential death. We see him break down in a couple instances, but this is a man who takes every problem as it comes and attacks it head-on. He never gets too down no matter how hopeless or impossible it seems. It's one of Damon's best performances, showing off what a versatile talent he is. You're rooting for him from the start and that never lets up. Intelligent, funny, stubbornly persistent and quite sure he's going to survive no matter what's thrown at him, an excellent part for Matt Damon.

Damon's Watney is -- not so surprisingly -- on his own during his time on Mars. In other words, it's kind of a one-man show during those scenes. Here, Scott uses some cool style points. In the book, it was quite acceptable that Watney kept a diary of all his day-to-day activities. Short of narration playing over his actions throughout the entire run-time, that wouldn't work here. Instead, Watney films video diaries, keeping us updated on one fiasco or success or observation after another. Damon injects the character with the same energy and dark sense of humor and stubborn hope that Weir's novel presented. It's a straigthforward call on style, but it works. The days pass with a simple 'Sol 18' and so on appearing on-screen, a sound effect like a radar ping playing over it. Not aggressive in the style department, but it works in subtle, underplayed fashion.

Now of course, 'Martian' isn't a one-man show. The overall cast is excellent, Damon on Mars and the expansive rescue effort playing out back on Earth with the Ares crew also traveling back to Earth. Lots of potentially excellent parts and they don't disappoint. Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis and Donald Glover lead the NASA rescue effort in a variety of roles. The "surviving" Ares crew includes Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan and Aksel Hennie. If that's not a cast powerful enough to melt your face, well, I don't know what is. There isn't a weak link, but I especially thought Daniels, Ejiofor, Bean, Wong, Chastain and Pena did especially good jobs bringing characters to life that could have been cardboard cutouts. What a cast!

It's hard not to watch Scott's 'Martian' and not think of countless other science fiction films. For every comparison you can make from similarly-themed movies like Gravity or Apollo 13, you get the sense that while familiar, Scott's film is carving out its own niche and heading out on its own. I thought Gravity was excellent as a visual medium -- a true experience of what being in space is like -- but I never felt emotionally connected with it. That isn't the case here. It's a spectacle movie, an astronaut wasting away on Mars while a rescue effort is mounted, but it connected far more with me emotionally. That's a credit to Weir's novel, the screenplay adaptation, Scott's directing and an amazingly talented cast. An all-around excellent film. And one more thought...

I liked -- maybe loved -- the humanity of 'Martian.' The trailer introduces the concept that often times when a man/woman, men/women are in trouble, people come to help, to rescue, to save. Racial and cultural differences are set aside, all in the hope of helping those that so desperately need it. It's a highly effective storytelling technique here as billions of dollars are spent to bring one man home. That's where this story is so effective emotionally. You're rooting for Mark, you like him, and you want him to survive. What drives him? He's stubborn and man, he does not want to die on Mars. Watney has some great narration late as a potential rescue effort draws nearer, a man doing a long list of firsts on a planet that is untouched by human hand (or feet). Very well-written, well-executed and well-delivered lines by Mr. Damon.

Reading Weir's novel, Mark Watney became one of my favorite literary characters, and Damon more than does him justice. A heck of a movie that succeeds on basically every level you could ask for. Highly recommended for a great sci-fi spectacle, a moving story with some very high highs and some very low lows with a ton of dark humor sprinkled in here and there. Go see it and read the book too!

The Martian (2015): *** 1/2 /****

12 Years a Slave

Just a year ago or so in theaters, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was a huge hit with audiences and critics alike, making over $425 million. It was a story about a pre-Civil War slavery that was horrific and over the top, almost cartoonish in its portrayal of slavery. An interesting companion piece because it tackles the same historical issue in far darker, far more somber fashion, 2013's 12 Years a Slave.

It's 1841 in Saratoga, New York, and Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man. He works as a carpenter, is also a skilled musician and lives comfortably with his wife and two young children. When his family goes away on a quick work/vacation, Solomon is approached by two musicians who offer him a two-week job working with their traveling circus performers. Solomon is intrigued by their offer, dining and drinking with them one evening. He wakes up the next morning in chains, realizing he was drugged the night before. Solomon has been kidnapped and will be shipped south to be sold as a slave in the deep south. Listening to other kidnap victims in the same situation, some runaway slaves, he learns he's in more of a spot than he thought. If he tries to convince anyone of his plight, they'll punish him (with the possibility of whipping) if not kill him. Can he survive? Can Solomon find a way to endure and somehow gain back his freedom?

Wow. What a movie, one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've had watching a film in years. Technically speaking, it's excellent, but this next part might sound obvious. Anyone who knows their history -- or even those who don't -- realize that slavery existed in the U.S. less than 200 years ago in the 1860s. It's a known thing, but knowing and seeing the horrors are different. It is a terrifyingly uncomfortable movie, and it's supposed to be. It pulls no punches in telling the true story of Solomon Northup, director Steve McQueen (not that one) at the helm of a movie that won Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Be forewarned heading in. This is a film, not a popcorn movie that you come away with with a smile on your face. '12' is a film to watch and appreciate for what it is. A true story from one of the darker periods in American history. I won't be revisiting this one anytime soon. Once was enough.

Chiwetel Ejiofor or Matthew McConaughey? Which actor for the Best Actor Oscar? Having seen both '12' and Dallas Buyers Club, it's fair to say that either man deserved the win. It's a push, both performances worthwhile in their own respect. For Ejiofor, this is a great performance and hopefully one that propels him into stardom. I've always thought he was a solid actor with some poor choices in films (2012, Four Brothers), but this film shows his ability. Playing Solomon Northup, this is an emotionally draining, physical, very expressive part. Ejiofor allows the rest of the cast to chew scenery at times, letting a quick, hard-hitting diatribe here and there fill in the blanks. He does so much with a look here, his tired eyes telling the story. Dubbed Platt (the name of a runaway slave from Georgia), Solomon tries to survive however he can, almost willing himself to keep on and return to his family. This is a human, visceral performance. Unbelievable stuff.

In a part that won her the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Lupita Nyong'o delivers a gem as Patsey, a young slave who's hard-working, does her job and puts her head down, unfortunately becoming a favorite of the plantation owner, Epps, played to evil perfection by Michael Fassbender (nominated for his part, didn't win). Nyong'o is strong across the board but won the Oscar with one key, emotional gut-wrenching scene late. A great supporting performance. Fassbender (a favorite of mine) is intensity personified, a vile slave owner who quotes the Bible at all times, making his slaves do odd, bizarre things to suit his random wants and desires, Sarah Paulson playing his equally unhinged wife. Some other key supporting parts include Benedict Cumberbatch as Ford, a decent slave owner but still a slave owner, Paul Giamatti as a bottom-line slave dealer, Paul Dano as an angry, clueless overseer, Alfre Woodard as a slave woman turned mistress, Garret Dillahunt as Armsby, a hopeful overseer, and Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam as the men who kidnap Solomon.

As I mentioned, this was a difficult movie to sit through. It's not boring, the subject matter just hard to watch. '12' is 134 minutes long and does drag at times. The story isn't the most pointed thing, drifting along at times. My biggest issue is that there is no sense of time having passed. I kept waiting for a title card or something to pop up on-screen and say '8 Years Later.' There's no way to tell how much time has passed. Has it been weeks or months? Has it been years? The incidents are horrific, the truth of the story hard to fathom, but then out of nowhere there's a solution to it all. That was my biggest issue with '12,' no idea of the time that's passed. It sounds simple and something minor to complain about, but it's a legit issue.

This is a difficult movie to watch, plain and simple. I do like where it heads in the last third or so, Brad Pitt making a memorable appearance as a Canadian carpenter working in the south who meets Solomon while working on Epps' plantation. We get several scenes analyzing the horror and truth of slavery that come across as slightly heavy-handed, but that said, I guess there's very little subtle about slavery itself. The ending is heartbreaking in itself, especially the title cards that play out before the credits. Also worth mentioning is Hans Zimmer's score, almost minimalist in its execution, a simple, soft, trance-like theme resonating the most. Listen HERE. An interesting movie, one you're not necessarily going to like, but one you'll be able to appreciate and experience.

12 Years a Slave (2013): ***/****

Four Brothers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salt

One of the best trilogies around, the Jason Bourne movies did their fair share of reinventing the action genre.  They weren't so much stories as one linear chase scene with an occasional flashback.  This was action at its leanest, chases on foot and in cars, shootouts with police, gunmen and assassins, and epically physical one-on-one hand to hand combat.  It was the rare trilogy that actually got better with each new movie.  If there was ever a female version of Jason Bourne, I think I saw it in 2010's Salt.

Salt star Angelina Jolie is that rare movie star who can effortlessly switch back and forth between genres, jumping from popcorn flicks like this one or the Tomb Raider series to heavy dramatic roles like Changeling or even using her voice in animated fare like Kung Fu Panda. She is in the news as much for her relationship with Brad Pitt and her kids and her charity work that her acting can get lost in the shuffle.  As an actress, she's underrated, but personally she's always looked the most comfortable in action movies, and Salt is no exception.

CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is heading home to spend her anniversary with her husband (August Diehl) when she's called back to lead one more interrogation, a Russian, Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski) who claims to have news that could cripple the U.S.  Upon questioning, Salt thinks nothing of it but as she leaves the room, Orlov claims that an undercover Russian agent is going to assassinate the visiting Russian president in New York City later that day.  The agent's name? Evelyn Salt. She claims innocence to fellow agent and friend, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber), but is kept as a prisoner by FBI agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) until the truth can be figured out. Instead of sticking around to prove her innocence, Salt escapes, staying one step ahead of her pursuers.  Winters doesn't think she could be a Russian agent, but the evidence starts to build against her.  Maybe, just maybe, could Salt actually be a sleeper agent as part of a vast Russian conspiracy to cripple American interests?

I'm open to just about any type of movie, but I can always appreciate a simple, straightforward, big budget action movie that has no pretensions about being anything but an action movie.  No message, no ulterior motive, just over the top, ridiculous action that gets your adrenaline and blood flowing.  So like the Bourne movies, that's what Salt is.  At just 100 minutes, no time is wasted with back stories or subplots that go nowhere.  A few very brief flashbacks explain some of Salt's history, but they're over so quickly it doesn't slow any momentum down.  Yes, there is a twist late that really doesn't come as a surprise (it seemed really obvious to me), and there are plot holes that seem easy to fix, but the pacing is so lightning-fast you won't even notice until afterward.

Jolie proved her acting chops in the Lara Croft Tomb Raider series and just improved her credibility with other action flicks like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Wanted (which sucked by the way).  She is more than credible here from the start, the secret agent who you're not quite sure of her intentions.  It doesn't hurt in the least that Jolie is drop-dead gorgeous although she does look freakishly thin at times.  But in the action scenes, she again handles her own without any obvious uses of a stunt double.  If there's a fight, she's part of it, taking down anyone and everything trying to stop her from completing her mission.  The character certainly keeps you guessing as to her intentions, and the ending leaves things open for a sequel. It would be unnecessary, but the last few minutes are very cool with a memorable final shot, Jolie: Action Star.  Schreiber and Ejiofor get the thankless parts of the schlubs who have to chase her, but both actors are pros and make the most of it.

So in Female Bourne, Jolie leads the police, CIA, Russians, FBI, Secret Service on a man hunt throughout New York City and Washington D.C.  The action is hands-down the best part of the movie with a wide variety of chases and fights.  An extended chase early has Jolie's Salt jumping from an overpass onto a passing semi-truck and being forced to jump to another high speed truck when a roadblock is set up in front of her.  Yes, there had to be some CGI and green screen work here because I don't care how badass Jolie is (and she is), there's no way a studio green lights an action sequence like that.  The computer/stunt work is handled so seamlessly though it's hard to even tell the difference.  That's all of the action here.  Of course it is all ridiculous and not at all realistic, but Salt makes you believe that maybe, just maybe, this could happen.

The story does take a surprising turn about 50 minutes in, and not necessarily for the better.  Director Phillip Noyce rights the ship quickly enough that it isn't a complete loss, but there's no denying that the second half of the movie just isn't as high-quality as the first half.  That's a relative complaint though because the first half is a solid blueprint of what an action movie can be.  For all the faults, see this one for Angelina Jolie in kickass mode as Jason Bourne, I mean Evelyn Salt.

Salt <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Children of Men

When talking about movies and books, one thing my Mom has always been a fan of is dystopian stories like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, The Road, I Am Legend, and any number of other ones.  Well, the like for books about the end of the world or a world about to die rubbed off on me.  Like any genre, these flicks follow a formula that can get repetitive and dull, but when handled right everything clicks into place.  I remember thinking 2006's Children of Men looked like a good movie, but just never got around to seeing it (I notice that trend a lot with movies I want to see). Well, I caught up with it, and it was worth the wait.

Watching this movie, I had that feeling you get every so often when checking a movie out for the first time.  It's 40, 45 minutes in, story is moving along nicely, the characters are interesting, and the setting unique and entertaining, even thought-provoking.  So you sit back and think 'Hey, I really like this movie...I hope they don't mess it up.'  Well, director Alfonso Cuaron didn't mess it up.  This is a gem of a picture, a movie that struggled in theaters but will almost certainly become a cult favorite in the coming years.  It's got everything going for it, and as I write this five days after watching it, I like the movie more now than I did right after. How often can you say that?

In the year 2027, the world is slowly crumbling as the remaining population continues to deal with an unexplainable situation that has made the world sterile.  A child hasn't been born in 18 years, and the Earth is dying a slow death with no one to step in as the next generation.  A somewhat well-to-do government worker, Theo (Clive Owen), is approached by his ex-wife, Julian (Julianne Moore), who needs help. With the underground movement she's involved with, Julian needs to transport a young black girl, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), out of the country. Still tortured by his past, Theo somewhat unwilling agrees to help, but quickly realizes he's stepped into something bigger.  Somehow, some way, Kee is pregnant, and there are some who want to use the teenage girl for personal gain.  All that stands in their way is a stubborn, resolute Theo.

I'm going to start by saying more movies should be made this way.  Nothing gets sacrificed at the expense of making something else stronger or better.  Cuaron establishes this premise and does just enough to let us know as viewers what has happened without going overboard on detail.  No reason is given for the world's infertility, and none is really needed.  It's happened. Deal with it.  There are allusions to the rest of the world being gone, countries destroying themselves through in-fighting and chaos.  There are pockets of humanity left, but can they hold out?  Who knows for sure, but we know that Great Britain is trudging on, struggling through what the world has become.  And in under 2 hours, Cuaron creates this incredible world, a place where England is the country we know, but somehow it isn't.  It's recognizable, and at times like a completely different planet.

Having seen a grand total of ONE of his movies, I can say that Cuaron is an incredibly talented director.  Lost amid the great story and interesting characters is a beautifully shot, incredible looking movie.  In the age of ultra-editing and choppy cuts through everything, he goes against the grain.  Several times through the movie, he uses long uncut shots that are hard to fathom.  We're talking shots that go on for minutes without a single cut, and not dialogue minutes, action minutes as Owens' Theo walks through downtown, or drives through a forest, or most impressively, maneuvers through a war zone.  Cuaron's camera follows the action in these incredible shots that must have been nearly impossible to set up with camera and crew, cast and stuntmen, explosions and gunfire.  Ambitious to even tackle or attempt shots like these, the director nails them again and again, especially the finale as Theo and Kee navigate through a war zone, a scene that has to be seen to be believed.

So the movie's all crazy cool camerawork and no heart, right?  That would be a big N-O.  I loved the cast, from Owens as the star to some great parts that amount to extended cameos.  Clive Owens is one of the more underrated stars in movies right now, and on top of that, he's ridiculously cool.  His Theo is the perfect anti-hero here, a man thrust into a position he wants nothing to do with but realizes he has to do so.  He's dealing with past demons that at times can cripple him, but he must overcome.  As for the rest of the cast, Cuaron certainly keeps you on your toes.  You never know who or when someone might be dispatched.  Moore is solid as Theo's ex-wife, an idealist who wants to right wrongs, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Luke, Julian's possibly treacherous right hand man, Ashitey as young, pregnant Kee, Danny Huston as a source of Theo's also working in the government, Pam Ferris as a former nurse working as Kee's protector, and Peter Mullan as Syd, a corrupt soldier who will look the other way for some cash.

And then there's a part from somebody called Michael Caine, a favorite here at 'JHP.' I could have sworn Caine was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, but maybe I'm confusing movies.  Anyways, he at least deserved a nomination. It is a small part over two extended scenes -- maybe 15 or 20 minutes all told -- that shows what that caliber of actor can do with little screen time.  He plays Jasper, a hippie, pot-growing friend of Theo's who has come to terms with the end of the world and plans to enjoy his last years on Earth, laws, government and police be damned.  It is the type of part that makes you remember a movie for those little touches it adds to make it that much better, even if it is only a little bit.  That's this movie.  Lots of little things working together to form a gem of a finished product.

Children of Men <---trailer (2006): ****/****

2012

Watching his movies, I can't help but wonder if Roland Emmerich would have been better suited if he was born about 20 years earlier.  That way, his success in disaster movies would have coincided nicely with the 1970s epidemic of disaster movies.  To his name, he already has Godzilla, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and now 2012, all dealing with some sort of disaster of epic proportions.  Of course, all of these movies use CGI heavily so where would the German actor be?

I feel the need to point this out so I don't come across too critical, but Emmerich's movies are awful.  (How could that be construed as critical?).  Even his good ones like The Patriot, Stargate, and the ones mentioned before are awful movies.  Just about all of them qualify in the always entertaining 'so bad they're good' category and count me among the moviegoers who enjoyed these schlock fests.  But with his most recent outing, last fall's 2012, I think Emmerich finally hit rock bottom.  It's beyond 'bad but good' and produces so many unintentional -- I hope -- laughs that I'd recommend it for the comedy, not the drama.

Now as the year 2012 draws closer, more and more is being made of the ancient Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world, the apocalypse.  Emmerich takes the idea and runs with it, going from zero to 60 like nobody's business.  An American geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor, one of the few bright spots in the movie) working with a friend in India finds out the Earth's core is beginning to heat up.  He informs his government superior (Oliver Platt in prime a-hole mode) who then passes it along to the president (Danny Glover).  Fast forward three years to 2012, and the predicted cataclysmic events come earlier than expected.

A divorced dad (John Cusack) works to save his family as the Earth starts to tear itself apart with volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes all starting at once.  It's while vacationing in Yellowstone with his two kids that Cusack's all-American dad starts to catch wind of the coming disaster, but he shrugs off the warnings of a conspiracy theorist (Woody Harrelson) spouting off about the coming disasters.  The crazy guy is of course, correct, forcing divorcee dad to keep his family alive...somehow....some way.  From the theorist, he heard of a government plan to continue mankind, spaceships outfitted to handle 400,000 people each.  The only problem?  These ships are in China.  Oh, but good news, the new dad in the family has taken flying lessons!  Now let's all find a plane!

Yeah, yeah, I know no one goes to these big budget disaster movies for the story, but come on, Roland Emmerich.  That's all you've got?  More so than most disaster movies, this one depends on coincidence and huge strokes of luck more than it should.  It's also pretty lazy with four different instances of characters having to outrun deadly death clouds/earthquakes/tsunamis/asteroids, like THIS ONE.  Some of those moments do provide the story's funniest scenes with Cusack scrambling around and looking worried, screaming at anyone who will listen.  I typically like Cusack as an actor, but he was not the right guy for this part.

The cast is full of big names -- as is required in a disaster movie -- who are forced to play cardboard cutouts of characters.  Anyone with half a brain cell can figure out within 30 seconds of a character's introduction if they will or will not survive the disaster.  Divorced dad making up for lost time?  He'll make it, especially cause he's got a cute daughter.  New dad who is an all-around douchebag?  Don't hold your breath.  That's the problem with the whole movie, you can tell where it's going before the movie probably even knew.  Also worth mentioning are Amanda Peet as Cusack's ex, and Thandie Newton as the President's daughter destined to end up with Ejiofor's scientist.  One other observation, do disaster movies require a black president?  Just wondering.

Now on to the good stuff, the CGI.  A sign of good CGI -- for me at least -- is that it doesn't produce groans from audiences when it appears, so basically anything even remotely fake-looking.  Emmerich spares no expense (okay, maybe the story) to produce some top notch CGI action.  The apocalypse never looked so good as when Emmerich is directing the story.  Not surprisingly, watch this one for the special effects.  Your viewing experience will almost certainly be more enjoyable with friends and beer too.  Brace yourself though, it's a long movie at 159 minutes.  And don't trick yourself into thinking it'll fly by, there are times (basically any dialogue scene) that are painfully slow.

Saving the best for last though, the ending.  Cusack saves the day and helps one of the spaceships -- they're actually arks -- survive.  A title cards reads 'Day 27....Year 01'  (pretentious much?) as the three remaining arcs sail around the world, or at least what's left of it.  We learn that Africa, the whole damn continent, wasn't affected at all by the natural disasters.  Not even a little bit, none, zilch, nada.  So actually, the end of the world was only sorta the end of the world.  It's one of the stupidest endings ever...only topped by the alternate ending on the DVD.  No spoilers here, I'll force you to rent/buy it.

A truly awful movie that seems to object to its status as a truly awful movie.  Lots of overacting from some typically talented people, cliched and boring story, and some cool, well-done CGI to balance things out.

2012 <----trailer (2009): */****

American Gangster

Any star/director combo that turned out a movie as good as 2000's Gladiator basically gets a free pass from me. I'll pretty much watch anything that comes as a result of that duo, star Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott, working together again. It took a little while, but they did team up together in 2007's American Gangster, based on a true story as well. And as if those two weren't good enough, throw in Oscar-winner Denzel Washington into the mix.

With a Scott-produced and directed movie, it's obvious what you're going to get from the finished product. There's going to be an air of professionalism with the movie that some directors just can't produce. Great performances from the leads is almost a given, and probably most importantly of all, it'll be an entertaining movie, so much so you might not realize how real or authentic the story feels. American Gangster has all this (almost), but never reaches it's potential for whatever reason thanks to some rather leisurely storytelling. To be fair, I watched the extended DVD version which clocks in at 173 minutes opposed to the theatrical version's 154 minutes so keep that in mind as I complain.

It's 1969 in Harlem and Frank Lucas (Washington) is at a crossroads. His longtime boss/friend/father figure Bumpy Johnson -- basically the king of New York gangsters -- has died, and everyone else in NY thinks Frank's going to go with him. But Frank goes into business for himself, traveling to war-torn Vietnam to arrange a deal for a consistent supply of heroin into the U.S. which he names 'Blue Magic' for street sale. That's all Lucas needs as he takes off and the money starts rolling in, carrying him higher than even the Italian crime families. Then, there's Richie Roberts (Crowe), an honest detective infamous in the force for turning in $1 million dollars when he could have kept it for himself. Directed by supervisors, Roberts sets up a force to take down the heavy hitters in the drug industry, and sure enough, the evidence leads to a mystery man no one knows anything about, one Frank Lucas.

The story covers about seven years from Lucas' rise to his eventual conviction and jail time. It never feels rushed, and the proceedings are always pretty clear but Scott takes too much time setting things up. The first hour is downright boring and almost lost me. I realize he has to establish a background for the next two hours, but he takes a little too long. The second hour is a little better as things start moving along, but it's still not up to par with a typical Ridley Scott movie. The third hour saves the movie from being a complete bust as there's a sense of urgency, an excitement that was missing from the previous 120 or so minutes.

What surprised me most here was that Washington is not at his best. For me, Denzel is about as bankable a star as Hollywood has right now, and I'll watch him in just about anything -- maybe even read a phone book. But his Lucas is too subdued most of the time with a few quick outbursts of extreme violence, including maybe the movie's best scene because it shows the paradox Lucas has created. Like the 1972 classic The Godfather, Lucas wants to provide for his family and protect them as best he can, breaking the law be damned. He will do anything to keep them safe, including his wife Eva (Lymari Nadal) and loving mother (Ruby Dee in an Oscar-nominated supporting role).

In the same way I look at Washington, I look at Crowe. They're both actors, not movie stars. Crowe is the highpoint of Gangster as Richie Roberts, a cop trying to juggle his chaotic home life and divorced wife (an underused Carla Gugino) and the task force he's been assigned to take down the drug producers and suppliers. A New Zealand native, Crowe pulls off a pretty decent Jersey accent too in helping make Roberts the sympathetic cop. The story demands it, but a major problem is that Crowe and Washington don't have a scene together until the last 30 minutes. Their meeting (<----SPOILERS) is another great scene, and the following conversation is reminiscent of De Niro and Pacino in the coffee shop in Heat. It is scenes like this that show the potential of how good the movie should have been, but never is.

With an almost three-hour long movie, Scott fills out the ranks with a phenomenal supporting cast. Some are better than others and more than a few are left by the wayside as the story moves along, but that's almost a given with a cast list this big. Rapper RZA and John Hawkes play two members of Richie's task force, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Common, and T.I. as some of Frank's family, Ted Levine as Frank's police supervisor, and even Cuba Gooding Jr and Armand Assante as two of Frank's underworld 'contacts.' And since the movie doesn't paint Lucas as the bad guy, that part goes to Josh Brolin as the Special Investigations detective Trupo who's not too proud to take a bribe, lots of bribes.

It's disappointing writing an average review of this movie because I wanted to like it, and I was expecting a lot more. Something just doesn't click though. I won't go as far as saying it's a boring movie, but there's no heart to it, no real energy to keep things moving over an almost three hour movie. Sure, there's positives from the casting to the great 70s feel to the story, but I was expecting more. Still worth a watch though because an average movie with Crowe, Washington and Scott is still better than a ton of other new releases. Check out one of the all-time best trailers for a recent movie below.

American Gangster <----trailer (2007): **/****