Jane Got a Gun

I'm a western nut. I feel right at home with them. And unfortunately for me and other western fans, the genre hasn't had a prominent theatrical presence since...well, since before I was born. As for today's review, I imagine a lot of people haven't even heard of it. Released in theaters this past Friday, it's had a dramatic production and is basically being released in theaters because....I don't know, it takes millions of dollars to make a movie. So what's the verdict on the little-advertised Jane Got a Gun?

It's 1871 in the New Mexico territory, and Jane Ballard (Natalie Portman) lives on a small spread with her husband, Bill (Noah Emmerich), and their young daughter. Bill staggers home one day, falling off his horse with his back riddled with bullets. As Jane digs the bullets out of his back, Bill mumbles that "The Bishop boys are coming." Their past has caught up to them and with her husband recovering and unable to help, Jane is on her own. With time running out and desperately in need of help, Jane seeks help with a man from her past, Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton), an accomplished gunhand, who at first wants nothing to do with her. After a change of heart though, Dan follows her on the trail, agreeing to help. Riding back to the spread, they have to decide what their plan of both attack and defense will be against John Bishop (Ewan McGregor) and his gang. The odds are already stacked against them though, and that's without considering if they can work through through their checkered past.

Haven't heard of it? Few have. This western has received little to no advertising in recent weeks. After a checkered production, it seems the studio backing the film simply wants to get it off the books. If it's a financial bomb? Eh, it's not sitting on the shelf. 'Jane' was actually filmed back in 2013 and has been sitting on that shelf ever since because of its original studio going bankrupt with the Weinstein Company buying it. The production itself seemed like a revolving door of directors and actors as well. Easy-peasy, right? Well, let's make the best of a lousy situation.

Moral of the story? It's a pretty decent little western. I liked it a lot. Director Gavin O'Connor stepped in after some drama with previously-attached directors and does a solid job with an old school western that would have been comfortable if it had been released in the 1960's/1970's. While it isn't cut and dry black and white, it is a pretty straightforward good guys vs. bad guys. More importantly, it's clear that those involved are fans of the genre, know how to do a western right. Filmed on location in New Mexico, 'Jane' looks authentic, the wide expanses of the desert serving as a backdrop. It's a big, lonely place. O'Connor and cinematographer Mandy Walker have fun with some genre conventions, riders sprinting at the camera in a sun-soaked, vision that looks like a mirage, riders silhouetted against a setting sun. Throw in a good if not flashy score from Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci, and you've got some positives across the board.

What isn't exactly abundant in the western genre? For one, female leads. For two, strong female leads. In steps Natalie Portman, one of the best actresses currently working in Hollywood (wish she'd work more!). Her Jane Ballard is a welcome character, a real character. She's a good shot with a rifle but far from a killer. She makes tough choices for the sake of her family and will do just about anything to protect them. Her backstory is especially interesting which we see in some well-handled flashbacks featuring some genuinely surprising revelations. So while she seeks help from a man, her Jane is far from a damsel in distress. This is a lead female character that is a welcome addition to the genre, not a side character who's brushed aside at the slightest sign of trouble. There's been far too many of those so welcome to the club, Natalie Portman/Jane Ballard!

Having worked together on 2011's Warrior (an excellent movie, one of my favorites), Edgerton teams up with director O'Connor and again, doesn't disappoint. His Dan Frost is the archetypal western hero, capable, stubborn and even when the odds indicate he shouldn't, he does the right thing, in this case agreeing to help Portman's Jane. Edgerton is fast becoming one of my favorite actors, and he shows why here. It's a fascinating character, one dealing with his own past demons and with his own reasons for helping Jane out. He also has one of the best lines in the movie as he dispatches one of Bishop's henchmen. Playing Bishop, the again always reliable Ewan McGregor is a scene-stealer as the steely-eyed John Bishop, a notorious bandit but a well-dressed, well-coiffed gentleman bandit at that. Just wish there was some more of him!

With a small cast, Emmerich isn't given much to do as the wounded, laid-up husband, but some revelations about his past help flesh out the character. Also, look for Rodrigo Santoro as Fitchum, a slimy member of Bishop's gang, and Boyd Holbrook as Vic, John Bishop's younger, sadistic brother. A smaller cast definitely leaves the focus on Portman and Edgerton once things get moving.

This isn't an action-packed western so don't expect shootouts every minute. The action -- like the story -- is about setting the scene, building the tension to nearly unbearable levels. When the firing starts, it's lightning-quick. Most of the action is saved for the finale when Bishop's gang descends on the Ballard house, a violent mix of Home Alone meets Straw Dogs. The story itself has some surprises up its sleeve, much of it revealed in the well-handled flashbacks going back to the later years of the Civil War. If the ending is a tad too tidy, so be it. It's a good ending to an above average western that deserves better. I can't imagine it will stay in theaters too long so get your butts out to theaters quickly or wait for it on DVD/Blu-Ray. It's well worth it!

Jane Got a Gun (2016): ***/****

August: Osage County

Family, can't live with them. Can't live without them. Family dramas can be a dime a dozen but when handled right, they can be home runs drilled out of the ballpark. I didn't necessarily have a ton of interest in catching up with 2013's August: Osage County because it did look a little too familiar, but I'm glad I did. An excellent movie all-around, and as I mentioned periodically while viewing, just a disgusting, talented cast.

It is an especially hot August in the small Oklahoma town of Pawhuska, and the Weston family is in for some fireworks. Family matriarch (of sorts) Violet (Meryl Streep) has been diagnosed with mouth cancer and quickly becoming addicted to the pain pills she's been prescribed. The family has drifted apart over the years, but Violet has to ask them for help, to return to their hometown when their father, Beverly (Sam Shepard), goes missing. There's no trace of where he went to or if he will even be back, but the Westons return in a time of trouble to help their mother (some against their better judgment), including the Weston's oldest daughter, Barbara (Julia Roberts). The family is far from close though, many of them barely able to stand the site of each other. All those buried away emotions and feelings are getting churned up, and they're going to be churned up even more when news of where Beverly went is revealed.

Based on a play of the same name by Tracy Letts, 'August' was a bit of an under the radar flick last winter in terms of Oscar buzz. It made over $70 million in theaters and picked up mostly positive reviews. With this cast, how could it not? Reading reviews, watching previews, I didn't question that it'd be a good movie. I kinda just assumed in that department. But did I want to see it? Need to see it? No, not particularly. I'm glad I did though. It is well worth a couple hours to sit down and watch even if it is equal parts funny and uncomfortable, things changing from one to the other at a moment's notice.

But that's family, isn't it? And that's your movie. These aren't good guys and bad guys. These are people who grew up and reacted/responded differently to their parents, their siblings, their extended families, their house, their school, their surroundings and their environment. That's life, and that is what the movie does so well. That's what life is, and the script by Letts (off the play) does it pretty effortlessly. Much of the movie takes place in the Weston home with an occasional, quick departure here and there. All that frustration and emotion and discomfort has been bottled up for years, and this not so pleasant reunion may be the thing that blows the top right off that stove. Most of that pent-up emotion comes out at a painfully real dinner scene, but more on that later.

But seriously, how about this cast?!? You almost take for granted what a freakishly good actress Meryl Streep is because....well, every year she's in another Oscar-nominated part (she's been nominated 18 times. 18!!!). Streep just commits to each and every part to the point you never even question her. You just go with it. Her Violet is a terrifying character (maybe because my Mom is...ya know, really nice), a mother who had a hellacious childhood and at times takes it out on her kids. She means well -- I think -- but it comes across in some odd ways. The main personal dynamic is between Streep's Violet and Robert's Barbara (both Oscar-nominated turns), a mother and daughter who argue almost constantly, maybe not admitting they're more similar than they would like. Just two supremely talented actresses doing their thing.

But wait. There's more!!! Along with Shepard in a quick appearance early, there's also Violet's sister, Mattie Fae (Margo Martindale), her husband, Charlie (Chris Cooper), and their son, Little Charles (Benedict Cumberbatch), much maligned in the eyes of his mother and often protected by his father. As for the other Weston sisters, there's Ivy (Julianne Nicholson), single and getting a little older who never moved away from her hometown, and Karen (Juliette Lewis), the youngest sister who means well but is a tad bit clueless. Who else to look for? Ewan McGregor plays Barbara's husband, the longtime couple struggling through some serious issues, Abigail Breslin their rebellious teenage daughter, and Dermot Mulroney as Karen's new boyfriend and recent fiance who you just know is up to something in the slimy department and Misty Upham as Johnna, the Native American (or Injun, whatever you like) caretaker Beverly hires for Violet before his disappearance.

Some complaints were that for a dark comedy, there wasn't enough...well, comedy. There are laughs, but there is far more in the old drama department. The dinner scene is the heart of the movie, some genuine, out-loud laughs that quickly transition into painful, real moments that you could see happening at any long, overdue family reunion. The movie goes down some surprising routes in the second half and let's face it, a happy ending here just wasn't going to happen. This is a drama about the story, about the drama, about the acting. Highly recommended. If you're a fan of family/friend dramas from Home for the Holidays to The Family Stone, The Big Chill to Rain Man, you'll enjoy this one, hopefully a whole lot.

August: Osage County (2013): *** 1/2 /****

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Seth MacFarlane is one of the more polarizing personalities currently working in Hollywood. The creator of TV's Family Guy and man behind 2012's very funny and very wrong Ted, MacFarlane typically inspires a 'love him or hate him' reaction from audiences. I typically come down on the love him side, loving Ted and for the most part liking Family Guy. So when I read MacFarlane was working on a comedy film western....well, color me curious. Here's 2014's A Million Ways to Die in the West.

It's 1882 in Arizona and cowardly rancher Albert Stark (MacFarlane) is trying to make the most of his small sheep ranch in the desert. He's dating the pretty, young teacher, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and even though the wild west life is pretty rough, Albert is pleased....and then he isn't. After he negotiates his way out of a gunfight rather than shoot it out, Albert gets dumped by Louise. He just sort of drifts along afterwards, eventually meeting a new woman in town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who he clicks with very quickly. It isn't long before Albert gets roped into another gunfight with Louise's new man, but that's the least of his problems. Anna isn't telling him everything about who she is and more importantly, who she's married to. Her husband? Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), a bandit and one of the most notorious gunfighters around. Now, Albert is really in for some trouble.

Released in theaters just this past weekend, 'Million' earned over $17 but was still dubbed a disappointment. Reviews were decidedly mixed to negative, and what little word of mouth I heard was....I'll say, less than positive. Nonetheless, I plunged on! It's a comedy western -- which I'm not a huge fan of to begin with -- but it certainly looked like the talent involved had put together a winning product. Andddddddddddddd, yeah, unfortunately that's not the case. This is not a good movie to the point I will even say it is really, really bad. Making it worse, it does have some potential but never amounts to anything other than a winning joke or bit here and there. It is painfully long at 116 minutes (it feels much, much longer) and simply tries too hard. Simply swearing in the wild west with vulgar sex jokes, pretty raunchy physical humor, some drug jokes, it isn't enough. There's got to be something more.

The parts that do work? It all goes back to the title. The wild west was a particularly nasty place, and as MacFarlane's movie/script points out in its strongest moments, there were a countless myriad of ways to die and to die graphically. The bits that work come from that simple premise, the west was almost trying to kill you. MacFarlane's Albert has a funny monologue pointing out all those ways people can and do die from. The payoff is priceless, Albert literally pointing out the town mayor's dead body that's been lying in the street untouched for three days. The bit comes back later with a great sight gag. The same for the county fair where people always seem to die gruesome, grisly deaths. Gags like that work and do it well, an intelligence to the humor. There isn't enough of those sorts of gags and bits. Instead, we get jokes about a retarded sheep, a gunfighter who can't join the gunfight because he has two (TWO) bouts of extreme and very public diarrhea, and a sheep peeing on Albert while he's hiding from Clinch's gunmen. Now, that's funny!

Some reviews criticized MacFarlane for casting himself in his movie. That's the least of my concerns. You may not like his humor, but he knows how to get laughs. His quick, random asides work well, and a cowardly sheep rancher is an interesting chance of pace for a lead in a western. The script does him no favors though, his Albert getting too many ranting and raving monologues that feel forced. His scenes are okay with Theron, but they tend to slow things down even more. Neeson looks to be having some fun as the dastardly Clinch, a bandit who's reputation precedes him, but even he is underused. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS There are a couple surprise appearances along the way but blink and you'll miss them. They include Christopher Lloyd, Ewan MacGregor, Ryan Reynolds, Gilbert Gottfried, Jamie Foxx (stay for the credits), and then Patrick Stewart providing his recognizable voice for a quick voiceover. END OF SPOILERS YOU MAY CONTINUE READING NOW.

Who else to look for? Wes Studi is a quick scene-stealer in his appearance as Cochise, the wise Apache chief who guides Albert through his struggles. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman don't fare so well as an engaged couple. Oh, and Silverman is a prostitute, but the couple is "saving themselves" for marriage. So yeah, we get lots of raunchy sex jokes that fell short one and all. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater with each passing joke. Repeated jokes about anal and oral sex and ejaculation can only take you so far. Neil Patrick Harris plays Foy, Louise's new beau, impressive mustache to boot. Screen veteran Matt Clark gets a quick part too as a gold prospector.

What I found disappointing was that MacFarlane was genuinely trying to do something different here. In one way, he's trying to make a comedic spoof western in the vein of Blazing Saddles. He's not making a generic, studio-forced sequel. At no point does it click though, a series of bits and one-liners that work at times on their own, but ultimately fall short. MacFarlane looks to be a western fan, even shooting on-location in Monument Valley, made famous by famed western director John Ford. Everything from the look to the throwback-sounding score to the credits scream 'WESTERN!' but it never gels as one cohesive picture. Struggles to find the right tone, the right comedy, the right rhythm, you can point to any and all of these problems as handicapping the final product.

Your call in the end. I love westerns and when a comedy western is handled correctly, I'll go along for the ride. This western most definitely tried, but it just doesn't happen. A few good bits don't amount to something worthwhile in the end. I didn't like this movie at all, and there were more than a few extended scenes that were painful to watch. Truly painful, made all that much worse by the fact that somewhere in all that mess is a potentially very good movie. As is though, steer clear. If you do go see it, definitely don't watch the trailer.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014): */****

Jack the Giant Slayer

Let's give credit where it's due. Disney has done its best to make fairy tales at least moderately politically correct, but there's something that is often odd, unsettling and pretty uncomfortable about them. Weird to dulled down to....well, movies have gotten their greedy paws on the genre again, making them action movies? From Snow White to Jack and the Beanstalk, they're all ripe for the picking, like 2013's Jack the Giant Slayer.

Living in the kingdom of Cloister, a young farm boy, Jack (Nicholas Hoult), has grown up idolizing the legend of an ancient king, Erik, who saved the kingdom from the wrath of man-eating giants. Unfortunately, living with his uncle on his small farm in the countryside, Jack doesn't seem destined for any sort of heroic deeds or royal crown. Selling his uncle's horse though in town through an odd set of circumstances, Jack comes into possession of a bag of small beans....powerful beans (oh no!). That night, Jack is stunned to find the king's daughter, Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), on his doorstep, but in a driving rain, he loses the beans and they immediately sprout up, blasting away to the skies....with Isabelle in tow. The next morning with help from the king, his men, the Guardians, and the treacherous Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci) along, Jack climbs up the immense beanstalk to the land between Heaven and Earth where the giants reside. Can they rescue Isabelle in time?

A solid performer at the box office upon its release this spring, 'Jack' earned almost $200,000,000 in theaters. It's easy to see why. It takes a familiar story -- Jack and the beanstalk -- and has some fun with it, injecting a whole lot of energy via lots o' action and cool characters. Getting it to theaters proved to be not to easy, but director Bryan Singer does a very capable job in the end. It's tightly paced, running an action-packed 114 minutes, and never gets too bogged down in any one scene or character. If there's flaws....and there are....it's hard to have too much of an issue with them because we're onto the next scene with the snap of a finger! Composer John Ottman's score is a good one too, a big, booming fantastical score that fits in well with the non-stop action.

Box office success considered, it's all that more impressive because there isn't one huge headlining star here. There's no one that screams out "GOTTA see this!!!" Good actors just the same, but no sure thing. Start with Hoult, the young English actor who holds his own as the titular Jack. He's a teenager growing up, not some muscle-bound hero. Most importantly, Hoult's meek nerdiness plays well, and he's very likable. One of my favorite actors currently working, Ewan McGregor is clearly having some fun as Elmont, the captain of the king's guard, a tried and true and very capable warrior. The always fun, always reliable Ian McShane isn't given a ton to do as King Brahmwell, the aging ruler who worries for his daughter's well-being but must measure it against the well-being of the Kingdom and his people, but it's Ian McShane, just go with it. The same applies for Tucci, a great actor who makes the most of his part as the greedy, power-hungry Lord.

Playing the damsel in distress who...........gasp.......likes Jack (how could this be?!?), Tomlinson is decent as Isabelle, but she simply isn't given enough to do. Shallow guy mode, but she's a cute princess so that's good. Eddie Marsan plays Crawe, Elmont's fellow guard and a longtime friend, while Ewen Bremner is a solid backup villain as Wicke, Roderick's equally treacherous accomplice.

Enough with the positives, bring on the negatives! As fun as some of the characters are, you don't always feel especially connected to them. It's a fun, diverting script but the focus seems to be entirely on big, broad strokes of characters and the spectacle of what we're watching. Character development? Eh, overrated. My biggest concern (on top of those things) was what I'd seen in trailers, what appeared to be an overindulgence of computer-generated special effects. Yeah, I was spot-on there. While it was filmed in the English countryside, it never feels/looks like it. Just about every scene feels like a very polished, very at a distant CGI shot. It gets repetitive, and the giants look tolerable I suppose, but it's not the highest of quality CGI. Bill Nighy lends his voice talents to play General Fallon, the leader of the vengeful giants. For me at least, CGI is best used in small doses that fits in effortlessly with a story. Not the case here where basically the complete visual look of the movie depends on the CGI.

That said, I thought the movie was a lot of fun. The backstory of how the giants ended up in their purgatory above the clouds is pretty cool, and the adventures to said purgatory provide for some cool backdrops to the story. It's always fun, always exciting, and the finale with the giants descending on Cloister and Brahmwell's castle is quite the wrap-up. Sure, there are times I wish it connected a little more, giving us more investment in the characters or the story. 'Jack' can be a little heartless, feeling like we're watching from a distance at times, but I'm not going to get too analytical here. It's fun. Enjoy it, and DONE.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013): ***/****

Shallow Grave

With Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, British director Danny Boyle has put himself on a mainstream map where his name has some pull with audiences. In 1994 though, he was making his directorial debut with none of that recognition. His 1994 film Shallow Grave is a doozy, one that changed his career and sent the British film industry down a detoured path.

Three friends, Alex (Ewan McGregor), David (Christopher Eccleston) and Juliet (Kerry Fox), share an apartment in Edinburgh, Scotland and are looking to take in a fourth roommate. They finally decide on Hugo (Keith Allen), a somewhat mysterious but interesting man about their age, and he moves in quickly. Just a few days later, the trio finds Hugo dead in his room of a drug overdose. More interesting? Alex finds a suitcase packed to the gills with cash. What to do now? The three flatmates decide to dispose of the body -- removing his hands and feet, smashing his skull to pieces -- in a grave in the woods and keep the money for themselves. What seems simple though is far from it as these three soon discover.

Setting the stage for his hit two years later in Trainspotting, Boyle's 'Shallow' is certainly different from just about any movie I've ever seen. The amateur crime aspect is nothing new, but Boyle handles it in ways you wouldn't normally think. He doesn't shy away from the brutality of what they're doing and their repercussions. Some reviews list it as a dark/black comedy, and even though I didn't laugh much, it reminded me somewhat in tone of the dark humor the Coen brothers so often use in dealing with nasty subjects.

As Fox explained it in the special features, this is a movie different from most people's perceptions of a "British movie." It isn't dark, dreary and bleak....well, in visuals at least. Boyle is a very visual conscious director. The apartment is full of bright colors, and that distinct 1990s style is prevalent all around. Alex is a hipster, David a suit-wearing accountant, Juliet a doctor and professional. The style and pacing is kinetic, all over the place, and when things hit the fan, Boyle shoots in the darkness with shadows and a minimal use of lights (flashlights, car headlights illuminating the action). The music threw me off too, from the techno-sounding opening (watch HERE) to the darker, moodier score as the "grave situation" develops. Style-wise, it's easy to see how this film changed the mood and tone of British films for years to come.

Now all that said, I didn't really care for the film much at all. I don't need to love characters -- or even like them really -- to appreciate a movie. Watching awful, despicable characters can be a selling point in a movie. Literally from the first scene here though, I hated...HATED these three main characters. We're introduced to them as they interview applicants for their fourth roommate. McGregor rips the first applicant (Colin McCredie) to pieces, and the gloves come off. They look down on applicants, ripping them to pieces with this type of yuppie-hipster pretentious attitude and within seconds I was rooting against them. To be fair, in the acting department, all three deliver solid performances. Their descent into paranoia and greed affects each of them differently, and it is cool to see that degeneration into something rather ugly.

As the story developed though, that's where I was holding out with some sort of sick hope. The second the trio decide to keep the money for themselves, you know the story won't end well for any of them. The whole tone of the movie speaks to that. But even in that regard, I was disappointed. When things come to a head late, the result is almost comical in its exaggerated depiction. There is a twist in there that works pretty well, but I was so far removed from the movie by that point it probably didn't make the expected impact. Check it out for yourself though at Youtube -- watch it HERE -- and make your own decision.

Shallow Grave <---trailer (1994): * 1/2 /****

Haywire

First appearing in the public eye as a mixed martial arts fighter, Gina Carano has made the jump from athlete to actress, and the early return is nothing but positive. For her first movie, she chose a role that's right in her wheelhouse, a fastball down the middle. She made a wise decision, picking an ideal role that gets to show off her immense physical talent and ability, starring in 2012's Haywire.

Working for a private contractor who works for the government, former Marine Mallory Kane (Carano) is as good as it gets when black ops work is needed. She takes jobs on an individual basis from her boss, Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), sometimes working alone, other times working with a team. After a successful job in Barcelona though, everything hits the fan. Suddenly, Mallory has been set up and international law enforcement is after her wherever she goes. Who burned her, and what's their motive? Left on her own and abandoned in Europe, Mallory must now find out who set her up before they complete their mission.

From director Steven Soderbergh, Haywire is just more proof of the director's already visible talent. Dark comedies, crime dramas, heist movies, disaster epics, historical period pieces, Soderbergh can do it all, and he manages to put a unique, personal spin on all of them. I really liked this movie from the talented director. His familiar style is there, but it's a no-frills sort of style. Title cards keep us abreast of where Mallory has traveled to, and what better music than a fast-paced jazzy score to accompany the action? Composer David Holmes does a variation on his Ocean's 11 score, a more subtle, sinister sound. Listen to the main theme HERE. The whole soundtrack/score is surprisingly worthwhile, appropriate in a quirky sort of way. It's a small-scale spy story -- somewhat similar to the Bourne movies -- that feels familiar with a 'been there, done that' quality, but Soderbergh and his cast are so good at what they do, you don't even notice. It's too good of a movie.

Appearing in her first starring role, Carano does not disappoint as the vengeful Mallory. There are too few female action stars out there -- legitimate ones that an audience can buy -- and Carano certainly has that potential to fill the void. Basically, don't expect her to do any romantic comedies anytime soon...although that could be interesting. This isn't a part that requires her to be a big, showy performer. It's a subtle, quiet performance that relies on intensity and few words. Most importantly, Carano is incredibly believable in the part. As an athlete/MMA fighter, she's quite capable, something she gets to show off in her handful of hardcore fight scenes. She does all of her own stunts (that I could see), and also important, more than holds her own in the fight scenes. Fight sequences between a man and a woman can look forced and stagey, but not here. A welcome addition to the action genre, I look forward to seeing where Carano goes from here as an actress. Incredibly talented and one of the sexiest, seductive spies ever.

It is a testament to Soderbergh's talent and reputation that countless actors/actresses want to work with, as is the case here. Haywire features a handful of smaller performances from some not small names and not a one disappoints. McGregor gets the most screentime as Kenneth, Mallory's employer and former boyfriend/lover, and makes the most of his supporting part. Channing Tatum plays Aaron, a fellow agent/operative who's worked with Mallory in the past and is now trying to piece things together. Michael Douglas is nicely cast as Coblenz, a government higher-up who hired Kenneth for some off the books work, and Antonio Banderas is appropriately mysterious as Rodrigo, a key part of the mission and deception. In a brutally efficient part, rising star Michael Fassbender again shows he's capable of bigger and bigger things, playing Paul, an Irish source for Mallory. Bill Paxton plays John Kane, Mallory's father, who knows what his daughter is up to, constantly hoping she leaves the business.

For better or worse, some of those performances are there for Carano's Mallory to beat the crap out of. With her mixed martial arts background, Carano leads the charge in the action department. That no-frills, brutal style is reflected in these fight scenes, one with Tatum and Fassbender each, among some other quality action. These are fights that leave the viewer hurting, and Soderbergh wisely shoots it without the frenetic editing. We see the fights, see the individual moves, all of them done so quickly they're almost a blur. Even better, no music is played over these scenes, all of the focus on the brutal hand-to-hand combat. This is where Carano shines, a physical presence who can stand toe-to-toe with her male counterparts.  The sequences are so well done there's almost a dark beauty to it all, so good it makes you marvel at what's going on.

Above all else, that's what this flick is; an action movie. A chase through Barcelona, and later Mallory fleeing a SWAT team in Dublin are criminally simplistic. It isn't lots of quick cutting and crazy out of this world explosions and pyrotechnics, just one person on the run and/or chasing someone. Holmes's jazzy score plays over this portion that bounces back and forth between color and black and white photography. Stylish without being overdone, just enough to call attention to itself without being overly aggressive. The story itself is half flashback, half current time, and while they're explained, the betrayals and double crosses are almost unnecessary. From Barcelona to Dublin, upstate New York to the New Mexico desert, Haywire starts off at a sprint and never slows down at just 93 minutes. Simply put, a professionally made, beautifully choreographed espionage/spy thriller that is well worth a watch.

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

The Ghost Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Men Who Stare at Goats

A movie that starts with a title card stating "More of this is true than you would believe" sends alarms off in my head, especially when it's a comedy.  To me it seems like a warning that what you are about to see is ridiculous, pretty stupid, and a cop out that if it does feel stupid, well too bad because it happened.  But because of the talent involved in 2009's The Men Who Stare at Goats I was willing to look past any issues I might have had going in. 

Certain movies need very little to pull viewers in.  It can be a star, the story, the director, anything really that catches someone's eye.  For me it was the scene in the trailer where Clooney literally stares a goat to death.  The look on his face, the music, the ridiculously awesome mustache, how could this not be a funny movie?  And really, any dark, quirky comedy in the veins of a Cohen brothers movie certainly has an appeal.  'Goats' has all that darkness, all that quirkiness you would expect.  But at a certain point in this recent comedy, it just stops being funny.  Go figure.

Working for a paper in Ann Arbor, Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) interviews a soldier who claims to be a member of a top secret Army mission from the 1980s that turned soldiers into psychic soldiers. Bob thinks the man is crazy, and moves on, only to have his wife leave him and send him into a tailspin.  He heads to Kuwait to prove he isn't a coward and there runs into Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a man also associated with this bizarre, top-secret mission that turned soldiers into as Lyn puts it 'Jedi warriors.'  Bob doesn't know what to make of this news but tags along with Lyn in hopes of trying to figure it all out.  Could it really happen though? Could Lyn be a psychic soldier, a Jedi warrior?

What works so well in answering that question is that director Grant Heslov chooses not to answer the question.  Are all these soldiers absolutely nuts, just off the wall crazy?  Or is there the slimmest chance that maybe, just maybe, it's all real?  The humor here is a good mix of physical comedy -- Stephen Lang as an Army general running at a wall believing he'll run through it only to smash into it -- and the more subtle variety, like Clooney trying to convince McGregor that his hypnosis will help them when really he's physically attacking someone.  There are some laugh out loud moments and early on, I was loving this movie.

There is a somewhat disjointed feel to the comedy because there's almost 3 different segments to the movie.  One, Bob and Lyn meeting and driving across Kuwait and Iraq running into all sorts of problems.  Some really funny moments there.  Two, Lyn's flashbacks of the process to become a Jedi Warrior in a school run by Colonel Bill Django, played by Jeff Bridges as a hippie, Army version of the Dude. And third, there's the last half hour as past and present collide in the middle of the Iraqi desert in a finale that just doesn't work and completely derails the movie.  With some off the wall humor, a ridiculous conclusion seems almost necessary, but the ending just doesn't work here.  It's trying too hard to be funny and comes up empty.

On the other hand, if a feature length movie of Bridges' Col. Django and his teaching techniques was ever made, count me in.  A Vietnam vet, Django requests time to study alternative forms of combat and ends up becoming a hippie who believes he can get soldiers to use their minds and powers to prevent war, not fight war.  Watching Bridges teach his students his tactics and techniques are definitely the high points of the movie.  Throw in Kevin Spacey as an a-hole student trying to one-up everyone around him, and you've got a good mix.  Clooney is always good doing comedy because he commits himself so far into the material, and McGregor is a good straight man the whole.  He's basically the viewer, questioning 'Really? This is serious?'

A good half-comedy if that makes any sense.  Here's my thinking; stop watching the movie after Bob and Lyn drive over an IED in the middle of the desert.  It goes downhill from there fast.  Now trying to sum it all up, I'm realizing how stupid this movie really was.  'Goats' is a very stupid movie with moments of brilliance; Clooney 'cloud bursting,' Django's school, and basically anything with Stephen Lang.  Know what you're getting into watching this movie, and maybe you'll like it more than I did.

The Men Who Stare at Goats <----trailer (2009): **/**** 

The Island

When I reviewed Transformers 2 last summer, I wasn’t too shy about letting director Michael Bay have it with both barrels.  It is never a good sign when you become a punch line for your profession.  Oh, a movie with stupid amounts of action, in your face style, and all at the expense of those old stand-bys like story, character and any sort of plot development...that must be a Michael Bay movie!  As was the case with Transformers, the movie wasn’t trying to be anything but a stupid action movie so it’s easier to judge that because it is what is, a bad movie.  But what about when Bay ruins a perfectly good movie with his abrasive filmmaking style?  So goes 2005’s The Island.

One genre that has definitely benefited from the advances in computer generated imagery is science fiction.  Previous sci-fi movies had to use the very limited capabilities at their disposal or find some way to create what they needed to shoot.  The end result may have been groundbreaking at the time but now ends up looking very dated. Advances in CGI – while expensive – made directors’ jobs that much easier. The first hour of The Island is an example of what good CGI can do before Bay gets his over-the-top hands on that story and goes to town.

In a futuristic society following an Armageddon-like event known only as ‘the contamination,’ humans live in a totalitarian society where their day-to-day decisions are made for them by an unknown and unseen power.  The humans are given jobs and live in posh apartments where everything is provided for them.  In charge is a Dr. Merrick (Sean Bean) who monitors these surviving humans through their actions and emotions.  All the humans have some free will and an ability to question their existence, but it a naïve questioning that is reminiscent of a child’s mind.  Everyone lives from day to day with the hopes of winning the Lottery where the winners get to go to the Island, an experience of living even greater than the lives they knew before.

Generally, these humans are content to wait for their chance and hopefully win the Lottery and get their long awaited trip to the Island.  But one human keeps bringing up questions as to what is going on.  His name is Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor), and he is confused about everything that surrounds him with his existence.  He begins to investigate the strange goings-on and when he figures out what’s happening escapes with a fellow human, Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson).  Merrick needs these two humans back and brings in an ex-Special Forces soldier, (Djimon Hounsou), to track them down and bring them back.

Stop reading if you don’t want to know what’s actually going on at the Island.  SPOILERS from here on in SPOILERS  This futuristic world isn’t so futuristic, it’s only a decade or so into the 2020s or so.  These humans are clones purchased by rich individuals to help prolong their lives.  In case of an organ transplant or horrific accident to their sponsor, these clones are told they’ve been chosen to go to the Island when really they’re just cut up and hacked to pieces for the necessary parts.  This isn’t much of a spoiler like I’m ruining the end of the movie.  This is all revealed about 60 minutes into the story. It’s a unique twist though and really keeps the first hour moving as Lincoln pieces things together.

I absolutely loved the first hour of the movie because it is a prime example of how good sci-fi can be when things are handled right. It’s a picture of ‘what if?’ that asks what our world could become.  Those first 60 minutes are stylish and a sight to behold at this futuristic, gigantic apartment building, a nice, little microcosm of what society can be.  It is a different lifestyle entirely where anything and everything is controlled in everyday life.  Like many sci-fi/dystopian stories, some troublemaker has to start asking questions. 

This first hour is effective thanks to the casting with MacGregor and Johansson as the two humans.  Lincoln questions more than Jordan does because he just isn’t satisfied with life as he knows it.  Jordan is more content to live each day and have fun, only to change her mind when Lincoln starts bringing up all his questions.  In a sci-fi action movie, the casting as a whole is very impressive.  Bean’s Dr. Merrick is perfectly creepy who’s doing something morally wrong, but he believes he’s helping the world (and making a pretty penny in the process).  Bean is at his best when playing the villainous parts like here.  Character actor extraordinaire Steve Buscemi is perfectly cast as McCord, a janitor who may know more than he’s letting on and is a good friend of Lincoln.  Michael Clarke Duncan is wasted in a small part that clues Lincoln as to what’s happening.  Hounsou is an incredible presence on-screen, but his character is given so little to do and with so little background, he’s hardly more than a cardboard cutout.

All these characters – interesting in their own rights – are introduced through the first hour, but over the next 76 minutes any more development is left by the wayside.  Bay’s action tendencies kick in, and we get an extended chase full of action and explosions and CGI.  Does it look great? You bet it does, but like any Bay movie, it could have been toned down.  It wouldn’t be an issue, but the first hour is so good that it raises expectations for the second half which it just can’t live up to.  It’s all great to watch, but it comes at the expense of these cool characters and highly interesting story.

Comparing the two halves of the movie, the first half is clearly better than the second.  As a whole though, the movie is still pretty decent and kept me entertained, but I wasn’t blown away in the end.  The finale is a bit disappointing.  It’s easier though to look at The Island as two halves, a science fiction side and a heavy-duty action side.  Know what you’re getting when watching this Michael Bay extravaganza, and you should be safe.

The Island <----trailer (2005): ** ½ /****

Angels and Demons

As good as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were, what happened to them when turned into a movie? The books aren't great literature, but they're damn entertaining so a team of director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks should be a sure thing in helping the transition from bestselling book to blockbuster movie. But for whatever reason, something has not clicked with either movie. 'Da Vinci' in movie form was downright boring at times, and sadly, so is the sequel, 2009's Angels and Demons.

Like many fans of Brown's novels, I was caught up in the Da Vinci craze upon its release and after loving that one sought out Angels and Demons which actually is a prequel in the storyline. I raced through both books in a day or so each unable to put it down. Brown's style lends itself to cranking through chapters at a time with cliffhangers seemingly every few pages. So I somewhat naturally figured a movie would be easy to do off this subject material. Who knows, maybe I didn't think it through, but I was wrong in a big way.

After the pope dies, cardinals from around the world descend on Vatican City to choose a successor from their ranks. One night, four of the cardinals are kidnapped with a foreboding note, they will be killed an hour apart somewhere in Rome, all of this leading up to the complete destruction of the Vatican by a powerful, deadly substance known as antimatter. Worse than that, the act has been done by the Illuminati, a long-time enemy of the Catholic church only know exacting their revenge. The deceased pope's camerlengo, Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) calls in Professor Thomas Langdon (Hanks) to help solve the mystery.

Upon arriving in Rome just hours before the murders are set to begin, Langdon discovers a way to save the kidnapped cardinals. Centuries before, Galileo created a path for people to join the Illuminati if they could follow four clues leading to four different locations. These places are all over Rome and Vatican City so with help from a beautiful Italian physicist (Ayelet Zurer, because every movie needs a beautiful Italian physicist) Langdon starts a race against time to save the cardinals that will take him all across the city.

If this makes sense at all, Howard's 138-minute version of Brown's book feels rushed for the first 90 minutes or so. Howard does not have the advantage of having hundreds of pages of background to set the stage for what's about to happen. Too bad because in place of that all-important background we get lots of scenes of Langdon explaining the historical importance and symbolism of what we're hearing. The book allows this to happen as an aside that doesn't take away from the pacing of the story. In movie form, it brings the high tension to a screeching halt while Langdon pieces together historical mysteries that have stumped brilliant minds for hundreds of years. Langdon on the other hand can figure them out in mere minutes.

Some of this has to be attributed to the sometimes mind-bogglingly bad screenplay which bounces around so much and so quickly it can hard to keep up. Granted, the book is basically one long, extended chase sequence, but there's time here and there for a breather. Not so here as the last half hour to 45 minutes goes from bad to worse and keeps on climbing on the ridiculous meter. I loved Brown's novel even more than 'Da Vinci' but can admit I thought parts of the ending were horribly out of place. The movie takes that one step further on a badness scale, but I won't ruin that here for you. I'll let it be spoiled elsewhere.

While I don't think Tom Hanks is the right choice to play Langdon, the movie's faults are not his own. The dialogue is stilted beyond belief and rarely comes across as believable. Hanks tries to make the most of it, but almost every line of dialogue he has is either a history lesson or a smart-ass comment. Zurer's Vittoria Vetra character has been relegated to background duty here, going from a great character in the book to a sounding board here for some of Langdon's mystery-solving. McGregor is a bright spot -- although the character loses a lot of necessary background from the novel -- with Stellan Skarsgard and Pierfrancesco Favino making the most out of their parts as Vatican security supervisors.

I hate putting this because I realize I sound like a pompous ass, but the book is miles ahead of the film version. Transitioning a beloved book to the big screen is a daunting process, no doubt about that, but it just hasn't worked here with either of Brown's source novels. As for Howard, he makes a beautiful movie -- it'd be hard to make Rome/Vatican City not look good -- but too many changes are made that were made for no obvious reason. Stick with Angels and Demons the novel and avoid this stinker. God help us when The Lost Symbol hits big screens.

Angels and Demons <----trailer (2009): * 1/2 /****

Cassandra's Dream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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