Hail, Caesar!

Have you heard the name Eddie Mannix? I hadn't. He worked in the film industry for years as a "fixer," making problems go away for Hollywood studios with its stars, productions and films so everything ran as smoothly as possible. A natural idea for a feature flick, right? You bet. Here's the latest from the Coen brothers, 2016's Hail, Caesar!

Working for a major Hollywood film studio in the early 1950's, fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is good at what he does. No, he's great. If a problem comes up with a movie in production or the studio's stable of stars, Eddie pulls some strings, pays off this guy, massages this situation...and poof, it's gone! Well, there's a pretty big problem. One of the biggest stars on the lot, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), has gone missing with no trace. Baird is starring in the studio's blockbuster biblical epic in the lead role and every hour he's missing is costing oodles of money. No one's quite sure what happened until Eddie receives a ransom note demanding $100,000 for a group called 'The Future.' What to do? Eddie gets the money from the studio to pay them off, but that's just the start of his problems as all sorts of drama appears around the studio lots.

The idea for this film dates back to the early 2000's when the brother director duo, Joel and Ethan Coen, originally intended to do a like-minded film set in the 1920's about a play based in biblical times. It sat around for years before the brothers finally tackled it again and here's the finished product. The Coen brothers and their films can be an acquired, oddball taste so here's a quick moral of the story. If you like their previous movies (especially their comedies), you'll like/love 'Hail.' If not, it's probably more of a mixed bag.

What appealed to me most about this film was the absolute love the Coen brothers have for film and movie history. 'Hail' is set in Hollywood's Golden Age of Film when studios ran things with an iron fist, where stars were owned by said studios, and America was still (well, mostly so) innocent and naive. Even when they're having fun in quasi-spoof form, there is evident love of the history of film everywhere. Much of it -- as the Coens are known for -- is snappy, knowing dialogue throughout, brief asides, seemingly throwaway lines, underplayed deliveries that pay huge dividends. It's also the look of the film with cinematographer Roger Deakins (he's kinda good) giving the story a distinct visual look that changes from scene-to-scene in a good way. The same for Carter Burwell's score (another Coen favorite) that is able to delicately bounce among genres from epic to western, heavy drama to musicals.

In basically a complete departure from his previous pairing with the Coens, No Country for Old Men (he also worked with them in True Grit), Josh Brolin gets to play the straight man through all the lunacy and craziness as studio fixer Eddie Mannix. Oh, and he still manages to get some laughs along the way. He's the heart of the movie, the baseline it always comes back to. It's fun watching him navigate one perilous situation after another seamlessly, always knowing what to do, how to fix it and most importantly, how to spin it. The most important part of the character? It is something that reflects the general tone of the movie. Through all the craziness thrown his way, Eddie loves movies and what they represent to audiences. Maybe all the drama and long hours he goes through wouldn't be worth it to many people, but Eddie Mannix loves films and the feelings they can produce in its audiences. A bit of a thankless part but one Brolin manages to make his own.

The movie as a whole is more of an ensemble though. Brolin's Eddie is the point man, navigating us through one studio situation after another. The biggest focus goes to that actor named George Clooney who you may have heard of. His Baird Whitlock is a great character, a bit of a doof, a pretty actor, and a tad on the naive side. I don't want to give away who/what kidnapped him, but it provides some truly funny moments as Baird gets duped into the plan. As for the rest of the ensemble, there's Scarlett Johansson in Esther Williams mode, Ralph Fiennes as an English director of spectacle films, Channing Tatum in Gene Kelly mode, Tilda Swinton in dueling roles as twin sister gossip columnists, Frances McDormand as a mousy film editor, and Jonah Hill as an accountant of sorts who helps the studio get themselves out of a variety of different jams. These are all smaller parts though so don't expect it to be a Channing Tatum movie or Scarlett Johansson movie. These are the definition of supporting parts.

By far though, the best performance here goes to Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle, a star of B-westerns in the vein of Gene Autry/Hopalong Cassidy/Roy Rogers. A man of few words on-screen, Hobie is forced to take part in a very distinguished, high-class film -- directed by Fiennes -- that...well, makes him talk. What a hilarious character, and it works so well because Hobie seems like such a genuinely nice young actor, especially on his date with a Carmen Miranda-inspired actress (Veronica Osorio). There's not much meanness in Hobie, just a nice guy thrust into some Hollywood dramatics. His enunciation scene with Fiennes is sublimely perfect and perfectly underplayed. No matter who he's on-screen with, Ehrenreich steals those scenes and makes it look easy as he does it.

The ensemble leans toward a story with more moments than a linear plot. 'Hail' has all these great singular moments that work exceptionally well. Mannix sitting down with representatives of different churches to see if their prestige biblical epic is God-approved is priceless. Tatum's "On the Town" dance scene is ripe with innuendos and judged solely as a choreographed dance scene, a treat to watch. Johansson's swim scene looks ripped out of an Esther Williams movie, albeit with a great twist as a capper. The movie is full of these memorable moments from one scene to another that makes it fun to see where things will go next, regardless of a less than pointed, linear story. The Coen brothers script and a remarkably talented cast holds it all together and then some.

Fair warning, it will probably help your enjoyment here if you have some knowledge of Hollywood and film history. 'Hail' isn't necessarily a laugh out loud comedy. It gets its laughs from a sly line here, a clever reference there, a line inflection that brings that line to life. If you're a fan of film and movies in general, the guts and business of making those movies, Hail, Caesar! is for you. It isn't doing so hot in theaters, but I absolutely loved it. Highly recommended!

Hail, Caesar! (2016): *** 1/2 /****

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Joel and Ethan Coen are the movie director equivalents of chameleons. They do a little bit of everything from a horrifically violent, dark crime thriller like No Country for Old Men to genuinely funny (and still horrifically dark) comedies like Burn After Reading with all sorts of classics and near-classics among their filmography from Fargo to Big Lebowski, Blood Simple to Raising Arizona. But how about a story based (even loosely) off of one of literature's greatest works? A daunting task for sure. That's 2000's O Brother, Where Art Thou?

It's 1937 in the deep South and three convicts, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Pete Hogwallop (John Turturro) and Delmar O'Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson), have managed a daring escape from their chain gang. Their reasoning? Everett told his fellow prisoners that he hid away a huge treasure from the robbery that ultimately landed him on the chain gang. He's only got a few days before the treasure's location is washed away, a valley being turned into a lake as part of a hydroelectric project. Chained together at their ankles, the fugitive trio is working against the clock, the road ahead of them full of obstacles both external and internal amidst a gubernatorial race as well. All sorts of people stand in their way, both those hoping to help them and those trying to stop them and in some cases, stop them. Time is running out, and Everett has a secret up his sleeve.

There just aren't too many directors out there with more visual and storytelling style than the Coen brothers. How many directors could pull off a transition from a poem from classic Greek mythology to a similar story in pre-WWII deep south with a heavy reliance on folk music, quirky characters and an episodic story that could be called downright random? Not too many as I sit here writing this review. The Coen Brothers on the other hand make it look pretty effortless. It is a fun movie from beginning to end, the generally random shifts in tone, humor and laughs moving things along at a brisk pace in a 107-minute movie. In other hands, things might have gotten bogged down but that certainly isn't the case here. A very solid, entertaining movie.

Through all the zaniness in the deep south, we follow our intrepid trio on their journey. The chemistry is pretty perfect, Clooney, Turturro and Nelson showing off that effortless chemistry that simply works. The Coen brothers also wrote the script, their quirky humor showing through in the three convicts. Clooney as the vain, motor-mouthed, ultra-confident Everett, the unofficial leader of the group. His preference for Dapper Dan hair pomade consistently gets him and his traveling companions in trouble, his insistence on looking his best (he wears a hair net to sleep to not muss his hair) providing some great moments. He uses $20 words when a $1 word would cut it. His long rambling monologues are pretty great, a man trying to show others how smart he is. Turturro as Pete is a bit of a wild card, prone to frustrating outbursts as their plan unravels. The best characterization goes to Blake Nelson as Delmar, the sweet, thoughtful and generally naive convict who simply has a nice, positive outlook on life.

These three out-there escaped convicts are searching for Everett's buried treasure from an armored car robbery. But naturally, what do they end up doing? They become renowned folk singers, Everett thinking quick on his feet to name themselves The Soggy Bottom Boys (based on The Foggy Mountain Boys, their hit song a cover of Man of Constant Sorrow. Whether it's the Soggy boys singing or T-Bone Burnett's folk-heavy soundtrack, the music is a hugely successful, essential ingredient to the movie's success. The music is always there, always catchy, driving the story forward, the score transitioning scene-to-scene. It's the music and style that works, the Coens using digital color correction to give 'Brother' an almost washed out, sepia look to the story. All those little things that add up to a really enjoyable movie.

We've got three crazy characters to follow across the south, but following Homer's footsteps in The Odyssey, our trio meets some odd characters on the road. Part of the fun is figuring out who's who in relation to the poem. We've got a loving-life bible salesman (John Goodman), a gubernatorial candidate (Charles Durning) seeking reelection, his hot-chasing opponent (Wayne Duvall), Everett's frustrated wife (Holly Hunter) and her new beau (Ray McKinnon), infamous gangster Baby Face Nelson (Michael Badalucco), down on his luck musician Tommy (musician Chris Thomas King), a blind radio programmer (Stephen Root), the sheriff (Daniel von Bargen) in hot pursuit, the blind seer (Lee Weaver) who warns the convicts of what awaits them and lastly, Pete's cousin (Frank Collison) who's curious why Pete just showed up...in chains.

When the Coens decide to do something, they commit to doing it right. From the set design and style to the script and the characters, their movies create these little worlds that are folksy and real and authentic. A very enjoyable movie with some great parts and a lot of laughs. An easy one to recommend.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): ***/****

The Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Gravity

You sit at the box office at the movie theater, the question hanging there in the air. Would you like a ticket for the 2-D or the 3-D version? For me, it's always been an easy question. I just want to see the movie, I don't need any number of cheap, cheesy gimmicks "thrown" at me. Well, I've found a film that's worth forking over the extra cash for to see in a 3-D format, a film currently tearing it up at the box office, 2013's Gravity.

Assigned to a mission on the space shuttle Explorer, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a medical officer/engineer experiencing space for the first time. The small crew includes veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), a likable, little goofy astronaut on his last space mission before retiring. While the crew attempts to repair a panel outside the shuttle, Mission Control warns them of debris hurtling through space, the result of a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite. In a flash the news changes, the debris is heading straight at them. With only minutes to spare, maybe only seconds, the crew must try to get back into the Explorer and get away, but it's too late. The shuttle is ripped to shreds by the debris, killing everyone but Stone and Kowalski. They are now floating in space, Kowalski outfitted with a thruster pack, their only hope lying in reaching other nearby satellites and shuttles. They are truly alone though with no hope of rescue from anyone other than themselves.

In 2006, director Alfonso Cuaron received some much-deserved acclaim for his Children of Men, one of the best movies of the decade. Well, seven years later, here comes his follow-up, an equally impressive film that he co-wrote with his son, Jonas Cuaron. It is a good example of a brutally simple, incredibly uncomfortable story that rises above its relatively straightforward roots. Deep space is a hellish place with no gravity, hellacious temperatures and for lack of a better description....countless horrific ways to die. If something goes wrong, you're on your own. There's no cavalry to come and rescue you. That's what I'm going for in describing its simple roots. It's a survivor story unlike anything we've seen prior. Survivors of a plane crash, trapped in the freezing mountains with little supplies. Sure, it's terrifying to think of, but how about you transport that do-or-die situation to deep space? Profound in its simplicity, it works on an epically successful level.

I had issues with this movie that I'll get to later, but one thing here cannot be even remotely criticized in my opinion. This is one of the most stunning visual movies I've ever seen. It totally lives up to expectations in the 3-D department. My biggest takeaway is this; I'm assuming I'll never get to explore deep space. This is the closest I'll get to that experience. It's incredible. The opening tracking shot sets the tone, an almost 14-minute scene where the camera doesn't have an edit, simply following Stone, Kowalski and their mission outside the Explorer. It breathlessly follows the action in a sequence that is truly amazing to watch. That is the entire movie, the sense of the immensity of floating through space paired with the incredibly close, ultra-personal experience of being right there in the spacesuit with Dr. Stone. Obviously, it's CGI for the most part, but it is seamless/flawless. It never stands out, looking as natural and realistic as possible. You never question that you're watching something that isn't happening in actual space.

'Gravity' plays on a simple notion here concerning survival. Instead of falling off a cliff or drowning in the ocean, the 'death option' here is far scarier in my mind. In several instances, Stone and Kowalski's life depends on one or the other grabbing a piece of the space station as they throttle past it. A door, a handle, a piece of equipment, anything. Grab it, and you've got a slim chance of survival. Miss it? They will float on and on with no rescue until finally their air runs out, and they die a slow, painful death. Survival is one thing, this is another, something most -- if not all -- of audiences will never experience.

So here we sit, I'm five paragraphs in and haven't mentioned much about the acting. It's basically a two-person movie -- Bullock and Clooney -- with the focus exclusively on them. We see some other members of the crew (briefly, very briefly) and hear a couple voices (Ed Harris plays Mission Control). This is Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's movie. We get little snippets about who they are, their background, how they came to be on this mission, but not too much, just enough. Clooney is Clooney, calm, collected, smooth and a huge presence. I didn't think of highly as Bullock who is drawing some rave reviews for her part as the tortured Dr. Stone. I think it is a good performance, not a great one. Obviously being in the situation would produce all sorts of panic and chaos, but I thought the performance/part was a tad too whiny. We're rooting for her to make it though regardless, one individual struggling to survive.

There it is, a movie that's raking in ridiculous amounts of money three weeks into its theatrical run. The reviews are uniformly positive for a reason. While I have some issues with it, none of them are deal-breakers. I'm not ready to call it an all-time great, but it is a good, even really good movie. It offers a chance to experience deep space at its most primal, survival or death hanging in the balance.

Gravity (2013): ***/****

The Descendants

With a relatively small filmography to his name, director Alexander Payne has nonetheless carved a nice little niche out for himself in Hollywood. With movies like Election, About Schmidt, Sideways, he has specialized in small, personal and even intimate dramatic stories focused on character and relationships above all else. Not a bad thing, right? Especially when you think about all the explosion and nudity driven movies out there. What then about Payne's latest film, 2011's The Descendants?

A highly successful lawyer living in Hawaii, Matt King (George Clooney) is facing a difficult real estate decision that could bring his family millions of dollars as they sell off 25,000 acres of oceanfront land that's been in the family for over 100 years. That's just the start though. For most of a month, Matt has been trying to hold his family together after a boating accident put his wife into a coma. Now on life support, a decision on what to do with her living will looms. Matt is on the brink though, dealing with his daughters, troubled teen Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and younger Scottie (Amara Miller), while trying to juggle it all. A family frayed before the accident, more tension awaits.

While I liked this movie, I won't say I loved it, not by a long shot. What jumped out at me was that this was a prime example of the Best Picture nominations being watered down at the Academy Awards. Instead of five worthy films, 10 now get nominations. Was 'Descendants' really worth a nomination for one of the best films of 2011? It's good, but certainly not great. Yes, the drama feels real, the relationships among family and friends authentic without resorting to theatrics, the Hawaiian setting an interesting choice as a backdrop, but what else? I felt like I've seen this movie before and several times before. I came away disappointed, but I can still recommend it. I think. I might change my mind in a paragraph or so.

The same issue I had with the movie itself as an Oscar nominee is what I have with Clooney earning a Best Actor nomination. Clooney takes a bad rap at times for basically playing himself in all his movies, and to a point, I agree. This is a solid, worthwhile acting job, no doubt about that, but it feels like it's been done before. He's believable, likable, even sympathetic, but as an actor -- drama or comedy -- I've seen him do so much better. A real bright spot -- and fellow Oscar nominee -- is Woodley as his daughter, Alexandra, shipped away to an island boarding school of sports. She has news that could cripple her father, the family situation they're in bringing father and daughter closer than they ever were before. Miller too as Scottie (appropriately struggling with her mom's health situation) is a positive.

The rest of the cast is more hit or miss, part of that problem being chalked up to the script. Mary Birdsong and Rob Huebel are shrewish, shrill and mysterious as family friends who know Matt because they were friends with his wife first. Robert Forster is Matt's father-in-law, holding a grudge against Matt for not treating his daughter like she deserved. Like so many other friends and family though, he doesn't know everything, looking at his daughter in rose-tinted glasses. Nick Krause tries too hard to be a similarly troubled teen as Sid, Alexandra's friend, clueless, revealing, and very smart all at the same time. Beau Bridges has a small part as Hugh, Matt's cousin, while Matthew Lillard and Judy Greer play a married couple who steps into the King's family situation. Either trying too hard or not enough to make the characters unique and/or interesting, Forster and Greer end up standing out from the rest.

I don't know what to say. I was just disappointed in the end. At just under two hours, it feels much longer. The story bounces around far too much for my liking, focusing on scenes that could have been in the background while glossing over scenes that felt more important to me. That could be me though....there's a reason I'm writing movie reviews and not movie scripts. It's a uniformly good movie, but it isn't the great or even semi-great movie that it was made out to be. It feels like a rehash of other movies, never adding anything new to the equation. And that heavily Hawaiian-themed soundtrack gets old quickly. Quirky much? Real quick quirky too. Sorry to say I can't give this one a better rating.

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

The Ides of March

As friend and fellow blogger Chris said so succinctly in his review of this movie....politics are bad. Let that sink in for awhile. Comes as quite a revelation doesn't it? Check out his review HERE. I guess it's safe to say as a viewing audience we're not going to get many in the way of happy-go-lucky political movies these days. Yeah, recession! Political thrillers are usually pretty reliable though -- however familiar -- so I at least wanted to give 2011's The Ides of March a fair shot.

It is a week away from the all-important but not quite decisive Ohio primary for the Democratic party, and campaign adviser Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is riding high. He is second only to veteran manager, Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the campaign of Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a popular, likable and seemingly shoe-in candidate for the next presidential election. The Republicans have no counter for him so all Morris needs to do is gain the Democratic bid. Stephen genuinely believes in Morris, thinking he has a chance to help make things right in America where others will certainly fail. As the Ohio primary draws closer though, their Democratic rivals for the bid have news that could cripple the campaign, not to mention Stephen finding out something about the supposedly-perfect Governor Morris.

There is a certain comfort level when watching a political thriller. From older classics like Fail Safe and The Manchurian Candidate to more recent entries like Spy Game, the Jack Ryan films, and The International, it is an enjoyable genre to watch. You know what to expect going in; betrayals, under-handed deals, conspiracies, murder and who knows what else? While I don't think 'Ides' is a classic by any means, I can say I enjoyed it. The story telegraphs everything that's going to happen -- okay, there's a twist here and there -- and the characters are stock characters we've all seen before and will see again. It isn't particularly unique, new, or even that memorable, but in the moment? It's good enough. Put as much talent together as was involved here (Clooney also directed and wrote), and it's hard to mess that up.

A star on the rise, Gosling had quite a year in 2011 with starring roles here and also in Drive and Crazy, Stupid Love.  I'm not completely sold on him yet, but I think there's potential if nothing else. Just 31 years old, he is excelling of late at playing that smart, preppy, well-spoken young man able to get what he wants because he's smooth, charming and likable. In other words? Feels like he's playing himself. Of all the characters though, Gosling's Stephen is given the only real character arc from beginning to end. It sounds dumb, but it is cool to actually see a character change some over the course of a film. It is a somewhat obvious change -- idealistic and naive to bitter and manipulative -- but because Gosling is so likable, I went along for the ride. His character is supposed to be disarming and able to convince you of something without revealing he's doing that. Good if not great performance to lead the way.

The rest of the cast definitely comes from the Stock Characters 101: Political Thrillers Edition. If there was lesser talent involved, it'd be a dull movie to watch. Clooney is Clooney, a similarly charming presidential candidate who is respected and even loved by some of his followers. Some thinly veiled comparisons to the Obama campaign fall flat by the way. It's not an out of this world great part, but a necessary one. It amounts to what the Morris character means more than what we actually see. Hoffman is his typical solid self, intense throughout as the veteran campaign manager with far too many campaigns under his belt, Paul Giamatti as Tom Duffy, Hoffman's rival in the other Democratic camp. Giamatti is a scene-stealer in a small but very effective supporting role. Evan Rachel Wood is also good if a little cliched as Molly, the 20-year old intern who similarly believes in Morris, but also has her eye on Gosling's Stephen. Marisa Tomei does what she can as a walking cliche, a reporter looking for a scoop and not caring who gets taken down in the process.

It is a story that is focused on politics so are we supposed to be surprised when we find out that everyone has secrets they'd like to keep to themselves? Nothing about 'Ides' should shock viewers, absolutely nothing. If the movie is at fault, it's there. While the twists and turns in the campaign are key, they don't exactly come out of left field. Jeffrey Wright as a Democratic senator who will pledge his delegates to Morris....if he gets a cabinet seat?!? Gasp! 'Ides' shouldn't surprise you. People making decisions not on like or dislike, but the bigger picture seems like Politics 101 to me. Manipulation, betrayal, blackmail, back-alley deals, under-handed arrangements, conspiracy theorists, all the ingredients of the game.

With that said, I did like this movie. It isn't a great political thriller, but it is a good one if nothing else. If it's not particularly original or innovative, well, so be it. A good political thriller can still be a good thing.

The Ides of March <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

My usual stance on remakes is pretty simple; if the original is good, why bother? If the original is awful with some sort of potential, okay, go ahead with it. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule. A minor classic in its own right based solely on entertainment value, 1960's Ocean's Eleven didn't need to be remade. If you're going to remake a quality movie, you better improve on it, and 2001's Ocean's Eleven is the rare remake that's better than the original.

After being released from prison following a four-year sentence, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has plans...huge plans. A thief and con man, Danny heads to Los Angeles where he signs on friend and fellow thief, Rusty (Brad Pitt), to join him. What's Danny's plan? He's going to do what no one has ever done; rob not one, not two, but three Las Vegas casinos and their impregnable vault on a fight night when over $160 million will be waiting if the job can be pulled off. The owner of the casinos? Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), the cutthroat businessman now going out with Danny's ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts). To pull the job though, Danny's going to need help so he starts assembling a team of con men, thieves and specialists. Impossible for this group? Nah.

This is a fun movie. There, that's all I really need to say. Everything else is just fluff. This 2001 remake is the definition of what a fun, entertaining, popcorn movie should aspire to. It's smart but not condescendingly smart. It's funny but it doesn't try too hard. It's ridiculously unrealistic, but who cares?!? Look at that cast! Director Steven Soderbergh made one of the most polished, stylish caper movies ever, improving on the groundwork set up by the 1960s Sinatra version. Las Vegas is a crazy, over the top place and that translates well to the movies. A score/soundtrack from David Holmes is a funky, cool retro mix of music, as fun and energetic as the story itself. HERE is the main theme. I defy you to not bob your head, tap your foot as you hear it.

The script is great here, the thing that keeps it all moving. It sounds so simple, a well-written script in a dramatic but not heavy drama film. It is a smart script without being in your face smart. Putting the team together, Danny asks Rusty "You think we need one more?" Rusty's face is buried in his arms, and he says nothing. Danny answers "You think we need one more," a statement now. He finishes "We'll get one more." The script gives a very talented cast a chance to shine and interact, especially Clooney and Pitt, but there's not a single character who isn't given a chance to shine. What came first in a chicken or the egg scenario? Does a good script boost a cast, or does a great cast make a script better? Short answer....who cares? The movie's great either way.

An ensemble-cast worthy of a 1960s epic, I still wonder how a cast this big was assembled. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Garcia would be enough for most movies but not here. Danny's crew includes Frank (Bernie Mac), the inside man working in the casino, Reuben (Elliott Gould), the former Vegas casino owner and bankroll, Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) Malloy, two brothers providing transport, Livingston (Eddie Jemison), the tech specialist, Basher (an uncredited Don Cheadle), the explosives expert, Saul (Carl Reiner), the aging con man, Yen (Shaobo Qin), the acrobat, and Linus (Matt Damon), a young pickpocket and thief on the rise. You couldn't ask for a better cast. The scene post-heist is a gem too, the team standing in front of the Bellagio fountains to Claude Debussy's Clair de Lune. Watch there <---- and listen HERE.

Fun and entertainment value aside, this is a heist film, and the casino vault heist doesn't disappoint. Now anyone who's been to a casino knows how ridiculous security is, but that's the fun of it. Could a job like this ever really work? No, but I'm sure Clooney, Pitt and Co. could pull it off nonetheless. A full 45-minutes, the heist goes down on a fight night, the 11 pulling a long list of cons and tricks to take down the vault. Things have been hinted at but nothing specific so seeing the twists and turns provide a great ride. Even on repeated viewings, the twists still work. How often can you say that? It's a great movie, one you can watch over and over again.

Ocean's Eleven <---trailer (2001): ****/****   

The Peacemaker

Been in somewhat of a rut at Netflix recently so I'm revisiting the 1990s. Growing up, I either missed a lot of good movies, just wasn't aware of them, or was too young to see them. I saw part of this movie on AMC a few weeks ago, and frustrated with the crazy amount of commercials decided to stop watching. Glad I chose 1997's The Peacemaker at Netflix.

Somewhere in southern Russia, two trains collide -- one of them carrying a nuclear device that destroys the country for miles. The world is thrown for a loop with the explosion, and in the U.S., the White House nuclear expert, Dr. Julia Kelly (Nicole Kidman), leads a task force to handle the situation. Kelly is teamed with an Intelligence liaison, Lt. Colonel Tom Devoe (George Clooney), who believes the train collision was a cover-up to steal nine other nuclear warheads on board. Now the clock is ticking. Who is responsible for the hijacking, and more importantly, can they be found in time? They make no demands so how do you stop an enemy with hidden goals?

As happens surprisingly often, I was surprised by the IMDB rating for 'Peacemaker,' just around 5.9 out of 10 at the time of this review. Did I love it? No, it's not a classic suspense thriller by any means. Did I really like it? Very much so. Director Mimi Leder has put together a smart, well-told, exciting and even subtle at times thriller. Scenes and situations develop with ease, not that overly done, rushed feeling that permeates action thrillers. Violence is startling but not gratuitous, action fast-moving but perceptible, and let's face it. A chase for a terrorist extremist with a nuclear device is pretty hard to mess up in the thrills department. Maybe a little cliched, but Leder has some fun with it.

Starring together in 1997, George Clooney and Nicole Kidman are interesting choices for the leads.  Clooney was Mr. ER in '97, but he was clearly headed for bigger and better things. His Devoe is a solid lead; a driven, goal-oriented Intelligence officer who's fed up with the bureaucracy and wants results instead. His character is a little over the top at times, but it works mostly because Clooney was and is one of the more likable stars to grace the screen. As for Kidman, I think of her as more of an actress than a movie star so it's fun to see her in a more mainstream action flick. Neither character is developed much, just a duo hopping all over the globe in hopes of squashing this terrorist nuclear threat. Good performances when that's all a movie requires is not a bad thing.

To be memorable or at least positively reviewed, an action thriller has to have some worthwhile set pieces or action scenes. 'Peacemaker' has three high quality, memorable sequences like that. The opening train heist is a gem and sets the tone for the rest of the movie. The story truly finds its rhythm around the hour mark when Clooney's Devoe leads a helicopter assault across territorial lines into Russia (a no-no for those scoring at home). Ending in a shootout on a bridge over a gorge, it's a great chase sequence that is one-upped about 30 minutes later in the finale, a chase through downtown Manhattan in New York. As I think more about these scenes, maybe they are cliched, a little too familiar, but I fell for it. I went along with the action and enjoyed it right to the end.

Now onto the villains, always a nice thing to have in an action thriller. The script calls for two of the best, combining Russian Army renegades (including Aleksandr Baluev) with Serbian extremists (Marcel Iures and brother Rene Medvesek). The rogue Russian general is out for the money while the Serbians and their reasoning are at least partially explained. There is also a small but excellent part for Armin Mueller-Stahl as a Russian intelligence officer who's worked with Clooney's Devoe in the past.

Another case of ignoring the reviews. Just a good, old-fashioned and well-told action thriller. Oh, and George Clooney is cool.

The Peacemaker <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Out of Sight

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley.  They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

Syriana

When Syriana was released in 2005, reviews were almost uniformly positive, speaking of a dramatic story that was intelligent, well-written, and smart. I'm usually a tad-bit skeptical when I hear descriptions like that so I was wary going into the movie when we rented it after its DVD release.  Call it whatever you want, but less than 30 minutes into the movie, and I was bored to tears. I stopped the movie, not willing to wait it out until it got better. Well, since then I'd see the DVD at video stores or at Netflix, and I felt like in a weird way it was judging me.

So here I sit in late July 2011 having revisited the movie, a political, current issue thriller with a non-linear story focused on oil and all its effects on the world (mostly bad if you don't watch the news).  My second viewing -- first all the way through to the end -- was basically the same as the first viewing with a more stubborn point of view on my part. I was going to stick it out through hell or high water, fighting off the need to take a quick nap as the story developed s..l..o..w..l..y.  That's 'slowly' for those who didn't get it. I watched it all the way to the end, re-read reviews, read some plot descriptions and came away feeling the same way. Not impressed even though I felt like I should have liked it.

Before writing and directing this 2005 thriller, Stephen Gaghan was most well-known for his work with the screenplay for 2000's Traffic. It is easy to draw parallels between the two movies with a handful of stories -- seemingly different but all heading in the same direction -- with the oil business taking over for the drug trafficking business.  Syriana demands you pay attention to every scene (novel concept, huh?), but I say that having paid attention and still coming away confused. Call me naive or stupid in my movie-going and viewing ways, but just because everything is needlessly complicated and even unexplained does not mean a movie is "smart." It just means that someone, in this case writer/director Gaghan, wrote a weaving story that takes some odd routes to get there. He's clearly talented, but I felt lost with this story from the word 'go.'

The plot can be divided into four main storylines, sometimes connected and others times not so much. First, there's aging, veteran CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has caused some trouble for talking aloud about a problem he sees in the Middle East. His superiors are noticing him for the wrong reasons, sending him on a dangerous mission into the Middle East. Second, there is Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), an oil company representative involved with a multi-billion dollar oil company merger, but problems arise almost instantly, and his beliefs and morals may come under fire. Third is Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an energy analyst working closely with the possible future emir of an immense oil field, Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) who isn't going along with U.S. interests. Last, there is young Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Muslim teenager searching for who he really is in turbulent, chaotic times.

As much talent is involved though with all these characters, the only one that left a truly positive impression was Clooney as Agent Barnes, a long-time field agent for the CIA who is at a bit of a crossroads in his personal life and his career. Clooney gets a bad rap at times for being a movie star, not an actor, but I think his acting ability is criminally underrated. At this point in his career, his Barnes is confused, frustrated and fed up, forcing him to make decisions he normally would not. The problem with the rest of this talented cast is that no one really comes to life.  You don't see Bryan Woodman, you see Matt Damon. Not a dig at Damon because it's a problem across the whole movie. In addition to all those names above, there are also supporting parts for Christopher Plummer as a high-powered oil executive, Chris Cooper as a high-strung oil rep, Amanda Peet as Woodman's wife, Tim Blake Nelson as an oil rep clearly in the crosshairs for his actions, William Hurt as Stan, an old source from Barnes' past, and Mark Strong as Mussawi, an overseas contact Barnes will use on his mission.

A day since watching the movie, I'm struggling to put into words why I struggled to get through this movie. At just over two hours, it feels much longer than that.  The non-linear story (read: confusing) is too disjointed and never gets into any sort of rhythm. As one portion of the story actually gets interesting, it jumps to another story. Mostly though, my issue comes down to boredom and lack of any emotion at all. Call it smart, call it well-written, call it educated. I was BORED, downright bored. I fell asleep again watching this movie...twice...forcing me to rewind and watch over what I'd missed. As for the emotion, there isn't any. The movie and all its intertwining stories keep you at an arm length. There are quick instances where you feel connected to the story or the characters, but they're fleeting moments. So I was bored and didn't really care about any characters, good combination, don't you think?

What next? I don't intend this as a 'I'm not smart so I'm going to lash out at the movie that threw me for a loop' rant regardless of how it sounds. Gaghan's script looks at all these different ways that oil affects the world, mostly in a negative way as greed, terrorism, corruption, betrayal and murder take over.  Is this supposed to be surprising, or am I just missing something? Am I that cynical? Is this supposed to be innovative, groundbreaking or in any way a new look at the world? I don't feel like it takes a stance that hasn't or hadn't crossed my mind at some point.

The one saving grace is the ending, brutally efficient in its effectiveness.  Honest and violent, it just works as we finally see the personal, human side of all these things.  Lives are lost in an instant because there are bigger concerns and worries at play, more than one individual's life.  It isn't enough to save the movie as a whole, but it does help Syriana end on a positive note, even if it is a little too late.

Syriana <---trailer (2005): **/****

The Thin Red Line

With just five movies to his names over a 39-year span, director Terrence Malick's movies have been few and far between to say the least. He doesn't take just any movie. He takes on projects that appeal to him. Malick is a director that was probably born a generation too late because he would have fit perfectly with the French auteurs of the 1950s and 1960s.  Not making a movie for 20 years after 1978's Days of Heaven, Malick returned in 1998 with a heavily anticipated WWII film based off a James Jones novel, The Thin Red Line.

The timing of the release no matter how anticipated this movie was could not have been much worse.  'Red Line' was released in early 1999 after a limited release in December '98, just five months removed from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan was shown in theaters.  It's not fair to compare the two movies, but the damage was done. Malick's film is the complete opposite of Private Ryan, and in the years since has been lost in the shadow of the Spielberg film.  I revisited The Thin Red Line, remembering enjoying it through several viewings. Instead this time around, I found a deeply flawed, even boring movie that I struggled to get through.

To write a plot synopsis of a Malick movie would be a waste of words so I'm not going to bother. He doesn't have stories in the linear sense. The Jones novel and this film are based on the fighting at Guadalcanal in 1942, but for Malick's purposes and his screenplay the setting is unnecessary. It could as easily have been Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa or any number of other Pacific islands that saw fighting in WWII. This isn't a story about the scope of war or the immensity of it all.  This is soldiers at their most basic, the thoughts racing through their heads as they take part in the unnatural act of killing another human being. Malick's screenplay does its best to delve into that aspect of war but ends up assembling an uneven, odd finished product that I can only qualify as an 'art house World War II movie.'

A trademark of Malick's in all his films is narration filling in for actual dialogue which is so often nuts and bolts conversation in his screenplays. When used correctly, narration can carry a movie, bringing emotion and power to a story that simple dialogue just couldn't do. Among the cast at different points just about everyone gets a crack at their own narration, but most prominently used are Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin, and John Dee Smith who appears only at the beginning and the end but narrates throughout. First, all three of these narrators are Southerners with a heavy drawl, making it nearly impossible to distinguish which one of them is which in their narration.

More than some tough accents to get used to though is the fact that these narrations are so poetic, so lyrical, so ethereal and from another world that very little of it registers.  I've seen the movie several times, but only an exchange or two sticks with me.  Chaplin's Pvt. Bell constantly thinks of his wife, the love and desire he feels for her.  It is so mind-numbingly tedious that I completely lost interest anytime he started talking, his thoughts drifting back to the time he spent with her (played in flashback by Miranda Otto). All of the soldiers -- who end up being dirt-covered, nameless individuals -- wonder about life, love, death, God, pain, suffering, righteousness, faith, and so much more. It is well written, but it is so unnatural that it sounds like a poetry jam. The eerily calm toning and pacing will no doubt put some viewers to sleep. Malick is in absolutely no rush to speed things up to get where he wants.

That's the problem I've had with this movie though since I first saw it. What is Malick trying to accomplish? What's he trying to say? Anti-war message for sure, but in what way?  We see the horrendous physical and psychological efforts war and combat can take on the individual. We see the inner turmoil tearing soldiers apart as they battle with their inner demons. But the tone of the movie is so odd I don't quite know what the intention was. 

The background of this film is interesting in itself, worthy of its own review. When Malick came out of the woodwork to make a movie, actors -- big, big name stars -- lined up to fill out the cast for this WWII story. Rumors persist of some epic five or six hour movie. Malick had to make cuts to his final movie, completely editing out parts for Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, and Mickey Rourke among others. As is, the finished product is 170 minutes long and still features an interesting cast full of recognizable names. Along with those mentioned earlier, there's Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Elias Koteas, Woody Harrelson, Adrien Brody and Thomas Jane. That's some of the cast. Check out the IMDB page for a complete listing. Even George Clooney and John Travolta make brief, pointless cameos.

With so many speaking parts, only a few get a chance to leave an impression -- positive or negative. Caviezel is the best as Pvt. Witt, a man who just doesn't belong in the army. His Heaven is the little Pacific village he deserts to, but he's torn away and brought back to the fighting as he's reunited with his company. He joins the fighting but doesn't quite know why. Sean Penn is great as Sgt. Welsh, the veteran sergeant who serves as the sounding board for all his men. His scenes with Caviezel's Pvt. Witt provide some of the movie's most memorable and more importantly, most moving movements as they question what they're accomplishing. Koteas too is a scene-stealer among the faceless soldiers as Capt. Staros, Charlie Company commander who refuses to waste his men in a frontal assault that has little hope of succeeding and feels the wrath from above.

That's probably the most frustrating part of this movie for me. There are moments of perfection that you just sit back and revel in, let them wash over you. Malick's directorial eye is never in question, his movies beyond gorgeous. Some directors work best with scripts and actors. Malick is a visual director, here Australia filling in for Guadalcanal. This is a story of nature and its beauty torn apart by the fighting. Malick is quite content to show a hillside with its long, green grass blowing in the wind.  Add in the musical score from Hans Zimmer, and you've got a winner. His main theme with the Melanesian choirs send chills down my back every time I hear it. Listen HERE. The rest of the score is more subdued than Zimmer's more well-known scores, but it soothes, it meditates, playing almost constantly in hushed tones over the action in some cases and the narration in others (Try HERE). There is something soothing about this movie in its execution and its message. It just can't keep up the momentum throughout.

Certain moments of this movie have stuck with me over the years. Almost an hour is spent in excruciating detail as C Company tries to take a Japanese bunker on a grassy hillside. Later, a running firefight takes the company through a ravaged Japanese camp, Zimmer's score combining with the action to make it one of the great realistic battle sequences ever, the aftermath as moving as the actual fighting. Witt's conversations with Welsh have always stuck with me, and Witt's final scenes as C Company goes on a patrol bring the movie full-circle in an inevitable way that you know is coming.

Is the movie pretentious and even tedious at times? Oh hell yes. There were times I wanted to fast forward through vast stretches of narration and shots of nature. The narration is done to death by the end of the movie, little lines of dialogue straight from a poet that I didn't even always comprehend what I'm hearing. But with all that said, I just can't give this movie a negative rating. The moments that work are so good they overpower and overshadow the weaker moments.  You have to know what you're getting into when you watch this movie, and even then, there's no guarantee you will like it. It is a movie experience though, and one every movie fan should at least try.

The Thin Red Line <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

The American

It's easy for a movie trailer to trick audiences. With two and a half minutes or so to get a message across telling what this movie is about, it's easy to make any movie look like something it isn't. I can't think of a movie that was more misrepresented than 2010's The American, made to look like a thinking man's Jason Bourne with plenty of action and suspense. Yes, there is suspense. Yes, there is tension. But action? Not so much.

I don't know who that benefits when a trailer completely misrepresents what a movie is about.  In this case, the story is of a hitman in Italy preparing for one last job before he walks away from the profession he's so good at. It is leisurely paced to say the least and doesn't have much in the way of action. When there is action, it's quick and startling, not exciting and drawn out. So for starters, anyone heading into this movie thinking they're about to see 2 hours of action is now pissed, and I've read of several accounts of people leaving theaters. The people who might want to see this movie have now avoided it because they don't want to see a Hollywood shoot 'em up flick. Win win for everyone, huh?

After surviving a hit attempt on his life while on a job in Sweden, hired killer Jack (George Clooney) is sent to Italy by his handler/contact, Pavel (Johan Leysen). Instead of staying in a major city like Rome, Jack finds a small country village and goes to work. He gets information about his new job, meeting mysterious Mathilde (Thekla Reuten), who requires a specific gun to pull off her next job. Jack goes to work, assembling all the pieces he will need for the build. Away from the world and all its problems, Jack starts a relationship with a prostitute, Clara (Violante Placido). But isolated from the world he knows, he starts to freak out, paranoia taking over as he fears that someone is again gunning for him.

Depending on the viewer, the next statement is either going to drive you away or bring you into this movie. This is not Jason Bourne on vacation in Italy. This is a newer look French New Wave movie about a hired killer who leads a spartan life and in general, is a minimalist movie that will surely divide its viewers. The odd thing is, a day after watching the movie, I'm still not sure what to make of it.  I either loved it or hated it, but I can't decide for sure. It's an interesting movie, one that keeps you involved because you're just not quite sure what's going on. If I can describe this flick though in a most positive fashion, it's that it would make an interesting companion piece with Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Samourai in terms of character, style, tone and overall, cynicism about life.

Trying to come up with the most accurate, fairest description I can for director Anton Corbijn's movie, I'll say this. It is a movie interested in life, the daily little things you do. The camera editing isn't really even editing. Corbijn places his camera and lets things develop. Long -- long -- shots have Jack walking through the cramped Italian streets. Even after he walks out of frame, the shot lingers. Other shots have Jack driving through the countryside. Long stretches go without a word said -- musical score from Herbert Gronemeyer filling in the blanks in a quiet, soothing way -- as Jack patiently assembles all the pieces needed for the gun he's working on. You can see how this style -- or lack of depending on your interpretation -- split audiences down the middle.

At times, it is a visually frustrating movie in its beauty. The Italian countryside looks incredibly beautiful, as does the village Clooney's Jack is staying in. But visually, it can be infuriating. You want to move the story along, push the pace a little bit. Because so very little happens in this 105-minute movie, you're amped up to the point where you feel Jack's growing paranoia.  Every little noise sends a shiver up your back. Every look is a suspicious look no matter who it is from because the story just doesn't give you many hints as to what is about to happen. The moments you feel like dozing off (and there are plenty) are then broken up by these moments of intense fear. That's the whole movie, equal parts boredom and fear wrapped up into one.

The main character in this basically heartless movie is a heartless son of a gun, Clooney as Jack. He doesn't have much in the way of lines at all, cracks a smile exactly once, looks intense and/or glum the whole movie, and is required to be more of a presence than a character. Jack is intense, and that's the best way to describe this mysterious character. Is it Clooney playing Clooney? I hate when performances are identified that way because this is an interesting individual. Nothing is spelled out for us as to his background other than that he may be losing his edge and is therefore a liability. Even in his glumness, he's searching for some sort of 'right' in his little word, possibly finding it with Placido's Clara. It may be too late for him though because if there was ever a damned individual, it's Jack.

The movie and its storytelling technique does have its fair share of flaws. The story makes jumps that are necessary for things to keep moving along without always making a ton of sense. Characters do things that just don't come across as rational. Like Clooney's Jack, hidden away in a remote Italian town, remaining in the town after a hit is attempted on his life. Wouldn't he figure something is up?  But that's the problem. Is this intentional, like Corbijn wanting us as a viewer to piece things together, or just an oversight in logic and general ability to stay coherent in his storytelling?  It treads that fine line.

Because this movie has me thrown for a loop, I'm writing more than I normally would here so let's wrap it up. The supporting cast is solid, with Reuten the icy cool killer working with Jack, Placido as Clara, the high-class prostitute with the heart of gold (she's stunningly beautiful), and Paolo Bonacelli as Father Benedetto, a priest Jack meets in his travels. It brings up some interesting dialogue about sin, life and death, fate, all that good stuff. That's the movie though, a look into the mind of a hired gun, the inner workings of a killer. It is a beautiful movie with an incredibly leisurely pacing and style, one you have to know what you're getting into when watching it. I wanted to like it, and I can say now that I liked it...probably...I think...maybe. Big picture, it's different. Pretentious? Maybe. I liked it though, flaws and positives both considered.

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

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): **/**** 

Up in the Air

I watch my fair share of 'big' movies, stories where the fate of the world or a country depend on one key moment.  Those tendencies goes well with war, action, Bond, superheroes, anything similar because a bigger scale is key to their success.  So watching those movies, it can be an enjoyable twist to just watch a movie every so often that is about one or two people and who they really are as individuals.  You don't need supervillains trying to take over the world, or a country about to go under.  It was a critical favorite, but I missed it in theaters, 2009's Up in the Air.

The economic struggles the world has gone through in the last half-decade or so sets the groundwork for this story.  Companies and corporations worldwide were forced into firing thousands of employees because the money just wasn't there to pay them their salaries.  Families and individuals alike were forced to improvise on the fly and adjust to their new job-less lives.  But what about when a company/corporation wanted nothing to do with the actual firing process?  That's where Up in the Air steps in with the always cool, always suave George Clooney handling the firing duties.

Working for a nameless company, middle-aged Ryan Bingham (Clooney) spends 300-plus days a year traveling across the country going from company to company helping them fire their employees one-by-one in  a face to face situation.  It's a horrific job, but Bingham is good at it, and even weirder than that, he likes it.  Bingham lives out of his suitcase and dreads the time he has to spend at his bland, sparsely decorated apartment in Omaha.  He's called back to headquarters though where a new hire fresh out of college, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), has brought in a new technology that will erase the need for Ryan and his co-workers to travel to these places, instead firing people on a computer.  But first, Ryan's boss (Jason Bateman) wants him to take Natalie on the road for a few weeks and show her how it's really done.

Nominated for a handful of Oscars including Best Picture, Best Directing, and three different acting categories, it's easy to see why director Jason Reitman's movie did so well critically and in theaters pulling in over $80 million.  Just like Reitman's Juno, it's a slick, professionally made movie that reeks of talent in front of and behind the camera.  The dialogue is quick and sharp as the characters talk in ways that ordinary people could never sound like, and the story has a visual edge as Ryan's airport/hotel life is shown in detail, quick cuts and all.  This might sound negative, but it really isn't.  It sounds like I'm resenting a movie that is well-made, but if anything it's too well-made.

Starting with the casting, the three main parts are all home run roles, all of them earning an Oscar nomination but none of them winning.  Clooney is a great actor, and about as safe as an actor currently out there in terms of turning in a great performance.  He somehow makes Ryan a likable character even though there's not much to root for in terms of personality, beliefs, or principles.  Bingham is charming though and that always helps.  He has an interesting relationship with a woman, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who is basically the female version of him. Neither is really looking for any sort of commitment, and in that way they bond.  Playing Natalie, Kendrick is the anti-Ryan so she naturally clashes with him, especially forced to work with him on the road.

Joining Bateman in the supporting cast is a handful of comedic actors who get to show their dramatic chops off.  In some cases, their appearances aren't anything more than a minute or two, but even with a limited amount of time they come across well.  J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifianakis play two employees at different companies Ryan must fire, each of them handling the news in their own unique way.  Melanie Lynskey and Danny McBride (in dramatic scene-stealing mode, one monologue especially) play Ryan's sister and her husband-to-be with Amy Morton playing the sister trying to bring the family together.  Also look for Sam Elliott to make a quick appearance.  In a nice touch, Reitman also had actual fired employees play themselves in many scenes, giving an authentic feel to these already difficult scenes.

For me I thought the movie was at its best when sticking with Ryan -- and later Natalie -- on the road as they travel from airport to airport, always moving to another company that needs help.  There's drama, some dark humor thrown in, and a style that is visually pleasing and enjoyable to watch.  The story goes downhill a bit at Ryan's sister's wedding though, and even though it features some fine moments, it feels a little off.  The last 30 minutes featured a twist that I saw coming but was still bothered by it because one, it brings up some big plot holes, and two, I didn't like the revelation a character makes.  Still, the first hour builds up a lot of credit so the struggles in the second half aren't a deal breaker.

The ending itself is far from a happy ending, but it works for the Ryan character.  Depressing?  You bet, but it comes together for me.  Ryan's changed, but at the same time he hasn't.  He wants something else, but maybe he is too scared to look for it, or maybe he just doesn't know where to start.  It was a bit of a jarring ending, especially considering the last line.  You may not like the ending -- I didn't -- but for a realistic, feasible way to end the story, it fits together.

Up in the Air <----trailer (2009): ***/**** 

Welcome to Collinwood

When it comes to making a heist movie, there's typically two ways to go. One, the serious version with a team of specialists working together to pull off a seemingly impossible job. By the end, there's a good chance they've turned on each other, several are dead, and the heist failed miserably. Two, the not so serious version with a team of misfits working together on some low-level job which probably isn't worth the effort for what they'll get in the end. Both types have produced successes, but I usually prefer the serious version.

Doing a comedic version of a heist story is tricky because it's easy to go overboard trying to be funny, or there's the pulled back, subtle humor as is the case in 2002's Welcome to Collinwood. It's the type of comedy that looked like it had everything going for it with a great cast, interesting premise, and just the right amount of humor to make a comedic heist work. Too bad then that something did not translate in this movie with brother directing combo Joe and Anthony Russo working together on a screenplay they wrote. It's the type of movie that thinks it is much funnier than it is. 'Collinwood' tries to be that quirky, indie low-budget comedy but never delivers.

Sent to prison on a grand theft auto charge, Cosimo (Luis Guzman) finds out about an easy job to pull off from his cellmate, a lifer with no shot of getting out of prison. Cosimo tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) he needs a fall guy to take the rap for him so he can get his release and start working on the job. Instead, the fall guy, a low level boxer named Pero (Sam Rockwell) gets thrown into prison when the judge doesn't believe his confession only to con Cosimo into giving up the plan. Pero gets his release and goes to work planning the job, a robbery of a jewelry store's safe he'll get to by crashing through the apartment next door. But word has already spread and Pero has some 'help' from an odd assortment of some forgotten, low-level thieves who also want a crack at the money in the safe.

The premise itself reminded me of The Ladykillers in many ways, but in the Russo screenplay the two brothers forgot one key thing...make the movie funny. I didn't actually laugh until the actual heist scene which does provide a few chuckles as these inept crooks attempt to break into a safe. I can't decide who's at fault, but I guess it goes back to the screenplay. There's all these great actors working together, but their characters are nothing more than rough sketches that were never fleshed out with the exception of Rockwell's Pero. It feels like the Russos just figured the talent in front of the camera would save the day, but working with the material in front of them the actors aren't able to do much.

Joining Pero's crew is Riley (William H. Macy), a father of an infant looking for some cash because he must care for his son because the wife got sent to prison, Leon (Isaiah Washington), a dandy of a dude trying to protect his sister (Gabrielle Union) and get some money so she can be married, Toto (Michael Jeter), Cosimo's former partner who's a little off, and Basil (Andy Davoli), a bum in need of quick cash. Even George Clooney makes a quick appearance as a wheelchair-bound safecracker (Clooney co-produced the movie with Steven Soderbergh). Jennifer Esposito joins the cast as Carmela, a young maid working in the apartment the fellas will need to work in to get to the safe. The cast is what drew me in to the movie, but as a whole they're just not given enough to do.

Besides the screenplay's weaknesses, 'Collinwood' is flawed because it tries too hard to be quirky, to be different. Successes in indie movies comes when there's a natural feel, a flow to that quirkiness. But here everything screams out 'Look at us, we're different! Laugh at us!' The music by Mark Mothersbaugh is jazzy and overbearing at times, almost pointing out when the viewer should be laughing. Filmed in Cleveland, the story has a cheap look to it as if the characters were trapped in the 1970s judging by their personal styles, but it's hard to get a good read on that.

This is all that much more disappointing because of the talent involved in making the movie. A special feature on the DVD made during the filming shows the actors and crew are enjoying themselves. But something is missing as the behind the scenes fun never translates to in front of the camera. Too many detours and sidetracks here with a movie that never goes anywhere, even with its 86-minute running time. The story just ends too with no real conclusion for everyone except Rockwell's character. A disappointment all around. Available to watch on Youtube, starting with Part 1 of 12.

Welcome to Collinwood <----trailer (2002): **/****