The Gift

Just a few weeks ago with Jane Got a Gun, I mentioned what a big fan I was of actor Joel Edgerton. He's shown a chameleon-like ability as an actor who's taken all sorts of different roles as a star who is definitely on the rise. Well, he can add another category to his resume. He's now a director too, making his feature directorial debut with 2015's The Gift.

Having moved from Chicago to Los Angeles, a married couple, Simon (Jason Bateman) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall), is excited about their new start in a new city. Simon has a new job with a ton of potential for advancement and Robyn gets to start her own business as well. All is peachy or so it seems. Out shopping one day, they run into Gordon 'Gordo' Moseley (Edgerton), a former high school classmate of Simon's. The encounter is awkward after so many years, but that's only the start. Gordo starts by dropping off some presents unannounced at their new house. He starts dropping in without warning, often when Simon is at work and Robyn is home alone. Robyn isn't sure what to make of Gordo but tries to think the best of the situation. Simon, his work friends and their new neighbors, they're not so convinced. What is Gordo up to? Is he up to anything? There's more to every story. It's just a matter of finding out...

I must have seen this trailer about 384 times last spring and summer in advance of its August 2015 release. I felt like I'd seen it already so didn't try too hard to catch it in theaters. Well, enough time has passed. The verdict? Highly-recommended adult thriller. Go watch it. Apologies if the rest of the review is a tad vague, but this is a story that you should definitely go into without too much information. It's going to be far-more effective if you have no idea what's coming next.

First-time director Edgerton clearly has some talented both behind the camera but with the script as he penned the screenplay too. 'Gift' jumped out and grabbed me and never really let go. The biggest thing going for this thriller is its subtlety from beginning to end. There are no car chases or explosions or random bits of nudity. It is all tension and scene-setting, a cloud of anxious doom hanging in the air as to exactly what's gonna happen next. Edgerton hits the ground running. It's not just a tolerable first-time effort. It is a genuinely skilled, crafted thriller that keeps you guessing throughout. 'Gift' is the definition of a slow burn. When the technique flops, it drags the whole movie down in a boring haze. When it works, you get that queasy feeling in your stomach as the story unravels and we see what's really going on.

You can't say that with so many in-your-face thrillers that are all about shock value. There's a sense of mystery from the word 'go' here with the big reveal coming about halfway through, but that's far from the end. Edgerton's screenplay has its fair share of secrets to reveal in the second half, including a very well-handled "Oh, NO!" finale. A smart, underplayed thriller.

Basically a three-person cast on display here with some other smaller parts fleshing things out. You could see this developed in a way as a stage play. Bateman and Hall are excellent together as Simon and Robyn, a married couple looking for a fresh start. Why is that? Like everything else, the reveals come with time. It is definitely safe to say though that not everything is as simple and straightforward as it seems. We learn why the couple ended up in Los Angeles, and that both husband and wife are dealing with some inner demons that pop up at the worst time. It is in these tension-building moments where we learn these things that the story excels. We're never quite sure if we're hearing the full story, if we're hearing everything we need to hear. Both are incredibly talented actors, both of them getting to show off their range with each new frightening development.

Edgerton smartly uses the less-is-more mindset in playing Gordo, and more imporantly, in revealing the truth of the character. When he's on-screen,  we see a socially awkward individual who seems to be trying really hard to fit in. When we don't see him, it feels like his presence is still there looming over our story and characters. If you need more of a compliment for an actor's performance, I can't think of it. Though we learn much about him, Gordo remains a mystery. We don't see his home or much about his background. We don't see him interact with basically anyone other than Simon and Robyn. There's some good questions brought up as to what the character's intentions were from the beginning. Did he always have this plan? Did he adjust on the fly as certain revelations are revealed, as certain people show their true colors? Another mark of a subtle, unsettling thriller. Let the audience decide.

I can't recommend this one enough. It is original, unique and interesting from beginning to end. Where so often a thriller based on a twist falls flat when the twist doesn't deliver, 'Gift' takes that moment and uses it to surge forward to the end, saving some unpleasant surprises for the second half. Definitely worth a watch. Whether it be on-screen or from the director's chair, Edgerton clearly has a future in whichever role he chooses. I look forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve next!

The Gift (2015): ***/****

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): ***/****

Black Mass

With the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Johnny Depp went from well-known but quirky actor to a huge star, an actor who embraced the weird, the odd and the deranged and was the better for it. He was a big star and he still is, but his film choices since have been more hit or miss. Some decent performances but nothing too crazy and not a whole lot of box office success (yeah yeah, I know that's not the end-all, be-all). Well, 2015's Black Mass is getting all sorts of positive buzz, much of it surrounding Mr. Depp himself. Onward Boston gangsters!

It's 1975 and in south Boston -- AKA Southie -- James "Whitey" Bulger (Depp) is a small-time gangster (but an extremely dangerous one) with a tight-knit crew of like-minded crooks called the Winter Hill Gang. Their Irish territory is under pressure from the other end of town where the Italian mafia is muscling in, forcing Whitey's hand. He gets an out in the form of FBI agent John Connolly (Joel Edgerton), a local boy done good, returning to Boston swearing he'll leave his mark. Connolly convinces Whitey to be an FBI informer, giving him any dirt he can on the seemingly unstoppable Italian mafia. As both men discuss, it isn't ratting anyone out. It's simply business. It's an alliance that helps both sides. Well, it may help one side more than the other. Connolly intends to do something good -- while turning a blind eye in other places -- while Whitey sees the vast potential in front of him. He was dangerous before. Now what can he accomplish with the FBI's protection?

No point in beating around the bush. Johnny Depp or more appropriately...JOHNNY DEPP. An always reliable actor basically no matter the movie, script or subject matter, Depp makes the average usually pretty interesting. When he's working with really good material? Here we sit, Depp stealing the show in director Scott Cooper's film that's based on the true story of infamous Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger (<--- about="" actually="" and="" as="" be="" but="" can="" could="" cover="" crazy="" decades.="" details="" don="" exploits="" happened="" help="" his="" how="" i="" if="" in="" is="" it="" itself="" keep="" knew="" little="" moving="" multiple="" obvious="" of="" p="" people="" performances="" read="" s="" some="" sorts="" spoilers="" story="" stupid="" t="" terms="" that="" the="" things="" thinking="" throughout.="" type="" want="" watching="" without="" you="">
Depp is an excellent actor, but here he's really working with a worthy character. The physical transformation is startling and chilling, Depp wearing icy blue contact lenses, donning a pointed prosthetic nose and makeup that thinned his hair. He looks evil. Like really evil, and the story helps develop that with ease. It is an intimidating, frightening performance, full of foreboding and doom that show the depths one man will go to in maintaining his hold on the power he has. Stay local? You'll be fine. Start to look for a way out? Start looking for a bullet with your name on it. Some attempts are made to humanize Bulger early on and it works to a point, but you really do get a sense of the evil in the man as the years pass and the body count rises. A testament to Depp's ability is that he does it with ease. You never get the sense he's trying too hard or hamming it up. He just dives in headfirst and goes for it full-bore.

An excellent performance, one that deserves the early Oscar buzz Depp is generating. There isn't a weak performance in the entire film, all the actors hitting the right notes one after another. It just shows you how good Depp is that not much else in the cast is being mentioned. The names though...those names. As he showed with Crazy Heart and Out of the Furnace (liked it a lot), some very talented actors want to work with Mr. Cooper. He's a talented director, getting the most out of his cast, both major supporting parts and smaller but still essential parts. Edgerton is excellent in a part that defies reality. No one could be both this dense and high-reaching, could they? I would have liked some more development of Agent John Connolly, but you get a picture of a man who wants results, the means be damned. Not as frightening as Whitey, but scary in a different way that puts into perspective how far some will go to get the job done.

Lots and lots of other very talented actors to check out. Benedict Cumberbatch -- getting third billing -- plays Whitey's younger brother, Billy, a state senator in Massachusetts in spite of what his brother is up to. A small but essential and layered performance. Whitey's crew includes Jesse Plemons, Rory Cochrane (excellent) and W. Earl Brown, all part of Whitey's madness and power. David Harbour steals his scenes as Morris, Connolly's right-hand man in their doings with Whitey, with Kevin Bacon, Adam Scott and Corey Stoll as other office representatives at the D.A. and FBI. Because that's not enough, also look for Dakota Johnson (shaking off the awful Fifty Shades of Grey), Peter Sarsgaard, and Julianne Nicholson in key supporting parts.

'Mass' covers a lot of ground in its 122-minute running time, but it never feels rushed. The time jumps are never too severe and find a decent rhythm. If there's an issue -- and it ain't a crippling one -- it's that Cooper's film is missing that one special something to make it a classic. The story is always interesting, the casting pretty spot-on and the musical score from Junkie XL adds something to the tension and sense of foreboding. It's missing that final ingredient to take it up to the next level though, and I can't quite put my finger on it. The story is familiar, a tad predictable, and at times feels a little too influenced by The Departed, The Town and any number of Scorsese crime dramas. It's tough to criticize a movie for something like that. This is a true story that no doubt influenced those movies, but those movies hit theaters first. Make sense? Nah? I'm not even sure!

An easy movie to recommend, especially for the acting from top to bottom, especially Johnny Depp, Joel Edgerton and Benedict Cumberbatch. An excellent lead performance from Depp, one of the first to gain some Oscar buzz as we fast approach the end of the year and the beginning of award season. Definitely worth seeking out if not a classic.

Black Mass (2015): ***/****

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

The Great Gatsby (2013)

One of the few books/novels I had to read for AP/Honors English in high school and college and actually enjoyed was F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, a condemnation of the Jazz Age, rich folks, all sorts of waste, and all that good stuff. It's had several reincarnations since, including one film starring Robert Redford, and more than a few other film and stage productions. In the age of the remake/reboot, here we sit with 2013's big-budget The Great Gatsby, as lavish and over the top as the story condemns.

It's 1922 and Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) has moved east to pursue a job in business on the stock market, leaving his Midwestern roots and his dream of being a writer behind him. He rents a small cottage on Long Island and can't help but notice the lavish, ridiculously over the top parties on almost a nightly basis at his next door neighbor's mansion. His neighbor? The mysteriously rich Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man in his early 30s who no one knows much about. Specifically invited to one of Gatsby's parties, Nick shows up and is amazed at what he finds and sees, a party unlike any he's ever seen. He meets Gatsby, taking an instant like to this amiable, quirky man with all sorts of unanswered questions hanging over his head. Who is he really? How did he come to this spot? Nick will most certainly be surprised when he finds out, but will he care or will he just be worried about his new friend?

When I hear the name Baz Luhrmann, I think of one thing; one, big old extravagant director. With movies like Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge and Australia to his name, Luhrmann has a track record for hugely visual, highly stylized films that reek (in a good way) of extravagant sets, goofy style, color, movement and more color. He continues the tradition/trend here with one crazy visual movie. It's style, style and style. We're transported to 1920s NYC courtesy of some pretty obvious but pretty cool CGI. The modern soundtrack is a little much -- songs from Jay Z, Beyonce, Andre 3000, Jack White among others -- and calls too much attention to itself at times. It's not just that the movie is stylish. Luhrmann and his crew commit to bringing it to life. Even if the story sucked or wasn't interesting, you could just sit back and revel in the visual. Thankfully, it's not just style and no substance.

Early on though, I'll admit to being rather worried about what I'd gotten into. As the movie finds its tone and pace, the first 20-25 minutes were rough for me. Things are righted the minute DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby appears on-screen for the first time. Talk about ideal casting, DiCaprio is perfectly cast as the mysterious, charismatic, engaging Gatsby. Let's face it. DiCaprio is a good-looking guy and that certainly helps here. He brings a certain charming energy to the part. Reading the book in high school, I really liked the Gatsby character. He's rich beyond anyone's dreams, but he isn't some smarmy, condescending millionaire. His past is slowly filtered out as we learn about his love for Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), Nick's cousin who also happens to be married to an equally rich man, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). We learn that Gatsby is like most people. He looks for happiness, for love, for someone to share his riches with. It's an excellent part for DiCaprio, again showing what a good actor he is.

The rest of the cast is uniformly solid behind him. I'm not a fan of Maguire going back to his Spiderman days, but he's pretty decent here. His Nick is our window into the story, Nick seeing and exploring as we do into this very rich world. His narration gets to be too much at times -- simply trying too hard -- but it's cool to see his friendship develop with Gatsby. Mulligan and Edgerton provide some interesting characters as Daisy and her husband, Tom, Daisy and Gatsby's love providing the spark for the second half of the story. We also get to meet Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki), a young, up and coming golfer who Nick meets soon after moving to NYC. Isla Fisher plays Myrtle, Tom's mistress, with Jason Clarke playing her husband, the owner of a gas station.

Having read the book (even if it was years ago), I had a certain worry heading into this flick. How close would the script stay to the novel? I worry about it with most books I've read that are turned into films. Thankfully, this adaptation sticks pretty close. While I liked the style and the visual appeal is obvious, I got more enjoyment out of the second half when Jay and Daisy's love steps to the forefront. The style is still there, but it's here we see more substance and get to know the characters far better. The sense of doom arises because we know everything can't end well for all those involved. Where will it head? Will it keep driving toward Fitzgerald's inevitable end? It's in the second half of the movie where 'Gatsby' finds that groove, that right mix of style, story, substance and characters. A pleasant surprise for sure.

The Great Gatsby (2013): ***/****

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

The Hard Word

An Aussie crime drama with a handful of recognizable actors, a story that is both highly dramatic and oddly funny, and in general a feeling of originality (if somewhat misplaced and odd) that a lot of movies just don't have. All these things work for and against 2002's The Hard Word, a genuinely weird movie that I still managed to enjoy.

Working as pawns for a greedy, backstabbing lawyer, Frank (Robert Taylor), and a group of corrupt politicians and policemen, three brothers, Dale (Guy Pearce), Shane (Joel Edgerton) and Mal (Damien Richardson) are three of the most successful bank robbers Australia has ever seen, always trying to pull jobs without violence. Now though they've been caught and are serving time, but Frank has a plan, a heist that will net them $20 million dollars while they're "on parole." None of the brothers, especially Dale, thinks much of it, but they're basically blackmailed into the spot. Their goal? Take down the gambling winnings from the Melbourne Cup, but with Frank sleeping with Dale's wife, Carol (Rachel Griffiths), nothing goes off quite as planned. Now all that's to be decided is whether the brothers can get out alive.

Not as a judgment against Australian films, but there is something indescribably odd crime drama. It is violent and harsh, but it also has some out of left field comedic moments (most of them incredibly dark and twisted). Director Scott Roberts must have had a lot of ideas brewing in his head, and he throws it all together. The weirdness of all those different elements have a surprising affect in that they work. How? Oh, I have no idea, but it does. Maybe because it is so genuinely different and unique, but I went along with it. Part of me didn't always believe what I was watching, and another part might not have even liked certain parts of the movie. Still, it's weird but that good sort of weird.

What works through and above and around that weirdness is the camaraderie we see among the three brothers. In jail or not, working a job, eating a meal, I believed in them. They have a bond that would be hard to fake. They bitch and moan at each other but all the while want what's best for the others. When Shane gets sick and is almost left behind, Dale and Mal fake a similar illness and stick around with him, putting the job off for a little. So we have these three brothers who are extremely close, and they just happen to be good at....robbing banks. They're good at it but never seem to have any money, constantly needing a new, better job. Pearce, Edgerton and Richardson are the best things going for the movie, all three brothers coming across as believable. And more on this later, but they're some of my favorite characters...the doomed variety.

Sifting through the odd comedy and off the wall, scatter-brained storytelling is the basis of a great crime drama featuring many aspects of a 1940s film noir. Those aspects are when the movie is moving along at a good pace, knowing where it wants to go. Griffiths as Carol is the femme fatale, a beautiful, smart and sexy woman who's going to do what she needs to do to survive. She loves Pearce's Dale but also knows she has to make it on her own while he's inside. Taylor as the slimy Frank is the real villain, the conniving lawyer who will no doubt get what he deserves in the end. There's also the insane hired gun, Tarzan (Dorian Nkono), the damaged but still strong woman, Jane (Rhondda Findleton), Shane's love interest and psychiatrist, and of course, the two corrupt cops (Paul Sonkkila and Vince Colosimo). All it needed was black and white film, some cigarette smoke hanging in the air, and some shadows here and there and we're talking full-on 40s noir.

Now almost from the start, the three brothers are pegged as the tragic characters, doomed individuals who have no way out from the predicament they find themselves in. The momentum keeps building, and the story seems destined to end that way. Heist movies have taught us that. The heist is almost always the easy part. The aftermath is where things get bloody. Even following the job, it seems like the movie will go one way but doesn't. That disjointed feel, the bizarre attempts at humor, it all stops the ending from being a classic. It ends on a surprising attempt at a laugh. It works while still managing to feel out of place. The movie is really a mess, but I can't help but like it.

The Hard Word <---quasi-trailer (2002): ***/****

Warrior

When I stumble across an actor/actress I really like, I'm a happy camper. It's like finding an author you like to read or a TV series you missed out on. You can catch up, seeing them in all the things you previously missed. Take Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton, two actors who've been around for years but really came into their own over the last two or three.  Nowhere are their talents more evident than 2011's Warrior, a movie that quickly climbs into my list of favorite movies.

Thanks to his drinking for years, Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte) has torn his family apart. Years have gone by since he's even seen his sons until one night his estranged son, Tommy (Hardy), shows up on his doorstep in Pittsburgh. He's popping pills and doesn't say much. He asks Paddy to help him train, start fighting again after years away from it, years away from his high school career as a state champion wrestler. In Philly, Paddy's other son, Brendan (Edgerton), is married with two kids but struggling to make ends meet. He's months away from being foreclosed on his house. Neither brother has seen each for years, and Tommy is even going by his deceased mother's maiden name. Both have fighting experience though and manage to get into Sparta, a 2-day, 16-man tournament of single elimination MMA bouts. The pay-out? $5 million, winner take all.

The best sports stories -- in film or real life -- are those that are personal. We can't always relate as viewers to a multimillionaire pulling down ridiculous amounts of money. This movie is Rocky. It's Rudy. It's Remember the Titans. This is one of the great sports movies of all-time in a quickly developing sport, MMA (mixed martial arts). Director Gavin O'Connor is clearly invested in his story and it shows in the film. Sports in all their emotions can hit you right in the gut, packing quite the emotional wallop. Just like its fights though, 'Warrior' doesn't let up. It whales away at you, emotionally throwing punch after punch. It is an incredible, realistic, humanity at its most base type of story. I love this movie. LOVE it.

Playing brothers who have long since drifted apart, Hardy and Edgerton are revelations as Tommy and Brendan. I've seen and knew they could both act, but their performances are perfect in their familiarity. Hardy is a caged animal and a wounded one at that. Intensity doesn't begin to describe him. He doesn't look like he's acting. He appears ready to literally rip your head off. His Tommy is an Iraq war vet just brimming with hatred, anger and demons that threaten to tear him apart inside. Edgerton is the high school physics teacher and family man, married to Tess (Jennifer Morrison) with two kids. His family has fallen on hard times with some medical issues, and Brendan is out of options. What more can you ask? Tommy is fighting to right a wrong, to save himself in a way. Brendan is fighting for his family and their future. Edgerton's Brendan is the more obviously sympathetic of the two, but you're rooting for both. Great, great performances.

With this script, O'Connor does something impressive. It is familiar. It isn't particularly new. If you've seen a sports movie, you've seen variations on it before. In a lot of ways right down to the music (great score from Mark Isham, soft and subtle but driving emotionally), Warrior reminded me of Friday Night Lights. More or less, you have a good sense of where it's going in terms of story. Getting to that end goal, that final fight though is the fun. O'Connor takes what we know as a viewer and manages to tweak it just enough to not only make it worthwhile and enjoyable, but to make it unique and original. I can't even put my finger on it as to why this works so well. Supporting performances are uniformly good, starting with Morrison as the loving but obviously quite worried wife, Frank Grillo as Frank Campana, Brendan's out-of-the-box thinking trainer, Kevin Dunn as Zito, the principal of the school Brendan works at, and Bryan Callen and Sam Sheridan as themselves, providing ringside commentary for the fights. 

Clocking in at 140 minutes, Warrior has time to breathe. The first 75 minutes set everything up, putting characters where they need to be and hinting at the backstories for all these individuals, hinting but never spelling anything out. A scene between Hardy and Edgerton on the beach in Atlantic City the night before the fights begin is a tour de force scene, intensity exploding off the screen as the two brothers talk for the first time in years. I didn't think you could top the emotion of that scene...for about 5 minutes, and then the fights start. Hardy's Tommy is a brawler, fighting with brute strength and power, Edgerton's Brendan fighting technically, waiting to strike with an array of moves. As a non-fan of MMA, I came away impressed with the brutality of these fights, movie or not. They keep building and building on momentum until you can't take it anymore. The final fight -- no SPOILERS here, but come on, think about it -- is one of the more gut-wrenching, emotionally charged scenes I can even think of. The final shot of the movie is a thing of beauty too, couldn't have asked for a better one.

I'm searching for something, anything to rip about this movie, and I can't. Hardy and Edgerton carry this movie both physically and emotionally with Nolte not far behind as a father who admits he did a hell of a lot of wrong things to his family growing up, driving his wife away and scarring the kids. I hope there's a Best Supporting nod for Nolte. His scene late with Tommy in a hotel room is picture perfect; two individuals who are scarred and beaten down, one holding the other. The scene the night before in an Atlantic City casino is just as heart-breaking, making it all that much more effective. Underdog, fighting against the odds, fighting to save themselves and their loved ones, this has it all. Too many moments like that to even bring up. There aren't any easy answers for this torn-apart family, and the movie doesn't try to fix things thankfully. This is a movie in real life, and that real life thing, it's messy. It ain't easy, and you can't always fix it.

I loved, loved, LOVED this movie. Easily one of the great sports movies of all-time, but more than that, it rises above a genre distinction. It's just a great movie.

Warrior <---trailer (2011): ****/****

Animal Kingdom

American, English, French, Italian, Japanese, I've tried my best to review movies from all over the world, not just flicks from the good old United States. Well, add Australian to that list thanks to 2010's Animal Kingdom. A drama that received mostly positive reviews, the detractors were still out there. Too derivative, too much of stuff we've seen before. I'm not comparing it to the classic The Godfather, but it is in a similar vein in its story revolving around a crime family, albeit a smaller, less powerful one. Solid story, several nearly perfect performances, and a great soundtrack. Win, win and win.

When his mother overdoses on heroin, 17-year old Josh (James Frecheville) moves in with his estranged family, a family his mother intentionally isolated her son from. The Cody family, including family matriarch Janine (Jacki Weaver), has their hand in everything criminal, ranging from armed robbery to drugs. Josh is able to mostly avoid this criminal life until one of his uncles, Baz (Joel Edgerton), is gunned down by the police in an attempt to lure another uncle, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), out of hiding. It seems now that there's no way for Josh to avoid the family name, especially when a detective (Guy Pearce) comes asking questions.

I stumbled across this film thanks to a preview/trailer on a Netflix DVD, and I'm glad I did. This was director David Michod's first feature film, and he certainly makes a positive, lasting impression. It is familiar without being too repetitive, and the comparisons to other recent crime thrillers (The Departed, The Town among others) aren't entirely fair. This is a movie that knows what it wants to do and how to get its message across. Understated and subtle, 'Kingdom' focuses on the characters that come out of the situation, not the other way around.

In its subtle, understated way, 'Kingdom' is a polished finished product with plenty of style but not just for the sake of having style. It serves a purpose. One striking shot has a SWAT team invading the Cody household, no natural sound or dialogue, just Antony Partos' quiet, moving score playing. Partos' score is a flashback to the quasi-electronic scores of the 1980s, reminding me at times of Tangerine Dreams. It is one of the best scores I can think of from the last 10 years though, and it ends up being a key character. One character's death scene is a near-classic because of Partos' score driving the action.

It's surprising with the performances that the most important one, Frecheville as Josh, the one we're supposed to care about the most, is the weakest one. Josh is supposed to be quiet, unassuming, withdrawn and removed from life in a lot of ways. So in that sense, Frecheville's performance is either the most brilliant thing around or the worst. There just isn't enough emotion or personality to make Josh truly interesting. Other interesting, smaller performances include Luke Ford as Darren, the quietest of the Cody brothers, and Sullivan Stapleton as Craig, the most emotional and intense of the brothers. Edgerton's character is gone too fast while Pearce is the calming influence, the conscience of the story who asks all the questions.

The two best performances though belong to two of the most sinister, creepiest villains around, Weaver as Janine "Smurf" Cody, the family matriarch, and Mendelsohn as Andrew, known as 'Pope.' Weaver is phenomenal, the mother/grandmother who lives to care for her sons. An incestuous relationship is hinted at, or at least an overly physical hold on her boys, but that could be me reading too far into things. Janine drops to new levels late to protect her family, cementing her status as an epically scary villain. As Pope, Mendelsohn is the psycho, the unhinged brother capable of anything, saying he's looking out for the family but really just focusing on himself.

I was surprised even more with the uproar over the film's ending. First off, it is a great, powerful and even a little shocking in its execution. I thought it was going one way, and then 'Kindgom' does an 180, going in a vastly different route. The finale didn't leave much room for interpretation in my opinion, but apparently lots of other viewers disagreed. I'll leave it up to you. Aussie, American, British, French, it doesn't matter. This is just a good movie.

Animal Kingdom <---trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****

The Thing (2011)

John Carpenter's The Thing -- released in 1982 -- is one of the all-time great science fiction and horror mash-ups. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, mixing in visually shocking effects with surprise and gotcha! moments that have you jumping out of that seat. One of the best things going for Carpenter's film is the mystery, a pre-story we never see, something else that happened about an alien entombed in Antarctica before this story even starts. Ever wonder what happened at that Norwegian camp? Oh yes, we're talking prequel, released in theaters this weekend, 2011's The Thing.  

I've made no bones about disliking most remakes, reboots and do-overs when it comes to movies. This newly released prequel just shows how stupid people are. Anyone complaining about a remake should probably just stop watching movies at all. For one, this is actually a prequel, setting up Carpenter's 1982 film. And two, the 1982 version is....wait for this...a remake of 1951 sci-fi classic The Thing From Another World. So anyone claiming "the original" should be left alone should just shut up. Your precious original is in fact, a remake too. The 2011 version? A worthy addition to the franchise, one that pays homage while exploring new territory.

At a remote Antarctic research site, the predominantly Norwegian staff has made a huge discovery, some sort of foreign space ship entombed in the ice, possibly for hundreds of thousands of years. The doctor in charge, Dr. Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen), calls in a specialist, a paleontologist, Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), to help examine the frozen creature specimen found in the ice. Before the examination can take place though, the supposedly dead creature comes to life, putting everyone's life at risk. What is it? What is it capable of? Kate is the first to come up with an explanation as the body count rises. The alien can replicate itself as a source, posing as any living thing. Paranoia sets in with nowhere to go. The alien could be anyone and everyone. Can those uninfected individuals find out who is and isn't still human in time?

This is officially a prequel, but there is of course similarities between the movies, similar characters, story arc, that sort of thing. It would be nearly impossible for the two movies to be at least a little alike. What is good about director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s prequel is that it does pay homage to Carpenter's version but goes down a different route about the halfway point. It reverts back to more of a monster chase movie, survivors trying to defeat this unknown creature. That may be the biggest difference; the creature is shown clearly in a variety of incarnations, one of them creepier than the others. Other nice touches? Ennio Morricone's original theme (listen HERE) is used with composer Marco Beltrami tweaking the rest of the score, a perfect mood and tension setter. The look of the movie is right, down to a long list of continuity jumps and connections that any fan of Carpenter's film will appreciate.  

What I think any viewer will be able to appreciate is more than just the shocking and surprising scares, the ones that are meant to make you jump, to flinch while watching. At its base, the story is built around fear and paranoia of not being able to trust anyone around you.  Winstead's Lloyd pieces things together, putting clues together that should reveal if 'the Thing' has taken over any more people. Even close friends and co-workers could have turned, been infected and it is nearly impossible to tell.  That ultimate fear, that terror is magnified at this remote research site. There's nowhere to go so the problem is there waiting to be dealt with. Some of the movie's most tense moments rely on that premise. When survival is the goal, you'll turn on anyone who is standing in your way.

Like the 1982 version, the 2011 prequel has a solid ensemble cast with a few standouts.  Winstead especially is a strong lead. A female lead in a horror movie dominated by a male cast might sound like it's out of left field, but she's great in the part, a smart, clear-thinking leader in the most trying of times.  Thomsen too is impressive, the doctor blinded by his find and its possible ramifications in fame and riches even as his crew gets knocked off one by one. Eric Christian Olsen plays Adam, Halvorson's assistant who has a long working friendship/relationship with Kate. The coolest characters though belong to Joel Edgerton as Carter, the chopper pilot clearly channeling Kurt Russell's MacReady, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as his co-pilot, Jameson. Of the rest of the Norwegian crew, Jorgen Langhelle stands out the most as Lars, the non-English speaking grunt worker. The remaining cast members are exclusively Norwegian actors, most of them not around long enough to make an impression other than as Thing-food.

The monster/alien vs. human angle is played up more in the second half of the movie, much more than Carpenter's telling. As one reviewer so eloquently and appropriately put it, "The flamethrower action has been ratcheted up 10 or 12 notches." Some good surprises, some heavy creature gore and violence, and a story full of tension.

What will work the best for fans of Carpenter's film is the ending to the prequel. Anyone who has seen Carpenter's 1982 film knows and remembers the striking, startling opening sequence. So it's natural to assume this prequel has to connect the two movies, and let me say, does it ever. Even knowing it's coming, the ending of the movie is a whale of a finish, one of the great connecting transitions I can think of in a movie. As for some of the characters, it leaves it up to your imagination to decide exactly how things went down. All I can...when the credits start to roll keep your butt in the seat. Is the movie as good as 1982's The Thing? Nope, but it does it justice and then some.

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

King Arthur

Few stories have resonated through the centuries like the legend of King Arthur. There are some who question whether he actually existed or if this knight was just the stuff of legends passed down through the years.  However you want to interpret the person -- fictional or real -- the names instantly ring a bell when mentioned.  There's Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, the Round Table, and all Arthur's noble knights.  So how do you make a movie about a person/character who may or may not be real with little in the way of concrete information existing on him? Here's a doozy for you. Do the best you can, and fill in any necessary blanks with battle scenes.

That's basically 2004's King Arthur which claims to tell the most accurate account of the Arthurian legend. One of the biggest issues surrounding Arthur is when did he actually live?  Was he around in the Middle Ages and the Crusades searching for the Holy Grail? Was he around near the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries?  Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun), this action-packed historical epic goes with the second premise and does a fair share of rewriting when it comes to the legend.  This is not your grandparent's King Arthur with a romantic view of a vicious, incredibly dark historical time.  It's down and dirty, and everyone is at risk.

After serving a 15-year term as a protector of Britain, half-Roman, half-Briton Knight Arthur (Clive Owen) is ready to go home to Rome.  His men, Sarmatian men enlisted as Roman soldiers, similarly want to return home after many years of service while seeing their fellow knights drop one by one. With their release coming though, they are enlisted for one more dangerous mission, a trek into Woad territory (natives trying to expel the Romans) where a Roman family's villa stands.  Bring them back and they will be free. Arthur convinces his men to go along on the nearly suicidal mission, but even he doesn't know what awaits them.  The Woads wait in ambush for them, but news drifts down from the north.  A Saxon army (led by Stellan Skarsgard) is marching south, killing everything in its path.  Arthur and his knights must now band together with the Woads (blue paint warrior Keira Knightley leading) to not only accomplish their mission, but somehow survive and get home.

Historical epics are right up my alley, I'll give just about anything a try.  But with an action-heavy director like Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer in charge, you're going to get a ridiculously action-heavy movie that's short on story.  How often can you say that for a movie that runs 138 minutes? There is a ton of potential here because of the money clearly spent in getting the movie made.  The cast is impressive, the action is on a huge scale, Hans Zimmer's musical score appropriately epic, and the story is the stuff of legend no matter what pretensions the movie has about being the most accurate telling of Arthur's story.  But with all that said, it's a mess of a movie overall.  An exciting, interesting mess, but still a mess.

I'm not an Arthur aficionado who will complain about the mangling of the legend's story, but this pushes even beyond my basic knowledge of the story.  It doesn't have to be the romantic portrayal of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but some of the choices here were just odd.  Arthur's remaining Knights serving their 15-year tour of duty for Rome are Sarmatians, a people from Eastern Europe with an Iranian background.  That's fine, but they all look very British.  Guinevere is a Woad, a Briton barbarian by all accounts who is an expert with a long bow and fights alongside the men.  By the by, Knightley in a skimpy leather battle attire is never a bad thing.  Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is not a magician, but a Woad medicine man who looks like a barbarian heathen. Skarsgard sleepwalks through his performance, and Til Schweiger is laughably bad as his son, the also-evil Saxon warrior. Now I'm not sure what was or wasn't accurate -- history is always open for interpretation -- but this one just went too far for me.

What does work is the portrayal of Arthur and his knights, mostly because the actors playing the parts are so talented, not because these individual parts are well-written.  Owen is a suitable Arthur, a commander who is not like his men but has earned their respect through his leadership and in battle.  His Knights include shifty and intelligent Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), expert bowmen, falconer and scout Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), quiet but capable Gawain (Joel Edgerton), young hopeful Galahad (Hugh Dancy), boorish, brutish fighter Bors (Ray Winstone), and ferocious man of few words Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). As a fan of men on a mission stories, I was a sucker for this part of the story, and all of the characters left an impression on me, especially Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone.  I would have loved to see a story that focused more on these characters as opposed to such a large-scale story, but overall they are the best part of King Arthur.

Finishing the movie, I was more than a little surprised to find out it had a PG-13 rating.  This movie is VIOLENT.  We're not taking Braveheart violence, but it's close.  Battle scenes are incredibly graphic with blood spurts, decapitations, limbs being hacked off, and countless uses of axes, knives, spears, arrows impacting and tearing bodies apart.  All that said, the action is top-notch.  If anything it's too good and too much.  A showdown between a huge Saxon patrol and Arthur's small crew on an iced over lake especially stands out as memorable. The last battle is almost 40 minutes long and becomes tedious.  It's well-handled with CGI kept to a minimum (always a positive), and the action is done on an impressive scale, but it all becomes too much after the 98th stabbing or beheading.  There are only so many ways to see a man die.

King Arthur <---trailer (2004): ** 1/2 /****