In the Heart of the Sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colombiana

Having worked in film and television for the last 10-plus years, Zoe Saldana has made quite a name for herself over the years. She's been in comedy, drama and action but yet hasn't been able to make herself into that HUGE star. How about an effort to make her that star? That would be an action flick that tries to go for something a tad different with a female lead, 2011's Colombiana.

It's 1992 in Bogota, Colombia and young Cataleya (Amandla Stenberg) is witness to the deaths of her parents. Her father was tied up with a drug lord and had some damning information against him, prompting a hit on both him and his wife at the hands of the drug lord's enforcer, Marco (Jordi Molla). In the aftermath, Cataleya escapes, getting out of the country with some help from American law enforcement and traveling to Chicago where she meets her crime-connected uncle (Cliff Curtis). Even as a young girl she knows what she wants to do. Cataleya wants to be a killer, a hired gun, and Emilio begrudgingly agrees to train her. Some 15 years later, Cataleya (Saldana) has grown into a terrifyingly effective killer. She has turned into a bit of a vigilante, but her sights never change too much. Cataleya intends to exact her revenge on the drug lord and his enforcer, Marco, no matter what it takes or what it costs.

The ingredients were here for a solid movie from the cast to the story to a not so ordinary female lead in an action movie. Yeah, they were here, but in the end they didn't add up to a winner. Director Olivier Megaton (Transporter 2 and 3, Taken 2, soon to be Taken 3) tones down some of his usual over the top schtick in terms of style-heavy action, but working off a script from Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, something is just missing. Lots of good elements -- potentially at least -- that don't quite gel in the end. It received pretty middling to negative reviews and did okay at the worldwide box office, earning about $60 million, but was far from a big success. So what's good? What's bad?

With the Star Trek movies, Avatar, The Losers, Takers, and most recently Guardians of the Galaxy, Zoe Saldana has shown she's a tough actress more than capable of holding her own with a tough guy cast around her. So how about her getting a crack at a lead role? Like most of the characters here, the issues aren't with the acting. It's the script. The Cataleya character is interesting but never developed in truly interesting fashion. Why does she take so long to exact her revenge? Her desire for revenge becomes an obsession but she seems surprised when the drug lord fights back in brutal fashion. Think things through! Now just as an action star, Saldana nails the part. She looks like a stiff wind would knock her over, but my goodness, does she look good dispatching countless nameless henchmen. Saldana is given all sorts of chances to undress, wear tight clothing, wear very little clothing and generally look good doing it. She's got the potential to be an excellent action star if she so chooses.

But what about everyone else? The other characters seem like cardboard cutouts of interesting people. They're ideas of characters more than red-blooded people who...ya know, might actually exist someplace. I love seeing Jordi Molla's name pop up in the credits, and his Marco is a smooth villain but he's simply not around enough to be effective. The same for the drug lord he works for, Don Luis Sandoval (Beto Benites), an under utilized bad guy too. The similarly reliable Curtis is kept in the background, his few scenes with Saldana providing some solid dramatic moments but simply not enough. Michael Vartan is Cataleya's lover, a painter who's curious about this beautiful woman's mysterious qualities, and Lennie James plays the FBI officer trying to track Cataleya down as her kill count piles up. Max Martini plays his assistant and right-hand man.

It's a movie I wanted to like more. The action-packed finale packs a pretty good wallop -- stylish and bloody and slow-motion -- but getting there can be a trip at times. There are too many portions that feel rush and/or disjointed. As well, there are some cringe-worthy moments from young Cataleya turning into a parkour runner and evading an army of drug gunmen to Curtis' Emilio opening fire in public to prove a point and simply walking away as police pull up in force. Say what now?!? It doesn't help that the film is "filmed" in Chicago but the city I grew up in sure looks like Los Angeles, at least a west coast city. It sure had some potential, but it ends up being a disappointment.

Colombiana (2011): **/****

Dollar for the Dead

In the mid to late 1990s, TNT aired a slew of made-for-TV historical movies that resonated well with audiences. A trio starred Tom Selleck, a few featured famous Indian chiefs, and a couple were surprisingly violent entries into the western genre. As a tribute to the spaghetti western genre, here we go with 1998's Dollar for the Dead.

It's in the American Southwest along the Rio Grande in the years following the Civil War, and a one-legged former Confederate soldier, Dooley (William Forsythe), is on a mission. He meets a mysterious, quiet gunman (Emilio Estevez) in a saloon and enlists his help in his dangerous mission. What is it exactly? Late in the Civil War, a Confederate payroll disappeared somewhere in Mexico, and one officer knew the location. A map was drawn across four different gun holsters, each of those given to a different man. Dooley has one, and he knows where to find the others. Somewhere in Mexico $500,000 in gold awaits whoever finds it. There's a problem though; Dooley and the gunman aren't alone. A man named Reager (NFL star Howie Long) and a small army of gunmen are riding with him to get their hands on the gunman. That's just the start though because many more are involved, especially with so much gold on the line.

Does that basic story sound familiar? Any fan of westerns/spaghetti westerns out there should hear alarm bells. This TNT western from director Gene Quintano borrows quite liberally from Sergio Leone's classic The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Running 94 minutes, 'Dollar' is a homage, a tribute to the entire spaghetti western genre. The music from George S. Clinton sounds exactly like an Ennio Morricone soundtrack (listen to a sample HERE), and the movie was even shot on location in Almeria where hundreds of spaghetti westerns were filmed in the 1960s/1970s. Certain scenes are lifted almost entirely from classic spaghettis, paying tribute to everything from GBU to Companeros, Once Upon a Time in the West to For a Few Dollars More and countless others. It does it not to duplicate the success and popularity, but to genuinely pay tribute. If it seems too goofy, so be it, it's fun from beginning to end.

Playing a tweaked version of the Man with No Name, Estevez does a solid job as the main character, listed in the credits simply as 'Cowboy.' He wears a wide, flat-brimmed hat, a knee-length duster jacket and favors two pistols in his belt. Cowboy is a man of few words, his steely-eyed gaze intimidating anyone across from him in a gun duel. Like most spaghetti western antiheroes, Estevez is given a checkered, tortured past. Unlike most antiheroes, his backstory is also surprisingly sympathetic if somewhat predictable. I liked the dynamic between Cowboy and Dooley, unlikely partners in a do-or-die deal. At certain points, they reminded me of Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars More, young and old working together for the huge payday. Regardless, I liked Estevez a lot.

Beyond the mysterious cowboy though, there's a lot going on in general. Howie Long is similarly mysterious as Reager, the gunman built like a bear with revenge on his mind. Not quite a good guy, not quite a bad guy. Jordi Molla plays a Mexican Federale captain with a garrison nearby the hidden gold. He knows it's somewhere close but doesn't quite know where it is. Jonathan Banks is Colonel Skinner, a blood-seeking Union officer with a company of Union cavalry at his side. Ed Lauter plays Colby, a former comrade of Dooley's and fellow owner of a holster, now wasting away in a Mexican jail. Joaquim de Almeida plays a familiar part as Friar Ramon, the town priest looking out for his villagers as the gold seekers close in for the treasure. The characters are stock characters any western fans should recognize -- without much in the way of background or motivation -- but just go along for the ride.

In the style and vein of the spaghetti westerns, fans will no doubt appreciate the action here. No, that's not fair. The ridiculous amount of action. Now that said, it's goofy looking and cliched action, but it's there. The shootouts are an odd mix of spaghetti western, Hong Kong style in the John Woo vein, and some gymnastics too. At one point, Estevez's Cowboy actually shoots out the floor under him, spinning around firing into the ground. He has to fire at least 50 shots from 2 pistols without reloading. Bad guys can't hit the good guys (by a long shot), good guys hit everything they aim at, and whenever someone is actually shot, they fly back 30 feet like they've been hit by a semi-truck. Now it may seem like this is hyper-critical, but it isn't. It's goofy in its entertaining quality.

The best is saved for the finale at what looks like the ruined remains of the mountain fortress from El Condor. Anyone and everyone we've been introduced to up to this point converge on the hidden gold cache in an epic shootout that racks up an impressive body count. Oh, and in a nod to Sergio Corbucci's Django, Forsythe's Dooley unveils a gatling gun he's been hiding in a wooden coffin, and he just unloads on his countless targets below. A fun ending to a fun movie.

Dollar for the Dead (1998): ***/****

Che: Part II

So where were we? Ah, yes, wrapping up director Steven Soderbergh's two-part historical epic about infamous revolutionary Che Guevara. My issues with 2008's Che: Part II are much the same as the ones I had with the first part. Interesting to watch, but in deciding not to take sides or pick a message, it remains a cold, even heartless movie.

It is 1965, six years since the successful Cuban Revolution overthrew the dictator and his government, and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is heading to Bolivia. After failed revolutionary ventures in Venezuela and the Congo, Guevara now hopes to lead another revolution, getting the poor lower class to depose a government that has become a military dictatorship. Driven by his ideals and beliefs from deep inside, Che starts from the ground up with a small group of like-minded fighters. Nothing comes easy though, and the walls begin to close in on Che and his followers.

Having watched Soderbergh's epic -- a total of 4 hours and 30 minutes -- I came away both impressed and disappointed. As moviegoers, we just don't see ventures like this anymore in films (in theaters at least). Soderbergh has made a true epic, one in principle at least that is reminiscent of such epics from the 1950s and 1960s. Principle and little else though unfortunately. Positives aside, I think Soderbergh made a fatal flaw in not choosing to take a side...even if it was a measured attempt. The fly-on-the-wall, quasi-documentary style is effective to a point, but not nearly as effective as it could have been. The story moves along from date to date (thanks to an abundance of title cards), but it feels like major chunks are missing.

This will sound ridiculous, but I've never seen a movie this long (Che: Part I and II) that had so little going on. It can be difficult to sit through some of these slow-moving portions, and there's plenty. Repetitious comes to mind. Countless shots of Che's followers traversing through the jungle, talking at their night camps, quick firefights with the Bolivian army. This is where a message would have been helpful. We know Che's objective; defeat the government, leading an uprising that will unite the Bolivian people. Other than a few brief asides as we meet some Bolivian peasants, the focus is on Che's efforts. I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and my frustration is getting the best of me so I'm moving along.

What does work? The darkness. The sense of doom hovering over Che. Part I had some humorous -- if dark -- moments, but there is none of that here. Also from the word 'Go,' we see that Che's Bolivian efforts will go for naught. His men argue over food, over working rather than fighting, and that the Bolivian people will not back him. Seeing him try to counter and combat those efforts produces some of the more dramatic moments. Del Toro again is solid as Che. It's such a quiet, understated performance that it's hard to judge to harshly or too glowingly. The film is a visual stunner, contrasting the deep, vivid colors of the towns and villages with the harsh, washed-out feel of the mountains. Alberto Iglesias' score is again a winner, a bright spot in the slower moments.

Beyond Del Toro though, no one stands out in the supporting cast. Demian Bichir returns briefly as Fidel Castro as does Catalina Sandino Moreno as Alieda, Che's wife, and Rodrigo Santoro as Raul, Fidel's brother. As far as Che's followers go, the movie swings and misses. We hear countless names but learn nothing about any of them. They're the same sea of faces covered by unkempt facial hair and green uniforms and caps. They make no impact, lessening any degree of effectiveness the movie is shooting for when they are eventually killed. Franka Potente plays Tania, a loyal follower of Che's, while Joaquim de Almeida plays Bolivian president/dictator Rene Barrientos. Jordi Molla and Yul Vazquez are effective in small parts as officers leading the hunt for Che. Also look for Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon in small, one-scene parts.

A ton of potential here, especially considering Soderbergh takes an honest, un-opinionated look at the life and death of such a divisive individual as Che Guevara. I came away feeling untouched though. When Che is finally captured and executed, the scene had no emotional impact on me in the least. Do I feel for him? Do I hate him? Instead, there's nothing, and that's never a good sign. I come away disappointed. I wanted to enjoy these more, but with no message or objective, we get four-plus hours of tedium. There are positives, but you have to find them amongst a sea of negatives.

Che: Part Two <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****    

The Alamo (2004)

Right from the get-go, it seemed 2004's The Alamo was doomed. Casting problems with casting and directing and especially the rating -- make it a hard R or a more family friendly PG-13 -- hung over the production.  Then once director John Lee Hancock finished the movie, an hour of his finished product was hacked away and the release date pushed back three months.  Finally released in theaters Easter weekend against Passion of the Christ, Hancock's movie bombed, barely making $20 million. Failure in theaters, yes, but that doesn't take away from one of my favorite movies on one of my favorite subjects.

It's February 1836 and less than 200 Texans and Mexicans have holed up in the Alamo, a crumbling adobe mission outside San Antonio.  Mexican dictator Santa Anna (Emilio Echevarria) leads an army numbering almost 5,000 men and means to squash this rebellion no matter the cost.  Inside the Alamo, three men lead the tiny garrison; Jim Bowie (Jason Patric), the infamous knife fighter, David Crockett (Billy Bob Thornton), a famed frontiersman and ex-Congressman, and William Travis (Patrick Wilson), a young unproven officer in the regular army.  As the siege wears on day after day, General Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) tries to assemble an army to come to the aid of the besieged Alamo.  But inside the doomed mission, the defenders see more Mexican troops arriving daily and know what awaits them if they don't surrender.

Before I dive in, I'll say that ever since I was a kid, the story of the Alamo has appealed to me. I'll read and watch anything I can find on the subject. John Wayne's The Alamo is one of my two favorite movies, and even with extremely high expectations going into this one upon its initial release, I loved this movie. It feels crazy that it's almost 10 years since it was released in theaters. It is a shame also that Hancock's believed 3-hour version will never see the light of day. As is right now at 137 minutes, it has its fair share of flaws. At times, it's far too rushed. It has Pearl Harbor Syndrome as well, insisting on a happy ending as opposed to a more appropriate ending. But when it does get right? It hits a home run.

The shame of it is, Hancock has finished the most accurate re-telling of the Alamo battle, including the build-up and actual battle. An immense set in Dripping Springs, Texas was built including the actual Alamo mission and the nearby town of San Antonio. Like Wayne's version, having a full-scale set adds to the realism of the story and battle. The characters are not the legends we remember them as, but the people they actually were. People with personalities, hopes and dreams, fears and desires. The Alamo defenders weren't frontiersman, but townspeople like bankers, lawyers, farmers, and store owners. Without making them into the mythological characters they've become, Hancock has made a very human, personal movie. It's easy to see and feel what the defenders went through; an impossible situation with no easy resolution.

The Alamo story typically presents three main characters, the Alamo trinity of Crockett, Bowie and Travis. I'll get to all three, but the best performance hands down belongs to Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett. This is not the Fess Parker Crockett, but instead a regular guy who's tied down by his own legend he had little to do with creating. Of all the Crockett performances, this is the best, one I thought Thornton deserved an Oscar nomination for. The defenders look to him for support, for answers, for a way out. A monologue mid-siege is transfixing to watch, subtle and quiet but nonetheless highly effective. Another scene has Crockett playing his fiddle atop the Alamo walls, harmonizing with the Mexican army's band playing the Deguello (a high point of Carter Burwell's unassuming but still moving score). Watch the scene HERE. Somewhat controversially, the 2004 Alamo handled Crockett's death in a way no other Alamo movie even dared touch, Thornton rising to the occasion.

The diary of a Mexican soldier -- Enrique de la Pena -- who served at the Alamo claims that Crockett was captured in the closing moments of the battle and brought before a gloating Santa Anna. He was executed with a handful of other prisoners who survived the battle. This is the way the 2004 version chooses to go with, a scene that ends up being the most memorable one in the whole movie. This is Thornton bringing this man to life. Under his breath, Crockett mumbles 'Davy Crockett' as he faces death, his legend hanging over him as the Mexican army awaits what he will do. You can watch the scene HERE. Crockett's death -- whether by surrender/execution or going down fighting -- is maybe the most controversial aspect of the battle for Alamo buffs, but as presented here I can't understand anyone objecting to it.

Onto the other 2/3 of the Alamo trinity. About as far removed from a Hollywood star as possible, Patric is ideally suited to play Jim Bowie, a man who's earned his reputation where Crockett has had his thrust upon him. He's a hard-drinking, stubborn fighter, willing to fight it out if he believes he's right. Playing Colonel Travis, Wilson too shines, showing the transformation the young Alamo commander makes in such a short time as he attempts to rally the mission. All three men make these historical figures people and not just a name. Echevarria doesn't fare so well as Santa Anna, making the Mexican dictator a villain in the vein of a James Bond movie. Quaid too struggles to bring Houston to life, but much of his part was cut when the movie was hacked at to the tune of an hour of lost footage. Jordi Molla as Juan Seguin, a Mexican messenger from the Alamo, especially represents himself well as does Leon Rippy, Marc Blucas (as messenger James Bonham) and Kevin Page as Micajah Autry, Crockett's friend.

What The Alamo does well is especially evident in the choice to stay accurate to the final assault the morning of March 6 when the defenders were overwhelmed and killed to a man. It shows the attack in the morning darkness in an extended sequence that runs almost 15 minutes. Watch most of the sequence HERE. The scale is impressive, giving a real sense of what the battle must have been like. Actually imagine the setting; an enemy closing in on four sides and you've got nowhere to run. It isn't presented as a noble, heroic fight but a gruesome hand-to-hand conflict as sheer numbers overwhelm the Alamo defenders. It starts off in a great sequence as Crockett plucks the string on his fiddle, the shot changing with each pluck as the Mexican army silently approaches the Alamo walls. The most effective moment is a quiet one. Delirious with sickness, Bowie lies in bed barely able to move. He buttons up his vest, ready to face whatever comes through the door. As Rippy's Ward says "We know what awaits us and are prepared to meet it."

Wrapping up the movie is a rushed 20-minute follow-up, Houston's victory at San Jacinto. Like the Doolittle Raid being tacked onto Pearl Harbor, it feels unnecessary. It doesn't take away from a moving story though. The cast is nearly perfect, the music fitting and not your typical historical epic score, the actual Alamo set is a sight to behold, the camerawork and the visual are stunning, and like other successful Alamo movies, it gets the message across. Facing impossible odds, these defenders stood their ground, ready to give their lives because they believed they were right.

The Alamo <---trailer (2004): ****/****

Knight and Day

Team one of the biggest name actors around and one of the most popular actresses around and let the fireworks fly, right? That's basically the thought behind 2010's Knight and Day starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. On-screen chemistry can only carry a movie so far though as seen in this predictable but still entertaining tongue in cheek (kinda) spy thriller.

Boarding a flight to get back to Boston in time for her sister's wedding, June Havens (Diaz) bumps into Roy Miller (Cruise) several times and starts up a casual conversation with this mysterious man. She goes to the washroom only to step back into a bizarre situation. The pilots are dead, and Roy's taking credit. He lands the plane in a cornfield and begs June to believe him. He's a secret agent, and some very bad guys, including Agent Fitzgerald (Peter Sarsgaard), are coming after him. Roy seems very capable of handling himself, but now June is an unwilling passenger on the ride, globe-trotting with possibly corrupt agents, killers and arms dealers in pursuit. Could Roy be telling the truth, and what's he holding out?

Part spy thriller, part romantic comedy, this James Mangold-directed movie is an odd one. It's harmless enough, not trying to be anything other than a twisting, turning, action-packed popcorn movie. It starts off at a breakneck speed and doesn't show signs of slowing down...and then it does. 'Knight' lands with a wallop, not able to keep up that early momentum. The early portions are both truly funny and smartly written, keeping you guessing as to what's happening. Cruise's Roy is clearly up to something, but what? He dispatches about 100 henchmen in the first 30 minutes, including one nicely handled sequence on an airplane at 30,000 where he's 1-against-6. You think you're in a for a real winner when the rug gets pulled out from under you.

It's not that the next 80 minutes are necessarily bad. You just feel like you've seen them before. Diaz' June is a regular woman (albeit a ridiculously gorgeous regular woman) who in the matter of days basically learns how to be a spy just by being around Roy. Diaz does a fine job as the audience's window into the story, showing her extreme confusion and anger -- but mostly confusion -- at being dropped into this hellish secret agent war. It's never long between action scenes (Austria, France, Spain, all over really) that end up being repetitious by the end. The finale -- a car/motorcycle chase coinciding with the Running of the Bulls -- is solid, but it relies too heavily on CGI. The twists and turns are foreshadowed miles in advance, and there's just something missing. Fun most of the time, but lacking that special something to take it to another level.

Still in a Tom Cruise frame of mind after watching 'Ghost Protocol,' I thought he was the best thing about 'Knight.' He plays the straight man to Diaz, giving these perfect one-liners as he calmly navigates their "situation." His Roy is getting shot at, attacked, stabbed, blown up, and he manages to compliment June's dress. Cruise is a great action actor, and he gets his chances to show it, but he's so believable in buying into and committing to his part that you just go along with it. A fair share of reviewers didn't care for the chemistry between Cruise and Diaz, but I thought they were a great pair. It's the action scenes late and those where the two are separated where the movie struggles. Put them together, and it is a much better movie. Snappy, quick dialogue keeps things going. I only wish there was more of that and less of the pyrotechnics.

Other parts worth mentioning are Sarsgaard as Agent Fitzgerald, a bad guy from the start because he's played by Peter Sarsgaard. Come on, were we supposed to be surprised by that? Jordi Molla is good in a small part as Quintana, a European arms dealer after something valuable in Roy's possession and willing to do whatever it takes to get it (big ole' MacGuffin subplot there). Paul Dano plays Simon, a brilliant high school student involved in the chase while Marc Blucas makes the most of a quick appearance as June's ex-fiance.

I didn't love this movie, and I didn't hate it. Instead, it falls somewhere in between in that dreaded middle ground. I probably won't be revisiting it anytime soon because one viewing is enough. Tom Cruise is one of the few remaining movie stars, and it's always good to see him in a fun, action-packed story. He makes the most of a movie that doesn't bring anything new to the table, relying on its stars in Cruise and Diaz to do the heavy lifting.

Knight and Day <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****