The Night Before

I'm a Christmas junkie. I love the music, the decorations, the gifts, the parties, the family and friends, and of course...the CHRISTMAS MOVIES. Everyone has their favorites, mine being It's A Wonderful Life and White Christmas, but let's be honest, even the lousy ones still have some holiday charm. So when new entries to the Christmas genre come along, I jump to and get in line. So goes 2015's The Night Before.

All in their early 30's, Ethan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Isaac (Seth Rogen) and Chris (Anthony Mackie) have been best friends since they met early in high school. It's been 15 years since Chris' parents were killed in a car accident, both Isaac and Chris stepping in. Some 15 years ago, they went out and partied on the day after, Christmas Eve, to help distract their friend from his horrific loss. And so a tradition is born! They've been celebrating for years, but things are a'changing. Chris has become a superstar athlete who's instantly recognizable on the street, Isaac is about to become a first-time father, and Ethan....well, Ethan is struggling along, searching for some sort of happiness. The trio of friends has agreed it's time to put their Christmas Eve-partying tradition to rest with one last blowout. Ethan has obliged, getting his hands on tickets to the ever-elusive greatest Christmas party in New York City, the mysterious Nutcracker Ball. Just the drinking, debauchery and drugs begin!

So yeah, I love Christmas movies. Throw in a fun mix with the cast, some general holiday craziness and a not overdone story with a message, it's a really good flick. It's not tearing up the box office over recent weeks, but I definitely recommend it. Ho-ho-ho! Merry Christmas!

I watched this R-rated comedy from director Jonathan Levine and liked it a lot. It was only on the ride home that I began to put the pieces together. What rang a bell? This movie is Superbad plus 10-years or so!!! An overnight story, friends with their own goals for the night, and a message about how growing up is difficult concerning your longtime friends. It's freaking Superbad! None of this is a deal-breaker of course, just an observation. The overnight odyssey is a good story-telling technique, the entire story taking place over 18 hours or so, and with NYC on Christmas Eve as the backdrop, you can't really complain too much. Throw in a fun soundtrack with countless nods and references to other like-minded movies -- especially Home Alone -- and you've got a winner.

Heading into a movie like this, the one thing that may determine your enjoyment is how much you like the cast. I'm a big fan of all three stars, Gordon-Levitt, Rogen and Mackie, so I was hooked pretty quick. Gordon-Levitt's Ethan is struggling along, looking for what he wants in life, Rogen's Isaac is ready for a drug-fueled (wife-sanctioned) night out as his wife's pregnancy fast approaches, and Mackie's Chris is getting used to his new found fame. I liked all three characters, their chemistry coming across as perfectly believable in the quieter moments. The flashback to their first Christmas Eve tradition is surprisingly moving considering the low-brow humor that permeates the rest of the story. Their history is revealed in snippets and tidbits here and there, providing some of the movie's funniest moments.

I'll say I'm surprised the hate Seth Rogen gets. I like him a lot as an actor and as a comic actor. Here as father-to-be Isaac, he's decked out in his Hanukkah sweater and outfitted with a small gift box of drugs, including weed, mushrooms and cocaine among other specialties. Years removed from a regular use, he FREAKS out as the drugs combine in his system. I was dying as the mushrooms counteract with the cocaine, sending Isaac on quite a trip. A lot of great laughs from Mr. Rogen!

We need some more zaniness though around our Three Amigos, don't we?!? Also look for Jillian Bell as Isaac's very pregnant wife, Lizzy Caplan as Isaac's ex (it didn't end well), Ilana Glazer as a real-life Christmas grinch, uncredited Mindy Kaling as Lizzy's friend/drinking buddy, and Tracy Morgan as our narrator. James Franco is a scene-stealer in a one-scene cameo as himself (along with some uncomfortable texts) with Miley Cyrus and former NBA star Baron Davis also appearing briefly as themselves. By far though, the best supporting part goes to the always intense, always creepy Michael Shannon as Mr. Green, the boys' drug dealer...who's still a drug dealer 15 years later. His scenes are pitch-perfect, the wise supplier of weed who's able to cut right to the core of things and really got to what's bothering his customers. Hilarious part as Shannon plays it straight in each of his scenes.

Like the trailers that bombard us now, I don't want to give away too many good laughs so there's nothing fresh when you actually see the movie. So as usual, I'll leave you with this thought. 'Night' brings the laughs with a very funny cast and some surprisingly effective emotional moments. Highly recommended, a worthy addition to the Christmas movie canon.

The Night Before (2015): ***/****

The Walk

Heights scare the bejesus out of me. Let's get that out of the way early. I'll do roller coasters, I'll go up in skyscraper, and the upper upper deck at a baseball game doesn't do me in. But something about heights, it just gets me. So naturally 2015's The Walk seems a perfect fit for this guy, doesn't it? Putting aside my genuine fear, I still had to check it out!

Working on the streets of Paris in the early 1970's, 20-something Philippe Petit (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a street performer who specializes in sleight of hand, magic, his mime-esque performances and above all, performing tricks on a rope he ties up and acts as a street-improvised "high-wire." He's worked for years to improve and become great as he performs his high wire act, but for several years now, he's had one huge dream. Philippe wants nothing more than to string a high-wire at the very top of the newly-built World Trade Center towers in New York City. It seems impossible for any number of reasons from the whole it's illegal to do it to the obvious and inherent dangers, but Philippe will hear none of it. He will get it done no matter the risks. Assembling a small crew of friends and accomplices to help him pull off his "coup," Philippe begins to put it all together, hopefully pulling off the impossible high-wire act.

I saw the trailer for this film from director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump) and was instantly hooked. The camera flies up the still under construction World Trade Center, finally revealing where it is at the top of the tower when a man walks out toward the ledge and proceeds to almost walk off, only to stop and balance off a steel beam. How about that for going for the jugular, huh? I must have seen the preview for Zemeckis' film each time I went and saw a new flick in theaters. Finding out it was based on a true story, I went into curiosity lockdown, not wanting to know what really happened on the World Trade Center in 1974. If you don't know already, I recommend doing the same. Go in with a clean slate and no knowledge of where 'Walk' is going.

So how does the finished product measure up against the impressive trailer? It's a good film, a very interesting story, but not one I loved. I liked it. In a way, 'Walk' is impressive because it is simply a story about a man trying to achieve his dream. Though there is a love interest, it isn't a love story. There's adventure, but it isn't an adventure film. It is a solid, well-told character study of a man -- Philippe Petit (<--- avoid="" don="" if="" nbsp="" p="" pesky="" spoilers="" t="" those="" want="" you="">
Long since removed from his Third Rock from the Sun days, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best actors working out there. He dove headfirst into this role, both learning how to speak French and more importantly, to look like a competent high-wire walker. It is a performance bursting with energy, Petit coming to life with a glee for life, a stubbornness to do what others say he can't, and maybe an obsession. The French accent gets laid on a little thick at times, and through no fault of his own, the performance does hit some overdone moments, but I'll give credit. It is a very interesting part for a very talented actor. Petit is an artist who isn't doing his death-defying stunt for publicity or fame or money. He sees something beautiful and simply wants to do his act, do something profound and beautiful, while paying tribute to something so awe-inspiring as the towers of the World Trade Center.

The rest of the cast is solid, but nothing flashy. Charlotte Le Bon is Annie, Philippe's supportive girlfriend who begins to realize how truly driven her boyfriend is to accomplish the walk. Clement Sibony plays Jean-Louis, Philippe's closest friend, confidante in his "coup," and right-hand man in putting it all together. Oh, he's also the official photographer! Their motley crew of assistants and accomplices is headlined by the always solid James Badge Dale as J.P., a New Yorker with some connections, and Steve Valentine as Barry, the inside man working at the World Trade Center. The team also includes Cesar Domboy, Ben Schwartz and Benedict Samuel. And last but not least, Ben Kingsley is excellent in a supporting part as Papa Rudy, Philippe's mentor and teacher who tries to teach him all the ins and outs of being a high-wire performer.

Admission of guilt...I didn't see 'Walk' in 3-D. Maybe I should have. Why? Well, there's that whole walking between the World Trade Center towers scene....if you're into that sort of thing. It's an incredible sequence that really puts into perspective the absolute insanity of what Philippe is attempting to do. He can do everything humanly possible and still fail because the wind picks up, he loses focus, his equipment fails, any and all. The build-up can be a touch slow in the process getting to this point, but the high-wire finale is well worth the price of admission (3-D or not). My counter is that the actual build-up to the act is far better. What Philippe intends to do is HIGHLY ILLEGAL so it's not like he can just walk up to the still under-construction tower and do his thing.

The end result? An extended sequence of about 25-30 minutes of Philippe and his team of accomplices getting into place. It develops like a heist sequence and for me at least, was absolutely as intense and riveting as the actual high-wire act. A spectacle movie with some character and heart, it's a flick well worth catching up with. As for the 3-D, that's up to you. A good movie is a good movie regardless of where or how you see it.

The Walk (2015): ***/****

Don Jon

Is there a bigger rising star out there right now than Joseph Gordon-Levitt? The child star of 3rd Rock from the Sun has turned himself into a legitimate dramatic and comedic actor since then with countless roles like The Lookout, The Dark Knight Rises, 500 Days of Summer, Inception and Looper. Well, he's stepping behind the camera now, starring in while also writing and directing 2013's Don Jon.

A mid-20 something who works as a bartender (that we never see), Jon Martello (Gordon-Levitt) has a pretty good life in his eyes. He cares about his body, his friends, his family, his apartment, his muscle car, his church, his ladies and most importantly, his porn. While he has quite the active social life with a seemingly endless string of one-night stands, Jon actually prefers watching porn more than the actual act of sex with a woman, typically seeking out porn after hooking up with a girl. That trend may change though, whether he wants to or not, when he meets Barbara (Scarlett Johansson) one night at a club. They click immediately, start dating and eventually become exclusive...until Barbara walks in on Jon watching porn. To keep her, he promises to stop watching it, but that promise may be tougher than he was counting on.

I'm not sure what I was expecting heading into this movie. I saw the trailer. I was intrigued from the cast to the pretty racy story and a lot in between. Director/writer/star Gordon-Levitt received almost uniformly positive reviews for his film, and I did know what it was about. I swear. So what happened? I really didn't like it. It's funny, but not funny in the way you'd think it would be. Who knows? Maybe it was supposed to be funny in a painfully awkward way, but I was groaning and groaning early and often.

Let's start with the style. It's start with the narration, Gordon-Levitt's Jon reciting how cool his life is. How he cares for his muscle car, cleans his apartment obsessively, goes to church every Sunday and then has dinner with his family, on and on. We see him walk down the same hallway, across a street and up the stairs to church and ultimately....masturbate while watching porn. Gordon-Levitt even removed some more graphic porn to avoid an X-rating for his final cut. I don't know what it was. It's a boys club type story. Jon's narration is aggressively forthright, brutally in your face and highly, graphically sexual. Definitely not a movie for the faint of heart or anyone who blushes easily. The repetitive style seems to reflect Jon's repetitive lifestyle, but that doesn't make it interesting. If anything, it made me feel bad for Jon (but that's a personal judgment). A 90-minute movie plays like one recurring message, a message that is tedious already and doesn't get any better.

Did you watch MTV's Jersey Shore during its infamous run? I'm not proud to admit it, but I did. It was like a trainwreck episode in and episode out. Can you see where I'm going with this? Gordon-Levitt's Jon could have been plucked right out of the show without missing a beat. Above all else, above any other criticisms I had, I just didn't like the main character. He's such a cliched stereotype of a club-hopping, one-night stand seeking tool with his muscle shirts and heavily-gelled hair that it's hard to sympathize with him in the slightest. He preens, struts, smirks and mumbles his way through life. There are moments that provide some laughs, his weekly confessions at church totaling up the times he had sex with a girl and times he masturbated while watching porn especially. You laugh, but it's almost uncomfortable. Confession cures all though, right? Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a very talented actor, but I couldn't stand this character.

Scarlett Johansson is my big crush out there so her part here was a big selling point. Her part is excellent if frightening in its craziness as more and more is revealed. Shallow dude moment, but she looks good....craziness aside. Julianne Moore has an interesting part as Esther, a woman Jon meets at a night class he's taking. Moore is okay in the part, but I'm not sure if it is the right casting choice. Tony Danza and Glenne Headley are high points as Jon's parents, his Dad getting in constant screaming matches, his Mom nagging him about finding the right girl and settling down. Brie Larson is good too as Jon's younger sister. Also look for Rob Brown and Jeremy Luke as Jon's best friends.

In a 90-minute movie, the first hour was rough to get through while the last half hour was far more tolerable. It doesn't play like an instructional guide to how to be a Club Tool, actually exploring some human emotions. Personally, it was a case of too little too late. The ending does provide a saving grace of sorts, but the first hour left such a bad taste in my mouth that it was hard for the story to recover. A valiant effort from Gordon-Levitt but one that falls short in the end.

Don Jon (2013): * 1/2/ ****

The Brothers Bloom

Oh, con jobs, the second cousin to the heist film....but not related by blood. The two sub-genres are pretty close, using a lot of similar conventions, characters and stories. After all, you can only rob-con-steal in so many different ways. However, I love heist flicks, but I only like con job movies. Case in point, 2008's The Brothers Bloom, a movie that started off decent but derails in the second half.

From the time they were kids, bouncing from one foster home to another, brothers Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody) have gotten better and better as con men. After 25-plus years of pulling cons -- most of them quite successful -- Bloom has decided he's had enough. Years of conning under his belt, he's lost track of who he is and who he pretends to be. He tries to leave his partnership with Stephen, but his highly convincing brother Stephen pulls him back in for one job. Bloom agrees and takes charge in a con meant to dupe a quirky East Coast millionaire, Penelope (Rachel Weisz), who inherited millions of dollars. Traveling around the world, they intend to convince her that they're smugglers, and she stands to make some money herself if she goes along with the plan. It isn't so simple though, especially when Bloom starts to fall for Penelope, threatening to ruin Stephen's plan.

Quirky is one thing. The quirkiest of all directors, Wes Anderson, has shown that with his films like Moonrise Kingdom, Life Aquatic, Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums among others. But with a quirky, funny, little-off movie, there's a fine line. You have to be a little off-center with your humor, but you can't be obvious about it. The biggest issue for this film from director Rian Johnson? It is quirky, it knows it, and it aggressively wants to let you know it's not a normal, everyday comedy caper. For a flick to work like this, it has to be almost effortless to be effective. When it's trying to be different, it just doesn't work. Unfortunate here because there's a lot of potential that is ultimately untapped.

As for the general quirky nature of the story, it is both good and bad. In most cases, it just goes too far. It's an incredibly stylish movie, filming in Romania, Belgrade, Greece, Montenegro and Prague. Visually, it's a treat to watch as the locations add another layer to the story. As for the style in terms of the characters and their wardrobe, here's where we meet a problem. Stephen and Bloom are gentleman thieves, always wearing suits, vests, ties and hats. It feels and looks like a throwback to French films from the 1960s. It's a style ripped out of the sky because the story takes place in modern times. Con men that stand out like a sore thumb? That makes sense. The look of the movie is great, but like everything else, it calls attention to itself in a big way, and for me at least, that's off-putting.

Of all the things though that bothers me the most, it was the characters that put me off. Johnson also scripted the movie, but it never finds that right balance between reality and uniquely appealing (and trust me, it's trying). The best thing to develop is the relationship between Brody's Bloom and Weisz's Penelope, two very different people who are drawn to each other because they're different. While everything else is aggressively in your face (WE'RE BEING QUIRKY! LAUGH DAMMIT!), this comes across naturally. Ruffalo is okay, but he's the face of that aggressive quirkiness as is Rinko Kikuchi as Bang Bang, the brothers' accomplice, a specialist in nitroglycerin and woman of few words. Also look for Robbie Coltrane as the Belgian, a member of their conning team, Maximilian Schell as Diamond Dog, the brothers' former mentor turned bitter enemy and Ricky Jay as the narrator. In a weird, out of left field cameo, look for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a club patron. Seriously, blink and you'll miss it.

The all over the place quirky humor is one thing, but 'Bloom' can't even choose that correctly. Is it a quirky comedy? Is it a crime thriller? Is it a violent story of betrayals? Unfortunately, the last 45 minutes are one and all of those. Not that I was really enjoying it to begin with, but the story completely unravels in the last act. Twist after pointless twist, one after another until things become almost completely unrecognizable, much less able to follow. There are moments I liked a lot, especially Weisz's performance including her exhibition of all the hobbies she's picked up over the years (watch it HERE). A ton of talent assembled with a lot of potential, but ultimately, it just tries too hard to make us like the movie. Good musical score, stylish title cards, but it never goes anywhere. I wanted to like it, but it so desperately wants us to like the film that it's almost painful to watch at times.

The Brothers Bloom (2008): **/****

Looper

Here we are again. Want to start a fight on the Internet? Say something, anything, and someone will disagree with you. That's minor stuff. How about a smart, well-written movie about a complicated topic like time travel? For better or worse, there are certain rules to time travel (via the movies at least, I can't say I've time traveled....that I know of, ooohhh!!!!) so we get fun time travel (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted) and serious time travel (Terminator, Lost, Planet of the Apes). Our newest entry? That's 2012's Looper. Let the arguments continue!

It's 2074, and time travel has been invented and quickly deemed illegal. Organized crime still uses time travel though, sending people back through time 30 years to be killed and disposed. Waiting for them back in 2044 are hired killers called 'Loopers,' one of which is Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). At a prearranged time and place in the countryside, Joe waits with a blunderbuss shotgun for his victim to appear in front of him. He shoots, kills them and burns the body, getting his payment in silver for his work. There is a rule though that's been dubbed 'Closing the Loop.' At some point, your future self will be sent back, and the Looper has to kill his future self no questions asked. Joe is good at what he does, and even though he knows it's coming, he's still stunned when his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), appears in front of him. He's so stunned though that future Joe escapes. Joe has broken a rule, and now his employer is gunning for him. His only solution? Kill his future self and make up for it.

That is a very limiting plot description. Describing the job director Rian Johnson did both directing and writing the script for 'Looper' could be an entire review in itself. It is a phenomenal script, smart, interesting, always entertaining and doesn't get too bogged down in the inane details that Internet-goers just love to argue about. Go ahead, try reading the message boards at....well, anywhere. It's beyond painful to read. Cut away any number of arguments and disagreements, and it comes down to this. There just aren't a whole lot of smart movies out there. More than that, there aren't many smart movies that are entertaining too. This one is. It presents an incredibly unique, well thought out premise, and lets it breathe a little. It's an action movie, but it's not packed to the seams with action. The script will no doubt present some opportunities for "discussion" (does that exist on the Internet?), but they're all for the good if you ask me.

With his script and film, Johnson has created his own unique world. His script, his rules. All the Loopers work for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a man from the future sent back through time to run the Loopers for the man in charge. He finds troubled teenagers and "puts a gun in their hand." Working for Abe are a small army of  'Gat Men,' hired killers who help him keep his grip over the city. Who do they work for? A mysterious man in the future called the Rainmaker. No one knows how he came to power or any of his background. He simply puts everything in motion and rules with an iron fist. Then there's the "tweak" of the future. A small percentage of people have telekinetic powers. It's nothing major, just an ability to hold things up with your mind, but the people are looked upon strangely just the same. Johnson does a great job with all these little touches that give this future version of life touches of reality.

I loved the style of Looper from the very beginning. It's set in 2044 Kansas City which doesn't look too far removed from modern day. Some sort of cataclysmic event has changed how we live, but it's never spelled out for us in great detail. This is our modern world with a slight tweak here and there. The technology is basically the same with a few advances -- hoverbikes, advanced helicopters -- but there's also been a step back. Vagrants and homeless people live on the streets in large numbers. Food is scarce. In a sense, the world has righted itself to a point. The wardrobe is worth noting too. Gordon-Levitt's Joe has a retro look; leather jacket, shirt and tie, jeans. He almost looks like a man right out of the 1950s. The Gat Men hunting him look like stylized wild west gunfighters, all using a long-barrel pistol and wearing black clothes and ankle-length dusters. In the gunfights, we see dusters swooping through the air, something simple that looks incredibly cool.

And oh right, the characters. I almost forgot about them. Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors, and he turns in another solid performance here as Joe, a tragic, scarred character if there ever was. He knows his road will not end well, and he's trying to put his life on the right track. How then does he react when he sees his future self appear in front of him? How would you react? Understandably a little freaked out. Willis does a fine job too in a particularly nasty part as future Joe. Having seen what happens with his life, future Joe wants to right and wrong, and that involves killing several people. The physical similarity isn't perfect with Gordon-Levitt wearing some eye/nose makeup, but it's good enough. The scenes between the two are perfect, especially a mind-bending conversation at an isolated country diner. Joe is talking to himself from the future. Really try and wrap your head around that. Pretty cool premise, huh?

Joining the duo in the cast is Emily Blunt as Sara, a single mom trying to protect her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may hold a key to the future. Gagnon delivers an incredible performance as Cid, layered and nuanced like an actor with 20, 30 years of experience. It's a great part. Paul Dano has a small part as Seth, a fellow Looper, while Garret Dillahunt and Noah Segan play Jesse and Kid Blue, two of Abe's Gat Men. Piper Perabo nudes up as Suzie, Joe's quasi-girlfriend and stripper/dancer.

Now for a little time travel analysis, but even I'm not exactly sure of every single detail so bear with me. You meet your future self. The logical thought is that everything you do in the moment should already be a memory in your future self, right? Well, because you're meeting your future self, aren't you changing that memory? 'Looper' finds a logical way around that. Future Joe's memory (Willis) is cloudy, things changing as Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt) does different things. Young Joe learns something, Future Joe is instantly aware of it because it is in fact....a memory. Head hurt much? Yeah, mine too. Willis' Joe delivers a perfect line for anyone who gets too hung up on the time travel aspect, plot holes or not. He explains "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Call it a cop out, but it works for me.

I really enjoyed this movie, especially the ending. It can be taken one specific way, but who knows? It leaves the door open for interpretation. Joe makes a choice that he thinks should right things for the future, but anything could happen. Time and the universe have a way of course-correcting (thank you, TV's Lost). The movie itself is a gem though. I loved the premise, the style, the characters, seeing Gordon-Levitt become Willis in a highly stylized montage, and I loved the ending. Can't recommend it enough.

Looper (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Premium Rush

Having worked in TV and film since the early 1990s, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has hit his stride in recent years. With very solid acting parts in The Lookout, 50/50, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and several other major films, Gordon-Levitt seems destined for bigger and better things with each passing role. They're not all winners though, and case in point, 2012's Premium Rush.

A former law student who didn't want to be tied down, 20-something Wilee (Gordon-Levitt) has created a daredevil reputation for himself as a bike messenger in New York City. There isn't a job that this possibly suicidal rider won't take, but he's in a bit of a spot. As he deals with his girlfriend, Vanessa (Dania Ramirez), breaking up with him, Wilee is given a delivery job with an extremely strict deadline, delivering a small envelope from Manhattan to Chinatown. Before he can on his bike though, Wilee is confronted by a mysterious, possibly unhinged man (Michael Shannon) who demands the bike messenger give him what the envelope contains. Wilee manages to escape, but now the man is trailing him. What has he gotten himself into?

I remember seeing the trailer for this last summer and thinking two things. One, it looked different and at least a little interesting in a unique kind of way. Two, it looked different....and stupid, really stupid. Let's review. It is different, and the premise is also interesting. Unfortunately, it is stupid. We're talking truly stupid to the point I was laughing out loud at the developing story. An action-packed, adrenaline pumping story about bike messengers sounded promising. The window into that world certainly had some potential, but it completely falls apart basically the second Michael Shannon arrives on the scene. I don't get it at all. I was stunned by how bad this movie was from the acting to the....yeah, just the acting. It's truly bad.

Michael Shannon is a very talented actor with the ability to play a laundry list of different roles. This is not one of those roles. It is an amazingly bad acting job, and it comes completely out of left field. I read some reviews, some message boards and couldn't believe that a surprising amount of people not only liked his performance, they loved it. I couldn't believe what I was watching. Shannon has a....unique?....face to begin with, but with his big old bug eyes and bizarre line deliveries that unique face is taken to a whole new level. There is a difference between hamming it up and/or chewing the scenery, and whatever the hell Shannon is doing here. It is so amazingly bad watching his shenanigans -- SPOILER He's an unhinged NYC detective with a gambling problem END OF SPOILER -- that it had me wondering if I was watching a spoof. Unfortunately, it is dead serious, and it single-handedly ruins the movie.

Director David Koepp (working with John Kamps on the screenplay) tries to do some different techniques to keep things interesting, but for the most part, it feels familiar and forced. Gordon-Levitt's Wilee rides a bike with no brakes and no gears, riding for the ultimate thrill of the job. He's good at what he does, analyzing in an instant which route to take in NYC rush hour. Picture the technique Robert Downey Jr. uses as Sherlock Holmes to analyze and defeat an opponent in a fight and transplant it to the chaotic, dangerous world of a NYC bike messenger. Cool to a point, but by the second or third time we see Wilee analyze an intersection in slow motion, it's beyond repetitive. We also get some "tech angles," seeing the messengers' routes through NYC and Manhattan from above like a Google Map, a colored line outlining the upcoming route.

Doing the best he can with a lousy script, Gordon-Levitt is okay as Wilee. His narration at the beginning and end of the film comes off as cliched and far too familiar, limiting the character to little more than a stereotype. Some of that is the script which is a recurring cycle of people shouting 1. Look out! 2. Move! and 3. Dammit! If nothing else (and I'm truly searching for something here), he looks the part of a bike messenger who gets off on the thrill of the job. Because a bike messenger being pursued by a hellbent individual wasn't enough though, we meet Vanessa, his fiery and recently broken up girlfriend. There's also Manny (Wole Parks), a rival messenger who doesn't like Wilee but likes Vanessa, Aasif Mandvi as Raj, the messenger dispatcher, and Jamie Chung as the young woman who sends Wilee on his hellish messenger job. 

Because I feel like I'm devoting far too much time to a movie I truly disliked, let's wrap things up. Clocking in at just 91 minutes, this movie is far too long. We get several odd, disjointed flashbacks that show how everyone ended up in the story, but they take too long getting there. The actual objective of the messenger job is beyond stupid, force-feeding a ridiculous, sappy and out of place message into the story. I didn't have high expectations for this one, but I wanted to at least like it a little bit. It didn't happen. I hated the movie. I can recommend it more as a comedy, one you can watch while doing shots and drinking games. Steer clear otherwise.

Premium Rush (2012): */****

The Dark Knight Rises

Considering the quality of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, was there pressure for director Christopher Nolan to deliver an epic close-out film for his Batman trilogy? Reviews were somewhat mixed as Nolan's final Batman movie hit theaters last weekend, and the tragic shootings in Colorado will almost certainly hang over the film (to a point at least). If there was ever a case of ignoring reviews (other people's that is, I assume you'd take mine as the God honest truth), this is it. Not a surprise, but 2012's The Dark Knight Rises is a great film, one that gives the trilogy the send-off it deserves.

It has been eight years since Batman (Christian Bale) has taken the fall for Harvey Dent's murderous rampage, and Gotham City is better than ever. Crime has almost completely disappeared, and the city has experienced a rebirth of sorts. Hiding away at Wayne Manor, Batman/Bruce Wayne is wasting away, a recluse who hasn't appeared publicly for years. But when things seem just right -- even perfect -- for Gotham, a new terror arises, a madman in the form of mysterious and masked Bane (Tom Hardy), a criminal who vows to rock the foundation, destroying the city to rubble. Having questioned if everything/anything he ever did as Batman accomplished anything, Bruce must now decide what's best for Gotham. Let the city save itself? Or is the only thing stopping Bane the return of Batman?

First off, I have to say how impressed I was both with this final movie, but the trilogy on the whole. I rewatched the first two movies over the last week-plus before checking out 'Rises' and can very much recommend doing the same if you can. There's a continuity, a comfort level that permeates through an extended viewing of sorts. What can I say that I haven't in the other Batman reviews? Christopher Nolan is an immense talent, and I hope he continues to direct movies of this superb quality. The best description I can come up with to describe my enjoyment is hopefully simple to understand. You watch these movies -- 'Rises' especially -- and you just have that feeling you're watching what a movie should be. Not what it could be. SHOULD. Immensely entertaining, well-acted and well-written, an epic scale but also a connection on the personal level, spot-on soundtrack/musical score. Batman Begins started the ball rolling, The Dark Knight perfected the formula, and The Dark Knight Rises continues to use that formula.

What struck me most watching this newest arrival was the quality of drama here with kudos to a script from Nolan and Jonathan Nolan. I almost took it for granted, but over three movies, you honestly come to like/hate these characters, but if nothing else you get to know them. As pure drama, this is the best of the three films. It is by far the most personal of the three. Bale delivers his finest performance as the tortured Bruce Wayne, questioning what his actions accomplished while hiding away at Wayne Manor. This is an individual with inner demons that threaten to tear him apart. Buzz started circulating in the weeks prior to its release that Batman would die in this final installment (no finale spoilers here), and the darkness of the story reflects that. Batman has become the true tragic hero; an individual who genuinely wanted to do right but through his own fault, society, greed, and so many other things is forced to change, adapt and improvise. A credit to Bale for doing such a fine job with a character that could have easily been phoned in.

Using that as a jumping off point, Bale isn't on-screen for seemingly long stretches of the 164-minute movie. While Batman is the obvious key and focal point, this is also a story about the people of Gotham City. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, Bruce's butler, and hits every single note he can in a pitch-perfect performance. Three key scenes are the heart of the movie -- two with Bruce and Alfred, one with Alfred on his own -- and they are heartbreaking to watch. Didn't think you'd hear that in a Batman review, did you? Caine is so good I hope he gets some Oscar consideration for Best Supporting Actor. Gary Oldman rises to the occasion late as Commissioner Gordon, also questioning the actions he's taken and Morgan Freeman is solid as always as Wayne Enterprises engineering genius Lucius Fox. One other smaller new addition is Matthew Modine as one of Gordon's fellow high-ranking police officers.

Then there's the rest of the cast, Nolan seemingly trying to put together Inception 2: The Reckoning. Tom Hardy has some epic shoes to fill, following Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, and he's quite capable of that. It's not fair to compare the part to the Joker, but there is similarities. Hardy's Bane is all business, all chaos, all anarchy. He's a bear of a man, like a caged but highly intelligent animal. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a scene-stealer as John Blake, a Gotham police officer who grows increasingly frustrated with the limitations of his badge. Marion Cotillard plays Miriam Tate, a rich philanthropist trying to work with Wayne Enterprises to create a powerful sustainable energy force. Anne Hathaway holds her own as well, putting in a memorable turn as Selina Kyle, a master thief dubbed 'the Cat' but never actually dubbed Catwoman. SEMI SPOILERS ABOUT CASTING In the surprise department, look for Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy briefly reprising their roles from the previous Batman entries. END OF SPOILERS A great cast though from top to bottom. 

Some reviews pointed to the rather twisty-turny early portions of the story as a detriment to the end result, and I go both ways here. Through the first hour, we're not always sure of what's going on or even where the story is heading. Characters and some background are introduced and dealt with, but it's all laying the groundwork. When the knock-out punch does come, all I can say...brace yourself. The final 45-60 minutes threw me for a loop, but in a good way. It is everything epic you would hope a final showdown to be; in this case, Bane turning Gotham City into a city cut off from the rest of the world and threatening to destroy it all, killing 12 million people in the process. If you struggle with the early pacing, stick with it. The pay-off in the end is incredibly worth it in so many ways.

As I mentioned, this is a movie that has it all. The finale packs the biggest action punch, but an earlier motorcycle chase through the city following a Bane robbery is also highly memorable, as is Bane's takeover of the city with an abundance of explosives taking out bridges and even a quasi-NFL game. The dialogue is spot-on too, especially the scenes with Bale and Caine. On pure drama, it's hard to beat Bane's backstory (quick though it is), but also how Batman deals with solving the identical problem the mysteriously masked villain had to figure out. And then there's the ending. Should it come as a surprise that it is basically the perfect way to close out the trilogy? Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid throughout, but it's at its best in the final montage as everything is wrapped up. Two different twists make the ending a little surprising, but mostly? It's an appropriate dramatic and emotional ending for all involved.

Well, here we are. I'm sorry to see this trilogy go. As far as superhero movies go (and I struggle limiting these to just superhero movies), they've set the bar as high as they can. All other future efforts will be compared to these films, and I can't think of a better compliment to a director, cast and crew for turning out such a quality finished product. A classic on par with The Dark Knight, if not a slightly, tiny bit better.

The Dark Knight Rises <---trailer (2012): ****/****

50/50

I call it Garden State Syndrome, a little known disease that afflicts certain movies. You know the type. Small-scale, well-written, ultra-personal stories with emo drama and dark comedy of people in their mid 20s adjusting to life and all its little intricacies. Oh, don't forget the indie rock soundtracks. It started with 2004's Garden State, by all means a really good movie but not the end-all, be-all classic some made it out to be. When I saw the preview for 2011's 50/50, that was my first thought. Uh-oh, here we go again, even despite my interest/curiosity. So where did it fall?

A 27-year old living in Seattle, Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a pretty cool little life for himself. He has a good job at a Seattle public radio station, lives with his girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas-Howard), and still gets to hang out with his longtime friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen). Experiencing some back pain though, Adam visits a doctor and gets some startling news. He has a malignant tumor on his back, and his chances are about 50-50 that he'll survive it. His world thrown on its side, Adam tries to fight through his new huge problem, going to a psychiatrist while undergoing chemotherapy. The thought lingers though. No matter what he does or doesn't do, it might not make a difference. He could still die, and he can't control it in the least.

From director Jonathan Levine, '50' avoids most of the trappings of the always dangerous Garden State Syndrome. Yes, there's the indie rock soundtrack (I get it....you're unique), but the overbearing message of how life is so tough to get through isn't an issue at all. Sure, a healthy, normal 27-year old gets a curveball thrown his way, but it never becomes condescending. Adam struggles with his situation -- who wouldn't? -- but '50' never tries to shove sympathy/apathy/emotion in general down your throat. The movie ends up being a huge success because it just does the opposite. It shows the situation as it is -- Adam struggling to adjust, his friends and family trying to help and cope however they can -- without aggressively telling you how to feel about the movie and the developing story.

Like other indie dramadies (that's comedy meets drama) that works so well, '50' does have its moments of brilliance. It goes back to the personal level Levine tells his story from. The humor is of the dark variety, never any obvious laughs which come from the real interactions -- both positive and negative -- between people who care for and love each other. Adam shaving his hair before chemo can do it before him with Kyle's....body hair trimmer?....is an inspired scene, Rogen making that scene with his most likely very natural reaction. Adam's scenes with his fellow chemo patients (Matt Frewer and Philip Baker Hall) are both funny and emotionally tough to watch, three very different individuals bonding through their similar struggle. The most effective is Adam telling his mom, Diane (Anjelica Houston), he has his cancer, a mother acting about how you'd expect. These moments don't feel forced or faked. They end up feeling very real, and the movie's that much better for it.

It seems like a long time since Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a co-star on 90s sitcom Third Rock from the Sun, but here we sit. Gordon-Levitt is fast becoming one of the most talented young actors in Hollywood, and the man's got some versatility. Big blockbuster? Inception. Thriller? The Lookout. Personal drama? Here we are. He's very natural in his characters, and seeing his transformation here as he deals with the different emotional levels of trying to survive cancer can be difficult to watch at times. It certainly helps that we see his friendship with high school buddy, Kyle, played by Rogen. That genuine relationship was what I took away from this movie. They talk, argue, debate and BS each other like long-time friends would. Understandably stunned at his friend's news, Kyle tries to help him out however he can. I loved the dynamic these two had, especially as Adam gets further and further into his chemo therapy. Two talented young actors who help carry the movie.

That's not to forget about the rest of the cast. Houston is a heartbreaker as Diane, Adam's mom. She's caring for her husband (Serge Houde) who has Alzheimer's and doesn't realize Adam is even his son. It's a quick part -- only 3 or 4 scenes -- but a very strong one too. Anna Kendrick is perfectly cute as Katherine, Adam's psychiatrist, a student still working toward her doctorate and thrown into the fire immediately. Dallas-Howard better be careful too. She's very good here, but I wonder if she's being typecast a little bit, considering this part and in Hereafter two years ago. A very talented actress, but hopefully she isn't forced to take similar roles repeatedly. Frewer and Baker Hall as fellow chemo patients Mitch and Alan are especially good too, including one scene late as they join Adam and Kyle for a medicinal marijuana session.

I really liked the whole movie, but I really loved the last half hour. I won't go into details or spoil anything, but it is a very effective ending. The drama and emotion kicks into high gear as we see these very likable, very real people we've gotten to know forced to deal with issues you'd hope you could avoid your whole life. Also, great final scene and final shot, aided by Pearl Jam's Yellow Ledbetter. Excellent movie, one you should definitely check out.

50/50 <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Inception

I really have no idea at all about where to even start reviewing Inception, released last weekend in theaters and the most recent movie from director Christopher Nolan.  If you choose to stop reading my review now, just know that it is everything that is good about movies, one that keeps you interested from start to finish, has a polish to it and a style all it's own, and in general is better than 99.9 % of most movies that ever make the theaters.  So if you're going to stop reading my most likely ranting review, know that I'm giving it a 4-star rating and enjoy the movie.

Working on a script for ten-plus years, Nolan does what very few writer/directors can do; he creates a unique world that is unlike anything you've ever seen.  It is intelligent in a way few movies are and it requires, it demands that you pay attention.  People walked into the theaters 4 or 5 minutes late, and all I could think was "Well, they're screwed." Coming up with the best way to recommend this movie, I'll say this.  Watching it, you get that feeling that you're watching what a movie should be; an experience.  The visuals, the acting, the writing, Hans Zimmer's pulsing score, it all comes together in a way few movies do.  Here comes the hard part, trying to explain the plot.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the best of the best at what he does. He's a dream thief, able to steal your deepest, darkest secrets through your subconscious while you are asleep. With a specialized team and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), he is able to insert himself into someone's dreams and find out everything and anything about them.  But this time, he's messed up and he is being blackmailed by an employer, an extremely powerful business man named Saito (Ken Watanabe). Instead of stealing an idea, Saito wants to implant an idea in someone's head, a rival businessman, Fischer (Cillian Murphy), so that he'll dissolve his huge empire.  Cobb isn't interested until he finds out the stakes, then he goes about assembling a team to perform this 'inception,' a more dangerous technique and harder to accomplish where all the risks are raised.

To say that is the whole plot is underselling the movie.  I could do reviews and reviews that really delve into what the movie is about and probably still miss something.  In creating this world of dreams and subconscious, Nolan has made his own sets of rules as to what can and can't happen.  Because of that, as a viewer we have no background with any of this and are forced to pay that much more attention to keep up.  Honestly though, I paid attention -- no talking, no texting, no bathroom breaks -- and feel I have a pretty good grasp of what's going on.  If you're worried about being confused, just go in with an open mind and do your best to keep up.  At a certain point, just go along for the ride and enjoy yourself.

As was the case with Nolan's previous big-budget movies (the two Batman movies and The Prestige), he's able to put an impressive cast together.  If you had told me 10 years ago watching Titanic that I'd like DiCaprio as an actor, I'd have said you were crazy.  But starring as Cobb, he continues a string of movies where he's not just tolerable, he's a strong actor who can stand on his own.  Joining him on his team are Ariadne (Ellen Page), the architect of the dream worlds they go into, Eames (Tom Hardy), the forger, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), the chemist, and Gordon-Levitt as Arthur.  Hardy especially stands out, but all of the team more than hold their own.  Watanabe and Murphy are more chess pieces to be played with, but their presence alone helps the story.  French beauty Marion Cotillard is perfectly scary in a supporting role, and then add in Tom Berenger, Pete Postlethwaite and Michael Caine with small parts, and you've got a can't miss cast.

One reason I enjoyed the TV show 'Lost' so much was that it played with your perception of time and space.  Where better to continue that trend than in your dreams where anything and everything from your own subconscious can make an impact?  That was an element that caught me by surprise here.  You can be in someone else's dream, but your own thoughts, fears, worries can fight their way into the dream-world.  DiCaprio's Cobb is a prime example of this, a tortured individual with a checkered past.  The best part of the movie though is the execution of the inception, a three-leveled dream as Cobb's team goes deeper into Fischer's "mind." Time is shorter in certain levels than others, what may only be seconds in one level is years in another.  There of course has to be limbo then, where there is no time and dreams float about with the minds they belong to.  Trippy ideas all of them, but certainly incredibly creative.

The Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips made an excellent point about Inception, stating that this is at its heart, a heist movie, that one last job.  That's the movie's strength.  All these crazy visual tricks play into it as cities fold in on each other, gravity goes out the window, and time doesn't mean as much.  It's basically the craziest, most involved heist ever with Cobb looking to pull off that one last job that will reunite him with his family.  At its heart, Inception has that small angle, a family man trying to right a wrong, and on a bigger angle, a huge, incredibly unique storyline that pulled me in from the get-go.  It's a movie that is nearly impossible to review without giving away far too much.  If you've made it this long, I'll say it again.  Just go see Inception and decide for yourself.

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

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Now if you're judging my feelings of summer blockbusters by my review of Transformers 2, you might think I hate all those big action movies, but it's really just the opposite. I love movies like that, the review just shows how bad I thought T2 was in comparison to most similar movies. A good example of what an enjoyable summer action blockbuster is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra which surprised me. I thought it looked good but wasn't dying to see it, but a day later I'm still glad I did.

Plots can be secondary and often third or fourth in the list of important elements to a blockbuster, but G.I. Joe takes a familiar formula, villain threatening to destroy the world city by city, and adds an interesting wrinkle with some new technology. They're called the nanomites, microscopic robots originally intended to fight cancer cells but transformed into weapons that take apart and completely dismantle whatever they're shot at, like tanks, cars, buildings, you name it. So here's the plot going from the nanomites.

With some funding from NATO, MARS Industry CEO James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) has perfected turning the nanomites into an offensive weapon and has spent billions of dollars on manufacturing 4 warheads with his new weapon. But while being shipped, the column guarding the warheads is attacked, with Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) as part of the force. Whoever is attacking them, led by the mysterious Baroness (Sienna Miller), has advanced technology that the army is defenseless against. The column is saved by a group of fighters who rescue the warheads and Duke and Ripcord as well.

The group is transported to 'the Pit' a top secret base deep below the Egyptian desert where they're introduced to General Hawk (Dennis Quaid) who explains the layout to their organization. They are G.I. Joe, the best soldiers from all around the world working together to keep Earth safe from whoever would do it harm. Duke and Ripcord blackmail their way into Team Alpha and get to work finding out who wants the technology. Everything points to McCullen who with the Baroness, and henchmen Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), Zartan (Arnold Vosloo) and one mysterious villian (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) look to make another grab for the nanomite warheads and it doesn't look like anything can stop them.

What I like about big movies like this is that it allows huge casts to work together and let them clearly have fun making a highly entertaining movie. Come on, Dennis Quaid is in the movie for about 15 minutes, delivers some appropriately cheesy/inspirational lines, and looks tough. He's gotta be loving that. The G.I. Joe team is an interesting list of unique actors and characters like Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), the tough sergeant of the group, Snake Eyes (Ray Park) the resident badass and expert in martial arts and by far the coolest Joe, Breaker (Said Taghmaoui), the communication expert, and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), the team's weapons expert. So as anyone who read some past reviews of mine knows, this is basically the Magnificent 7, a men-on-a-mission movie with Duke and Ripcord joining the team.

With some ridiculously cool technology available, the beneficiary is the action scenes. The coolest gadget was the accerlation suits which help you react quicker and faster, jump higher, so basically PF Flyers on steroids. The chase through Paris as Storm Shadow and the Baroness try to take out the Eiffel Tower is an exciting, well-put together sequence as the Joes frantically try to catch up with Duke and Ripcord in the suits, Scarlet on a motorcycle, and Heavy Duty and Breaker just trying to keep up. On the whole, the action is the reason to see this movie. It's cut so you can actually see what's going on and the CGI is apparent but done well.

On to the casting which ranges from very good to very wooden. I don't know Channing Tatum's appeal, check that, I do but don't get it. The guy's got the personality and delivery of a cardboard box and his so-called dramatic lines come across as comical, hopefully unintentionally so. The rest of the cast makes up for, including surprisingly enough Marlon Wayans who revels in the smartass sidekick role along with Sienna Miller who has finally made a mainstream blockbuster. For one, with dark hair and low-cut leather outfits, she looks amazing, and two, her character is a badass. Hopefully, she sticks with the more mainstream movies, or at least not completely sticking with the indies. It's a fun cast and it looks like they enjoyed themselves making GI Joe.

So is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra a stupid summer blockbuster full of action and somewhat short on story? You bet, but it does what it's supposed to. It doesn't overdo the action sequences and CGI and keeps it exciting without trying to melt your face with its 'Michael Bay coolness.' Good cast top to bottom with one cameo I won't spoil here, and an ending that leaves the door open for a sequel which hopefully they do make in the next couple of years. Surprised by how much I enjoyed this so don't listen to the negative reviews, G.I. Joe is a lot of fun.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra <-----trailer (2009): ***/****