12 Years a Slave

Just a year ago or so in theaters, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was a huge hit with audiences and critics alike, making over $425 million. It was a story about a pre-Civil War slavery that was horrific and over the top, almost cartoonish in its portrayal of slavery. An interesting companion piece because it tackles the same historical issue in far darker, far more somber fashion, 2013's 12 Years a Slave.

It's 1841 in Saratoga, New York, and Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man. He works as a carpenter, is also a skilled musician and lives comfortably with his wife and two young children. When his family goes away on a quick work/vacation, Solomon is approached by two musicians who offer him a two-week job working with their traveling circus performers. Solomon is intrigued by their offer, dining and drinking with them one evening. He wakes up the next morning in chains, realizing he was drugged the night before. Solomon has been kidnapped and will be shipped south to be sold as a slave in the deep south. Listening to other kidnap victims in the same situation, some runaway slaves, he learns he's in more of a spot than he thought. If he tries to convince anyone of his plight, they'll punish him (with the possibility of whipping) if not kill him. Can he survive? Can Solomon find a way to endure and somehow gain back his freedom?

Wow. What a movie, one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've had watching a film in years. Technically speaking, it's excellent, but this next part might sound obvious. Anyone who knows their history -- or even those who don't -- realize that slavery existed in the U.S. less than 200 years ago in the 1860s. It's a known thing, but knowing and seeing the horrors are different. It is a terrifyingly uncomfortable movie, and it's supposed to be. It pulls no punches in telling the true story of Solomon Northup, director Steve McQueen (not that one) at the helm of a movie that won Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Be forewarned heading in. This is a film, not a popcorn movie that you come away with with a smile on your face. '12' is a film to watch and appreciate for what it is. A true story from one of the darker periods in American history. I won't be revisiting this one anytime soon. Once was enough.

Chiwetel Ejiofor or Matthew McConaughey? Which actor for the Best Actor Oscar? Having seen both '12' and Dallas Buyers Club, it's fair to say that either man deserved the win. It's a push, both performances worthwhile in their own respect. For Ejiofor, this is a great performance and hopefully one that propels him into stardom. I've always thought he was a solid actor with some poor choices in films (2012, Four Brothers), but this film shows his ability. Playing Solomon Northup, this is an emotionally draining, physical, very expressive part. Ejiofor allows the rest of the cast to chew scenery at times, letting a quick, hard-hitting diatribe here and there fill in the blanks. He does so much with a look here, his tired eyes telling the story. Dubbed Platt (the name of a runaway slave from Georgia), Solomon tries to survive however he can, almost willing himself to keep on and return to his family. This is a human, visceral performance. Unbelievable stuff.

In a part that won her the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Lupita Nyong'o delivers a gem as Patsey, a young slave who's hard-working, does her job and puts her head down, unfortunately becoming a favorite of the plantation owner, Epps, played to evil perfection by Michael Fassbender (nominated for his part, didn't win). Nyong'o is strong across the board but won the Oscar with one key, emotional gut-wrenching scene late. A great supporting performance. Fassbender (a favorite of mine) is intensity personified, a vile slave owner who quotes the Bible at all times, making his slaves do odd, bizarre things to suit his random wants and desires, Sarah Paulson playing his equally unhinged wife. Some other key supporting parts include Benedict Cumberbatch as Ford, a decent slave owner but still a slave owner, Paul Giamatti as a bottom-line slave dealer, Paul Dano as an angry, clueless overseer, Alfre Woodard as a slave woman turned mistress, Garret Dillahunt as Armsby, a hopeful overseer, and Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam as the men who kidnap Solomon.

As I mentioned, this was a difficult movie to sit through. It's not boring, the subject matter just hard to watch. '12' is 134 minutes long and does drag at times. The story isn't the most pointed thing, drifting along at times. My biggest issue is that there is no sense of time having passed. I kept waiting for a title card or something to pop up on-screen and say '8 Years Later.' There's no way to tell how much time has passed. Has it been weeks or months? Has it been years? The incidents are horrific, the truth of the story hard to fathom, but then out of nowhere there's a solution to it all. That was my biggest issue with '12,' no idea of the time that's passed. It sounds simple and something minor to complain about, but it's a legit issue.

This is a difficult movie to watch, plain and simple. I do like where it heads in the last third or so, Brad Pitt making a memorable appearance as a Canadian carpenter working in the south who meets Solomon while working on Epps' plantation. We get several scenes analyzing the horror and truth of slavery that come across as slightly heavy-handed, but that said, I guess there's very little subtle about slavery itself. The ending is heartbreaking in itself, especially the title cards that play out before the credits. Also worth mentioning is Hans Zimmer's score, almost minimalist in its execution, a simple, soft, trance-like theme resonating the most. Listen HERE. An interesting movie, one you're not necessarily going to like, but one you'll be able to appreciate and experience.

12 Years a Slave (2013): ***/****

Prisoners

It was a movie that seemed like it was a sure thing to snag some Oscar nominations. Powerful, dramatic acting, incredibly dark subject matter, and a whole lot of talent assembled for a cast. And what did 2013's Prisoners get nominated for? Exactly....one, that nomination for Best Cinematography. Okay, yes, that's fair. It's certainly a visually interesting film, but nothing else?!? Come on now. So....anyways, yeah, this was an excellent movie.

On a gloomy, rainy Thanksgiving Day, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk down the street to celebrate the holiday with their neighbors, the Birch's. After dinner as the Dovers get ready to go, they realize their daughter and the Birch's youngest daughter are both missing, nowhere to be found. Minutes turn to hours, hours to a day, and there's no trace of either girl. The police are called in, including lead detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a suspect, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), found just a few hours after the disappearance was first reported. Looking for clues/evidence tying Jones to the girls though, the police come up empty and are forced to release him after a 48-hour hold. Keller remains convinced that Jones is the one who kidnapped the two girls and decides to take drastic measures to bring them back. All the while, Loki becomes progressively more obsessed with the case, leads drying up in one dead end after another. The clock is ticking for the two girls.

From director Denis Villeneuve and writer Aaron Guzkowski, this movie is a doozy. Movies about serial killers, murderers, diseases running rampant, they can all be uncomfortable in countless ways. But as for a movie about someone kidnapping two young children? Unsettling doesn't begin to describe that ever-developing story. I watched this one, and I couldn't help but think of my five-year old niece. This is a movie that isn't intended to entertain (obviously) but one you appreciate. Audiences responded to the film, 'Prisoners' earning $122 million, and it's easy to see why. The acting here is what acting is all about. It's human and real, and when it calls for some big, dramatic moments, it doesn't feel authentic. It is authentic, credit to Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins for making a film with a bleak, dreary look that doesn't pull any punches. Deakins picked up an Oscar nomination for his cinematography. Tough to see him winning against Nebraska or Gravity, but he deserved that nomination.

The 2013 film year was very loaded when it comes to acting, especially for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Maybe the issue here was deciding between Jackman and Gyllenhaal in nominations? These are two powerhouse performances and for different reasons. A family man and middle-class dad torn apart by his daughter's kidnapping? A detective with a troubled childhood past who similarly becomes obsessed with finding two missing girls? These are great parts, both actors stepping up to the plate and delivering. Jackman handles his role in the right way with scenes that could feel forced or overdone. He's driven down a road that most would never want to even contemplate, but he's going to get his daughter back. He doesn't care what he does, if it's right, morally or in the eyes of the law, or what his decisions will ultimately do to him. I thought Gyllenhaal's part was underrated, reminding me some of his part in Zodiac. His detective is tough, brutally efficient and the pressure is starting to wear on him, especially with Jackman's Keller pressuring him to close the case and bring his daughters back.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast though. It is a halfway decent group if you're into that sort of thing. Maria Bello plays Keller's wife, Grace, progressively losing her mind as hours turn into days, needing her husband more than ever as he takes desperate measures to get their child back, Dylan Minnette playing their teenage son. The parents of the second kidnapped girl are played to perfection by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis while Zoe Borde plays their teenage daughter. Dano seems to be typecast a bit as the possibly crazy/unhinged guy but there's a reason. He's good at it, really good. We're never quite sure of his intentions, his background, his motivation, Melissa Leo playing his aunt. Also look for Wayne Duvall, Len Cariou and David Dastmalchian in key supporting parts.

Beyond the general uncomfortable feeling in tone and emotion that basically permeates every single scene in a 153-minute movie (It never drags), what makes it especially memorable and tolerable is that the story becomes a whudunnit story. Yes, obviously, we want to see the girls rescued. But as clues and leads and evidence dry up, we also want to see who did the kidnapping. Why did they do it? Guzkowski's script does a great job keeping us guessing right until the reveal. Hints are dropped here and there, but it's difficult to peg everything down as it comes along. Uncomfortable? Yes, but the mystery aspect makes it interesting on a far different level.

It all builds to an impressive reveal and finale, including a great final scene. Some viewers/critics call it ambiguous, but it really isn't if you think it through. I very much liked this movie, or at least as much as you're supposed to like a movie about child kidnapping. Appreciate it for the top to bottom strengths of the cast.

Prisoners (2013): ***/****

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 /****

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 /****

Meek's Cutoff

What truly defines a movie? Is it a highly stylized story heavy on visuals and twists and turns with an in your face camera technique? Or is the opposite, a minimalist style focusing on a more realistic visual, a slice of life storytelling? The answer of course is both and neither, falling somewhere in between. It comes down to personal taste what an individual viewer likes or dislikes. Falling in the minimalist style is an indie film from 2010, Meek's Cutoff.

It's 1845 and Americans are starting to drift west, some looking for new lives and others for riches. Among those travelers is a three-wagon train headed by trail guide Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood). Traveling with her older husband, Solomon (Will Patton), young Emily (Michelle Williams) is part of the little train heading for Oregon. Meek has decided to leave the main trail, heading west separate from the known route. The settlers go along with the plan, assuming the guide knows what he's doing. Does he though? The water supply starts to get dangerously low. Meek and Solomon manage to capture an Indian that's been tailing the group, leaving them with a decision. Do they entrust the Indian to guide them to water or continue blindly, hoping to find some? It's a decision that doesn't come easy.

Let's get this out of the way early. I hated this movie. We're not talking an indifference like I was disappointed or a mild dislike. Hated this movie. Seeing reviews and all the awards it won at film festivals all over the world, I was curious. Something has to be positive here that so many critics and moviegoers saw an appeal in it. Right? You would think so. And now reading the generally positive reviews, I don't feel like I missed a thing. If anything, I feel like so many others got duped. But that's for you to decide, not me yelling at you.

Minimalist, existential, lyrical, all these thoughts went through my head as I watched this movie. With a 104-minute movie, basically nothing happens at all. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Director Kelly Reichart makes a conscious effort to make this a real story. The camera is placed in front of the actors, and that's it. No close-ups, no movement, just the action (using that word loosely) unfolding in front of us. Whole scenes of wagons moving across the horizon drift on and on. Minutes go by with not a word spoken. When the dialogue does come along, it's mind-numbingly repetitive and pointless. I applaud Reichart for the approach she took. It's different, I'll give her that much. But a 104-minute movie that feels like it took days to watch?  An epic failure.

The approach Reichart takes is that small window into the lives of these settlers. We know little to nothing about any of their past lives and learn little else by the end of the movie. Existential picture of the individuals in a survival, life or death scenario? Possibly. As a result though, I had no personal investment with any of these people. I was rooting for Michelle Williams and Will Patton, not Emily and Solomon Tetherow. They're representative of people, not actual flesh and blood people. The other settlers include Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan as one couple and Neal Huff and Shirley Henderson as another with son Tommy Nelson. Greenwood gets the most showy of all the parts, but that's not saying much. Stuntman Rod Rondeaux plays the Indian.

Then there's the ending, the definition of ambiguity. Open-ended doesn't begin to describe how 'Meek' ends. Add another check in the 'Surprise Column' that viewers thought it was a potentially happy ending. For me, it is an epic downer ending. The whole tone and style of the movie points to a downer, more realistic ending, but I could be off-base. Moral of the story? It's a judgment call that each viewer will have to make for themselves.

I just don't know what to make of this movie at all. Is it supposed to be of that existential variety, making a bigger, broader statement about survival, about living and dying? Or is it just the story of a small group of settlers moving westward desperately fighting for survival? On either level, 'Meek' didn't work for me. I hate judging a movie as 'boring' because it sounds too easy on my part. That's the problem though. No energy, no interest, no positive impression at all. Give this one a wide berth and steer clear.

Meek's Cutoff <---trailer (2010): */****

Cowboys & Aliens

When I first read that the movie was going to be made, my first thought was that it could possibly be the stupidest idea for a movie I'd ever heard.  When I heard that James Bond and Indiana Jones/Han Solo were then going to star in said movie, I was slightly curious.  Then, I saw the trailers this past spring and thought once again "Dear Lord, that looks like the biggest pile of drivel I've ever seen....should I go to the midnight show?"  You hear the title and right away you've made up your mind. Are you going to go see it?  That's 2011's Cowboys & Aliens.

As I write this review, I've written over 100-plus reviews in a little less than three years of westerns.  When I first started doing this blog, I debated doing an exclusive western movie review blog. If you haven't figure it out by now, I L-O-V-E westerns.  Even the worst ones I watch -- usually with an open mind -- so that's what ultimately pulled me into this science-fiction western.  Not surprisingly the western aspects of the story appealed to me more, and it's got a lot of them; the quiet, lone drifter, the tough as nails old man, stock characters galore, big, wide open locations, the dusty one-street western town, and a showdown in the end that will settle everything once and for all.  There just happen to be aliens around who want to wipe out mankind so yeah...that's the movie.

In the Arizona desert in 1873, a man (Daniel Craig) wakes up miles from civilization with no idea where he is or more importantly, who he is. All he knows is that he's got a weird contraption on his wrist that he can't remove. He makes it to the nearest town where he figures out who he is, an infamous bandit named Jake Lonergan.  As he's about to be put on an armored stage to Santa Fe, something weird appears in the sky. Fast-moving, powerful spaceships swarm all over, blasting the town to pieces and in the process, kidnapping countless townspeople. A posse is formed to pursue this new species by the local cattle baron, a Civil War veteran named Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), with Lonergan and his wrist cannon along for the ride. What do these alien creatures want, and more strangely, why are they kidnapping people left and right?

I don't know what to say or where to start here.  You head into this movie knowing that you will in fact be watching a movie where cowboys fight aliens, but then manage to still be surprised when you see it.  How often -- if ever -- do you see a genre-bending movie with such two different genres, science fiction and western?  What works best (and remember, this is coming from a die-hard western fan) is the western elements of the story.  The movie looks great, the California and New Mexico locations being a great scene-setter.  Harry Gregson-William's musical score works without being overbearing or obnoxious -- it is at its best in the quieter moments -- but isn't particularly memorable.  There's something unexplainable why I did like this movie, mostly because it is a western, and they are becoming few and far between, especially major studio productions.

So how can you go wrong with James Bond and Indiana Jones? Long story short...you can't. Craig is at the point in his stardom where if he's in a movie, I'm in line to see it.  The British actor looks extremely comfortable in the western setting, an easy fit for the silent anti-hero, a drifting gunman with little ties to hold him down.  He belongs in westerns, and I'd be curious to see what the result would be if just made a straight western, hold the aliens.  Ford plays against type to a point, not quite a bad guy but not exactly a good guy either.  His Dolarhyde is the tough as dirt cattle baron who growls and grimaces and glares as forms of communicating.  It's hard to believe Ford is almost 70 years old, but whatever his age, he's still cool as hell.  That qualifies for both men; two badass leading men kicking some alien ass.  If that doesn't appeal to you, steer clear.

Watch a western, and you're going to see stock characters appear repeatedly.  Director Jon Favreau assembles a crazy (in a good way) supporting cast, making these familiar characters interesting and worth watching because of the talent involved. Olivia Wilde is Ella, a beautiful woman who seems to know more than what she's letting on, a lady with a secret. The mystery comes out late, but who am I kidding? Wilde is drop dead gorgeous so it doesn't matter. Then there's Sam Rockwell as Doc, the saloon owner, Clancy Brown as Meachem, the town preacher, Paul Dano as Percy, Dolarhyde's entitled son, Adam Beach as Nat Colorado, Dolarhyde's Indian tracker, Ana de la Reguera as Maria, Doc's Mexican wife, young Noah Ringer as Emmett, the wide-eyed kid, Keith Carradine as Sheriff Taggart, and Walton Goggins, David O'Hara and Julio Cedillo as members of Jake's former gang.  Familiar characters but fun characters too.

There is something primal comparing two genres that are so loved as the western and science fiction. There is something cool about seeing cowboys with Winchesters and six-shooters going toe to toe with aliens wanting nothing more than to wipe us out.  The action scenes are that perfect mix of CGI and actual stunts, blending nicely together. The action is on a large-scale but without overdoing it.  The ending goes on for a little too long, dragging in parts, but the final shot is an appropriate one, an ending any western fan should be able to appreciate. The movie has its flaws -- the violence is pretty grisly, there isn't much dark humor when there was the potential to have it -- and I'm probably overrating it a bit, but I did like this weird little oddity of a movie.

Cowboys & Aliens <---trailer (2011): ***/****