Spotlight

Early in high school, I decided I want to go into journalism, specifically hoping to be a sports reporter/beat writer. I loved sports and still do and currently have a job with the Chicago Tribune as an editor. Even in my eight years since graduating college, I've seen journalism change drastically. God knows where it will go in eight years. Naturally, I was psyched to see 2015's Spotlight, a movie that shows how important journalism is and should continue to be. Oh, and it's a damn good movie.

It's 2001 at the Boston Globe and the Spotlight desk, led by editor Walter 'Robby' Robinson (Michael Keaton) with its three-man staff, focuses on big, deep, investigative stories that sometimes take months and even years to develop into something. The Globe is getting a new editor, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber), who wants the Spotlight team to investigate an untold story, one that's gone untouched for years with only a story written here and there. He wants the team to explore the story of a Boston priest who was brought up on charges for child molestation and all the gory details. Even as investigative journalists, they've got their work cut out for them, dealing with the Catholic church and victims that don't necessarily want to be interviewed. Even with that said though, Robby and his team have no idea the depths of what they will find as they investigate deeper and deeper.

A quasi-journalist myself, I'm a sucker for all journalism movies from All the President's Men to State of Play to Kill the Messenger and many more in between. I think movies like this are relevant more than ever now in 2016 as newspapers continue their descent into oblivion of sorts. Where will journalism -- especially print journalism -- go from here? Will it survive? Can it? Movies like 'Spotlight' show a need for this sort of investigative reporting, hard-hitting storytelling and dogged journalists who pursue the truth because someone, anyone has to do it. I loved this movie. It's getting all sorts of Oscar buzz, and it will no doubt pull some serious nominations (and hopefully some wins too). It deserves any and all of the buzz it is getting.

Director Tom McCarthy jumps into this film with a refreshing thought. Simply put, he wants to tell a story. There's no explosions, huge twists, pyrotechnics, nudity or violence to speak of. It is a straightforward, elegantly-told story that tells just that, a true story. Much like The Big Short, 'Spotlight' tells a story that is astonishing in its truth, discomforting down to your very toes and unsettling to the point it can be hard to believe you are in fact watching something that actually happened. The story drifts along with the investigation as it gets deeper and darker, the Spotlight team truly understanding the depths and horrors of what goes on with priests in the Catholic church. It's not often you see films like this that are just so perfectly professionally done. It doesn't need a ton of style or an in-your-face mentality. Like its main characters, McCarthy's film simply is looking to find the truth and tell a story.

'Spotlight' is a film that respects its characters and what they do without glorifying them. These reporters want to tell a story, sometimes ones that are incredibly difficult to track and nail down. Some pretty talented actors were picked to bring these real-life reporters to life, including Keaton's Robby, Mark Ruffalo's Mike Rezendes, Rachel McAdams' Sacha Pfeiffer, and Brian d'Arcy James' Matt Carroll. In brief snippets, we get to know about them and their personal lives, nice touches that help us as we go along with the investigation. There isn't a weak performance in the group, and they feel incredibly authentic in bringing them to life. Even when it seems like they've hit a dead-end, they keep looking, keep investigating, even when the truth sounds impossible. Schreiber too is excellent as new editor Marty Baron with John Slattery doing a fine turn as Ben Bradlee Jr., an editor with the Globe who plays an integral part in the clergy cover-up investigation.

But wait...there's more! Because the above-mentioned performances weren't enough, right? I think Stanley Tucci has the ability to walk into a room and steal every scene he's in, an ability he shows off here as a lawyer who wants to do right, who wants to fight for his clients, often the victims and survivors of clergy abuse. Also look for Billy Crudup, Jamey Sheridan, Paul Guilfoyle, an uncredited Richard Jenkins lending his voice to a key role over the phone, and Len Cariou.

Working off the true story, McCarthy tells his story on the ground, in the newsrooms and cramped offices, at the reporters' desks with their desktop computers, phones ringing and notebooks in hand in just about every passing scene. We see them on the phones, pursuing leads, digging through old clips and paperwork, and you get the sense of this is what journalism IS and what it SHOULD BE. It feels authentic. It feels real, and that's why the movie is so criminally straightforward and memorable. 'Spotlight' does not pull any punches. This is the true story of a horrific cover-up that you just shake your head at that something this horrifying could go uncovered, unreported for so long. Will it bring home a bunch of Oscars? Who knows for sure? I know this though. It definitely should.

Great movie. Go see it.

Spotlight (2015): ****/****

White House Down

In 1993 and 1994, it was Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. In 1998, it was Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. In 2011, it was Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached. All similar movies released in a tight window, forcing audiences to choose which one (because who sees both?!?) to go see. Well, 2013 had its own deja vu entries, Olympus Has Fallen, and now, White House Down.

A veteran of the war in Afghanistan, a highly decorated one at that, John Cale (Channing Tatum) is now a Capitol Police officer assigned to the Speaker of the House, Eli Raphelson (Richard Jenkins). It's pretty straightforward, even boring, duty, John aspiring to be a Secret Service agent even though his credentials aren't quite there. He's also a divorced father, and he's managed to secure two passes for a White House tour, bringing his daughter, Emily (Joey King), to the President's home. While on the tour, John and Emily even meet the President, James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx), who even speaks briefly with the politically-obsessed Emily. Only minutes later though, a bomb goes off in the Capitol Building, and soon the shooting starts in the White House. A group of gunmen are trying to take the President hostage. Separated from his daughter, John must now try and find her and make sure she's safe while also doing his damnedest to save the President.

This action-heavy political thriller from director Roland Emmerich hit theaters last summer, just months after the similarly-themed Olympus Has Fallen. It did all right in theaters, struggling some in the U.S. but making over $200 million internationally. Why did it struggle? Was it released too close to 'Olympus'? My money is on 'no.' I saw Olympus, liked it a lot, admitting it was cheesy, pretty dumb, predictable, obvious and a hell of a lot of fun. 'White House' is all of those things except....well....it's awful. It isn't fun. It's stupid, mind-numbingly stupid. I guess I shouldn't be completely surprised. Emmerich is the master of the big, overblown but ultimately entertaining blockbusters -- Independence Day, 2012, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow -- but that trend seems on the downhill. 'Tomorrow' was just dumb, I didn't see 2008's 10,000 B.C., and 2012 was laughable. 'White House' most definitely continues that downhill trend.

Yes, I know this is a movie that's supposed to be fun and dumb and entertaining. It isn't meant to rewrite Film as an entire entity. But does it have to be so cliche-ridden? So forced? Much like 'Olympus,' the premise certainly has some promise. What's protocol when the President of the United States' home comes under attack, a house that is heavily fortified and seemingly impregnable? That's cool. The action is cool. A shootout on the White House lawn, a fortified limo being chased by armored and heavily armed SUVs? Yeah, I can get on board with that. But that's it. These really cool moments, some potentially great action scenes get shot right in the foot because of a script that absolutely refuses to try anything even remotely unique? Sorry, screenwriter James Vanderbilt, this script was the biggest reason this movie flops. Disappointing when I realized Vanderbilt wrote The Losers, Zodiac, Basic, all movies I really liked. Cliches in an action movie are one thing, but this tested me. Late in the movie, repetitive at 131 minutes, I only stuck with it for the sake of a review. Yeah, I'm pretty honorable like that.

I've come around on Channing Tatum. With the right movie, the guy can act. He's likable on-screen, is a solid presence and can more than carry his own in action sequence. I still don't think he's a great actor (potentially, he could be), leaning more toward the movie star angle. This is a mixed part for him. Again, the script does him no favors. He's a divorced father, his busy schedule making it hard to be a good parent for Emily (King is a solid, young actress), pissing off his ex-wife (Rachelle Lefevre). Oh, and he's kinda absent-minded, not detail-oriented, but aw shucks, he's an American hero and really, really wants to be a Secret Service agent!!! Wouldn't you know it? The Secret Service agent (Maggie Gyllenhaal) in charge of hiring agents is an ex-girlfriend! Trapped inside the White House, he's also the only trained personnel that thinks to dodge gunfire, the Secret Service agents just standing there and getting shot. Tatum is okay -- not great, not bad -- and is clearly doing his best to have some fun.

The rest of the cast comes from Stock Characters 101. Jamie Foxx is okay as President Barack Obama, um, I mean President James Sawyer, but I don't know if he was a great casting choice to begin with. James Woods is the bad guy because what else would James Woods be doing in this movie? He's okay, a little overdone, as Martin Walker, the treacherous head of the Secret Service. His small army of gunmen/terrorists are led by Jason Clarke's Stenz, a mercenary with vengeance on his mind. Clarke is over the top but at least interesting in the villain department. His fellow gunmen are pretty faceless, Jimmi Simpson providing some odd comedic relief as the hacker, Kevin Rankin the right wing nut, Killick, who's crazy because he has a thin mustache, doesn't wear a shirt, just body armor, and screams a lot. As for the assorted political types to go with Jenkins and Gyllenhaal (legitimate actors legitimizing the movie...to a point), also look for Michael Murphy and Lance Reddick.

There's just too many painful moments here, too much to prevent it from being tolerable. When you think you're safe, the ending feels like a Scooby Doo ending. "If it wasn't for you meddling Capitol police, I would have got away with it!" At one point, Woods asks Clark "Want some cake?" to which Clark answers "No!.....I've got diabetes!!!" What?!? Later, Foxx's President Sawyer, having opted for some Air Jordans for his getaway, kicks a terrorist trying to hold him down and yells "Don't....touch...my....Air....Jordans!" The attempts at catchy, fun lines are awful, especially Tatum's one-liner when he dukes it out with Clarke, as is the solution to the White House coming under attack. It's certainly one I questioned, but then again, by then, I was questioning a lot of things. I don't want to give away too much of the awesomeness. Feel the pain yourself.

This one stunk.

White House Down (2013): */****

Jack Reacher

First introduced in author Lee Child's 1997 novel, The Killing Floor, the character of Jack Reacher has become quite the fan favorite. In 17 novels since then, Reacher has sold millions of books, and there's no end in sight for Lee or Jack. What's that next step then? As is the case with most successful book series, a movie follow-up/tie-in is inevitable, the series getting its film debut with 2012's appropriately titled Jack Reacher.

Along the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, a sniper opens fire one lazy afternoon, gunning down and murdering five random, innocent people. The police follow the evidence and within 16 hours have a suspect in custody, James Barr (Joseph Sikora), a former Army sniper. Rather than sign a confession, he requests the help of one Jack Reacher. The district attorney and police look into the name finding out that Reacher is a former military policeman who upon being mustered out has become a drifter. Why then would Barr want his help? Barr's defense lawyer, Helen (Rosamund Pike), thinks nothing of it until Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) himself shows up in her office unannounced and offers to help...in a way. Reacher knows something about Barr's past, but he says he'll help just the same. It seems like an open and shut case, but it doesn't add up for the former MP turned drifter. Was the sniper's shootings really random, or was there a purpose?

From director Christopher McQuarrie (who also wrote the script), 'Reacher' is based off Child's novel One Shot from 2005. I write this review having watched this movie without giving the Reacher novels a shot so be forewarned. This is a movie review, not a book to film adaptation review. Moral of the story? I liked the movie, and it definitely got better once everything is laid out. There are some early struggles with a lack of tone, from goofy to dumb to really dark. I just couldn't get going early on, but things pick up about the 45-minute mark. From there on in, it manages to find a good mix of drama and action with a few necessary laughs here and there. Once casting was announced, Reacher fans were almost unanimously against the casting of Cruise, mostly because the novel Reacher is 6-foot-5 and about 230 pounds of pure muscle. Cruise? Well, he's in freakish shape, but he ain't that big.

You know what? It doesn't matter. Cruise is a movie star who can act, and physical discrepancies aside, he owns the part. As McQuarrie pointed out in an interview, it isn't about the height or the physical build. It's all about the attitude, that confidence in the character, and that's where Cruise succeeds. That's what counts when we're talking about becoming the character. Jack Reacher is a drifter, seemingly always on the move. He has no real possessions, wearing the clothes on his back, and goes where he's needed. In this case, it's helping someone he worked with in the past (in a way), trying to find out exactly what's going on. Mostly though, his sense of justice appealed to me. He is interested in the law to a point, but mostly he's going to deliver his own brand of vigilante justice. Warrants? Evidence? Nah, let's just get some answers.

More than just his acting, Cruise is really memorable here because he handles most -- if not all -- of his own stunts, something he's become associated with over the years. It adds a touch of authenticity, and more importantly for me, a huge dose of credibility. It's jarring when you see stunt doubles in any type of action scenes, but Cruise? He's a man of ACTION!!! A fight scene early with five thugs dispatched to take him out on a poorly lit street is very cool, Cruise's Reacher swinging and punching and kicking like nobody's business and not surprisingly....winning in grand fashion. A very cool car chase late also has Cruise doing all of his own stunts. The camera is in the shotgun seat with him in a chase reminiscent of some classic 1960s/1970s chase sequences.

The rest of the cast is okay -- nothing spectacular -- in parts that are meant to aid Reacher in his not so normal (read = legal) investigation. Rosamund Pike's Helen seems too dumb for her own good at times, odd considering what a good lawyer she's supposed to be. Unfortunately, the part just devolves into a pretty lawyer wearing heels, short skirts and low(ish) cut shirts. As for the "system," there's Richard Jenkins as the District Attorney Rodin (also Helen's Dad) and David Oyelowo as Emerson, the police officer leading the investigation. Don't want to give too much away in terms of villains, but director Werner Herzog squints as the main baddie, the Zec, with Jai Courtney as his main henchman, a good creepy combo. Also worth mentioning is the always reliable, always fun Robert Duvall in a small but key part as a firing range owner while Alexia Fast is a young woman caught up in something bigger than she thought.

There is something just odd about the movie in general, a lot of that coming from a combination of darkness, dark humor and some slow-going early on. It really finds a groove in the second half, Cruise doing a fine job with the titular character, especially as we see more of him and his unique, brutal means of administering justice. I don't know if the Reacher series will continue, but it's a good flick regardless of where it goes from here on out.

Jack Reacher (2012): ***/****   

The Company You Keep

Fully content to direct films as he likes and sees fit while also staying in the background of the Sundance Film Festival, it's easy to forget what a legend Robert Redford really is. He's one of the few remaining legitimate screen legends from the 1960s and 1970s. When he does make a film -- directing/acting -- moviegoers and fans should jump. Or as the case with 2012's The Company You Keep, he does both, directing and acting.

A single dad with an 11-year old daughter and his own private law practice, Jim Grant (Redford) is still adjusting to a new life since his wife died over the last few years. He's approached one day in his office by a young journalist, Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf), investigating a story about the recent arrest of a woman who was part of a murder/bank robbery in the late 1970s, the woman a member of an underground peace movement. Jim is less than interested in helping, making Ben that much more curious. He investigates further and finds out why. Jim Grant is not who he's saying. In fact, he may have been a part of the underground movement and one of three suspects at the bank robbery turned murder. The FBI is quick to pounce, but it's already too late. Jim is on the run and looking for someone from his past. Ben meanwhile is continuing his investigation and starts to question if maybe he's stumbled upon something else.

Not surprisingly, I think the best thing going for this film was that Redford and his talents are associated with it. While it received mixed reviews -- 56% at Rotten Tomatoes, 6.3 at IMDB -- and wasn't given much of a chance in theaters, 'Company' is successful because it is content being exactly what it is. No explosions, no gunfights, no real chases, just a smart political thriller that for the most part kept me interested throughout. I think at times it is a little sluggish, lacking a certain energy. On the other hand, it is always refreshing to watch a well-made thriller that doesn't resort to any common denominators. As many other reviews point out, it may be most successful because it shows what happened to the 1960s/1970s revolutionaries. Full of fire and brimstone 30 and 40 years ago, what did they do after their revolutionary times had passed? It's an interesting premise and jumping off point.

So hold the gunfights, explosions, chases and ultra-quick editing, and what is Robert Redford's character? It reminded me slightly of Jason Bourne, a man on the run and desperately trying to evade his pursuers until he can prove what he needs to prove. In his first acting role since 2007's Lions for Lambs, Redford doesn't disappoint, bringing a character to life we think we know all about only to learn more and more. We see him with his second life of sorts, caring for his 11-year old daughter, Isabel (singer Jackie Evancho). We learn he regrets certain incidents from his past and is desperately working to right wrongs. Like few others, Redford does it with relative ease, a cool factor on display like few others working in film or in any other era. Now 77 years old, Redford is as cool as ever. His acting roles are fewer and far between of late so appreciate them when they come along.

Oh, by the way, most of Hollywood is also in this movie. Apparently a whole lot of very talented individuals wanted to work with Redford because he assembles a cast that is ridiculous top to bottom. I'm coming around a bit on Shia LaBeouf who does a fine job here as an investigative journalist, Ben, who finds out a story needs to be fully investigated before reporting on it. It's an interesting character arc. Who else? How about Stanley Tucci basically making a cameo as Ben's hard-edged, tough editor. How about Terrence Howard as the lead FBI agent pursuing Redford's Jim with Anna Kendrick as a young agent on his team? Oh, and there's also Chris Cooper as Jim's younger brother, Brendan Gleeson as a former police chief with lots of info, Stephen Root as a friend seeking Jim's help and Brit Marling as a college student Ben meets in the course of his investigation.

Wow, that's a pretty impressive cast. Huh? Oh, there's more? Yes, it continues. There are other key parts with Julie Christie playing a woman from Jim's past who he desperately needs to talk to with Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Richard Jenkins all playing key figures from Jim's revolutionary underground past. And yes, Susan Sarandon plays an accomplice of sorts to the murder that sets the ball in motion. With this much talent, some of the parts are really just extended cameos, but the pure acting depth here is amazing to watch. Yes, maybe it is only a scene or two, but it's fun to watch all these very talented actors and actresses do their thing.

If there is a weakness here, it's in the final 30 minutes of a 122-minute long movie. The build-up can be slow at times, but the mystery and all the unanswered questions pick things up as needed. Unfortunately in the final half hour, the script resorts to too many past ideologies and principles that drove these characters back in the 60s and 70s. It doesn't quite limp to the finish line, but it's not quite the snappy ending I was hoping for. Things are wrapped up a little too nicely, a little too tidy. That said, I still feel very comfortable recommending this film for any number of reasons, ranging anywhere from the very impressive cast to the general throwback feel of a good, old-fashioned political thriller. A good movie, and that ain't a bad thing.

The Company You Keep (2012): ***/****

Killing Them Softly

As an author, the name George V. Higgins doesn't set off trip wires and alarms about all the classics he's written. His fans love him though, love him for his bestselling crime novels that brought the darkness, reality and extreme violence and betrayals of the criminal underworld to life. I'd seen -- but haven't read -- The Friends of Eddie Coyle and liked it. One of Higgins' novels, Cogan's Trade, received a big screen adaptation last year, 2012's Killing Them Softly.

With the help of a businessman, Squirrel (Vincent Curatola), an ex-con, Frankie (Scott McNairy) and a drug addict acquaintance, Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), have a plan to net some easy money. Frankie and Russell will rob an illegal high stakes poker game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), the owner of a ring of illegal games. In his past, Markie secretly took down one of his own games, and Squirrel intends to set him up as the fall guy for his upcoming job. The actual robbery goes down pretty smoothly, but the fall-out is severe. With mob ties to the card game, a feared enforcer, Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is called in to handle the situation. He's got to find out who was involved, who was behind it, and who's lying to him. Brutality, intimidation, straight murder, Jackie isn't afraid to pull out all the stops to find out what he needs to know and get paid in the process.

What I liked most about this film noir-like crime flick is simple. Based off a novel Higgins wrote in the 1970s, 'Killing' feels like those down and dirty crime dramas of the 1970s. There is a throwback feel to it that works on an effortless level. Some of the style, especially Pitt with his slicked back hair and duded up look, has that retro feel. Mostly though, it's that ever-present sense of doom. In this criminal world as the movie presents, there is no hope, no light, no potential for happiness in the end. Anyone and everyone is trying to look out for No. 1. Betrayals, murder, backstabbing, all are fair if it helps you get somewhere or something. That ultra-dark cynicism plays well. We know from the start that none of what we are about to see will go down smoothly. Blood will be spilled and money will be made, but at what cost?

That sounds like it's right up my alley, doesn't it? An almost artsy feel of a 1960s/1970s French crime drama mixed with the tones of a barebones American crime drama from the 1970s? That's got to be good, right? Well, it never amounts to much. This movie plays like a dirtier, far more foul-mouthed version of something Aaron Sorkin would have written. 'Killing' is absolutely obsessed with dialogue. When written well, that can be enough to carry a movie, but the dialogue here gets tedious and serves no real purpose at a certain point. How many times can we hear Frankie and Russell talk about their sexual preferences before we just become numb to it all? I appreciate a slower, more character driven story that doesn't focus exclusively on action, but it's got to go somewhere. We get a long dialogue scene.........and another.........and another. An already short movie (in running time at least) at 97 minutes, it feels far longer, and I was using the fast forward option liberally.

What ends up being the biggest waste here is the cast. There's lots of dialogue here, but it feels like actors showing off but without any substance. Pitt is a bright spot (not a surprise) as brutal, quiet and effective Jackie, a man who has a special skill -- enforcing/killing -- and puts it to his advantage. McNairy and Mendelsohn are appropriately slimy while Liotta isn't given much to do unfortunately as Trattman, a marked man. James Gandolfini plays Mickey, a down on his luck hit man who Jackie recruits for another job, hamming, whoring and drinking it up. Richard Jenkins is maligned and beaten down as Driver, Jackie's link to the mob. Sam Shepard makes a bizarrely quick one-scene cameo as Dillon, an older enforcer with the biggest reputation around.

The story itself has some flaws, but I think director/writer Andrew Dominik makes a really bad style decision. Any transition scene -- car driving, men walking, whatever -- has a voiceover being played over the visual. We hear George W. Bush and Barack Obama talking about the economic crisis, country unity, working together. It all comes together in the end in the final scene, but it's not worth the payoff we get. Instead, it comes across as a heavy-handed, obnoxious stylish storytelling device that handicaps the movie. As a film, it just can't quite figure out what's going on. Is it darkly funny? Just dark? A metaphor for something bigger, more profound? All of the above, none of it? If you're going to tell a crime story, do it. Don't get all mixed up in a message about America's current economic state.

Too bad overall. Lots of potential, and when it works in small snippets, it reminds me of a mix between The Departed and No Country for Old Men. Too often though it doesn't do enough to give it a recommendation (even a mild one). Sorry to report I came away disappointed in a big way.

Killing Them Softly (2012): **/****

Hall Pass

So if TV shows and films have taught us anything -- and I'd like to think they have -- it's that marriage is a hell-like situation from which there is no escape. A couple gets married, and then after years and years, things hit the fan. Everyone wants out. It's one of the oldest, most reliable jokes in comedy so what if there was a quasi-solution to the dull marriage issue? Uh-oh, here we go with 2011's Hall Pass.

With three kids, a solid real estate job and a successful marriage, Rick (Owen Wilson) has quite the life with his wife of 10-plus years, Maggie (Jenna Fischer). The marriage has become a little stagnant though, and on some advice from a friend, Maggie offers something a little out of the box. She offers Rick a 'hall pass,' a week where he doesn't have to be married and can do whatever he wants away from his wife and kids where even cheating is allowed. Rick is suspicious immediately, but he goes along with it. The next day, his best friend Fred (Jason Sudeikis) gets the same offer from his wife, Grace (Christina Applegate). So while Maggie and Grace head up to Maggie's parents in Cape Cod, Rick and Fred prepare to hit the streets as single men. What awaits these two? Can they sow their wild oats?

I can't say I actively avoided this 2011 comedy, but at the same time, I can't say I really wanted to see it either. An HBO subscription winding down has a way of making some movies more watchable, huh? In the end, I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot. From director-team the Farrelly Brothers -- Bobby and Peter -- the humor here is about what you'd expect if you've seen movies like Dumb and Dumber, There's Something About Mary, Stuck on You, Me, Myself and Irene, and Shallow Hall. Oh, you haven't seen those movies? The laughs are pretty raunchy, sometimes downright nasty, and often pretty juvenile. If you're a little squeamish about any number of graphic sex jokes -- including some full-on male genitalia -- with non-stop cursing, this probably isn't the movie for you. Steer clear, give it a wide berth, whatever you want to call it.

Beyond the low brow humor in all their movies, the Farrelly brothers have a knack for creating some surprisingly likable characters. Since the epic success of 2005's Wedding Crashers, Wilson has fallen on some tough times and hasn't had any truly memorable parts. I liked him here though as Rick, kind of an everyman in his mid-to-late 30s with a good job, beautiful wife and kids. That marriage has also become a little stagnant, and there's the story. Seeing Rick go through his week, we actually get a sense of.....gasp....character development! No, it's nothing ground-breaking, but it's an R-rated comedy. Take what you can get. From when he first appeared on Saturday Night Live, I've liked Sudeikis a lot. He has a way of playing not truly despicable characters, but close. A fast-talking motor-mouth with some questionable morals, he's a good pair with Wilson's Rick.

Not all of the laughs here are low-brow sex and bathroom humor (although a majority of it is). What I liked was how the passing days in the week are represented. It's not anything super-stylish, but it is very funny. Each day is introduced via a completely black screen with 'Day 1...2' shown, and the very familiar, very distinct Law and Order dun-dun! played. Day 1 has some huge laughs, Rick and Fred starting slowly -- to put it lightly -- with a big night out at where else? Applebee's of course! It's the freshly-single bachelors' adventures that provided the most laughs. We meet their friends, scene-stealing Stephen Merchant, Larry Joe Campbell, J.B. Smoove, all of them married but without a Hall Pass, they just want to witness Rick and Fred's adventures, living vicariously through them. We see "adventures" to Applebee's, golf courses with special and heavily-weeded-up brownies, lots of eating, nightclubs, gyms, and one special outing to a very tooly club with aging ladies man, Coakley, played by a hilarious, scene-stealing Richard Jenkins.  

I was surprised by some of the routes 'Pass' takes in the second half. It's not just about Rick and Fred out on the prowl. Instead, we see that Maggie and Grace might also be taking advantage of the Hall Pass too. A little darker than anticipated? Yep, you bet. I also noticed that Fischer looks freakishly tan, like alarmingly so. Just saying. Nicky Whelan is good -- and very nice to look at -- as Leigh, a barista who Rick plans to use his one-time Hall Pass on, and she certainly seems interested right back at him. Mostly though, I enjoyed watching the gents' weekly pass go to waste in all sorts of interesting fashions. Does it go anywhere near as planned? Nope, but as the week nears it's end, both "bachelors" have a chance to cheat. Very funny though, and I liked it throughout. Call it low expectations going in, but I liked it far more than I thought I would.

Hall Pass (2011): ***/****

Friends With Benefits

Hollywood, you sure are innovative, unique and always looking for something new, right? Haha, nah, just kidding. In January 2011, No Strings Attached was released, the story of two friends who hook up with....no strings attached. Six months later in July, 2011's Friends With Benefits hit theaters, the story of....friends with benefits. So yeah, we're talking basically the same movie.

Pursued by GQ Magazine to update their website, Dylan Harper (Justin Timberlake) visits New York City on an interview and is "handled" by executive recruiter Jamie Rellis (Mila Kunis). Dylan takes the job, leaving Los Angeles for the new job in NYC. He takes to the job immediately as a fast friendship starts with Jamie. Both 20-somethings are coming off bad breakups, and soon enough the conversation comes up. Why don't they just have sex? No dating, no relationship, no feelings, just sex. It seems simple enough, right? Can these two crazy kids pull off the craziest of no-dating, just sex schemes?

Is there a more unnecessary thing than typing up a plot synopsis for a movie 'Friends With Benefits'? If you have two functioning brain cells and have seen at least one other romantic comedy in your lifetime, I feel safe saying you can predict the ending of the movie. Go ahead.....try it. Playing on the notion that you know this movie before it even begins, director Will Gluck has some fun with the formula. A key ingredient of the two friends deciding to have sex sans relationship is that part of their agreement involves avoiding all the stereotypes of romantic comedies. They literally talk about avoiding all the cliches and stereotypes. It provides some fun moments, even if in the end, 'Benefits' basically throws out all those preconceptions and becomes the romantic comedy it's trying not to be. Go figure. Surprising, right?

So with all that said, I liked this movie. I liked it a lot. I think much of the enjoyment comes from the script. Yes, it's a non-romantic comedy that is just the opposite....a romantic comedy. But in getting to the point where you don't want to murder the characters, it's a lot of fun. The dialogue between Timberlake's Dylan (kinda a tool-ly name, huh?) and Kunis' Jamie feels real and smart without being too real, too smart and a tad bit condescending. It's cute without being ridiculously cute. The conversations about the sexing are funny without being filthy, and the script does a fine job creating little niches for these characters, especially Dylan. We learn plenty of little touches about him that are surprisingly funny -- his trouble with simple math, his talent for sneezing at a certain time, his love for Harry Potter (It's not gay!) -- and help 'Benefits' avoid being one big, cardboard cutout.

Now comparing 'Benefits' with 'Strings' is simple for me. I like Timberlake and Kunis. I like Natalie Portman and....yeah, Ashton Kutcher, not a fan. Your enjoyment (even a little bit) will come from how much you like or dislike these characters. I'll say again about Timberlake. When he was with NSync, I never thought I'd like the guy, but he continues to create a name for himself as a reliable, likable character. Kunis is, well, Kunis, gorgeous, pretty, attractive, and a good actress to boot. There is an easygoing chemistry between the two that carries the whole story and helps it rise above the painful and familiar trappings of a romantic comedy. If you like Timberlake and/or Kunis, you'll like this movie, simple as that.

The rest of the supporting cast ain't too shabby either. Patricia Clarkson has some fun as Jamie's quirky, goofy and kinda slutty Mom who's done her best to raise her daughter as a single mom. Richards Jenkins plays Dylan's dad suffering through the early stages of Alzheimer's with Jenna Elfman playing Dylan's brother in an interesting subplot about Dylan's past. Woody Harrelson is very funny in a less than subtle role as Tommy, Dylan's co-worker, the gay sports editor at GQ. Also look for quick appearances by Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Emma Stone and Andy Samberg. Professional snowboarder and Flying Tomato himself, Shaun White makes a funny two-scene appearance as himself.

As far as romantic comedies go, I liked this one a lot. No matter what it tries to do, 'Benefits' is just that; a romantic comedy. It does things the right way though. It's funny without pandering, and it has Mila Kunis in various stages of undress and skimpy outfits. That's never, ever a bad thing. For the ladies in the audience, Justin Timberlake is also nude his fair share of the time so if you'd like to see his butt, this is your movie.

Friends With Benefits (2011): ***/****

The Kingdom

Almost ten years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it can still be difficult to watch anything even remotely tied to the attacks. Actual footage of the planes flying into the World Trade Centers are still surreal to me because it is hard to fathom anything like that ever happened. I've mentioned before in reviews that movies in any way associated with the conflicts since in Iraq and Afghanistan have struggled, even movies based in the U.S. just involving the people involved. Maybe the wound is still too fresh, and who knows when -- if ever-- these movie will be easier to watch.

Even knowing how difficult these movies can be to watch, it is a shame that they have struggled to find audiences.  Many of them are very good to great movies.  The Hurt Locker is an obvious one, but there are countless others, including 2007's The Kingdom. I think it is a film that works better as a straight action movie than a current issues movie. Any "message movie" released since 2011 is going to sound downright preachy, and I was glad to see at IMDB's Message Boards that a fair share of viewers felt like they were watching a propaganda movie.  Up to you to decide for yourself though in that regard.

In an American compound in Saudi Arabia, over 100 people are killed and several more hundred wounded during a two-pronged terrorist attack.  Back in the U.S., FBI Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) is frustrated with the lack of forward movement being taken by the government to investigate the attacks. He pulls some strings within the Saudi government and gets an investigation team headed overseas, Fleury at the head of the group. From the start though, Fleury's four-man team is met with roadblock after roadblock. Saudi officials -- including lead officer Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) -- can only offer token assistance, regardless of how they feel about the attacks and the loss of life. Fed up with his limited timetable and little results, Fleury starts to push back, wanting to desperately catch the men responsible for the attack.

For some reason I'm struggling to put into words, there's something wrong with this movie. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't like it as much as I thought I would either. It's more than a little formulaic in a paint-by-numbers police procedural sort of way. The message (if it was intended this way) is somewhat heavy-handed and does come across as blatant propaganda at times.  The thing that bothered me most though was the simplicity of the whole thing. These four FBI agents basically track down the most sought after terrorist in the world in the matter of a few hours once their handcuffs are removed by limitations and local police procedure. Really? That's it? Yes, I realize this is a movie and not reality, but it is all too straightforward.

Netflix thought I would love this movie, no doubt because I've highly rated other similar men/team on a mission movies. The cast was a big drawing point for me, but in its execution it was somewhat disappointing.  Foxx has come a long way from his days on The Jamie Foxx Show, proving again he's capable of leading a solid cast in a Hollywood big budget picture. Also impressing is Chris Cooper as Grant Sykes, a bomb technician and high explosives expert. He's that wily veteran who's always ready with some smart ass comment. Sykes is old school and doesn't care if he pisses you off as long as he gets the job done. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner though I felt like they were miscast. Bateman plays Adam Leavitt, an intelligence analyst, while Garner is Janet Mayes, a forensic examiner. Neither actor is given a lot to do with their character, but they felt entirely out of place to me in this movie.

The best performance though hands down goes to Barhom as Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, the Saudi police officer working almost as the team's liaison during their investigation. Having seen what the terrorists can and will do in his country to innocent people, Al Ghazi is fed up with the system, and generally being hamstrung by policy and procedure that limit his actions.  The chemistry Bahrom has with Foxx is top-notch, these two men with completely different backgrounds working together, finding out they're not so different after all.  Their scenes together crackle, some great dialogue back and forth about their ideals, principles and motivations.  This Saudi character humanizes the movie in a way that surprised me. Other small supporting parts go to Ali Suliman as Haytham, Al Ghazi's right hand man, Jeremy Piven as the State Dept. official just trying to get the team out of country safely, Kyle Chandler as an FBI agent, Richard Jenkins as the head of the FBI, Tim McGraw, and Danny Huston. 

Where the first 75 minutes or so dawdles along at times, the pacing picks up to a frenetic pace in the final 35 minutes. One of the team is kidnapped in a high-speed attack on a highway, leaving the other three and the two Saudi police officers to pursue the kidnappers into the city. We're talking car chase followed by a rip-roaring shoot-out with a lot of firepower and a cool hand-to-hand combat scene.  The ending itself offers a bit of a surprise too, a happy ending with a 'P.S.'  I won't spoil it here, but it's a realistic ending. For all the victories that may be achieved in this war, there will always be another fight.  It is an eerie ending, a frustrating finale.

Director Peter Berg is one of the more underrated directors out there, and he doesn't disappoint here.  On the DVD commentary, he mentions that an ending from one of the early drafts of the script called for a whopper of a twist. As they leave, the whole team is killed in another terrorist bombing.  The ending as is now is pretty solid, one that doesn't need that extra shock value.  That's what the finale would have been; a shocker if Berg went with the alternate. This was a good movie that could have been better, and one that is saved by the power of its ending.  Better when it focuses on being an action movie than a message movie.

The Kingdom <---trailer (2007): ***/****

Burn After Reading

Over a career that's spanned 20-plus years and is showing absolutely no signs of slowing down, the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, have given movie fans a long list of often bizarre stories that are successful because of their weirdness. With movies like Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Ladykillers, and Intolerable Cruelty, the brother directing combo has set a tone for their off-the-wall, extremely dark sense of humor. But of all their movies -- funny or serious -- my new favorite is 2008's Burn After Reading.

Imagine 2004's Crash as a model for this Coen brothers comedy where all the characters are somehow linked, although they don't even know about it. Their stories cross repeatedly in a story of extremely low-level political intrigue that ends up in murder and mayhem. Sounds hilarious, doesn't it? Working with such high quality directors like the Coens must appeal to big name actors because the cast assembled here is as pitch perfect as possible with several stars playing completely against type, their image that has helped make them stars.

A long-time analyst for the CIA Balkan desk, Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is being reassigned because of a drinking problem which he may or may not have. Much to his wife's chagrin (Tilda Swinton), Osborne decides to write a memoir about his days in the CIA. After some early struggles, the disk with all of Osborne's files ends up in the very uncapable hands of two gym employees, Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), a middle-aged woman who's decided she's gone as far as she can with this body and needs massive amounts of plastic surgery, and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), Linda's dimwitted friend who goes along with her plan for some reason. Thinking they've stumbled on to a jackpot, Linda and Chad attempt to blackmail Osborne into paying for his CD back. So starts events that snowball and gets much, much worse before they'll get better.

The first 30 minutes or so set the stage and introduce all the characters and because of that is somewhat slow. There's also Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a U.S. marshal and generally pretty clueless guy who's having an affair with Cox's wife, and Ted (Richard Jenkins), the manager of the gym Linda and Chad work at who is also madly in love with Linda. The pace picks up quickly once they do find the CD, and it never really slows down from there. I'm not talking a chuckle here and there, I mean deep, guttural laughs from your stomach where you feel you're going to pee. It is as dark as dark humor can get, completely born out of the situation these idiotic characters have created for themselves.

While the whole cast is phenomenal, the star is Brad Pitt who has a supporting role and limited screentime as dimwitted but lovable Chad. Pitt has done comedy before, but nothing quite like this. He pulls off the physical humor -- Chad is always dancing with his ever-present IPOD never too far away -- and completely commits to looking like a dork. Here's a fan-made best of Chad moments. I hope Pitt continues with these against type comedic roles. That's not to say the rest of the cast isn't good, but Pitt steals the movie. Malkovich gets to play the straight man and is hilarious because he is playing it seriously. His Osborne Cox is just going through a rough patch that gets worse and worse every day. McDormand does not disappoint either as plastic surgery driven Linda.

What makes this all work (besides the absolute idiocy of the characters' reactions) is the commitment to making this a serious movie. There's no pandering to audiences with easy laughs or clues -- LAUGH NOW, THIS IS FUNNY! -- with the Coen brothers script building to these crazy moments, including one of the funniest scenes ever, a meeting between Chad and Osborne. Selling this all is a perfect score from composer Carter Burwell which sounds like something you'd hear in a political thriller and therefore is completely out of place. It works because it points out the ridiculousness of it all.

As for the last 30 minutes or the movie, think of Fargo's finale and you've got an idea of where this story is going. The bodies mount up and the paranoia grows as everyone assumes someone else is trying to turn them in. It builds to a great ending with J.K. Simmons and David Rasche as two CIA officers trying to figure out exactly what's happening (seen HERE, not the greatest quality). If you enjoy extremely dark comedy or are a fan of previous Coen movies, this one should be right up your alley.

Burn After Reading <----trailer (2008): ****/****