Hail, Caesar!

Have you heard the name Eddie Mannix? I hadn't. He worked in the film industry for years as a "fixer," making problems go away for Hollywood studios with its stars, productions and films so everything ran as smoothly as possible. A natural idea for a feature flick, right? You bet. Here's the latest from the Coen brothers, 2016's Hail, Caesar!

Working for a major Hollywood film studio in the early 1950's, fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is good at what he does. No, he's great. If a problem comes up with a movie in production or the studio's stable of stars, Eddie pulls some strings, pays off this guy, massages this situation...and poof, it's gone! Well, there's a pretty big problem. One of the biggest stars on the lot, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), has gone missing with no trace. Baird is starring in the studio's blockbuster biblical epic in the lead role and every hour he's missing is costing oodles of money. No one's quite sure what happened until Eddie receives a ransom note demanding $100,000 for a group called 'The Future.' What to do? Eddie gets the money from the studio to pay them off, but that's just the start of his problems as all sorts of drama appears around the studio lots.

The idea for this film dates back to the early 2000's when the brother director duo, Joel and Ethan Coen, originally intended to do a like-minded film set in the 1920's about a play based in biblical times. It sat around for years before the brothers finally tackled it again and here's the finished product. The Coen brothers and their films can be an acquired, oddball taste so here's a quick moral of the story. If you like their previous movies (especially their comedies), you'll like/love 'Hail.' If not, it's probably more of a mixed bag.

What appealed to me most about this film was the absolute love the Coen brothers have for film and movie history. 'Hail' is set in Hollywood's Golden Age of Film when studios ran things with an iron fist, where stars were owned by said studios, and America was still (well, mostly so) innocent and naive. Even when they're having fun in quasi-spoof form, there is evident love of the history of film everywhere. Much of it -- as the Coens are known for -- is snappy, knowing dialogue throughout, brief asides, seemingly throwaway lines, underplayed deliveries that pay huge dividends. It's also the look of the film with cinematographer Roger Deakins (he's kinda good) giving the story a distinct visual look that changes from scene-to-scene in a good way. The same for Carter Burwell's score (another Coen favorite) that is able to delicately bounce among genres from epic to western, heavy drama to musicals.

In basically a complete departure from his previous pairing with the Coens, No Country for Old Men (he also worked with them in True Grit), Josh Brolin gets to play the straight man through all the lunacy and craziness as studio fixer Eddie Mannix. Oh, and he still manages to get some laughs along the way. He's the heart of the movie, the baseline it always comes back to. It's fun watching him navigate one perilous situation after another seamlessly, always knowing what to do, how to fix it and most importantly, how to spin it. The most important part of the character? It is something that reflects the general tone of the movie. Through all the craziness thrown his way, Eddie loves movies and what they represent to audiences. Maybe all the drama and long hours he goes through wouldn't be worth it to many people, but Eddie Mannix loves films and the feelings they can produce in its audiences. A bit of a thankless part but one Brolin manages to make his own.

The movie as a whole is more of an ensemble though. Brolin's Eddie is the point man, navigating us through one studio situation after another. The biggest focus goes to that actor named George Clooney who you may have heard of. His Baird Whitlock is a great character, a bit of a doof, a pretty actor, and a tad on the naive side. I don't want to give away who/what kidnapped him, but it provides some truly funny moments as Baird gets duped into the plan. As for the rest of the ensemble, there's Scarlett Johansson in Esther Williams mode, Ralph Fiennes as an English director of spectacle films, Channing Tatum in Gene Kelly mode, Tilda Swinton in dueling roles as twin sister gossip columnists, Frances McDormand as a mousy film editor, and Jonah Hill as an accountant of sorts who helps the studio get themselves out of a variety of different jams. These are all smaller parts though so don't expect it to be a Channing Tatum movie or Scarlett Johansson movie. These are the definition of supporting parts.

By far though, the best performance here goes to Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle, a star of B-westerns in the vein of Gene Autry/Hopalong Cassidy/Roy Rogers. A man of few words on-screen, Hobie is forced to take part in a very distinguished, high-class film -- directed by Fiennes -- that...well, makes him talk. What a hilarious character, and it works so well because Hobie seems like such a genuinely nice young actor, especially on his date with a Carmen Miranda-inspired actress (Veronica Osorio). There's not much meanness in Hobie, just a nice guy thrust into some Hollywood dramatics. His enunciation scene with Fiennes is sublimely perfect and perfectly underplayed. No matter who he's on-screen with, Ehrenreich steals those scenes and makes it look easy as he does it.

The ensemble leans toward a story with more moments than a linear plot. 'Hail' has all these great singular moments that work exceptionally well. Mannix sitting down with representatives of different churches to see if their prestige biblical epic is God-approved is priceless. Tatum's "On the Town" dance scene is ripe with innuendos and judged solely as a choreographed dance scene, a treat to watch. Johansson's swim scene looks ripped out of an Esther Williams movie, albeit with a great twist as a capper. The movie is full of these memorable moments from one scene to another that makes it fun to see where things will go next, regardless of a less than pointed, linear story. The Coen brothers script and a remarkably talented cast holds it all together and then some.

Fair warning, it will probably help your enjoyment here if you have some knowledge of Hollywood and film history. 'Hail' isn't necessarily a laugh out loud comedy. It gets its laughs from a sly line here, a clever reference there, a line inflection that brings that line to life. If you're a fan of film and movies in general, the guts and business of making those movies, Hail, Caesar! is for you. It isn't doing so hot in theaters, but I absolutely loved it. Highly recommended!

Hail, Caesar! (2016): *** 1/2 /****

Avengers: Age of Ultron

By all accounts, 2015 at the movie box office is the year of BIG MOVIES. Released in early April, Furious 7 zoomed past the $1 billion dollar mark already and was joined this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron, the next big thing in the Marvel franchise. The scary part for my nerdy self is there's still Mad Max, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Terminator, and of course, Star Wars to come in theaters. I loved Furious 7 and wouldn't you know it? I loved Avengers too.

In the Eastern European country of Sokovia, the Avengers -- Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) -- are able to fight their way into a Hydra outpost to recover Loki's all-powerful scepter. Back at the Avengers base, Tony Stark wants to use this power for good, using the scepter's power to create a brand of artificial intelligence that could shield the world, to protect it from all threats. Nothing goes quite to plan though as the artificial intelligence uses its ridiculous amount of pressure, calling itself Ultron (voice of James Spader), and escapes across the world's technology intent on destroying the Avengers and ultimately ruling the world. Can this ultra-powerful tool and weapon be stopped? At what cost? Once again, it comes down to the Avengers putting their differences aside to pull off a seemingly impossible mission.

It's been three years since the first Avengers movie hit theaters and tore apart the box office, earning $1.5 billion worldwide. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise that continues to pile up the money, and typically, positive reviews. Fans love them -- for the most part -- and I include myself in that list. These Avengers movies have become the perfect blockbuster, huge, sprawling action adventures with a crazy cast and crazier action. Director Joss Whedon returns to helm this sequel, and even he admits the work that goes into making these movies (Read...the intense, soul-crushing PRESSURE) is brutally tough. Whedon even wrote this daunting screenplay. Potential world-ending villains, double-digit MAIN characters, countless quick, cameo appearances, and the high expectations of the franchise's countless fans, man, that is a TON of pressure.

So yeah, reviews were a little more mixed here than with the first flick. Sure, there are some flaws and hiccups along the way. None of those flaw/hiccups proves to be too big a problem simply because these movies are so damn fun. Like all the franchise entries, there is a certain formula to follow, but 'Ultron' is able to tweak that formula a bit. All the characters are there, the witty banter, the great villains, the world-shattering action. The F-U-N. The story doesn't always make a ton of sense, but it becomes an issue of...well, does it really matter? You sit back, eat some popcorn and go for the ride. It's a relatively long movie at 141 minutes, but it never feels long. Things are moving too fast and there's too many moving pieces for this money-raking sequel to actually slow down.

The biggest appeal for me with the Avengers flicks above the action or the villains or all the craziness is the ridiculous cast. These casts, my goodness, they're epic. With so many characters, we don't always get the depth/development/background you might want, but Whedon's script certainly goes for it. We continue to see the budding rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America, the budding lovey-dovey relationship between Bruce Banner and Black Widow, and I thought the coolest part, getting to know the most-human members of the Avengers, Hawkeye and a secret he's been holding onto and Black Widow and her past as an assassin trained by the KGB. There's so much to cover, a movie clocking in at 141 simply can't give too much character development. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own -- and many of them have -- so when you combine them, it comes together pretty perfectly. There's almost too much talent for it NOT to work.

That cast, that ridiculous list of stars though, it simply isn't enough. Right? Right?!? We need more characters!!! James Spader is perfectly voice-cast as Ultron, the artificial intelligence hell-bent on destroying the world. Spader's voice is silky and smooth and droll and dripping with intimidation. Without ever appearing on-screen, Spader is a scene-stealer. Also joining him in the villains department are Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as the Twins, a Russian brother and sister with special powers, Pietro with super speed and Wanda with mental manipulation. Quite the interesting trio. Also appearing in smaller parts -- but necessary ones -- are Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Because of the behemoth that is the Marvel universe, there's also Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell, Stellan Skarsgard, Thomas Kretschmann, and because that wasn't enough, more characters including Linda Cardellini, Claudia Kim, Andy Serkis, and an expanded role -- a very cool one -- for Paul Bettany as Jarvis.

This may come as a bit of sacrilege, but I thought the weakest part of this money-raking sequel is actually the action itself. Look, here's my thoughts. It looks great. It looks polished. It looks CRAZY at times, but you just know none of it is real. It is all CGI to the point you get lost in it. There's not as much emotional punch. Action movies have become so reliant on this stuff that is becomes a crippling crutch. I haven't seen it yet but Mad Max: Fury Road is getting ridiculously positive reviews because the action is real. They went out and filmed it and did the stunts. To a certain extent, the same for Furious 7. The action is great and shown on a huge, world-shattering scale, but it's almost too polished. The exception is the destruction-riddled finale, an incredibly put-together extended action sequence that is able to blend the CGI with the characters and their bonds (and some twists along the way) in an extravaganza of fights and stunts and destruction.

Yeah, there are issues. With this much going on, it would be near impossible for there not to be issues. But by the time you get to the scene where the Avengers -- and some surprising reinforcements -- dig their heels in for a last stand against Ultron's minions, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, and it's all in slow motion...........oh man, fan boy moment! It's hard not to go along for the ride. It isn't perfect, and I liked the first Avengers more, but this is about as entertaining as anything you could ask for. Quite the daunting task taken on by Whedon and his script, but I'll call it booming, flawed gem of a success. Now onto other Marvel films....and there will be tons! The ending especially sets things up nicely for the next Captain America movie, set for release in 2016. Bring it on!

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Chef

So you know what's all the rage these days? Go figure, but it's....FOOD!!! I mean that statement semi-seriously though. From the ever-expanding and ever-popular Food Network with shows like Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives and Chopped to the Travel Channel with its reliance on food-based shows, FOOD...IS...EVERYWHERE. Cooking reality shows are even popping up on network TV. In other words, strike while the iron is hot. Here's 2014's Chef.

A chef with quite the following, quite the reputation in the culinary community, Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) has a solid job at a highly respected restaurant in Los Angeles. When he hears word that a respected food critic who backed him with a glowing review years ago is coming to the restaurant, Carl plans a unique, innovative menu that differs from the everyday menu. That's the plan at least. The owner insists otherwise, the critics rips apart the blase food, and Carl gets fired when he explodes at the critic a few days later, an explosion that goes viral. Now with no job and no money, Carl must figure out what's next for him. That viral video has all but doomed any jobs he could get, but his ex-wife (Sofia Vergara) brings up an idea she's brought up before only to get shot down. What if Carl got back to basics and opened up a food truck? The respected chef wants nothing to do with it at first but he also doesn't have a ton of other options...

More and more, I've found my mood is impacting my movie-going experience more than I thought. Now, a good movie is a good movie, but this very likable family comedy/drama hit all the right notes for me. Favreau wrote, directed and starred in this flick from last year that capitalizes on all the food buzz wherever you turn, assembling a familiar but always enjoyable screenplay, an impressive cast, and a feel-good story that's just missing too often when it comes to flicks hitting theaters every week. It isn't an instant classic, but I watched Chef and something resonated with me. Hopefully it does with you too, regardless of your feelings about food and eating.

I've always liked Jon Favreau dating back to his guest starring days on Friends to his directing the Iron Man flicks and a whole bunch of stuff in between. His Carl Casper character is definitely an interesting one, a once rising chef who's kinda leveled off through no fault of his own. A middle-aged man having a midlife crisis is nothing new in basically any form of film, television and literature, but like the film as a whole, there's an energy Favreau brings to the part. He's not perfect, trying to balance his career while still being a good father to his 10-year old son, Percy (a very impressive Emjay Anthony), who wants nothing more than to hang out with his dad. Sure, it can be a tad sugary sweet at times, but if you like the characters and are rooting for them, does it matter? Credit to Favreau though, keeping a lot of plates -- writing, directing, starring -- spinning and doing it well.

As for Favreau off-screen, his co-stars and fellow actors must like the guy. He put together quite the cast of big name stars, many of them agreeing to take a smaller part, extended cameos. But first, the bigger parts, the most essential ones. I loved John Leguizamo as Martin, Carl's longtime friend, fellow chef and a rising star in his own right. I've always been a Leguizamo fan but he just looks to be having a lot of fun and it shows throughout. Vergara too is excellent in toned down role from what we see on ABC's Modern Family. As Carl's ex-wife, she avoids any shrill ex stereotypes (thankfully), Vergara doing a fine job in the part.

Also look for Bobby Cannavale as Tony, Carl's sous chef, Scarlett Johansson as the restaurant hostess and quasi-girlfriend, Dustin Hoffman as the stuck in his ways restaurant owner, Oliver Platt as the food critic with a way with a dig, Amy Sedaris as an agent/publicist trying to help Carl, and an actor named Robert Downey Jr. as a possible business partner for Carl with a link to his past.

This isn't an out and out comedy. It's a family drama with a lot of laughs. I genuinely laughed out loud far more than I thought I would. 'Chef' has some fun early as Carl is introduced to the world of Twitter through Percy, through all sorts of social media that can be good and bad. That all adds a nice dimension to the story in its second half as Carl and Percy with some help from Martin open up a food truck in Miami and road trip it across America back to Los Angeles. It's cool to see a pleasant, nice, funny and very enjoyable movie that features a fun Latino and Cuban-themed soundtrack. Definitely one worth picking up. Just beware. I don't recommend watching this movie on an empty stomach. It's a delicious flick.

Chef (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

So those Avengers movies...they seem to be kinda popular judging by the money they're raking in at the box office. I thought The Avengers was great. I loved the first Iron Man but thought the movies progressively went downhill with the sequels. As for the two Thor movies, I thought Thor was a great lead character, but the movies itself were disappointing. So what's that leave? That's right, my personal favorite, Steve Rogers himself. He returns by his better known name in 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

With the epic battle in New York in the rear view mirror, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) himself, is working for SHIELD. He takes on countless missions around the world, anything and everything that threatens national and international security, often with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) working with him. Captain America and the Black Widow pull off one dangerous mission in the Indian Ocean, but it has dangerous repercussions. It actually exposes a breach within Shield and now Captain America is made to look like a traitor to everything he has defended for all these years. With all of SHIELD's resources on his trail, he's now on his own as he tries to stop a diabolical plan that could kill millions while also proving his innocence. His biggest obstacle? A mysterious, seemingly in destructible assassin dubbed the Winter Soldier.

A plot description for an Avengers movie is pretty unnecessary. Without hearing a word about the story, you either know you will or won't be seeing this flick. From directors Anthony and Joe Russo, 'Soldier' is another gem, another worthy addition to the Avengers franchise. Apparently I'm not the only one who thought so as the most recent Captain America earned over $700 million internationally at the box office. All the ingredients are there -- great cast, epic action, well-written script, some well-placed humor -- but there's a reason the Captain movies are my favorite. They're big, giant blockbusters, but they're more than that. These are genuinely smart movies. I don't know if I can say the same for either Iron Man or Thor entries.

It all starts with Chris Evans reprising his role as Captain America. He's long been one of my favorite actors, and this is obviously his biggest and most recognizable role. I love how they've developed the Steve Rogers character. It's been a couple years since the Avengers, and Steve/Captain is still adjusting to the 21st Century after six-plus decades being frozen in a glacier. His chemistry with Johansson's Black Widow/Natasha is evident in all their scenes together, and it's definitely cool to see individuals among the Avengers get some time to themselves, not just as part of the group. Also cool? Like you needed to know, but Samuel L. Jackson is back as Nick Fury, SHIELD's tough, efficient leader. Throw these three epically cool characters together, and you've got quite a lot of heroes to lead the way.

Also returning with varying amounts of screentime are Cobie Smulders as SHIELD agent Hill, Toby Jones, and Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Steve's possible love interest from the 1940s, now a grandma struggling with health issues. 

How about some fresh blood too?!? When I saw that Robert Redford was part of the cast, I almost lost my mind. Robert REDFORD?!? Here he plays Alexander Pierce, a powerful senator backing the defensive efforts of SHIELD who has a long history working with Fury. It's a cool part, one that adds another dimension to the already enjoyable story. Anthony Mackie is a welcome addition to as Sam Wilson, a para-rescue vet who forms a quick friendship with Steve when things hit the fan. Frank Grillo and Callan Mulvey play members of a strike force working with SHIELD while Emily VanCamp plays Steve's neighbor holding a key secret. Some cool parts to add to an already very talented cast.

So go figure, but this Captain America movie has some pretty cool action sequences. Crazy, right? I don't want to give away too much because the various twists and turns should come as a surprise and not be spoiled in a review. The action though is pretty solid, from a smaller scale scene early on where Captain, Widow and a Strike force team take out a group of commandos holding hostages to chases sprinkled throughout the story. I thought the coolest was Jackson's Fury trying to evade an ambush on the streets of Washington D.C., just an effortlessly smooth extended sequence that some cool tricks up its sleeve. And the finale? Yeah, pretty nuts, a gigantic battle in scale and size in the skies in and around Washington. The finale in The Avengers set the bar pretty high in that department, and 'Soldier' does its best to reach those heights.

Just a good movie with a lot to recommend. This is a blockbuster -- $700 million!!! -- that's got a brain. Even the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) isn't an out-and-out villain, but a tortured baddie forced into something he had no control over. There's a pretty major twist near the halfway point that I didn't love, but it does work when all things are considered, both for this movie and the Captain America and Avengers franchise going forward. Highly recommended, an easy flick to sit back, watch and appreciate.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014): *** 1/2 /****

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/ ****

Lost in Translation

They are the movies that everyone loves. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. Critics and fans alike drool over these flicks, especially during awards season. As I've written about before, cynic that I am, I immediately don't like those movies without having seen even a little of it. Call me naturally suspicious. Released in 2003, Lost in Translation was one of those movies, universally liked, and I had no dying to see it interest. Well, it's 10 years later. I'm safe, right? Might as well check it out.

An aging American movie star, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is no longer a sure thing at the box office. He's taken a job as a whiskey spokesperson for a company in....Japan. It's a lucrative payday, netting the middle-aged movie star $2 million bucks. There's a catch though. He hates it, hates everything about it. He feels completely out of sorts in Japan as he films commercial after commercial, does photo shoot after photo shoot. At his hotel one night as Bob deals with his own insomnia, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a young married woman struggling with where her life is currently at. She's in Tokyo with her photographer husband who's on assignment, leaving her a lot of time to do her own thing. She is of course...miserable. But in this case, the middle-aged actor and the young wife have found a similar soul.

From director/writer Sofia Coppola, 'Translation' cost just $4 million to make but earned over $120 million in its theatrical release. It won an Oscar for Best Screenplay (penned by Coppola), and was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, none of them managing a win. I'm glad I caught up with it finally. No doubt about it, it's a good flick. That said, I didn't love it. 'Translation' wasn't a life-changing movie for me. It's a good, well-written story that features two great performances from Murray and Johansson. The performances are by far the best thing in Coppola's film.

With a story about people, 'Translation' makes a wise choice and decides to focus on....the people!!! What a great idea! I've always been a big fan of Murray dating back to his SNL/Caddyshack days, but that's how I typically think of him, a comedic actor. Along with his Wes Anderson ventures, he shows he is perfect at that underplayed, smart, a little sarcastic straight man. Just about everything here is underplayed, Murray making Bob this great lead character. His family/home life isn't ideal as we see through some phone calls back home to the wife. The same for Johansson as Charlotte, typically an actress who's thought of more as a pretty face than a good actress (and she is appropriately gorgeous here). Much like Murray, her part is quiet and real without being obvious and aggressively in your face.

It's that chemistry between the duo that carries the movie. And let it be said, it's a good thing because the movie barely has an energetic pulse to begin with. There aren't a lot of set pieces or BIG moments so the episodic story kinda drifts along at certain points. We see a couple chance encounters at the hotel bar, a couple quasi-dates as they explore Tokyo, but mostly it's a lot of talking as we get to know the two characters. We meet them and find out what drives them, how they got to that point, how their personal lives have driven them to become friends in a hotel bar in a foreign country. As for the rest of the cast, it's limited to Giovanni Ribisi as John, Charlotte's photographer husband (generally pretty clueless), Anna Faris as Kelly, an actress doing a publicity tour in Tokyo who knows John in some form from the past.

I'm struggling with much to write about this flick. I liked it but didn't love it. It's good but not even close to great. Coppola's style is subtle and artsy, much like the story itself. 'Translation' explores all sorts of topics from insomnia to feeling out of place to the feeling of being lost in one's life. The ending is mysteriously annoying, but I guess it's an ending that's called for. Nothing is tidy for anyone involved, just a real ending. Mildly disappointed I didn't like this more, and maybe down the road on a repeat viewing, I will. For now...it's okay.

Lost in Translation (2003): ** 1/2 /****

Hitchcock

A movie about the making of a movie? Yeah, that doesn't necessarily sound that interesting. Oh, it's about all-time great director Alfred Hitchcock and one of his most respected classics? Okay, I'm a little more interested now. I was curious but skeptical going in, but I ended up liking 2012's Hitchcock a whole lot.

It is 1959 and highly respected Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is coming off one of his best movies in terms of critical acclaim and audience success, North by Northwest. He's thrown for a loop when a reporter asks if he's going to retire now that's he 60 years old. Hitchcock vows his next film will be his best, a unique, doozy of a flick that audiences have never seen the likes of before. He finds his source in a novel called Psycho, a story loosely based on a real-life murderer. The subject matter is highly controversial, especially for a 1960 audience, and he struggles from the get-go to get the backing to produce his movie. Instead, he and his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren), fund the movie themselves, putting their own money up as backing. Casting, the actual filming, the studio, the censors, all will prove difficult in getting his film made, but it's also threatening to tear up his longtime marriage and partnership with Alma.

Released in 1960, Psycho was a film that earned lukewarm reviews but rabid audiences ate it up and helped it take off. It earned four Oscar nominations -- including Hitchcock for director, Janet Leigh for supporting actress --and quickly became a classic with a story and style that helped rewrite the thriller/horror genre. While it's remembered as a classic now, it had a checkered production as Hitchcock struggled to get backing (studio head Richard Portnow) while also doing battle with the censors (played by Kurtwood Smith) to make the movie that he wanted to make. From the infamous shower scene to the on-screen depiction of violence and sex, it is a gem of a film. Enough with background though. Is a movie about a movie interesting? Sometimes stories based on facts like this can play like reading an encyclopedia, but this one is interesting from the first scene right to the end.

I know there's a lot of great acting performances out there, but I'm genuinely surprised Hopkins did not earn a Best Actor nomination. He certainly deserved it. For one, he's almost unrecognizable as the famous English director. Looks are just one aspect of the performance, one that isn't a do or die moment. What's more important is that Hopkins becomes Hitchcock. The speech patterns, the personal, little mannerisms like holding his suit, pursing his lips, it all adds up to bring the puzzle pieces together. When Hopkins is on-screen, you can't take your eyes away from him. It also isn't a hero pic, portraying the director as he was, an incredibly talented if mercurial director who had tendencies that drove people up a wall at times. On the other hand, he was so talented those people had to put up with him at times.

The movie is significantly better for it. While it is about the making of Psycho, it's more so about how the making of Psycho affected Hitchcock's marriage to Alma Reville, played to perfection by Helen Mirren. While filming, Hitchcock had his quirks. He was always searching for that perfect platinum blonde (Kim Novak, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren), sometimes at the expense of paying Alma any attention at all, something that plays out as Alma works with smooth-talking screenwriter Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). Neither Hitch (he at one points says "Hitch....never mind the cock") nor Alma is below playing some head games, testing their marriage when the pressure of making their movie successful is already wearing on them. We see Hitchcock in all his glory and flaws -- holding grudges, being a peeping tom among others -- but it adds to the movie, making it more than just a documentary. Hopkins and Mirren are two pros at the top of their games, great lead performances.

Working with director Sacha Gervasi is a very talented supporting cast beyond his two stars. I was worried some because the actors are playing....well, actors, and actors much of the audience will be familiar with. Scarlett Johansson is excellent playing Janet Leigh, the star of Psycho who bonds quickly with Hitchcock during filming, Jessica Biel also solid as Psycho co-star Vera Miles. Toni Collette is solid too as Peggy Robertson, Hitch's much-maligned assistant who is nonetheless someone the director counts on in a big way. Michael Stuhlbarg is very good as Lew Wasserman, Hitch's agent trying to help him through the troubled production. Michael Wincott is perfectly creepy as Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Norman Bates character, James D'Arcy playing Anthony Perkins. In a cool storytelling device, Gein actually "talks" to Hitchcock, apparently giving the director inspiration in bringing his movie together.

I liked this movie. Good style, solid characterization and an inside look at a classic film. I loved the bookend storytelling too, Hitchcock actually talking to the audience much like he did in his Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. It's on-screen narration that works so well, setting things up. In a cool visual with the narration, the final scene gives a hint to Hitchcock's next film, another classic remembered fondly with Psycho. Just a good solid film overall, most memorable for Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren.

Hitchcock (2012): ***/****

The Avengers

Since 2008's Iron Man, the Marvel Comics universe has been introduced to a worldwide audience via a series of films featuring an infamous list of heroes. With each passing movie, the audience would see little snippets of something bigger being hinted at, something else coming along down the road. We saw quick scenes of characters, usually post-credits, and the rumors drifted. Would all these superhero characters team up as they did in the Marvel comics, forming The Avengers (<---the comic)? You bet, and that's where 2012's The Avengers rides into town to open the summer blockbusters.

For those not familiar with the Avengers' lineup, here goes, a refresher course in badass superheroes. The plot synopsis is next, but I wanted to start with a listing of these characters. The biggest and baddest? Well, I guess that's a personal choice, but I'm starting with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Tony Stark in real life, a rich, eccentric playboy philanthropist. Joining him are Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero come back to fight in 2012, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), an other-worldly Norse god, and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), scientist Bruce Banner post-gamma ray accident. Rounding out the group are two assassins and special agents, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a brutally efficient expert in hand-to-hand combat, and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a pilot and marksman with bow and arrow. Good enough? That's just the start.

Director of espionage and intelligence agency S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) arrives at a remote secure facility in the desert as a time portal opens up and brings an unwelcome visitor. It is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), half-brother of Norse god, Thor, and he intends to wreak havoc on Earth. Loki steals the all-powerful Tesseract -- a pure, clean and unmeasurable source of energy -- and intends to use it to take over the planet. With nowhere to turn and no mortal, normal solution, Fury turns to the only individuals he can in a plan dubbed the Avengers Initiative, a collection of "freaks" all with unique, bizarre powers. With these different personalities and talents, can the group put their differences aside long enough to save the planet?

This is a summer blockbuster, definition of basically, director Joss Whedon's film raking in over $200 million its opening weekend alone, and that's just the United States. It is a big, big movie, but a good big movie, and that means everything. It clocks in at 143 minutes total and even without the most pointed of stories manages to be entertaining from start to finish. 'Avengers' is in no rush to get anywhere. It is a great popcorn movie. The action is great to watch, shot on a huge scale and using CGI but never that ridiculous-looking 'Oh, look, it's CGI' type reaction. Genuinely funny with a handful of legitimate laughs, full of action and great characters, this will not disappoint fans of the Iron Man movies, Hulk, or Thor. The Avengers very much so lives up to its admittedly rather high expectations.

A good script is one thing, and having the talent to execute it another thing entirely. The cast here are movie stars who can act, not just movie stars. The obvious star is Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man/Tony Stark, bringing this character to life perfectly the same way he did in Iron Man 1 and 2. Amidst a sea of solid actors, he manages to stand out, delivering countless smarmy, smart-ass one-liners. I'm also a fan of Evans too, and he's in close second as Captain America in terms of memorable superheroes. None of that is to say the rest are disappointing. Ruffalo and Hemsworth are excellent in smaller parts, pieces of an ensemble. Johansson seems a little out of place, but watching her in a leather catsuit puts any of those questions to bed. Renner too doesn't have a ton to do, but as one of the rising stars in Hollywood, it's one more solid, worthwhile part.

Not enough? Along with the always reliable, always worth watching Samuel L. Jackson, Hiddleston is a great maniacal villain you love to hate, Clark Gregg runs with his chance at more screentime as SHIELD agent Coulson and never looks back, Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) plays another SHIELD agent, Stellan Skarsgard is the brilliant scientist duped into working for Loki, Harry Dean Stanton as a security guard who meets post-rage Hulk, and Powers Boothe has a quick part as a member of the World Security Council. Oh, can't forget about Gwyneth Paltrow's quick appearance as Pepper Potts, Tony's girlfriend. Not too bad of a cast, huh?

The action is impressive -- more on that later -- but what I liked most was the team aspect of the Avengers. Who's the leader? How will they work together? Can they? The script has countless scenes that throw them together in groups of two and three, five and six, and just lets them go. Yes, they're all different people, but they are in fact fighting together. Jackson's Fury has a great scene late when he has to convince the remaining Avengers to band together, the movie on the whole taking a turn for the dark side as push comes to shove. Their interactions -- both dramatic and humorous -- are a pleasure to watch. Then there's that little kid, primal thing that kicks in. A fight among Iron Man, Thor and Capt. America? Oh, hell yes! A brutal, knock-down fight between Thor and Hulk? Sign me up. The specialist, expert team aspect sounds obvious that it would work (and it does) but these characters clicking into place makes the movie particularly memorable.

Oh, by the way, there's crazy amounts of amazing action. I mentioned earlier watching CGI action gets old quickly, but that's not the case here. The CGI for one, looks real. Crazy thought, isn't it? The movie never goes long without a fight/action sequence, but the best is saved for last, Loki's minions unleashed through a universe portal on New York City, and all that stands in front of them is the Avengers. It goes on for most of 45 minutes but the time flies by. The whole movie does in that sense. Highly entertaining, funny and dramatic, memorable action, and a lineup sheet of some of the coolest superheroes and characters around. Go see this.

The Avengers <---trailer (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Match Point

For years, director Woody Allen was associated with New York City, filming countless movies there and basically making the city another character in his stories. After being one of the city's most recognizable celebrities and biggest promoters, Allen has started filming in Europe over the last eight or nine years, specifically London and more recently Paris.  The cities always are key to his story, not just being a jumping off point that could be any international city.

Sitting in my Netflix Queue for almost the last year was Allen's 2005 film Match Point, a cold, dark film where London is as cold and barren as the characters and story. The Netflix description was pretty accurate, a thriller with Hitchcockian tones (is that a word? Eh, it sounds cool).  I'd like to think that's a compliment, but the more I think about it, I'm just not sure.  Allen has a personal directing style that's all his own, but with Match Point and 2007's Cassandra's Dream, he does seem to be going down the smart, sophisticated thriller that Hitchcock is so often associated with. Good or bad, compliment or criticism, the movie is a good one.

A successful mid-level professional tennis player, Irish-born Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is moving on with his life. Working as a tennis pro at a high-end club, Chris meets Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), a young businessman raised in a very well-to-do upper class family. Chris and Tom hit it off quickly, Chris becoming very popular with the Hewetts (parents Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton), especially their single daughter, Chloe (Emily Mortimer). Chris sees a chance at a life he never had growing up and embraces it, including starting to date Chloe, a relationship that quickly becomes serious. Everything seems to be going perfectly for Chris until he meets Nola (Scarlett Johannson), Tom's American fiance, with whom he has an instant sexual/physical attraction. Chris is going down a bad road -- and he knows it -- but can he stop himself?

There is a lot to like about this movie so I was surprised to read a fair share of hate for 'Match' at any number of message boards.  The script -- from Allen himself -- is well-written even if it does depend on coincidences and chance encounters a bit much for my liking. At just over two hours, the movie has a leisurely pace for a thriller. Scenes are in no rush to speed up to the message, enjoying the process of just getting there.  Long scenes of uncut dialogue, just two people communicating, pepper the story, giving the movie a throwback feel from the 1960s.  Allen just sets his camera up and lets his actors act.  He doesn't call attention to himself much, filming from a distance. It is a cold story (in terms of visuals but also what's going on with the characters), one that I can understand some viewers having trouble getting into.

Where I had a problem is that not one character is particularly redeeming or even remotely likable.  I don't need anyone to be a saint of angelic proportions, but someone to root for is always nice.  Some are obviously worse than others, but they all have these annoying character traits -- some on a larger scale than others -- that hamstring them. Rhys-Meyers as Chris is obviously the worst, a conniving, rat-like manipulator who betrays all those around him while cheating on his wife and possibly much, much worse. Johannson's Nola goes from the sexual, beautiful gorgeous ideal to a clingy, overly-emotional wreck. Even Mortimer -- who ends up being the most sympathetic of all these wrecks -- has this passive aggressive way of communicating, condescendingly pointing out that she's rich and you're not.  A mess of characters, all of them very interesting to watch take each other down.

The acting then can be hard to judge.  I disliked and/or hated most of the characters, wanting them to get what they deserved in the end.  I guess that's a good sign then of the actors/actresses bringing their characters to life, especially Rhys-Meyers.  There is something about him physically that makes me not like him, not as a character but as a person (and I feel bad judging him like that). Chris is a weasel, a smooth, suave sophisticated just all around bastard able to convince everyone around him he's quality people. The cast on the whole works well together, all of them with their own egotistical reasons for doing what they do.  Johannson's performance is a little too far over the top at times, but it's a quality performance. Mortimer, Goode, Cox, and Wilton are relegated to the background at times, but all carry themselves well, especially Mortimer as the ultimately pretty sweet Chloe and Goode as Tom, the charming, roguish brother-in-law.

Allen's story builds and builds, that sense of dread building as the situation gets murkier and murkier.  The story goes about the route you would expect as Chris backs himself into a corner and then has to claw his way out, lying left and right to cover his ass.  The opening scene gives you an indication of exactly where the story is going, but that being said, I hated the ending.  It needed more resolution than what's provided.  My reasoning most likely comes from my dislike of the Chris character, but a relatively open-ended finale was disappointing.  It doesn't ruin the movie, but it does take it down a notch. A different, more emotional ending would have done wonders for the movie on the whole.

Match Point <---trailer (2005): ***/****   

Iron Man 2

The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Temple of Doom, all sequels and 2nd in a trilogy that's better than the original.  Okay, not Temple of Doom, but the others still count. Is that the expectation though or the exceptions to the rule? In the age of milking a franchise cash cow for everything it's worth, the biggest blockbusters of the last 10-15 years have been sequels, often of superhero movies.  One that surprised several years back with its popularity and success at the box office was Iron Man, but unfortunately 2010's Iron Man 2 just can't live up to the raised expectations.

When it comes to superhero movies, I fall somewhere in between.  Yes, I like them, but I didn't grow up reading comic books by the hundreds, and I especially don't know the superhero universes where everything has already been set in stone so that a franchise must follow it to the letter.  The problem with any successful franchise though is what to do after the first big success.  You can't just duplicate the first movie. You have to do everything bigger and better.  Director and supporting player Jon Favreau follows that idea by throwing everything into a script that never decides what to focus on and suffers because of it.  Too much going on, too many characters, lack of any development with those characters, and surprisingly enough for a summer blockbuster, not enough action.

Six months since revealing that he is in fact Iron Man, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has basically wiped out any sort of worldwide conflict. In doing so though he has the U.S. government and the Department of Defense on his tail to give up the Iron Man so that it can be a controlled commodity instead of one man's all-powerful weapon.  That's the least of Tony's problems though as the use of the Iron Man outfit is slowly killing him with possibly a year to live.  He turns over control of Stark Industries to secretary and girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and starts to live things up. It's hard to be the best though and rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is using the talents of a pissed off Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) to create his own deadlier version of the Iron Man.

Now regardless of how this cast was utilized or underutilized, I can say that without a doubt this is one of the best casts ever put together for a summer blockbuster.  Downer Jr. again cements himself as one of Hollywood's best actors here playing cocky, narcissistic, downright arrogant Tony Stark who somehow is still lovable.  Paltrow isn't used as well here as the first one and seems like more of an afterthought than anything.  Indie star Rockwell and rejuvenated Rourke are great choices to play the villains even though they're both underused, especially a scene-stealing Rourke.  Then don't forget Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D, Don Cheadle stepping in for Terrence Howard as Colonel Rhodes (an upgrade from the 1st movie), and Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman (Black Widow, member of Shield).

Can you have too much of a good thing though?  That cast is downright impressive, but other than Downey Jr. none of them are given a ton to do.  They're introduced into the storyline, fade out, and then reappear later as needed.  And from someone who is definitely looking forward to The Avengers movie, that whole subplot feels like it's being shoved down our throats as viewers.  But that's the problem with the whole movie for me.  There is a ton going on, and then nothing at all at the same time.  For almost 90 minutes, nothing happens other than Tony moping around.  Favreau has all these great elements and can't peg down what he wants to do with it.  The first Iron Man certainly had some slower moving segments too, but here they're just more noticeable.  At 124 minutes, this is a movie that could have been cut by 15 or 20 minutes and been a sleeker, more compact finished product.

Now to counter 90 minutes of basically nothingness, everything is thrown in the last 30 minutes, by far the best part of the movie and one of the better finales in an action movie around.  Stark and Rhodes -- both outfitted in Iron Man outfits -- go toe-to-toe with Ivan's army of drone Iron Men in an epic showdown that never overdoes it with the CGI.  It is an action scene where everything is visible and never moves too fast, keeping you interested even knowing we're watching computerized robots beat the crap out of each other.  Add in Johansson in a skintight leather outfit (to be fair, every movie needs that) kicking ass against endless nameless security guards, and you've got quite a finale.

I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing from this sequel.  It lacks a certain energy the first one had and never truly finds it's footing.  It tries to one-up the original while sticking to its origins but can't find that all-important middle ground.  Downey Jr again is solid, Cheadle is an upgrade, Johansson is beyond gorgeous as the eye candy, Rourke and Rockwell are above average talents, and the action-packed finale is a whopper.  But for whatever reason, it doesn't add up.  Worth watching, but I was disappointed here.

Iron Man 2 <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

The Island

When I reviewed Transformers 2 last summer, I wasn’t too shy about letting director Michael Bay have it with both barrels.  It is never a good sign when you become a punch line for your profession.  Oh, a movie with stupid amounts of action, in your face style, and all at the expense of those old stand-bys like story, character and any sort of plot development...that must be a Michael Bay movie!  As was the case with Transformers, the movie wasn’t trying to be anything but a stupid action movie so it’s easier to judge that because it is what is, a bad movie.  But what about when Bay ruins a perfectly good movie with his abrasive filmmaking style?  So goes 2005’s The Island.

One genre that has definitely benefited from the advances in computer generated imagery is science fiction.  Previous sci-fi movies had to use the very limited capabilities at their disposal or find some way to create what they needed to shoot.  The end result may have been groundbreaking at the time but now ends up looking very dated. Advances in CGI – while expensive – made directors’ jobs that much easier. The first hour of The Island is an example of what good CGI can do before Bay gets his over-the-top hands on that story and goes to town.

In a futuristic society following an Armageddon-like event known only as ‘the contamination,’ humans live in a totalitarian society where their day-to-day decisions are made for them by an unknown and unseen power.  The humans are given jobs and live in posh apartments where everything is provided for them.  In charge is a Dr. Merrick (Sean Bean) who monitors these surviving humans through their actions and emotions.  All the humans have some free will and an ability to question their existence, but it a naïve questioning that is reminiscent of a child’s mind.  Everyone lives from day to day with the hopes of winning the Lottery where the winners get to go to the Island, an experience of living even greater than the lives they knew before.

Generally, these humans are content to wait for their chance and hopefully win the Lottery and get their long awaited trip to the Island.  But one human keeps bringing up questions as to what is going on.  His name is Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor), and he is confused about everything that surrounds him with his existence.  He begins to investigate the strange goings-on and when he figures out what’s happening escapes with a fellow human, Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson).  Merrick needs these two humans back and brings in an ex-Special Forces soldier, (Djimon Hounsou), to track them down and bring them back.

Stop reading if you don’t want to know what’s actually going on at the Island.  SPOILERS from here on in SPOILERS  This futuristic world isn’t so futuristic, it’s only a decade or so into the 2020s or so.  These humans are clones purchased by rich individuals to help prolong their lives.  In case of an organ transplant or horrific accident to their sponsor, these clones are told they’ve been chosen to go to the Island when really they’re just cut up and hacked to pieces for the necessary parts.  This isn’t much of a spoiler like I’m ruining the end of the movie.  This is all revealed about 60 minutes into the story. It’s a unique twist though and really keeps the first hour moving as Lincoln pieces things together.

I absolutely loved the first hour of the movie because it is a prime example of how good sci-fi can be when things are handled right. It’s a picture of ‘what if?’ that asks what our world could become.  Those first 60 minutes are stylish and a sight to behold at this futuristic, gigantic apartment building, a nice, little microcosm of what society can be.  It is a different lifestyle entirely where anything and everything is controlled in everyday life.  Like many sci-fi/dystopian stories, some troublemaker has to start asking questions. 

This first hour is effective thanks to the casting with MacGregor and Johansson as the two humans.  Lincoln questions more than Jordan does because he just isn’t satisfied with life as he knows it.  Jordan is more content to live each day and have fun, only to change her mind when Lincoln starts bringing up all his questions.  In a sci-fi action movie, the casting as a whole is very impressive.  Bean’s Dr. Merrick is perfectly creepy who’s doing something morally wrong, but he believes he’s helping the world (and making a pretty penny in the process).  Bean is at his best when playing the villainous parts like here.  Character actor extraordinaire Steve Buscemi is perfectly cast as McCord, a janitor who may know more than he’s letting on and is a good friend of Lincoln.  Michael Clarke Duncan is wasted in a small part that clues Lincoln as to what’s happening.  Hounsou is an incredible presence on-screen, but his character is given so little to do and with so little background, he’s hardly more than a cardboard cutout.

All these characters – interesting in their own rights – are introduced through the first hour, but over the next 76 minutes any more development is left by the wayside.  Bay’s action tendencies kick in, and we get an extended chase full of action and explosions and CGI.  Does it look great? You bet it does, but like any Bay movie, it could have been toned down.  It wouldn’t be an issue, but the first hour is so good that it raises expectations for the second half which it just can’t live up to.  It’s all great to watch, but it comes at the expense of these cool characters and highly interesting story.

Comparing the two halves of the movie, the first half is clearly better than the second.  As a whole though, the movie is still pretty decent and kept me entertained, but I wasn’t blown away in the end.  The finale is a bit disappointing.  It’s easier though to look at The Island as two halves, a science fiction side and a heavy-duty action side.  Know what you’re getting when watching this Michael Bay extravaganza, and you should be safe.

The Island <----trailer (2005): ** ½ /****

The Prestige

Released less than two months apart in fall 2006, The Prestige and The Illusionist both dealt with similar topics, magicians, in a successful manner. Good casts, great cinematography, twisting and turning stories, everything you'd think of in a movie about magicians. Both movies had average success in theaters, nothing spectacular, but each movie has developed a bit of a following on DVD since. I saw The Illusionist in theaters and really enjoyed it, and just watched The Prestige this week, and also liked it...I think.

With a triad of connections to the revamped Batman series, director Christopher Nolan and stars Christian Bale and Michael Caine, the movie reeks (I mean that in a good way) of professionalism. From the impressive ensemble cast to the elaborate sets and costumes, The Prestige is what a movie should look like onscreen. It's clear money was spent on the right things.

Working off a novel by Christopher Priest, Nolan tells a complex story of two magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), over the course of their two careers, starting out as on-stage 'volunteers' for a magician in early 20th Century London. As the magician's assistant, Robert's wife Julia (Piper Perabo) nightly puts her life in danger with a stunt where she's tied up and dropped into a huge case of water. But one night, something goes wrong and Julia is killed with Angier blaming Borden for tying the knot too tight. So starts their rivalry that lasts throughout their careers, especially as their fame rises.

The situation escalates when Borden develops a new trick, The Transported Man, that amazes audiences but lacks the showmanship to make him a huge star. Angier on the other hand is not quite the magician his rival his, instead he goes for the show, the star, the applause. That is the story at it's most basic, and I'm wary to give out too much more. The whole movie is told as a story within a story, utilizing flashbacks to detail the two magicians' stories. The opening seemingly gives away the ending (definitely caught me by surprise), but don't be thrown off, there's much more to come.

Ever since the twist ending to The Sixth Sense, there's been a need to trick or fool audiences with a twist near the finale. 'Prestige' qualifies because Nolan intentionally wants to mislead viewers with this unraveling mystery. The opening line of the movie is almost a challenge with Caine's voiceover defying you 'Are you watching closely?' with an oddly haunting shot that does have a lot to do with a twist key to the story. I'm not usually good at spotting these twists, but I caught this one about halfway through the movie. I did not exactly what it was going for, and the ending more than lives up to expectations, but Nolan adds another twist that works really well and has sparked its own fair share of debate at any number of message boards.

As with any twist ending, The Prestige definitely needs repeated viewings to piece everything together. The ending comes so quickly and I was trying to keep up and figure it all out that I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. And by the end, Bale and Jackman's characters are nothing like the men we met at the start of their story, it is hard to root for either character by then. Their performances are incredibly strong with both actors delivering career bests. For good measure, Caine plays Jackman's ingeneur, his builder, and delivers one of those low-key supporting roles that show what a great actor he can be. If that wasn't enough, there's also David Bowie in a surprisingly good part, Scarlett Johansson, Andy Serkis and Rebecca Hall as Borden's wife.

As the credits started to roll after the final scene, I didn't quite know what to make of this movie. It blends science fiction with a period piece but at the heart is a rivalry that could have been set in any time period. The ending wants you to be confused, forced to go back and think over what you've seen over the last two hours as two different twists are revealed in spectacular fashion with a creepy final shot. And as near as I can figure, it completely works. Frustrating? Hell yes, but worthwhile at the same time.

The Prestige <----trailer (2006): *** 1/2 /****