Side Effects

It's hard to walk away when you're at the top of your game. That's what made director Steven Soderbergh's comments about an early retirement so ridiculously surprising. He said that following his directing duties on Magic Mike, Behind the Candelabra, and 2013's Side Effects that he would retire from directing to focus on his painting. Since, Soderbergh has backed off those statements, but if it's his last feature film, Side Effects is a good one to close on. 

Having been convicted of insider trading, Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum) has served a four-year sentence and is being released, reuniting him with his wife, Emily (Rooney Mara), of five years who waited for him the whole time. So many years apart though, Emily is worried about seeing her husband again. His prior arrest ripped away their lives completely, forcing her to move back to NYC, and now she's worried about starting all over again as her depression starts to kick in. Going through breakdowns and emotions she can't quite explain, Emily turns to a new psychiatrist, Dr. Jon Banks (Jude Law), for help. He begins to treat the troubled young woman, seeing a difficult problem but one that can be dealt with and minimized. His treatments and recommendation have varying effects, forcing Emily to ask for a different anti-depressant, a new drug that's experienced good results. Can it help? Can it help make Emily the girl she used to be and wants to be again?

From Ocean's 11 to Traffic, Contagion to Haywire and just about every other movie he's done in between, Soderbergh is one of the more unique talents working in Hollywood. If he is leaving directing for good, Hollywood is a lot less talented and a lot less interesting without him. He does it here again, putting his own spin on a familiar genre, the thriller. Without giving too much away, I can also say that the plot description above isn't quite misleading, but it only begins to scratch the surface. More on that a little later though. That Soderbergh look; cold, muted and sterile is there. His camera angles are off-center and stationary, leaving the attention on his cast. As well, a deceptive trance-like score from composer Thomas Newman is a gem, a change of pace from his always solid scores but definitely something different. Soderbergh's familiar style is there, something we've come to expect from this very talented director's works.

What makes him more than just a flash in the pan director though is the style mixed with substance. I remember just watching the trailer to this flick before its theatrical release and even then being very confused. From a trailer! Working off a script from writer Scott Z. Burns, 'Effects' is made in the vein of a Hitchcock thriller, and I almost always intend that as a compliment. The mood is tense throughout, that tension building to almost unbearable levels at different points. With Newman's score, Soderbergh's subtle cinematography techniques, Burns' script works like a slow burn. The opening scene shows bloody tracks through an apartment and then immediately flashes back to three months earlier. While it is a story about pharmaceuticals and depression and diseases you can't see, it's also so much more. Things get thrown a big old curveball about the halfway point, and from there on in it is one twist and turn after another. It's definitely a movie that would be interesting to give a rewatch, but pay attention and you'll be fine.

From movie to movie, Soderbergh certainly gets his fair share of talented actors and actresses who want to work with him, sometimes to the point we keep seeing those folks showing up in multiple movies. Fresh off her Oscar-nominated turn in the American version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Mara is excellent as Emily, a 28-year old married woman struggling with the turns her life has taken. For the most part, she underplays the part with a few exceptions late. Like just about everyone else, Mara does a really good job keeping us guessing as an audience. I think the best performance from 'Effects' belongs to Jude Law who previously worked with Soderbergh in another gem, Contagion. An underrated actor in general in my opinion, Law as Dr. Banks is a scene-stealer. He thinks his relationship with Mara's Emily is going one way only to find out so much more is going on. Regardless, it is two excellent, movie-making performances from two talented individuals.

Who else? How about Soderbergh favorite Channing Tatum? Already having starred in Soderbergh's Magic Mike and Haywire (albeit briefly), Tatum makes it a trio here. Psych, it's not much of a performance, unfortunately because with recent roles Tatum has shown he can be quite the actor. Instead, he's relegated to eye candy status here, given nothing to do in a small role. Don't expect two hours of Tatum is all I'm saying. Rounding out the major parts is Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr. Siebert, Emily's psychiatrist from her past who Banks turns to when he needs more information about his patient. It's a supporting part, but a key one just the same. Also look for Vinessa Shaw as Banks' wife, Dierdre.

From where I'm sitting, it's hard at this point to discuss too much more of the movie. This is definitely one that you need a clean slate going into so the less you know, the better. Here's what I can say. It's very stylish but there's an excellent twisting story to back it up. Very good cast, stylish, story, and it keeps you guessing. Well worth seeking out.

Side Effects (2013): ***/****

Che: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Che: Part One

Few historical figures stir up as much as controversy as revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, an Argentinian man who fought with Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution. Some look at him as an idealist revolutionary, someone to look up to for having fought oppression. Others look to him as a murderer, an individual one step above the dirt. Any movie about Che's life is then taking on quite a mission. Here's the review of the first half of director Steven Soderbergh's two-part movie about the infamous revolutionary, 2008's Che: Part One.

Working with fellow revolutionaries in 1956 Mexico, Ernesto Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), known as Che to his friends, has become fast friends with Fidel Castro (Demian Bichir), a Cuban national hoping to overthrow the oppressive Batista regime. With a group of just 80 followers, Castro and Guevara sail for Cuba, hoping to start a revolution from the ground up. The effort is slow and plodding, but they begin to see results. The cause grows and expands as more Cubans come to fight with the revolutionaries trying to overthrow not just the actual government, but the idea of what the government has become. Months and years pass, but the cause seemingly cannot be stopped with Havana and Batista as the end-game.

How do you start an argument online? Form an opinion, publish it in some way and let people immediately say 'No, you're wrong.' No movie about a divisive individual such as Che Guevara will please everyone. I've long been fascinated by the man without knowing much about him, but an IMDB poster of all people made an interesting point of all place (go figure). Some portray Che as good, others as bad. Wouldn't it make sense then that he was somewhere in between? Soderbergh leans more toward a positive portrayal (through Part 1 at least), but more than positive or negative, I think the objective was to show Guevara as a human being. He's not scum of the Earth, nor is he a perfect individual without flaws. He is a person if a somewhat idealistic individual.

As far as actors currently working in Hollywood go, I'm hard pressed to come up with too many that are better than Benicio Del Toro. His performance -- like the film itself -- as Che is a veritable minefield. There is no way to play this man without stirring up emotions, both positive and negative, among moviegoers. Soderbergh's film (through the 1st part at least) didn't seem too interested in taking a judgmental stance one way or another so Del Toro just gets to play the man. He is intelligent, well-spoken, a quiet but highly effective leader, and a man obsessed with revolution (and it doesn't hurt that Del Toro physically is a spot-on match for Che). In the process he performs actions that even now are controversial. It's an effective part if not a great part. Again, I come back to the movie on the whole, not just his performance.

Soderbergh's intention doesn't seem to be vilifying or making Guevara a hero. That's good. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a stance at all. It feels instead like a fly on the wall documentary. Brief snippets/asides try to illustrate the bigger picture -- Castro, Cuba, Batista, the U.S. involvement -- but it is handled so quickly that it doesn't leave an impression at all. At 136 minutes, the movie is sometimes tedious and repetitious. It is a story about the growing Cuban revolution, and what do we see? Lots of jungle scenes, lots of walking through jungle scenes, lots of Che and his fellow officers addressing revolutionaries about their effort. Maybe Soderbergh just wanted to bring to life the revolution without trying to shove a message down our throats, but having no message at all doesn't work as well as it could have been.

Now those are all issues that I had with the movie, but there were positives, including Del Toro's performance. Soderbergh is a talented director to begin with, and when I think of his movies I think of style. A real-life style, a flair. 'Che' uses a framing device of Guevara visiting New York City and delivering a speech at the United Nations in 1964, the story bouncing between the visit and the fighting in Cuba between 1956-1959. The NYC scenes are shot in a grainy black and white, the Cuban jungle in vivid colors. Title cards introduce locations and times, and Soderbergh's camera always makes it a visually interesting movie to watch if not necessarily a story-driven interesting. Composer Albeto Iglesias' score is a gem, covering multiple genres and types of music that fit the story perfectly. Stylistically, 'Che' is an unquestioned winner.

Because of the almost free-flowing, story-less plot, the characters drift in and out, limiting their effectiveness. Bichir as Castro is a high point, more fiery and outwardly emotional in his revolutionary methods (if equally driven) as Che is. Catalina Sandino Moreno plays Aleida, a young revolutionary who joins the fighting as a guide for Che as the fighting nears Cuba's major cities. Rodrigo Santoro, Edgar Ramirez, and Santiago Cabrera play some of Che's fellow officers and revolutionaries, all with the potential for cool characters, but they end up being interchangeable. Also look for Julia Ormond as an American journalist interviewing Che during his NYC visit. This is definitely Del Toro's movie though.

Certain moments are highly effective, much of them coming late as Batista's regime starts to crumble. A half-hour plus is spent on the vicious street fighting in Santa Clara, and these battle sequences are effective in their reality. Cases of handfuls of revolutionaries fighting handfuls of army soldiers in the empty streets is tense and uncomfortable. The movie on the whole though is hit or miss with its fair share of flaws that I hope Part II fixes some. Review to come in a day or so.

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

Contagion

For a lack of a better description or word choice, there are a lot of hack directors currently working in Hollywood. No real specialty or ability, they point the camera and let things take care of themselves. Steven Soderbergh? He ain't one of those talents. I come away more impressed with each film he directs, including one of his most recent ventures, 2011's Contagion.

After visiting Hong Kong on business, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns home to her husband, Mitch (Matt Damon), and isn't feeling quite well, thinking she picked up a bug along her travels. The next morning she drops dead after going through a series of violent seizures. Mitch doesn't believe what he hears, claiming she was fine just minutes and hours before. It wasn't just Beth though. Something else is going along in various cities, regions and countries around the world. People are dropping dead with a variety of symptoms, a disease that the medical community can't quite pinpoint. The death toll grows and grows with each day. What is this new virus? Can it be stopped in time?

This is not an easy film to review, mostly because it isn't a film that's trying to entertain you. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of the wave of big budget disaster movies that hit theaters in the 1960s and 1970s. All-star cast in a perilous situation, who will survive? I guess it's appropriate that a 2010s version isn't an ocean liner overturning or a jet airliner struggling to stay in the air. Instead, we get a smart, well-written pseudo-documentary/medical thriller that seems more relevant in our time than any old disaster movie. Mostly though, it's not a movie you come away from thinking 'Man, that was great.' I finished it thinking 'Great movie, and a well-made one' but great? I don't think it wants to be great. It's content to be different from the norm, and I always give points for that effort.

That's where Soderbergh's film succeeds on so many levels. Yes, it is a feature film, but it feels very real from the start. Some of the director's touches are there -- title cards introducing locales and background -- but it is a very self conscious film for a 2011 audience. News spreads like wildfire of this new disease, Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet in general going crazy. News turns into rumors, rumors turn into chaos, and then it's the individual for himself. A condemnation of our society? Yeah, a little, but it isn't heavy-handed or forced. Instead, it's probably spot on in its portrayal of how our modern society would react in this situation. When survival is on the line, rioting, stealing, killing, everything becomes blurry. Where do you draw the line then as what's too far? Kudos to Soderbergh for handling the situation so smoothly and even effortlessly at times. Just one more sign of a very talented individual behind the camera.

His cast assembled here is an impressive one, starting with Damon as Mitch, a widowed husband trying to protect his daughter (Anna Jacoby-Heron) from something he can't see. It is an ensemble cast with pretty equal screen-time divided among the group, but Damon's Mitch is the most personal of the stories. Damon as always is very likable on-screen, especially when fighting for his daughter. And you know you're in for it when a big name like Paltrow is dead 10 minutes in. Oops, "spoilers" I guess. Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play doctors at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Fishburne working from headquarters, Winslet in the field trying to isolate the virus. Jude Law is perfectly slimy as a blogger with quite a following and therefore, a whole lot of power at his disposal. The beautiful Marion Cotillard humanizes a small part as a World Health Organization (WHO) doctor trying to find the source of the virus in Hong Kong. Jennifer Ehle is also very good as Dr. Hextall, a scientist/doctor working diligently to try and find a vaccine. Also look for Elliott Gould, Bryan Cranston, Enrico Colantoni and John Hawkes in small but important supporting parts.

With so many characters and storylines, 'Contagion' does bounce around quite a lot, but it never loses track of where it's going. Title cards show the day and location so we get a sense of how quick the virus is moving, the cells reproducing quicker and quicker. We learn what the virus is as the characters do. The movie has a very distinct look, colors filtered and washed out, the impending doom hanging in the air. Cliff Martinez's score is a gem, part electronic, part synthesized like so many solid Tangerine Dream scores. Listen to track one HERE and follow along with the other links for a taste of it. These are the elements that are easier to critique, but the movie on the whole is well worth recommending.

Don't be confused heading into Contagion. It is an at times very disturbing, highly upsetting story. It isn't always an "easy" movie to watch. Know what you're getting into, and I imagine you'll appreciate it more than if you thought were getting some glossy, superficial medical thriller. It feels based in reality, like this could easily happen to us in our current, modern society. And I'll bet you something. If you weren't a germaphobe before, you will be now. Washing your hands, not touching anything, not touching your face, all the little things I took away and have been on my mind since. A movie well worth checking out.

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

Haywire

First appearing in the public eye as a mixed martial arts fighter, Gina Carano has made the jump from athlete to actress, and the early return is nothing but positive. For her first movie, she chose a role that's right in her wheelhouse, a fastball down the middle. She made a wise decision, picking an ideal role that gets to show off her immense physical talent and ability, starring in 2012's Haywire.

Working for a private contractor who works for the government, former Marine Mallory Kane (Carano) is as good as it gets when black ops work is needed. She takes jobs on an individual basis from her boss, Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), sometimes working alone, other times working with a team. After a successful job in Barcelona though, everything hits the fan. Suddenly, Mallory has been set up and international law enforcement is after her wherever she goes. Who burned her, and what's their motive? Left on her own and abandoned in Europe, Mallory must now find out who set her up before they complete their mission.

From director Steven Soderbergh, Haywire is just more proof of the director's already visible talent. Dark comedies, crime dramas, heist movies, disaster epics, historical period pieces, Soderbergh can do it all, and he manages to put a unique, personal spin on all of them. I really liked this movie from the talented director. His familiar style is there, but it's a no-frills sort of style. Title cards keep us abreast of where Mallory has traveled to, and what better music than a fast-paced jazzy score to accompany the action? Composer David Holmes does a variation on his Ocean's 11 score, a more subtle, sinister sound. Listen to the main theme HERE. The whole soundtrack/score is surprisingly worthwhile, appropriate in a quirky sort of way. It's a small-scale spy story -- somewhat similar to the Bourne movies -- that feels familiar with a 'been there, done that' quality, but Soderbergh and his cast are so good at what they do, you don't even notice. It's too good of a movie.

Appearing in her first starring role, Carano does not disappoint as the vengeful Mallory. There are too few female action stars out there -- legitimate ones that an audience can buy -- and Carano certainly has that potential to fill the void. Basically, don't expect her to do any romantic comedies anytime soon...although that could be interesting. This isn't a part that requires her to be a big, showy performer. It's a subtle, quiet performance that relies on intensity and few words. Most importantly, Carano is incredibly believable in the part. As an athlete/MMA fighter, she's quite capable, something she gets to show off in her handful of hardcore fight scenes. She does all of her own stunts (that I could see), and also important, more than holds her own in the fight scenes. Fight sequences between a man and a woman can look forced and stagey, but not here. A welcome addition to the action genre, I look forward to seeing where Carano goes from here as an actress. Incredibly talented and one of the sexiest, seductive spies ever.

It is a testament to Soderbergh's talent and reputation that countless actors/actresses want to work with, as is the case here. Haywire features a handful of smaller performances from some not small names and not a one disappoints. McGregor gets the most screentime as Kenneth, Mallory's employer and former boyfriend/lover, and makes the most of his supporting part. Channing Tatum plays Aaron, a fellow agent/operative who's worked with Mallory in the past and is now trying to piece things together. Michael Douglas is nicely cast as Coblenz, a government higher-up who hired Kenneth for some off the books work, and Antonio Banderas is appropriately mysterious as Rodrigo, a key part of the mission and deception. In a brutally efficient part, rising star Michael Fassbender again shows he's capable of bigger and bigger things, playing Paul, an Irish source for Mallory. Bill Paxton plays John Kane, Mallory's father, who knows what his daughter is up to, constantly hoping she leaves the business.

For better or worse, some of those performances are there for Carano's Mallory to beat the crap out of. With her mixed martial arts background, Carano leads the charge in the action department. That no-frills, brutal style is reflected in these fight scenes, one with Tatum and Fassbender each, among some other quality action. These are fights that leave the viewer hurting, and Soderbergh wisely shoots it without the frenetic editing. We see the fights, see the individual moves, all of them done so quickly they're almost a blur. Even better, no music is played over these scenes, all of the focus on the brutal hand-to-hand combat. This is where Carano shines, a physical presence who can stand toe-to-toe with her male counterparts.  The sequences are so well done there's almost a dark beauty to it all, so good it makes you marvel at what's going on.

Above all else, that's what this flick is; an action movie. A chase through Barcelona, and later Mallory fleeing a SWAT team in Dublin are criminally simplistic. It isn't lots of quick cutting and crazy out of this world explosions and pyrotechnics, just one person on the run and/or chasing someone. Holmes's jazzy score plays over this portion that bounces back and forth between color and black and white photography. Stylish without being overdone, just enough to call attention to itself without being overly aggressive. The story itself is half flashback, half current time, and while they're explained, the betrayals and double crosses are almost unnecessary. From Barcelona to Dublin, upstate New York to the New Mexico desert, Haywire starts off at a sprint and never slows down at just 93 minutes. Simply put, a professionally made, beautifully choreographed espionage/spy thriller that is well worth a watch.

Haywire <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

My usual stance on remakes is pretty simple; if the original is good, why bother? If the original is awful with some sort of potential, okay, go ahead with it. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule. A minor classic in its own right based solely on entertainment value, 1960's Ocean's Eleven didn't need to be remade. If you're going to remake a quality movie, you better improve on it, and 2001's Ocean's Eleven is the rare remake that's better than the original.

After being released from prison following a four-year sentence, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has plans...huge plans. A thief and con man, Danny heads to Los Angeles where he signs on friend and fellow thief, Rusty (Brad Pitt), to join him. What's Danny's plan? He's going to do what no one has ever done; rob not one, not two, but three Las Vegas casinos and their impregnable vault on a fight night when over $160 million will be waiting if the job can be pulled off. The owner of the casinos? Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), the cutthroat businessman now going out with Danny's ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts). To pull the job though, Danny's going to need help so he starts assembling a team of con men, thieves and specialists. Impossible for this group? Nah.

This is a fun movie. There, that's all I really need to say. Everything else is just fluff. This 2001 remake is the definition of what a fun, entertaining, popcorn movie should aspire to. It's smart but not condescendingly smart. It's funny but it doesn't try too hard. It's ridiculously unrealistic, but who cares?!? Look at that cast! Director Steven Soderbergh made one of the most polished, stylish caper movies ever, improving on the groundwork set up by the 1960s Sinatra version. Las Vegas is a crazy, over the top place and that translates well to the movies. A score/soundtrack from David Holmes is a funky, cool retro mix of music, as fun and energetic as the story itself. HERE is the main theme. I defy you to not bob your head, tap your foot as you hear it.

The script is great here, the thing that keeps it all moving. It sounds so simple, a well-written script in a dramatic but not heavy drama film. It is a smart script without being in your face smart. Putting the team together, Danny asks Rusty "You think we need one more?" Rusty's face is buried in his arms, and he says nothing. Danny answers "You think we need one more," a statement now. He finishes "We'll get one more." The script gives a very talented cast a chance to shine and interact, especially Clooney and Pitt, but there's not a single character who isn't given a chance to shine. What came first in a chicken or the egg scenario? Does a good script boost a cast, or does a great cast make a script better? Short answer....who cares? The movie's great either way.

An ensemble-cast worthy of a 1960s epic, I still wonder how a cast this big was assembled. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Garcia would be enough for most movies but not here. Danny's crew includes Frank (Bernie Mac), the inside man working in the casino, Reuben (Elliott Gould), the former Vegas casino owner and bankroll, Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) Malloy, two brothers providing transport, Livingston (Eddie Jemison), the tech specialist, Basher (an uncredited Don Cheadle), the explosives expert, Saul (Carl Reiner), the aging con man, Yen (Shaobo Qin), the acrobat, and Linus (Matt Damon), a young pickpocket and thief on the rise. You couldn't ask for a better cast. The scene post-heist is a gem too, the team standing in front of the Bellagio fountains to Claude Debussy's Clair de Lune. Watch there <---- and listen HERE.

Fun and entertainment value aside, this is a heist film, and the casino vault heist doesn't disappoint. Now anyone who's been to a casino knows how ridiculous security is, but that's the fun of it. Could a job like this ever really work? No, but I'm sure Clooney, Pitt and Co. could pull it off nonetheless. A full 45-minutes, the heist goes down on a fight night, the 11 pulling a long list of cons and tricks to take down the vault. Things have been hinted at but nothing specific so seeing the twists and turns provide a great ride. Even on repeated viewings, the twists still work. How often can you say that? It's a great movie, one you can watch over and over again.

Ocean's Eleven <---trailer (2001): ****/****   

Out of Sight

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley.  They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

The Limey

Maybe getting old isn't half as bad as it is made out to be.  Just look at movie stars who well into their 60s and past that are still as cool as ever...if not more so. Think Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Christopher Plummer. With the exception of Redford, they are all British.  Hmmm, might be something to that, but that's for another review. One of those actors who everyone is aware of but can't always place him, British actor Terence Stamp is for the lack of a better description cool, especially in 1999's The Limey, one of his best roles in a career dating back to the early 1960s.

This taut little thriller -- clocking in at just 89 minutes -- is an oddity among the revenge/vigilante picture. Without explaining the whole review and movie in one sentence, all I can say is that it is different, but for all the right reasons.  Director Steven Soderbergh does not settle for the status quo with a story that has been seen before and will be seen again. It would have been easy for 'Limey' to stay in that safe middle ground, and the movie would have been acceptably entertaining. But Soderbergh puts his own unique style on the revenge flick, and the movie is the better for it.

Just released after serving a nine-year sentence for a failed robbery, aging British crook Wilson (Stamp) heads to Los Angeles in search of answers after finding out his daughter died in a car crash. He doesn't believe the story for a second, getting help from a friend of his daughter's, Eduardo (Luis Guzman), who helps him get around the city and meet the people he needs to see. It doesn't take long for Wilson to start piecing things together with all the evidence from his daughter's death pointing at Terry Valentine (Peter Fonda), a high-end music promoter who is mixed up in some shady business dealings. A fish out of water with nothing but revenge driving him, Wilson starts gunning for him, ready to do whatever it takes to get revenge for his daughter's supposed accidental death.

I am most familiar with Soderbergh's work in the form of the Ocean's movies, starting with 2001's Ocean's Eleven and continuing since with two more sequels.  As a director, Soderbergh has a knack for the highly stylized without sacrificing story. Some of his other films include Traffic, The Good German, Che, and Erin Brockovich so he obviously knows what he's doing in making a reputation for himself.  With 'Limey,' there is something difficult to explain why the movie works. It was filmed on a relatively low budget (under $10 million) and has a somewhat cheap, renegade film-making look to it. The story wastes little time with anything unnecessary, boasting a confidence in getting where it wants when it wants. That's the movie in a nutshell. Different? Yes, but it is comfortable in its own skin, content to be different for entertainment value, not for the sake of being different.

Soderbergh's directing style can get in the way at times with his fast-paced thriller/mystery.  The editing is never an 'in your face, aggressive, look at me!' style, but it treads that fine line.  Dialogue between characters is quick cut and edited with shots from before and after being seen while the words play over the images. We see images that seemingly have little or no effect on what we're actually seeing, but in the end they all come together. SPOILER ALERT We're actually seeing part of the ending throughout the movie except we're not aware of it at times. END OF SPOILER  It's not until the end that everything fits together with a non-linear storyline that doesn't have everything in order, forcing us to piece things together at a certain point. In Soderbergh's hands, the gimmick works, but in a lesser film or working with a less talented director, this could have been a mess.

Style aside and eccentricities in storytelling aside, the main reason to see this movie is Terence Stamp's performance as Wilson, the aging British crook looking for answers concerning his daughter's death.  From the description I read, the main character sounded like any number of other normal men turned vigilante heroes. Nothing about the character though is commonplace, Stamp putting his own spin on the stock character. He's extremely capable and doesn't care much what happens to him, but he has this darkly comic edge to him, providing laughs with his Cockney sayings that he has to explain to anyone he's talking with. His pants are a size too small, giving him an oddly human edge as he goes about his investigations. Most of all though, I genuinely liked Wilson, especially the revelation he has and the changes he makes as he sees his faults as a father. A great performance overall, one that carries the movie.

Joining Stamp in a part that pokes fun at himself is Fonda as Terry Valentine, high-powered music promoter who finds himself up to his knees in trouble.  His character shot to the top in the 1960s -- much like Fonda did -- and to a point he still is and belongs in the long-since gone decade.  One of my favorite character actors, Guzman is subtle in hitting all the right notes as Eduardo, Wilson's unofficial sidekick. Lesley Ann Warren plays Elaine, a friend of Wilson's daughter, while Barry Newman plays the straight villain, Valentine's security and all-around shady dude, Avery. Also look for Nicky Katt as Stacy, a thug and hired killer who provides some surprisingly funny moments in his outlook on the Hollywood lifestyle and Amelia Heinle as Adhara, Valentine's much-younger girlfriend. 

As I review this movie, the description that keeps coming to mind was how pleasantly surprised I was, how much I enjoyed the movie from start to finish. It just isn't what you would expect from reading the description, but in a good way, not bad. An underrated gem.

The Limey <---trailer (1999): ***/****

The Informant!

Director Steven Soderbergh has been at both ends of the spectrum over the last 15 years.  With movies like Erin Brockovich and Traffic (for which he won an Oscar), he's shown he can make movies with a message, a heart, that tackle issues facing modern society.  Then with movies like the Ocean's 11 series, Soderbergh has proven he can make big budget, flashy, star-driven movies that tend to appeal to audiences.  But they can't all be winners, like 2009's The Informant!.

This is a movie I remember seeing a trailer for and really getting a chuckle out of it.  It looked like some off the wall satire with some outlandish humor.  And the poster of Matt Damon with ridiculous haircut and mustache smiling at God knows what?  That sold me on it. I can't give the movie a free pass, but the advertising, commercials, and trailers really sold this movie the wrong way.  For one thing, I was expecting a somewhat drier humor right from the start, but that's the problem.  There's little to no humor in this one, and I can't even remember laughing at this once.  Sure, there was a chuckle here and there, but for a movie billed as a comedy, I was bored to tears.

Dry humor is about as subjective as anything in movies.  You love it or hate it with little middle ground separating the camps.  Handled right it can be hilarious because it is NOT slapstick or physical humor.  With 'Informant,' I'm trying to decide if Soderbergh was going for dry, dark, satirical, or whatever and can't make up my mind.  Instead, it wavers among all three.  It's the type of movie that tries too hard to be funny, to be stylish and came across as fake to me.  A really jazzy ridiculous sounding soundtrack drives the action -- at times reminding me of 'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia' -- and colorful on-screen titles tell us when and where the story has moved to.  I get it, you're trying to be cute, and you fail.

Damon plays Mark Whitacre, a high-ranking official at ADM in the early 1990s.  Whitacre is fed up with his superiors fixing prices on products sold around the world and ends up going to the FBI with his worries.  There he meets two agents (Scott Bakula and The Soup's Joel McHale) who convince him to be an informant for them.  Mark somewhat suspiciously agrees to go along with their plan, audiotaping meetings where prices are settled on among the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies from around the world.  But not everything goes smoothly -- thanks in great part to Whitacre's cluelessness -- and eventually the shit hits the fan.

Matt Damon is one of my favorite actors around, and I'm pretty sure this is the first movie I've seen him in where I didn't think he was the right choice for the role.  He gained around 40 pounds for the role and dons that ridiculous hair and mustache, but something just doesn't work.  His Whitacre is a very bright guy, but somehow he's incredibly naive and at times downright stupid about his actions.  All this keeps developing like peeling an onion until by the end I had trouble believing any of this is true (it is in fact true).  Whitacre is almost a caricature of a character, and it's too easy to root against him.

The rest of the cast is given little to do, especially Bakula and McHale as the two FBI agents trying to keep up with all Whitacre's demands, questions, and crazy behavior.  Many reviews point out how strong these two parts were which left me shaking my head.  They're required to appear here and there, look surprised and/or stunned, and then exit stage left.  It's not their fault though that the script has nothing for them to do.  Other parts include Melanie Lynskey as Ginger, Mark's wife, and Tom Papa as Mick Andreas, one of Mark's bosses.  A fair share of familiar faces -- mostly comedians -- make blink and you'll miss them appearances that are all fairly forgettable.

I don't really know what Soderbergh was going for with this one, and because of that it's a real stinker.  If it's trying to be dark, it doesn't really delve deep enough into the Whitacre character who sounds like a real nut-case by the end of the movie.  If it's satirical, I don't know who they're making fun of.  And it's dry humor, they forgot to add the humor part.  It got fair reviews and has built up some of a following since its release, but I really disliked this movie, and I don't say that often about a supposed comedy.

The Informant! <----trailer (2009): */****