The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

The Big Chill

It's one of those things. Good movie (some would say great to classic), impressive cast, a loyal following and positively reviewed almost across the board. Then.....then, you watch it, and it just isn't very good. All in the eye of the beholder, huh? Maybe I missed something, maybe I just didn't think it was very good, but here's 1983's The Big Chill.

A group of friends who attended the University of Michigan in the late 1960s have drifted apart over the years, some starting families, others pursuing careers, some doing both. They're about to be brought back together under far from ideal conditions. One of the friends, Alex, has committed suicide, the rest of the group all returning to Alex's hometown in Michigan for the funeral and service. For some, they see friends they haven't seen or talked to in years, but the relationships are still there, the bonds, the friendships, rivalries, all coming back in a flash. Staying together in one house over the weekend, the group of friends starts to see that everything isn't so rosy. Sex, drugs, music and some good old-fashioned bonding among longtime friends. Let the craziness and kookiness commence.

This was the first time I saw director Lawrence Kasdan's film that's earned a reputation over the years as one of the seminal movies of the 1980s. This is a story about a generation that grew up with Vietnam, hippies, Watergate, the drug culture, one of the most turbulent times in American history. Now in the early 1980s, they're all grown-up, their past craziness just that, a thing of the past. They have jobs, careers, family (for the most part). It is a story ripe with potential, one house serving as the setting for almost the entire movie. The soundtrack is pretty epic featuring everyone from The Rolling Stones to Marvin Gaye, The Temptations to Procol Harum and a whole lot in between. Style, interesting premise, lots of talent in the cast....and, yeah, I didn't really like it much at all.

For starters, let's talk about the very talented cast. There's Kevin Kline and Glenn Close as a married couple with a checkered past that has been left in the past, Tom Berenger as the big celebrity, the TV star with a hugely successful Magnum P.I.-esque show, JoBeth Williams his married crush who's having some marital struggles, Jeff Goldblum as a goofy journalist, William Hurt as the drug-addled Vietnam vet who struggles with...well, everything, Mary Kay Place as the single 30-something who has her biological clock ticking loudly, and then Meg Tilly as Alex's girlfriend who he'd been seeing for about three months. Some impressive names, but my goodness, I just didn't like these characters. We're thrown into the story without much in the way of introduction or background so I struggled immediately to keep up with what was going on. Yes, we learn some things with each passing dialogue scene (and there's plenty), but the early struggles proved to be the movie's doom.

Watching this movie in 2014, it's easy to see the influence 'Chill' has had on countless films and television shows in the 30 years since its release. Any movie about old friends reuniting has to at least tip its cap to this 1983 film in one way or another. As for my next statement, I say this as someone who grew up in a generation that complains about just about everything. But really, has there ever been a movie with so many whiny individuals? Is life just so awful? As they reunite, catch up after years apart, this group of friends proceeds to bitch and moan about how tough life is, how life didn't turn out how they thought it would, how things didn't develop as they thought they would. Boo-freaking-hoo. The entire second half of the movie plays like one big sob story. It helps to have some initial sympathy for these characters, but it's just never there. Wait, life is tough?!? Who knew? Get over yourself.

What was original in 1983 plays like cliched now. So through no fault of its own, 'Chill' was working against it immediately. At one point, the crew dances together as they clean up and do the dishes after dinner. Woo-hoo! Bonding! If it was meant to show them bonding again, we get it, but it feels forced and goofy. The story up until this point is based in some sort of reality, but the last 30 minutes or so derails with some just odd decisions. We're talking painfully awkward decisions that I just don't see a lot of real-life friends making. By the end though, I was beyond worrying too much. I went in with modest expectations but came away very, very disappointed. Maybe in five or six years when I'm in my mid-30s, I'll appreciate it more. For now, I just don't get the appeal.

The Big Chill (1983): * 1/2 /****

Winter's Tale

If there's ever a weekend meant for sappy, sugary sweet, lovey-dovey movies, it has to be Valentine Day weekend. Audiences had two options this past weekend when it comes to the romantically pleasant love story, Endless Love and 2014's Winter's Tale. Reviews were almost uniformly negative -- some scathingly so -- but I thought there was too much positive going on to make it that bad. Was I correct? Well, there are positives, but when it's bad.....it's bad.

In New York City in 1916, Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) is an accomplished thief who's run into a bit of trouble. In the city, he has no rivals, but a former boss and mentor of sorts, Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe), wants him dead, and he's willing to pay a hefty price to get it done. Every job Peter pulls off, he's being hunted by Pearly's criminal underworld thugs. Picking a safe at one luxurious NYC house, Peter is surprised to find the supposedly empty house not empty at all, a pretty 21-year old woman, Beverly (Jessica Brown Findlay), dying of tuberculosis and already having outlived the diagnosis from her doctors. Beverly doesn't scream or freak out, Peter undone some by her response. Instead, she invites him to sit down for tea, and they talk. Their connection is instantaneous, their attraction evident from the first words they share though. It almost feels like the universe has brought these two young people together for a reason. Could something be going on with far bigger implications? Are they meant to do something special?

I saw the trailers for this romantically-charged period piece this past fall and was intrigued. It looked sappy and overdone -- like Valentine's Day bait at most -- but I was intrigued. It was a love story that didn't look too cheesy. 'Tale' is based off a 1983 novel from author Mark Helprin, and it's rocking 4 out of 5 stars currently at Amazon (buy it HERE, because Amazon needs my help). As the release date drew closer, I was actually looking forward to seeing it. The premise -- and there's far more than my simple plot description above -- of 1910s New York City, a criminal underworld connection, true love, lost love, and quasi-time travel seemed like literature at its best, or at least something that appeals to me. It sure sounded like the Pete Hamill novel 'Forever' in some ways, a favorite of mine. And the end result? Wow. I don't know exactly where to start.

There is potential here. There is, but there is also a reason critics are tearing it to pieces. My favorite review goes to Richard Roeper -- read HERE -- who certainly enjoyed bringing up all the most cringe-worthy moments. This is a story about true love, the universe, good and evil, miracles, destiny, finding a purpose in life, accomplishing what you're supposed to accomplish. All well and good, right? Sure, it's a lot to deal with but it certainly could have worked. It doesn't. 'Tale' is too dreamy, too loving, too sugary sweet with voiceover narrations about stars, people dying and becoming stars, about angels ascending and descending from Earth and Heaven and Hell. The basic premise is that true love brings out a true miracle in everyone. Everyone has that one miracle, that one thing in life that is pure and good and perfect. In many cases, it's love. Crowe as Pearly is a demon who's job is to prevent those miracles. Working against him are creatures and beings trying to help individuals complete their mission.

Yeah, and there it goes. Things start to disintegrate quickly, and yes, there's just too much going on. The creature helping Peter accomplish his miracle -- is it to save Beverly? Hhhmmm, I don't know.... -- is an immaculate white horse that Peter calls 'Horse,' but it sounds dreamy with an accent. Oh, and the horse flies, sprouting wings as necessary to escape dangerous situations. Pearly especially wants to kill the horse. Oh, and Pearly says the horse is "actually a dog" which...we...never...actually...see. And it's never explained. Crowe overacts like his life depends on it, similarly rocking an Irish(?) accent, his demon turning into a maniacal-looking animal when it gets angry. Pearly also visits a special guest two times, Lucifer himself played by Will Smith. Yes, you read that right. Will Smith. His Lucifer has a touch of gray, wears big, gold earrings, a stylish black blazer and in 1916 NYC wears a Jimi Hendrix t-shirt. The scene where he blows up on Pearly, reprimanding him for an idea, is laughably bad. I'm assuming it was meant to be a big, frightening dramatic moment, and I laughed. Out loud.

What did work for me was the crux of the story, the relationship between Peter and Beverly. I'm a Colin Farrell fan so that helps, but the character is interesting. His backstory is glossed over too much (including an 1895 "flashback" and one scene with wise Indian Graham Greene) and his hair is just odd, but it is interesting, the doomed anti-hero (relative, he's a nice thief) trying to save his love. A twist about 3/4 of the way through the movie has him doomed to walk the Earth not knowing who he is, not able to remember who he is or why he's been forced to do this, but the high points for the character are his scenes with Beverly, Brown Findlay having a solid chemistry with Farrell throughout. Again, I liked the premise, the doomed lovers trying to reverse that doomed quality, to make things right. In execution, it doesn't always work well. There's simply too much going on, the story trying to be an end-all declaration on everlasting love. Helprin's novel is pretty massive so I'm assuming lots of exposition, explanation, development, maybe whole plotlines were excised. What's left is a shell of what could have been a good movie.

But the star power! The Star Power! The supporting parts are in name only, the script not doing anyone any favors, but the acting is surprisingly bad. William Hurt is awkwardly odd as Isaac, Beverly's worrying father who sleepwalks through his part, including one painfully forced scene with Peter where they discuss grammar and pronunciation. Jennifer Connelly is really over the top as Virginia, a single mom with a daughter (Ripley Sobo, a good little actress) dying of cancer in 2014 NYC who meets Peter, not questioning too much what's going on. And in the Hollywood legend department, Eva Marie Saint plays an old woman in 2014 who Peter meets and may have known before. Also look for Kevin Corrigan and Kevin Durand as two of Pearly's henchmen.

Bad is one thing, forced bad is another. The script in first-time director Akiva Goldsman's film makes some odd choices. Eva Marie Saint plays an editor-in-chief of an NYC newspaper who if my math is correct, is 104 years old!!! In the newspaper business!!! The universe "providing" is one thing, but come on. I'm really wavering here. I genuinely liked parts of this movie, but when it flops, it does so in a big way. I'm not going to recommend it, not as a genuinely good movie, but I also won't rip it as the all-time bomb it's being made out to be. Just don't go in expecting the skies to open up. You'll get some laughs out of it for sure. Intentional laughs? I doubt it. A two-star review teetering on less.

Winter's Tale (2014): **/****

Broadcast News

Here in 2013, we have something called the 24-hour news cycle. If something major happens, it is reported in minutes (sometimes seconds) and channels like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and countless others keep on reporting until something new comes up. Kinda terrifying in a way, don't you think? How do they do it? How do they manage it? Well, it may seem a little dated now 26 years later, but 1987's Broadcast News gives quite the look into the world of television news.

Working for a major news outlet's Washington bureau, Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) is an up and coming producer working behind the scenes. She's knowledgeable about an endless line of subjects and when it comes to working on deadline under pressure, there are few that can top her ability. Jane is close with one of her reporters, Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), a similarly very intelligent field reporter, the two forming quite the news team and friendship beyond the news. They both worry about the future of the business, focus turning more to looks, pandering and emotion over news, especially when the news outlet hires Tom Grunick (William Hurt), a young, handsome anchor who's good at what he does but without the education, the background, the desire to tell the news. Basically....he's nice to look at. Jane starts to worry about herself having met Tom. She likes him, is drawn to him, but will she stand by her morals and beliefs or what she thinks she wants?

Written and directed by James L. Brooks, 'News' still resonates now in 2013 for anyone who's ever watched a nightly news broadcast, a breaking news story or even just wondered how it all comes together. It is smart, well-written and well-acted, a rare blend of drama and comedy (of the romantic variety too....uh-oh!). Voted by the American Film Institute as one of the funniest 100 movies of all time -- coming in at No. 64 -- the best aspect of 'News' is Brooks' script. It covers a lot of ground in its 133 minutes, and audiences ate it up, not to mention during the awards season when it picked up seven different Oscar nominations (including all 3 starring roles, best director, best picture) although it didn't win a single one. I thought Brooks especially deserved an Oscar win, but that's just me. Any-hoo, here we go....

It is rare to see a movie with characters who are both sympathetic, believable and unlikable all at the same time. That's life, huh? None of us are perfect, but we rarely see that in films as scripts call for very broad strokes to bring characters to life. A bad guy is a bad guy, a good guy is a good guy. It's pretty black and white. Not the case here. Hunter, Brooks and Hurt do phenomenal jobs bringing these characters to life. At different points you do like each of them, hate/dislike each of them, and root for each of them. Hunter's Jane wants to stand by her beliefs, but she's also a woman and wants to be seen as sexy too. Hurt's Tom wants to be good at what he does, but he's got some other issues he's working with too. Brooks' Aaron wants the fame and respect, but he wants to earn it the right way. He doesn't want any favors done for him. He's going to make it to the top his way.

Now here comes the issue I had. No, it's not a dealbreaker although it did threaten to bring the movie down a notch or two. Great characters, really well thought out script, and it resorts to.....a love triangle? Is there a lazier approach in a romantic comedy available to a scriptwriter than a love triangle? It makes it all seem so trivial. Oh no! Jane has an epic crush on the very handsome but all style and no substance Tom? Oh no! She also likes Aaron because he's good at what he does and is her neurotic, intelligent equal? Oh, the horror! In a movie that delves into the world of television news and does it so well, the script resorts to a love triangle? Because we like the characters, it's a tolerable plot device, but I resented its use just the same. To Brooks' credit, he doesn't wrap it up in tidy fashion with a bow. The final scenes feature a few reveals that show everything doesn't end up the way you think it would.

Those three performances dominate the screentime, but watch out for some good supporting parts. Jack Nicholson is buried down in the cast listing for his smaller part as Bill Rorisch, the legendary nightly news anchor who everyone at the bureau respects and idolizes. Robert Prosky, Joan Cusack, Lois Chiles, Christian Clemenson and Peter Hackes all star as different personalities around the bureau, studios and bullpen.    

As good as the characters are, the most memorable parts of 'News' are the set pieces. We see Jane and Aaron out in the field, working in the studio to get a piece done under a ridiculous deadline so the national news can air it, the in-office tension over how a package lands. The best part though is obvious, a breaking news story in Europe about an American base being attacked. Rushing to report the news, Tom is sent to the anchor desk, Jane in his ear guiding him through it, and a disappointed Aaron still helping out from home. It's a great look into the inner workings of the business in all its adrenaline, chaos and up-to-the-minute developments. It's a really good movie that I think could have been a great movie. Still, I liked it a lot, mostly for the 3-D characters who actually behave and act like human beings. Go figure.

Broadcast News (1987): ***/****

Michael

There are some things you just don't make fun of, and for many people, that's religion or anything even remotely similar. Me on the other hand, I eat that stuff up. I'm not talking about mocking Jesus or the saints, or ripping something that people hold dear to them. What about just having a little fun with preconceived notions, things you to a point take for granted? That's part of the fun of 1996's Michael.

Working for the National Mirror -- a sensationalist tabloid magazine -- in Chicago, reporter Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) has fallen on some tough times after losing his job with the Chicago Tribune. Now, he finds himself tracking down one ridiculous angle after another, including his latest, a true whopper. A woman in Iowa (Jean Stapleton) claims to be housing an angel named Michael (John Travolta), wings and all. With some company from another down luckless writer, Huey (Robert Pastorelli), and a supposed company stooge, Dorothy (Andie MacDowell), Quinlan heads to Iowa to see if the woman's claim could actually be true. It couldn't, could it?

So what do you think an angel would look like should you stumble across one? I go two ways here. One, a blonde child with pale skin so a cherub basically.  Two, a full-grown man in his 20s or so, an impressive physical specimen who is strong and capable, able to fight for and represent some sort of god. And how about this 1996 movie's portrayal from director Nora Ephron? This angel is a middle-aged, overweight man with long, messy hair and stubble on his face at all times. The script certainly has some fun with that premise, playing on those notions you had coming in of what an angel is. The same goes for what an angel would/should act like. Travolta certainly doesn't go for typical here, and that ends up being the best thing about the movie.

Following his return to mainstream Hollywood with his part in Pulp Fiction, Travolta went through a stretch of some really good movies and some truly bad ones. While 'Michael' on the whole isn't a great movie, it is worth recommending because of Travolta's scene-stealing part in the lead as the archangel Michael.  It is a fun character, and one Travolta clearly has some fun developing and playing against type. Michael has an overpowering charm on women wherever he goes, some magnetic power that goes unexplained. Travolta gets to ham it up a bit, improvise a dance scene in a packed country bar (watch it HERE), and ends up being the heart of the movie. A surprising revelation comes out late about his character's revelations, providing a good twist that provides a very moving ending as well. From start to finish, it's Travolta's movie.

And then there's the rest of the cast in Hurt, MacDowell and Pastorelli. All three are talented actors/actresses, but their characters here held little interest for me other than as foils to Michael's antics. Travolta's part is obviously the showy one, and in comparison the other parts pale. Hurt and MacDowell falling for each other? Aw, that's sweet, but boring. Pastorelli caring for a little dog? Yeah, necessary for the story, but getting there isn't too interesting. Oh, and MacDowell is an aspiring country singer? Can't wait for that story to develop. Bob Hoskins has a small part as the screaming managing editor of the Mirror, yelling at his employees to break more stories, with Joey Lauren Adams and Carla Gugino having small supporting parts. As Michael's first encounter, Stapleton is a bright spot too, making the most of a quick appearance.

Movies about religion, God, angels and faith can be tricky. They can be overbearing and obnoxious in a lot of different directions or they can be too afraid to actually say anything meaningful. 'Michael' isn't trying to deliver any profound message. A story of an angel making a visit to Earth and experiencing all the little things we might take for granted on a daily basis provides some heartfelt, moving and funny moments. It is at its best when its focusing on Travolta's Michael, and for his performance alone, this is a movie worth checking out.

Michael <---Youtube clip/Michael's appearance (1996): ** 1/2 /****

Syriana

When Syriana was released in 2005, reviews were almost uniformly positive, speaking of a dramatic story that was intelligent, well-written, and smart. I'm usually a tad-bit skeptical when I hear descriptions like that so I was wary going into the movie when we rented it after its DVD release.  Call it whatever you want, but less than 30 minutes into the movie, and I was bored to tears. I stopped the movie, not willing to wait it out until it got better. Well, since then I'd see the DVD at video stores or at Netflix, and I felt like in a weird way it was judging me.

So here I sit in late July 2011 having revisited the movie, a political, current issue thriller with a non-linear story focused on oil and all its effects on the world (mostly bad if you don't watch the news).  My second viewing -- first all the way through to the end -- was basically the same as the first viewing with a more stubborn point of view on my part. I was going to stick it out through hell or high water, fighting off the need to take a quick nap as the story developed s..l..o..w..l..y.  That's 'slowly' for those who didn't get it. I watched it all the way to the end, re-read reviews, read some plot descriptions and came away feeling the same way. Not impressed even though I felt like I should have liked it.

Before writing and directing this 2005 thriller, Stephen Gaghan was most well-known for his work with the screenplay for 2000's Traffic. It is easy to draw parallels between the two movies with a handful of stories -- seemingly different but all heading in the same direction -- with the oil business taking over for the drug trafficking business.  Syriana demands you pay attention to every scene (novel concept, huh?), but I say that having paid attention and still coming away confused. Call me naive or stupid in my movie-going and viewing ways, but just because everything is needlessly complicated and even unexplained does not mean a movie is "smart." It just means that someone, in this case writer/director Gaghan, wrote a weaving story that takes some odd routes to get there. He's clearly talented, but I felt lost with this story from the word 'go.'

The plot can be divided into four main storylines, sometimes connected and others times not so much. First, there's aging, veteran CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has caused some trouble for talking aloud about a problem he sees in the Middle East. His superiors are noticing him for the wrong reasons, sending him on a dangerous mission into the Middle East. Second, there is Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), an oil company representative involved with a multi-billion dollar oil company merger, but problems arise almost instantly, and his beliefs and morals may come under fire. Third is Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an energy analyst working closely with the possible future emir of an immense oil field, Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) who isn't going along with U.S. interests. Last, there is young Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Muslim teenager searching for who he really is in turbulent, chaotic times.

As much talent is involved though with all these characters, the only one that left a truly positive impression was Clooney as Agent Barnes, a long-time field agent for the CIA who is at a bit of a crossroads in his personal life and his career. Clooney gets a bad rap at times for being a movie star, not an actor, but I think his acting ability is criminally underrated. At this point in his career, his Barnes is confused, frustrated and fed up, forcing him to make decisions he normally would not. The problem with the rest of this talented cast is that no one really comes to life.  You don't see Bryan Woodman, you see Matt Damon. Not a dig at Damon because it's a problem across the whole movie. In addition to all those names above, there are also supporting parts for Christopher Plummer as a high-powered oil executive, Chris Cooper as a high-strung oil rep, Amanda Peet as Woodman's wife, Tim Blake Nelson as an oil rep clearly in the crosshairs for his actions, William Hurt as Stan, an old source from Barnes' past, and Mark Strong as Mussawi, an overseas contact Barnes will use on his mission.

A day since watching the movie, I'm struggling to put into words why I struggled to get through this movie. At just over two hours, it feels much longer than that.  The non-linear story (read: confusing) is too disjointed and never gets into any sort of rhythm. As one portion of the story actually gets interesting, it jumps to another story. Mostly though, my issue comes down to boredom and lack of any emotion at all. Call it smart, call it well-written, call it educated. I was BORED, downright bored. I fell asleep again watching this movie...twice...forcing me to rewind and watch over what I'd missed. As for the emotion, there isn't any. The movie and all its intertwining stories keep you at an arm length. There are quick instances where you feel connected to the story or the characters, but they're fleeting moments. So I was bored and didn't really care about any characters, good combination, don't you think?

What next? I don't intend this as a 'I'm not smart so I'm going to lash out at the movie that threw me for a loop' rant regardless of how it sounds. Gaghan's script looks at all these different ways that oil affects the world, mostly in a negative way as greed, terrorism, corruption, betrayal and murder take over.  Is this supposed to be surprising, or am I just missing something? Am I that cynical? Is this supposed to be innovative, groundbreaking or in any way a new look at the world? I don't feel like it takes a stance that hasn't or hadn't crossed my mind at some point.

The one saving grace is the ending, brutally efficient in its effectiveness.  Honest and violent, it just works as we finally see the personal, human side of all these things.  Lives are lost in an instant because there are bigger concerns and worries at play, more than one individual's life.  It isn't enough to save the movie as a whole, but it does help Syriana end on a positive note, even if it is a little too late.

Syriana <---trailer (2005): **/****

Robin Hood

Some characters from historical literature have just had more of an impact than others, characters like Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans, Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, King Arthur, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn just to name a few.  One that I started reading about when I was younger who still remains a favorite is Robin Hood. Countless books have been written about the legendary outlaw and even more film versions that include stars Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, and even a Disney animated version that I love.  Well, they can't all be winners, like 2010's Robin Hood.

A pairing of director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe with a great character like Robin Hood seemed like a no-brainer to me (Gladiator for anyone confused) even though I never got to see it in theaters. Going into this, I should say I'm a fan of the legend, the myth of Robin Hood. Like so many movies dealing with stories already known by audiences (Bond, Batman, Hulk), Scott goes with a reboot, telling the story of how everything we know about a character -- in this case Robin Hood -- came to be.  So basically, it's an unofficial prequel.  Bigger than that though, the title character is almost a throwaway addition.  This movie could have been any 12th Century archer fighting royalty.  I wanted to like this movie, and it just didn't happen.

After fighting for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) in the Crusades for 10 years, archer Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns home to England with three of his closest friends and allies he's fought these many years with. Completing a mission he told someone he would honor, Robin rides to the town of Nottingham where he meets Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law, Marion (Cate Blanchett). He agrees to say on with them, posing as Marion's dead husband so they can hold on to their land.  Bigger things are at work though as a treacherous Englishman, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is pitting new king John (Oscar Isaac) against his people while also arranging a surprise invasion from the French. Standing in their way is Robin himself, ready to defend England to the last.

I made the unfortunate decision of watching Scott's Director's Cut, clocking in at 156 minutes instead of the theatrical 141 minute-version.  Bad choice.  I'm all for historical epics in just about any form, any historical time period, but there's both too much going on here and not enough at the same time.  Maybe the best thing going for the movie is the cast, but there's too many worthy actors here so they're in and out of the story too much.  After the introduction of all the players and settings, basically an hour goes by before any conflict is even introduced.  Then when it is presented, it's another 30 minutes before SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  Maybe I was expecting a different movie, but I was bored to tears and only stuck with it because I kept waiting for it to get better.  Insider tip? It doesn't.

With Scott directing and Crowe starring, Gladiator is one of my all-time favorites.  Reviews even identified this one as Gladiator with a bow and arrow.  Playing the title character (although he's only identified as Robin Hood once), Crowe makes this otherwise dull flick somewhat interesting.  The man is cut out to star in historical epics, and he makes Robin a believable leader, a man capable of convincing others to do something they never would have on their own.  Crowe also looks to do most of his own stunts -- fighting and horse riding -- so he gets points just for being cool.  As Marion, Blanchett is like a female equivalent of Crowe, an actress cut out for period pieces.  The two of them have some definite chemistry, but it gets lost in an endless series of scenes that go nowhere.

The name recognition alone for the supporting cast is great, but that's about all they get.  Over 80 now, von Sydow is still the man and just by being in the movie makes it better.  William Hurt looks like he stumbled into the wrong movie playing William of Marshal, a royal caught in the middle of a possible English civil war. Strong is a great villain, a man with NOT ONE redeeming quality, making it that much easier to hate him. Matthew Macfayden is the sheriff of Nottingham, relegated to background duty here. Huston makes the most of a quick appearance as the Lionheart. Robin's not so merry men include Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (singer Alan Doyle). I would have loved to see a movie more about Robin and his men in Sherwood Forest, but I guess I can add that to my list of complaints.

One thing that still surprised me about this movie was the PG-13 rating because without the R-rating, the action and violence seem pretty tame, almost boring.  I don't need decapitated heads or gushing blood, but it felt very whitewashed here.  Not that the action is top-drawer by any means, but it was certainly more watchable than just about anything else here.  Like the rest of the movie, it just didn't impress.  On scale alone, this movie gets some points but other than Crowe, Blanchett and an underused supporting cast, I've got to pass on this one.  A disappointing result, and a surprising one too.

Robin Hood <---trailer (2010): **/****      

The Incredible Hulk

With all the franchise reboots, sequels and prequels in the market now, it never comes as much of a surprise when one hits theaters.  But what about when a studio cuts their losses and admits a mistake and does another reboot, just five years after the previous effort?  Released in 2003, Hulk was a disappointment to fans and to the studio even though it made over $130 million in theaters. I was one of the few who actually liked that one, but in 2008 Marvel Studios released a new Hulk movie, aptly titled The Incredible Hulk. Maybe they just needed to start over for the new Avengers movie, announced for 2012.

The 2008 version starts after Bruce Banner has accidentally turned himself into the Hulk via some gnarly gamma ray exposure.  The opening credits actually serve as a prologue of sorts, explaining how he became the Hulk and the fallout that was to come because of his actions.  While the reboot has some potential, it follows basically the same formula as the 2003 version so it made me ask, what's the point?  Hulk has also been in the news recently because star Edward Norton has been bumped for Mark Ruffalo -- no explanation why -- for the Avengers movie.  As a Norton fan, it's sad news because he is a strong point in 2008's Hulk.

Hiding in Brazil as he runs from the U.S. military and General Ross (William Hurt), scientist Bruce Banner (Norton) is doing everything he can to experiment on himself and see if he can ever go back to being just Bruce instead of turning into the Hulk if he gets too angry/excited.  Ross is hot on his trail and sends in a Special Ops commando, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), and his team to extract him.  Bruce manages to escape and sneaks back into the states where he tracks down lost love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and a doctor (Tim Blake Nelson) who may be able to help him. But all the while, General Ross and Blonsky -- after some medical experiments -- are close behind, doing everything they can to get their hands on Banner.

First off, I did like this movie if not exactly loved it.  The visuals are great, full of bright, vibrant colors that look lifted right out of a comic book.  The action is solid if a little repetitive, and that's where the problem comes in.  Christian Bale playing Batman is one thing, he's a regular dude with a badass suit.  But when Banner turns into Hulk and Blonsky transforms into Abomination late in the movie, it's just two freakishly huge CGI creations beating the crap out of each other.  It loses some effect as most CGI creations tend to do to me.  Oh cool, look at those two computer images fight!  I don't know the solution, and at a certain point you just have to go along with it, but it is a big problem I have with superhero/action movies.

Starting a franchise over again, director Louis Leterrier had to work with a cast that's as good if not better than 2003 Hulk. I thought the cast of Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Josh Lucas was one of the best selling points for Hulk.  For the 2008 reboot, I'd say it's a push.  An actor's actor, it's fun to see Norton in a blockbuster where he can just have some fun.  I've always had a crush on Liv Tyler, and she's okay here but Connelly is the better actress. Sam Elliott or William Hurt? Do I really have to go into that one?  Nolte and Roth are about the same, and Lucas is better than Blake Nelson in somewhat similar roles.  Moral of the story, both casts are good, neither one pulling too far ahead of the other one.

One of the biggest complaints of 2003 Hulk was the lack of action, a superhero movie that was too cerebral which sounds ridiculous to me.  What's funny is that 2008 Hulk doesn't up the ante too much.  There's a chase through crowded Brazilian streets early, and we see Hulk in shadows and darkness, never getting a great look at him.  The best action comes in a scene where Ross and Blonsky have cornered Banner, and he's forced to protect Betty on a college campus.  There's some epic qualities to this segment that make it worth rewatching.  I've mentioned the finale -- CGI monster vs. CGI monster -- which is all right but nothing spectacular.  The two last scenes are cool, including a very brief snippet of what's to come in the Avengers movie.

Overall for a reboot, I'm looking for something new, something different that improves on the previous franchise ventures.  The Incredible Hulk doesn't do that, instead taking steps side-to-side instead of forward.  It's a good enough movie, good to watch with a bucket of popcorn that lets you sit back and enjoy, but that's about it.  Other superhero movies like Iron Man have raised the bar, and this one isn't quite there.  Cool throwback tribute, look for original Hulk Lou Ferrigno in a cameo as a security guard.

The Incredible Hulk <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****