Movie Review - 11-11-11 (2011) (PG-13)

It's All About the Date, and Nothing Else

11-11-11 is a horror movie about a writer plagued by ominous visions, supernatural encounters, and repeated exposure to the number eleven. This would include the date the story leads up to, and how fortuitous that the film was actually given a November 11, 2011 release date. Remember the 2006 remake of The Omen and its June 6 release date, which we all know was a marketing ploy to have the month, date, and year exactly match the demonic number 666? And then there was The Number 23, which opened to the public on February 23, 2007 - and incidentally, I was twenty-three years old at that time. At least they both had clever ad campaigns, and in my opinion, they were fairly decent films. The same cannot be said for 11-11-11. To be perfectly honest, all the elevens in the world would not have made this film work.

The writer, named Joseph Crone (Timothy Gibbs), is a skeptic who lost his faith after his wife and child tragically died in a house fire. It was started, we eventually learn, by a fanatic who was inspired by one of his books. As the film progresses, his brushes with strange phenomena will naturally become more frequent, more dangerous, and more frightening. This would be fine, except that he stubbornly remains a skeptic until the last possible moment, which is odd because the circumstances make absolutely no sense. But I won't get into that just yet. Exactly how many run-ins with demons and double digits are necessary for you to finally consider the possibility that there truly is something bigger than yourself? At a certain point, I wanted to crawl up into the screen, smack this guy across the head, and scream, "Believe, already!"

The plot, as it were, involves Joseph travelling to Barcelona and reuniting with his estranged father (Denis Rafter), who's dying, and his handicapped brother, Samuel (Michael Landes), a minister for a dwindling congregation. As Joseph muddles his way through a series of strange events, he begins to suspect that everything is somehow connected to the number eleven. He's repeatedly told that someone has to be saved, and so he naturally deduces that his purpose in life is to protect his brother, who may be a really special person. Warnings persist about ghostly beings caught in the purgatory between life and death, that they seek a doorway into our world, and that it will happen on November 11. At least, I think that's what was going on. It seems that the more explaining this movie does, the less sense it makes.

Many horror movies have been made about the battle between faith and non-belief, but lack of originality is not what makes 11-11-11 so unbearable. It's the way in which these opposites are explored. Just about every conversation between the brothers is constructed like a joke. Samuel, pious and soft-spoken, provides the setups. Joseph, the angry atheist, delivers the punch lines. Writer/director Darren Lynn Bousman assembles passages of dialogue as if there's no such thing as middle ground; he has two men shouting at the rain, both sounding ridiculous. Listening to these men argue about God is a little like watching a political debate between candidates who have already lost the race. They continue to campaign, even though voters have long since stopped caring about what they stand for or even who they are.

The film also features a young woman named Sadie (Wendy Glenn), who met Joseph at a support group for people who have lost family members. Her appearance seems to have stemmed from the desire to have a female character present in a horror movie. This is strange because Bousman didn't have the decency to use her in typical ways, such as having her get topless, making her scream helplessly, and ultimately having her die a horrible, bloody death. I don't think I've seen another film this year in which a character so thoroughly lacked a purpose. She's completely useless. Even her encouraging words for Joseph have no effect, mostly because we expected her to say them as early as her very first scene.

All leads to a surprise ending, except it isn't a surprise so much as it is a cheat. At that point, I no longer had any idea what was going on. When I was finally hit with the plot twist, I felt angry, for its inclusion seemed intentionally designed to confuse me even further. Nothing that happens during the final ten minutes makes sense. Is Bousman trying to make a point about religion? If so, what is it? The more I try and work through his logic, the more I'm torn between hysterical laughter and blinding rage. It can't possibly be a good sign when the only thing a movie called 11-11-11 has going for it is a series of numbers tied to a release date. They couldn't even get that right; the film's limited release pretty much prevented the start of an immersive ad campaign. How many people actually know that this movie exists?

Movie Review: Hisss (2011)

The curse of the fertility goddess, Nagin, states that anytime man desecrates or violates the cobra, they are doomed to suffer the petrifying curse of the snake woman, involving death and infertility. Respect is the only cure. Over 4000 years ago the inhabitants of the Indus Valley in the Far East sculpted the image of the shape-shifting, half-human, half-cobra creatures residing in mysterious temples deep within the legendary spice forests off the Malabar Coast. George States (Jeff Doucette) isn't afraid of the legend, and journeys into the jungle to snag the mate of the Nagin, hoping the goddess will take human form, chase after him, and grant him immortality. Thanks to stage 3 brain cancer, he's delusional, homicidal, and makes as little sense as the movie does trying to explain the premise.

George is successful in capturing the male cobra and returns to his stone lab where he waits for Nagin to appear. The goddess, played by Mallika Sherawat, takes many scenes to transform from snake into human, writhing in mud, sloughing off handfuls of gooey scales, tearing through molting netlike skin, and revealing naked human flesh. The makeup effects aren't entirely pathetic, demonstrating a similarity to the more impressive works in Species. It's the computer graphics later on, showing the transformation back into reptile that is particularly ridiculous. The reasons and methods for the mutations are never explained, nor are the various stages of snake/human hybrid metamorphosis. Sometimes Nagin will be completely human, or a small rubber snake, or monstrous cobra, or a woman with fangs and yellow eyes, or even a Gorgon-like mix, with snake body and human arms and head. The combination constantly changes and remains completely undefined.

In the nearby village, the festival of colors, known as Holi, is being joyously celebrated, while a local detective (Irrfan Khan) and his wife (Divya Dutta) try unsuccessfully to have a child. The festival is an easy opportunity to throw in the standard song and dance sequences expected from a Bollywood production. When Nagin appears to dance with the natives, two drunken men kidnap her. She acts like a child unfamiliar with her surroundings, more naïve than Mowgli, and never utters a word (throughout the entire film, in fact). The ensuing attempted rape results in both men being mutilated and eaten, derivative of the more memorable scenes in Anaconda. She continues to seek out her lover (an incredibly fake snake held in a glass case, periodically electrocuted for fun by States), murder various sex offenders and abusive men she stumbles across, and hunt down the participants in the original expedition that ended in the male cobra's capture. Meanwhile, the detective tries to solve the string of killings, noticing that each body contains an excessive amount of venom.

"This is some weird shit," exclaims the morgue doctor as he performs an autopsy on a mangled body, so horribly disfigured that a cell phone must be cut out of the middle of the mess. His blurb sums up Hisss, a movie that is purposely weird and terribly dull, full of brutal violence for the sake of including bloodshed, horribly plain dialogue, gratuitous nudity from random, busty extras, and pitiful special effects. While most will be pleased with Sherawat's constant state of nakedness, the editing actually tries every trick in the book to hide, obscure or cover her so that she's never seen clearly (suggestive silhouettes at best). Hisss is an embarrassment to horror films, monster movies, the Indians it portrays, and the filmmakers at its helm. It's no wonder director Jennifer Chambers Lynch (daughter of David Lynch) is rumored to have disowned it after the producers took away creative control during editing.

Movie Review - L.A. Story

L.A. STORY (1991) is a somewhat disappointing piece of lazy reverie for a true genius like Steve Martin only because we all know how great he can be when he wants to (The Jerk, Three Amigos, Roxanne, etc.).

Martin, who has recently received the nation's highest comedy award Twain in 2005, plays Harris K. Telemacher, the whacky LA weatherman who falls in love with the British reporter Sara McDowel (Victoria Tenant who has been his wife in real life as well).

However, to be with the one he truly loves, Telemacher must get rid of the fake loves in his life and concentrate on what is true and pure.

In this pursuit, his mentor and guru proves to be none other than an LA freeway billboard which communicates with him through its lighted board in scenes shamelessly lifted off from the Steven Spielberg movie The Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977).

It's thanks to the billboard's magical wisdom that the hapless Telemacher finds salvation at the end. I felt that was a rather sad commentary on the state of human affairs in the City of Angels.

As a catalog of the quirky characters and settings (parking lot reserved for Capricorns, for example) the film does have a certain archival value. But as a dramatic narrative it is contrived and forced.

For those who'd like to be exposed to the best Steve Martin's wonderful writing I heartily recommend SHOPGIRL, the book. L.A. STORY is a film which proves that comedy is hard indeed.

This supposed comedy rates a mournful 5 out of 10.

---------------------------------------

Movie Review: Limitless (2011)

Most viewers will go into Limitless with low expectations, thanks to a mediocre trailer and a cast of second-tier regulars. This works to a great advantage, since the film actually possesses a unique plot, fascinating concepts and genuine thrills. There's also a lot of humor mixed into the graveness, lightening the mood for the more shocking material and creating a sense of fun - it's also difficult to take anything Bradley Cooper does too seriously.

Edward Morra (Bradley Cooper) is a failing writer, struggling to type the first sentence of the book he's already taken an advance to pen, frequently turning to booze for inspiration. When he happens upon the brother of his ex-wife, Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), a well-dressed drug dealer convinced that he's a successful businessman, Eddie is given a clear pill known as NZT that promises to expand the usage of the brain from the standard 20% to a whopping 100%. Upon downing the drug, Eddie is suddenly shot with an unprecedented surge of motivation; he's capable of spouting a sparkling cocktail of useless information (which makes him irresistible to the ladies), recalling everything he's ever seen or heard in a remarkably organized manner, learning languages just by listening to people speak, and finishing his novel in a few days.

He returns to Vernon for more of the miracle drug and is able to secure a large bag. It's a limited supply, but enough to boost his mind into transforming $12,000 into $2 million by playing the stock market. Despite terrifying side effects, which he is eventually forced to control, Eddie is all set to become a very powerful man - if only he can keep a murder charge off the record thanks to gaps in memory, prevent a shady loan shark from killing him, and not run out of NZT while trying to impress the Gordon Gekko of investment bankers, Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro).

Two things make Limitless a lot more entertaining than typical, mindless thrillers: firstly, Eddie's "super powers" aren't actually superhuman, allowing the premise to be much more believable. The fact that it's caused by a drug also dissuades inquiry because it's generally accepted that drugs do crazy things. It's a purely science-fiction idea without the otherworldly disposition of aliens or time travel. His moments of superior intelligence are demonstrated by green-screen work, CGI, a hazy gray world transforming into a vivid golden one, and hyperactive camera tricks. Secondly, our superhero frequently loses his special abilities and must cope in the real world, dealing with adversaries that also don't possess a super weapon or Kryptonite - along with the accompanying downers of addiction and crashing. He's also simply not a clean cut protagonist.

A necessary narration presides over Limitless, smartly filling in what can't be described by actions. The rest is a combination of adventure, suspense, and creatively hilarious violence. The unexpected conclusion might leave you with questions and concerns, but also a certain undeniable degree of satisfaction. If the bewildering nature of the outcome is too much to wrap your head around, just remember that it's only a Bradley Cooper movie.

- The Massie Twins ( http://www.GoneWithTheTwins.com )

A Movie Review - Just One Person's Opinion

Many people don't realize that a movie review is just one person's opinion, on one particular day, and ascribe a larger value to the reviews. They think that somehow, the critic writing (or speaking/filming) the review has an insider perspective on whether a film is inherently "good" or "bad".

What they don't think about are all the factors which can lead a critic or reviewer to value a certain aspect of one movie over that of another, or the fact that there could be any number of things going on to influence the critic's opinion of the piece.

In an ideal world, a professional critic is someone who can separate their own personal prejudices and tastes from the inherent value of a film, and evaluate a cinematic work on its own merits and based on its own intentions. This is one of the things that separates professional movie reviews from amateur hobbyists, who ply their opinions both on- and off-line and are often not able to make judgments of a) what the film they've watched is trying to communicate and b) whether it was successful based on that initial desire to communicate an idea.

Where professional critics can contribute in a highly valuable way is through their knowledge of and dedication to cinema. A professional reviewer with experience over a number of years has a wide breadth of knowledge about film directors, the actors who perform in the film in question, the producers, and other technical contributors, based on their work over a number of years. They also, one would hope, have a wider perspective on the history of cinema and how any one particular work fits into the wider range of cinema production output over the history of the medium. Even so, their opinion can be influenced by any number of things, and those reading professional movie reviews should realize that the review is simply a tool with which they can evaluate what their own reaction to the piece is likely to be. Using this information, one can decide whether a film is worth the cost of the ticket for them or their cinema group.

Hobbyist reviews on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and other internet websites have gained popularity over the years because they aggregate the reactions - not the professional reviews - of a wide number of people. Where a professional critic's review is just the reaction of one person, these aggregating sites offer the perspective of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of average viewers who can provide a look at their gut reaction to the content of a film and pass that on to other viewers. This is useful for picking a movie based on mainstream tastes, however, one should realize when accessing these sites that you are not likely to see or have explained the position of a film within the canon of movie production history, nor are the capsule reviews from those who have seen the film necessarily educated or placed within the context of what the film is trying to achieve. They are opinions, and may differ from yours.

Movie Review - Footloose (2011)

This Version is More in Step

I went into Footloose with very low expectations, since I knew the filmmakers had very little to work with. The original 1984 film, directed by Herbert Ross and starring Kevin Bacon, may have provided us with some classic '80s songs but was woefully inadequate in all other fields, including plot, character, and theme. Although this new version tells virtually the exact same story, and although it copies specific scenes and lines of dialogue almost verbatim, I was surprised to find myself watching a stronger, better calculated film - more mature and a hell of a lot more convincing, with specific characters that are far better developed. I can only attribute its greater success to small but significant changes to Dean Pitchford's original screenplay, such as the shuffling of lines and scenes; you'd be surprised how slight alterations can drastically affect the context of a scene.

This isn't to suggest that it's a perfect film. If anything, it suffers from many of the same problems that plagued the 1984 version, not the least of which is the plausibility of the underlying concept. But this time around, it's obvious that more of an effort was made. In my original review, I complained that the filmmakers labored mightily under the delusion that the story should be taken seriously, despite the fact that it was innately ridiculous. I might have been too hasty in making that judgment call; although both versions are through and through escapist entertainment, certain aspects in this new film were tweaked to the point that I could take them more seriously, if only for the time I was sitting in the theater. I was able to see that it's not about the underlying material, but about how it's handled. The new script contributions by director Craig Brewster are proof of this.

In both films, a small town has imposed a law against music and public dancing as a result of a deadly car accident that claimed the lives of several teenagers. One of the changes in this film is that it actually opens with the crash; although contrived and melodramatic, actually seeing it happen somehow adds credibility. One this has been established, we go straight ahead with the story, which may not be identical to the 1984 film but will certainly be familiar to those who have seen it. We meet a teenager named Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald), who lived in Boston with his mother until she died of leukemia. He now lives in Bomont, Georgia with his aunt and uncle, where the Reverend Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid), for personal reasons I will not reveal, spearheaded the movement to ban underage drinking, "suggestive" music, and public dancing. The latter is allowed only in designated areas and under close supervision from the town elders.

Although Ren is generally mistrusted by the folks of Bomont for being a smart aleck outsider, he quickly befriends a high schooler named Willard (Miles Teller), who may be a bit geeky but is nowhere near as pathetic and annoying as he was when Christopher Penn played him. He also becomes acquainted with the Reverend's daughter, Ariel (Julianne Hough), who rebels against her father's rules by dating an older redneck racecar driver named Chuck (Patrick John Flueger). Ren and Ariel's relationship is no less contrived than it was in the original film, but because Ariel is better developed, I found that I could willingly suspend disbelief. In due time, Ren organizes a petition to have the anti-dancing law abolished, since he believes teenagers need to have their time before they grow up.

Certain scenes remain as laughably preposterous as they were in the 1984 film, including when a frustrated Ren lets off steam by dancing wildly, almost primitively, through an abandoned factory. It was not the dancing itself that was bad; it was the idea that he would vent in that particular way. I also had to suppress giggles during a montage sequence in which Ren teaches the clueless Willard how to dance; as in the original film, it's set to the tune of Deniece Williams' "Let's Hear It for the Boy." Other scenes are not funny at all but are just as bad. In neither film did I appreciate the final fistfight between Ren and Chuck, which was not only unnecessary but also in bad taste. As for the Reverend, his miraculous turnaround is easier to accept, although his reasons are still a bit murky.

The soundtrack, which replaces the rock and new wave tunes with a fusion of country and hip hop, is nowhere near as memorable as that of the original film. The dancing, on the other hand, is well choreographed and wonderfully energetic. Wormald, who in real life has a background in dancing with acts such as Madonna and Justin Timberlake, is especially good. I will not go so far as to say that this movie should have been nothing more than an extended music video, as I suggested about the 1984 version; this time around, the plot and the characters were just compelling enough to make the whole experience worthwhile. Footloose is by no means a masterpiece, but as a teen fantasy about rebellion, romance, and dancing, it succeeds at being exactly what it wants to be. At this point, I'm starting to think we shouldn't condemn remakes simply for being remakes.

Old Boy - A Movie Review

When I watched Old Boy for the first time (I have now seen it three times), I was slightly shocked by the content. This shock slowly turned into more of a stomach-churning intensity, as I took stock of what was actually happening to the story. Old Boy is definitely a grossed-out, acid tripping, stomach lurching, and strangely enough, memorable movie to stick your eyes on.

Directed by Chan-Wook Park, Old Boy is not for the feint hearted. The story follows Oh Dae-Su (Choi-min Sik), as he struggles with the life he has most unfortunately been handed. We see Dae-su as he is first kidnapped, and then placed in a small hotel-like room for a period of fifteen years.

During this time he is drugged almost nightly, whereby a drab song begins to play, just before he is gassed out cold. He surely becomes familiar with this song. Over this time he constantly tries in vein to kill him self, but to no avail. Whenever he tries to knock himself off, the gas comes spiralling out of the vents, and his captors rescue him.

After his fifteen years is up, Old Boy wakes up on top of a building where a man is ready to jump off. The conversation the two men have here is somewhat amusing, as we see the transition of Dae-su, from how we first saw him at the beginning of the movie, to what captivity has bled into him. From here on the story begins to spiral out of control.

Old Boy meets a girl Mi-do (Kang-hye Jeong), who takes care of him, and they form a close connection, becoming lovers. She helps Old Boy try to figure out the twisted reasons why he has been locked up for so long, with no apparent reason. At least, none he could remember without some refreshing.

He uses his notebooks, which he has written in for the past fifteen years, to try and figure out who, and what has done this to him. It all comes down to the taste of a dumpling, which he knows so well after being fed them every night for fifteen years. After many restaurants, he tracks down what he is after.

After some great running battles with the gang who kidnapped him, and a lovely scene between a hammer and a set of teeth, we reach a dire crescendo, as Old Boy finally finds his man (Yuu-ji Taie), and realises the gravity of the situation.

The storyline has to be one of the most disturbing in the history of film, but it is done with such a romanticism, that it touches every sense. A highly recommendable watch for all those who enjoy watching a movie made from the heart.

One thing that I found truly inspiring about 'Old Boy' is the style in which it has been filmed. The cinematography is superior, and the added effects, although slight, are cleverly done. The movie definitely has a whole room of darkness thrust into it, but it needs it to make it such a compelling watch.

Old Boy is a movie unto itself, and all those who dare to take the ride would surely agree.

Movie Review: The Green Hornet (2011)

The Green Hornet attempts to represent the very epitome of cool, with fast cars, masked crime-fighters, seductive girls, dastardly villains, enormous explosions, martial arts combat and senseless destruction. The creators must have thought they had every element necessary to build the perfect action flick - but they completely forgot to design a sensible plot and interesting characters. Although the story is based loosely on the 1930's Green Hornet radio series and the TV shows and comics that followed, this 2011 adaptation feels entirely like a Seth Rogen teen comedy.

That's not altogether surprising, considering Rogen and Evan Goldberg (the writer of Superbad and Pineapple Express) not only penned the script but produced the movie as well. This causes the lead character, Britt Reid (Rogen), to assume the role of a giggling, incompetent schmuck, carelessly wasting away his father's vast fortunes (superheroes cannot be poor) from The Daily Sentinel, the last independently owned Los Angeles newspaper. Drunken partying, countless nameless girls (summed up in a hyperspeed scene of love-making, sans actual sex, a la A Clockwork Orange) and pampered luxury fill up his days, not unlike Christopher Nolan's early theatrical interpretations of Bruce Wayne. Reid even has a devoted, coffee-serving valet, Kato (Jay Chou) to wait on him, who secretly specializes in kung fu, words of wisdom, and hi-tech engineering.

When Ried's father (Tom Wilkinson) dies, his spoiled life is suddenly thrown into perspective - he's not consumed with filling shoes, but rather thrill-seeking, especially when he discovers Kato's knack for kicking ass and customizing weapons onto their custom car, Black Beauty, like a human Swiss Army knife. Deciding to become a masked vigilante (leaving all the physical labor and fighting skills to his experienced partner), Reid dons the moniker "Green Hornet" and embarks on a mission to disrupt the crime in the city, conducted chiefly by aging mobster Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz).

The only mildly amusing aspect of this generic superhero team is the notion that they pose as villains to get closer to the real criminals, while diminishing suspicions about their true motives to law enforcement. The rest is a hodgepodge of failures, from the ceaseless inclusion of juvenile slapstick, to the Academy Award-winning antagonist who embarrassingly switches from realistic to ridiculous while fretting over his intimidation abilities (he predictably participates in the offing of his own henchmen for evil demonstration), to the "drop dead gorgeous" secretary Lenore Case (a noticeably aging Cameron Diaz), who desperately struggles to retain even an ounce of the allure she possessed in The Mask.

Who is the one actor least likely to be on the top of every moviegoer's list to star as an action hero? It would probably be Seth Rogen, who is so far removed from being anything other than a crass, cachinnating, chowderhead that his version of a cloaked vigilante is just short of a court jester. In its defense, The Green Hornet does feature a few thrilling car chases and explosive standoffs, but the typically dependable, macho hand-to-hand combat sequences we expect are tossed aside for highly stylized choreography and graphics that look like an inhuman, computer animated ninja dueling in a video game, with the option to pause and select targets and weaponry. The slow-motion in all the wrong spots and disastrous pacing don't help either.

- Mike Massie ( http://www.GoneWithTheTwins.com )

Movie Review - Catch 44 (2011) (R)

A Simple Job Becomes a Disorganized Mess

Catch 44 is unpleasant, unfocused, and strange - a film that tries to be something like a crime drama, a comic book thriller, and an exploitation film all rolled into one, but somehow hovers just out of range of all of them. Its structure is awkward. It begins with a few select clips from the story's end, then backtracks to the start of the final shootout, then backtracks even further to the events leading up to the shootout before flashing forward and showing just a little bit more of the final shootout. We backtrack again, then go forward to the shootout, then go back in time a couple of years, then go back to the shootout. I'm not here to make a case against nonlinear storytelling, although I will say that it requires engaging characters and a hell of a lot of style in order for it to work. On both accounts, this movie barely gets by.

Taking place in rural Louisiana, it stars Malin Akerman as Tes, officially a waitress for a sleazy strip club. Unofficially, she works for an aging, pecan-loving crime boss named Mel (Bruce Willis). She was hand-picked by him a few years ago because of her ability to pickpocket unsuspecting men. Her cohorts are sisters Dawn (Deborah Ann Woll) and Kara (Nikki Reed). The scenes with only the three women work the best, in large part because of their dialogue, which is just smart enough to be interesting but not so smart that it sounds like it came from a philosophy textbook. It's not mindless banter; personality comes through. In an early scene, for example, the three of them get into a strange but engrossing conversation about the definition of compromise and the art of faking it. It's a bit arbitrary, but I enjoyed listening to it just the same.

The plot involves the three women doing one more job for Mel. He wants them to go to a diner and intercept a drug shipment before it has the chance to be exchanged. Sounds simple enough. But Kara is uneasy about the whole thing. Why is he sending them to a middle-of-nowhere diner forty miles out of town? Why are there cars in the lot when she thought no one was supposed to be there? And most importantly, why would Mel give them another job after the mess they made of their last one? Tes is annoyed by Kara's suspiciousness. After all, they've done this kind of thing before, and Mel hasn't ever done them wrong. Dawn tries to smooth things over by telling a dirty but well structured joke about nuns going to confession. Eventually, they find themselves in the diner. The first part of their visit is repeatedly played throughout the film, albeit from slightly different angles.

As it turned out, Kara was right to feel suspicious. I cannot reveal why, except to say that it results in a three-way Mexican standoff. By itself, it goes on way too long. Intercut with lengthy flashback sequences involving bizarre and enigmatic characters, it becomes downright confusing. The official plot synopsis courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes describes this as a "deadly cat-and-mouse game," although I think it would be more accurate to call it a disorganized mess. The reason for it happening is a very unlikely, very odd turn of events. There are specific lines of dialogue so jarringly out of place that they're likely to generate lots of incredulous laughter. And then there's a final twist so predictable that you don't have to actually see the movie to know that it's coming.

There's a man played by Forest Whitaker who uses multiple names throughout the film. We don't get his real name until the final scene, and even then, it's hard to take what he says at face value. This man is such a deep mystery that he doesn't even know who he is. When we first see him, he pretends to be a stranded motorist with a stutter. Then he pretends to be a jokey cop with a heavy southern drawl. Then, while still in uniform, he slips into a Hispanic accent that was phony even when Al Pacino used it in Scarface. He often works in the phrase, "Fresh as a daisy," and at a pivotal moment, he will produce a daisy from his pocket as a gesture of love.

As for the visual style of the film, it's hard to say anything kind about people getting blown away. Many characters get shot in this film, which means that there will be plenty of spurting blood and splattered brain matter. Much easier on the eyes are the moments when the main characters are introduced; the shot freezes, the camera instantly zooms in on a face, and a name appears in big, bold letters. It looks like a comic book panel. This doesn't happen very often, though. I suspect the sole purpose of Catch 44 was to be escapist entertainment, which is fine except that it's hard to be entertained when you have to piece together a strained, surprisingly bewildering plot and make sense of oddball characters. One of them is a sheriff played by Brad Dourif, who spends his two scenes doing nothing except creeping through crime scenes with his gun drawn. I guess this is his way of taking a break from all those horror movies.

Movie Review: Puss in Boots

A film that will be presented in IMAX 3D and 3D, this movie created by Dream Works Animation has been described as an adventure film that is fully computer animated. If you haven't guessed it then let me inform you that this movie review is about Puss in Boots, which is directed by Chris Miller who is more popularly known for his work in Shrek 3. The movie is produced by Andrew Adamson, Latifa Ouaou, and Joe M. Aguilar along with Guillermo del Toro who has directed Splice, Hellboy, and Pan's Labyrinth, and the final producer of this movie is Michelle Raimo.

Written by David H. Steinberg and Tom Wheeler, the narration of the movie is done by Walt Dohrn and the music is created and done by Eric Dapkiewicz and Henry Jackman. Dapkiewicz is also the film's editor.

If you have watched Shrek then you know who Puss in Boots is. This movie was thus created to exploit the adventures of Puss in Boots before he meets up with Shrek and the rest of his friends. Puss in Boots first meeting with Shrek was in Shrek 2 and the new movie goes through how he came to meet Shrek. This movie will also introduce you to various different new characters along with the one that you already know from Shrek.

You will enjoy watching this movie as it is filled with numerous famous actors such as Antonio Banderas the voice of Puss in Boots; Zach Galfinakis, the voice of Humpty Dumpty who is, in this movie a mastermind who is attempting to retrieve Golden Eggs from a special goose; Salma Hayek, voice of kitty Softpaws, Puss in Boots special interest who happens to be a Tuxedo cat; Billy Bob Thornton who plays Jack; the character Jill who is played by Amy Sedaris and Zeus Mendoza the Rancher.

Although we are in the year 2011, this film has been in the making since 2004 after Shrek 2 was released and is said to be a spin-off of Shrek. Although initial plans for release were set back in 2006, this movie started its production in 2010 after Shrek Forever After came out. However, while this movie has some of the characters from Shrek, it will not be another Shrek and is instead an original Puss in Boots story that tells of Puss's adventures.

With a release date for November 4th 2011 in English, this movie has received the best comments after the trailer was released earlier this year. So if you have been in search of a family film to take your children to, consider seeing Puss in Boots.

Movie Review - Twice in a Lifetime (1985)

Twice in a Lifetime

Starring Gene Hackman, Ann-Margaret, Ellen Burstyn, Amy Madigan, Brian Dennehy, and Ally Sheedy

Directed by Bud Yorkin

Written by Colin Welland

Reviewed by David Wisehart

Twice in a Lifetime just ain't enough. Yes, it has stars galore, a semi-social conscience, and even a theme song by Paul McCartney.

What it doesn't have is a story.

The first third of the movie is spent opening birthday presents; the last third is devoted to wedding preparations; and the most exciting moment of the film comes at a Seattle Seahawks home game, watching fifty thousand screaming fans do The Wave.

Just sends the blood coursing through your veins, doesn't it?

The only truly interesting thing about Twice in a Lifetime is watching Gene Hackman transform a perfectly lackluster role into one of his finest performances.

Hackman plays common man Harry Mackenzie, a hart-working, hard-drinking, hard-loving, happily married man who finds himself in love with a middle-aged barmaid (Ann-Margaret) on his fiftieth birthday. Though he still loves his wife dearly, he recognizes this as his one chance at a sort of re-birth, a return to the happier, livelier days of his youth, a chance that only comes, well...twice in a lifetime.

The territory is familiar, and director-producer Bud Yorkin (veteran of such notable winners as Divorce American Style and Deal of the Century) seldom wanders from the beaten path of earlier and better films. There are no surprises in store for us, and few moments of true dramatic tension.

The film's strongest scene is one in which Harry's daughter (Amy Madigan) and wife (Ellen Burstyn) confront him and his paramour at the workmen's bar. His daughter is all dynamite and firecrackers, while his wife waits quietly in the shadows, avoiding confrontation. It is the only dramatic spark in the entire picture, a moment carried forcefully by Madigan in one of her best showings.

In fact, the acting is exemplary throughout. Brian Dennehy, that big bear of a man previously seen in Cocoon and Pale Rider, is convincing as Hackman's lifelong friend and drinking buddy. Ann-Margaret and Ellen Burstyn give solid support in their contrasting roles, and Ally Sheedy - as Hackman's other daughter - proves once again to be one of the most talented young actresses of the 1980s. Sheedy's performance is somewhat disappointing, though, in its brevity. With the exception of the (anti-) climactic scene, she is seldom on-screen, leaving us to wonder just how much was sacrificed to the cutting-room floor.

Still, this film is undeniably Hackman's. In his first true attempt at portraying a romantic lead, Hackman manages to be both sympathetic and strangely heroic in the face of self-induced adversity. He is a scaled-down Job, a modern-day Willy Loman of the steelworkers' set. Though his work in Twice in a Lifetime can't hold a torch to his paranoid wiretapper in The Conversation or his Popeye Doyle in The French Connection (two of the greatest films of the early seventies), Hackman almost saves this movie from vacuous oblivion.

Almost.

But Twice in a Lifetime is too technically muddled to let its strong ensemble carry the day.

Movie Review - The Artist (2011) (PG-13)

Silence is Golden

The Artist is cinematic perfection - a joyous celebration of everything that makes the movies so wonderful. Set during the end of Hollywood's silent era, it surely must have been a labor of love for writer/director Michel Hazanavicius, because in this day and age, a filmmaker does not lightly make the decision to tell an image-driven story in the language of melodrama. He pays careful attention to the technical aspects. It's a (mostly) silent film, photographed in black and white, shot in the Academy ratio of 1.33:1. It utilizes action-heavy music that's intended to dictate how the audience is supposed to feel. The actors rely almost entirely on body language and facial expressions. Wherever necessary, intertitles will appear onscreen displaying vital bits of dialogue.

But The Artist is not merely a stylistic homage. If it were, it would merely be a remake of Mel Brooks' Silent Movie, which had a lot of humor but little in the way of substance. It actually tells us a story, a loose revision of Singin' in the Rain with just a hint of Sunset Boulevard thrown in. It has interesting characters we can care about, and because all of them are essentially decent, we don't feel as if we've been manipulated into it. In its theatricality, it does not patronize or dumb down; it wants to make a connection, and so it does by appealing to emotions that I believe most audiences possess. There's drama, comedy, romance, and dancing - all immensely entertaining, all done with tremendous heart.

Taking place in Los Angeles between 1927 and 1932, it tells the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a silent film star known for his roles as action heroes and romantic leads. Just when it seemed his life could not be any better, a producer named Al Zimmer (John Goodman) shows him some test footage of an actress talking into a microphone. It's a new innovation: Talkies, in which prerecorded sound is synchronized with the picture. George initially laughs off the idea. Who wants to hear actors talk? It won't have a future. But not long after, major studios cease production on all new silent films. New young actors, who are perfectly willing to have their voices heard in a movie theater, quickly upstage their older silent counterparts. This would include the fresh-faced Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), who George ran into completely by accident. In his dressing room, after saving her from being fired onset, he tenderly supplies her with a trademark look: A penciled-in beauty mark on her upper lip.

Although Peppy's star is rising, George's star is rapidly fading. By 1929, he has fallen out of love with his wife (Penelope Ann Miller), preferring instead the company of his dog, his constant companion and costar. He clings to the belief that he's better seen and not heard, which is why he writes, produces, directs, and stars in his own film. I don't need to tell you how the premiere goes. I will say that it happens immediately after the stock market crash, leaving George with virtually nothing. His wife kicks him out of the house. He begins drinking. Out of kindness, he fires his loyal chauffeur and manservant, Clifton (James Cromwell). He's forced to pawn his beloved tuxedo and auction off his personal possessions, including a life-sized portrait of himself. Can this washed up movie star ever find his way back into the hearts of the people? Or will he completely fade into obscurity?

Watching Dujardin, with his strikingly handsome face and irresistibly dashing smile, one cannot help but see echoes of Gene Kelly, especially during the final scene. Bejo, slight but brimming with high spiritedness, doesn't need to speak to let you know what she's feeling; her expressive eyes do the talking for her. When a tear rolls down her cheek, you're tempted to cry right along with her. Some would call this mugging, except it isn't mugging - it's the language with much movies like this communicate. If you take this away, you no longer have a silent movie. Instead, you have a film in which the actors don't talk. You know the difference. In the best possible sense, emotion oozes from every character and every situation. This would include a climactic fire sequence, in which the most unlikely of heroes will rise.

It's amazing how beautiful The Artist looks. Guillaume Schiffman's Oscar-worthy cinematography transforms the sets into picturesque dreamscapes and the actors into the very embodiment of glamour. Just looking at the film floods the senses; you can smell the cigarette smoke and pancake foundation, feel the burning studio lights, taste the booze and the lip stain. It immerses you, not in another time so much as in another world, where reality is filtered through nostalgia. Speaking of Oscar nominations, I hope someone puts in a good word for composer Ludovic Bource, whose powerful score runs almost the entire length of the film. As long as I'm going this route, I might as well go all out and hope for a Best Picture nomination. I'm fairly certain this movie has the right qualifications.

Movie Review: Safe House (2012)

How many times have we seen government conspiracy action films with double agents, microchips, and rogue operatives running rampant? Well, here's one more. Safe House offers almost nothing we haven't seen before, though it does still deliver its fair share of thrills. The South African location, Denzel Washington's duplicitous dialogue, and the intense car chases help to coax you into forgetting about the humdrum plot, but it's never too far away. At least the next frenzied action sequence isn't either.

Ambitious CIA agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) works a dead-end job as a safe house guard. Longing for excitement and a more prestigious position, Matt gets his wish when high profile defector Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is brought in to his facility for interrogation. But when heavily armed mercenaries unexpectedly arrive and attempt to capture Frost, Weston must escort the dangerous fugitive to safety - all while dodging bullets, crooked government agents, and the treacherous efforts of his cunning prisoner.

If it's been accomplished in another action movie, it's repeated in Safe House. The film struggles for originality and is sorrowfully unable to bring a single new idea to the table. However, even with an incredibly predictable ending, generic characters, commonplace adventures based on evasion and pursuit, and a plot of cookie-cutter proportions, the pacing is decidedly respectable. Even at two hours long, watching Denzel Washington embody the seasoned, composed mentor to a naïve, fumbling rookie amounts to decent entertainment. The only truly annoying aspect to Reynolds' apprentice is his meddling inability to just shoot someone. Bringing morality and the mental tolls of killing or inflicting pain into a script that is so clearly primitive guns and explosions adds maddening complexity - pointlessly. What happened to the days when action movie heroes could rack up a preposterous body count and never worry about being trumpeted too bloodthirsty? Weston even has a silly love interest that serves to illustrate the loner qualities and incapacity to function in society that comes with covert government work - typical themes represented in the most standard fashion.

There's obligatory automatic weaponry, car chases, vehicles colliding with the lead characters' conveyance as they calmly exchange words, unwitting to the rapidly approaching juggernaut, evil looking foreign assassins, the violent shoving of civilians in crowded spaces, inside jobs ("everyone betrays everyone," insists Frost), bureaucratic red tape, gaping plot holes (does the interrogation room of a safe house really get perfect cell phone reception?), and Reynolds taking his shirt off twice. The hunter becomes the hunted, only to become the hunter once again, fistfights go on forever, and bullets never slow down the recipients. But the mismatched, contrasting duo makes for amusing moments of humor and drama, as is expected from two wildly dissimilar creations. If routine problem solving, natural suspicion, and plausibility critiquing can be put aside for the duration of the show, with focus left to the nonstop action, Safe House can be pleasantly exciting.

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com)

A Movie Review - War Eagle Arkansas

Movie reviews this week looks at the biographical drama War Eagle Arkansas.

This is a fairly recent biographical tale made for the big screen, that tells the story of two boys living in a rural community, War Eagle, Arkansas. The title might elude to it being a war story but it is far from it.

It is a story of a charming disabled boy known affectionately as "Wheels" played brilliantly by Dan McCabe (The Cake Eaters), and his best friend Enoch who has a speech impediment (played impressively well by Luke Grimes [Ryan in Brothers and Sisters]). Enoch lives with his grandfather better known as "Pop", played by the stalwart Brian Dennehy (Gladiator).

Pop is trying to get Enoch a baseball scholarship into one of the best sporting universities around their area, and it soon becomes obvious to the audience that Pop seems to have regretted giving up his dreams of being a major baseball star and staying in War Eagle, and he doesn't want that for Enoch, but you are not quite sure if Enoch dreams are to leave War Eagle.

The friendship of the two boys is so close, that at the first few scenes you automatically assume that they are siblings, spending as much time in each other's company as possible, and Enoch even gets to say the last word to Wheels, after his mother Jessie played by the ever brilliant Mary Kay Place (Adalene Grant in Big Love) gets him ready for bed.

Pop is in charge of the local baseball team, and in his attempt to get Enoch a baseball scholarship, pushes him as best as he can, as he sees it there is nothing in this town, to keep him there. Apart from baseball, there is an allusion to watching wrestling on TV, and one can't miss the obvious focus on Jerry "The King" Lawler, and can see the symbolism he represents as someone who made it out of war Eagle, Arkansas. There is the usual romantic interest as Enoch has the hots for a lovely girl, Abby played by the surprisingly young looking Misti Traya, and there are a few embarrassing moments for Enoch as he summons the courage to ask Abby out, but of course his speech impediment gets in the way, unless Wheels is by his side to speak for him, and in one painful scene, where Enoch tries to do it alone without Wheels, he leaves in a rush, as the words cannot come out and a few of Abby's friends can't help but giggle at his attempt. When he does eventually ask her out, the audience will feel the loneliness and pain Wheels feels, on a life he aspires for but is not realistic of seeing come true.

War Eagle Arkansas, is an endearing movie of two boys, and their friendship as they decide what path their lives are going to take, and they seek advice from the sole preacher at this close knit community, Jack played by James McDaniel (Lt. Arthur Fancy in NYPD Blue).

Movie Reviews is constantly updated with good reviews of great movies that are a must see.

Movie Review - The Sitter (2011) (R)

It's Gonna Be One Hell of a Night

Yet again, I find myself in the position of not knowing how to feel. The Sitter is a strange movie - a raunchy comedy, buddy movie, and action picture all rolled into one. That it involves children in the same space as drug dealers, thugs, prostitutes, jewel heists, gunshots, fistfights, cocaine, and explosives is nothing short of reprehensible. That it works regardless is nothing short of miraculous. For director David Gordon Green, it represents either enormous confidence or extreme stupidity. When it isn't resorting to desperately broad levels of low-grade humor, it makes candid statements about responsibility and self-esteem that are overly sentimental, as if they were transplanted from an afterschool special. Because of this, there's never a moment when something doesn't feel grossly out of place.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that it didn't stir within me the same hatred I felt for Green's previous feature, the hopelessly strained and profoundly unfunny Your Highness. That being said, at least I was sure how I felt about that film. In this case, I'm torn between admiring Green's audacity and condemning him for allowing something so atmospherically inconsistent into theaters. This movie truly does not know what it wants to be. I found myself laughing on several occasions, although never once at what was happening in the story; I was, for some inexplicable reason, amused by the filmmaker's attempts to make it into something more than it actually is. The Sitter might be worth seeing only on the basis that you may never see anything like it again.

Taking place somewhere in New York, the plot involves a suspended college student named Noah (a pre-weight loss Jonah Hill), who lives with his mom. They have a brief discussion over his lack of employment, after which he's roped into a babysitting job.

Here enters the Pedulla family. The first shot of the mom (Erin Daniels) immediately pans down to her chest and gives us an ample view of her cleavage. We then meet her children. Slater (Max Records) is a sullen thirteen-year-old who treats his anxiety disorders with medication he keeps in a fanny pack. He constantly texts a boy from school in a desperate attempt to find out why he isn't hanging around anymore. His little sister, Blithe (Landry Bender), dreams of being a celebutante and spends every waking moment playing the part. She dresses in hip clothing, wears gaudy makeup, listens to hip hop, and fantasizes about going to trendy clubs. Their adopted brother, Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), is from El Salvador. He talks like a murderous warlord and has a habit of running away. He wears a leather jacket and boots, enjoys destroying fragile items, and has a fine collection of cherry bombs. Needless to say, one or two toilets will explode before the night is over.

Initially, Noah and the kids don't get along, Blithe least of all. It doesn't help that, during their first encounter, she sprays perfume into his mouth. Not long after the parents leave for the night, Noah gets a call from his self-centered girlfriend, Marisa (Ari Graynor). She'll have sex with him, but only if he brings a stash of cocaine to a party she's attending in the city. He, of course, says yes, although this means having to take the kids with him. His first stop is the den of a drug dealer named Karl (Sam Rockwell), who, despite being a psychopath, insists on giving out hugs and likes to rank his friendships. I have never been to a drug den, although I suspect none of them are frequented by shirtless gay bodybuilders doing construction work. The sentry, a flamboyant Hispanic, glides around on roller skates. He will eventually be shot in the leg, but so it goes.

And things just sort of snowball from here. Rodrigo steals an egg full of cocaine. Yes, an egg. Karl must be compensated $10,000 by midnight, or else. Noah goes to his awful deadbeat dad for help, knowing not long after that he won't be receiving it. A car will be stolen. He will break into a jewelry store. He will get into a scuffle with a black woman who was at one time his high school classmate; I leave it to you to find out why she's mad at him. He will get into a fight with Marisa's ex-boyfriend. When the action pauses, he will have shockingly thoughtful conversations with the kids, who eventually realize how badly they've been behaving and decide to help Noah survive the night. He will also meet another former high school classmate, a young woman who shares his passion for astronomy and awaits the arrival of a magnetic storm. And, of course, the kids have to somehow get home before the parents do.

Is this movie for real? I can understand why critics haven't responded to it; the tone is inconsistent, the plot meanders, the characters are barely-developed caricatures that are nothing close to authentic (especially the kids), and the performances are hilariously unconvincing. I share in these criticisms. But somehow, I'm prevented from dismissing this movie altogether. There's something so irresistibly alien about it. You may not find it funny. You may not even understand it. But it's unlikely you'll be able to tear your eyes away during any of its eighty-one minutes. There are some people who have insolated themselves in their own oddness so that they can't be harmed no matter what anyone else does. The Sitter works in very much the same way. Take that for whatever its worth.

Movie Review: Straw Dogs (2011)

It's a testament to the power of Straw Dogs' story (Sam Peckinpah's adaptation of Gordon Williams' novel) that the 2011 remake is still entertaining despite its numerous shortcomings in both complexity and artistry to its predecessor. Director Rod Lurie's retelling trades conflicted characters and intricate ideals of bravery and cowardice with plain-dealing motives and basic revenge; Peckinpah's flair for operatic visuals is sadly absent. So too is the contemplative nature of the whole affair - the ambiguity and subtleties within every character's actions have been replaced with spoon-fed notions of right and wrong. It's impossible to avoid comparison to the original film, and doing so would be a disservice to the discerning viewer. Those that loved Peckinpah's creation will likely find little value in Lurie's version, but for those who haven't seen it, the remake does offer a humble taste of the brilliance you're missing out on.

Screenwriter David Sumner (James Marsden) and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) move to her old hometown of Blackwater, Mississippi with the hopes of peace and quiet so he can write his newest script. When Amy's former boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and his buddies Bic (Drew Powell), Chris (Billy Lush), and Norman (Rhys Coiro) are hired to repair the Sumners' garage, the bullying of David and unwelcome advances toward Amy begin. As the taunts and threats steadily escalate to a horrific act of violence, David must take a stand and defend his new home with an equal force of savagery.

Everything questionable, objectionable and controversial about the original Straw Dogs has been finely filtered out, leaving a straightforward, simple revenge story. None of the artistic violence, symbolic editing or jarring music remains. This update goes so far as to spell out the significance of the title, as well as adding the line "maybe you should wear a bra," which drastically dumbs down the purpose of Amy's appearance. If it weren't for the fact that the target audience is likely to have no knowledge of the 1971 version's existence, this level of defining, dulling and allaying disputatious content would be insulting. Extra references to the predominant themes, such as the inclusion of research on Stalingrad, further add to the intellectual affront.

Minor details have changed but the basic ideas are still present. Some of the original dialogue is reused (including snippet jokes that are no longer relevant), several scenes are nearly identical, a few props reappear, and even a couple of camera angles pay homage to Sam Peckinpah's vision. The competition, power struggle, vigilantism, Of Mice and Men subplot, conflict with religion, psychological breaking point examination and underdog vengeance aren't forgotten, however, and it's hard not to admire the cathartic power of the hero rising to the occasion and giving the villains what they so desperately deserve. It's essentially a two-hour, disturbing, suspenseful build to an explosive conclusion - one that abruptly stops when the last antagonist has fallen. But it's also difficult for Marsden to compete with Hoffman and for director/screenwriter Rod Lurie to match the originality and creativity of Peckinpah's turbulent classic.

- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com)

Movie Review: Anonymous

Anonymous is a new movie that speaks of a twist of what we all think we know about William Shakespeare and the plays that he has written. This is a movie that covers a theory that academics have been speculating on for centuries and no one, not even Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, or Henry James were able to fully comprehend and understand the magnitude behind Shakespeare's wonderful plays. It has been speculated for years that Shakespeare never wrote a single word of any of his plays and everyone has been wondering who is to be credited for these beautiful words.

The vision that has been crafted by Roland Emmerich's is something that is seen as shocking but it is also a very good movie on the other hand that will have you engaged. This movie has been described as a political thriller as it is centred around unmasking William Shakespeare and exposing to the world the person who he truly was. This film exposes the Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere as the true author behind all of Shakespeare's plays and this movies' theme is centred around the time that Elizabeth the 1st took the thrown.

This movie brings Oxford early onto the scene where he is seen calling Jonson, telling him that he needed him to be the front man for plays that he has been writing for some time now. The film is by Roland Emmerich and it is something that is very controversial. After Jonson turns down Oxford, William Shakespeare fills the role as creator of the play and Shakespeare is played by Rafe Spall. Shakespeare is depicted as a drunken idiot who takes credit for Oxford's work who is then very horrified when credit for his work goes to this unlikely fellow.

After Shakespeare took the first credit for the play, Oxford saw no point in changing and he continues to have is plays fronted by what is described as a semi-literate buffoon.

This movie will be released on the 28th of October and if you are into 17th century politics and have ever read a Shakespeare play then you will want to think about seeing this movie. This movie has been described as a must see film in numerous different movie reviews and the comments that are circulating this film expresses sentiments of controversy.

With this film depicting the importance of the queen's love for poetry and drama, the film portrays the relationship between politics and art and this can be seen when Oxford stated that all art is political. His explanation is that if it is not political then it would just be another piece of decoration.

This film is not for any and everyone; you must have a love for the classic and Elizabethan times to truly enjoy watching this one of a kind movie.

Movie Review: Hanna (2011)

Hanna is a 16-year-old girl raised by her father to be the perfect killer. Her relentless combat and survival training in a desolate arctic locale has left her emotionless and devoid of remorse and pity - and she's probably the most normal character in the film. Director Joe Wright's latest effort tries so hard to be edgy and different that desperation trumps the minor intrigue brought upon by bizarre characters and situations. The majority of the time, it's just plain weird. Few movies feature a gay, jumpsuit-clad hitman or an oral hygiene-obsessed government agent sporting designer shoes and southern accents - but there's probably a reason for that.

Raised to be a ruthless killing machine, young Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) tirelessly trains in the wilds of Finland with her father Erik (Eric Bana). Readying herself for the inevitable confrontation with Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), the merciless government agent intent on hunting them down, Hanna determines to take a preemptive strike against her opponents and join her father later in Berlin. But when Hanna is tricked into believing she has succeeded, Wiegler hires the sadistic assassin Isaacs (Tom Hollander) to dispose of the young girl. While Erik tries to tie up loose ends and rendezvous with his daughter, Hanna begins to uncover alarming revelations about her past as she attempts to stay one step ahead of her pursuers.

There's a scene early on, in which Hanna must grapple onto the bottom of a military Hummer as it races over the manhole she's peering up from. It's this scene that carelessly topples the suspension of disbelief - her origins, her upbringing and her callous training can all be forgiven, but the Indiana Jones-styled act of clinging to the chassis of a moving vehicle is so utterly unbelievable and ludicrously impossible that it recklessly defines her as more than human. Although her heritage is somewhat of a secret, she's certainly no superhero.

But it's clear from the opening scene that Hanna is trying entirely too hard to be cool. Perhaps the awe of young assassins became controversial with Kick-Ass or derivative from Leon and even La Femme Nikita. The thumping techno music ripped from Collateral, accompanied by the frenetic camerawork from The Bourne Ultimatum or Run Lola Run, doesn't help the situation, stylizing the action and fight choreography to the point of visual nuisance. The notion of giving the villains incredibly peculiar idiosyncrasies is also troubling - Marissa's tooth fetish and Isaacs' need for whistling and hermaphrodite performers is puzzling and unnecessary. Why do the bad guys always have to go out of their way to demonstrate how evil, weird or insane they are? Will we forget them if they're simply villainous?

Hanna's motto is "adapt or die," which doesn't seem to help her when discovering the wonder of a light switch, a showerhead or an electric kettle. She seems too easily startled by harmless things (and oddly preoccupied with flirting over fulfilling her mission) yet totally prepared for bullet mayhem. She spends plenty of time studying picturesque family traditions, human tenderness, and boys; it's a wonder she can compete against the modern warfare of the CIA. At least the playgrounds for action and adventure are fitting, even if the music, mostly created by The Chemical Brothers (except for the classical "In the Hall of the Mountain King," most recently heard in The Social Network and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold) gets in the way of clever presentation.

Movie Review - The Kid

The Disney movie, The Kid, is a movie that I have watched over and over again for almost ten years now. It's a family, feel-good movie with a satisfying ending, but I do not think that that completely explains why I adore it.

I think that it speaks to my own philosophy of life and loss and growth and healing, and sends a positive message about all of those issues. In this series of articles about the movie, I will reflect on what makes it special and on what I have learned from watching it.

The Beginning

Russell, the main character in the movie, begins the story as someone whose life looks good but it quickly becomes apparent that it does not necessarily feel good.

As we watch the story develop, it becomes clear that Russell is way off course in terms of living his purpose, and the biggest part of his triumph at the end is that he moves right into the center of it! When he does that everything changes.

"We did it!" he says to his younger self.

The Loser

Prior to that transformation, he has built a life around distancing himself from the "loser" he believed he was as a kid. He made a career out of it, becoming an image consultant whose main task, as I see it, was to help others look less like a loser and more like whatever the ideal was in their situation.

I have done some image management myself at times, so I relate to his need to do it. Speaking of things I relate to in the movie, there are several main themes, as I see it.

In the beginning, what we see is hiding from the real you, and when forced to confront a younger version of himself, he does everything he can to go back into hiding.

That second theme, confronting his inner child, happens physically for him as he meets and is forced to acknowledge the self he was when he was younger.

The next theme is remembering his story, and when he firsts meets the younger self, there are several pieces of his past he has willfully forgotten. Part of his growth work in the moving is remembering them again and accepting the pain of those memories.

In the next article in this series, we'll take a look at those themes in greater detail and explore how they helped the main character heal.

Movie Review - Captain America: The First Avenger

Movie: Captain America: The First Avenger

Director: Joe Johnston.

Staring Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Sebastian Stan, Stanley Tucci, and Haylee Atwell

I've already seen Captain America twice - something that would imply that I think the movie is great. However, this is a bit more complicated. So complicated that I am going to resort to the old pros and cons list to describe my feelings about this film.

The good:

The acting. Evans, who plays the titular character, and who just so happens to be an actor that I normally think of as mediocre (to put it politely) is actually quite well cast here. He plays Steve Rogers as earnest and determined without bordering on gung-ho patriotism and heroism (most of the time, but more on that later). He plays skinny Steve Rogers as a weakling, true, but also as someone brave and intelligent. We never really find ourselves laughing at pre-serum Steve because Evans plays a 90 pound asthmatic as a normal human being who realizes he is inadequate physically but who still exudes a sort of confidence that makes him likeable and real. As post-serum Rogers, he is humble but proud - a nice little hint of this is when he is watching a bad war propaganda movie featuring himself as Captain America and can't help but smile at it - even as he develops a little cockiness, he still seems so down to earth that it isn't aggravating.

Tommy Lee Jones is great as an old and quick talking sergeant who likes Steve but doesn't really believe in him, even post-serum. He barks out orders and quips nicely and makes a role that might have been cliché and rote seem fresh and entertaining to watch.

Haylee Atwell plays the obligatory love interest, but the story makes a point of highlighting the connection she has with Steve as someone else who has always been overlooked or put down (because she is a woman in the army) and Atwell does very well in giving her some personality so that she does not just simply become the busty, vapid blow up doll that so many other women become in "guy" movies. It doesn't hurt that she is shockingly pretty.

Last but not least is the great Hugo Weaving as the villain. Red Skull is not a three-dimensional villain a la the Joker or even that other little character Weaving portrayed by the name of Agent Smith. No, Johann Schmidt is the classic comic book villain. He has henchmen and evil plans to take over the world. He even has personal one-man air vehicles and a chair that spins. But Weaving plays him both campy and understated in a way that is hard to describe. He never devolves into maniacal laughter or cartoonish evilness, but at the same time he seems to relish having a little secret lab and classic music to listen to while plotting world domination. I honestly don't really see anyone else being able to play this character without being overshadowed by the sillyness. Weaving seems to elevate almost everything he's in by the mere force of his personality and charm. Weaving once said that he only enjoys playing a villain if the character has a sense of humor, and he brings that same sort of smirky bravado here. In some ways, you kinda like the Red Skull just because he is so vibrant. One of the best moments of the film is when he takes a moment to plan out the execution of some Nazi lackeys and actually counts the men he's about to blow into oblivion. As to the voice (something that must be addressed with this actor), while I am certainly no expert at the accuracy of his German accent, the sibilant "s"s he adds on and the vaguely nasal tone makes this another voice that Weaving has created that will probably be talked about for some time.

The action. Johnston knows how to film action and use slow motion to draw out graceful movement. He also knows how to put two people together and have them punch each other in the face in an exciting way. The fight between Red Skull and the Captain at the end is rough and dirty and both men are agile enough to make it feel real.

The look and tone. This is not The Dark Knight. Johnston makes this movie feel retro in it's color scheme as well as it's tone. It may shock some viewers at first at how old-school this movie is. It is very classic looking and harkens back to the old comic books. But the movie is doing this consciously and handles it deftly. It is an extra nice touch to poke a little fun at the America-is-Awesome themes that permeate the Captain America comics and the one thing that could have drug this movie down. Captain America even joins a show to raise war bonds and sings about America and the war with chorus girls - the joke is addressing the propaganda that many could see in the image of Captain America. It is used to its full potential, though, when the Cap tries to take the revue to actual soldiers on the front lines and they are not amused by it at all.

The bad:

The look and tone. While it is one of the movies high points, it could also be a drawback to those who don't get it or who simply do not like it. As I said, this is not The Dark Knight.

The music. At times I felt like I was watching a Disney movie during the fight/battle scenes (oh wait....). This is not a compliment. The music is just bland, or worse, too old-style heroic and seemed to contradict all the effort the director and screenplay writer went through to shatter the idea of this being a "go Hero!" kind of movie. The music actually almost ruined some scenes for me and make them cheesier than they were on their own.

The dialog. While I have already emphasized that Chris Evans exceeded my expectations, there were two or three cringe-worthy moments, mostly due to the script. When the Red Skull preaches to the Captain about a future with no flags, the lame response is "not my future!" - which no one could pull off. The same goes for Weaving, though he fairs better simply on the strength of his acting ability. However, these few moments don't ruin the rest of the acting for me, so I can overlook it.

Suspension of disbelief. Captain America runs through a Nazi camp with an American flag-painted shield strapped to his back. And no one notices him....

The editing of the action. While Johnston seems to know how to film a fight scene, the editing felt abrupt. Instead of actually seeing battle, we see a montage of battle (something I don't think I have ever seen in a movie before) and the idea of it is so weird. Battles are the good stuff, why would you speed through them so fast? Also, the last fight, while executed well by Evans and Weaving and choreographed well, also ends too quickly. I know the last Matrix movie was terrible, but the one thing it had going for it is that it was willing to give the hero and villain an epic fight at the end that lasted more than just a few minutes. It almost seemed like they were rushing the ending to get to the part where they connect Steve to the Avengers. In this case - and I rarely say this - I think this movie, despite its silliness, could have used a little longer runtime to give it everything it needed.

Overall, I found the movie entertaining, especially on the second viewing and I recommend it to hardcore fans and to those who are prepared for something different that what they may be used to.