Movie Review: Chronicle

Lets start from the top; I am not the target audience for this movie. I am not an angst-ridden, troubled teen with parent issues, social withdrawal, and a constant need to video-document my every move.

At the same time, I truly like a good action-adventure yarn and, since I number among my favorite movies many other yarns aimed at a younger set (Despicable Me, How to Train your Dragon) I elected to see this one anyway.

The movie tells the story of Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a young man who has few friends and a bad home life, and his growing interaction with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and new-found friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan) as his separation grows with his parents.

When the movie begins we see Andrew having a tough home life. His mom is deathly ill and his dad is a broke, disabled former fire fighter. Meanwhile, only his cousin Matt speaks to him in any other way than bullying.

Unpopular at school, miserable at home, Andrew begins videotaping everything that happens.

Matt, trying to get him to become more personable, convinces him to go to a party where they meet Steve, popular soon-to-be class president, top athlete, smart guy and popular student. Andrew's video camera is needed, so Matt and Steve convince him to go down a hole with them where they tough a McGuffin and develop super powers.

At first they just play around with their powers, doing Jackass-like stunts, but soon their powers begin to grow.

As Andrew's home life gets worse, his friendship with Steve and Matt grows. In an attempt to help him become more popular, Steve convinces him to perform at a talent show which indeed increases his popularity...until he makes an embarrassing social gaffe at a party.

The difficult parts of his life overwhelm Andrew and, as he continues to videotape everything, his life spirals out of control. People begin dying and ultimately Matt and Andrew have a confrontation; can Andrew find friendship with his cousin or will the pressures on his young life lead to ultimate separation from family, friends and life itself?

Ultimately it is Matt who must make a fateful decision; can Andrew be allowed to continue to spiral out of control or, if not, can he be stopped by any means short of death?


The movie uses its platform to preach on several issues. Among these are the growing publicity as video blogs, you tube, and so forth make more and more portions of previously private life public and bullying.

This is a tragic tale of a young man who runs into too many pressures and ultimately documents his downward spiral and rejection of those who try to keep him away from it.

From a technical standpoint, the movie made a choice to shift back and forth between steady cameras and the shaky, cannot really track what is going on "real feel" made popular by The Blair Witch Project".

I understand why they did it. There are parts of the movie where it works. But there are parts of the movie where it does not. Allegory for public violence done to inner turmoil or not, action scenes should not be shot that way. It turns what might be a well-choreographed bit of entertainment into a cringe inducing, "what just happened?" bit of nonsense.

Ultimately, this story fell short. The focus changed too bizarrely, the resolution was unsatisfying, and the action not enough to make up for the various weaknesses. It has a few cheap laughs, a few pathetic moments, and an overall dreary feel that takes it out of the realm of entertainment without really doing a good job of addressing the potential issues.

Save your coin, watch it on Red Box...or not at all.

Movie Review:Australia

Australia (2008) is the story of a young aboriginal boy Nullah (Brandon Walters) who does the voice over...wait a second, no, it is the story of Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) battling to save her farm from King Carney (Bryan Brown)...no, wait a second, it is her trying to save the farm from Neil Fletcher (David Wenham)...no, wait a second, he just lost all to the Japanese and no longer troubles her,  it is a love story between Ashley and Drover (Hugh Jackman)...no, wait a second, it is the story of Ashley learning she cannot control everyone and everything around her...no, wait a second, it is the story of Drover standing up for equality...no, wait a second, it is the story of King George (David Gulpilil) passing on the old ways to Nullah...oh, never mind.

Nobody really knows what this movie is about because it changes themes, goals, and rules repeatedly. Of course, by the end, nobody cares, either, they just want to escape the teatre. It also ends, then goes on for another two hours. If you thought the ending of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) was long and overwrought, particularly the extended edition, then you definitely do not want to see Australia because it takes even longer to end. 

Nor is it worth waiting for the end. The pointless sacrifice on the island adds nothing to Drover's character, the resolution of the tension between Drover wanting to be free and Ashley wanting him to not leave Far Away Downs makes no sense...

ah, lets face it; the film is a bit of overwrought crap that nobody in their right mind should see.

Movie Review: Quantum of Solace

The latest release in the James Bond franchise is a first; the first sequel in the entire run. It is a sequel to Casino Royale (2006). One thing about sequels...if you are going to do one, either use the same director or else use another director who has the same vision as you do.

Martin Campbell was a quite serviceable director. His action sequences were crisp and allowed you to have a sense of what was going on and why. Marc Forster clearly did not go to the same editing school.

Quantum of Solace starts out brilliantly. The opening sequence is innovative and fun, a definite visual treat for fans of special effects. The opening action sequence, however, was what really set the tone. 

In a high-octane car chase you are simply thrown into, Bond makes his harrowing way across a mountain into a town, wiping out numerous opponents on the way. Of course, you mostly have to realize it is his enemies who die in the various crashes because A) Bond ain't gonna die and B) you later see him walking around. 

The editing is atrocious. Remember the classic tracking shot in On the Waterfront that really set the standard for maintaining continuity in a shot, eclipsed only by Hitchcock's rope? This movie is the antithesis. Director Forster seems to think good action storytelling means hyper-active jump cuts, a pulsing, overriding sound track, and more rapid, jarring cuts.

At no point in this or, to be honest, any action scene do we really get an opportunity to sit back and enjoy what we are seeing. Again and again random arms are extended with guns, knives, or fists, bodies fall, and another 6 cuts are thrown across the screen.

Combine the rapid cutting with a bizarre, meandering story that is neither very complex nor easy to follow. Broken down, it goes something like this:

Camille (Olga Kurylenko) wants revenge on Bolivian dictator to be General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) for raping her sister and mother and killing them along with her father. She intends to get to him through Quantum member Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).

Greene is putting Medrano in power in order to make money selling water rights. He is keeping the CIA away by promising them the oil they think he has found.

Bond (Danile Craig) is using Greene to get to Vesper Lynd's (Eva Green) boyfriend. His name? I am not sure. I mean, he has less than 2 minutes of screen time at the end of the film, that come seemingly out of nowhere, one can only assume the information given to Bond by Greene? That is my best guess.

M (Judi Dench) is trying to figure out whether Quantum exists and if so who they are and whether she can trust Bond.

Enter explosions, car chases, foot chases, gunfire, a boat chase, more gunfire, more foot chases, death via oil (!), and approximately 12 billion cuts lasting 2 seconds or less to make you think you saw something.

Open memo to directors: shaky camera work, rapid cuts, and showing small snippets of action does not good storytelling make. In fact, it can take otherwise acceptable storytelling and turn it into a train wreck.

This movie had the potential to be really good. Instead, it turned into a barely comprehensible story full of meaningless deaths, pointless action, and little entertainment. Boo hiss, even with the abominable Moonraker as part of the conversation, this one is a serious contender for worst entry in the Bond franchise. Very disappointing. 

I know I keep coming back to it, but I cannot say it strongly enough; directors, if you are going to lure us in with promise of an action movie...let us SEE THE ACTION! 

Movie Review:Max Payne

Time and time again people think bringing video games to the big screen. Typically they try to emulate part of what made a video game famous. Sometimes this works well, though still not getting past the level of forgettable...say, Doom. Other times it makes you want to gouge out your eyes with an ice pick in a vain attempt to rid yourself of the heinousness of what you subjected yourself to; Super Mario Brothers comes to mind. Most fall somewhere in between.

Max Payne (2008) makes Super Mario Brothers look like great cinema. From the horrific acting to the bizarre, meandering, non-sensical storyline (or lack thereof) to the predictable climax, this movie is a mess.

Shot in dark tones, it strives for the film noir feel. It wants to be gritty, dirty and violent. It comes out dreary, depressing and full of head cheese.

Payne follows the story of Detective Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg), stuck in the Cold Case division of homicide 3 years after the murder of his wife and baby. He lost everything, including his will to live and his partner.

Events lead him to discover clues to the case, though each clue is accompanied by the death of someone he was in contact with, thus making him appear guilty of murdering his former partner, a random girl he meets at a party, a guy from the company his wife worked at, and retroactively, his wife.

In some weak, derivative action sequences he gets the file with the info, goes to where a drug gone awry is manufactured, kills lots of people, then kills the "surprise" villain.

The action sequence in the club is the best part of the movie. It is also a fine opportunity to refill your popcorn tub and soda...because it is not very good.

The best part is a slow-motion sequence (possibly lifted direct from the game) in which Payne does a back flip to shoot a guy in the head with his shotgun. Meanwhile, his assailant...a highly trained soldier wielding a fully automatic machine gun...misses him by a good 10'. Whatever.

In short, if you are a fan of badly acted, poorly shot movies with weak scripts and bad action sequences, this movie is for you. Conversely, if movies with tacked-on Norse mythology, shaky motives, boring action sequences, and counter-intuitive actions by vital characters are not your thing, just see Hitman...not a great video game movie, but exponentially better than this steaming pile of monkey droppings.

Movie Review:My Best Friend's Girl

Dane Cook is a polarizing figure for comedy fans. Some love him, think he is hilarious, and will see anything he is in. Others regard him as an unfunny jokeless "comedian". I fall somewhere in the middle. I think he could be funny and does a good job of acting...he just has made poor script choices in his movie roles. And yes, I realize the movie roles are different than the critiques of his stand-up.

In My Best Friend's Girl (2008) we meet Tank (Dane Cook), a guy who embodies every stereotype of the arrogant male...interested only in sex, doesn't care about the girl, has no comprehension of how to treat her nice. Theoretically it is a role for Tank. It is his job. He gets paid by dumped boyfriends to show their girlfriends how good they had actually had it with their ex-boyfriend, and then of course the girls would run back to their spurned boyfriend and end up marrying them.

Unfortunately, his over the top crudity does not come across as Jackass funny...it just comes across as jackassery. It is not funny. It still manages to be repulsive.

His roommate is Dustin (Jason Biggs). In theory, Dustin is the prototypical "nice guy". When he is given the "let's just be friends" spiel by Alexis (Kate Hudson) he turns to Tank to do his magic. Naturally, Tank and Alexis fall for each other and hilarity ensues. At least, that is how they drew it up. They just forgot to include the hilarity. Or to make Dustin sympathetic.

Actually, he comes across as pathetic. Cloying. Obnoxious. Irritating. Unworthy even of Alexis who is none to desirable herself as portrayed in this film. You kind of get the feeling Tank and Alexis deserve each other. And that Dustin deserved nobody. 

So as the story goes along Tank and Alexis are mutual booty calls who somehow fall in love, Dustin and Tank fight over it, then get back together as friends and the movie (thankfully) ends.

Probably the most interesting thing about the movie was watching the people change into each other.

At the beginning of the movie, Dustin wants a relationship, not sex. He chases Alexis at every opportunity for this very purpose. Yet at the end of the movie he could not care less about building relationships, being a nice guy, or anything like that, he has become Tank in that he is pretty much a random philanderer.

 At the beginning of the movie Tank is quite the philanderer who has a rule; none of the skanks he brings home for sex can stay over;they have to leave after the sex. He says horrible things to the girls he wants to sleep with. And it somehow works for him. Alexis is very sweet, prim, and proper. 

Yet by middle of the flick it is Alexis who, after sex, tells Tank to leave because tomorrow is a work day, using almost the same words he used to kick out girls. Tank has become both the girls he used and also Dustin, the sad, pathetic, guy who wants a relationship, not just sex.

Alexis starts out wanting a sweet relationship, just not with Dustin...and ends up becoming a Tank clone in many ways.

What was the movie trying to say with the inversion of roles? Frankly, the movie was so boring it never really mattered. It was unfunny, uninteresting, and I would have felt ripped off if I had seen it via a free Red Box rental. Spare your eyes from this travesty.

Movie Review:Bangkok Dangerous

What is it about arguably great actors...or at the very least, highly entertaining actors...where they feel compelled to show up in hairstyles so bad they make Telly Savalas look fashionable? Tom Hanks infliced us with the pseudo-mullet in The DaVinci Code (2006) and now, proving he learned nothing from the follicly challenged Con Air (1997), Nicholas Cage is back to show that bad hair can't ruin a good movie or save a bad one.

I suspect nobody had their viewing pleasure of either Davinci or Con by the mistakes in the head department. Both were eminently enjoyable for their target audiences. Conversely, the hair can't save Bangkok Dangerous (2008).

Joe (Nicholas Cage) is the unbelievably dumb assassin who rolls into Hong Kong for a few jobs for his new Thai clients. Joe has rules such as don't ask questions. Unfortunately, he only occasionally plans out his assassinations and accepts jobs for whenever or wherever the clients suggest. This, of course, means he would be very easy to set up should his clients so choose since they would know when and where the hit is being performed.

For example, when he is told to whack a gangster at the Sheraton while making it look like an accident he is forced to drown the guy more or less in plain view of everyone, though oddly his deed goes unnoticed.

When another hit goes bad on the waterways, he does not call it off but instead engages in a high-profile, high-speed chase through the waterways and ends by pulling the trigger in plain sight, then having a lengthy pose so anyone who might desire can photograph it.

Along the way, Joe breaks his own rules and takes on Kong (Shahkrit Yamnarm) as his student. Since he normally kills his errand boys, this is a step up morally speaking. Yes, teaching someone how to commit murder is a positive step...that tells you something about the theme of this movie.

But along the way, Joe falls for a local pharmacist, Fon (Charlie Yeung). She is mute so their communication is non-verbal which, in conjunction with the constant questions of Kong, reawaken his conscience.

This moves him into a new world. Ultimately, however, the final job of his career, the one that will make him rich, turns out to be a job he will not do. Fearful of betrayal, the gangsters kidnap Kong and Aom (Panward Hemmanee), the dancer/liaison who has started dating Kong.

Joe goes to rescue them which leads to the third action packed set piece and an ending that has him contemplating suicide. To understand his choice it is vital to understand the symbols of the movie.

Early on, Kong points out that an elephant trunk pointing down is emblematic of bad luck. As his relationships with Fon and King develop, Joe moves into a new world. In the world of the assassin he is emotionless, has no relationships, and is always prepared to move to the next job.

Now, however, he has a pseudo-friendship with Kong, he has a budding relationship with Fon, and he is starting to become part of the Thai culture. Emblematic of this, he makes a connection with a live elephant and then turns the elephant picture upside down...which turns its trunk right side up.

Later, Fon's deafness proves a problem as when 2 random guys try to mug Joe, he kills them both. Fon has her back turned and hears nothing, simply turns when blood splatters her and turns to see 2 dead men and Joe with a gun in her hand. She then rejects him.

Unfortunately, now Joe is part of a world that, through Fon, has rejected him but is no longer part of the world of killers. This is pointed out through the use of mirrors. Early on, he shows Kong that mirrors are all around them. Yet when he stops by the house of Fon on the way to rescue Kong, he fails to use the obvious mirror on his car and thus does not see she has repented of her acceptance of him.

Believing the Thai world and the world of happiness with Fon can never be, no longer an assassin, he rescues Kong whom he sees as a younger version of himself.

Of course, if Kong retakes the path Joe took, he can never continue the relationship with Aom. Thus ultimately Joe must die in order for Kong to have a new path that does not end up in the world of the assassin.

Too bad the movie never really sets up that way.

A dark, gloomy movie, it does have 3 action-packed, gunfire filled set-pieces, but they are pretty plain, by the numbers pieces that don't deliver on the promise. We have seen better boat/motorcycle chases in the James Bond, Italian Job, Bad Boys, and other franchises. We have seen better gunfights thousands of times. There is nothing really original or even exciting. The camera work is okay but too often replaces great shots with rapid cuts to convey movement and excitement.

This movie bombed at the box office and deserved to do so. If you like dark action, go see The Dark Knight again. If you life fun action, go see Iron Man. If you want a good "assassin who wants to retire after one last job that goes wrong" then check out Assassins (1995). Just don't bother with Bangkok unless you have a free Red Box rental for some reason.

What Happened to Jet Li? The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

Sometimes you have a choice in life. You can go to the dentist to have every tooth drilled through the root into your skull without benefit of anaesthesia or you can go to a Brendan Fraser movie. I sincerely hope you are wiser than I and choose the former. That was not always true. I mean, sure, he has been in Encino Man (1992), Son in Law (1993), Airheads (1994), George of the Jungle (1997), Blast from the Past (1999), Dudley Do-Right (1999), Bedazzled (2000), Monkeybone (2001), and Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), but doesn't that mean he is due? And to be fair, he also was in The Mummy (1999), Crash (2004), and somehow weaseled his way into the reputed train wreck of G.I. Joe:Rise of Cobra (2009) but for the most part he has been in train wreck after train wreck after train wreck.

Now, I in no way blame him. If I could be hired for movies and those were the only roles I could get I freely admit I would take them too. And someone keeps hiring him so he must be doing something right.

Now he stars in the 4th entry in The Mummy franchise, The Mummy:Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008) alongside a pretty promising cast including Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh (probably most famous for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), ). That perhaps begs the question, whatever happened to Jet Li?

Once he made quality flicks and still pops off with the occasional gem such as the overlooked War (2007). Unfortunately, he more than counterbalances that in this effort.

The Mummy gets lost in too many asides and 4th wall jokes about the events of the first 3 movies. It tries for the same sense of fun that placed them atop the constellation of Fraser movies but misses badly. The performances are wooden, forced, and inadvertently cheesy. There is a good cheese and a bad one. A bad cheese takes you out of the world the movie tries to build and makes you regret the coin you spent to enter the theatre.

Actually, it started out okay. The opening scenes of how the Emperor became a Mummy were pretty well done and entertaining. Until, that is, he turned into a Chocolate Fountain and so did his army. Seriously, it looked like liquid chocolate. And that is being charitable.

Shortly thereafter I knew I had made a mistake walking in on this. The derivative scenes that steal from...not reference, not "homage" but steal from Indiana Jones and so forth. You will see nothing original...but you will see inferior nonsense. The way Alex (Luke Ford) and Professor Wilson (David Calder) disregard the numerous deaths of their trap-fodder henchman and NEVER TAKE PRECAUTIONS pretty much set up how it was going to go.

This movie was so painful to watch I nearly walked out. The story was weak, the dialogue forced, the special effects, with a couple of notable exceptions, simply sub-par, and ultimately this movie disappointed on every level. I really struggled to come up with at least one good thing to say about it, to spotlight a good performance or a nice line, to talk about the cinematography or special effects in a vain attempt to redeem this movie. Ultimately I could not because it lacked the 2 things that would have made this movie bearable; an awl to pierce my eardrums so I couldn't hear it and an ice pick to take care of my eyes so I did not see it.

Stay away from this poison. Please. See The Dark Knight (2008) again. See Step Brothers (2008). Smurf, see Mamma Mia (2008) or Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (2008). Just don't make the mistake of seeing this horrific effort.

Hulk (2003)

The first attempt at Hulk (2003) was anything but a smashing success. With the release of The Incredible Hulk (2008) it was playing on the Sci-Fi channel so I elected to watch it.

Roundly panned as too slow-paced, this movie was only improved by the frequent commercial interruptions. How anyone stomached sitting through this in the theatre is beyond me. Director Ang Lee is very technically proficient...and he got so lost in showing that fact the movie suffered for it.

Regular use is made of sophisticated editing techniques...picture within picture within picture within picture, for example. His framing is excellent, his use of pans and tilts unquestionably solid.

He also makes a point of using wipes and fades. His hand is felt in virtually every second of the film. In no instance was he willing to allow a good story to get in the way of his editing thrills. This distracts horribly from what would have been a pretty good story.

The Hulk himself is horribly CGId. It looks cheesy and like what it is...a highly technical bit of green screen action. He does not fit with the otherwise gorgeous visuals.

The story would actually be very solid and enjoyable if not for one humongous flaw. It is full of characters drawn into conflict with each other because they each have their own private motivations. Some of the conflicts are shallow, some run pretty deep.

However, this is a Superhero movie. When most people go to a big budget Super Hero movie they are expecting action...fights, violence, etc., not scene after scene after scene after scene of characters struggling with internal issues.

Hulk had the wrong characters to carry that story. There should have been more scenes of him pounding on the villain his dad David Banner (Nick Nolte) or fighting the Gamma Dogs...though that battle got old as there are only so many times the battle can be over only to have yet one more surprise attack...that was kind of lame.

The fight scenes other than the one with the Gamma Dogs were pretty disappointing as well. This was not the movie that should have been made. After waiting this long to see it, I can only say...I did not wait long enough.

Redbelt

The lightly marketed Redbelt (2008) is a lightly distributed, heavy tale of Jiu Jitsu instructor Mike Terry (Chiwetal Ejiafor) and his teaching methods. The pacing is extremely slow. The viewer is introduced to his very quiet, laid back method of instruction. After his star pupil Joe Ryan (Max Martini) performs poorly in an exercise he has his assistant Snowflake (Jose Pablo Cantillo) give Joe a black belt fight where we are introduced to his method of potentially handicapping one fighter or the other.

After the fight, distraught lawyer Laura Black (Emily Mortimer) comes into the dojo. In a bizarre scene where Joe, Mike and his wife Sondra Terry (Alice Braga) pseudo-ignore her while trying to take her coat off for no apparent reason, Laura grabs and fires Joe's gun, breaking the front window. Snowflake rolls back in to see what happened.

Joe says to say wind blew in the window so attempted murder charges won't be fired. Since this incident is the plot point on which the entire story will soon hinge, that is pretty shoddy writing since it is not ever clear she was firing even in his general direction...or that she even meant to fire.

Be that as it may, it turns out the dojo is in deep financial straits with checks bouncing. Sondra convinces Mike to go to her brother, a seedy club owner.

When he arrives there Mike finds out Joe quit working at the job Mike got him there as a bouncer because the brother wasn't paying Joe. He confronts the brother about that and is then unable to ask about the loan.

Meanwhile, famed actor Chet Frank (Tim Allen) comes into the bar and gets into a fight. Mike rescues him which leads to an invitation to dinner.

The invitation includes an expensive watch. Mike, feeling indebted to Joe over the pay issue, takes a black belt to reward Joe, and gives him the watch, telling him to hawk it.

At dinner, both Terrys make a splash. She talks to the women about design, Mike to the men about martial arts. Just before they leave Chet asks Mike to join him on set the next day and the women make a deal to import Sondra's fabrics. Then Sandra has Mike show them his training gimmick with the 3 marbles.

The next day Mike becomes co-producer of the movie. When he gets home he is told by Joe that the watch was "hot" so Joe has been suspended. He calls Marty Brown (Ricky Jay), Chet's rep, to get it fixed. He gets left high and dry in the restaurant.

Meanwhile, he has begun teaching Laura. She offers her lawyer service when they see his marble routine was stolen by the IFA. In the confrontation it becomes obvious there is a huge conspiracy aimed at A) getting Mike to fight in competition, a move he has always rejected, and B) to make mass amounts of money for their organization, the IFA.

When Mike and Laura are winning, suddenly new evidence is produced; from somewhere the promoters got a hold of the spent chamber from the bullet Laura fired and they show other evidence, then blackmail them that if he does not fight. The threat is they will all go to prison; she for attempted murder, Mike and Jo for covering up the crime.

They say they will see them in court. When he gets to the dojo Snowflake sends him to Joes house. Arriving there he finds that Joe has shot himself in shame.

To be honest...I thought this was going to be the "plot twist". Everything to here was pointing to 2 things; 1) Joe had shown a couple character flaws, so he might have been setting Mike up and 2) money troubles had Sondra pushing him to fight. Her walk past Joe had earlier distracted him. So there was a build-up to maybe them having an affair and setting Mike up to fight. Now it seemed maybe it would turn out he had been murdered. Nope...that was the last mention of Joe in the movie. Kind of like the way Chet Frank disappeared. Was he part of the mass conspiracy or not? Irrelevant...he was a "Hand of God" character to move Mike to where they needed Mike to be.

When he gets home from Joe's, Mike finds out Sondra borrowed 30K from a loan shark to purchase fabrics and now can't get a hold of the women who had surrounded Chet at the dinner.

Desperate for money Mike finally agrees to fight on the under card of the big fight between Taketa Morisaki (Enson Inoue) and Jean Jaques Machado (himself). There he sees the professor, the only living Red Belt, who apparently had taught him. He then learns all the fights are fixed to ensure the "proper" fighter is handicapped in the fights, he being chosen to run the table. He quits the tournament. Then he finds out it was Sondra who set him up with the blackmail stuff, gave away his marble gimmick, and more.

When he finds that Machado is going to throw the fight to set up a money-making rematch he threatens to go to the ring and reveal all to everyone. He fights through the security guards. Then he fights Machado...and it gets picked up by the cameras so EVERYONE sees the fight.

He wins against Machado in the street fight. Morisaki honors him by giving him the belt that was to be the prize in the main event. Mike makes his way into the ring, calls for the microphone. He looks up to see the Professor bowing and giving him the red belt that he himself had received a few minutes previously.

And then the credits roll.


What?

The credits roll.

Now, right or wrong I like my movies to have resolution. I consider myself a talented author and, when I want to write my own ending, I write my own story. I don't mind the occasional question in movies...will Tony Stark and Pepper Potts get it on, for example...will Los Angeles ever achieve racial harmony (Crash), and will Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) hook up with Nicky Parsons ( Julia Stiles)...but I don't want there to be NOTHING but questions.

Does Mike tell the crowd the truth? Do the guys who set up he and Joe get punished? What was Chet's role? And many, many more. Instead we don't know where he stands financially, we suspect he is getting with Laura and divorcing Sondra...does she REALLY owe the money?, we don't know what he is going to say to the crowd...

In other words, the movie mires itself in ambiguity.

There are people out there who praise this sort of movie as if it is greatness and stuff like Iron Man (2008) sucks because many people enjoy the latter, few the former. It is some sort of badge of honor for small numbers of people to like things, as if the fewer people who like it, the better it is.

Bollucks.

Redbelt was on the verge of being a great, great movie. They just ended it 20 minutes before it finished. They started a bunch of story threads and left them laying around. Was it bad writing? Bad editing? I don't know.

Oddly, I still recommend seeing this movie. It is a bit dreary in colors and mood yet is also an interesting indictment of the MMA routine. Repeatedly they intimate...and once explicitly state...that any time 2 men are fighting for money in a ring it is a fixed fight. The presence of Randy "The Natural" Couture, the Gresham Oregon based MMA fighter as an announcer lends a certain credibility to that approach, even though he is distinctly an actor in the flick.

It is also all about teaching "There is always a way out" and using the opponent's force against him...something Mike Terry teaches but struggles to actually DO...

I am very conflicted over this movie. I wanted to love it. I enjoyed myself during it...right up until the credits rolled. But the story wasn't over...only the movie was.

That is NOT what I want in my movies. So it certainly knocked it down a peg. It gets my first ever multiple rating.

Deception

Let's see, the story:

Loser accountant gets schmoozed for no apparent reason by highly successful lawyer. They "accidentally" switch phones. Accountant dude suddenly becomes man of the world, heavily involved in the anonymous "sex with strangers" club. Hooks up with girl he developed fantasy crush for based on "random" encounter in subway. Falls for her. Lawyer turns out to be con man who now wants accountant to steal 20 million dollars from next company he is auditing. Kidnaps pseudo-girlfriend as blackmail.

Accountant figures out real name of non-lawyer dude. Transfers money to get girl back. Apparently blown up in building. Bad guy and girl go to Spain to collect money. She has second thoughts. Mad her wannabe suitor killed. They go to bank. Find out accountant made it so he had to cosign for money. Turns out to be alive. Accountant and con-man collect the money. Accountant bargains for whereabouts of his dream girl...you know the one, the girl who participated in a plot that should have killed him...they go to "quiet place" to come to an arrangement. As con man about to shoot accountant, dream girl appears from nowhere, shoots con man.

Accountant leaves all stolen money with body. Later meets with girl and movie ends.

I think the greatest deception in Deception (2008) is there is anything here of interest. If I had seen this movie as a rental using the free coupon I got on the soda cup at McDonalds for the Red Box I would feel ripped off. I should have been paid twice my normal hourly fee to watch this drivel. It is a suspense movie without suspense, a drama with no drama, and a movie where the "twist" is so predictable that not one person in the theatre was taken in by it.

The pacing is so slow that you have lost interest in the movie long before it bothers to get into the story. The characters are lame and uninteresting. You never care about any of them. There is just nothing to hold the interest. This was a pathetic attempt at entertainment.

Normally I don't care a whole lot about plot holes unless they are so outlandish as to destroy the illusion of being in a different world. But some of these were so brutal...such as said accountant needing his glasses to see a bed 3' in front of him early in the movie, but after he and lawyer switching identities he apparently got Lasik because in his new identity as the con-man he no longer wears glasses and can see just fine. When a major plot device...his vision problems without glasses...suddenly disappears for no reason, it claws at the bounds not just of credibility but of outright stupidity.

I guess I have not said much good about this movie and I should point out the redeeming features. They are as follows:

The Bank Job

I was a Jason Statham fan quite a while ago. I thought The Transporter (2002) was very entertaining. Unsurprisingly the sequel was less good...but he was solid. It was script problems that dragged it down. He was in a lot of movies in between of course, but the next "big" role for him was in the bizarre Crank (2006) in which he was fantastic...the story was a bit stupid but he made it work. Speaking of stupid but making it work...how is it possible to make Crank II (2009) when the protagonist is...you know...dead? Some sort of prequel? Anyhow, he continued to choose curious roles such as the lead in the almost great but actually pathetic In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) and sometimes to match up his talent with a great script. War (2008) comes to mind as it was wildly entertaining.

In short, I enjoy the characters he plays...he just makes some interesting script choices. But, and for Hollywood bean counters this is important...I STILL GO SEE HIS FLICKS! Even when they look bizarre...I knew going in that In the Name of the King was going to be a train wreck but still went to see it.

Well, The Bank Job (2008) is another in that category. It is part of the ever-lame "true crime" genre. For whatever reason I elected to go see it.

Terry Leather (Jason Statham) is a small-time hood who gets picked by Martine Love (Saffron Burrows) to pick off a bank. She needs the bank hit so she can get some incriminating photos of British royalty. Unfortunately, that same bank has the blackmail photos that keep militant Michael X (Peter de Jersey) safe, it has the ledger books showing all the corrupt Scotland Yard police, it has illicit sex photos of various high-ranking government officials...so Leather and his gang are the targets of every scofflaw in London seemingly. His friend Dave Schilling (Daniel Mays) and a couple other minor gang members are killed in the attempts to recover the various bits of incriminating evidence but by the end Terry, Martine, and a couple others make a deal to get new names, keep the money, and turn in all the crooked cops with the inference that they will now all "go straight" and lead good lives. Uh-huh.

This movie is notable for a few things. One would be its place as one of a growing number of recent movies where cigarette smoking is rehabilitated as being something the "cool good guys" do. Another would be the strong acting of Statham. Sadly, one thing it is NOT notable for is being entertaining. It verges on being entertaining and promises great twists...it just never delivers.

Doomsday

Remember the Road Warrior franchise? Somebody thought it would have been better with mass amounts of blood, some decapitations, some blood, burning someone alive, some blood, some decapitations, a weak storyline, some blood, some cannibalism, some blood, and some bloody decapitations. Hence they made Doomsday (2008), the latest in a long line of apocalyptic dystopian films serving as vehicles for political commentary.

Of course, in Doomsday there is no attempt at subtlety. Just to make sure the audience understands the political they have one of their politicos flat out say they intend to let the plague run its course to narrow down the population since there are too many people living in London.

So the plot summation is simple: plague wipes out Scotland, wall built around it, decades later the same plague occurs in London, survivors found in Scotland so combat team sent in to find cure while plague devastates London, team fights a lot, finds unexpected cure, gets it out of Scotland. Now on to the real review.

The people left behind in Scotland when the plague breaks out are victims. They were promised help. That help never comes. Now, normally this would position the survivors as heroes. They have all the earmarks of being heroes; they survive against all odds, they are kept as unwilling prisoners by unscrupulous politicians...however, in this movie they are just cannon fodder. Okay, fair enough. Who doesn't like seeing a few hundred outlandishly clad maniacs mowed down? So they provide the homage to the villains in the Road Warrior series with vehicles and costumes lifted straight out of that or out of The Postman (1997) or a host of other post-apocalyptic flicks.

Yet the heroic doctor who stayed behind to find a cure is no sinecure either. He has set up a kingdom modeled on King Arthur apparently with shades of Roman gladiatorial games. His band of killers is modeled on Vlad the Impaler, the 15th Century King who was the model for Dracula. It was pretty jarring having knights on horses roaming about, then having a one-on-one combat in an arena. So finding the hero of the piece only to find out he is ALSO a psychopathic killer and a villain...well, we were still looking for the heroes of the piece.

The British politicians are shown to have known A) there were survivors, B) there was a cure, and C) the plague would break out again. Yet they did not allow the survivors to be rescued nor the cure to be developed. Clearly they are not the heroes.

So in the end the only heroes are the small group who invades Scotland to find Dr. Kane (Malcom McDowell). Of course, all but 2 of them die, too. Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) is the centerpiece as the story follows her exclusively as one by one she loses her entire team except one guy, rescues Cally (MyAnna Buring) for her representative survivor aka cure, and then goes back to lead the cannibalistic hordes.

One question the movie leaves open has to do with why they became cannibals. There are cow herds reminiscent of the buffalo herds that clogged railroad tracks in 19th century America. Why, then, were they unable to obtain food? Of course, this is just one of many ridiculous moments in the movie. For example, in a Scotland allegedly devoid of all sources of energy for 3 decades there are lots of cards running around, not to mention a steam train. Curiously, these vehicles that have been cobbled together and look like they will fall apart if they hit a speed bump are fast enough to keep up with a brand new, out of the box Mercedes which, in turn, is tough enough to drive through the side of a bus.

So the movie ends up being an excuse for lots of people getting their heads cut off, copious amounts of blood spatters in particularly gruesome death scenes, and a pretty entertaining if nonsensical car chase.

If you really want to see a great dystopian post-apocalyptic film, I can honestly give a strong recommendation. Of course, that recommendation would be to rent the old Road Warrior/Mad Max movies...but at least you get a recommendation.

Semi Pro

Will Ferrell has had a checkered career. I do not know if I just don't "get" his humor or what...maybe it is too sophisticated for me. (Insert eye-roll here). At times he gets into the slapstick which has seldom really amused me. I did not find the 3 Stooges remotely entertaining, for example. Jim Carrey at his best...the face-pulling, over-the-top antics, etc. just makes me want to hurl. And there are elements of that at times in Ferrell's work. Aside from that, perhaps it was just the subject material.



I was not nearly as amused by Old School (2003) for example as most of my friends were...but I can chalk that up to them having lived on campus whereas my university experience was primarily working 40 hours, then going to night classes, then home so I never experienced the bong-driven college party life. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) had its moments but is nothing I feel compelled to inflict on myself again, the eye candy of Christina Applegate aside. In fact, after Anchorman I was on the verge of putting Ferrell on my "save your money, do not see his stuff" list. But then came Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) and my perceptions changed.



It would be easy to credit it to the source material...except I don't really get neck-car racing. I tend to be in the "mock them for turning left" crowd. I do not get...or care about...nuances such as drafting, setting up cars, tire selection, fuel management...to me it is watching cars turn left. I just don't enjoy watching any sort of races.



No, the charm of Talladega Nights was in the story and the characters. It was a funny, funny movie with great, quotable lines. Even today I have the Shake and Bake confrontation and the his going off on "I hope you have sons...handsome, beautiful sons" while in the hospital as ring tones on my phone. He was back on the hot list.



He followed that up with Blades of Glory (2006) which, again, is something where the source material...well, let's just say I have spent more time watching NASCAR than I have watching ice dancing. Blades was pretty funny, though certainly not in the same class as Talladega. The ending veered back into his hyperbole arena for sheer outlandishness and stupidity but the rest of the movie was good enough that I liked it well enough.



So when I saw the previews for Semi Pro (2008) I ignored the lackluster, non-funny trailers and decided to give it a shot. After all, I am a huge basketball fan and loved the old ABA so the source material was good and he seemed to be in a funny arc of sports movies. This one came with a strong supporting cast of players.



Unfortunately it came without strong writers. Ferrell veered back into the realm of "it's funny because I am Will Ferrell" and away from "it is funny so I will play the part". The laughs are few and far between. The quotable lines are all but non-existent with probably the best one coming in an exchange between broadcasters Lou Redwood (Will Arnett) and Dick Pepperfield (Andrew Daly). Redwood constantly does color commentary with a scotch in one hand and cigarette in the other. At one point on their daily television show Pepperfield gets tired of the cigarette smoke:

Pepperfield: "Lou, would you mind putting out that cigarette, it's very unprofessional."
Redwood: "No. I like to smoke when I drink."

Most of the laughs in the movie come not from the dialogue or the acting but rather from the hideous sartorial selections. There are a few exceptions but they are mostly from the supporting cast. Redwood and Pepperfield are by far the funniest characters.

In the end there is a happy ending for about everybody with appropriate amounts of cheese and some nice cameos but overall it was a huge step backwards for Ferrell. Fans of his older movies will probably love this one, those who thought they were pedestrian will not like this one, either. For example, the Goose loved it. I felt like, had I not gotten the Tuesday free popcorn deal it would have been two wasted hours of my life...

Untraceable

Although outside my normal viewing preferences, the Goose really wanted to see this since it was filmed in Portland. I figured I would go along and try to figure out which cop was helping the bad guy in a "major plot twist". As it turned out the major plot twist was there was no major plot twist. It was just one guy who was the bad guy, the viewers knew who he was relatively quickly, his motivations were known, and who his victims would be were known.

Untraceable follows Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane), an FBI cyber crimes agent in the FBI. Interestingly, she starts out by ordering the FBI to "knock down a door" in Eugene. Interestingly enough, over a credit card stolen online, the FBI feels compelled to take out a SWAT team to high tech no-knock break down the door and scare the family out of their wits. Now, I am no expert on FBI methodology...but that seems pretty aggressive of a reaction for identity theft. Over the top, unnecessary...and it immediately established the heroes of the piece as bullies and over reactors. I do not believe that was the INTENT of the scene...it was meant to show her talent at finding, identifying, and capturing the bad guys....but it was certainly the RESULT.

Not too long after a website called "Kill With Me" is tipped to them. She watches a cat killed. The killing intensifies as more viewers join. She proves unable to track the origin of the web cast. Later, instead of a cat it becomes people.

As the FBI tries to find this guy...missing rather obvious lines of inquiry such as power consumption, by the way...the movie tries to establish camaraderie between Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks), Detective Eric Box (Billy Burke) and Marsh. It fails miserably. They just seem bored more than anything.

Eventually the rather tenuous link of why these people are being murdered is established and it is just a matter of catching Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross), though of course he first must capture Marsh to provide her a chance to escape his death trap and kill him live on his internet broadcast.

The movie feels more like a piece of anti-sick website propaganda than a movie designed to be entertaining. There are numerous monologues about the evils of disseminating these things but them being viewer driven (thus establishing there are people who, for whatever reason, DO want to see it). Now, I am not into the "torture-porn" type movies. Saw a few minutes of one of the Saw train wrecks and frankly found it stupid and repellent. Never saw Turistas or any of the Hostel series and never felt any desire too. Conversely, a lot of people never felt the need to watch some of my favorite movies either...Surf's Up, TMNT, Transformers, The Simpsons Movie for example...and I have no beef with that. Different people, different tastes. But they also did not feel compelled to make a movie protesting those movies while centering their protest on doing the same thing.

Untraceable makes heavy use of disturbing images. Furthermore, while protesting the dissemination of information and images about deaths it makes heavy, heavy use of them and lets a lot of people know about them. I did not know that there were websites in existence showing people's suicides, for example, prior to this movie. Now I do. Interesting protest...bringing awareness to that which you want people to not know about. It even showed maybe a half dozen or so times the suicide that provides the incredibly cheesy and unbelievable motivation for Reilly.

Memo to Gregory Hoblit; if you don't want people to know about this stuff then don't make it the centerpiece of your movie. Just sayin'...

So let's see; weak, unbelievable story with bad acting, counter-productive dialogue and images, a predictable story arc...I wonder how I will rate this train wreck?

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

For the last couple of decades there have been numerous movies based on video games. There have been some that were very entertaining...say, Mortal Kombat (1995) and some that were an embarrassment whether they were based on a video game or just completely new...I think Super Mario Bros. (1993) or Street Fighter (1994) would be the leading poster child for that. Then there are some that are in between...Doom (2005) is a pretty good example. The thing is, seldom does the story line make for a good movie. Mortal Kombat has a tremendous storyline for a fighter game...not so much for a movie. People pair off and fight. As a movie, the storyline is basically pit fighter porn. Yet somehow they made it work.

Dungeon Siege is a line of strategy games with a story that seems pretty strong as movie source material. Indeed In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) has a very strong story line. It has the lost prince, the heroic everyman, the dark and mysterious enemy, the beautiful heroine in peril, the redemption of the downtrodden...and it is able to work within the fantasy setting.

The movie benefited from a very strong cast. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, Burt Reynolds...they gathered a strong cast. But there was something...off. Statham as Farmer was excellent. Matthew Lillard as the whining, simpering Duke Fallow, on the other hand, seemed out of place. He did not fit the gritty image projected by the backbone players of the movie. Burt Reynolds looked like a community theatre actor. Ray Liotta seemed cheesy and off-kilter. In short, the acting was abominable.

The story itself ended up being full of holes too egregious to ignore. For example, Farmer (Jason Statham) is a far superior fighter to King Konreid (Burt Reynolds) or even his elite Commander Tarish (Brian White), as is Norick (Ron Perlman). Norick is loosely alluded to as having at a long-lost point in time perhaps been a military man, though that is by no means certain, but all agree that Farmer has never had training. Why then is he so good at it?

The story makes too much use of the "Author's Hand" to move the story along. It makes no sense why they need to cross the river on the bizarre rope bridge, for example, though the scene itself is among the most entertaining of the movie. The road show portion of the movie is simply loosely connected adventures with no way of appraising how they contribute to the chase of the Krug, nor to how Farmer, Norick and friends...none of whom mourn the slaying of parents, grandparents, children, friends...know where the Krug are heading with their captives.

The movie also fails in the final duel between Gallian (Ray Liotta) and Farmer. To distract Gallian and allow Farmer to enter the secret lair of the mages, powerfully locked to keep all but mages out, the King's Magus Merick (John Rhys-Davies) battles him in one of the more entertaining wizard duels in the history of cinema where each mage mentally wields 5 or 6 swords simultaneously.

When Farmer sneaks in through a convenient vast "air hole" cave...some wizard lock, guys, well done...he confronts Gallian. Inexplicably, despite having earlier specifically addressed his lack of belief in fair play, Gallian then wields but one sword and goes mano a mano with Farmer. Uh, okay. Nonsensical, completely violates the internal consistency of the movie...but I guess you have to do what you have to do.

This review has really jumped all over the place which is fitting because so does the movie. It randomly reveals vital information mere minutes from the end of the movie...such as the fact that to be able to wield magical power Gallian has to be serving a king, which leads to his having declared himself King of the Krug...a great plot twist except you only find out it is a plot twist about 30 seconds before the twist so it has no impact...never establishes why a powerful magus like Gallian would have anything to do with a simpering dolt like Duke Fallow, forces the action with bizarre journeys, has a final battle that directly contradicts the plan that led to just Merick and Farmer invading the base of Gallian...this movie was a train wreck.

On the bright side, the battle scenes were good. Okay, I said something good about the movie, I am done here.

The Golden Compass

There was quite a firestorm prior to the release of The Golden Compass (2007) in which certain segments of the religious community claimed it would promote atheism largely through encouraging children to pick up the books. I discussed at some length my view on the validity of that objection to the movie. I also had no outstanding desire to see the movie, largely because the previews looked...well, weak. It looked like another Eragon (2006) rather than another Lord of the Rings type franchise and that is the reason my desire was light.

Well, as it turns out, Ironman Al wanted to see it so off we went.

The story follows Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards), a headstrong, dishonest, annoying little twerp sent to school by her uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig). She is constantly in trouble, known as a liar, and basically is one of those annoying characters so often foisted upon us for protagonists.

Soon she is taken out of school by Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman), an operative for the Magesterium. This does not go well, she escapes Coulter, joins up with a variety of people who help her and she develops a mastery of the use of the Golden Compass.

Through a pretty random series of events she ends up finding the location where the Magesterium is involved in separating children from their daemons, rescues the children, and then comes the best scene of the movie.

As the children escape from the exploding prison they are headed off by guards clearly reminiscent of the fearsome and murderous Cossacks of the Russians. However, the children are rescued by an alliance consisting of the Gyptians, witches, and an armored bear who spends more time out of armor than in it. The battle is pretty entertaining.

The movie missed the mark on many accounts. Lyra is very hard to like, her journey is guided by the writer saying "we need to go here for the next scene" instead of any internal consistency, the characters in the movie do not have internal consistency...

For example, Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellan) has a long scene in which he talks about being an armored bear for whom his armor is like the daemons for people. Of course, if people are separated from their daemons for longer than a specified length of time they die...but Iorek spends most of the movie leaving his armor behind to head into danger. It makes no sense whatsoever.

In short, this was a movie with unlikable characters, weak plot, and inherent discrepancies. On the bright side, the acting was passable, the special effects excellent and the ending battle scene is almost good enough to redeem the movie. Key in on the word almost.

This Christmas

When I saw trailers for This Christmas (2007) I told the Goose this looked like a movie with essentially no plot or at the very most a loosely tied selection of stories that are drawn together primarily because they revolve around the same characters.

As it turns out, it was a movie with basically no plot involving numerous mini-stories loosely tied together by revolving around a family gathered together for Christmas.

And that is one of the problems with this movie. There are so many stories that none really gets fully developed.
You have Joe Black (Delroy Lindo) and Ma'Dere (Loretta Divine) hiding the fact they are living together from the kids. You have the tension between Joe and Quentin Whitfield (Idris Elba) because Quentin dislikes anyone replacing his father who left because of his music. You have Quentin running from violent hoodlums over some debt or other. You have Ma'Dere objecting to Michael 'Baby' Whitfield (Chris Brown) singing because Quentin and her husband both left for their music. You have Baby taking pictures and sneaking out to sing. You have Malcom Moore (Laz Alonso) and Lisa Moore (Regina King) trying to get the family to sell the cleaners so Malcom can finance a business project while he cheats on Lisa. You have Claude Whitfield (Columbus Short) and Sandi (Jessica Stroup) trying to hide the fact he married a white woman who is hiding from him the fact she his pregnant while he is hiding from her the fact he is AWOL. You have sisters arguing over the value of staying home to help with the cleaners versus going to college, of a sister bringing home her boyfriend for the first time, of college sister finding a boyfriend on the California coast while she lives in New York, of...well, you get the point. There are probably three or four other stories.

As a result, none of them gets anything more than a cursory, by the numbers treatment and you never really are able to get involved with the characters.

On a side note, the Joe Black character is interesting. It is a rare, positive portrayal of a religious figure. He is the tolerant one in the conflict with Quentin, he is the one who rescues Quentin from the thugs and then draws the family together, he is the one who provides the glue to hold the family together in spite of the obstacles...

Why, then, did they feel it necessary to have he and Ma'Dea living together outside of marriage? If he is indeed a deacon, as they represent and explicitly state, in what religion is extra-marital co-habitation acceptable? The film makers are creating their own morality here and it is unfortunate because otherwise the character would have had more consistency.

Overall, it was a predictable, busy movie that never really grabbed the heart the way it had the potential to do so. Fewer stories would have allowed more time to identify with the characters and consider their relationships.

One final note: this was brought up by the Goose or I would not have noticed: at the close of the movie, each character of any import at all, from the immediate family to the housekeeper to the thugs does a little dance. In fact, the only cast member of any import who does not go through the line dancing is Jessica Stroup...the white girl. To me it did not matter one way or the other, but she felt they were making a statement with that omission. I leave it to the viewer to decide...if you bother to see this flick that could have been really good but somehow ended up feeling like a half-baked Hallmark Special.

We Own The Night

James Gray set out to make a dark, gritty crime drama. He wanted it to be dark, moody, intelligent, thought-provoking, intense, and memorable. He only missed on 6 of those traits.

We Own the Night (2007) tells the story of Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix), the black sheep of the Grusinsky family. Bobby is the club-running drug-hazed brother/son of 2 high-powered members of the 1988 New York Vice Squad. His father Burt (Robert Duvall) and brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) take turns running the vice squad. To distance himself, Bobby has changed his last name.

Bobby is living a self-indulgent life with his girlfriend Amada Juarez (Eva Mendes) and his close friend Jumbo Falsetti (Danny Hoch). He runs a club for the Russians and spends his time getting high.

Meanwhile, Joseph is promoted to run the Vice squad. Bobby and Amada show up to his party high, leave early during the moment of silence for yet another fallen NYPD officer, killed by the Russian drug mob. Not too long after, Joseph leads a raid on El Caribe, the club Bobby is running. Bobby and a Russian hood are arrested. The hood kills himself rather than talk, Bobby and Joseph fight.

Later that Thanksgiving night, Joseph is shot by a hooded gunman, Burt resumes that role. Bobby is approached by Vadim Nezhinski (Alex Veadov), the strong-arm face of the Russian mob and the man Joseph had been after during his raid, to be a distributor. In the conversation Vadim is very up-front about not only having arranged the attempted slaying of Joseph but of his plans and ability to kill several other important city officials.

Bobby then tries to help the cops to get revenge on Vadim. He and policeman Michael Solo (Antoni Corone) set up an undercover search for Vadim's distribution house which ends disastrously. In the shootout he breaks several bones.

This gets Bobby and Amada moved to a safe house. When she sneaks out to visit her mother their hiding location is revealed. This results in them needing to be moved. During the move Vadim's organization kills several policemen including Burt.

This inspires Bobby to become a policeman which in turn causes Amada to leave him for not consulting with her. Like most other plot developments, this makes no sense, but...whatever. How bizarre are some of the plot developments?

In the end Bobby finally puts together the pieces, and he leads the police when they raid the big incoming drug shipment, wipe out the Russian mob and Bobby is the hero. He directs experienced policemen despite being a probationary officer not even given a gun. Uhm...okay.

At the end of the movie Joseph is moving to administration since flashbacks keep him from being effective in the field and Bobby is rapidly advancing in rank over men with years of service.

The story had tremendous potential. Family conflict, moral questions regarding drug use, a scary opponent in the Russian mob, themes of love, loyalty, and betrayal...but it is poorly written and horribly executed. Take the sub-plot of Amada for example.

She loves her mother and Bobby. She is very supportive of him. She wants to get to know his family. They party together a lot, always laughing, smiling, and high. She wants to spend more time with him, but he keeps leaving her to run the club, visit his family, visit his patron. She stays with him. When they go into hiding she stays with him. She takes an interest in his life. But as they are high less often they smile and laugh. She still tries to be part of her life but he more or less ignores her. When she leaves it makes no sense within the film...only from the morality play standpoint. Bobby moves from happy and worthless to miserable and a good, effective cop...without a woman. It could have made sense. It could have been a great story arc. Instead, when she left it leaves you scratching your head and saying, "Huh? What happened?"

The camera work is abysmal. It makes the action hard to follow, has no visuals that stand out, and the choice of film stock was, at best, interesting...and could have been better. This seriously had independent film production values. Even worse, it spent a lot of money to get them. Why? It did not add to the "feel" of the movie, it was inconsistent.

The audio was equally bad. When you notice the audio for being annoying and distracting, that is not a good thing. It also did not make sense. For example, in the shoot-out at the drug house it suddenly transported you to what Bobby was hearing...or rather, the ringing in his ears preventing him from hearing. In the car chase the audio was very muted and bizarre...both the motivated sounds and unmotivated sounds were difficult to identify or relate to what you were seeing on the screen.

Even the acting fell short. With a cast involving Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg you figure you are in good shape. But Duvall seems wooden and his acting doesn't ring true. Wahlberg does a solid job but Phoenix is heinously bad. Early in the movie he is stiff and whispers to display being high. Late in the movie he is stiff and whispers to display sorrow. In the middle part of the movie he is stiff and whispers to display confusion. I could not tell the difference between his "high" mode and his "valedictorian of the police academy" celebration speech. It was an appallingly bad performance.

Eva Mendes seemed to be there explicitly so they could see how many hair styles she could look good in during the movie. If she was in 31 scenes then she had 31 different hairstyles. It was amazing. Not entertaining enough to save the movie, but certainly awe-inspiring.

In short, this movie is a probable Oscar winner since it was easily the most boring movie I have seen this year. Save 2 hours and change of your life and 20 bucks...go buy the Transformers DVD or something. Or watch Heat (1995), a dark, gritty, brutal, bloody crime drama with an unsatisfying end, much like We Own the Night, but at least it is interesting on the way there...or watch The Transporter (2002) for a movie about redeeming the hero. Just don't waste your time on this one.

The Heartbreak Kid

Ben Stiller has a history of making extremely funny movies. The Meet the Parents franchise presented us with 2 of the funniest movies of the last decade as did There's Something About Mary (1998). On the other hand, he has also participated in the less spectacularly received Mystery Men (1999) and Zoolander (2001).

The Heartbreak Kid (2007) will be closer to one of the latter. There are some screamingly hilarious scenes...but they are too few and far between. While waiting for the laughs we are subjected to some excruciatingly painful scenes.

Heartbreak follows the story of (theoretically) lovable loser Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller), a guy who never met a commitment he wasn't afraid of. When his best friend Mac (Rob Corddry) mocks him relentlessly...as does his dad Doc (Jerry Stiller), he jumps at the chance for a relationship with Lila (Malin Akerman).

After a 6 week courtship flies by in a montage of them kissing and ignoring everything going on around them, they marry and take off for Mexico. On the trip Lila is bright and full of life. She sings every song that comes on the radio as Eddie gets more and more irritated by her cheerfulness.

He is also turned off by her aggressive and wild sexuality when they get a motel room.

In fact, pretty much everything about her starts to irritate him. And some of his actions and words start to irritate her. It comes to a head when he tries to get her to put on sunblock instead of mineral oil. She burns extremely badly which allows him to have a series of solo adventures involving Miranda (Michelle Monaghen) and her family.

He and Miranda fall madly in love. Complications arise. She goes home, he gets divorced, he turns into a stalker, he moves on, she comes to find him for the big surprise twist at the end.

It is a funny premise (and is a remake of Charles Grodin's 1972 The Heartbreak Kid) with room for some interesting social commentary that falls apart. Too much of the comedy comes from hearing Jerry Stiller use horrific terms for women and their "uses" and too little from actually funny stuff. The talents of Stiller, Carlos Mencia as Uncle Tito, and everyone else in the cast are wasted.

Eddie and Miranda never seem like they belong together and Lila is actually a sympathetic character at times.

This movie could have been epically hilarious. As is, it is pretty much a waste of popcorn eating time.

Good Luck Chuck (2007)

Good Luck Chuck (2007) is an amalgamation of scenes that worked in other recent romantic comedies, classic cliches, and breasts. Lots and lots and lots of breasts.

Coming in there is a great deal of potential for humor. Super hot Jessica Alba is advertised heavily in the trailers...if there is anyone in America who has not yet seen the trailer of her in tight shirt and white panties (with a penguin emblem) they simply have been nowhere near a theatre or television set in the last month. That shot has played over and over and over ad nausea.

Playing opposite her is popular comedian Dane Cook. He has quickly become popular as both comedian and heartthrob.

Between the two of them you have a lot of rising star power.

Add to that the great potential of the story of Charlie (Dane Cook), aka Lucky Charm Chuck, a man who can get any woman he wants but can't keep her. Instead, she will soon leave him, meet the man of her dreams and get married. As a result, hot women are knocking down Chuck's door. Yet the man who can have any woman he wants can't find love.

It is potentially a hilarious and/or touching story. Unfortunately, Josh Stolberg and Steve Glenn got a bit lazy.

The movie starts with a scene that feels like a direct rip-off of the premise for the Jennifer Garner vehicle 13 Going on 30 (2004), except this time the girl Chuck hooks up with in spin the bottle wants him and he wants nothing to do with her. As a result, Young Anisha (Sasha Pieterse) casts a hex on him that he will be surrounded by love but never experience it.

Fast forward a few years. Best friends Chuck and Stu (Dan Fogler) work in the same office building. Chuck is a dentist and Stu is a cosmetic surgeon specializing in breast enhancements.

One thing never becomes clear...and that is why, exactly, Chuck and Stu are friends. Stu is a self-indulgent, horny, breast-obsesses loser who has no dates with anyone more attractive than a cantaloupe. Actually, the cantaloupe or whatever fruit it was IS his only date. He breaks out cheesy cliched line after cheesy cliched line. Most of them interfere with Chuck's attempts to make progress with girls.

For example, at the wedding where Chuck's "Lucky Charm" effect is introduced into the story, Chuck meets Cam Wexler (Jessica Alba) and instantly is deeply infatuated with her, Stu interrupts them. He sees Cam and breaks loose with, "Here I am, what are your other two wishes", a line as fresh as a pre-Caesar bottle of wine.

Stu is a stereotypical chauvinist. Girls are breasts, butts, tail, and several other more profane words. They are good for sex, getting laid, getting screwed, etc. He loves to drop the F-bomb about them, regularly uses the word trim, has no concept of appropriateness, and works at his job largely as a way to see naked breasts.

Actually, looking back, I do not recall so much as a single positive trait he displayed in the entire movie. Nor was he a good friend to Chuck in any way whatsoever.

Yet they are good friends. The "buddy" cliche is old...you often see it assumed in movies. Sometimes you see things that make the friendship make sense...for example, in the Bad Boys series of movies even though Smith and Martin fight a lot, you also see them away from work and their friendship makes sense. The same holds true for Peter Parker and Harry Osborn in the Spiderman franchise. Other times it makes less sense...I would argue Ladder 49 (2004) was a fine example where the "friendships" and camaraderie seemed fake and forced instead of natural... and such as Good Luck Chuck when you never see them doing "friend things." You pretty much only see Stu screwing Chuck over.

As the movie develops, Cam is aware of Chucks' get-around nature and is not interested. He keeps trying but she is not interested. So Stu talks him into sleeping around...so we are "treated" to a montage of Chuck and random girl sex scenes of increasing bizzarity and his increasing boredom. He finally decides to stop, goes back to pursuing Cam and finally gets his shot. For a while it works. Then there are problems. In the end he gets the girl.

Along the way we reheat several tired pick-up lines, date jokes, happy stoned on marijuana dude jokes, and happy date montages.

We also spend a lot of time with naked breasts. Check out the number of times that line or one like it has been used in this review and you start to get the picture.

I wanted to like this movie. I am a huge Jessica Alba fan and have heard good things about Dane Cook's work. Sadly, this was a thinly disguised soft porn movie with a weak plot, weak writing, and nothing in particular to recommend it.