Transformers: Dark of the Moon Review (Sort of)

To coincide with today’s Blu-ray/DVD release of “Transformers: Dark of Moon” I’m making a dramatic comeback from my amateur movie critic retirement to review the alien robot blockbuster!

Well, not exactly.

I mean, this isn’t even a review of the Blu-ray (which I’m picking up after work today). I saw the movie in theatres way back in July a few weeks after its release. My plan was NOT to put off writing a review long enough for the damn thing to come out on DVD! Alas, life interfered and here we are. (With unwritten reviews of “Harry Potter 7.2”, “Crazy, Stupid Love.” “Cowboys and Aliens”, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “Captain America” mocking me.)

Obviously, it would be silly to critically analyze a movie I saw nearly three months ago. Of course, it would be even sillier for me to critically analyze a movie called “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

As a result, I’m doing things a bit differently: I’m going to the notes.

You see, every time I see a movie in theatres or watch a TV episode I’m going to review, I open a Word document and jot down random sentences and observations that mostly only make sense to me.

“Transformers: Dark of the Moon” was no exception. So instead of trying to break the movie down by memory, I’m going to share my notes from July followed by a (hopefully) brief explanation of what each statement means.

Just two quick thoughts: 1.) This “review” will feature a few more mild spoilers than I would normally include in a review. (The movie’s been out for months and it made over $1 billion worldwide…so I’m guessing plenty of people have seen it.) 2.) Please don’t judge me after this horrifying look at my creative process.

Let’s get it on!

“Too much plot. (Lead.)”
Ok, so the “(Lead)” part means that I was planning on opening my review by saying something like, “Is it possible that the new ‘Transformers’ movie actually has TOO MUCH plot?”

Just like the other two movies in the “Transformer” trilogy, “Dark of the Moon” opens with Autobot hero “Optimus Prime” (the great, booming voice of Peter Cullen) giving us some back story on his race of alien robots. Except that with each subsequent movie, the back story has become increasingly (and unnecessarily) involved.

In “Dark of the Moon”, we learned Sentinel Prime (Optimus Prime’s mentor, voiced by Leonard Nemoy) barely escaped a war with the evil Decepticons on the planet Cybertron and crash landed on Earth’s moon. The wreckage was discovered (and covered up) by humans during the Apollo 11 mission and, oh whatever…let’s just get the robots turning into cool cars and destroying each other. I will admit that I chuckled when the movie somehow dragged Buzz Aldrin into all this.

“I enjoy Shia LaBeouf’s performance. (And Julie White and Kevin Dunn.)”
I’m probably in the minority on this (especially since he kind of turned into a turbo-douche while promoting “Dark of the Moon”), but I really enjoy La Beouf’s work in these movies. (For some reason I also enjoy the fact that solid actors like Julie White and Kevin Dunn seemingly drop in from a different, more neurotic movie to play Sam Witwicky’s parents.)

I still think LaBeouf should be making more movies like “The Greatest Game Every Played” or “Wall Street 2” (even though that was a sort of gutless movie, I think LaBeouf fit nicely into it) and less movies where he’s required to be an action hero. His urgent, motor-mouth performance propels the narrative whenever the Autobots and Decepticons aren’t on screen, and he somehow developed more believable chemistry with a bright yellow Chevy Camaro than he did with any of his love interests. Which brings me to…

“The first time we see Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, it’s a low-angle shot of her ass in underwear. That’s why she’s here.”
Pretty self-explanatory. When you hire a Victoria’s Secret model as your female lead, what do you expect?

That reminds me, I think the movie’s most shocking development is the fact that the loss of Megan Fox left a significant (overly-tanned) hole in the movie. Say what you will about her acting skills, but Fox has a definite presence that the vacant Huntington-Whiteley just couldn’t recreate. (No matter how many eye-catching white outfits she wore.)

“The reason Michael Bay can get actors like John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, John Turturro, etc. in his movies is because he basically lets them do whatever the hell they want. SO over the top, along with Ken Jeong.”
And apparently what Oscar-nominated actors like Malkovich and McDormand to do is act like lunatics. How else to explain Malkovich’s hideous wig and even more hideous, inexplicable accent? How else to explain wildly overqualified, two-time Oscar nominee McDormand playing the nothing role of Government Bitch. (On the other hand, I don’t think Ken Jeong can’t not be wildly over-the-top. Triple negative!)

Oh wait…they also probably got paid buckets of money too. Let’s move on.

“Some of the lighthearted moments DID work.”
This was mostly in response to the second “Transformers” movie’s disastrous attempt at humor by introducing two jive-talking, racist robots named Skids and Mudflap.

Because Malkovich’s performance is truly an atrocity, it allowed me to enjoy Turturro’s typically bananas work as Simmons, one of Sam’s frenemies. I also enjoyed Sam’s parents (as I mentioned) and the ooze that was practically seeping out of all of Patrick Dempsey’s pores as a the rich bad guy. (On IMDB, he’s credited as “Dylan.” Is that a first name or a last name? Does it matter?!)

“The transforming with Sam scene was AWESOME!”
I believed this at the time I saw the movie, and I still stand by it: the car chase scene on the highway where Sam is inside of Bumblebee — who is forced to transform into a robot as Sam flies through the air, and then transforms back into a car just in time to save Sam — is the single coolest special effects shot I’ve seen all year. Made me feel like a kid!

“Humans were actually useful this time…the battle in Chicago was very entertaining.”
I always felt the non-Shia LaBeouf humans in these movies (particularly the military forces led by Josh Duhammel’s Lennox and Tyrese’s Epps) were pretty much afterthoughts in the plot and mostly there because director Michael Bay truly has a fetish for everything having to do with the military.

However, in “Dark of the Moon” they actually contributed a fair amount, particularly in a truly spectacular skydiving sequence during the film’s climax. High five, humanity!

“Autobots are kind of dicks.”
This is in reference to the notion that Optimus Prime and Co. basically allowed Chicago to be destroyed just so that the humans — who had just banished them from Earth — could see that the Decepticons were evil and that humanity needs the Autobots. Thanks, asshole…now where am I supposed to get my deep dish pizza?

"Still can’t always tell who is fighting who. (Besides Optimus Prime and Bumblebee.) But FANTASTIC effects."
My biggest gripe with the “Transformers” movies. Other than Optimus Prime and Bumblebee (and maybe Megatron), it’s pretty difficult to tell the rest of the Transformers apart. Michael Bay tries to compensate for this mostly by giving the robots outsize (and usually offensive) character traits, but once they start fighting each other, it’s basically just a bunch of twisted metal.

(During the climactic battle, my buddy asked me “Was that Starscream?” and I said “Yes”, even though I was only 80 percent sure.)

Despite my smart-ass tendencies, I rather enjoyed the movie and thought it was an upgrade over the deeply-flawed “Revenge of the Fallen”, while never achieving the charm (if that’s the right word) of the relatively quaint original.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon…B-

Super 8 Review

I acknowledge that I have a bit of a weird sensibility when it comes to movies. (And when it comes to…anything, really.)

For example, I’m the guy who goes to see a monster movie and comes away thinking that the monster was, by far, the least interesting thing in the movie.

Yet that’s precisely the case with “Super 8,” the modestly-budgeted, “J.J. Abrams-does-Steven Spielberg” spectacle.

It’s too bad because I basically loved everything else about the movie.

“Super 8” follows a group of middle school-age kids — Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso and Zach Mills (they were so good they each deserved to have their full names included, damnit!) — in fictional Lillian, Ohio as they try to make a low-budget zombie movie.

While filming one night, they witness a catastrophic train crash. The train was carrying…something that I won’t spoil here, but which gets loose and starts running amok in Lillian.

Of course, you can argue that the movie’s throwback/nostalgic vibe was just as big a draw as the “monster movie” aspect. “Super 8” is equally inspired by the movies director J.J. Abrams and executive producer Steven Spielberg made when they were young, and by some of Spielberg’s own movies from the late 1970s and early 1980s. (Which happen to be some of the most popular movies of all time.)

This isn’t the first time Spielberg has exerted his influence on a younger filmmaker. In fact, I saw it very clearly in (of all places) the first “Transformers” movie, which Spielberg also produced. Sure “Transformers” was loud and dumb, but the core human story of a boy and his robot was positively Spielbergian. (On the other hand, the fetishistic shots of the military and Tyrese yelling was all Michael Bay.)

Obviously, Spielberg and Abrams make for a more comparable pair than Spielberg and Bay.

The most impressive thing Abrams does — besides staging a spectacular train wreck that seemed to escalate and go on for about 10 minutes — was the way he conceived (Abrams also wrote the script) and handled his young, mostly inexperienced actors. The characters aren’t unrealistically wise beyond their years or overly cutesy. They’re funny, scared, immature, and loyal. In short, they’re real.

Joel Courtney is a real find as Joe Lamb. He’s got an incredibly expressive face (which serves him well when he’s not saying anything) and he easily carries the responsibility of playing everything from dealing with a petulant best friend, running away from a monster, having a crush on a co-star and trying to connect with his well-meaning, distant father (Kyle Chandler, who is terrific with relatively limited screen time.)

Elle Fanning (the most well known young actress in the cast) gives a star-making performance as Alice, the initially brusque object of Joe’s affection. Alice projected a maturity and a hint of otherworldliness which rightly separated her from her young male co-stars, but still managed to connect brilliantly and believably with Joe over time.

The rest of the kids — especially demanding director Charles and budding pyromaniac Cary — mostly provide comic relief, but each plays their part in a wonderfully specific way.

Much less specific is everything having to do with the creature in the train.

I understand that the references and elements from “E.T”, “Close Encounters of the Third King” and “Poltergeist” are intentional. I guess I was just hoping Abrams would give us his own inspired twist on these tropes (misunderstood creature…humans who are more monstrous than the monsters…a-hole who will most definitely die by the final frame) instead of playing it straight. (There's even more than a hint of "Jurassic Park" during the monster's assault on a bus.)

Basically, if “Super 8” had been a movie about a bunch of kids sneaking off to make a zombie movie (stay through the credits) while dealing with their distant parents (Ron Eldard is also strong as Alice’s dad), I would’ve been perfectly happy.

Except that I would’ve missed that spectacular crash.

Super 8…B+

X-Men: First Class Review

I’ll admit I wasn’t terribly excited when I first heard about “X-Men: First Class.”

How could I be? It was coming off the low point that was “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” and — besides Professor X, Magneto and Mystique — it was going to feature a bunch of C-list mutants I didn’t know. I even derisively referred to it as “X-Men Babies.”

So it was an especially pleasant surprise for me to find that “First Class” is actually one of the best movies of the year.

The movie (alternate title: “When Erik Met Charles”) follows the exploits of Holocaust survivor Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) as he grudgingly teams up with telepathic Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his crew to stop powerful mutant Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) from triggering World War III in the early 1960’s and wiping humans off the face of the Earth.

“First Class” chronicles the formation of Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters and, more importantly, both the origin and disintegration of Charles and Erik’s friendship.

In fact, the best thing about the movie is that it gives equal weight and credibility to the beliefs of Charles (who wants to peacefully co-exist with humans) and Erik (who is probably a little uncomfortable with how much he agrees with Shaw’s philosophy).

On top of all that, director Matthew Vaughn — hitting his second straight comic book movie home run following last year’s “Kick-Ass” — stages the whole thing like mod, 1960’s spy caper. (No accident, since the Cold War is a major plot point.)

At first, it was a little jarring seeing McAvoy’s Xavier macking on some girl at the pub (and, you know, walking…and with hair), but once we got to see his more compassionate side (toward his students, even toward his enemies) it was incredibly easy to imagine McAvoy’s Charles becoming Patrick Stewart’s Professor X.

Still, I think the movie belongs to Fassbender, who has been very good in a number of movies (especially “Inglorious Basterds”) but becomes a movie star in “First Class.” Erik is fueled by revenge in this movie, but Fassbender never prevents us from seeing the charisma, flair and hints of humor that eventually make Magneto such a powerful figure.

Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence (“Winter’s Bone”) leads the younger portion of the cast as Raven, who becomes Charles’ adopted sister and eventually grows up to be shape-shifter Mystique. The conflict between assimilating into the human world and letting their mutant freak flag fly plays out most obviously with Raven, and Lawrence does a good job. Nicholas Hoult (the kid from “About a Boy”!) also does a nice job as future Beast Hank McCoy. The rest of the young cast don’t get much of a character arc, but Vaughn finds time to give each mutant their moment in the spotlight. With so many characters, it’s impossible to serve all of them, so a few got the short end of the stick. (Like Rose Byrne’s Moira MacTaggert.)

The bad guys, meanwhile, are led by Kevin Bacon with a, “Wait a minute — I’m actually the biggest star in this movie!” swagger. Unfortunately, he gets relatively weak support from a couple of mostly mute mutants (Azazel and Riptide) and January Jones as Emma Frost, who is so wooden that I just wished she was mostly mute. On the bright side, her bras are the clear front runners for Best Supporting performance at this year’s Oscars.

Now, I may not be a comic book aficionado, but even I realize that all the characters in “First Class” don’t necessarily belong in this timeline and that their relationships don’t necessarily match up with what’s been established by the source material. Hell, despite the fact that “First Class” picks up right where the very first “X-Men” began, “First Class” isn’t even a slave the previous movies’ continuity. (It basically pretend like the beginning of “X-Men: The Last Stand” never happens…and I’m ok with pretending that movie never happened.)

Besides, there have been so many alternate universes and timelines in the X-Men comics over the years, who can possibly say what character belongs where?

More importantly, the movie is so damn smart, stylish and entertaining (there are a couple of very playful cameos) that I don’t care.

X-Men: First Class…A-

Green Lantern Review

(Just a heads-up: I’m going to do my absolute best to not accidentally type “Green Hornet” throughout this review, so I apologize in advance if I slip up.)

Ryan Reynolds takes his turn carrying a mega-budget, comic book flick with “Green Lantern,” which is mostly comprised of parts from other (better) superhero movies.

Reynolds starts as cocky test pilot (is there any other kind?) Hal Jordan, who becomes the latest recipient of a mystical ring that grants him otherworldly powers. Hal’s ring belonged to Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), a member of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic squadron whose members keep peace across the universe.

While the Green Lanterns receive their power through force of will, they are tasked with taking down Parallax, a soul-sucking entity that feeds on the fear of others. It’s a cool idea for a villain, but it’s kind of hard to connect with your antagonist when he looks like a giant cloud of gas. (Parallax basically looks like Wario farted.)

But that’s actually the least of the movie’s problems.

There’s also the fact that Ryan Reynolds isn’t quite built to carry a mega-budget comic book flick by himself. Don’t get me wrong: I like Ryan Reynolds, and the movie is mostly very smart about the way it uses him. For example, his smart-ass charm serves him well when he’s flirting with love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) or when he’s stumbling around to learn the ins and outs of being a Green Lantern. It’s also no accident that the first time we see the handsome actor, he’s in his underwear. (Not to mention the fact that director Martin Campbell opted to use special effects to paint the Green Lantern’s suit on Reynolds’ body.)

The problem with Reynolds as a superhero is the whole “hero” part. He doesn’t convey the “heroic” depth needed to carry a movie like this. When Hal struggles with fear, Reynolds isn’t nearly as believable or interesting as when he’s trading light-hearted banter with someone. Maybe he’s just too young or maybe Reynolds just isn’t quite good enough of an actor yet, but he simply doesn’t bring the weight that someone like Robert Downey Jr. brought to “Iron Man” to balance the smart-ass part of the character.

Still, Reynolds was MILES better than Blake Lively. Her line readings in Carol’s very first scene with Hal were so embarrassingly bad that I actually thought for a second that her character was supposed to be deaf. (And I REALLY liked her work in “The Town.”) This was some of the worst acting I’ve seen outside of SyFy original movies and porn. Lively is unconvincing as a pilot AND as the high-ranking executive she’s supposed to be. She’s only convincing as someone who’s really hot. (At least there’s that.)

Unfortunately, the movie mostly wastes a talented supporting cast, including Peter Sarsgaard as loser scientist Hector Hammond, who becomes possessed by Parallax and who has one of the more unfortunate hairlines in recent movie history. I liked the idea that the character is basically the physical opposite of Hal, but Sarsgaard simply isn’t given much to do beyond wearing increasingly grotesque makeup.

Given even less to do were stellar actors like Angela Bassett (in a nothing role as scientist-with-a-weird-haircut Amanda Waller) and Tim Robbins, who has a freakin’ Oscar, but basically just acts like a generic jerk toward his son, Hector.

Still, the biggest problem with “Green Lantern” is that there is really nothing that makes it standout from every other superhero movie before it or any other superhero movie currently in theatres.

Reluctant/insecure hero? Check! Brainy sidekick? CHECK! Daddy issues? Double check! Sure, a lot of these elements are staples of dozens of comic books. The difference is that when a filmmaker adapts one of these stories for the screen, he or she has a chance to their own stylistic or tonal stamp on it. Some recent examples: Christopher Nolan making shoe-horning Batman into a crime drama with “The Dark Knight.” Matthew Vaughn inserting to the X-Men into a 1960’s spy caper with “First Class.”

Campbell (who made the great “Casino Royale”) does…nothing, really. The movie’s best scenes take place in outer space when Hal meets and trains with fellow Lanterns Sinestro, Tomar-Re and Kilowog. (Voiced by Mark Strong, Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan, respectively.) Still, even these scenes — a lot of people would probably complain that they look too cartoony, but I don’t mind that it occasionally looks like an animated movie — have more than a twinge of familiarity. (Guess what? At first, nobody respects Hal, but he grudgingly earns their respect!)

The movie DOES come alive whenever Hal uses his ring to conjure whatever he can imagine. Also, at less than two hours, it’s certainly one of the less butt-numbing big budget movies of the year. (Although the brisk pace leaves questions like “Were those crashed aliens from the beginning hanging around a lost planet JUST so they could free Parallax?)

“Green Lantern” is not boring, but also not really special unless you have an abnormally high fondness for Ryan Reynolds. (Which I’m sure a lot of people do.)

Green Lantern…C+

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

“Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” has mermaids, zombies, a pair of Oscar winners hamming it up, Keith Richards (wait, I already mentioned ‘zombies’), Spaniards…and it’s STILL boring as hell!

Don’t get me wrong: I didn’t hate the movie and it’s not actively terrible. (Ala something like “Spider-Man 3” with emo Peter Parker jazz dancing his way into cinematic infamy). I just found the fourth “Pirates” movie to be mostly disengaging and lacking in surprises, originality or excitement.

Johnny Depp is back in the role that has made him millions and millions and millions and…you get the idea. In this installment, Disney really gets its money’s worth because Jack is more front-and-center than ever as he races to the Fountain of Youth against foes both old (Geoffrey Rush’s Captain Barbossa, now working for King George) and new (Ian McShane’s Blackbeard and Penelope Cruz’s Angelica, who may or may not be Blackbeard’s daughter, but is most certainly a former love interest of Jack’s.)

“On Stranger Tides” is a do-over of sorts after the increasingly — and some would say unnecessarily — complicated second and third films in the franchise. I was one of those people who thought the sequels (especially the third one) had WAY too many characters/subplots and had a few too many scenes that focused on pirate law. (Yawn.) By contrast, the plot of the new movie is relatively simple: everyone is trying to get to the Fountain of Youth for reasons I won’t spoil here.

The problem is that when you have such a relatively simple storyline, you need a director with a flair for action and a knack for pacing. Unfortunately, Rob Marshall (a former Oscar nominee for “Chicago”, one of my favorite movies) doesn’t have any idea how to make an exciting action movie. (At least not yet.)

Sure, there are bursts of action — I enjoyed Jack’s early escape from King George’s clutches, and the first encounter with the lovely, vicious mermaids is the movie’s best scene — but the rest of the time is spent on repetitive exposition (too much time spent with characters on ships or trudging through the jungle TALKING about what they’re doing) or recycled action sequences. For example, Jack’s initial sword fight with a disguised Angelica is basically a remake of his first sword fight with Orlando Bloom’s Will Turner in the first “Pirates” movie.

Also, you’re gonna scoff at what I’m about to say, but bear with me: this movie has TOO MUCH Jack Sparrow.

I remember watching the third movie and being horrified at the idea that Jack didn’t even show up until about the 30-minute mark. However, in re-watching the movies recently I was surprised to realize that Depp generally had a lot less screen time than I remembered. Most of the plot-driving, dramatic heavy lifting was done by Bloom and Keira Knightley in the previous movies. Meanwhile, Jack was the guy who stumbled in, slurred a joke and scurried away having stolen the scene.

In “On Stranger Tides”, Depp still delivers some laughs, but Jack is more of a conventional action hero. (He has a love interest, for crying out loud!) I don’t think the role looks as good on him.

Speaking of Bloom and Knightley, the new movie tries to somewhat replicate their romance by giving us a storyline between a missionary named Philip (Sam Claflin) who falls in love with a mermaid named Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). The only problem is we don’t really have much of a reason to invest in their romance other than both of them being young and attractive (and Disney trying to hit as many different demos as possible).

I felt similar apathy toward Blackbeard. Unlike previous baddies Barbossa and Captain Davy Jones — who were given ample back story and were relatively three-dimensional characters — Blackbeard is mostly a one-note villain. The great Ian McShane does what he can (and he actually makes a great pirate), but there’s just not much to work with here. Same with Penelope Cruz, who is mostly there to verbally (and physically) spar with Jack and show a little cleavage. (But not too much…this IS a Disney movie, after all.) Sure, Angelica may or may not be Blackbeard’s daughter. The problem is no one cares.

When Johnny Deep debuted Jack Sparrow almost a decade ago, his performance was a delightful surprise and he became a new kind of action hero.

The bottom line with “On Stranger Tides” is that watching him do a lot of the same stuff is just not as exciting — especially when your director builds a boring, action movie around you.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides…C

Hanna Review

For better and for worse, “Hanna” isn’t your typical action movie.

On one hand, I figured that would be the case as soon as I saw it was directed by not-quite-action-maestro Joe Wright (“Pride and Prejudice”, “Atonement”). On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed those two movies and I’m always interested to see a new sensibility brought to action movies. (Imagine if Christopher Nolan had never gotten a shot at Batman.)

In this case, the result is surprisingly thin on action (especially in the movie’s middle section), but heavy on intriguing, Euro-flavored stylistic touches, including a fantastic soundtrack by the Chemical Bros. that often appears to reflect the characters’ emotional and mental states.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a 16-year-old girl raised in the Finnish wilderness by her father Erik (Eric Bana), a former CIA agent. For her entire life, Hanna has been isolated from the rest of the world and trained to become an assassin: more specifically, she’s been trained to assassinate witchy CIA agent Marissa Wiegler (Oscar winner Cate Blanchett).

I use the word “witchy” to describe Marissa because one of the flourishes Wright incorporates in his movie is staging the world of “Hanna” as some sort of fractured fairy tale. (I guess Marissa could just as easily be the story’s Big Bad Wolf.)

Unfortunately, the fairy tale template, kickass soundtrack and Wright’s occasionally fancy camera tricks — I LOVED the director’s continuous shots in the scene where Bana takes out a bunch of bad guys and with Hanna’s fight in the shipping yard — are mostly there to liven up a story that’s not incredibly compelling.

Throughout “Hanna”, we get hints of the junior assassin’s back story, but by the time it pays off and we find out the truth about Hanna’s past, it almost seems like an afterthought with all the other weirdness going on.

Blanchett and her red wig give an (intentionally) over-the-top performance that isn’t ever grounded in any sort of reality, so I felt that it lacked context. Basically, she’s just mythically and chillingly evil only because the story demands it. Bana, meanwhile, has some strong father-daughter moments with Ronan, but is otherwise a blank slate. I understand that works for his character, but it doesn’t give us a whole lot to hold on to.

Tom Hollander livened things up considerably as Isaacs, the eccentric baddie Marissa tasks with capturing Hanna. In keeping with the rest of the movie, the character was tonally wacky — he and his henchmen looked like they had a hit song in the early 90’s — but at least he was funny as hell.

Still, the star of the show was Ronan (an Oscar nominee for “Atonement”) who is absolutely sensational as Hanna.

As Hanna discovers the world for the first time (well, Morocco and Germany, at least), Ronan does a terrific job of playing the confusion, wonder and terror her character would be feeling. Although I didn’t care for the more famous, actors in the movie, I was totally into Hanna’s accidental and touching friendship with a British girl named Sophie (an excellent Jessica Barden) and her squabbling British family.

On top of that, it doesn’t hurt that she makes for a completely credible ass kicker.

I really like that Hanna is an original creation — giving us a break from a sequel, reboot, spinoff, etc. — and I absolutely believe the character would be worth re-visiting. (Especially if Ronan gets to play the hell out of her again.) I also wouldn’t mind seeing Wright take another crack at an action movie.

I just hope that next time Ronan’s performance and Wright’s style are used to support a more substantial movie.

Hanna…B-

Fast Five Review

So apparently, Vin Diesel has been going around telling people that "Fast Five" could be an Oscar contender.

The fact that I can’t tell if he’s kidding helps illustrate why I enjoyed this movie so much: I’m not 100% sure if the cast and crew of “Fast Five” are aware of how dopey their movie is.

I have a feeling that director Justin Lin — who helmed the previous two entries in this franchise — and writer Chris Morgan — yes, this movie has a writer, smartass — aren’t being completely serious when they have their two leading men calmly drive off a cliff without getting hurt or when they have a heart-to-heart about fatherhood on a porch.

But the fact that the spectacular action and simplistic dialogue are delivered without a cutesy wink to the audience tells me that everyone behind this movie has a healthy appreciation for a good ol’ fashioned ridiculous action movie. Basically, “Fast Five” accomplished what “The Expendables” couldn’t…and without really trying.

“Fast Five” picks up right where the previous movie left off, with rogue FBI agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) and girlfriend Mia (Jordana Brewster) helping Mia’s brother, Dominic (Vin Diesel) make a daring escape as he is being transported in a prison bus. The fact that the escape plan could’ve potentially killed Dominic (that bus flipped over about 25 times) but instead no one was injured (we can’t have the good guys hurting anyone) immediately set the gleefully absurd tone.

The three flee to Rio de Janeiro, where they become entangled with a crooked businessman/crime lord named Reyes after a botched train heist. (By the way, that train sequence really was something to see. Kudos to Lin and his team of stuntmen: I’m assuming they used SOME special effects in this movie, but it was never really obvious.)

Dominic and Brian decide to assemble a team — kind of like a meathead “Ocean’s Eleven” — comprised of characters we’ve met in the previous four movies, so they can steal Reyes’ fortune and retire after one more big job. (Until the next movie.)

Unfortunately for them, they also have to contend with Dwayne Johnson (in the sweatiest performance of the year) as a badass federal agent with an obsession for tight Under Armour shirts who has been tasked with bringing the boys to justice.

Basically, this flick delivers everything you’d ever want from a “Fast” movie, including unintentional (mostly from how slow Vin Diesel speaks) AND intentional comedy (mostly from everything The Rock says).

I already talked about how refreshingly uncomplicated “Fast Five” is, but I think one of the more underrated charms of the entire franchise is the broad appeal of the cast. There’s something for everyone! Not only is there something for men (the cars, the near-silent babes) and women (every male in the cast was either sleeveless or wore T-shirts two sizes too small) but there are black guys, an Asian guy, Hispanic guys and gals, plus whatever the hell Vin Diesel and The Rock are. Hell, there’s even a white guy! (And I can think of fewer white guys who are whiter than Paul Walker.)

The movie also did a good job of giving each cast member of moment to shine, but the ensemble is led by Vin Diesel (who looks like he has to think very hard about everything his character says before he speaks) and Paul Walker (who seems like maybe he should think a little more before he speaks). So it’s only mildly surprising that The Rock (chewing the scenery fantastically) ended up being the best thing in the movie.

Another thing I liked about “Fast Five” is that — unlike say “Battle: Los Angeles” — the movie took full advantage of its setting. Besides the multiple shots of the Christ the Redeemer statue (in case you forgot where we were), the slum-like favelas, the sweat and multiple girls’ asses hanging out made it clear that we were in Rio.

In fact, the only negative I can think of is that, no matter how much fun you’re having, I don’t think ANY “Fast” movie needs to be two hours and 10 minutes long. (A bit too much time spent planning the heist) On top of that, there were long stretches of the movie without the movie’s real star: the cars!

Fortunately, the movie fixes both of these problems when the crew hilariously throws their intricate, complex plan out the window and decides to destroy pretty much all of downtown Rio de Janeiro in the movies exhilarating car chase climax.

“Fast Five” is the best movie I’ve seen this year. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other movie franchise that has peaked with its fifth movie.

Fast Five…A-

Scream 4 Review

I was absolutely shocked by how much I hated “Scream 4.”

Trust me when I say that I WANTED to love it. I was 14 when the funny, scary, all-around outstanding original “Scream” came out, so it was right in my teenaged wheelhouse. On top of that, I thought “Scream 2” had some pretty strong moments (that opening sequence in the movie theatre is still chill-inducing) before a weak ending. Meanwhile, “Scream 3” was…a movie. (Seriously though, Parker Posey was the only good thing in it.)

Either way, I was excited for “Scream 4.” The original cast, director and (most importantly) writer were back! Even better, “Scream 4” appeared to share an excellent sense of timing with “Scream.”

When “Scream” came out in 1996, the slasher/horror movie genre was all but dead at the box office. Director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson injected new life into the genre by cleverly deconstructing its conventions AND delivering a strong horror movie in its own right. Fast forward to 2011. The last “Saw” movie limped into theatres less than a year ago and Hollywood has pretty much stopped remaking Japanese horror flicks featuring creepy ghost kids. It seemed like the perfect time for “Scream 4” to come along and give its horror movie colleagues a kick in the ass.

Instead, “Scream 4” is the person who was hanging out with a group of friends, had a perfect opportunity to say something witty or make a perfect comment, but couldn’t come up with anything until it was too late. This has happened to all of us. There was even a “Seinfeld” episode about this.

The perfect example is the movie’s opening sequence, which I won’t spoil here except to say that it takes aim at “Saw” and its many sequels…and at people who talk during movies.

I totally agree with the movie’s observation that most horror flicks these days — especially the torture porn stuff from the “Saw” and “Hostel” franchises — aren’t so much scary as they are simply gross. The only problem is that EVERYONE pretty much agrees with that not-so-biting insight…which is why both of those franchises are dead. This kind of satire might’ve actually been more effective if it had been done when the “Saw” movies were at the height of their popularity.

There are two major problems: 1.) Where the original “Scream” succeeded both as a satire of slasher movies AND as a great, stand-alone horror/mystery, “Scream 4” fails at both. 2.) Once “Scream 4” actually starts, it’s only slightly better than the intentionally-bad fake-outs from the beginning.

The plot revolves around Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returning to Woodsboro on a tour to promote her book about surviving the wrath of the Ghostface killer(s). Meanwhile, Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is now married to a bored, insecure Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox).

We also meet Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts), who serves as a connection to the movie’s new cast of young characters. (Fresh blood!) That includes Jill’s friends Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) and Olivia (Marielle Jaffe,who was CLEARLY only cast so she could strip down to her underwear before being attacked), as well as Jill’s ex-boyfriend Trevor (Nico Tortorella).

There’s also Charlie (Rory Culkin) and Robbie (Erik Knudsen) a pair of smug tech-savvy movie geeks along to explain the new rules (throw out all the old rules!) and generally continue to give a bad name to respectable movie geeks like yours truly.

Some of the performers managed to deliver vibrant performances. I liked what Cox brought to the table —probably because her character seemed as annoyed as I was in the theatre — as well as Panettiere (strong and spunky, despite a truly inexplicable hairstyle) and Alison Brie of “Community” as Sidney’s foul-mouthed publicist. The most notable thing I can say about Campbell is that she still looks really good after several years away from the spotlight. Meanwhile, the only thing Arquette’s fan-favorite Dewey gets to do is arrive late at murder scenes and run his hand through his hair.

Unfortunately, the movie couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a sequel or a reboot. “Scream 4” most closely resembles a sequel because the three main characters are here and it’s a continuation of the previous movies’ storylines. However, the killer’s motives — by far the WEAKEST in any of the three previous movies, except maybe “Scream 2” — seem to strongly suggest that this movie wanted to be a reboot.

It’s that kind of non-committal push and pull that ultimately doomed the movie. Did “Scream 4” want to be a sequel or a reboot? Did it want to be scary or funny? Even the rare effective kill or set piece was undermined by a bad joke like “F--- Bruce Willis.” How current! It seems like Craven and Williamson couldn’t decide, so they accomplished neither. And I think they accomplished even less with this disappointing effort.

I know a lot of people will enjoy “Scream 4” purely for the nostalgia factor, but I’m bummed that what started out as a cutting edge franchise is now the cinematic equivalent of the 300th person to make a spoof video of Rebecca Black’s “Friday.”

Scream 4…D

Battle: Los Angeles Review

“Battle: Los Angeles” is an action-packed sci-fi spectacle…where not that much actually happens.

Director Jonathan Liebsman conjures up several striking visuals…but I’d already started to forget about the movie on the drive home.

Typically, when an action movie — or any movie — is forgettable, it’s because of a lack of interesting, well-developed characters. “Battle: Los Angeles” is no exception.

Before meteor-like fireballs start raining down on Los Angeles, we meet a group of Marines led by the relatively inexperienced Lt. William Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) and Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who is on the verge of retirement. (What is this? “Lethal Weapon”?)

Once the city is under attack, the platoon is sent to evacuate a portion of downtown Los Angeles, but end up tangling with the aliens and fighting for their lives.

The fact that there’s really nothing more to this movie is both the best and the worst thing about it.

It’s good because the movie is never boring (or at least never quiet) and ‘Battle: Los Angeles” totally works as a straightforward shoot-em-up.

More specifically, I was a bit struck to realize that, despite a strong physical presence and one of the squarest jaws in Hollywood, this was Aaron Eckhart’s first outing as a full-on action hero. I thought it looked good on him and I’m glad he really brought it.

On the other hand, the simplistic plot/characters are not a good thing because nothing that happens really matters.

The movie even seemed to acknowledge how non-descript its characters were by identifying each one of the Marines with title cards near the start of the movie. Even after that, when one of them died I’d have to turn to someone and ask, “Who just got killed?!” I didn’t even realize R&B star Ne-Yo was in the movie until after I went to its IMDb page!

Of course, the lack of interesting humans may have been saved by intriguing aliens. Except that we don’t really get a great look at the aliens most of the time, which is fine if you’re trying to make them scary. The problem is that what we DO find out about them isn’t terrible interesting. Let’s just say their motivation for attacking Earth (which I won’t reveal) has been famously done before. The movie also establishes that to kill one, you have to shoot to the right of where its heart should be…but that never really factors into the story in a significant way.

Ok, so neither the humans nor the aliens are terribly interesting…I know! The movie is called “Battle: Los Angeles”…let’s make the city a character. Unfortunately, except for a set piece set on a freeway and the presence of a few Mexican characters, there’s really not that much to indicate that this movie is set in Los Angeles.

I admire that the movie tried to play it relatively straight and establish a grim tone (being invaded by aliens isn’t a fun romp…it sucks!). But since “Battle: Los Angeles” wound up being a shoot-em-up with bland characters, I wish everyone involved would’ve had more fun. As it stands, the real attempts at humor were overshadowed by unintentional comedy. (Like a character seriously declaring during a tense moment: “Maybe I can help…I’m a veterinarian.” Come on! That line is straight out of “Airplane!”)

In the end, “Battle: Los Angeles” winds up being an entertaining but completely uninvolving action movie that wasn’t quite as interesting as its awesome trailer.

Battle: Los Angeles…C+

The King's Speech Review

If I were asked to conceive and create a movie that was guaranteed to win a bunch of Oscars, the result would probably look a lot like “The King’s Speech.”

It’s got everything you’d need to suck in Oscar voters:

1. A respected cast. (Past Oscar nominees Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and past winner Geoffrey Rush.)

2. A historical setting centered on a true-life figure. (Ooh, period costumes!)

3. A historical setting centered on a true-life BRITISH figure. (Ooh, accents!)

4. A lead character with an affliction. (Yes, a stammer is a far cry from going “full retard”, but it still gives Colin Firth plenty to chew on.)

The only bullet point “The King’s Speech” misses is that it doesn’t feature an actress “uglying herself up” for the movie. In fact, Helena Bonham Carter seems to have gotten confused and has been turning up to real-life red carpet events looking like this. (Ok, that was mean — Helena’s great!)

And yet despite the fact that the movie seems to have been genetically engineered to win Oscars (which can be off-putting), “The King’s Speech” is a triumph because it tells a seemingly simple story in a confident, heartfelt and impressive way.

We first meet Firth as Prince Albert — known as “Bertie” to those closest to him — the man who will become King George VI. We also quickly learn that he suffers from a near-debilitating stammer. At the urging of his wife Queen Elizabeth (Bonham Carter), he goes to see Lionel Logue, an unconventional speech therapist. (Though I’d argue the guy who forced Bertie to shove all the marbles in his mouth was the “unconventional” one.)

The movie is called “The King’s Speech”, so we’re all perfectly aware that, at some point, the king is going to have to make a pivotal, um, speech. (Especially with World War II looming on the horizon.)

However, the movie’s secret is that it’s really a buddy movie (often a really funny one, for that matter) dressed up as a hoity-toity costume drama. My favorite part of David Seidler’s Oscar-nominated screenplay is that it found a way to present the origins of the king’s affliction (daddy issues/sibling rivalry) in a way most people could relate to.

The real joy is watching Firth and Rush work together as their characters inch closer and closer to each other and, hopefully, toward a solution for the king’s problem.

Firth continues his recent, career-best streak as Bertie. The actor cuts a dashing, charming figure in real life (perfect for playing a monarch), but is equally convincing as the insecure, damaged king.

As good as Firth is, I actually think Rush steals the movie. His freewheeling Australian character is clearly meant to be a crowd-pleaser and is obviously more fun to play, but it’s the warmth and compassion (with Bertie, with Lionel’s own family) that puts Rush over the top.

Carter is also strong as the Queen, in the movie’s least flashy main role. The actress is up for Best Supporting Actress, but if the category were called Best Supportive Actress, she’d probably be a lock.

The power trio gets an assist from a rakish Guy Pearce as Bertie’s older brother (despite the fact that Pearce is CLEARLY younger than Firth). Michael Gambon, as their father, doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but uses the little he has to give us a good idea of the kind of stern father he was (and why Bertie developed the stammer).

Other than framing certain shots in slightly off-kilter ways (to convey the discomfort Bertie initially feels during his speech therapy?), director Tom Hooper is smart enough to mostly get out of the way and let his great actors do their thing. I just wish Hooper hadn’t relied quite so much on his score (and on Beethoven) to do his storytelling for him.

In the end, “The King’s Speech” isn’t the most spectacular or showy film that you’ll see this year, and that’s perfectly ok. Instead, the filmmakers have told an extraordinary story in a way that will appeal (and has appealed) to a large number of people.

The King’s Speech…A-

The Green Hornet Review

The movie version of “The Green Hornet” answers one of life’s most important questions: “What if an idiot tried to be a superhero?”

Obviously, we’ve seen plenty of non-superpowered folks slap on a costume and try to battle the forces of evil, but I can’t really think of another big-screen hero who has done it quite like Seth Rogen’s Britt Reid.

Sure, Reid is mega-rich dude just like Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, but he’s not nearly smart enough to build Iron Man’s suit and he’s not a muscular genius like Batman. Blankman may have been a scrawny, super-smart nerd, but he was a SUPER-SMART nerd nonetheless. Kick-Ass didn’t have any particularly special physical attributes either, but he wasn’t exactly a moron — he was just a painfully average kid.

Even The Green Hornet himself was played relatively straight by Van Williams in the 1960’s TV show (co-starring Bruce Lee).

Still, in a world with more comic book/superhero movies than you can count, that’ precisely what makes the new “Green Hornet” stand out.

Rogen plays the irresponsible Britt Reid, who inherits his father’s (Tom Wilkinson) publishing company after the elder Reid dies. More importantly, he inherits his father’s coffee maker/mechanic Kato (Taiwanese singer Jay Chou), who introduces Britt to some of his father’s niftier cars, including the Black Beauty.

After the two foil a robbery, they decide to use their considerable resources to fight crime by posing as criminals — which puts them at odds with Chudnofsky (Oscar winner Christoph Waltz), the city’s reigning crime lord — and by gaining insight into the criminal mind with help from Britt’s bright secretary Lenore Case (Cameron Diaz).

You can tell just from those last two paragraphs — a comedian here, an Oscar winner there, a Taiwanese pop star over here — that there’s a LOT for director Michel Gondry to try to cobble together and make into something coherent. Indeed, the movie isn’t always 100% tonally consistent as it ping-pongs from new millennium dude humor to old-fashioned superhero yarn.

In fact, if you don’t like Seth Rogen, you’re probably going to hate “The Green Hornet.” Fortunately, I really like Seth Rogen, so I’m perfectly ok with him basically hijacking “The Green Hornet” mythology (not exactly a sacred property) to suit his comedic rhythm. (The only part I don’t understand is why Rogen made such a big deal out of losing all that weight — other than to get healthier, of course — since Chou winds up handling almost all the action.)

Rogen’s fingerprints are all over the movie — he co-wrote it with Evan Goldberg — and Gondry smartly steps back and allows the actor to do his thing, which is usually heavy on bromantic comedy. He has excellent chemistry with Chou, a cool customer who, despite his sometimes-broken English, pretty much winds up stealing the movie.

Chou has competition in the movie thievery department from Waltz, who realizes he’s in a silly movie and decides to have a blast with his sensitive super-villain. (Waltz’s first scene opposite a familiar star making a fun cameo might be the movie’s best.)

I’m still not really sure why Cameron Diaz was in this movie. Her character seems wrong and too old to be a love interest for Britt and Kato (and Rogen amusingly riffs on this at one point), but it mostly seemed like they just wanted a recognizable female star in this thing, no matter how little there was for her to do.

Then again, this “Green Hornet” is really a big-budget vehicle for Rogen’s brand of humor. (With an assist from some cool visual tricks, courtesy of Gondry.) Fortunately, I happen to be a fan of that particular brand.

The Green Hornet…B+

The Fighter Review

“The Fighter” is really a working-class family drama thinly disguised as a sports movie.

In fact, other than the way director David O. Russell recreated the 1990’s HBO look for the fight scenes (a sneakily cool effect), the boxing aspects of “The Fighter” are arguably its weakest points. (The fights are rousing by nature, but there’s simply nothing special — one way or the other — about the way Russell stages them.)

Fortunately, that doesn’t come close to preventing “The Fighter” from being one of the better movies of the year.

“The Fighter” is ostensibly the story of “Irish” Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) a welterweight boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts looking to rejuvenate his career with help from the same family that continues to derail it. However, “The Fighter” turns out to be just as much about Micky’s older half brother Dicky Eklund (newly-minted Oscar nominee Christian Bale), a former boxer and current crack addict when we meet him in the movie.

It doesn’t take long to realize that “The Fighter” is really about each man’s attempts to pick themselves up and make something of their lives, and how they need each other to do so. Fortunately, they have plenty of additional support.

Oscar nominee Melissa Leo is excellent as Alice Ward, Micky’s mom and manager (mom-ager?) and Dicky’s #1 apologist. Leo manages to shine though some truly garish makeup and costumes, while also grounding Alice and making her believable. It makes complete sense to me that she would devote more time and resources to Dicky — even at the expense of Micky — simply because Dicky is the son that needs the most help.

As great as Leo is, I’m even a bigger fan of fellow Oscar nominee Amy Adams as Charlene, the tough, spirited woman who inspires Micky’s comeback. Adams “uglifies” herself for the role — which really means she looks like a normal person — and is convincingly grungy, especially for someone who has literally played a Disney princess.

My favorite part of her performance — besides inspiring my new favorite insult: “MTV Girl” — is that she’s not the typical wet blanket girlfriend we get in this type of movie. She’s not perfect and, like everyone else in the movie, she’s not thrilled with the way her life has turned out, but she’s 100% there to support her partner.

And that partner is played unassumingly well by Wahlberg. He obviously doesn’t have the showiest role in the movie, but Wahlberg has Micky walk around like his carrying around the weight of his family and his hometown’s expectations on his shoulders.

Of course, as you’ve probably heard, the movie belongs to Christian Bale.

The best way I can think to put it is that if it were possible for a human being to play a train wreck, than Christian Bale just nailed it. His Dicky Eklund is a human train wreck. The real kicker is that even as Dicky sabotages his life and the lives of those around him, he STILL manages to be unbelievably charismatic. It’s a wonder to watch Bale cut loose after playing the more understated role and ceding the spotlight to co-stars like Heath Ledger, Russell Crowe, Johnny Deep and Sam Worthington in recent years.

The cast is obviously the best thing about “The Fighter,” but they get a big-time assist from Russell. Just because I wasn’t a big fan of his staging of the boxing scenes doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the way allowed his actors to naturally and effortlessly relate to each other.

I’m also a big fan of the way he (like Ben Affleck with “The Town”) made a particular corner of Massachusetts a character in the movie. The main characters may be played by glamorous movie stars, but almost everyone else in the movie (the locals, the actresses who played Micky and Dicky’s sisters) looked like they wandered onto the set on their way to a bar. (Or, should I say, on their way to a “bah.”)

“The Fighter” works because it tells a timeless story of redemption and struggle, but it does so through a pretty specific prism. It also helps to have great actors working at the top of their games.

The Fighter…B+

Tangled Review

By now, everyone knows that Disney movies are for everybody, right?

I would also think it’s common knowledge that even Disney “princess movies” — especially the modern musicals of the 1990’s — aren’t just for 10-year-old girls. (At least, that’s what I tell myself as a way to justify me knowing all the words to the songs in “The Little Mermaid.”)

“Tangled”, the latest attempt by Disney (after “The Princess and the Frog”) to revitalize that genre, is no exception.

In case you hadn’t heard, it’s the tale of Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), the princess with the ridiculously long hair who lives an isolated life in an impossibly high tower and under the thumb of her wicked, adoptive Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy).

The reason the movie is called “Tangled” and not “Rapunzel” is because the princess shares equal billing with Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi, who actually narrates the movie), a handsome, smoldering, self-absorbed thief who discovers Rapunzel and introduces her to the outside world.

As I spent so much time establishing in the first few paragraphs, this fast and funny movie has a little something for everybody.

Rapunzel proves a worthy successor to the Disney princesses before her by being a strong (but vulnerable) and independent role model for young girls.

Meanwhile, Flynn Rider (with an assist from the vain Mother Gothel and a truly relentless soldier-horse) handles the heavy lifting for everyone else in the audience by bringing a solid amount of humor to the proceedings. (Those Wanted posters just can’t get his nose right!)

For fans of eye-catching visuals, directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard (“Bolt”) have made the fairy-tale story of Rapunzel jump off the page with backgrounds that make the forest look like a painting come to life and witty/lively action sequences.

I wish I could say the same for the movie’s music.

The thoroughly forgettable songs by Alan Menken (there’s “Mother Knows Best” and, um, the pretty one during the lantern scene) are emblematic of the movie’s disposable quality. Like “Tangled”, the songs work in the moment, but slip away from your memory as soon as they’re over. This is especially disappointing coming from the man who provided the music for new animated classics like “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “Aladdin.” (In case you think I’m living in the past, I also thought Menken’s work for “Enchanted” was far superior and memorable.)

While the movie is fun and entertaining, the main problem is that I completely forgot about it the next day.

Tangled…B

True Grit Review

For all the useless information about movies my brain has collected over the years, I don’t really know jack about John Wayne.

I know he starred in a lot of westerns, but I’ve only seen one of his movies all the way through. (“The Green Berets” — don’t ask me why.) To be honest, my main reference point for the American screen icon is the impersonation of his walk that Nathan Lane does in “The Birdcage.” I also know that the only Best Actor Oscar Wayne collected during his storied career was for 1969’s “True Grit.”

I’m telling you all that to tell you this: although I’m already a person who strongly believes every movie should be able to stand on its own (whether it’s based on a book you haven’t read or a sequel/remake to a movie you haven’t seen), I’m not here to compare John Wayne to Jeff Bridges, and I’m REALLY not here to compare the original film to Joel and Ethan Coen’s thoroughly entertaining new take.

The spin for the new version is that it’s less of a remake of the John Wayne flick and more of a reimagining/direct adaptation of Charles Portis’ novel. Well, I didn’t read the novel either, so there goes that.

All I know is that this version stars Hailee Steinfeld (in a dazzling big-screen debut) as Mattie Ross, a 14-year-old girl who hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) —the meanest, crotchetiest U.S. Marshal she could find — to track down Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who killed her father.

Also looking for Chaney is a flamboyant Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (pronounced “LaBeef”) who periodically joins Mattie and Rooster on their mission, and is more than happy to tell you how great the Rangers are.

I’m not exactly sure why Steinfeld has been slotted into “Supporting Actress” categories so far during this awards season (actually, I know exactly why…the competition there isn’t as stiff!), but the young actress competently and confidently drives the action in this film. This is particularly true early on when Mattie (who probably has the truest grit of any character) refuses to accept anything less than what she sees as justice for Chaney at her hands.

Still, Mattie isn’t some sort of freaky super child. I really appreciated that the Coens still took time to show that she was a kid who got cold when the person she was sleeping with hogged the covers or who got scared in a shootout.

Bridges is likely headed for his second consecutive Oscar nomination as Cogburn. Though I definitely enjoyed his performance, I don’t know Bridges (who comes off as immensely likable in real life and the majority of his roles) ever really convinced me that Cogburn was a bastard. As a result, his eventual bond with Mattie seemed inevitable from the beginning.

Damon, on the other hand, shrewdly uses his mega-celebrity/on-screen persona to his benefit. Any hang-ups you might have about forgetting that you’re watching “Matt Damon” are right there in his performance as LaBoeuf, who is mostly a noble buffoon that doesn’t fit Mattie’s definition of “true grit.” In other words, I loved him in this movie.

Conversely, Brolin’s performance basically amounts to an extended cameo in which the actor doesn’t really make much of an impression. (Maybe the point is that the person who killed Mattie’s father was kind of a nobody.) Mostly, it was good to see Barry Pepper on screen again (as the head of the gang Chaney is running with) in the movie’s third act.

This being a Coen Brothers production, it’s not surprising to see the movie injected with bits of poker-faced humor (besides the laughs we get from Bridges’ drunk act and Damon, who really is hilarious in this thing) followed up by bursts of violence. It’s also a more straight-forward production than their elegant, thrilling, sorta-confounding “No Country for Old Men”, their previous Oscar-winning entry in the western genre. Like “No Country”, “True Grit” looks gorgeous thanks to Roger Deakins, the Coens’ favored cinematographer.

“True Grit” moves a long at a decent, leisurely pace (occasionally broken up by those fits of humor and violence) before wrapping up with a strong climax and a questionably-necessary denouement. It’s also a satisfying throwback featuring impressive performances, and two of today’s best filmmakers working near (but not quite at) the top of their game.

True Grit…B+

Black Swan Review

Natalie Portman was pretty much perfect for — and is pretty much perfect in — “Black Swan.”

The story of a troubled, repressed young ballerina may not immediately seem like an ideal fit for one of the most famous, well-regarded movie stars in the world.

Portman plays Nina Sayers, a ballet dancer who slowly comes undone after earning the lead role in her company’s production of “Swan Lake.” The lead role in “Swan Lake” requires the dancer to inhabit both the regal and ethereal White Swan, as well as the dark and seductive Black Swan.

The fact that Nina is perfect in the White Swan role, but struggles mightily to channel her inner Black Swan is the reason this role seems tailor-made for Portman. Even though the actress has tried to tap into her dark side before — including earning an Oscar nomination for playing a stripper in “Closer” — it’s never entirely believable. No matter what Portman does, she can’t help but radiate intelligence and give off a good girl vibe. (She’s even poked fun at this image to hilarious effect.)

In watching “Black Swan” and in watching Portman’s career-best, transformative work (and I haven’t even gotten into the technical aspects of her performance as a dancer), I couldn’t help but feel that the movie was a sort of twisted version of “The Natalie Portman” story. (The fact that Nina becomes involved with her hilariously jerky and demanding director, played by Vincent Cassel, while Portman recently announced she was engaged to and pregnant by her “Black Swan” choreographer only made that feeling stronger.)

I’d say this was a coincidence if filmmaker Darren Aronofsky — one of the best directors working today — hadn’t pulled off a similar trick by having Mickey Rourke’s comeback and redemption mirror his character’s in “The Wrestler”, Aronofsky’s previous masterpiece.

His golden touch with casting doesn’t stop there. Mila Kunis is terrific and kind of a revelation as Lily, a fellow dancer who embodies everything Nina isn’t. Kunis is a welcome, friendly, and sexy presence in the film. (And I’m not just saying that because of her lesbian sex scene with Portman — I’m only 75% saying that because of her lesbian sex scene with Portman.) Barbara Hershey is just the right amount of bananas as Nina’s scary, clingy stage mom. Meanwhile, Winona Ryder (though she has only a handful of scenes) is perfectly cast as someone who used to be a big deal.

Genius/fluky casting aside, I expected Aronofsky to bring the same attention to detail he brought to the world of wrestling to the world of ballet, and he absolutely delivered. He shows us that ballet is incredibly demanding and even more than a little dangerous. From a more technical standpoint, the score (mostly a warped adaption of the music from “Swan Lake”) was incredible. It helped set the stage and didn’t require you having seen the original show to appreciate it. I also thought the way his and cinematographer Matthew Libatique’s camera spun around his dancers was thrilling, while his jittery, handheld work for other sequences helped put us in Nina’s paranoid state of mind.

Obviously, I’m a big fan of Aronofsky’s, but the man isn’t without faults.

A lot of the visual metaphors he uses in the movie are a little obvious and heavy-handed. (Nina has an almost exclusively white wardrobe, while Lily pretty much only wears black and has two black wings tattooed on her back.)

On top of that, even though Nina’s freaky visions are very effective for the occasional jolt, I’m not entirely sure a lot of the “what is real?” aspects of the script by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin would hold up under close examination. That being said, I DID think they had some interesting things to say about the pursuit/perils of artistic perfection.

Still, the fact that the movie encourages you to go back and THINK about what you just saw is encouraging.

More importantly, “Black Swan” is an exciting, impressive movie featuring the best performance I’ve seen all year.

Black Swan…A-

Love & Other Drugs Review

“Love & Other Drugs” has pretty much been billed as “The Movie in Which Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal Get Naked (That Isn’t “Brokeback Mountain.”)

Don’t believe me? Look at the poster.

The good news is that, by that standard, it ABSOLUTELY delivers. In fact, in the movie’s first hour, Hathaway is either naked or topless literally half of the time she’s on screen. (I remember making a mental note about how “Love & Other Drugs” was on its way to being the best movie of the year.)

The not-so-good news: director Edward Zwick tried to make about three different movies and didn’t always succeed.

“Love & Other Drugs” – based on the book “Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman” by Jamie Reidy – stars Gyllenhaal as Jamie Randall, a charismatic but underachieving young man who finds his calling as a slick pharmaceutical rep. He meets and falls for Maggie Murdock, an alluring free spirit – you can tell she’s a free spirit from her long, flowing curly hair, her bohemian loft, and the fact that she’s an artist – who also happens to have Parkinson’s disease.

The movie is also set in the mid-1990s. Just to make sure you’re aware of this, The Spin Doctors’ “Two Princes” blares over the opening credits, while “Independence Day” and “The X-Files” play on a TV screen. The characters even dance to the Macarena at one point. (Seriously!) Anyway, the reason the 90’s setting is important is because that’s around the time Viagra came on the scene and helped Jamie become a superstar in the pharmaceutical world.

And there’s the rub. “Love & Other Drugs” tries to be both a romantic drama about a flaky guy falling for a girl who is terrified of getting close to anyone AND a period examination/satire of the pharmaceutical boom in the mid-90’s.

The movie certainly has its moments, but doesn’t completely work on either of those fronts. I actually think there’s an interesting satire to be made out of the movie’s pharmaceutical angle (especially how they get doctors like the one played by Hank Azaria to push their product), but the movie never fully goes there because when you have leads with chemistry as good as Gyllenhaal and Hathaway’s, you’d be a fool not to utilize that.

In fact, that chemistry is ultimately what ends up salvaging a lacking romantic plot that careens from realism (you’ll shudder from recognition at some of the arguments) to exhausted movie clichés. (The guy gets in his car to go after the girl he loves, and declares his love in front of a bunch of strangers – I’m surprised she wasn’t going to the airport and that it wasn’t raining.)

Then there’s Josh Gad as Jamie’s loutish brother and as the crass comic relief I’m not exactly sure the movie needed. It’s almost as if Gad – with his masturbation and sex tape shenanigans – is acting in a different, stupider movie.

Still, it all ends up being about the two stars. Gyllenhaal is solid and soulful at the appropriate times, even if he wandered in manic “Tom Cruise-as-Jerry Maguire” territory every once in a while. Hathaway is also impressive, and the sunniness the actress naturally radiates helped balance out the character’s often downbeat tendencies.

Even though “Love & Other Drugs” ultimately winds up coming up a bit short, the movie is elevated by its two ridiculously charismatic – and sexy – stars.

Love & Other Drugs…B-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I Review

By definition, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” is meant to leave you hanging. (Part II doesn’t get here until 2011.)

Fortunately, the first part in the final chapter of the Potter saga manages to be a wholly satisfying experience on its own.

“Deathly Hallows”, like the previous two installments of the franchise, is directed by David Yates. Yates has probably been the director who has most deviated from the source material (partly out of necessity, since the books were so massive by that time) to the delight of some, and the chagrin of most.

I always say that a movie should stand on its own — meaning you shouldn’t need to have read the book to be able to follow the movie. By that standard, I think Yates has been mostly successful. (I don’t so much mind the changes Yates and his writers have made. I mostly didn’t care for the rushed conclusion of “Half Blood Prince.” To me, THAT move felt more incomplete than “DH: Part I.”)

Anyway, I’m telling you all that to tell you this: Yates has absolutely hit his stride in terms of adapting beloved source material and turning it into an exciting moviemaking experience that stands on its own. (A big part of the reason is the fact that he has two movies to stretch his cinematic legs.)

Daniel Radcliffe once again stars as Harry Potter, who…ok, if you don’t know what this movie series is about by this point, why are you reading this?!
In “Deathly Hallows,” Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) — bypass their final year at Hogwarts to hunt and destroy Lord Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) remaining horcruxes. The horcruxes contain pieces of Voldemort’s soul and are the keys to destroying the Dark Lord.

When I read that “Deathly Hallows” would be split into two movies, I’ll admit I was slightly annoyed. I’m not one of those Potter fans who insist that ever single detail from the book MUST be included in the movies. On top of that, all that I remembered about reading “Deathly Hallows” (besides how awesome of a conclusion it is) was how much damn camping there was. I figured if there was any book in the series that could be considerably cut down, it was “Deathly Hallows” with its never-ending/downbeat passages with Harry, Hermione and Ron in the woods.

What I didn’t think about was how strong Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have become as actors over the course of seven movies. In “Deathly Hallows” those camping passages (even though they still drag in the movie — it’s unavoidable) are absolutely essential to building each of their characters and serve to personalize and ground their magical journey.

Radcliffe is once again a strong anchor, but I was really impressed by Grint (never better or more adult) and, especially, Watson, who pretty much carries this thing the same way the annoyingly-capable Hermione carries Harry and Ron. She was pretty excellent.

Also excellent are the obscenely talented roster of British actors that play the adult roles. The more I see Fiennes as Voldemort, the more I’m creeped out by him. It’s also absolutely insane how perfect Helene Bonham Carter is as psychotic witch Bellatrix Lestrange. I’m not sure why, but I also thoroughly enjoyed how haggard Jason Isaacs looked as the disgraced snob Lucius Malfoy. Alan Rickman only has a brief scene as the treacherous, conflicted Severus Snape, but he plays it perfectly. (The chilling scene that opens the movie sends the message that this isn’t your mother’s Harry Potter.)

As for the newcomers, I wish the great Bill Nighy had gotten a bit more to do as Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour. However, Rhys Ifans fared MUCH better in his brief scene as the haunted Xenophilius Lovegood (Luna’s dad). Add to that the parade of beloved returning characters (the Weasley twins) and villains (Imelda Staunton’s Dolores Umbridge) and you’ve got a jam-packed movie.

Unfortunately, that means not everyone necessarily makes it out alive (yes, I teared up near the end), which is why it’s good to see Yates at least try to give each character their own brief moment to shine.

As for what the “Deathly Hallows” are: well, Yates answers that question ingeniously with a gorgeous animated sequence that served as a fantastic way of dealing with a necessary bit of exposition. (It was more interesting than having the camera on Emma Watson as she talked.)

I’d definitely consider “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow: Part I” more of a paranoid drama than a family movie. I know that’s disconcerting for a lot of people, but as far as I’m concerned, I’ve grown up with these characters and I already kind of consider them family. So to me, “DH: Part I” is the best paranoid family movie of the year.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I…A-