Reviews and More

With a wide range of other big summer releases to choose from, I hadn’t really given Wanted much thought. Based on previews alone, it didn’t look like my kind of film at all. However, I ended up seeing it when I missed the start time of my first choice a few nights ago, and while I was right in thinking that Wanted wouldn’t find its way to my list of favorites, it actually wasn’t that bad.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Wesley Gibson (played by James McAvoy) is a doormat of a guy who meekly accepts all the crap that everyone in his life shovels his way. He simply nods and apologizes whenever overbearing boss Janice (Lorna Scott) screams at him for perceived poor performance, and he also pretends not to know that his best friend Barry (Chris Pratt) is sleeping with his girlfriend Cathy (Kristen Hager).

Wesley’s apathetic approach to life changes one night when he visits a pharmacy to refill his prescription for anxiety meds. That’s when an assassin named Cross (Thomas Kretschmann) takes aim at Wesley’s head. Fortunately, an equally skilled assassin named Fox (Angelina Jolie) pulls Wesley to safety just in time, and takes him on a wild ride through the city in an attempt to evade Cross. The two escape to a textiles factory, which is actually the headquarters of an organization called The Fraternity.

A man named Sloan (Morgan Freeman) explains to Wesley that he’s actually the son of a so-called “super assassin” who possessed incredible abilities that include jumping across city blocks, running amazingly fast, and even controlling the path of a bullet after it’s fired. Sloan further says that Cross murdered Wesley’s father, and that it’s up to Wesley to avenge his father’s death. Fortunately, Wesley acquired all of his father’s skills along with his DNA, so now it’s just a matter of undergoing some intensive training in order to develop these skills.

The rest of the film then details Wesley’s complete transformation from apathetic loser to badass assassin as he prepares for his showdown with Cross. Along the way, viewers are treated to numerous action sequences, and even an unexpected (well, at least to those who haven’t read the comics) double cross.

My Reaction: Obviously, Wanted is the kind of movie where suspension of disbelief is necessary right from the beginning. It would therefore be senseless to talk about what actually happens in the action scenes, or about the super assassins’ abilities, or about the magical healing wax, or…. well, you get the picture, right? There’s just a lot of stuff that you’re asked to accept at face value, and really, that’s the only way to enjoy a movie like this.

I’m slowly becoming a fan of James McAvoy, as he’s showing a definite ability to take on a wide variety of roles. I thought he was perfect as the weak loser at the beginning, and by the end, I almost accepted the fact that he could be a smart, savvy, and dangerous assassin.

Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, was incredibly robotic as Fox. It seems as though whenever she’s in an action flick, she plays the exact same character over and over again. I mean, is there a discernible difference between Lara Croft (Tomb Raider), Jane Smith (Mr. & Mrs. Smith), and Fox in Wanted? I don’t think so!

And, I had to laugh out loud when I read that the screenwriter rewrote the script “extensively” to suit the material to Jolie when he learned that she was attached to the project. Was there anything about the Fox character that only Jolie (and not some other actress) could have done? Nope. Maybe the screenwriter deliberately made the character more wooden to match Jolie’s other roles. Who knows, though.

Overall, I thought Wanted was a decent summer movie. I didn’t totally love it, but it was very watchable and was even entertaining in several places. I give it 6.5 stars out of 10.

Daniel Radcliffe is known to most of the movie-going world as the film incarnation of Harry Potter. He’s been playing that character since 2001, and has appeared in five Potter titles to date, with a sixth due out this summer. I’d never seen Radcliffe in anything else, so when I heard that he had a starring role in the 2007 Australian film December Boys, I decided to check it out.

To Radcliffe’s credit, his performance was vastly different than anything he’s done in the Potter films, which shows that he does in fact have some range as an actor. Unfortunately, his presence alone wasn’t able to salvage a film that suffers from a lack of plot and very little character development.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Maps (played by Radcliffe), Misty (Lee Cormie), Sparks (Christian Byers), and Spit (James Fraser) are four orphans who have been at St. Gregory’s Orphanage ever since they can remember. They’re all friends, in part because they share the same birth month and are therefore known as the December Boys.

For their birthdays one year, the head nun at the orphanage decides to send the boys away to the coast on holiday. A man named Bandy (Jack Thompson) and his wife Mrs. McAnsh (Kris McQuade) are benefactors of the church, and have offered to host the boys for an extended period. This is an unheard of treat that the boys are happy to accept.

Once at the McCansh home, the boys start exploring their surroundings. They meet Fearless (Sullivan Stapleton), a motorcycle daredevil at the local fair, and his wife Teresa (Victoria Hill), as well as Lucy (Teresa Palmer), a girl of Maps’ age who is visiting her uncle.

After introducing the characters, the rest of the film then deals with the various experiences the boys have during their month-long holiday. For example, Maps falls for Lucy, and ends up having a short affair with her — something that he ends up remembering for the rest of his life. Misty overhears that Fearless and Teresa are going to adopt one of the boys, so he does everything in his power to make himself the chosen one. And they learn of Mrs. McAnsh’s illness and witness the effect it has on Bandy.

Through all of these adventures, the boys discover important things about themselves and learn that their bond with each other goes well beyond simply being born in December.

My Reaction: I was really looking forward to watching December Boys because it was described as a coming-of-age movie, which is one of my favorite genres. So I was quite disappointed to see that hardly anything happened to justify the film’s classification in this category.

Out of the four boys, only Maps and Misty had any kind of character development at all. Maps did have a typical coming-of-age experience with Lucy in that she was his first (and probably only) love. He had his first sexual experience with her, and was heartbroken when she left. The fact that he kept her button for his whole life and wanted his ashes to be scattered at the cave where all this happened shows that he never quite got over her.

Misty’s character development was quite different. He went from wanting nothing more than to be adopted by loving parents to realizing that the December Boys were his true family, and that he couldn’t bear to part with them. I’m not sure how believable that is in a boy of 10 or 11, but whatever. At least the character had something of an arc, and changed from beginning to end.

The other two boys? Well, they barely did anything in the whole film and might as well not have been there at all. I’m looking at the DVD cover right now, and it’s a mere two hours since I finished this film, but I’ve already forgotten which boy was Sparks and which was Spit. There was no effort at all to distinguish these boys, so I guess it’s not surprising that I still can’t tell them apart.

Another problem I had with the film was the lack of plot movement. Nothing happened here! The Lucy and Maps coupling was quick and awkward, while the Misty adoption storyline wasn’t addressed head on until well after the midway point. Other than that, viewers are forced to suffer through endless scenes of the boys running across the sand and seeing weird visions of nuns or the Virgin Mary.

Overall, I thought December Boys was pretty disappointing. Maybe if something had actually happened in the film, I’d feel differently about it, but as it is, I give it just 4.0 stars out of 10.

I’ve often heard Woody Allen described as an “acquired taste” among film buffs, which I guess means that his “genius” isn’t always readily apparent. I wouldn’t know about that since I’ve only seen one Allen film as an adult — the 2005 crime drama Match Point, a movie that I liked well enough but wasn’t bowled over by. So I wasn’t thinking much of the acquired taste angle when I recently rented Scoop, an oversight that nearly came back to bite me in the rear end.

The main difference between Scoop and Match Point, in my eyes, is the fact that Allen actually appears in Scoop, while he stays behind the camera in Match Point. I quickly learned that I much prefer the latter arrangement!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Sondra Pransky (played by Scarlett Johansson) is an American journalism student who is in London visiting friends. While there, she attends a magic show put on Sid Waterman (Allen), who performs under the stage name The Great Splendini.

After Sondra is chosen from the audience to participate in a particular trick that involves a box known as the Dematerializer, she sees the ghost of a dead journalist named Joe Strombel (Ian McShane). Strombel tells Sondra that he has the scoop of the decade for her: the Tarot card serial killer who’s been on the loose in London is actually Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), the son of an aristocrat.

Sondra is not quite sure how to make out what has happened, so she confides in Sid. Once she convinces him that she’s not actually crazy, the two team up to try to investigate Strombel’s tip. They arrange for Sondra to run into Peter at a private club, and things become even easier when Peter is smitten by Sondra at first sight.

From there, the rest of the film deals with Sondra and Sid’s attempts to learn more about Peter to find out if he could possibly be the Tarot card killer. Along the way, Sondra must try to prevent her growing feelings for Peter from obscuring her purpose as a journalist as she tries to verify Joe Strombel’s claims.

My Reaction: The first thing that pops into my head here is what a terrible actor I think Woody Allen is! I don’t know if that’s a common opinion since I don’t know anything about his work, but wow… he nearly ruined the entire picture for me! His stumbling, bumbling delivery was god-awful and had me gritting my teeth every time he appeared on screen. If this is par for the course for him, you can bet I’ll never watch another film in which he stars. Ugh.

That being said, I feel the opposite about Scarlett Johansson. She may not have the finest acting chops on the block, but she definitely has screen presence and personality, which helps draw me into whatever character she’s portraying. I enjoyed her work here, even though a majority of her scenes were with Allen. At this point, I’d probably see anything Johansson is in (and yes, I’m a straight woman!).

As for the film itself, I found it to be pretty decent. I mean, it wasn’t a hard-hitting mystery or a laugh-out-loud romantic comedy, but it was still entertaining. Sure, there were dumb moments, like when Peter didn’t make sure that Sondra actually drowned before calling the cops bobbies or when he “hid” the key to Betty’s apartment in the same place he kept the Tarot cards (why would he even still have the key? Why not get rid of it?); however, these lapses weren’t enough to diminish my enjoyment of the film as a whole.

Overall, Scoop is definitely watchable — if you can get past Woody Allen being in it. I give it 6.5 stars out of 10.

I was a big Kevin Costner fan during the late 1980s/early 1990s when he was making films like The Untouchables, Bull Durham, and Field of Dreams. I avoided Dances With Wolves like the plague during all the insane Oscar hype that surrounded the movie’s release, but eventually saw it and enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. Costner, with Oscar wins for producing and directing Dances With Wolves, was one of Hollywood’s biggest stars in 1991.

Then his career took a nosedive when he followed up Wolves with box office flops like Wyatt Earp, The Postman, and the much-maligned Waterworld. Though Costner still found steady work after those flops, he never really regained his status as one of Tinsel Town’s most popular leading men.

Though I usually end up liking Costner’s films more often than not, I didn’t feel that way about his 2003 western Open Range. I rented the DVD last weekend, and could barely make it through the bloated 139-minute running time.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Costner stars as Charley Waite, a stereotypically reticent cowboy with a past. He’s been riding for Boss Spearman (played by Robert Duvall) for 10 years, but neither one is the type to spill his guts at the nightly campfire. After all that time together, they don’t even know each other’s real names.

As the film opens, Boss, Charley and their two assistants Mose (Abraham Benrubi) and Button (Diego Luna) are driving their cattle across an open range. They try to steer clear of towns and just stick to their own business, but sometimes they need to go on supply runs. Mose rides into a small town one day to stock up on necessities for the four of them, but doesn’t return when he was supposed to. Boss and Charley investigate the matter, only to discover that Mose got into a bar fight, was badly beaten, and is now spending time in jail.

That doesn’t sound like something Mose would do, so Boss and Charley dig around until they get to the bottom of the matter. It turns out that the town is run by a man named Denton Baxter (Michael Gambon), who doesn’t like the concept of free grazing. That’s his land Boss and Charley are using, and he wants them off. Beating up Mose was just a message.

Boss and Charley aren’t the type of guys to be pushed around that easily, so they ride out to where some of Dexter’s men are camping, ambush them, and scare them away — after figuring out that Dexter’s real plan is to steal Boss and Charley’s cattle, not let them move on. That incident escalates the situation to the point where Dexter sends men in to shoot Mose, Button, and Charley’s dog. Button survives with serious injuries; Mose and the dog must be buried.

From that point forward, the film deals with the way Boss and Charley prepare for what they know will be a showdown with Dexter’s men. Of course, it’s only the two of them, so they’ll be severely outnumbered, but as with most westerns, the good guys come out on top.

My Reaction: Now that I think about it, not a whole heck of a lot actually happened during Open Range, which makes the long running time even more inexplicable. Sure, there was some character development going on here, but that didn’t justify the long stretches of boring scenes.

For instance, I didn’t see the point of the scene where Boss and Charley went into the general store to buy chocolate and cigars. I realize that it gave the filmmakers a chance to show that Charley was falling in love with Sue Barlow (Annette Bening) because of the way he picked out china for her, but still… that was a long-ass scene with very little in terms of payoff.

Also, I thought free range grazing was kind of a ridiculous reason to start that major feud. I mean, this kind of thing probably did happen back then or whatever, but that hardly makes it a suitable topic for a Hollywood movie. The only thing I kept thinking during the film was, “Wait, all these men are dying because of where some cattle are grazing? Really?” The stakes just didn’t seem high enough to me.

The only thing I liked about this movie was the understated love story between Charley and Sue. Usually I abhor these types of subplots because they tend to drag the film down, but in this case the opposite was true. I was more interested in those two characters than what was going on with the Dexter feud and the cattle.

Overall, the abundance of non-eventful scenes in Open Range doomed the film in my eyes. I don’t need constant shoot ‘em up action, but a bit of conflict would be nice. The shootout on Main Street was well done, as was the love story, but not much else was worth watching. I give this movie 5.0 stars out of 10.

I never even heard of the movie Bobby when it was released on Thanksgiving weekend 2006, which is surprising given all the big-name stars attached to the project. In fact, the all-star cast was the only reason I decided to rent this DVD at all, since I figured that a film starring Anthony Hopkins, Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Laurence Fishburne, Harry Belafonte, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Sharon Stone, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Emilio Estevez, Heather Graham, Joshua Jackson, Shia LaBeouf, William H. Macy, Freddy Rodriguez, and Christian Slater would have to be decent.

Well, I quickly learned that even a roomful of powerhouse actors isn’t enough to make a movie great — especially if the screenplay is fundamentally flawed, as I think this one is. What a disappointment!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Robert F. Kennedy was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination when he was gunned down in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, CA on June 5, 1968. His assassination shocked a nation that was still reeling from the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination just two months before, as well as from President John F. Kennedy’s assassination five years earlier.

Instead of focusing on Bobby Kennedy’s politics or personal life, writer/director Emilio Estevez decided to base his film on the lives of a number of random, fictional people who were staying or working at the Ambassador Hotel on that fateful day. Interspersed with scenes of these people going about their regular daily routines, viewers also get newsreel footage of a few Bobby Kennedy speeches and interviews.

The film then culminates with RFK’s assassination, and ends without reflecting on the impact the event had for any of the people viewers had just spent two hours getting to know.

My Reaction: Bobby was one of the most disappointing films I’ve ever sat through! Going into my viewing, I had no idea what angle Estevez would be telling the story from, so I just had to scratch my head in puzzlement when I realized he was introducing all of these fictional characters. What was the point? Why bother forcing the audience to get to know these people when none of them played a role in the assassination or the aftermath? To make it worse, Estevez didn’t follow up on any of these lives, so we don’t know how these people changed as a result of the event they witnessed.

About halfway through the film, I started thinking that there had to be a twist somewhere, that Estevez wouldn’t simply meander through the whole thing without a big payoff. But no, nothing ever tied any of the characters together in ways that weren’t evident from the beginning. As a result, the most interesting part of Bobby was the archive footage of the real RFK talking. I probably would have been better off watching an A&E biography instead.

Overall, Bobby turned out to be an overlong, rambling, disjointed film that wasted the considerable talent of all the actors involved. It wasn’t powerful, moving, or thought-provoking; just boring and tiresome. I give it 4.0 stars out of 10.

It’s hard to gauge how bad a movie will be before actually seeing it. I find that I often love films that professional critics hate, while despising films that they praise to the heavens (um, No Country for Old Men, anyone?). But there was one very telling sign that Annapolis, a 2006 film about the Naval Academy, was going to be a bust: the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense refused to support the production or give the filmmakers access to the campus.

In wartime. When recruitments and sign-ups are at an all-time low. When a rousing film about the Academy could spark interest the way Top Gun was said to do so back in the mid-1980s.

As soon as I read that the Navy distanced themselves from Annapolis, I knew I was going to be in for a looong couple of hours in front of my TV — and I was right.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): James Franco stars as Jake Huard, a working-class young man whose life has been spent gazing across the Severn River at the U.S. Naval Academy while welding together their ships and dreaming of one day being accepted as a student at that elite institution. Indeed, we soon learn that Jake promised his (now dead) mother that he would one day attend The Academy, so that’s clearly where his drive and motivation come from.

Sure enough, Jake receives his acceptance letter (after having been wait-listed) and gets ready to drop everything and attend school. His best friend AJ (played by Jim Parrack) supports him fully; his father Bill (Brian Goodman), barely says a word.

As soon as the setting changes to the Academy, the film becomes a blatant ripoff of An Officer and a Gentleman. Just like the Richard Gere character in Officer, Jake has no trouble keeping up with the rigorous physical tests that the Plebes must go through, and just like the earlier film, Jake even helps talk one of his weaker friends over a wall on the obstacle course. Just like the James Gossett, Jr. character in Officer, Tyrese Gibson’s character here, Cole, serves as the hard-ass commanding officer who loves to make life miserable for the cadets. And just like in the earlier film, these two main characters come to blows (in and out of the ring) before reaching a mutual understanding for and respect of each other.

My Reaction: Well, I can’t really say I was disappointed in Annapolis because I knew going in that it was going to be a terrible film. I guess the only thing I’m surprised about was the fact that there wasn’t a single fresh, original scene in the entire movie. It was utterly predictable from beginning to end, and didn’t offer anything worthwhile to me as a viewer.

Besides the obvious Officer and a Gentleman ripoffs that I mentioned above, there were several other things I didn’t like about Annapolis. For one, the whole boxing angle was a mystery to me. I’d never heard of the big tournament that was featured in the movie, and since its importance wasn’t explained, I simply couldn’t get excited about it.

Plus, we never got an idea of how Jake got into boxing in the first place, so that was another mystery. There was a boxing scene at the beginning of the movie and then no other mention of it until the sparring scene with Cole, but suddenly it was a big deal? Meh.

Also, I didn’t like the way this film implied that even at the Naval Academy, athletes get special treatment. Sure, that’s probably the norm at Ohio State, Florida, and USC, but the Naval Academy? I don’t think so! Yet that’s what this movie would have viewers believe. After all, Huard assaulted his commanding officer and was given probation and 95 demerits. Big deal; at least he was allowed to stay, right? Meanwhile, Twins failed the obstacle course test by a mere four seconds and was kicked out of the Academy? Whatever.

Overall, I felt that Annapolis was very deserving of all the bad reviews and ratings it has received. It’s not interesting or even entertaining, so I give it 3.5 stars out of 10 and recommend that you stay far away — just like the Navy did.

I’m not much of a fan of movies based on comic book series since I don’t read comics at all and don’t know the backstories of any of the characters. But since I had such a good time at Iron Man a couple months ago, I decided to give The Incredible Hulk a try. After all, the film has received generally good reviews, and stars Edward Norton, an actor who usually comes through with a great performance.

As it turned out, I did enjoy The Incredible Hulk, but not nearly on the same level as Iron Man. I guess you can’t win them all!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): In a brief series of flashbacks, viewers are shown a bit of Dr. Bruce Banner’s (played by Edward Norton) history. We see that he was involved in an experimental project of some sort for the Army, that things went terrible wrong one day, and that he was accidentally exposed to high levels of gamma radiation. This exposure did something funky to his body, causing him to turn into a huge green monster (the Hulk) whenever he gets angry.

Banner is now on the run from the Army and General Ross (William Hurt), who want to continue using his body for experiments as they try to create the ultimate super soldier. As the film opens, Banner is hiding out in Brazil, where he works at a bottling factory and takes breathing lessons to help control his anger and prevent the Hulk from emerging. He’s also communicating with a “Mr. Blue” to try to work on a cure for his condition.

A freak accident reveals Banner’s location to General Ross, who then sends some troops to bring the fugitive in. During the chase, Banner turns into the Hulk and is able to evade Ross’s team, which includes mercenary Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), man who becomes envious of the Hulk’s powers. Banner then returns to the United States, looks up his ex-girlfriend Betty (Liv Tyler), and tries to meet with Mr. Blue in person to do more work on the cure.

This is the basic setup, and the rest of the film follows these storylines through to their ends. Along the way, we see Gen. Ross come close to getting Banner a couple more times, we see Banner turning into the Hulk a couple more times, and we see Blonsky turn into a rampaging creature called The Abomination after forcing Mr. Blue to inject him with Banner’s blood. Oh, and of course there’s a destructive battle between the two creatures at the very end — with the Hulk emerging as victor.

My Reaction: I thought The Incredible Hulk was a decent film, but as I said above, it doesn’t hold a candle to Iron Man. I liked Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, and thought he was convincing as the suffering scientist who just wants to be normal again. If there are going to be more Hulk movies in the future, I wouldn’t mind seeing Norton reprise the role.

Another thing I liked about this film was its pace. It clipped along at a good speed, and there weren’t too many detours to slow down the action. Sure, I could have done without a few of the Bruce-Betty scenes, but at least they didn’t completely derail the rest of the movie.

On the negative side, I thought the action sequences were a bit repetitive. The Army chases Banner, he gets angry, he turns into Hulk, he scares everyone away, etc. The filmmakers didn’t veer from this formula until the very end when Hulk faced off against The Abomination, by which point I was kind of tired of the CGI anyway.

Speaking of CGI, the Hulk in this film looked a lot better than the one in the 2003 Ang Lee version. It was still pretty cheesy and made me want to laugh whenever I saw it, but definitely a lot better than the last movie.

Overall, The Incredible Hulk was a solid action flick that’s perfect for summer viewing. It doesn’t demand too much in the way of brain cells in order to keep up with the story, and the finished product is more often entertaining than not. I give it 7.0 stars out of 10.

Just judging from the official trailers and the short description on the back of the Things We Lost in the Fire DVD case, this didn’t seem to be a movie I’d ordinarily be interested in. It’s not an action film, but instead deals more with character growth and development as two people come to grips with the loss of a loved one. While I occasionally do watch movies of this type, I usually find them insufferably boring to sit through.

But Things We Lost in the Fire got such good reviews from critics and viewers that I decided to go against my better judgment and rent it. You’d think that after the hundreds and hundreds of films I’ve watched, I’d have learned by now to trust my instincts, but clearly that’s not the case at all. I found that out the hard way — yet again — as I ended up being just as bored by this film as I feared.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Brian (played by David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a terrific marriage and a wonderful home life. They’ve been together for 11 years, have a 10-year-old daughter named Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) and a six-year-old son named Dory (Micah Berry), and really couldn’t be happier. Indeed, the only bone of contention in Brian and Audrey’s marriage is his continued friendship with Jerry Sunborne (Benicio Del Toro), a down in the dumps heroin addict that Brian has known since childhood.

Audrey’s life changes forever one night when police officers show up at her front door to tell her that Brian has been shot and killed after trying to intervene in a domestic dispute that spilled out into the street. Audrey and the kids are obviously devastated by the news, but somehow must find a way to go on.

Audrey makes sure that Jerry gets invited to the funeral, probably because she knows in her heart that Brian would have wanted it that way. She then takes things a step further by inviting Jerry to move into as spare room off the garage, telling him he can turn his life around if he gets a fresh start like this.

Jerry agrees, and the rest of the film then deals with the way he and Audrey help each other come to terms with Brian’s death. They don’t do this by having long talks about Brian or by starting up a sexual relationship with each other; instead, they each seem to draw strength simply by having the other person around. Along the way, they deal with other issues as well, including stuff with the kids, a relapse on Jerry’s part, and Audrey’s intense loneliness.

My Reaction: As I said above, I found Things We Lost in the Fire to be incredibly boring for the most part. I think part of the problem was that I spent a lot of time just hoping that Jerry and Audrey wouldn’t hook up. That would have destroyed the movie completely, so it’s good that the screenwriter decided not to go down that road.

Even so, there were still several uncomfortable scenes when it looked like a hookup was imminent — like when Audrey begged Jerry to come to bed with her just so she could feel someone by her and get some sleep. The whole tugging the ear thing was creepy (and a little gross), which took me right out of the movie.

There wasn’t much of a plot beyond the basic premise of two people trying to move on. I could see why Audrey would be crushed by the loss of her husband, but Jerry’s reaction to Brian’s death was a bit harder to swallow. Sure, he lost a lifelong friend and all. But would a junkie really have bothered to make such sweeping changes after the funeral? I don’t know, it all seemed rather sudden and convenient that Jerry was so willing to start over with Audrey.

Overall, Things We Lost in the Fire just dragged too much for my tastes. A solid performance by Benicio Del Toro was not enough to save this film for me, so I give it only 4.5 stars out of 10.

I’ve wanted to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull since it initially hit theaters on May 22, but didn’t have a chance to do so until last night. Of course, this gave me plenty of time to read different reviews and take in all the comments (both positive and negative), so I had a pretty good idea of what to expect before I settled into my seat. I basically heard that the storyline was good, but not great, and that the new film, while fun, simply wasn’t on par with previous installments — and that’s precisely how I felt as I walked out of the theater two hours later.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Harrison Ford reprises his role as Indiana Jones, a part-time field archaeologist, part-time college professor who has a propensity for attracting action and adventure. This time around, Indy is tracked down by a greaser (yeah, it’s 1957) named Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf) who says his mother Mary has been kidnapped in Peru. Mutt wants to find her, but all he has is an indecipherable letter written by Professor Harold Oxley (John hurt), who was something of a surrogate father to Mutt. In it, Mutt was told that Indiana Jones could help.

Mutt meets with Indy and further explains that Oxley had found something called a crystal skull before his disappearance. Mutt doesn’t know the significance of the crystal skull, but Indy does. According to legend, the skull holds the key to a city of gold that has been sought after for thousands of years. Most people believe the city was just mythical, but if Oxley actually did find a crystal skull, then the city could be real.

Indy and Mutt take off for Peru, where they start tracking Oxley’s movements before his disappearance. They first go to a cell in a mental hospital, where they find more clues, and then head off to a graveyard where they find the elongated crystal skull for themselves. Why would Oxley put it back after going through all that trouble to find it? That’s just another part of the mystery that these two will have to try to figure out.

As soon as they exit the graveyard, they’re captured by Soviet soldiers, led by Col. Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who is also after the Crystal Skull. They’re then taken back to the Soviet camp where they finally meet up with Ox and Mutt’s mother, who turns out to be Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) an old flame of Indy’s from his Raiders of the Lost Ark days.

From that point forward, the film deals with Indy, Mutt, Oxley, and Marion’s attempts to escape from the Soviets, make off with the crystal skull, and return the skull to the temple where it belongs. Along the way, there are plenty of long action sequences during which the skull changes possession numerous times.

My Reaction: I was a big fan of the first two Indiana Jones movies, so I really wanted to like this one — more for the sake of nostalgia than anything else. However, I simply couldn’t get into the story all that much. I mean, aliens? In an Indiana Jones flick? That was a major miscalculation on the filmmakers’ part if you ask me. Sure, we’re talking Spielberg and Lucas here, but they’re not infallible, are they?

That wasn’t the only problem I had with the script. Several of the action scenes went on far too long, weren’t very exciting, and didn’t evoke the fun of the first three movies. I was particularly bored during the tedious jeep chase through the jungle in Peru, especially when Mutt got into that sword fight with Spalko. Do I even have to mention how utterly ridiculous it was to see him swinging on vines with stupid CGI monkeys?? The overly long scene with the CGI ants also added to my boredom and didn’t add anything to the film at all.

While I’m talking about things I didn’t like, I have to mention Shia LeBeouf as Mutt. Though the actor didn’t annoy me as much as he usually does, I thought he had far too much screen time here. His character was just so bland and colorless that I started yawning whenever I saw him. Please don’t tell me that LeBeouf will take over the Indiana Jones franchise. There’s no way he could fill Harrison Ford’s shoes.

Despite all of these problems, this film was still watchable — mostly because of Harrison Ford. He didn’t have as many funny lines as he did in the other installments, nor did he seem quite as charming or confident in this one, but he’s still Indiana Jones. Ford definitely has screen presence, and more than made up for having LeBeouf around.

Overall, if you’re in the mood for a popcorn flick that’s light on plot but heavy on action sequences, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is for you. It’s not at all like the previous Indiana Jones movies, though, so don’t take high expectations into the theater with you. I give this movie 6.0 stars out of 10.

I didn’t start watching the Sex and the City television series until its fifth season. A bunch of my friends were hooked on it, but the premise didn’t sound all that appealing to me. Throw in the usual graphic nature of HBO shows, and it sounded like a combination that wasn’t my style. I’m not a prude or anything; I’ve just never understood the fascination with watching other people go at it.

But once I started in on the DVDs, I ended up enjoying the show a lot. Of course, I appreciated the friendship aspect more than anything else, and was truly saddened to say goodbye to Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha in the series finale. So like every other SATC fan out there, I was excited about the prospects of getting a full-length movie continuing the storylines from the TV show. It’s too bad the snappy dialogue and interesting plots that I was used to didn’t make it into the final cut.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The movie picks up with the main characters five years after the point where the TV show left off. Carrie (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) and Big (Chris Noth) have been in a stable relationship the whole time and are now apartment-hunting together. Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) and Steve (David Eigenberg) are trying to make their marriage work despite the fact that Miranda spends so much time at the office. Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Harry (Evan Handler) are raising their adopted daughter Lily (Alexandra and Parker Fong). And Samantha (Kim Cattrall) has moved to L.A. to handle Smith’s (Jason Lewis) career full-time.

The film follows each of these storylines to a certain degree, giving the most emphasis to Carrie and Big, who decide to get married. After months of hype and preparation, Big gets cold feet and leaves Carrie at the altar, which leads to a downward spiral in her personal and professional life. Meanwhile, Steve admits that he cheated on Miranda, who promptly kicks him out and refuses to talk to him or accept his apologies. Samantha starts to feel like something is missing in her relationship with Smith, and Charlotte ends up getting pregnant despite all of her earlier fertility issues.

The action takes place over the course of a year, and by the time the credits roll, each of the problems brought up during Acts I and II are successfully dealt with.

My Reaction: As I said, I liked the Sex and the City television series, but thought this movie was terrible! First of all, there were so many different plotlines going on that it made the film feel extremely disjointed and incoherent. That format might work for a TV show, where the writers have several weeks or months to develop and address these plots, but it simply didn’t work for me in the movie version. Everything felt rushed — and yet the film seemed to drag at the same time. It was weird.

In addition, I didn’t feel the same connection to the characters in the movie version that I did in the HBO series. I don’t know if this was due to the five-year break or because of the way the story was presented, but about halfway through the film, I realized I didn’t care how any of their lives turned out. I mean, what happened to the strong, independent Carrie Bradshaw that I remember from the original series? When did Samantha turn into someone who would wait — naked and covered in sushi, no less — an hour extra for a man who put his work before her?

Overall, I was more disappointed with Sex and the City than I have been for any other movie in a long time. I was truly looking forward to this one, but should have just heeded the bad reviews and mediocre user rating on IMDb.com. I give this film 4.0 stars out of 10.

I didn’t particularly enjoy the last romantic comedy that Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey teamed up for (2003’s How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days), so I was a bit hesitant to rent Fool’s Gold over the weekend. Plus, I took a look at Rotten Tomatoes before heading out to the video store and noticed that the film got absolutely hammered by critics, with 10% freshness rating out of 128 reviews — another sign that Fool’s Gold would be a bad bet.

Nevertheless, I was really in the mood for something light this time around, and didn’t feel like scanning the shelves for a better choice. Of course, I ended up siding with the majority opinion about this movie, thinking it was a total waste of time. Maybe I should institute a personal rule to avoid any film that fails to rate at least, say, a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. That should save me from spending time and money on bombs like Fool’s Gold!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): McConaughey stars as Benjamin “Finn” Finnegan, a mostly inept, excruciatingly unintelligent treasure hunter whose laid back approach to life, work, and marriage has him on the outs with wife Tess (played by Hudson). In fact, Tess is in the process of getting a divorce, which Finn opposes. However, when he’s late to the meeting with the judge and attorneys, she knows she’s making the right decision.

But this time, Finn actually has an excuse for being late. While he was out looking for the elusive “Queen’s Dowry” treasure that supposedly sank off the Florida Keys way back in 1715, he found an important clue to its whereabouts. Unfortunately, a gangster named Bigg Bunny (Kevin Hart) learned of Finn’s discovery and snatched the clue away from Finn, leaving him with nothing but a rough sketch of what he uncovered at the site. Without any proof to the contrary, Tess doubts Finn’s findings and says she’s going to go ahead with the divorce as planned.

Finn, sensing that he has one last chance to find the treasure and win Tess back, decides to ask her current employer, the wealthy Nigel Honeycutt (Donald Sutherland) to finance the search. Tess is firmly against this approach, of course, but Finn rescues Gemma Honeycutt, Nigel’s Paris Hilton-like daughter from the water and secures a face-to-face meeting with the millionaire. When Nigel hears of the possibility of finding the treasure, he agrees to back Finn’s efforts.

Things won’t be easy, however, as Bigg Bunny has hired his own dive team to try to reach the treasure first. The rest of the film then deals with the race to the treasure, as both teams do their best to interfere with each other and find the missing booty. If you’ve ever seen a rom-com before, then you know that Finn and Tess come out on top — and get back together again before the end.

My Reaction: Yep, add me to the long list of people who thought Fool’s Gold was an incredibly lame movie. None of the characters were developed at all, and instead just seemed like ridiculous spoofs of a typical rom-com cast. Plus, the outcome of the plot was pretty much a foregone conclusion, a situation made even worse by the utter lack of tension, anticipation, or surprise in the screenplay.

I’ve never found Matthew McConaughey to be particularly appealing as an actor (his famed abs don’t do a thing for me), so I wasn’t expecting much out of him. But I was completely disappointed by Kate Hudson’s performance here, as she’s usually a lot better in her roles. In Fool’s Gold, however, it was almost as though she was playing down to McConaughey’s level — or perhaps to the screenplay’s level. Either way, it wasn’t fun to watch.

I don’t really have much else to say about the film. The plot was boring and predictable from beginning to end, the actors phoned in their performances, and the comedy — romantic or otherwise — was sorely lacking. I give Fool’s Gold just 3.0 stars out of 10 and recommend that you skip it entirely!

I’m not that big on comedies, preferring instead to watch anything in the action, suspense, or drama genres instead. But I do enjoy Jack Black’s work for the most part, so I usually try to catch his films on DVD if I happen to miss the theater run. That’s exactly what happened with Be Kind Rewind, in which Black co-starred with Mos Def and Danny Glover. I’d actually heard some good reviews about this movie, so I was looking forward to renting it. Unfortunately, I thought the whole thing was a bore.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover) is the owner of a small video store named Be Kind Rewind. He likes to talk about the rich history of the building and the neighborhood to whoever will listen — mostly his lone employee Mike (Mos Def) and Mike’s kooky friend Jerry (Jack Black). That history is one of the reasons Elroy refuses to sell out, even though he only has a few loyal customers left. Time waits for no one, however, so it’s no surprise to learn that the city council is pressuring Elroy to do something with the property. If he can’t come up with $60,000 to rehab it and bring it up to code, the city will sell it to a developer.

When Elroy leaves town to take care of some personal business, he puts Mike in charge of the store. The only instruction Elroy gives is to keep Jerry out of Be Kind Rewind, but of course Mike has trouble following that order. Jerry comes in one day after having been magnetized by a freak accident at a power plant, and ends up erasing all of the tapes in the store. Mike panics, especially since Elroy’s No. 1 customer, Miss Falewicz comes in demanding to rent Ghostbusters for the day. Mike puts her off with an excuse, but she says they better have the tape ready before closing time — or she’ll tell Elroy what’s going on.

Mike tries locating a copy of Ghostbusters on VHS, a task that proves impossible since everyone watches DVDs. So he comes up with an alternative solution: He and Jerry will film their own version of Ghostbusters and pass it on to Miss Falewicz. She’s never seen the movie, so she won’t know the difference. They do this, and it actually works.

Miss Falewicz passes the tape on to her nephew and his friends, and they like the film too, saying that it’s even better than the original since it’s a lot shorter. Soon, Mike and Jerry are fielding requests from a bunch of different customers, so they end up recording their own versions of popular movies like Rush Hour 2, The Lion King, Robocop, and Driving Miss Daisy.

The rest of the film then deals with some unforeseen consequences of Mike and Jerry’s venture, including a copyright infringement lawsuit that ends up bringing the neighborhood together in an overwhelming show of support for Be Kind Rewind.

My Reaction: This movie sucked! I’m sorry; I usually try to voice my opinions about films a bit more elegantly than this, but this was honestly my very first thought. Act I dragged on interminably, and the whole premise was just too far out there to be believed.

Although I’ve never studied film, I’ve watched enough movies and read enough reviews and interviews from professionals to know a few things about the craft. For instance, most people generally agree that the basic premise of the movie ought to be revealed within the first 15 minutes of screen time. That’s about how long a typical viewer will wait to see what the story is about. By that point, we should know who the main characters are and what they’re after. I know this is not a hard-and-fast rule, and I’m certainly not advocating a cookie-cutter approach to screenwriting here. I’m just going with what the standard seems to be.

But with Be Kind Rewind, the premise wasn’t unveiled until the 25-minute mark — which was just far too long for me to sit on my couch wondering what the hell the movie was about. For the first 25 minutes, all we got was Mike and Jerry acting like total goofballs. The scenes were boring and dragged on forever. Plus, at that point, viewers weren’t given any reason to care about the characters or sympathize with their goals (because the goals hadn’t been revealed yet), so it was extremely difficult to stay focused on the film.

Things didn’t get much better after the 25-minute mark either. I’ve read a few comments about how Be Kind Rewind was trying to send a message about the importance of movies and the way art can bring a community together, but frankly, I didn’t care for the presentation of the message.

Overall, I was highly disappointed with Be Kind Rewind and can’t believe the positive reviews it has received. To each his own, I guess. I give the film just 2.5 stars out of 10.

When I first saw the marketing materials for Disney’s Invincible back when it was released in the summer of 2006, I thought that the film seemed eerily similar to another Disney sports flick, The Rookie. After all, both dealt with the journeys of athletes who break into the professional level of their sport at a more advanced age than usual. In The Rookie, Jim Morris was 35 years old when he finally got to pitch in a Major League Baseball game. In Invincible, Vince Papale was 30 when he signed with the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles. Both were the oldest rookies of their respective sports.

So when I finally sat down to watch the Invincible DVD recently, I was expecting it to be an inspiring, heartwarming, against-all-odds sports movie — just like The Rookie was. Unfortunately, something went terribly wrong along the way, and the film fell flat.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): In 1976, times were tough in the city of Philadelphia. Unemployment was rampant, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for people to find jobs in order to make ends meet. This was the world Vince Papale (played by Mark Wahlberg) and his friends inhabited.

Vince, 30 years old at the time, was working as a substitute teacher and a bartender while living with his wife Sharon (Lola Glaudini) in a rundown apartment. When he loses the teaching gig, Sharon bolts, leaving him with nothing but his blue-collar friends — and football. They not only like to watch the hapless Philadelphia Eagles at Veteran’s Stadium, but also play pickup games in empty lots. Although Vince’s talent is hinted at, there’s never any indication that he’s good enough to play in the pros.

But then Vince was presented with the chance of a lifetime, as newly hired Eagles head coach Dick Vermeil (Greg Kinnear) decides to hold open tryouts to give the team a boost. Vince’s friends convince him to give it a shot, so he does. Amazingly, Vermeil notices Vince and decides to invite him to training camp.

The rest of the film then deals with Vince’s struggles to make the team. He has to overcome both hostile teammates and the odds of breaking into the NFL in the first place, as well as some jealousy from a longtime friend.

My Reaction: Although I’m usually a sucker for sports films and stuff based on true stories, I didn’t like Invincible nearly as much as I thought I would. The main reason is the fact that Papale’s character never once showed that he was overcome with excitement or joy at making it to the NFL.

Typically, athletes work their whole lives and make tremendous sacrifices to achieve their dream of playing ball at the professional level. That sort of lifelong struggle makes any success that much sweeter. But Papale, as played by Wahlberg, seemed almost nonchalant about the whole thing. He tried out for the team on a whim and ended up making it. The only extra “sacrifice” he had to make, according to the way the story was filmed, was that he ran a little more each day. That’s it.

Then, when he made the team, there was one brief celebratory scene that was about as subdued as my grandfather’s 85th birthday party. Where was the joy, the disbelief, the sense of accomplishment?

Contrast Papale’s journey with, say, Daniel Reuttiger of Rudy fame. The whole film was about Rudy’s hard work and sacrifices to play football for Notre Dame. And even though he just made it on the field for two plays in a game that was already decided, Rudy became an inspiring hero to thousands. Why? Because of all the heart, soul, and determination he put into making his dream come true.

According to this film, playing football in the NFL was never Papale’s dream, just a decision he made because he had nothing better to do on that Saturday afternoon when the Eagles held open tryouts. As a result, he didn’t have much of a reaction when he made the team — and neither will viewers.

Overall, Invincible is a mediocre sports film that falls well short of being inspiring or even entertaining. I was very disappointed in the final product, and give the movie just 4.5 stars out of 10.

I can’t remember the last time I saw two different movies at theaters in the the same week, but I’m pretty sure it’s been at least 10 years since I’ve done it. Until this week, that is. Things have been unusually slow at work for the past couple of months, so I’ve had a lot more free time than usual. I decided to take advantage of that (plus an unexpected babysitting offer from my mom) and head out to the theater for a matinée showing of Baby Mama yesterday. While the film was mostly predictable and fell back on many clichés, it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Kate Holbrook (played by Tina Fey) is a highly successful woman who has always put her career ahead of her personal life. But recently the promotions and the fat salary aren’t enough for her. Kate’s biological clock is ticking, and she wants a baby more than anything else.

Since she is not even dating anyone, having a baby in the traditional way could take years, so Kate starts to explore other options, such as artificial insemination. Unfortunately, she soon learns that due to a T-shaped uterus, her chances of having a baby on her own are “one in a million”. Disappointed but not ready to give up, Kate decides to check out a company that matches women like her with potential surrogates.

Chaffee Bicknell (Sigourney Weaver), the president of the company, interviews Kate to find out her wants and needs, and then sends a candidate named Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler) her way. Angie is a working-class (read: white trash) woman who is only interested in cashing Kate’s check so that she and her common law husband Carl (Dax Shepard) can move on to their next scheme. Kate and Angie are completely opposite in nearly every way, yet Kate agrees to hire Angie as her surrogate.

After Angie and Carl get into a big argument, Angie moves in with Kate. Once this basic setup is in place, the film goes on cruise control the rest of the way, showing various scenes of Angie and Kate’s clashing personality and lifestyles, as well as the beginnings of what will be a true friendship. The writer throws a couple of curveballs at viewers, but every single resolution is predictable almost as soon as the obstacle is presented.

My Reaction: With the way Baby Mama was written and structured, the film could have very easily been a total disaster from beginning to end. There really wasn’t anything original about the screenplay or the characters at all, and in fact while I was watching the movie, I got that overwhelming been there, done that feeling during a majority of the scenes. However, I think Tina Fey’s general likability helped make Baby Mama at least watchable, and on occasion, even enjoyable.

Perhaps my opinion about the movie is unduly influenced by the fact that I just started watching Fey’s TV series 30 Rock and love her work on that show. Fey essentially plays the same character in Baby Mama — albeit a richer, more competent version — so I felt as though I “knew” Kate already. As a result, I immediately liked her and was rooting for her throughout the film.

Sigourney Weaver’s character and Oscar the doorman were the only other bright spots for me, as everything else was just too unoriginal or annoying to be funny. Amy Poehler especially got on my nerves after only a few minutes on screen. I stopped watching Saturday Night Live about 15 years ago, so I’m not familiar with Poehler’s work on the show and concede that she might be funny in shorter, sketch-length doses. But in a feature film, she was simply grating.

Overall, Baby Mama wasn’t as entertaining or original as I had hoped it would be. Nevertheless, Fey’s presence made it at least watchable (for me), though if I could do it over again, I’d just wait to see the film on DVD. I give this movie 5.5 stars out of 10.

I’ve read all of Jane Austen’s books, and while I liked most of them well enough, I would definitely stop short of calling myself a “fan” of her work. The books just contain far too much romantic pining, scheming, hope, and disappointment for my tastes, though I can see why Austen is a favorite for so many.

Even though I’m not much of a fan, I was still anxious to check out the 2007 film The Jane Austen Book Club. From the previews I saw, the premise seemed interesting, and I was encouraged by the generally positive reception from critics. Unfortunately, the final product wasn’t quite what I expected.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The Jane Austen Book Club is an ensemble film that follows the lives of four women as they go through various rough patches. Jocelyn (played by Maria Bello) is a dog breeder who doesn’t have time for men, but claims that she actually enjoys being alone so isn’t actively looking for someone to share her life with. Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) is a 40-something woman whose husband Daniel (Jimmy Smits) suddenly tells her that he’s been having an affair with someone from his office and that breaking it off is not an option. Allegra (Maggie Grace), Sylvia and Daniel’s daughter, is looking for the right lesbian lover as she tries to decide what she wants to do with her life. And Bernadette (Kathy Baker) is the free-spirit mother figure whose six previous trips down the altar exemplify her roll-with-it attitude towards love and marriage.

One day Bernadette is in Starbucks when she sees another woman having an emotional crisis. This is Prudie (Emily Blunt), whose husband is the kind of guy who would cancel a trip to Paris because of a basketball game. Seeing Prudie’s pain, as well as the problems her other friends are having, Bernadette gets the idea of forming a book club. But this book club will be different from others. Instead of reading new books, they’ll stick to ones they already know — ones by Jane Austen. They’ll need six members, and each member will be responsible for one of Austen’s books each month.

The other women agree, and Jocelyn invites Grigg Harris (Hugh Dancy), a man she met at a convention, to be the sixth member. Grigg agrees because he’s interested in Jocelyn, but she does it in the hopes of setting Sylvia up to help her get over Daniel.

From that point forward, the film goes on to show parallels between the characters’ lives and the lives of Jane Austen’s characters. If you’re not thoroughly familiar with Austen’s works, then most of the symbolism and comparisons will escape you — as they did me!

My Reaction: Going into The Jane Austen Book Club, I didn’t realize that a working knowledge of Austen’s books would be a prerequisite for enjoying the film. But as I just said, I didn’t understand any of the symbolism, nuances, or parallels between the movie characters and Austen’s characters, so I’m sure a significant part of the film’s charm was lost on me.

According to Wikipedia, the connections are as follows: Bernadette is Mrs. Gardiner from Pride and Prejudice; Sylvia is Fanny Price from Mansfield Park; Jocelyn is Emma from Emma; Prudie is Anne Elliot from Persuasion; Grigg is Catherine Morland from Northanger Abbey; and Allegra is Marianne from Sense and Sensibility. And while I do remember the characters from the books, I don’t recall enough details about them for the film parallels to make sense to me.

Beyond that, the film had other problems that prevented me from enjoying it. For example, I didn’t understand all the hostility between Prudie and Allegra. What was that about, and why would Prudie continue coming to the book club when she was obviously the outsider? That situation was uncomfortable and rang false with me. It seems like a minor issue when I’m writing about it now, but while watching the movie, it bugged me to no end.

In addition, I didn’t like how clueless and/or stubborn Jocelyn was. Did she really not see that Grigg was interested in her the whole time, or did she choose to purposely overlook that point because she wanted to set Grigg up with Sylvia? This bothered me greatly, especially since some of their scenes played like those stupid romantic comedies where misunderstandings rule the day simply because the characters refuse to talk to each other.

None of the film’s characters were particularly sympathetic, so I really didn’t care what happened to any of them. The only pairing I was slightly interested in was Jocelyn/Grigg, but the payoff was anticlimactic and boring — just like the rest of the movie.

Overall, I was surprised by how limited of an audience The Jane Austen Book Club will appeal to. It’s not enough simply to have read Austen’s books; apparently, you need to know them backwards and forwards in order to enjoy the show. I give this film 4.5 stars out of 10.

Back when I was in high school and very much interested in politics, Robert Penn Warren’s novel All the King’s Men was a particular favorite of mine. I liked it so much that I continued reading up on former Louisiana governor Huey P. Long and his “Every Man a King” ideal for sharing the wealth in the state over which he reigned in the 1930s.

Though I’d forgotten most of the details of Warren’s book in the 20 years or so since I last read it, I still remembered how engrossing the basic story was to me, so I was looking forward to seeing the 2006 film adaptation starring Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, and Kate Winslet. Unfortunately, I should have realized that since Sean Penn was in this movie, I had very little chance of liking the final product.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The film is told from the story of Jack Burden (played by Law), a journalist from one of the most prominent families in Louisiana. Burden covers the political beat, so he has seen firsthand all of the greed and corruption that defined most politicians of that day. That’s why he sits up and takes notice when Willie Stark (Penn), a traveling salesman with no political ties or experience at all throws his hat into the ring for the gubernatorial election.

What Burden didn’t realize, however, was that Stark was basically set up to be a pawn for Tiny Duffy (James Gandolfini), a shady character who seemed to have his hand in a bunch of questionable business dealings involving contractors and construction bids. Initially, the plan was for the unknown Stark to lose so that Duffy’s real connection could win. But when Stark hears of this plan, he suddenly decides that he’s going to give the race everything he has.

Stark then turns into a virtual demagogue, inciting the populace with his calls reform and more parity between rich and poor. His rhetoric strikes a chord with the poverty stricken regions of the state, and he ends up winning the election. Jack Burden leaves his newspaper post to work for Stark in an undefined capacity.

The rest of the film then deals with all of the programs Stark tries to put into place during his first term as governor. Some of these programs are designed to genuinely help the poor, but some are just there as pork barrel projects that will allow Stark and his cohorts to skim off the top. As Stark’s power and popularity grow, Burden realizes — albeit too late — that Stark was really no different from any of the other politicians who were in power at the time.

My Reaction: I enjoyed many of the scenes that didn’t involve Sean Penn; it’s just too bad his character appeared in a majority of the film. I thought his performance as Willie Stark was way off base, and that ruined most of the movie for me.

The biggest problem I had with Penn’s interpretation of the role was the way he started bellowing, shouting, and waving his arms almost from his very first speech. He came off as pretty out of whack right from the start. I think it would have been much more effective to have a more toned-down Stark at the beginning of the film, and then show the governor slowly transform into that blathering, gesturing wild man as his power grew. As things were, I just couldn’t imagine a raving lunatic like Stark winning the election in the first place.

As in the novel, I thought Jack Burden’s personal story was a bit more interesting than what was going on with Stark, and would have liked to see the Anne Stanton angle portrayed a bit more prominently. Burden’s obsession didn’t come through in the film, so his reaction to the Stark-Stanton affair was far more subdued than it should have been.

On the whole, I thought All the King’s Men was an average adaptation of an extraordinary book. The movie had no time to explore the depth of the main characters, which made it impossible to care what happened to them during the two hours they were on screen. I give this film 5.5 stars out of 10, and recommend that you check out the Robert Penn Warren novel instead.

With school out for the summer, I’m already having to deal with a bored kid looking for something fun and different to do every single day. I decided to kick things off the right way by taking him to a movie of his choice at the theater. Of course, the film had to be family-oriented, so that pretty much left us with Kung Fu Panda and not much else. I wasn’t particularly keen on seeing this movie, but my son was calling the shots, which meant I just had to go along for the ride.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Po (voiced by Jack Black) is a panda who lives in a small Chinese village. He works at his family’s noodle shop, but doesn’t have his heart set on learning how to make the perfect bowl of ramen. Instead, he dreams of being a kung fu fighter like the legendary Furious Five warriors that train and live at a temple near the village. Unfortunately, nobody takes Po’s kung fu dreams very seriously since he’s fat and lazy.

One day, the villagers learn that old Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) will select the Dragon Warrior at a special ceremony. The Dragon Warrior tapped by Oogway will essentially become the Chosen One who can defeat the dangerous Tai Lung (Ian McShane) in battle and restore peace of mind to everyone in the area.

It is expected that one of the Furious Five — Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Viper (Lucy Liu), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), or Crane (David Cross) — will be chosen, as they’ve been specially trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). However, by a series of accidents, Po ends up standing in front of Oogway when the selection is made, meaning that Po is the new Dragon Warrior.

Shifu and the Furious Five are outraged by the development, and decide on the spot to do everything in their power to expose Po as a poser. They give him the cold shoulder, don’t offer him any help, and generally try to ignore them. Po won’t give up, however, so Shifu eventually warms up to him and decides to train him for real.

The rest of the film then deals with Po’s transformation into a real kung fu fighter. Along the way, Po learns important lessons about self-image, self-esteem, and friendship. Oh, and of course he ends up defeating Tai Lung in their hand-to-hand battle as well.

My Reaction: Frankly, I was disappointed by Kung Fu Panda. Since it is currently the No. 1 movie in America, I figured it would be enjoyable by viewers of all ages, but this one was clearly for kids. I guess I’ve been spoiled over the years by filmmakers who develop animated films that appeal to both adults and children, but this particular flick seemed far too one-dimensional for me.

The storyline was fairly basic, so it was easy for kids to understand. That’s a good thing in an animated film, but at the same time, there weren’t any nuggets aimed at the adults. No jokes with double meanings, no pop culture references, nothing of that sort. This made the film pretty boring for me, though my son was enthralled by the characters and the martial arts sequences.

Speaking of the characters, the only two that were developed to any extent were Po and Shifu. I guess that’s to be expected since they were the main characters and the film only ran for 88 minutes, but this was yet another obstacle to enjoying the film. Oh, and if you’re planning on going to see Kung Fu Panda to hear the voice work of Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, or Lucy Liu, don’t bother. Those characters barely have any dialogue at all (I think Jackie Chan probably had fewer than five lines — no joke).

Overall, I thought Kung Fu Panda was a rather mediocre animated film that will appeal far more to children than to adults. I would have been better off bringing my iPod into the theater and listening to tunes instead! As a result of all the problems I mentioned above, I give this film just 5.0 stars out of 10.

I usually don’t watch live-action films aimed at younger audiences, but since I’d heard some good things about Bridge to Terabithia, I decided to give it a try. I know that some people were expecting it to be similar to The Chronicles of Narnia and were disappointed to realize that wasn’t what this film was like at all. However, I was somewhat familiar with the story before going in, so that wasn’t an issue with me.

Bridge to Terabithia is based on an award-winning children’s novel by Katherine Paterson. Though I never read the book when I was growing up, it was a favorite of several close friends, so I actually heard a lot about the plot and remembered that it sounded pretty interesting. Unfortunately, I never got around to reading it back then, so the movie version was my first real encounter with the story.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Jess Aarons (played by Josh Hutcherson) is a lonely pre-teen who seems to attract only negative attention. Whether it’s from his four sisters who complain about his table manners or body odor; from his father who thinks Jess needs to get his head out of the clouds, forget about his fanciful drawings, and focus on his chores; or from the school bullies who consider him an easy target, the insults, reprimands, and rebukes fly at Jess with regularity.

This begins to change when Leslie Burke (AnnaSophia Robb) moves in next door. She’s like Jess in nearly every way, so it’s not surprising that they quickly become friends. One of their favorite things to do together is cross a creek behind their houses and explore the woods back there. They find an abandoned tree house, fix it up a bit, and make it their own, a place they retreat to on a daily basis.

Together, Jess and Leslie imagine the woods as a magical land named Terabithia, where they rule as king and queen. Terabithia is filled with dangers such as giant trolls and marauding monkeys, as well as friendly creatures like sword-wielding dragonflies. Jess and Leslie have many exciting and dangerous adventures in their imaginary world, and their friendship grows deeper by the day.

As the film progresses, Jess and Leslie both face different challenges at home and at school. They find strength and resolve in their friendship, which helps them persevere through the difficult times. But then real tragedy strikes, and one of them is left to overcome the biggest challenge of all.

My Reaction: I have to say that I ended up liking Bridge to Terabithia far more than I thought I would! I think this can mostly be attributed to the performances of the two lead actors, Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb. I’d never seen Hutcherson in anything before, but really liked his take on Josh here. He hit all the right notes, and was neither an insufferably sullen and withdrawn jerk nor an overly pathetic loser. He played Jess as a regular kid who just happens to be picked on for dumb reasons.

I vaguely remember Robb from Because of Winn-Dixie, and looking at my review of that film, I see that I enjoyed her effort in that film as well. She was even better in Bridge to Terabithia, and like Hutcherson, struck just the right note as Leslie. She was neither too flighty nor too grounded, but possessed the perfect mixture of imagination and real-world practicality.

There were weaknesses in the film, particularly with the bad CGI sequences for some of the Terabithia scenes. None of those effects looked good at all, so I would have preferred to see less of that stuff. Also, none of the adult characters were well developed at all, which I guess is to be expected from a movie aimed at kids. Still, it would have helped to know a bit of background about Jess’s father so I could try to figure out why he never gave the kid a break.

On the whole, I thought Bridge to Terabithia was an entertaining and engrossing story, and give it 6.5 stars out of 10. Sure, it will appeal to kids a lot more than to adults, but if you’re in the mood for this kind of story, give it a try!

Although the 2007 Paul Haggis film In the Valley of Elah was generally well received by critics, I didn’t really hear much buzz about it (until Oscar time). I think that probably had to do with the fact that it was released and marketed under the Warner Independent Pictures label, though how a movie that has four major Oscar winners attached to it can be considered “independent” I’ll never know.

At any rate, I decided to rent this film last weekend, mostly because of the star power of the cast. I didn’t know a thing about what the plot entailed, nor did I bother checking before I rented it. I figured the film would be good no matter what the subject, and I was right.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Tommy Lee Jones stars as Hank Deerfield, a Vietnam War veteran who served as an investigator in the Army. Hank’s two sons followed in his footsteps: one has already died in service, and the other is on active duty in Iraq.

One morning, Hank gets a phone call from someone at his son’s base in America. The unit has been back home for a couple of weeks now, but Mike (played by Jonathan Tucker) has gone AWOL. The officer on the phone wants to know if Hank has seen or been in contact with Mike recently.

Hank doesn’t think this sounds like something his son would do, so he tells wife Joan (Susan Sarandon) that he’s going to go to the base to check things out. He takes a look at Mike’s barracks, steals his cell phone, and pays a tech to pull images and videos off the damaged data card. The pictures and videos are just incomplete portraits of what Mike went through in Iraq, but they’re enough to convince Hank that his son was the victim of foul play.

Next, Hank goes to the local police department where he talks to the only female detective on the squad. Det. Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) sympathizes with Hank’s plight, but can’t do anything to help. The Army handles missing persons cases that involve soldiers.

Things change when Mike’s remains are found in a field. He was dismembered and his remains were burned, which makes Army investigators think his murder was drug-related. Hank is not satisfied with that answer, so he decides to make a more thorough investigation on his own. Of course, he can only get so far as a civilian, which is why he has to persuade Det. Sanders to continue helping him.

Sanders agrees, so the rest of the film shows Hank’s relentless pursuit of the truth as he doggedly tries to find out what really happened to Mike.

My Reaction: I know that most people would probably come away from In the Valley of Elah feeling some kind of anti-war sentiment, since that was obviously one of the filmmakers’ intentions. However, I chose to ignore the larger political issues that lurk just beneath the surface of the film and instead just focus on the story that was actually told.

I thought the story was very engrossing, mostly because of the unconventional way in which it was told. It was interesting that viewers got to learn about Mike only from the videos and pictures on his cell phone, both of which painted an increasingly disturbing picture of the man he was becoming due to the situation he was in.

Tommy Lee Jones was brilliant as Hank Deerfield. I loved how calm and collected he appeared to be on the outside, while he was all along being driven by a quiet desperation to find out the real answers about his son. My heart broke for Hank as he watched Mike’s videos. He could see that his son was in trouble, that Mike was losing hold of his humanity while in Iraq, yet Hank could do nothing for his boy. Jones conveyed that helplessness and frustration perfectly, often without even saying a word.

Charlize Theron provided another bright spot in the film. I enjoyed her character’s no-nonsense approach to Hank’s case, and I also liked how Haggis refrained from making Det. Sanders into a total cliché. It would have been very easy to have her walk around with a permanent chip on her shoulder because of the way the male detectives treated her, but instead of doing that, Haggis allowed Sanders to just ignore the crap and continue doing her job.

In the Valley of Elah was not a perfect film by any means. There were a few boring patches here and there, and some of the events weren’t all that believable (would a soldier really be recording video as he and his unit are checking a house to see if there are any armed insurgents left?), but the work as a whole was very good. I give it 7.0 stars out of 10.