The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Rated PG-13 (So many decapitations)

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (novel), Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro (screenplay)
Directed by Peter Jackson
*** 1/2 out of ****

Peter Jackson just dropped the mic.

Boom.

We all know the story of "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again". If you don't, you probably had terrible parents, or didn't have a cool uncle or cousin, or something. Regardless, you missed out on a good chunk of childhood, and you need to stop reading this and go to the library or fire up a Kindle or something and rectify this immediately.

Back? Good.

Bilbo, Gandalf and the crew of Thorin have escaped the Goblin King and Gollum, and are continuing their quest to Mount Erebor, to reclaim Thorin's throne. They meet Elves, and Men, and Beorn, and Smaug. Seriously though, if you don't already know the story, man. Fix that.

It took a LONG time to get "The Hobbit" to the screen. Trying to figure out who owned the film rights to the book took years. Once that was sorted out, a director needed to be found. Jackson was burned out on Middle Earth, having spent a huge amount of time on "The Lord of The Rings". He had other things that he wanted to do, so Sam Raimi was attached for a while. Then he backed out, and del Toro stepped in. He dropped out because it was just taking so damn long to even get to principal shooting, but did help with the adaptation. Sadly, his designs were not used. I would have LOVED to have seen Smaug designed by him.

So, the ball was passed back to Jackson. When he announced that this would be another trilogy, nerds were shocked and confused. I could see two movies (The Shire to The Lonely Mountain, and The Battle of the Five Armies), but three? Not without some insane padding. After "An Unexpected Journey", I still had doubts. I thought the first installment was disappointing. Too many dwarves, too little character development. Not enough big set pieces. Slow going.

I no longer have these doubts.

Is this adaptation faithful? Mostly. Did I object to the changes? Not at all.

"The Hobbit" was, essentially, a children's story. I am sure I will be corrected, but I just don't feel like doing research, so, I'll go with what I think I remember.

During WWI, Tolkien wrote a sentence: "There was a hobbit that lived in a hole in the ground."  He then had to figure out what the hell a hobbit was, and went from there. He hadn't yet invented the languages and cultures of Middle Earth, but he had a rough notion. The characters are little more than sketches, apart from Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin.

But, when he wrote "The Lord of The Rings", Tolkien remarked that "the tale grew with the telling." That's what I see here. Jackson and company have taken a perfectly fine story and slapped on some chrome.

The story here is centered on Thorin (Richard Armitage), Balin (Ken Scott) and Bilbo (Martin Freeman). The characters are far more fleshed-out than in the previous installment. They brought back Legolas (Orlando Bloom), made up a character with Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), and, somehow, nothing felt shoehorned in.

Then, there are the action sequences. Oh, lordy. Wow.

I was actually giggling during the barrel escape, simply because it was such fun to watch. Much like the motorcycle chase in Spielberg's "Tin Tin" movie, it's completely improbable and that's what makes it great. Smaug  (Benedict Cumberbatch) is huge and impressive. The hoard beneath Erebor would make Scrooge McDuck jealous.

Everything here is bigger and better than in the first installment, and, I have a feeling that the final one will be almost entirely one huge action sequence.

Thor: The Dark World

Thor: The Dark World
Rated PG-13 (Destruction, language)
Written by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (screenplay), Don Payne and Robert Rodat (story), Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby (comic and characters)
Directed by Alan Taylor
*** out of ****

Let's get a couple of things out of the way. Chris Hemsworth is a handsome man. I've had a crush on Natalie Portman for years. And, Kat Dennings should give me a call sometime.

I will be the first to admit that I really didn't care to see this movie. Thor was never one of my heroes. I read "Captain America". Not "Iron Man", not "Hulk", not even "Avengers", classic or west coast. I went to this movie, much like I went to the first "Thor", simply because Marvel Studios is doing something that I admire. They are working on what could be the biggest epic series in film history. Much like you don't need to read EVERY comic in the Marvel Universe (which one is an even bigger question), you don't need to watch EVERY movie (or TV series, for that matter) to enjoy the big picture.

I had, not high hopes, but certainly higher expectations for the first "Thor" movie. Why wouldn't I? It was directed by Kenneth Branagh. If anyone should know how to deal with larger-than-life characters, he should.

And, it fell short.

I don't know exactly what went wrong, but the movie felt "small". Maybe it was because we needed to be introduced to the characters. Maybe the story sucked. I don't know.

That's been fixed here, though. Wow.

It's important to remember that, in the Marvel Universe, the Asgardians are not truly gods. They aren't humans, they live far longer than us, but can die. They don't have magic. Instead, they obey one of Clarke's Laws: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And, by Odin, they got that right. So, so right.

The Dark Elves waged war against Asgard millennia ago. They lost, but Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) wants revenge. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been imprisoned by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for being an ass. Thor (Hemsworth) has been putting down revolts across the Realms (different planes of reality, because shut up, that's why). Jane (Portman) and her "team" of scientists have been picking up strange gravimetric readings that indicate something is going to happen. The bad guys show up, things explode, Thor and Loki have to team up, and the rest just writes itself.

This installment just felt so much bigger and better in every way. I fell in love with the design of the worlds. Asgard looked carved and sculpted. Art deco done by Vikings. The Dark Elves had ships and weapons that looked extruded, like lava coming up underwater. Primal. Rough. The worlds looked lived-in, and felt right.

The characters were more developed. Yes, this is the third movie for Thor and Loki, but it seems like the writers are finally figuring out how to write the characters. I'm sure that this is at least partly due to Joss Whedon shepherding the movie universe.

I honestly can't think of anything that I didn't like about this movie. True, it didn't advance the metastory much (as far as I know), but, as a stand-alone movie, it far outshines the first.

Ender's Game

Ender's Game
Rated PG-13 (Violence)
Written and directed by Gavin Hood, based on the book by Orson Scott Card
*** out of ****

They were close. So damn close.

Before I get into the meat of the review, lemme talk about separating the art from the artist. Phil Spector is one of my heroes, and he is spending the rest of his life in prison. He is, and always was, crazy as a shit-house rat. But, the music that he recorded was just amazing. Without Spector, we would have had The Beach Boys, but, would Brian Wilson have had the guts to use the studio as an instrument?

Orson Scott Card is a homophobic asshole, but, that doesn't mean that "Ender's Game" isn't an amazing story. So, while I understand why some people might stay away from the book and the movie, it really is worth your time.

Back to the review.

Andrew "Ender" Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) is a Third. Earth has instituted population controls, limiting parents to two children. But, Ender is special. The International Fleet (a united Earth defense force) is looking for humanity's Last Best Hope, and Ender's older siblings were almost, but not quite, the right child for the job. Valentine was too compassionate, and Peter was a psychopath. Hopefully, Ender will be the balance that the IF needs to stop the next Formic (or Bugger) invasion.
Ender is recruited for Battle School, where Major Anderson (Viola Davis) is the bad cop, and Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) is the worse cop. Ender's training is based not only on tactics and physics, but on how he relates to his platoon mates.

The team behind the movie got most of the core of the story. The events (and, I'm taking as a fan of the book) were mostly intact. But, dammit, it's what was left out that is what made the story truly great.

A good portion of the story is based around the Battle Room, a zero-G arena designed to teach tactics and improve unit cohesion. And, it looks great in the movie. It was just too damn short.

That's my main complaint about the whole thing, really. It runs two hours, but, man, there's so much STORY that was left out.

The casting was spot on. Ford was great as Graff, and Butterfield was perfect as Ender. But, it just just felt like an abridgement, and, when a screenplay is adapted, the good ones don't feel abridged.

There are two defining moments that I was worried would be glossed over, but they weren't. Two other things, however...
SPOILERS AHEAD

Ender was pushed past his limits. What he went through was a crime. At best, it was child abuse, and was presented as such in the book, and hinted at in the movie. He was brutalized physically and mentally. He was hated by squadmates, he killed two children in self-defense. When he started winning Battle Room matches, Graff changed the rules. He and his squads were forced to fight multiple battles a day, without sleep or food. At the end, Ender gave up. He, in essence, said "Fuck you" to Graff. "Fuck you. If you aren't going to play by the rules, neither am I. I'm going to win in spite of you, and then, dammit, I am going to quit."

It wasn't heroism, and, while Ender was a tactical genius, it wasn't just that that enabled him to win. It was Ender giving up, Ender telling authority to screw itself, Ender just wanting to go home, that won.

END SPOILERS

They were just so damn close.

There were great moments. Butterfield is a strong actor, but, because the movie was so short, we weren't able to see Ender develop. Davis was a good counterpoint to Ford, but, again, we aren't able to see their doubts, convictions and justifications. We see Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) but don't see him beat the living hell out of a little boy. (That might not have been due to the length of the movie.)

I first read the book in my early 20's. Others probably read it when they were younger, as it shows up on suggested reading lists in high schools. The movie was stuck in development hell for years (when I read it, Wolfgang Peterson was attached to direct, and I don't think Asa Butterfield had been born).

It was going to be difficult to adapt for anyone, and, this is an admirable effort. If you haven't read the book, the movie is fine. Good effects, decent story, enjoyable all around. If you have read it, you'll know what's missing. They were so damn close.

Gravity

Gravity
Rated PG-13 (Space is scary.)
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Written by Alfonso Cuaron and Jonas Cuaron
**** out of ****

Wow.

Let me elaborate: Holy wow.

If you'll indulge me for a bit, I have a little story to tell you about me.

From my earliest memories, I have always wanted to be an astronaut. There was never any question in my mind that it was what I was going to be when I grew up. Then, one day in third grade, Mr. Saathoff, the janitor, came into the classroom (reading, I believe, with Mrs. Wood), and told us that the space shuttle, Challenger, had exploded. This news completely broke my heart. Completely.

Now that I'm older, I understand that accidents like that happen, but it doesn't lessen the sorrow that I felt when Columbia exploded on re-entry, or that I will feel the next time a spacecraft is lost.

Nor does it diminish my desire to go to space.

Space is huge and dangerous. Your body rebels in zero G, there is next to nothing to protect you from radiation, micrometeorites are zipping around at tens of thousands of miles an hour, and everything up there is amazing.

If you have any fear of drowning, or have problems with vertigo, do NOT go to this movie. If you are prone to motion sickness, you should skip the 3D version.

That being said, damn. Just... Just holy crap.

I'm sure you can put the story together from the trailers. Captain Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) is on his last shuttle mission. Mission Specialist (usually NASA shorthand for "dead weight") Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock and her legs (I'm sorry, but they are amazing legs)) is installing a piece of equipment that she has designed onto the Hubble Space Telescope. The Russians used a missile test to destroy one of their obsolete spy satellites, and the debris causes everything to go wrong.

The film is event, rather than character, driven, but, since there are only two characters in the film, we bond with them. Hard. You know how some people watch horror movies and tell the characters what to do and not do? Yeah. I did that here.

Roger Ebert once described the Indiana Jones movies as "one damn thing after another", and that's what Cuaron has here. In a movie like that, the pacing is critical. The audience needs time to breathe. Not too much, but just enough. Cuaron has this nailed here.

The special effects are stunning. I don't know if any part of the movie was filmed in the Vomit Comet or not, but I doubt it. Here's why :

The cinematic language of the film is established right at the top with a 15 - minute long single (or so cleverly edited to appear so) uninterrupted take. There are no quick shots. There is at least one shot that, when I realized what was going on, made me smile, like the scene in "Contact" that looked like a Steadicam shot of young Ellie running through her house, only to end with her opening the medicine cabinet with a mirrored door, as if the entire shot was an impossible reflection.

I'm a gigantic nerd, so, while watching the astronauts, I was paying attention to the physics of motion. I know that, in a stable orbit of Earth, one circuit takes roughly 90 minutes. I'm going to say that James Cameron has some SERIOUS competition in the scientific accuracy and plausibility department. Again, wow.

I don't think anyone but Clooney could have played the captain. He's the right age to be plausible in the role, and he's handsome and cocksure enough to fit our (my) idea of what an astronaut is. Bullock carries most of the weight of the story, and does it well. She's not an astronaut, but she's not incompetent. She's had training, but she has to think things through.

I saw the 2D version, because of my problems with motion sickness. (I watched "Cloverfield" by looking at the ceiling of the theatre and listening to the dialogue.) However, I think that this might be one to pay the extra money to see in 3D, simply because it would make it that more immersive and scary.

Wow.

Riddick

Riddick
Rated R (violence, gore, brief nudity)
Written and directed by David Twohy
** 1/2 out of ****

If there was such a thing as an impressionistic action character, it would be Richard B. Riddick.

Years ago, I saw "Pitch Black", and thought it was a perfectly fine B-grade sci-fi flick. Solid premise (a planet with multiple suns that had constant light until an eclipse, creatures that hunted with sonar, a bad ass with night vision), decent story (a group of people who depend on a murderer to survive), everything hit the right notes. It was small, self-contained and fun.

Then, "The Chronicles of Riddick" came out, and it tried to be, like, seven things at once. There just wasn't enough room in the movie for all the ideas it had. However, it was designed within an inch of its life. It LOOKED amazing, but, it FELT impressionistic. Characters and situations were sketched out, but never fleshed out. Concepts were introduced, but, it's like we had to (along with the actors) fill in the blanks.

In "Riddick", the series has returned to its roots, as it were. It's small, self-contained, and has an absolutely gleeful amount of gore.

And it's still impressionistic. Riddick (Vin Diesel) is a bad man. When we last saw him, he had become Lord Marshall of the Necrons ("The what of the who?" You ask. And I nod in agreement.), but, apparently, things happened, and he's stuck on this planet. With monsters. And a dog. And he somehow determines that something bad is coming, so, he finds a merc/bounty hunter way station and calls in two ships with a distress beacon. One is only looking for the bounty on Riddick, the other is looking for answers from him. And then violence happens.

The movie looks great. It was obviously filmed on location in Green Screen National Park, with additional scenes filmed in Available For A Few Months Memorial Soundstage, but the design more than makes up for it. Everything looks lived-in and detail was not skimped on. The team loves this world they've created, and it shows. The acting isn't going to win any awards, but that's fine. David Bautista is not a bad actor, and I've had a crush on Katee Sackoff for years, but, we come to this little sticking point:

How does Riddick know what he knows? He seems to be a genius in tactics, he apparently understands alien biology and human behavior, but none of the how or why is presented. I know that there is TONS of backstory that isn't put on screen, but I want to see it. "He's a bad ass" is fine for a character sketch, but if a psychopath all of a sudden displays sympathy or caring, I want to know WHY.

The characters aren't one-dimensional, but, in movies like this, with worlds that aim for space opera epicness, you need more than impressionism.

Elysium

Elysium
Rated R (Violence)
Written and Directed by Neill Blomkamp
*** out of ****

Let's get this out of the way first of all: Conservatives are going to HATE this movie. 

Well, maybe not all of it, but, good chunks of it.

I don't want to get all political in what should ostensibly be an entertaining review of light entertainment, but, dangit, Blomkamp opened up that door, and I'm going through.

I may have said it before, and I'm sure I will say it again, but, science fiction is rarely about the future.  It's more about the present, in a round-about (and sometimes, not-so-round-about) way.  "Farenheit 451" was (regardless of what every single person who ever read it thinks) not about the government censoring literature in the future, but rather television taking the place of books.  "1984" wasn't about a dystopian future with unlimited government control, but rather it was about 1948 London.  "2001: A Space Odyssey" was... well, it was about EVERYTHING.

Let's get another thing out of the way: Space stations are supposed to be round, with a docking bay in the center, with PanAm flights in and out daily, and with a Hilton Hotel and video phones.

"Elysium" got the round space station completely correct.  Perhaps at a lower orbit than the one in "2001", but still, nice and round.  The reason for the Elysium torus was because rich people didn't want to be around poor, stinky, dirty, sick people on Earth.  So, they took their toys and, I don't know, went Galt, I guess.  Conservatives are going to HATE the fact that the super-rich are, at least in the case of Sec. Delacourt (Jodie Foster), bad guys.  Like, boo-hiss bad guys.

Down on Earth, in Los Angeles (which looks a lot like the slums around Johannesburg, South Africa), Max (Matt Damon) is a laborer in a plant that makes robots.  Fully-articulated humanoid robots that provide security, medical care, etc.  Due to an accident at work, he needs to get to Elysium, which has all of the high-tech medical equipment, and they don't share with non-citizens (Boo! Hiss!).  To get a black market ticket, he has to go back to an old partner-in-crime and do One. Last. Job.

This job attracts the attention of Delacourt, who calls in some serious Black Ops (Boo?) named Kruger (Sharlto Copely), who also helps deal with the illegal immigrant problems for the torus (Yay!).

Blomkamp is a fine director.  "District 9" was a really good sci-fi flick that was basically about Apartheid.  "Elysium" is a really good sci-fi flick that is about... lots of things. 

I don't want to say that he spread himself too thin with the themes he was working with.  They are presented, not so much in a political way, but, much like "Black Hawk Down", simply as how things are.  However, much like there is no such thing as a "neutral" documentary, you can see what Blomkamp feels about certain issues.

And, hoo boy, are there issues.  Illegal immigration, Libertarian philosophy, drone strikes, government surveillance,  Christian philosophy, unregulated capitalism, and mercenaries just off of the top of my head.  These things are presented, and, while not thoroughly explored, the shorthand for how he wants you to feel is right there.

Is this the best movie I've seen this summer?  Nope.  That's still "Pacific Rim".  However, the special effects in this movie are by far the best I've seen.  Copely could, someday, give Christoph Waltz a run for his money in the bad guy department.  The story is fine, there are some good moments of tension, and there were some really cool camera tricks in the fight scenes that I hadn't seen done before.

I think, however, that, if there is one lesson that we can all learn from "Elysium", it's that mercenaries are terrible, terrible people.

Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim
Rated PG-13 (for roughly the same reasons as "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom")
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Written by del Toro and Travis Beacham
**** out of ****

I don't see how it's possible to see a better movie (not film) this summer than "Pacific Rim".

Summer movies are supposed to be big, colorful, loud and entertaining, with clear-cut good guys and bad guys.  Mellerdrammers with bigger budgets and similar acting styles.  Like summer stock theatre, these movies should be acts of love on the part of the cast and crew, and the best ones are.  "The Goonies", the first "Iron Man", the original "Star Wars", "Super 8", "The Cabin in The Woods" -- all very entertaining, all very loud and colorful (except "Super 8"), and all of them just dripping with the sheer, unbridled joy that the makers poured into them.  The joy in these movies is contagious.  And this movie, oh, man.  I couldn't stop smiling.

Monsters called "kaiju" (the Japanese term for the giant monsters like Godzilla and Mothra) are invading the planet from beneath the Pacific Ocean.  As you all know from the trailers, to fight monsters, we had to make monsters.  Apparently, the solution to the kaiju invasion was to throw all the world's money at Japan to make giant battlemechs called "Jagers" (the German word for "hunters").  Each Jager is piloted by a pair, because one person doesn't have the brain power to make the mech move.  The pilots are rated by compatibility called "drift" -- how well their minds work together.  A kaiju appears, a Jager team is deployed, the Jager punches the holy hell out of the kaiju, and humanity lives another day.

The plot is pretty bare-bones, but that's OK.  We see glimpses of things like the UN, and are made to understand that, after several years, the Jager program is losing its effectiveness.  Marshall Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) is given six months to make it work, or it will be shut down.  Former Jager pilot Raliegh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) is brought back into service for One. Last. Mission.  We meet the other pilots, the research team of Dr. Newton Geiszler (Charlie Day), who is a wanna-be rock star and Gottlieb (Burn Gorman), who is a weird crippled math dude.  We see bits of the black market for kaiju body parts, and the best of the worst is Hannibal Chau (Ron Goddamn Perlman).  That's pretty much it.  There's very little interpersonal drama between pilots, there are hints at romance (but, for the target audience and for those of us who remember what it was like to be the target audience, girls are kind of neat, but kind of scary at the same time).  

Mostly, it's giant robots punching giant monsters in the most awesome ways you can imagine.

"Pacific Rim" is a big, giant, live-action anime.  It's a less-epic "Robotech", a less David-Lynchian "Neon Genesis Evangelion".  It looks and feels like the best after-school cartoon EVER.  del Toro is an amazing designer, and, wow.  This movie is almost entirely about design.

One of the challenges Bryan Singer had with making a live-action X-Men movie was making the costumes not look stupid on-screen.  It looks like del Toro went the opposite direction.  The Russian Jager pilots have blonde pompadour haircuts.  The Chinese team is played by triplets.  The guy manning the ops station looks like he stepped out of the original "Speed Racer" cartoon.  Hannibal Chou has a switchblade, sunglasses, and the best damn shoes I've ever seen.  Every character is a stereotype, and every character SHOULD be a stereotype.  We don't want to think here.  We want to see giant goddamn robots, and, by god, we do.  

Special effects-wise, I don't see any other contenders winning Oscars over this one.  It's almost flawless.  And, unlike Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies, nothing hurts to look at.  I mentioned that with Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel", I like Snyder's ability to keep the huge action sequences focused on what they should be focused on.  In "Pacific Rim", the objects in the screen are too big to allow for distraction.

Does this movie have toys?  Because I want to get all the Jager models that I can.  8-year-old me loved this movie.  Teenage-anime-watching me was just enthralled by the fact that they actually did it, and it didn't suck.  36-year-old me smiled, and smiled, and smiled.

Monsters University

Monsters University
Rated G (It's about monsters, but, you know, Pixar monsters)
Directed by Dan Scanlon
Written by Robert L. Baird, Dan Scanlon and Daniel Gerson
**1/2 out of ****

This one has me baffled.  I love animation as an art form.  The Fleischer Studios "Popeye" and "Superman" shorts, Henry Selick's peerless stop motion, Aardman Animations, "Cowboy Bebop", "Neon Genesis Evangelion", "Animaniacs", the Looney Tunes, "Batman: The Animated Series", Studio Ghibli, Pixar... There's no reason I can think of to outgrow watching cartoons.  Some cartoons are made for children, some are made for everyone, some are made for adults.

Pixar has been amazing for decades.  They all but invented the animation landscape we have today, and most of the tools that are used to produce that animation.  They specialize in family movies, not movies that parents are forced to sit through with their children, growing stupid and irritated.  Pixar's movies are filled with clever details, stunning technical execution, and, in their best films, emotional manipulation that would make Spielberg jealous.

As Meatloaf said, two out of three ain't bad.  Sadly, two out of three ain't what I want from Pixar.

Maybe the problem was the fact that "Monsters University" was a prequel.  We know how it's gonna end for the most part.  We know that Sullivan (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal) are going to be friends.  We know that they're going to work for Monsters, Inc.  It's tough to build drama when the audience knows what's going to happen at the end.  So, rather than focus on tension, you would need to focus on character and story.

Which is what Scanlon & Co. did here.  Sadly, the audience has seen this before.  The kids with the "Harry Potter" books and movies, the adults with "Revenge of the Nerds", "Police Academy", pretty much any underdog movie you can name.

Now, there were some little twists to the formula, but, I almost think that they were constrained by the G rating.  So much more could have been done in the cabin in the woods, for example.

Pixar all but owned up to the fact that they swiped the character designs for the monsters from Jim Henson.  Art, a purple... arch? thing is a dead ringer for a Muppet from some of the early, anarchistic Jim Henson commercials, when Henson was mostly concerned with blowing up the proto-Kermit or any other Muppet that was nearby.

From a technical standpoint, yes, this is an amazing exercise in animation.  The movie looks stunning, but, it didn't feel stunning.  The characters are much younger here, and, unless I'm completely wrong about monster physiology (which wasn't discussed in the movie, and I'm afraid of what I might find on the internet if I look), they should be more energetic, more spry, more agile.  More like what I think I may have been back in college.  Yet, there are no really memorable setpieces.  Nothing like the Door Rollercoaster in "Monsters, Inc."  The movie feels... smaller.

And there just isn't an emotional hook.  There's no Boo.  Perhaps I just like the idea of a sound engineer following a two-year-old around with a microphone as she wanders and babbles, because that makes me smile.  Maybe I'm just let down because this is the first Pixar movie that I've seen in which the theatre's HVAC system functioned correctly and didn't allow dust to get into my eyes.  Either way, I wasn't tricked into feeling emotions, and I wanted to be.

Now, the opening short, "The Blue Umbrella", on the other hand, that had some good feels.  There's an old Disney short called "Johnny Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet" that tells a similar story, albeit with song and not street objects, but it's just as sweet a love story when told by Pixar.

"Man of Steel"

"Man of Steel"
Rated PG-13 (Pow! Kablam!)
Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan

*** 1/2 out of ****

I'm kind of rusty at this, so, patience, please.

If I were to have a complaint about "Man of Steel", it would be that Zack Snyder is, surprisingly, not a subtle director. More on this later.

It's 2013.  EVERYONE knows Superman's origin. Writers David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan recognize this.  Their depiction of Krypton is, however, much different than Richard Donner's or John Byrne's.  Think Cloud City, but have it be designed by the team that did the second "Riddick" movie.  Speaking of that, when are we as a culture going to move beyond the School of Funny Hats Science-Fiction Costume Design?  Seriously.

OK.  That looks like two complaints.  But that was more of a general critique of the industry as a whole, not of this movie.

Anyway, Krypton is destroyed.  Jor-El (Russel Crowe) saw this coming.  So did General Zod (Michael Shannon).  They disagree over the best way to save their people.  Jor-El is given a bigger role than the one I recall Brando having in Donner's original "Superman".  Zod, of course, is evil.

Duh.

So, Kal-El lands in Kansas (slipping under NORAD surveillance somehow.  One more reason to increase NASA's funding.).  He's raised by Ma and Pa Kent near Smallville.  Kevin Costner was just perfect as Pa Kent.  On the other hand, after seeing her in "Unfaithful", I just can't accept Diane Lane as a small-town farmer's wife.  Damn.

Kal-El is re-christianed (Ha!) Clark, and is raised as a typical small-town kid.  One thing that the crew does very well is show, for all intents and purposes, the worse case of ADD ever as Clark's powers emerge.  Ma is Clark's anchor, and Pa is Clark's... mentor?  Conscience?  They both clearly love their adopted son, and want him to be the best person that he can be, but, to have to raise a being that is, for lack of a better word, a god... That's an unenviable position.

Clark (Henry Cavill) spends his 20s living the life of TV's "The Incredible Hulk", wandering from job to job, moving on when his abilities are revealed, eventually getting a job with a cargo company contracted by the military which has found... A Thing.

Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who has been embedded with platoons before and is already a Pulitzer Prize winner, is dispatched to the Arctic, where The Thing has been found.  Journalism! ensues.  Discoveries are made!  Action setpieces happen!

And they are amazing.

I don't think that there is an American director working right now that is better at constructing action sequences than Zack Snyder.  Michael Bay is, in some circles (not mine), regarded as an avant-garde genius.  Seriously.  "Transformers" hurt by brain to look at.  Far too much geometry for my visiual cortex to process.  Snyder maintains a VERY clear focus.  Buildings are collapsing, debris is flying, stuff is blowing up real good, but there is no waste on the screen.  Nothing is distracting you from a) the action or b) the story.

"The fights?" you may be asking.  I don't know.  I'm not you.  "What about the fights?"

Oh, lordy.

Wow.

You saw "The Avengers".  Don't lie.  The movie made more money than God last year.

Remember Hulk vs. Loki?

Make that last longer than one very short scene.  With equally-matched opponents.  And goddamned A10 Warthogs.  And Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White.

You feel the hits connect.  Force and mass accelerate.  And it is glorious.  It looks, sounds and feels completely RIGHT.  These are gods fighting.

I'm burying this next bit.

I'm so straight it's boring.  I'm pretty damned vanilla.  But, oh my god, Henry Cavill without a shirt.  Oh.  My.  God.

I did not expect to like "Man of Steel" as much as I did.  I new that Snyder was a more-than-competent director, and Nolan has his fingerprints all over this movie.  I want to say that they knocked it out of the park.  I want to say that it ranks up there with "The Dark Knight".

But!

But, Snyder is not subtle.  Nor is Nolan.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Avengers, not Spider-Man/Fantastic Four/X-Men) has made changes to the lore of its heroes.  I'm fine with the changes as long as they make sense.  Kubrick's "The Shining" is VASTLY different from King's novel, but they are both good enough to be judged on their own merits.

You may have heard or read on the internet or seen things on the tv about an... equivalency?  Cross-cultural metaphoric symbol switching?

Superman = Jesus.

WRONG!

Superman =/= Jesus.

Superman = Moses.

Why would a couple of nice Jewish boys like Jerry Seigel and Jerome Schuster make a Jesus character?  That's dumb.  You're dumb for thinking that.

Minority Report ***
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Philip K. Dick (short story); Scott Frank and Jon Cohen (screenplay)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Max von Sydow, Colin Farrell, Tim Blake Nelson and Samantha Morton
Rated PG-13 (violence, language, asking questions)

Science fiction – that is, good science fiction – is never ‘about’ the future. It is about the present. Fiction as a whole does not exist in a vacuum. Sci-fi is even less inside a vacuum. Sci-fi authors are able to ask questions that need to be asked and present ideas that need to be presented. But, because they tend to have things like robots and laser guns and spaceships, they are dismissed by the public. The public is right to do so, for the most part. There is loads and loads of sci-fi that is just terrible. The truly good stuff, however, shouldn’t even be called science fiction. Speculative fiction is a better term.

Now, it’s one thing to write a synopsis of the plot of Minority Report – it’s another thing entirely to tell you what it was ‘about’. I’m gonna try to do my best.

John Anderton (Cruise) is the chief of the Department of Precrime in Washington, DC. The Department of Precrime is charged with arresting murderers before they kill their victims. The murders are seen by three Pre-cogs – people who see, with great detail, murders that happen in the future. Precrime deals only with homicide, simply because the killing of one person by another person is so jarring to the metaphysical world that it is the only crime that can be pre-seen accurately. In the 6 years of Precrime’s trial run, murder in Washington, DC has dropped to zero. Not one murder. Sometimes there are close calls, but the officers have always been able to stop the crime from happening. The pre-murderer is arrested, mentally incapacitated with a device known as a halo, and is imprisoned. All three Pre-cogs, named Agatha (Morton), Dashiell (Matthew Dickman) and Arthur (Michael Dickman) see different things, but, combined, the images are nearly identical. Precrime is poised to go national, but before it does, Ed Witwer (Farrell) has been assigned by the Attorney General to see if there are any flaws in the system. When Anderton is charged with the precrime of murder, it sure looks like there are flaws. Many, many flaws.

I’m gonna talk about the movie itself here, and save the philosophy until the end, because if I don’t, you’ll get bored and go away.

There are no doubts in my mind that Steven Spielberg is one of the best filmmakers in history. Certainly he’s the best one working today. While Stanley Kubrick is still my favorite director of all time, Spielberg is able to appeal to the general public in a way that no other director I can think of is able to. He is in a phase in his career right now that can only lead to even greater things. I’m sure that Schindler’s List will be his magnum opus for many people, but I am more interested in seeing where he’s going. With A.I., he directed a Stanley Kubrick movie, but was able to bring his own sensibilities and ‘trademarks’ to it. It was a fairly dark story, but it still worked. There have always been sinister undercurrents in his work (adults who don’t remember what it’s like to be a child, Nazis, growing up – all things that, really, are scary in their own way), but now he is more able to deal with darker ideas. He has said that there is no way he could make E.T. today. He is no longer that idealistic. Of course, I imagine that talking to Holocaust survivors would tend to make one’s worldview a bit bleak. I really like this phase in his career. He’s not completely embittered, but he’s not going to candycoat anything.

Janusz Kaminski is the only cinematographer that matters. End of story. When he’s working with Spielberg, he is unstoppable.

The casting in this movie was perfect. The performances all outstanding, especially the exchanges between Cruise and Farrell.

I only have two complaints about the movie. The first was with the film itself. Now, I am all for action sequences. Chases, explosions, spaceships, guns, all that stuff is really good. The only problem was, in this movie, the main action sequence didn’t feel right with the rest of the movie. It was almost slapstick, and I thought it detracted from the overall quality of the film. The other complaint was with the person who assembled the reels before showing the movie. The second-to-the-last reel was loaded backwards, which meant that the audience had to wait for almost 30 minutes to see the end of the movie. A film is an experience. The lights go down, the surround sound kicks in, and there you are. Having to sit and wait lessens the overall impact of the experience, whether it’s a simple action movie or a kiddie flick or a drama – you’re drawn out of your suspension of disbelief, and it’s tough to get back into the flow.

Now it’s time for what I thought the movie was actually about. Feel free to imagine a drumroll.

By arresting someone before they commit a crime, you are altering the future. You have arrested someone for a crime that they did not commit. Yes, they were going to commit the crime, but the did not. They did not have the opportunity. You have taken away something that makes them human – free will. They were no longer able to choose to kill or not to kill. What if, at the last second, they did not commit the crime? You have arrested an innocent person. There are no trials, no judges, no juries. The decision of Precrime is final. What if you, or the Pre-cogs, made a mistake? What is the point in saving the life of someone who wasn’t going to be killed? How much faith do you have in the system? How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice to feel safe?

That’s another issue – freedom and privacy. The movie is absolutely filled with advertising. Here are the products I remember: Aquafina, Nokia, Pepsi, Lexus, Kawasaki and American Express. Part of the product placement was simply to reinforce the ‘reality’ of the world. It wasn’t there simply to advertise, it wasn’t parodied, it wasn’t mocked – it was simply there. My favorite movie of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey featured Hilton hotels, AT&T and Pan-Am. Advertising in and of itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. But, the ways that the advertising was presented in Minority Report was a little bit scary. Identification is based on retinal scans in the world of 2054. Say you’re walking through a mall. A scanner identifies you, and a holographic salesperson appears, saying, “Welcome back, Grant. We’re running a special on those polos you like so much,” or “Grant Bennett, wouldn’t you love to take a trip to Hawaii? To be eligible to win, all you have to do is make three more purchases with your MasterCard. You haven’t been using it lately. Why not use it today?” How much privacy do we want? How much do we need? Technology is already in the works to place a call to your cellphone to notify you of sales at stores you walk by. Face-scanning technology has already been used at the Superbowl. Spielberg doesn’t pass judgement on the technology in this movie; he simply presents it as part of the world. I’m not sure I want that world.

It’s wonderful to see a good movie based on the work of Philip K. Dick. Dick was one of the most remarkable sci-fi authors I have ever encountered. Blade Runner is based on his story “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which asked the question “What determines ‘life’? Is artificial life any less valid than ‘real’ life?” Total Recall was based on his short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”, which dealt with the issue of our own memories. What do we remember? Do we actually remember it, or did we make it up? Philip K. Dick was able to write stories using God as a character without it seeming awkward or contrived. He is also the only person who I believe actually had a religious vision in the 20th Century. If you’re curious about him, check Philip K. Dick.com.

I chose to watch Minority Report this week because I am a fan of Spielberg and P.K. Dick. However, I do have a good feeling about the other movie opening at The Hangar this week, Lilo and Stitch. I’m glad to see Disney actually taking some risks in their animated features, instead of just churning out a musical ever 2 years or so.

Windtalkers **
Directed by: John Woo
Written by: John Rice and Joe Batteer
Starring: Nicholas Cage, Adam Beach, Peter Stormare, Roger Willie, Noah Emmerich and Christian Slater
Rated R (It’s a war movie. And it’s directed by John Woo.)

Dear Hollywood,

While it’s admirable that you are broadening your horizons by bringing in talent from overseas, perhaps you should let a director make the movie he or she wants to make, instead of making them make what you think audiences want to see.

Sincerely,
Grant Bennett

I really, really wanted to like Windtalkers. I really, really like John Woo and his films. American film audiences owe him a debt of gratitude. Ever see a character in a movie jump through the air holding 2 .45s in slow motion? John Woo invented that. Ever see a movie with a gunfight in a church? That’s his invention, too. You can bet that Quentin Tarantino has seen all of Woo’s films at least twice. John Woo practically invented a genre of film – the ‘blood opera’. Blood operas are very, very violent, but not gratuitously so. The violence is essential to the story, but the focus is on characters. Not too many characters, however.

Windtalkers, while not based on a true story per se, is based around the US Military’s use of the Navajo language as the basis for a code during World War II. Navajo code was the only unbreakable code in the war. Ben Yahzee (Beach) and Charles Whitehorse (Willie) are two private code talkers. In order to protect the code, each is assigned a Marine as a bodyguard. Yahzee has Sgt. Joe Anders (Cage), and Whitehorse has Sgt. Peter “Ox” Henderson (Slater). The task of the bodyguards is to protect the code, not necessarily the code talker. Themes like racism, family, friendship, duty and honor are addressed, people get shot, Nicholas Cage gets blown up like 7 times, and America wins the war, eventually. This story takes place fairly early in the Pacific campaign.

When I first saw a preview for this movie, I was all kinds of excited. “Woah! A new John Woo movie! And it’s a war movie! How can this not rock?” Well, I’m sad to say that there are several ways in which it failed to rock.

First of all, 2 words: stock footage. And not just any stock footage. I’m talking about stock footage that was clearly taken from video. Secondly, airplanes. I don’t know if the airplanes were CGI or models, but, either way, there were scale problems. Thirdly, John Woo wasn’t allowed to make a John Woo movie.

I’m sure that most of you have seen at least one John Woo movie. He directed Face/Off, Mission: Impossible II, Broken Arrow and his unfortunate American debut, Hard Target. All of these movies were action movies. All of them except Hard Target were very good action movies. But, John Woo is not an action movie director – he is a dramatic director who uses action in his stories. His movies are centered around doomed, tragic relationships, loneliness, misunderstanding, trust and redemption. Thusfar, he hasn’t made a John Woo movie in America, which is unfortunate. Especially since in Windtalkers he really could have made a masterpiece.

I don’t know for a fact that Woo was forced to make changes in his film, but it sure felt and looked like it. There are some scenes that are classic Woo – characters playing music because they like to play music, very strong friendships, characters self-destructing after a tragedy, nearly every John Woo hallmark is present, including camera work. But there are others that seem like the executive producer said, “Hey, ya know that really neat part in Saving Private Ryan? Why don’t you put something like that in. Oh, and, you know how in most of your movies you have like 3 primary characters? Well, if your stuff is good with 3, it’d be even better with, oh, I dunno, 4 primaries and like 10 supporting characters! What? Of course you’ll have time to develop all of the characters fully!”

I can’t say that I absolutely didn’t like this movie. It had some absolutely wonderful moments, but, it usually followed those moments up with cliches. I am just disappointed in Windtalkers, and in Hollywood for thinking that American audiences are too stupid to understand things like ‘emotion’ and ‘high tragedy’. That’s right – Hollywood thinks that American audiences are dumb. But, you and I both know better.

If you’re in the mood for a REAL John Woo movie, I’d suggest renting The Killer or Hard Boiled. They’re in Chinese with English subtitles since they were made in Hong Kong, but, that shouldn’t bother you. If you’re not in the mood for a HK John Woo flick, rent Face/Off, which also has Nicholas Cage.

Bad Company * ½
Directed by: Joel Schumacher
Written by: Gary Goodman and David Himmelstein (story); Jason Richman and Michael Browning (screenplay)
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Chris Rock, and a bunch of character actors
Rated PG-13 (sass, attitude and flava!)

I suppose I should extend my thanks to Messrs. Schumacher and Bruckheimer for giving me so many great ideas. There are so many ways I could start off this review, including (but not limited to):

• This movie deserves a hug, because it tried its best.


• The oldest story in human history must be that of the sassy, street-wise black man being paired up with the straight-laced older white man.


• Instead of writing a review, I’m going to write a transcript of what Mike, Crow and Tom Servo would have said, were they in the audience.

Instead, I’m going to use this opportunity – nay, this gift, to offer you something I’ve wanted to do for quite a while. This is going to be an entry-level film course. If there are any young Spielbergs or Kubricks reading this, please take notes. You won’t be quizzed, but, you will save yourself some humiliation at the box office should you feel compelled to make a movie starring Jimmy “Dyn-O-Mite!” Walker and Patrick “Engage!” Stewart in a buddy cop story that features as its central plot device a rogue state placing a nuclear device at a Star Trek convention and time-travel. Perhaps you’d call it Russell Simmons’ Def Con One or Box Office Poison. Sure, the idea sounds fantastic on paper, but, as you’ll soon learn, things don’t always translate from the page to the screen. So, to help you wind up with something that’s only mostly bad, like Turner and Hooch, instead of something that’s completely bad, like Rising Sun, I am offering these tips.

Now, to make sure that everyone’s on the same page, let me give you an abstract of the story. Jack Hayes (Rock) is a street-wise sassy black man. He plays chess in the park for money, and scalps tickets to things like Knicks games and Broadway shows. Gaylord Oakes (Hopkins) is a CIA spook, but not one of the head spooks. Oakes was working with Michael Turner (Rock) on trying to buy a former-Soviet suitcase nuclear bomb. Turner gets shot and dies, saving the life of Oakes. Guess what – Turner and Hayes are, are you sitting down? LONG LOST TWINS! (Long-lost twins would be the second-oldest story in human history.) Turner was a CIA spook, too. A deep-cover spook. The deal had been secured with a nasty former-Soviet General (some character actor speaking with a bad Russian accent). The CIA now has nine days to see this deal through. So, they ‘convince’ Hayes to help them out by impersonating Turner. There is a love interest, and another love interest, and some guns, and some shooting, and some computer stuff, and Jack Hayes says some sassy stuff, and Gaylord Oakes broods and acts all cold and distant, but you know that he’s just faking it, because, what’s the point of teaming up a sassy black man and a straight-laced white man if they don’t learn how to love?

So, that’s pretty much it. Now, here’s a partial list of things that went wrong in this train wreck.

When I first saw a trailer for this movie, I felt a little part of me die. I saw the name Jerry Bruckheimer. Now, I used to look forward to losing the brain cells that Bruckheimer productions killed off. I didn’t really need them, anyway. He made stupid, dumb summer movies that featured things like explosions and sassy black people in cameo roles, like the sassy black woman who was one of the hostages in The Rock, or the sassy black bus driver in The Rock, or, if a sassy black actor wasn’t available, a sassy homosexual, like the one seen in Con Air. They were formulaic and stupid and exemplified what a ‘Summer Movie’ was all about. Sometimes they featured an Aerosmith song, or a LeAnn Rimes song, but that was after all the explosions and one-liners delivered by Sean Connery or John Cusack. Then, he made Pearl Harbor, which had a preview that, I am not kidding, made an entire audience groan. We don’t want Jerry Bruckheimer involved in anything that involves actual emotional investment on the part of the audience. Not content with producing Pearl Harbor, he went and threw everyone for a loop by producing the Oscar-winning Black Hawk Down, which everyone should see. So, now, whenever I see Bruckheimer’s name attached to anything, I err on the side of caution and assume that it’s going to be garbage.

Just to kill a little bit more of my soul, I saw that Bad Company was directed by Joel Schumacher, the man who killed the Batman franchise. The man who decided that the costumes of Batman and Robin just weren’t complete without nipples. The man who directed DC Cab, which had Mr. T (which was good), and The Barbarian Brothers (which wasn’t good). Joel Schumacher should not be allowed to make movies ever again.

So, what filmmaking lessons can we gain from this movie?

1) Long-lost twin plots are only effective if Jackie Chan is the star of the movie. We like contrived plots in Jackie Chan’s movies. We’re not there for things like ‘story’ and ‘character development’ – we want to see what sort of crazy stunts Jackie is going to do. They do not work in movies that do not involve Jackie Chan. When we don’t have Jackie Chan, we wind up with Maximum Risk starring Jean-Claude Van Damme. The “twin” genre, for the most part, is just not a good idea. Unless you actually like movies with Peter and David Paul, The Barbarian Brothers.

2) If you’re going to cast a popular comedian in a movie, for the love of Pete, don’t have him or her use lines from their stand-up act. Especially lines from their stand-up act from like 10 years ago.

3) If you are looking to make an action/comedy, you should make sure that the comedy parts are the funny parts, not the action parts of the dramatic parts.

4) If you’re going to feature the CIA in your movie, you should either have an agent who is sickened by the amount of red tape that prevents him from solving the case, or a conspiracy based around either a) The Illuminati or b) space aliens. You shouldn’t just portray the entire agency as being incompetent.

5) If your name is Chris Rock, and you are a former member of the “Saturday Night Live” cast, you should get a better agent, or be more selective with your scripts. You should probably pick roles that don’t have you screaming like a woman. Those roles are written with Chris TUCKER in mind.

6) If your name is Anthony Hopkins, and you have been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, you can play pretty much any role you want to play. There’s no need for you to go slumming.

7) If, as a director, you are working for Jerry Bruckheimer, and you are using excellent actors (like John Malkovich and Steve Buscemi in Con Air), you should make sure that you are actually using abilities the actors possess beyond ‘can read lines’ and ‘can not read lines when other characters are speaking’. You should also make sure that any villains can do convincing foreign accents, since they will be required.

8) If you are going to feature things like ‘computers’ or ‘technology’ in your movie, you should use things like ‘operating systems that actually work’. Apple Computers regularly pays lots of money to have MacOS used in movies. MacOS stopped the aliens in Independence Day. Little things like that will save you money in the long run.

9) If you’re going to feature ‘characters’ in your movie, make sure that the audience cares about what happens to them. If you’re going to feature things like ‘tension’ in your movie, make sure that you have met the needs for a ‘character’, and make sure that your ‘plot’ isn’t entirely predictable. If you’re going to feature things like ‘plot’, make sure that you’re not making a movie about long-lost twins. If you are absolutely set on the ‘long-lost twin’ genre, make sure that the twins have prior contact, so that Twin 1 can actually care about and/or be aware of the existence of the Twin 2.

10) If you are a director, and your name is not John Woo, you should not stage gunfights in churches. John Woo is to gunfights in churches what David "Lawrence of Arabia" Lean is to making movies in deserts. It's already been done better than you can do it, so, just don't even try it.

There are lots of things I could go into, but, this is meant to be an entry-level course. If you are looking to see about a nuclear device that terrorists have planted on American soil this week, go and see The Sum of All Fears. If you are in the mood to play the live-version of “Mystery Science Theatre 3000”, then, by all means, go and see Bad Company.

The Sum of All Fears *** ½
Directed by: Phil Alden Robinson
Written by: Tom Clancy (novel), Paul Attanasio and Daniel Pyne (screenplay)
Starring: Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell, Liev Schreiber, Ciaran Hinds
Rated PG-13 (because, in all reality, the MPAA rating system is arbitrary.)

If this movie doesn’t scare the hell out of you, man, you’re cold.

Now, how do I go about writing a synopsis of this one... Jack Ryan (Affleck) works for the CIA as an analyst specializing in Russian politics. He, and the other people in his office (he’s not a department head), watch lots of TV. They keep tabs on how much weight the Soviet President has gained, if he’s drinking again, who that person in the background is, who is having sex with whom, all of which are important details when a) keeping intel up to speed and b) shaping foreign policy. When the Soviet President has a heart attack and dies, Alexander Nemerov (Hinds) is picked to succeed him. Ryan wrote a massive research paper on Nemerov while in grad school, and knows more about him than most of the US government. For this reason, he is called in by CIA Director Bill Cabot (Freeman). Nemerov is something of an enigma – “He talks like a hard-liner, he acts like a hard-liner...” says one of President Fowler (Cromwell)’s Cabinet members. Ryan thinks that it’s all a ploy to get the real hard-liners (read: Communists) off of his back so he can start solving the Chechnya situation. Ryan and Cabot go over to Russia to make sure that the Russians are meeting their end of the START-II treaty and dismantling their nuclear arsenal. Nemerov tells the US to keep away from Chechnya. Ryan notices that 3 Russian nuclear scientists are missing. The essential three that would be needed to construct a nuclear bomb. This is not good. When a chemical attack that basically causes cerebral palsy is launched against the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, things get worse. Oh, and someone who isn’t Russia or America, or even a nation for that matter, has a nuclear bomb. That’s kind of an important detail. Please note that this is as simple a synopsis as I could write.

Many people were upset with the casting of Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan, who was played by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October and Harrison Ford in Patriot Games. Those people are wrong. Yes, it might not be entirely faithful to the storyline of the books, but that doesn’t matter. This movie is the best Jack Ryan movie, hands down. Affleck does a great job. I don’t think anyone is going to complain about Morgan Freeman. I’ve liked James Cromwell ever since he played Farmer Hoggitt in Babe, and he makes a fine President. All of the other actors are good, too. Lots of character (read: “Hey, it’s that guy!”) actors portray President Fowler’s cabinet. By far the coolest character in the movie is Mr. Clark, played by Liev Schreiber. He's one of those CIA agents that doesn't officially exist. They do the things that are generally frowned upon by things like 'other governments' and 'international treaties'. Tom Clancy is not only an author -- he has a media company called Red Storm Entertainment. One of his game series, Rainbow Six, is a tactical simulation (you have a group of soldiers, you command them to, say, rescue a hostage). I think he's clearly missing out on a BIG franchise by not making a Metal Gear-type game with Mr. Clark.

Robinson’s direction was very good. You’ve seen his stuff before – he also directed Field of Dreams and Sneakers, so he knows how to work with a talented cast. The cinematography was also good. Especially after... crap – I’m not going to give that away. Trust me. The pacing was tight, for the most part. If there were any lags, I’ve forgotten them.

After seeing this movie, I’m scared. Don’t get me wrong – I’m gonna sleep just fine tonight. The Sum of All Fears isn’t a huge downer. It’s just the exact emotional opposite of Dr. Strangelove.

Insomnia ***
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Nikolaj Frobenius and Erik Skjoldbjærg (1997 screenplay); Hillary Seitz (Screenplay)
Starring: Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hillary Swank
Rated R (language, violence, brief nudity)

Sometimes, I wish that Robin Williams was still on the cocaine. Perhaps, if he were still messing with the nose candy, we would have been spared things like Patch Adams. This, however, is not one of those times. Robin Williams can act. He isn’t the clown who’s crying on the inside in this movie; he is a character.

Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) and Will Dormer (Pacino) are LAPD homicide detectives that are sent to Nightmute (how cool a name is that?), Alaska to help with a murder case. A 17-year-old girl was beaten to death, and left naked in a garbage dump. Ellie Burr (Swank) is one of the detectives assigned to the case. Ellie studied Dormer’s past cases while she was in the academy, and, early on, acts like an excited kid meeting her hero. Dormer seems put-off at first, but knows that she’s capable. In between looking for clues, Hap and Dormer discuss a situation within the LAPD – Internal Affairs has started looking very, very hard at some of the cases of their particular office within the force. Several of Hap and Dormer’s colleagues have been fingered on charges of evidence tampering, planting evidence, things like that. Part of the reason that the two detectives went north is so that some of the heat will come off of them. (In case you’re new to the cop drama genre, IA is bad. Cops are good.) Clues start pointing to mystery author Walter Finch (Williams), who lives nearby. Finch knows some things about Dormer, however. Not the least of which is that he hasn’t been able to sleep since arriving in Alaska. “At midnight, you’ll be at 6 days. That beats my record,” Finch tells Dormer at one point. The sun doesn’t set, and Dormer can’t adjust. To paraphrase a line from Fight Club, “When you can’t sleep, nothing is real anymore. Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.” I can’t go into any more detail than that without spoiling everything.

As far as the story goes, it worked. I’d still like to see the original, just to see how many changes Hollywood made to it. Many films that come out of Scandanavia are incredibly moody, tense and affecting. While Nolan made some very good choices in the editing, I’d still like to see how it played out originally.

Nolan was a good choice as director. He seems to be fascinated by the displacement of people in time. His previous film, Memento, unfolded backwards. The main character was unable to form new memories, so cause-and-effect had no meaning for him. In Insomnia, Dormer seems to be affected in a similar way, except that instead of not forming memories, he’s not sure of reality. Again, to borrow from Fight Club, “Am I sleeping? Have I slept?”

Al Pacino is the reason to see this movie, hands down. First of all, he’s remembered how to use his inside voice. He hardly yells at all, which he seems to have been doing in every movie he’s done since Dick Tracy. Not once does he say “Hoo-ah!” Secondly, the haggard, detached, yet focused, performance he gives is similar to what he did in Dog Day Afternoon. If you haven’t seen that one, you really need to. Hillary Swank... She looked good, but I don’t think she was used to her full potential. As far as Robin Williams goes, he shows what he can do in one of his phone conversations with Dormer. You’ll know it when you see it. After seeing him here, I’m really looking forward to his performance in One Hour Photo.

This week, if you have kids, take them to see Attack of the Clones. I’d say take them to see Spirit, the new animated feature about the horse, but it just doesn’t look good to me. I watch lots of cartoons, so I think you can trust my judgement there. Avoid Enough. Please. Yes, Jennifer Lopez can act. But, come on – you already know what’s going to happen.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones ***
Directed by: George Lucas
Written by: George Lucas (story and screenplay) and Jonathan Hales (screenplay)
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christiansen, Natalie Portman, Christopher Lee, Ian McDiarmid, Frank Oz, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker
Rated PG (Just like all the other movies in the franchise, for the same reasons)

I’ve been looking forward to writing this review, and dreading it at the same time.

Like most people in my generation, the Star Wars saga is a part of who I am. I think I’m unique among movie critics in that I am as old as the series. I was born in March of 1977; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was released in May of 1977. I can’t even conceptualize a world that was around before we knew Darth Vader, Chewbacca, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia Organa, Yoda, R2-D2 and C-3PO. Star Wars was a massive part of my childhood. Previous generations of boys played Cowboys and Indians. In my kindergarten years, my friend (not a lot of kids in that neighborhood), his sister and I would play Star Wars. He and I would have arguments over who got to be Luke Skywalker and Han Solo; his sister was Princess Leia by default. When you’re that age, you don’t understand just how cool Han Solo is – Luke was who you wanted to be. He could use the Force, and, at least until Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi came out, he apparently got the girl. We would have lightsaber fights with flashlights. We had the toys. We had the Underoos. Growing up, my favorite character was Darth Vader. I can’t explain why. I remember having him on my 5th Birthday cake. I have a ceramic R2-D2 with flashing lights inside. That’s cool and all, but I really wanted a Darth Vader.

Don’t worry – I am going somewhere with this. I’m not just rambling (for once). This current trilogy is telling the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. Ultimately, the story will be about Anakin’s fall and redemption. However, you’re probably more interested in the latest installment, so, here we go!

Attack of the Clones takes place 10 years after The Phantom Menace. Some things have changed in the lives of the characters introduced in Episode I – Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) has become a full-fledged Jedi Master. Anakin Skywalker (Christiansen) is still a padowan learner, 19 years old, and chomping at the bit to be respected as an adult. Padmé Amidala (Portman) is no longer Queen of Naboo; she’s a senator. Jar-Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) is a representative of the Gungans. Palpatine (McDiarmid) is now Supreme Chancellor. There is trouble brewing within the Republic – political infighting and bureaucratic muckity-muck has begun to wear away at the democracy, and many systems are threatening to secede. Amidala is one of the key loyalists. She wants to keep the Republic intact, but still hopes for a diplomatic solution. Other members of the loyalists want to grant Chancellor Palpatine the authority to build up the military in order to keep separatist systems in line. When Amidala is nearly killed in a rocket attack, Obi-Wan and Anakin are assigned to protect her. Obi-Wan begins an investigation into who tried to kill Amidala, while Anakin goes back to Naboo with Amidala. Obi-Wan discovers some very scary stuff. Anakin and Amidala struggle with their feelings for each other. The Jedi Council, led by Mace Windu (Jackson) and Yoda (voice of Oz) start digging deeper into what Obi-Wan has discovered, and we’re introduced to a rebel Jedi – Count Dooku (Lee), or, as he is known to the Sith, Darth Tyranus.

An important thing to remember about Star Wars is that George Lucas ultimately wants to wind up with one movie that’s 12 to 13 hours long. So, to really pass judgement on one episode without seeing the work in its entirety would be foolish. We all have favorite TV shows, but we don’t praise or condemn an entire series on the basis of one episode. I liked Attack of the Clones. Many people won’t.

Let me start by saying this: George Lucas is an amazing storyteller. He is not, however, a great director. He’s very good at telling a story with images, but not so good at working with actors. To quote Harrison Ford, “Dammit, George, you can write this (stuff), but you can’t expect us to say it!” The dialogue is somewhat heavy-handed, but the emotional core is dead on. You’ll understand when you see it.

The acting was average for the most part. However, McGregor’s portrayal of Obi-Wan is fantastic. As an audience, we pretty much know Obi-Wan as either an old man or a ghost. In Episode II, we see more of Obi-Wan, the man, instead of Obi-Wan, the Jedi Master. In A New Hope, he warns Luke that you’ll not find a “greater hive of scum and villainy” than Mos Eisly on Tatooine. In Attack of the Clones, we see that that’s exactly the type of place he likes to be. We also see more of Yoda – he’s in charge of training the children that enter the Jedi Academy. He’s also someone you want to remain on the good side of.

In terms of pacing, well, there’s a LOT of story to tell. Lucas is establishing the ‘universe’ of the original trilogy. This includes LOTS of detail – politics, economics, family ties, character motivations, foreshadowing, etc. When there’s a lot of story to tell, you need to take your time doing it, because there’s loads of detail that the audience is expected to remember. The ‘prequel’ trilogy is much more complicated than the episodes we’ve seen so far.

One other note: Attack of the Clones was filmed digitally. On DVD it is going to be amazing. In digital theatres, it will blow you away. Unfortunately, digital to film transfer isn’t perfect. Some of the early scenes were somewhat grainy. It was disappointing, but not distracting.

Regardless of what any critic says, you’re probably going to see this movie. It’s not disappointing in the least. It might not be what you expect, but it might be your favorite installment. I’m still going to have to say that my favorite episode thusfar is The Empire Strikes Back.

Unfaithful ***
Directed by: Adrian Lyne
Written by: Claude Chabrol (original film, La Femme Infidele), Alvin Sargent and William Broyles, Jr. (Screenplay)
Starring: Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Olivier Martinez and Erik Per Sullivan
Rated R (for rogerring. There’s also language, surprisingly little nudity, adult situations and violence. But, it’s not like kids are gonna want to see this anyway. Heck, Spider-Man is just down the hall. They should see that instead. Or, they could wait until next week for Star Wars Episode II.)

Hmmmm.

(scratches head, mutters something, raises his hand as if to make a point, shakes his head, mutters again, etc.)

Well, if I’ve learned anything from Adrian Lyne’s films, it’s that sex is wrong and will never wind up good for anyone. You might think it’s a lasting treasure, but it’s only a moment’s pleasure, and, they might say that they will, but, odds are, they won’t love you tomorrow. There are reasons that I’m single.

Lousy moral quandaries.

You’ve all seen the previews. You all know that Adrian Lyne directed Fatal Attraction. Unfaithful is not the “guy” version of Fatal Attraction. In terms of mood, it’s more in line with his remake of Lolita.

If you don’t know what it’s all about, here’s a synopsis. Connie (Lane) and Edward (Gere) Sumner are a happily married couple. Edward is the head of a security company – armored trucks and the like, like Brinks, but smaller. Connie is involved in charity work, mostly for her son, Charlie (Per Sullivan)’s school. On a very windy day in New York City, Connie runs into Paul (Martinez), and hurts herself. Paul is charming, handsome, smart, and French. Combine that with the title of the movie, and you already know what’s going to happen. Edward starts to suspect things, and has a private eye follow Connie around. See, Edward values loyalty. In fact, he fires one of his employees, Bill Stone (Chad Lowe), when word reaches him that Bill has been ‘courted’ by several other security firms. “You can’t fire me! I have a family!” protests Bill. “You had a family here,” retorts Edward. Anyway, things get bad, and then they get worse. Police start asking questions, the Sumner’s start asking questions, and then I went “Hmmmm.”

As far as direction went, well, it’s not like Lyne hasn’t been in this territory before. 9 ½ Weeks, Indecent Proposal, Fatal Attraction, Lolita – either he’s really comfortable with sexual relationships, or he has loads of issues regarding sexual relationships. Either way, he’s familiar with this sort of material.

Actingwise – wow. I had forgotten that Richard Gere could act. He’s able to play sad, hurt, angry and indignant at the same time. Diane Lane is able to shift from loving wife to doting mother to sex-starved minx at the drop of a hat. I’m not familiar with Olivier Martinez, but, the ladies won’t mind seeing him with his shirt off. And, Erik Per Sullivan – I just like this kid. He plays Dewey on “Malcolm In The Middle”. While he’s essentially playing the same character here, at the same time, he isn’t. He just strikes me as the sort of kid who makes up dumb songs and talks to animals in his real life, not just when he’s on camera.

The story – also good. Be aware that I’m gonna get pseudo-intellectual right now.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’m a firm believer in fidelity. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t even really know what a groove is, so I don’t fully understand the desire to get it back. But, I do believe that if you are with someone, you are with him or her. Yes, eyes wander. Yes, we all have urges. Just because a handsome French man made you tea is no reason to start having an affair with him, however. I had very little sympathy for Connie. “No. I can’t,” she said repeatedly. “We have to stop,” she would tell Paul. Of course, those protests lasted for about 10 seconds, since he was handsome and French and made her feel naughty. That’s just something I don’t think I’ll ever understand. Hi, I’m happily married, have a loving husband and a great kid. Could you make me feel like a whore, please? And then there’s the issue of Edward. Had I been in that situation, I would have been all “Dear Baby, Welcome to Dumpsville, population: You.” But, we are shown that Edward values loyalty, and not just from others – he places the same burden on himself. I understand why he does what he does, but, it’s almost like the audience is left out of some big part of backstory – why is loyalty such a big issue with Edward? I understand and condone nearly everything he does. But, by the end of the movie, I had started saying, “Hmmmm.” The situation was different than I thought it was. There’s a scene near the end where Edward and Connie are dancing and kissing. There’s nothing romantic about it. They are damaged people, desperate people. They know everything, but they also know that they need each other. It’s not even love anymore. They want it to be love, but that’s just not possible anymore. It’s not addiction, it’s something... else. I don’t have the words to describe it. The final shot of the movie mirrors an earlier scene where Connie first meets Paul. The right thing to do is within reach. But, the right thing to do isn’t what’s going to be done.

This is probably one of the worst movies to go to on a first date I’ve seen in awhile.

Spider-Man ***1/2
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Written by: David Koepp, based on characters created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Willem Dafoe
Rated PG-13 (violence. But, for the love of Pete, it’s a superhero movie!)

From now until May 15th, I want to be Spider-Man. When May 15th hits, I’ll go back to wanting to be a Jedi.

Forget what your calendar says – Summer is here. This is, by my reckoning, the 25th Blockbuster Movie Summer. I consider Star Wars Episode IV to be the first true summer blockbuster. It changed the way Hollywood promotes and produces movies. During the summer, it releases the big special effects movies, the sequels, the franchise pieces, and hopes to cash in big. I have a good feeling about the next few years, movie-wise, anyway. If Spider-Man is any indication, I’m gonna say that I’m right with that feeling.

You might be unfamiliar with Spider-Man. I’m gonna guess that you’re not. I don’t care how cool you are now, at some point you’ve read a comic book. If you’re a geek like me, you still read them. When a comic book is adapted to cinema, it’s either really good (Superman and Batman) or really bad (Superman IV and any Batman movie that didn’t involve Tim Burton). Spider-Man is really good.

You should already know the basic story, but, just in case you don’t, here we go!

Peter Parker (Maguire) is a nerd. He’s in the chess club, he’s the photographer for the school newspaper, and he has little in the way of social skills. He’s been in love with Mary Jane Watson (Dunst) since they were in 4th grade. Peter’s only friend is Harry Osborne (James Franco), who is the son of multi-millionaire industrialist, Norman Osborne (Dafoe). While on a school field trip, Peter is bitten by a genetically-engineered spider. When he gets home to his foster parents, Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) are shocked when he just wants to go to sleep. When Peter awakes the next day, he no longer needs his glasses, and he is packed with muscle. Meanwhile, Norman Osborne’s company, Oscorp, is under pressure to deliver some sort of super-soldier serum (bonus points if you get that reference) to the government. Osborne’s chief researcher thinks that they need to completely start the project over, but Norman doesn’t want to lose the contract, so he tests the enhancer on himself. On the plus side, the chems do their job – Osborne is stronger, faster, and has better reflexes. On the minus side, insanity is one of the side-effects. Dang.

Story-wise, I liked it. Like most of Stan Lee’s creations, Spider-Man is more than just a guy in a costume fighting crime. Peter Parker didn’t ask for his powers, they were forced upon him. He’s not cut out to be a superhero, really. He’s a shy kid, a geek. But, when he puts on his costume, he’s spouting one-liners, full of pizzazz, everything we expect from a superhero. At the same time, he is fully aware of the responsibilities he has, and fears letting anyone get to close to him since they might be hurt. Maguire is perfect for this role. As far as everything else in the movie goes, you’re really asking the wrong guy. I was never a big Spider-Man fan. I was more into Captain America. So, I have no idea if Green Goblin was faithful to the comics or not. I do know that Dafoe looked like he was having a blast hamming it up on-screen. I’m also not that familiar with the Mary Jane Watson character, but I do know that Kirsten Dunst looked REALLY good playing her.

Cinematically, Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct. If you’ve seen his Evil Dead movies, or The Quick and The Dead, you know that he has a very distinctive kinetic style with his cinematography. This is absolutely what needs to happen – webslinging is about as kinetic a shot as you can get. As a bonus, Raimi has demonstrated that he can work with talented actors – just take a look at A Simple Plan. So, we’re not short-changed there at all.

The special effects were outstanding, and ILM had nothing to do with them! However, the special effects supervisor was John Dykstra, who was one of the guys who helped do Star Wars. Not too shabby. The shifts between a completely CGI Spider-Man and Maguire were nearly seamless. No disappointments from what I saw.

So, what was not entirely cool about it?

1) The webs that Spider-Man shot. I’ve always thought that Parker built special ‘web-guns’ that he wore around his wrists. Here, they just shoot out of his arms. While that’s really cool, it’s not ‘canon’, so to speak.

2) They totally forgot to include The Ramones version of ‘Spider-Man’. That song rocks so much that it should be used as much as possible, not just in Spider-Man properties.

Marvel Comics has been on a roll lately. X-Men and the Blade series made loads of money, and more adaptations are on the horizon – a teaser trailer for Hulk, directed by Ang (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) Lee, was featured before Spider-Man, and Ben Affleck is rumored to be on-board for a Daredevil movie. Spider-Man does Stan Lee’s creation justice.

Besides, don’t think that Cingular Wireless can’t make you go and see it.

Life or Something Like It ***
Directed by: Stephen Herek
Written by: John Scott Shepard (story and screenplay), and Dana Stevens (screenplay)
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Edward Burns and Tony Shalhoub
Rated PG-13 (language, I guess.)

I’m not who this movie is aimed at. I think I might have missed the point of the movie since I was stuck wondering how an alternachick who was big into Social Distortion wound up being a reporter with a Type A personality.

Regardless, the movie isn’t terrible by any stretch of the imagination, mostly because of the skill of the three principle actors.

Lanie Kerrigan (Jolie) is a news reporter (mostly puff pieces) for a Seattle TV station. One of the major networks is interested in seeing what she can do on their morning news show, AM USA. To help her gain some cred in the industry, her boss has her do location shoots with Pete (Burns). Lanie doesn’t like Pete, and Pete doesn’t like Lanie. (Yeah, right. To quote Pete’s sound-man, “Why don’t you to get a room already?”) One of the location shoots is about a homeless clairvoyant named Prophet Jack (Shalhoub). Pete knows him because Jack picked some good stocks that Pete made some money on. During the piece, Jack predicts that the Seahawks will beat the Broncos 19 to 13, that it will hail the next morning, and that Lanie will die next Thursday. Lo and behold, the Seahawks win, it hails and... heh, heh, heh.

Honestly, it’s a pretty lightweight chick flick. Yeah, yeah, live every moment like it will be your last, we’ve all heard that plenty of times before. But, I thought the more interesting question that the movie posed was, “How far do you follow your dreams? What sacrifices do you want to make? When is enough enough?” Of course, you know the answer that this story has already, but it’s an interesting question nonetheless.

At first I thought that Life or Something Like It was directed by the same guy who did Hi Fidelity. I was wrong. I should really do better research, but, hey, that’s what The Internet Movie Database is for. Stephen Frears directed Hi Fidelity. Stephen Herek directed Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure and Mr. Holland’s Opus. Not a particularly notable director (i.e. one with an identifiable style like Tim Burton or Steven Spielberg), but not one worthy of hatred (i.e. Joel Schumacher (Batman Forever and Batman and Robin)).

Angelina Jolie is crazy. At least as crazy as her husband, Billy Bob Thorton. But, just like her husband, she can act like nobody’s bidness. She does some incredibly subtle facial work that is just perfect. It doesn’t hurt that she’s very attractive, as well. Ed Burns kept enough of New Yawk to make Pete believable, and he has the right degree of ‘ruggedness’ to woo the ladies in the audience. And Tony Shalhoub is, while not a fantastic character actor, is a good enough actor to play nearly any role. In fact, during my vacation (Yes, there actually WAS a reason I didn’t review The Scorpion King), I had an accidental Shalhoub mini-fest, watching Spy Kids (one of the best family movies made in the past decade) and The Man Who Wasn’t There (an excellent piece of noir by the Coen Brothers that no one saw). In Spy Kids, he played an evil henchman to Alan “Best Character Actor in The Bidness” Cumming’s Floop, and in The Man Who Wasn’t There, he played a high-priced lawyer.

Now, if you’ll look at the beginning of this review, I mentioned something called Social Distortion. What the heck is that? One of the reasons I went to review this movie, for one thing. Social Distortion is an amazing band led by Mike Ness. Their sound is like if a punk band had traveled back in time and recorded albums for Sun Records. They do a superb cover of Johnny Cash’s “Ring of Fire”. One of their songs, “Story of My Life” is featured in a key scene of the movie, and Angelina Jolie wears a SD T-shirt very, very well. That song is the high-point of the soundtrack, at least for people of my demographic. Hence my confusion – bands like Social Distortion aren’t the first choice of the image conscious. You’re not going to be one of the cool kids in high school if you listen to them, and you won’t hear them at parties. Unless you go to some really cool parties. It’s listened to by misfits. And, the movie does indicate that Lanie used to be a misfit, but then something happened. What, exactly, that thing was isn’t explored, and I wish that it were.

If for no other reason than to get more Social Distortion played in a movie.

Changing Lanes *** ½
Directed by: Roger Michell
Written by: Chap Taylor (story and screenplay) and Michael Tolkin (screenplay)
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Affleck, Amanda Peet, Sidney Pollack, Toni Collette and William Hurt
Rated R (violence and philosophy)

This is going to be one strange review.

When I was leaving the theatre, “All You Need Is Love” by The Beatles was playing on the radio, and a stray, soggy, muddy, lonely St. Bernard was wandering around the parking lot. That sums up everything I feel about the movie. Should I have helped the dog? Yes. I swear to you that the dog was looking at me, but didn’t want to beg to come with me. I could have let the dog into my truck, but then what? I don’t have room in my apartment for a St. Bernard. Especially a soggy one. Plus, I can’t have pets anyway. There’s doing what’s right, and there’s doing what’s legal, and they’re not always the same thing. What happens when doing the right thing isn’t possible because of the world you live in? What happens when you try to do the right thing, and everything works against you?

I’m rambling.

Here’s my synopsis. Please note that what you see in the previews doesn’t even come close to showing what the movie is about. Gavin Banek (Affleck) is a lawyer. One of his clients died recently. Before this client died, he signed documents giving control of his trust fund to Gavin’s law firm, rather than the board of trustees that the client had established. Doyle Gipson (Jackson) is a recovering alcoholic going through a custody battle. His wife loves him, but she just can’t be with him anymore. I won’t explain more than that. Gavin and Doyle are both going to the courthouse on the same day. Someone cuts someone else off, resulting in Doyle’s car slamming into a bunch of barrels on FDR in New York. Hey, that’s fine, things happen. Traffic was heavy, they’re both in a hurry, everyone is cool. Gavin offers to give Doyle a blank check for repairs. “No, I wanna do this the right way,” replies Doyle. Gavin doesn’t have time to do it the right way. Of course, neither does Doyle, but, he really thinks that he should. Gavin leaves Doyle stranded on the expressway, but leaves behind a very important file. Gavin needs the file for the hearing he is going to, and Doyle winds up missing his custody hearing. Begin escalation of vengeance... NOW.

Changing Lanes is about America, and about humanity. It’s about living in a world where doing the right thing will land you in jail, but doing the wrong thing will help hundreds of disadvantaged children. It’s about living in a world where blackmailing your boss can keep a family together. It’s about living in a world where the son of a man who made his family’s fortune smuggling booze during prohibition is elected President of the United States. The movie hates that world, and will do everything it can to make you hate it, too. Then, it takes it one step further – it shows you how you can kill that world.

There are no good guys or bad guys in this movie. There are just people doing what they think is necessary to get what they want. They’re not unscrupulous, just desperate. Each person has what the other needs to live his life has he knows it. I’m gonna stop this subject right now, because I will just wind up rambling some more.

I’m gonna skip my usual thoughts on the various aspects of the film (story, acting, etc.), because I really need to wrap my head around some stuff. I will say this, however: I didn’t know that Affleck could act that well.

When you go to see this (and you should), be warned – it moves slowly. It needs to. In order for Ben and Sam’s Very Bad Day to work, you need to be dragged along with it. Ever have one of those bad days that just doesn’t end? The pacing in this matches that mood perfectly. But, trust me, you’ve never had a day as bad as either of these guys.

Panic Room *** ½
Directed by: David Fincher
Written By: David Koepp
Starring: Jodie Foster, Forest Whitaker, Dwight Yoakam, Jared Leto and Kristen Stewart
Rated R (language, violence, implied violence, overt violence, and stuff hitting fans left and right)

It’s about time someone made a good thriller. Don’t Say A Word tried to be a thriller, but failed. Most thrillers today wind up with the protagonist spouting off a clever one-liner and then shooting the bad guy. In fact, a thriller starring Jennifer “J-Lo” Lopez was previewed before Panic Room. When a thriller lists a song in its credits during the preview, especially when the song is off of an upcoming album called “J to the Lo”, you can bet it’s going to be predictable as all get-out. And not in the good way. Panic Room is predictable in the good way.

I saw an interview with Alfred Hitchcock several years ago. To paraphrase what he said: Show the bad guys placing a bomb underneath the dining room table. Then, have the good guys sit at the table and talk about baseball. The audience knows that the bomb is there, but the good guys don’t. While the baseball conversation is happening, the audience is squirming in their seats thinking “Don’t talk about baseball, you idiots! There’s a bomb under the table!” Does the bomb go off? It might, and that’s what makes a thriller work – show something bad that might happen, and then pile surprises on top of that.

The trailers for Panic Room tell you everything you need to know about the plot. Actually, there isn’t much of a plot. It’s a premise. Playwright George Bernard Shaw once said that he never used plots. He had a situation, put characters into the situation, and watched what would happen. That’s what happens here.

Meg Altman (Foster) and her daughter Sarah (Stewart) just moved into a gorgeous house: a mix between a townhouse and a brownstone, or, a brownhouse. The house has all sorts of nifty things, like an elevator (the last resident was very rich and disabled). The movie gets its title from the panic room in the house. It’s explained in the trailers, but, to recap, the panic room is a house within the house. It has its own ventilation system, phone line, plumbing, and electricity. If you shut the massive steel door, no one can get in. Now, the last resident had loads of money and several kids. The inheritance is in dispute, and there are millions of dollars missing. Three people who know more about the panic room than Meg and Sarah break into the house. Junior (Leto), Burnham (Whitaker) and Raoul (Yoakam) are the bad guys – some worse than others. Then, things get messy. And tense.

I like David Fincher. I like him a lot. Se7en is a near-classic. Fight Club is in my DVD collection. I’m not entirely sure what his motives as a director are (the great directors typically explore their psyches on the screen: Spielberg fights Nazis and tries to forgive his father, Lucas relives his childhood, Hitchcock showed his contempt for humanity, Kubrick asked the questions that needed to be asked), but whatever they are, they sure look cool. Fincher started off directing music videos, so he understands pacing and editing – essentials for a thriller.

Now, for a thriller to really work, it has to start off slowly. You need to be introduced to the characters, details need to be shown, and all of these things take time. No detail is unimportant in a thriller. Often, however, the details are shown quickly or are not the center of attention. The first part of a thriller needs to move slowly. We already know that these robbers are going to break into the house, and the mother and daughter will be locked in the panic room. So, from the beginning, the audience is already anxious – when is it going to happen? Then, of course, it does happen. Other things are added into the mix, and we keep saying, OK – now what? How does this wind up? But, it shouldn’t be tense all the time. The audience needs breaks. Throw in a laugh, or a lull in the action. Fincher has this down.

Enough of my lecture series – time to get into the nitty gritty. What did I like?

First off, the story. I don’t care if it was plausible or not – it had me. I didn’t notice any loose-ends or plot-holes. Even apparent plot-holes are addressed. “Why the hell didn’t we do that?” asks Raoul at one point. The thing he’s referring to is obvious, but, given the premise, it’s understandable why the thugs didn’t do it in the first place.

Secondly, the acting. Jodie Foster is no slouch at all. The fact that she spends most of the movie in a leotard doesn’t hurt, either. Forest Whitaker is excellent. He has a very quiet presence on the screen, but he commands attention. Jared Leto – he’s almost a chameleon. I didn’t recognize him at first. Very good character actor. Kristen Stewart – I’ve never seen her before, but her performance is unforced, which is tough to find in a child actor. Dwight Yoakam – wow. This is only the second time I’ve seen him act, but he is very, very good. He was absolutely unrecognizable in Sling Blade, and he is just evil in this role.

What didn’t I like? Hmmm....

This is really odd for me to say, but the special effects. Don’t get me wrong – they were excellent. I thought that Blue Sky (the people who did Ice Age) did it. They did the FX for Fight Club, and similar techniques were used, but, Toybox handled the digital FX here. While they were very, very good effects, at times it seemed to draw me out of ‘the moment’. Things are cool, I’m entranced by the movie, and then all of a sudden I’m snapped back into reality because of an effect. This is coming from a guy who grew up with the Star Wars movies. But, the effects should add to the story, not remind the audience that they are watching a movie. Did Keanu Reeves really do that crazy bending in The Matrix? Of course not. Did it work? You betcha. Can a camera really move through walls like it does in Panic Room? No. Does it work? Yes, but only to a point. After that point, it actually detracts from the experience.

Is Panic Room Hitchcockian? It actually almost is. That is, if Hitch were making movies today, and didn’t have nearly as many issues, he might have done this. If you’re claustrophobic, you might want to skip this. If you want to see how a thriller should be made, you need to check this out. And, if you hate Dwight Yoakam (unlike me. I think he’s great.), you DEFINATELY want to see this.