Source Code [2011]

I loved Duncan Jones’s directorial debut “Moon”, so I was more than willing to accept the premise of his latest movie, about a former pilot (Jake Gyllenhaal)  who finds himself involved in a government program that requires him to travel repeatedly back to the same moment in time, searching for clues in a train in order to discover the location of a bomb before it explodes. Along the ride are Michelle Monaghan (“Mission Impossible 3″, Eagle Eye”) as Gyllenhaal’s love interest, and Jeffrey Wright as an enigmatic scientist. Call it “Groundhog Day” meets “Inception”. This however, is only 50 % of what the movie’s actually about. The remaining part of the story dabbles in physics and metaphysics, enough to make you question the possibility of an alternate universe. Yet unlike “Moon”, I felt that something was missing. It could be the lack of suspense, I’m not really sure. All I know is that I left the theatre with mixed feelings, and that’s always a bad sign. 

This could have easily been an instant sci-fi classic, so imagine my frustration when I realised that it wasn’t as good as I expected it to be.  Take “Moon” for instance, which became sort of an “instant favorite” to us genre folks. And the reason why so many of us fell in love with “Moon” so quickly is because of its originality. It’s fresh, entertaining, clever, and deep all at the same time. “Source Code” however, is not nearly as original as Jones’s first film, and I think it’s a damn shame. I guess I was asking too much from it, and got very little in return. Yet technically, the film still delivers. With top notch effects and some nail biting scenes, this is solid entertainement. So let’s just say that on a basic level, “Source Code” will definitely appeal to an audience seeking a quick ride, but in case you’re looking for something more profound, then you’ve come to the wrong place.

Rating: 2.5/4

London Boulevard [2010]

“London Boulevard” is a movie that looks good on the outside, yet you still end up wondering why the hell did you watch it in the first place. Every single element of it is right (from the actors to the writer), so why does it end up being so boring and uninvolving? Let’s start with the plot: Colin Farell is Mitchell, a hard man who comes out of prison determined to reform. He gets a job as handyman for Charlotte (Keira Knightley who looks wooden and bored out of her mind), an unhappily married young movie star who is constantly pursued by paparazzis. Problem is, he’s still in touch with his worthless sister Briony, and his even more worthless friend Billy. One thing leads to another, and soon enough, Mitchell finds himself brought into contact with ruthless crime boss Gant (Ray Winstone). Will he become a proper gangster again, or will he end up with the sexy movie star instead? Who knows? Who cares?

I guess the problem isn’t the locations, or how true to life they are. London is well depicted, and Colin Farell really gives it his best. Yet it all sits there, lifeless, only a collection of vignettes and characters that seem only vaguely related to one another. The subplots and minor characters are more than pointless. Not to mention the dreadful ending, or how irrelevant it was compared to the rest of the film. I guess it tried to be profound, but ended up as a giant “Thank God it’s over” instead. What a letdown! Do yourself a favor and stay as far away as you can from this really terrible movie.

Rating: 1.5/4

Midnight Cowboy [1969]

One of the all time greats. Dark, disturbing dramatization of James Leo Herlihy’s novel was rated X in 1969, but it’s essentially an old fashioned story with a modern twist. John Voight is terrific in his starring debut as Joe Buck, a young and handsome man (who dresses as a cowboy) who moves from Texas to New York thinking he’ll make a living by being a stud. Women however do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and soon enough, Joe faces the fact that he must live in poverty, as his supply of money begins to dry up. From this moment on, this is primarily a story of Joe’s realization of the harsh realities of the real world. During his stay, he meets Enrico Rizzo (an amazing Dustin Hoffman), a crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of his money. When they both realise that they are in the same unpleasant situation, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and working together, they attempt to make lives for themselves in the cold and harsh city of New York.

Shot largely in the streets of the big apple, “Midnight Cowboy” is a powerful and realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, one can instantly sympathise with the two characters. You can feel yourself inside Ratso’s unheated appartment, freezing from the aching winter cold. The acting is more than terrific, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portaying their roles. Hoffman in particular was exceptional, but they were both nominated for best actor Oscars, though both eventually lost out to John Wayne in “True Grit”. “Midnight Cowboy” still managed to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director (John Schlesinger really did an amazing job here) and Best Writing for Waldo Salt. If anything, the movie looks better today than it did at the time of its release. But either way, It’s still a fascinating experience, and a must see for every film buff out there. Great stuff.

Rating: 3.5/4

Tamara Drewe [2010]

The weirdest thing about “Tamara Drewe” is that the story is about everyone else except her. Of course she plays a very important role, but I didn’t care for her as much as I did for the people surrounding her. The film breaks the notion of a quiet and sleepy town in the English countryside. Underneath this seemingly close community lies an undelining suspicion. Everyone is in everyone else’s business, and Tamara’s presence only helps fuel the tension. We are told that she used to live in this small town during her teenage years. Now grown up, she is back to restore and sell the house that she grew up in. But her sudden appearance in this quiet little town leads to a series of events that will change the lives of several local people. Men are suddenly obsessed with her beauty, while women are often jealous and even angry because of her. The film eases its dark themes with its clever use of humour. Every character is just as weird and quirky as the next one, but it is British humour afterall, and one shouldn’t expect anything less. So why wasn’t I entirely satisfied by it? Well I guess technically, the film looks good. The performances are first rate, and there’s plenty to enjoy here. But the main problem is that the movie doesn’t know when to play it serious and when not to. It sort of bounces back in forth, but never really succeeds in hitting all the right notes. Blame it on lazy writing I guess. Either way, it’s still a fun ride, and certainly worth watching, especially if you’re into indie British films. But the moral of the story? Be damned if I knew.

Rating: 2.5/4

Spread [2009]

Ashton Kutcher is surprisingly believable in this uneven, but not completely uninteresting movie about a homeless and careless womanizer who uses his physical good looks to prey on the wealthy single women of Los Angeles. For him, his life is that of a classic dreamer, and with his kind of aestethics, he could be living the life straight out of a Van Halen music video with hot cars, plenty of cash, and more women to spend the rest of his days with. Eventually, he meets a woman he actually likes, which causes several problems. But the main issue here is that Kutcher’s character is essentially a jerk with no real ambitions. With no life skills to offer except the ability to pleasure women, you know where the movie’s heading. So I guess this is all about the journey, and not the destination. And the sooner you realise that, the more you’ll enjoy this entertaining B movie. Kutcher looks comfortable in his role, a slacker in life, yet clueless at what to do when he meets the real woman of his desire. I’ve never seen him in such a role before, so I guess in a way, it was nice to see him in something completely different for once. But I do have to confess that I entered this movie with basically low expectations. I thought it would not be worth my while. Yet it became crystal clear only halfway through that this was a lot better than originally anticipated. And because of that, I cannot entirely dismiss “Spread”, although the ending felt as empty as Kutcher’s character. But the film as a whole works for the most parts, and it managed to convey what it is trying to say in a way that isn’t dull and repetitive. It’s certainly no masterpiece, but I still had a good time watching it. Judge for yourself.

Rating: 2.5/4

The Lincoln Lawyer [2011]

Matthew McConaughey is dynamite in this thrilling drama about a cocky and smooth defense attorney Mick Haller who conducts most of his work out of the back seat of his Lincoln car (hence the title of the film). We are told that he used to drive it himself, until he got arrested for drunk driving (given how much he drinks in the film, it’s amazing he still shows up in court on time). Now he has a chauffeur (Laurence Mason) who drives him around to the Los Angeles dealers, hookers, and low lifes who are his clienteles. His specialty is getting these people off, sometimes in a perfectly legal manner. His latest client is somewhat different: a Beverly Hills rich kid called Louis Roulet (perfectly played by Ryan Phillippe) who is being charged with assault on a female escort. He insists that he is innocent, and wants a trial to prove it. Mick senses there is something fishy. And so do we. But let’s not get into details, because as with any crime thriller, the less you know the better. Suffice to say that director Brad Furman has many surprises up his sleeves, making this a thrilling and thoroughly engaging ride. What’s more, he managed to assemble a top-notch ensemble cast who do outstandingly in the various roles they’re given. But for me, it was refreshing to finally see McConaughey in a role he was born to play. And it’s been a while since we’ve seen him in a film that relies upon his acting rather than his physique (seriously enough with those chick flicks man). He gives life to the character he’s playing, and if my calculations are right, this could well be the start of one heck of a franchise. In the words of Peter Travers: “More, please. Soon”. Amen to that brother. “The Lincoln Lawyer” is guaranteed rock solid entertainment, and I sure hope it finds the audience it deserves.

Rating: 3/4

Hall Pass [2011]

This movie has an intended audience: People who don’t mind a raunchy, racy, and dirty comedy. In other words: if you’ve enjoyed most of the Farrelly brother’s movies (“There’s Something About Mary, “Dumb And Dumber”, “The Heartbreak Kid”…), then you will probably watch and enjoy “Hall Pass” aswell. Personally, I can’t say I was thrilled by it, but I did have a good time watching it, so it wasn’t a total loss. The premise: Rick and Fred (Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis) are two married guys who cannot help but notice many attractive women that come within ten feet of them. Their spouses are well aware of their antics and on most occasions spot or overhear them talking about other women. After going just a bit too far, both men are granted a “hall pass” from their wives, which means an entire week to spend doing whatever or “whomever” they want. And this is where the fun begins. The Farrelly brothers are well known for their crudeness and gross out comedy. And make no mistake, this is a gross out comedy. There is a heart hidden somewhere deep, but some of the scenes are too offensive, that it makes it hard for anyone to take this movie too seriously. As for film content, there is nothing new here, but it generally works. Many scenes were outrageous and hilariously funny. To be honest, I didn’t expect to laugh as much as I did. But what I liked the most about “Hall Pass” is that it doesn’t shy away from presenting women as equally sex crazed as men (perhaps even more), with several female characters, all displaying high levels of estrogen. So in case you’re expecting a guys only flick, you’re in for a surprise. 

All in all, “Hall Pass” is an enjoyable comedy that obviously doesn’t take itself too seriously, and if you don’t mind something silly every now and then, then this one’s for you. But for heaven’s sake, leave the kids at home.

Rating: 2.5/4

The Way Back [2010]

“The Way Back” is a movie that will definitely appeal to those who appreciate epic landscapes and survival stories. It’s the inspiring and incredible story of  a group of Soviet Gulag prisoners who escaped from a Siberian prison camp in the dead of winter and made their way across Mongolia and the Gobi desert, ending months later in free India. I’m not spoiling anything here since we are told right at the beginning that the movie is dedicated to the men who survived this long journey. Every moment is astonishing and unbelievable. One question was running through my mind the entire time: how the hell did they possibly do that? The answer: by walking. And every step of the way, we are with them. Starvation is a daily possibility, but they managed to get through it. So are injuries, and diseases. Thirst nearly killed them in the desert, but they kept on going.  As Jim Sturgess’s character explains: I have to make it! I found myself rooting for each and every one of those men, eventhough we basically knew nothing about them prior to the escape. “And much like “127 Hours”, I let myself become involved here aswell, and what I got was an extraordinary journey that defies all sense of human effort. “The Way Back” will hold your attention throughout (despite its obvious flaws), and will definitely leave you with a sense of appreciation for the freedom we have. Kudos for director Peter Weir, and for the fantastic cinematography. Now I know that I will never complain about going on a walk ever again.

Rating: 3/4

Country Strong [2010]

Warning: sleep inducer. “Country Strong” is the lousy version of “Crazy Heart”. I couldn’t help but notice some similarities between the two, but lets be honest here: Gwyneth Paltrow is no Jeff Bridges, and the movie isn’t half as good as “Crazy Heart”. Paltrow plays a washed up country singer struggling to get back on her feet. Problem is: she never manages to convince the audience that she’s a mess. Her hair and wardrobe remain intact, and I never felt in any way connected to her character. I couldn’t care less about her, or anyone else around her for that matters. What’s more, the film feels awfully uneven and boring. There isn’t much continuity to the story, only a bunch of scenes thrown together. How do they expect us to feel sympathy for a character that we know nothing  about? Aside from her singing the title song, there was nothing about her that was remotely strong. I suffered through the first half, which seemed to go overboard in portraying her flaws and failures, and wondered how much lower she can get before she turns things around. It never happened. There was absolutely no payoff at the end to make it all worthwhile. “Crazy Heart” had a fitting finale. Hell we suffered with Jeff Bridges for over 90 minutes, but it was worth it. I never felt the same way with “Country Strong”. The charisma just wasn’t there I guess. And it makes me wonder why Paltrow got herself mixed up with this in the first place. Bleh!

Rating: 1.5/4

Certified Copy [2010]

What we have here is a story of two people driving around Tuscani, talking, talking and talking about very little. Now I don’t usually have a problem with that, as long as it keeps me awake and interested. Afterall, I’m a huge fan of Woody Allen, and we all know how talky his movies can be. But what writer/director Abbas  Kiarostami failed to realise is that rolling the hills of the Tuscan Landscape doesn’t compensate for the lack of plot, humor, and more importantly, a reason to give a crap about the two characters who obviously have plenty of  issues (hence the talking). Halfway through the film, the two, who apparently just met, start acting as if they were married for fifteen year! This was amazingly confusing and distracting, which led me to spend the rest of the film trying to figure out what the hell was going on and consequently missed any meaning in the dialogue between the two characters. Are the couple simply having an intellectual/deep conversation? Or are they actually married and denying the past? Your head will spin trying to figure this one out. The frustrating part of this is that there’s  not enough information for the viewer to make up their own mind. Only Juliette Binoche’s presence (she speaks three languages here) saves this one from being a complete waste of time. The talented, but overshadowed William Shimell can’t keep up.

I guess the main problem with “Certified Copy” is that it raises more questions than it answers, and leaves the viewer wanting so much more (and that’s always a bad sign). It’s a missed opportunity in my opinion.

Rating: 2/4

The Adjustment Bureau [2011]

I was more than willing to accept the premise of “The Adjustment Bureau”, simply because I’m a huge fan of films that deal with fate and destiny. The main issue here is that there is a “plan”, that nothing happens by chance, and more importantly: free will is a comfortable illusion. It’s an intriguing thought if you ask me, and the movie has all the right ingredients to keep us focused and interested, even in moments of doubt. There’s also a lot of action involved, and a storybook romance in which the two lovers have actually great chemistry together. Back to our premise, Matt Damon plays David Norris, a young New York congressman running for senate. But his campaign goes off the tracks when the New York post publishes a sensational story across the front page about a prank he commited many years ago. On the night of his concession speech, he bumps into Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt), an attractive young woman hiding from security in the men’s room after she crashed a wedding. It is almost love at first sight, until she is chased out of the building by security without giving Norris her phone number. Later on, they meet again on a bus, and she finally gives him her number. Their relationship seems to be heading in the right direction, until four mysterious looking men enter the picture. Their identity is never revealed, but we do learn that they are enforcers for someone called the chairman. These enforcers have been with us throughout the entire human history, making sure things go “according to plan”. But to reveal more about the story would be unthinkable, so I’m just going to leave it at that.

One of the best things about the movie is that this crazy idea is set against a realistic backdrop. The science-fiction side of things is well handled, and never threatens to overwhelm the heart of the movie, which is the incredibly believable relationship between David and Elise. Damon and Blunt are both likable and terrific; they definitely give us rooting interest, and that’s always essential in these kinds of films. The film is also nicely shot on location; first time director George Nolfi makes good use of New York, filming everywhere from Brooklyn to the Museum of Modern Art. All that’s missing though is a dramatic impact, and a fitting finale. But I guess that would be asking too much, especially when the film brilliantly succeeded in keeping me interested almost the entire time. And because of that, I would still recommend “The Adjustment Bureau”. It’s a well crafted, stylish movie, and as far as entertainment goes, it works like a charm.

Rating: 3/4

Citizen Kane [1941]

I wasn’t surprised one bit when I read that many consider “Citizen Kane” as the best film ever made. Afterall, The American Film institute called it the greatest movie of all time back in 1998. “Citizen Kane” is indeed one of those ageless movies that get better with repeated viewings, and through the years, it has become one of my personal favorites. The legend of this movie has been partly fueled by the fact that Orson Welles was only 24 when he made it, but also from the obvious comparisons between the main character Charles Foster Kane, and real life newspaper magnet William Randolph, who did everything possible to stop the picture from being released (when that failed, he tried to discredit it). “Citizen Kane” tells a fantastic story in reverse: Charles Kane (wonderfully played by Welles himself) is born poor, but was adopted by a rich man when he was only a child. As a young man, he begins to assemble a newspaper and radio empire, before marrying the niece of an American president. But as Kane becomes more and more alienated from his power, he becomes abusive to the women in his life, first his wife, then his mistress. When he dies, Kane had spent most of his final years in his unfinished castle, longing for the simplicity of his childhood. 

The most important reason to why this film was regarded the way it was, was due to its technical and stylistic innovations. It’s obvious that Welles was 20 years ahead of his time when he made this groundbreaking picture. Audiences and critics could not grasp many of its elements, and I don’t blame them. It was only after so many years that “Citizen Kane” became the film that we know and admire today, and it has served as a benchmark and source of inspiration to the film-makers of different era. There’s no denying that from the opening scene to the closing sequence, “Citizen Kane” is one unforgettable ride, and will always remain the movie that made me realise how much classic movies should be cherished and treasured.

Rating: 4/4

Bride Of Frankenstein [1935]

Not only does this sequel equals the brilliance of the first “Frankenstein” movie, but it surpasses it in every way possible. Universal Studios had to wait nearly four years before James Whale accepted the offer to direct this follow up to the 1931 box office hit, but it definitely turned out to be well worth the wait. “Bride Of Frankenstein” is a delicious mix of terror and comedy, making it a definite treat for fans of old horror flicks. Boris Karloff reprised the role that made him famous in style, and despite his reluctance, it was decided that the monster should be able to pronounce a few words this time around (which made things much more interesting). This gave his character more depth and emotion, and his desperate attempt to find a friendly companion could hardly be more touching. Another standout element here are the sets and the cinematography. And while the first film suffered from a lack of musical score, the presence of music this time around added charm to it aswell, making it even more creepy and atmospheric than any other film from that era. Horror fans might argue which “Frankenstein” movie is the best. I’ll go with this one. It isn’t just a great fright flick in my opinion- it’s a great film aswell, and quite possibly the best of its genre (though Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of Ygor in “Son Of Frankenstein” is sorely missed here).

Rating: 3.5/4

Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son [2011]

What the makers of this terrible film don’t seem to realise is that we’ve lost hope in this series the minute Paul Giamatti dropped out of part two. Now five years after the first sequel, Martin Lawrence is back as Malcom a.k.a Big Momma, although his love interest (who supposedely played an important role in the previous films) is nowhere to be seen. I guess they couldn’t pay her enough to make an appearance, so they explain in dialogue that she’s away at a retreat. Anyway, this leaves Malcom on his own to deal with his annoying stepson Trey, who wants to ditch a college education so that he can become a rap artist (thus his low I.Q). But when Trey accidentally witnesses a murder, Malcom decides that the best way for him and his stepson to remain incognito is to dress in drag, a fat suit and some ridiculous clothes, and stay undercover at an all girls performing art school. From this point on, there is sufficient story and comedy to fill out a 10 -minute short. Unfortunately, the movie runs 100 minutes, and as it rambles on, you can feel the life draining from it, like air slowly leaking from a helium balloon. There’s not a single laugh to be had. Believe me, I counted. But then again, it doesn’t surprise me one bit, seeing that the film’s sole joke was explored to its fullest in the first movie back in 2000. Nobody asked for a sequel, but we got one anyway. It was a flop at the box office, but that didn’t stop the studio from financing yet another sequel. This time around, even Lawrence himself seems confused to what he’s doing back in the role (yikes!). This is the worst movie I’ve seen so far this year, and any film that manages to beat it will have to be spectacularly awful (Breaking Dawn maybe?).

Fiasco!

Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein [1948]

Considered by many as one of the boys’s best movies, “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” is a wonderful blend of comedy and horror. The movie opens with a full moon rising in foggy London, where Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is placing a panicked phone call to the States. He is the only one who knows that a great danger is on its way to America. It seems that Count Dracula (a deliciously creepy Bela Lugosi) and the Frankenstein Monster have been shipped to the wax museum, and when the sun sets, Dracula will rise again and control his superhuman servant. Talbot knows that he should warn anyone, but unfortunately for him, its Lou Costello who answers the phone. Soon enough, the boys find themselves running for their lives from the two monsters, a mad scientist, and even the Wolf Man himself!

I think the title of the movie is a bit misleading, since it’s really “Abbott and Costello Meet Dracula”. Fortunately for us, the Frankenstein Monster is not the main attraction here, but rather Bela Lugosi who reprises the role that made him famous in the early 30’s one last time. He does it with just as much passion as the first time, and he even manages to handle the comical dialogue aswell, with his terrific accent. The film also features  plenty of nice, gothic sets filled with full moons, bats, cobwebs and Lab equipment. I honestly can’t think of anything that I disliked in this hilarious spoof. The movie was a huge hit at the time of its release, and it inspired the studio to produce several more of the same, with the boys meeting up with the invisible man, Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, and even The Mummy! And remember: Any movie that places Abbott and Costello with the Frankenstein Monster, Dracula and the Wolf Man (and a surprise cameo by Vincent Price), is worth any price of admission.

Rating: 3/4

Rango [2011]

“Rango” is the most bizarre animated movie I’ve ever laid my eyes on. And I mean this in a good way, because I’ve never seen anything quite like it before, and I enjoyed every second of it. The trailer had almost completely left out any kind of plot hint, which I now realise was a very fine decision. The film’s entire concept relies on the absurdity of its central character, a peculiar and delusional pet lizard called… well we never actually find that out to be honest (obviously a reference to Eastwood’s “The Man With No Name” character). Aching for companionship, he survives the days using his weird imagination to act out plays and create scenarios using a clockwork fish, and a decapitated doll. When he suddenly falls from a moving car and lands in the Mojave desert, our lizard wanders into a desolate town called “Dirt”, and improvises a persona for himself as a western hero (thus his fake name “Rango”). And much to his surprise (and ours actually), he winds up becoming the local sheriff! It soon becomes clear that not all is well in this quiet little town, and that pretty soon Rango is going to be called into action.

“Rango” worked for me because of its fresh originality, and because it refuses to follow the same clichéd rule of children animated films. It ditched the 3D and decided to stick to 2D instead (such a wise decision). I found myself experiencing a very unique take on westerns, while at the same time noticing plenty of references and homages to them. One of the film’s best and most affecting scenes has our hero hitting rock bottom after being exposed as a fraud. He has a run in with the “Spirit Of The West”, an instantly recognizable character (hint: Clint Eastwood), who gives him an advice about being tough and walking tall on the path you’re given. This is an emotional moment, and an amazing tribute to every Western flick ever made (now that’s what I call “movie magic”!). Fans of Johny Depp will enjoy his voice work on the crazy Rango aswell. But it’s obvious that everyone involved in this movie is having a good time, including Bill Nighy as the gruesome rattlesnake Jake.

“Rango” is definitely one of the smartest movies I’ve seen so far this year, and I hope you find as funny and fresh as I did. Hats off amigo!

Rating: 3/4

Hereafter [2010]

You don’t really know what to expect when you sit down to watch “Hereafter”. I went in thinking it would be something similar to the dreadful “What Dreams May Come”, but I’m glad it wasn’t. What I got instead was something fascinating, thought provoking and unforgettable. “Hereafter” grabs your attention from the first minute, with a shocking and frighteningly believable depiction of a tsunami. But what follows in the aftermath is what is truly amazing. The film cleverly divides itself among three separate stories: the aftermath of that disaster for a french TV journalist and host (Cecille De France) who briefly died but was brought back to life, a young boy whose twin died in a horrific accident, and a clairvoyant in San Franciso (Matt Damon) who no longer wants to use his gift to speak with the dead because he regards it as a curse (can you blame him?).

Director Clint Eastwood tells his story slowly but surely. I think he has always exhibited a fondness for developing his characters rather than the plot itself, but here he even went further than ever before. The film has almost no plot, no heroes, and no villains. The best scene comes right at the start instead of at the end, and death is the starting point for both the characters and the plot rather than the climax. I was absorbed at every turn, even when I had no idea where this was heading. The actors are fantastic aswell; Matt Damon gives one of his best performances as the lonely psychic who aches for a normal relationship and who goes to sleep listening to Charles Dickens audio books. I’ve never seen him so tender on screen, and one cannot help but feel sympathy for him. Cecille De France is also terrific here, both smart and fragile, and the McLaren twins give such an honest performance aswell.

“Hereafter” doesn’t imply that there is an after life. It doesn’t pretend to have all the answers, and I don’t think it was trying to in the first place. It simply asks the questions, and does so cleverly. Eastwood has always been a terrific director in my opinion, but ever since “Mystic River”, I found he’s so much more. To quote Roger Ebert:  Hereafter “is a film of a man at peace. He has nothing to prove except his care for the living.” And Eastwood has so much care, so much love. He’s 80 years old but still in his prime. He still has so much to offer, and I for one cannot wait.

Rating: 3/4

Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman [1943]

From the opening scene in the graveyard to the final battle between two of universal’s most famous monsters, “Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman” is considered a treat for horror fans. We follow the story of Larry Talbot (again played by Lon Chaney Jr.), the man who still wants nothing more than to be cured of his irrepressible lycantropy. This time around though, he’s on a quest to find inner peace, even if he has to die in order to obtain it. The gypsy woman Maleva agrees to take him to Vasaria, in order to find Dr. Frankenstein, who might be able to help him. Once there, he finds the scientist dead, but the monster isn’t. Slick, atmospheric horror movie borrows a lot of elements from earlier univeral films, which is not surprising given this is a sequel to both “The Wolf Man” and “Ghost Of Frankenstein”. It has great gothic sets, a noirish atmosphere, and an incredible final battle scene. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his role in style, but I wish Bela Lugosi gave more life to his monster character. He’s such a great actor, but I strongly believe that he was totally miscast in this one. Either way, the movie still has its moments, enough to satisfy fans of old “horror flicks”. It may not be as good as “The Wolf Man” or even “Frankenstein”, but it’s still good for what it is.

Rating: 2.5/4

Jackass 3 [2010]

I’ve really enjoyed watching the Jackass series over the years, especially when it used to air on MTV. It felt fresh, funny, and amazingly shocking. Who didn’t want to be Johny Knoxville or Bam Margera? I know I did. The first two movies were even more horrifying, and an instant hit. However, the third installment offers nothing new at all. These dudes are pushing 40, the stunts have been made so many times before, and most of the scenes involve poop, vomit and sweat cocktail. Not my cup of tea if you ask me. I would have loved to see them come up with something different than just wearing balerina skirts and hitting each other in the balls. That was fun some 10 years ago, not so much now. What I didn’t expect to witness though was forced laughter and a huge number of fake set-ups. It’s true that the harder they laugh, the more you laugh. It’s called marketing. But I couldn’t help but notice that the laughter is just too loud, and goes on for way too long. And the scene involving the gorilla in the parent’s hotel was beyond lame. Bam’s mom had the worst reaction I’ve ever seen, and that basically ruined the whole gag. Still, there are some big laughs, but not enough to make this a winner.

Rating: 2/4

Sunset Blvd. [1950]

The opening scene in “Sunset Blvd.” became one of the most iconic sequences in cinema history. We meet Joe Gillis, an unemployed screenwriter, in a very unusual way. He’s floating dead in a swimming pool, recounting his doomed personal and professional involvment with megalomaniac silent movie star Norma Desmond (a wonderful Gloria Swanson). Norma lives in an eerie mansion on Sunset Boulevard with a sinister butler who used to be her favored director and, incidentally, her first husband. When we first meet her, she is holding a midnight funeral for her pet monkey. We learn that she hasn’t been in a movie for a long time, and she’s getting ready for an impossible comeback (“I hate that world! This will be a return!”).

“Sunset Blvd.”, from director Billy Wilder, is a bitter and tragic tale that exposes Hollywood at its worst. It’s a very cynical view of Hollywood that still rings true today. How many actors became stars, then got dumped coldly when they were no longer needed? Norma is indeed insane, but it’s Hollywood that made her this way. She runs from melancholy, to unbridled joy, to complete mental breakdown. One cannot help but feel sympathy for her. In the end, Joe pays the price for enduring her madness. As she descends that staircase in the final scene, we can see that she is completely lost in her own world. A world where she is forever young, and where she remains the greatest star of all. Afterall, “Stars never age”.

Rating: 4/4

Resident Evil: Afterlife [2010]

In a year of disappointments, “Afterlife” was definitely one of the sequels that should have never been made. I mean yea the first three movies had their “moments”, but I wish I could say the same about this fourth, and hopefully last installment in this endless series. I’d hate to spoil some things, but this movie is so bad there’s nothing to spoil really. To begin with the plot:  Alice (Milla Jovovich who’s still the best thing in this tired series) is still out to destroy the Umbrella corporation, the company who released a deadly virus that spreads rapidly around the world and turns infected people into zombies. She teams up with Claire Redfield, who at the end of “Extinction” traveled to a so called safe zone known as Arcadia, but has lost her memory. Together, they lead a small group of surivors in a quest to discover the secrets behind Arcadia. And that’s basically it. The story is so thin, I honestly felt like I was watching a TV episode instead of a feature film. And the worst part is, it gets so good towards the end, then boom the credits start rolling. Talk about a cheat! Its true that the movie does provide a couple of entertaining mindless zombie killing scenes that has been seen thoughout the series, but the time between each action sequence lacks substance, good acting, and meaningful dialogue. It’s just so pointless. The ending does leave the door open for yet another sequel (yikes!), but haven’t we had enough already? I know I have.

Rating: 1.5/4

How Do You Know [2010]

Director James L. Brooks has given some spectacular movies in the past. So if you admire such films as “Terms Of Endearment” and “As Good As It Gets” (both starring legendary actor Jack Nicholson), you’ll know exactly why I felt frustrated after watching “How Do You Know”. It’s pretty clear from the first few scenes that the movie is a complete misfire. I could try to describe the story, but it would be a waste of my time and yours. The only thing you should though is that it stars Reese Witherspoon as a young bright woman who, at a very vulnerable time in her life, can’t decide between two men-a major league baseball star and all-round playboy (Owen Wilson who looks rather bored for once), and a a businessman (Paul Rudd) who is being investigated by the FBI over some kind of fraud. Together they make humiliation, embarassment, and misunderstandings the foundation of a lame comedy. Oh and there’s also a sub-plot involving Rudd’s pregnant assistant Annie (try to find any meaning behind this unnecessary sub-plot).  I think the main problem with the film is that I never felt in any way connected to the characters. I did try to sympathize with Rudd’s situation though, but I couldn’t. Worst of all, the movie literally refused to end (it ran for almost two hours!).

I have nothing but admiration for the four stars. Afterall, Reese Witherspoon is such a good actress and I’ve enjoyed watching her through the years. Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson have both proved to be great comedic actors over the last few years, and Jack Nicholson is well, Jack Nicholson (he has given some of his best performances in James L. Brooks’s movies, yet he’s completely miscast here as Rudd’s unsympathetic, self absorbed father). There’s no doubt in my mind that they all deserve better than this weak romantic comedy.

Rating: 2/4

Get Low [2010]

After watching this movie, I’m surprised that Robert Duvall wasn’t even considered for a best actor nomination at this year’s oscars. He gives one of his most poignant performances and I can’t think of any actor who could have pulled it off better than he did. He plays an old hermit who’s been kept out of public for 40 years, punishing himself for a crime he did not commit. He’s old, and feels that the time has come to finally reveal his life’s story. He approaches funeral home director Frank Quinn (an amusing Bill Murray) to organize hiw own funeral party, while he is still alive. The party would be the chance to gain the peace that has eluded him for so long.

“Get Low”, from rookie director Aaron Schneider, is a fascinating character study played with perfection by Robert Duvall. He fully embraces the cranky old man that is Felix Bush, while still making him decent enough to care about his journey. His relationship with every character in the movie is important and well developed, but his finest moment is without a doubt the speech he gives at the party. Here, he acts his heart out and I think it’s the scene that should have gotten him at least an oscar nomination. The rest of the cast does a fine job aswell, including Bill Murray who plays a role he’s played so many times before-that of a dry, sarcastic man, but he’s good at it, so no complaints there. Much credit has to go to first time director Aaron Schneider aswell, a longtime cinematographer who clearly bonded with this material, and managed to tell his story with an incredible eye for details. In the end,” Get Low” is a movie that will probably get lost in the shuffle; afterall, it is an independent feature, but it is as perfect a job of filmmaking as you’re likely to see these days, and to miss it would be a damn shame.

Rating: 3/4