"The Grey"

*****

"Once more unto the fray
To fight the last fight I'll ever know.
Live or die on this day.
Live or die on this day."

It seems the competition for my favorite movie of 2012 has begun much earlier than I expected. I honestly didn't anticipate this. Director Joe Carnahan is responsible for movies like The A-Team and Smokin' Aces; in other words, fun, bit silly and ridiculous. But here he has given us an incredible movie, a reminder of the creeping dread great cinema can sometimes inspire. I'm pretty jaded in this respect; loads of thrillers and horror movies have left me fairly desensitized to the tricks of most movies. But I felt this one in the pit of my stomach, a queasy sensation I'd forgotten, and was thrilled to be reacquainted with. The movie doesn't even look like Carnahan's other efforts. This one's lean and mean, raw and real, and punctuated by imagery both beautiful and terrible. The script (by Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers) is wonderful and sometimes poetic, but like the wild, it is without pity. There is no sentimentalizing here.

The movie begins in silence: the title emerges as if from a fog, and then we see the wild; an image of rock and tree and snow that instantly evokes the idea of cold, creeping death. And I'm already hooked. A voice rises, Ottway's (Liam Neeson), poetically describing the oil rig he works on as a kind of hell, populated by people "unfit to interact with society." He works as a sharpshooter, killing wolves to protect the men working in the field. But as the movie opens he is pondering another use for that rifle: in a beautiful juxtaposition he rests his hand on a dying wolf, feeling it's breath ebb, while in cross cuts he puts the barrel in his mouth, and reaches for the trigger. He doesn't do it, for we then see him boarding a plane with the rest of the crew. Some are heading out to see family, some to party, some to get laid. He's carrying a letter, headed "Dearest One." We get glimpses of the woman the letter is for (Anne Openshaw) lying in bed with him, her hand on his face, looking beatific and angelic. But there's heavy turbulence, then heavier turbulence, and then, in one of the best sequences of it's type I've ever seen, the plane goes down. 7 survive, but then there's the wild. And the wolves. And that ever-growing queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. There is an incredible moment about midway through. The survivors have gathered round a hastily started fire and watch the tree line around them. We hear the wolves out there, but can't see them. Then, following a terrible growl from what we learn is the Alpha of this pack, silence. And then, as we look up a ridge, a single howl sounds out. We don't see the source, but suddenly a plume of breath appears from the blackness, just caught by the firelight. It is joined by another, and another, and another as the rest of the wolves begin to howl. They are there, just beyond the light. This is incredibly chilling, and incredibly brilliant.

If there is justice in the world (and I fear there is not) we will be asking this time next year whether Liam Neeson will win an Oscar. It is amazing enough that he has discovered this niche as an action star late in life (he'll turn 60 in June), but here his undeniable "don't-mess-with-him" machismo is tempered by heart and a heavy burden. We believe that he could stand and lead in this situation, but we also see that he is broken. A scene where he cries to the heavens for help, for hope, for something, is heart-wrenching. I'd venture to say it's the best performance he's ever given. He recites the lines at the head of this post three times in the movie, each time evoking a different sense of meaning from the words, as his character goes from being ready to die by his own hand, to fighting his hardest to survive. The rest of the survivors are well written and admirably played, but this is Neeson's movie. And the wolves'.

This movie is dark and grim and as I said before utterly without pity. As are the wolves. As is the wild. But it is also incredibly powerful and emotionally resonant, and truly a masterpiece of suspense. It will likely haunt you after you leave the theater. It is still with me now, as I write this review 24 hours later. And some moments may be with me forever. And this movie will take its place as one of the greatest thrillers of the 21st century. Mark my words.

"Midnight in Paris"

****½

Some would argue that discussing the major element at the heart of the plot of Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris the separates it from being just another romantic comedy is a spoiler; that it's better to go in not knowing. I'm not sure I agree, but since that idea exists I will preface this review with a SPOILER ALERT! Do not read on if you don't want to know, just take my recommendation to watch the movie.

Now that that's out of the way, let me list a few names for you: Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, Luis Bunuel, Tom Elliot. Do these names mean anything to you, some or all? They certainly mean something to Gil (Owen Wilson), a self described "hack" screenwriter who dreams of publishing a novel and wanders around Paris fantasising about the Golden Age of the 20's when any or all of those people and more where walking these very streets or drinking in these very bars while masterfully shaping the very future of literature, art, film, and music. His fiance (Rachel McAdams) is kind of a bitch, and is obviously crushing on another man, a very pedantic professor (Michael Sheen). One night while wandering the streets, just as the bells toll midnight, an antique car pulls up bustling with passengers, who invite him with them. Two of those people happen to be the aforementioned Fitzgeralds (Tom Hiddleston and the wonderful Alison Pill), and when they arrive at their destination Gil finds he's in a bar in Paris in the 1920s, surrounded by his heroes. And every night thereafter at midnight, he goes back.

Allen never bothers to explain what strange magic is happening here, but ultimately it doesn't matter; this one's far more concerned about comedy and character than wonder. Most of the old guard Gil meets are exactly what you would hope for them to be, and wonderfully written and acted. I particularly loved Corey Stall as an Ernest Hemingway who waxes poetic about the meaning of life one minute, and boisterously asks who wants to fight the next; Kathy Bates as a no-nonsense Gertrude Stein who advises everyone around her on everything they do, usually correctly; and Adrian Brody who appears only briefly as an extremely inebriated Salvador Dali. Gil himself of course is the Woody Allen character, and Wilson does it surprisingly well; it's probably the best Woody character not played by Allen himself. There's a good bit of comedy that requires some knowledge of these people and their work (Gil suggests a movie idea to Bunuel, where people at a dinner party suddenly find themselves unable to leave. Hilariously, Bunuel doesn't get it, we leave him shouting "It doesn't make sense!" 40 years later Bunuel made The Exterminating Angel. Guess it took him a long time to make sense of it!) I would suggest that this is a "thinking person's" comedy, but don't want to imply it's pretentious or inaccessible; it is not. You might not love it if you don't know something about these people, but you'll still like it, and you'll still laugh. In fact the funniest moment in the movie requires no art or literary knowledge at all. That's when we discover the fate of a private investigator hired by the fiance's father (Kurt Fuller) to follow Gil one midnight. Hilarious!

I should mention much of the movie has a golden glow, particularly evident in an early scene at Versailles. Some people call this glow yellow and find it annoying; I thought it was lovely and warm. Plus it emphasizes a wonderful idea, one brought to the forefront in a late twist that plunges Gil and prototype art groupie Adriana (Marion Cotillard) even further back in time. It would seem everyone's Golden Age was once someone's Boring Present. Hence we are right now living in a Golden Age, we just can't see it for what it is. That might be one of the happiest thoughts I've come away from a movie with in a good long time.

"Red Tails"

**½

George Lucas has been passionately working for more than 20 years to get this movie on the screen, running into coincidentally the same problems the Tuskegee Airmen, on whom the film is based, encountered all those years ago. Namely: bigoted opinions of African Americans. Then it was what they could and would do in war, now it's whether a big budget action picture starring them would draw an audience. It is ironic then, that the movie we now have as a result of all that work and all that passion is so, well, bland. It is an action picture. And nothing more.

And it could have been so much better. It skips shallowly along the surface of the problems faced by the Airman: an n-word shouted by a white officer here, a one-note stereotype bigot commander there. Ultimately it eschews depth for flashy digital dogfights. Being the main focus of the film, these action scenes look good, but have little gusto and less tension; they are amateurishly staged, like most everything else. About halfway through the movie I suddenly decided this must be a first time film director, and sure enough when I researched later, I discovered director Anthony Hemingway has a number of television and assistant director credits, but this is his first time at the helm of a major motion picture, and it does show. Some scenes don't seem to end, but just stop. I swear at least once it happened mid-line. A surprising number of scenes are statically staged with people just sitting around and talking. For an action film, it has little momentum. Perhaps if Lucas had selected a more seasoned director the movie would have been better, but I'm not so sure. The script, you see, is just a mess. I assume Aaron McGruder (creator of the brilliant and subversive The Boondocks television series and comic strip), who shares screenwriting credit with John Ridley, mostly just contributed jokes. Though it sometimes misses, when it hits the humor is the best part of the movie. Surely he couldn't have been a part of these poorly written characters or this incredibly stilted dialogue. (The worst offenders: two white bomber pilots whose job it seems to be to sum up the feelings of the entire white air corps in as few words as possible. Clunky doesn't even begin to describe the words that come out of their mouths.)

The cast is a mixed bag. Of the ensemble of airmen some are good (Elijah Kelley as "Joker") some not so much (Tristan Wilds as "Junior"). And of their commanding officers, Terrence Howard is decent as Colonel A.J. Bullard, but doesn't approach the level we know he's capable of, and Cuba Gooding Jr. completely phones it in as Major Emanuelle Stance. And he's perpetually chewing on a pipe. And not smoking it. We see him light it once, but I'm pretty sure he never actually takes a puff. Can't say why, but that annoyed me. Daniela Ruah is very pretty as Italian peasant girl Sofia, whose mother is far too happy with her dating a black man (at least if my knowledge of the racial opinions of elderly Italian peasants in the 40's is accurate). Yes, very pretty. And that's all she needs to be.

The movie wants to celebrate the courage of these groundbreaking African Americans, but if you ask me it only celebrates half. Yes, they got up in those planes and risked their lives to fight for their country. Many white pilots did that too. But these guys did more. They leaped barriers and smashed prejudiced "factual" opinions, endured the worst kind of ignorant hatred and still held their heads up and risked their lives. By skimming the surface of this added burden, the movie has ultimately done them a disservice. The fairly substantial audience I watched with applauded at the end. I could not bring myself to join them. I would like to believe, however, that they were applauding the heroes this movie is based on, and not the movie itself. The men are more than worthy of our applause and our respect. The movie is not.

"The Tempest"

***½

I'd have to say The Tempest is one one of Shakespeare's lesser works. Ultimately a comedy (because it's not a tragedy, and technically there's only the two), it amounts to a Shakespeare fluff piece; it's more interested in amusing than in moving. It still has Shakespeare's signature rhythm-based, beautiful dialogue, however, and ironically, contains one of his best, most beautiful, most insightful lines. After conjuring then dismissing a fanciful pageant of spirits, Prospera (the infallible Helen Mirren) begins to wax poetic about the nature of life. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," she says, "and our little life, is rounded with a sleep." Wonderful.

Unfortunately, (I hesitate to use the word, but will anyway) visionary director Julie Taymor didn't seem to notice the ultimately frivolous nature of this work, and presents it here in very dramatic fashion. Best known for her Broadway work ("The Lion King", the much-troubled "Spider-man: Turn Off the Dark") Taymor has found some success with her Golden Globe and Oscar nominated films, Beatles musical Across the Universe and painter Frida Kahlo biopic Frida, but her first film, the Anthony Hopkins starring and also Shakespeare written Titus, remains her best. Presented with the same drama and visual flair she goes with here, Titus was profoundly moving, deeply disturbing, and visually stunning, with at least two images that have remained with me down through the 12 or so years since I saw it. The style fit that film like a glove. Not so here. The lighter elements often seem drowned by a heavy hand; moments that might have been funny are sometimes lost in translation. As a whole I think the film would have benefited from a lighter touch, and Taymor, who (admirably) always strives for the heights, just doesn't have it in her to tone it down.

But don't get me wrong, the movie's not bad. Taymor even succeeds with some of the more fantastical moments. When Prospera sends her spirit servant Ariel (Ben Wishaw) to torment her usurpers in the guise of a harpy, it appears as a large, black, winged, feathered, crouching monstrosity (featured in the top panel of the poster above) that distorts the very air around it and summons forth ravens with flaps of it's wings. It's the best image in the movie. And Ariel itself is quite a creation: sexless, it appears sometimes with the narrow, flat chest of a young man, and sometimes with small breasts (hence the PG-13 rating), and it divides into multiple pieces as it runs, flies, swims, crawls around the island. The cast (featuring Chris Cooper, Alan Cumming, Russell Brand, Djimon Hounsou, Alfred Molina, and David Straithairn) is mostly very good. Dame Mirren is of course superb, though I'd say Brand over does it a bit (not surprising, honestly), and Hounsou spends so much of his screen time either growling or whining it, combined with his thick accent, makes the fair majority of his lines indecipherable. There's no denying however that he, as Prospera's slave Caliban, creates quite a physical presence, in both the mannered, crouching body language he uses and in the bizarre but fascinating make-up he wears. Finally, the decision to change the sex of the main character (originally Prospero) is inspired, not just because it allowed the casting of Mirren, but also because of the way it alters the dynamic with her daughter (Felicity Jones). As a mother trying to secure a hopeful future for her daughter, Prospera becomes a deeper character than Prospero ever could have been.

"Attack the Block"

****½

It's Guy Fawkes Day in South London, fireworks are going off in the air, and a young nurse named Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is on her way home on the increasingly dangerous streets of South London. Suddenly a group of thugs appears before her, their heads hooded, their faces masked, She knows where this is going, and so do we. A knife comes out, a brief struggle over a ring, when suddenly something crashes into the car next to the group, giving Sam her chance to escape. Then the movie does a most surprising thing: it let's Sam go and stays with the thugs. They investigate the car and find more than they bargained for. Injured by this whatever-it-is, the gang's leader Moses (John Boyega), swears vengeance. The gang follows the thing as it seeks shelter in a shed, where they corner it, scare it with fireworks, and beat it to death. Moses and his crew know what they've got here, and they carry it back to their block (read "project") as a trophy, visions of wealth and fame taking shape in their heads. Big mistake, for you see that was just the first thing to fall from the sky that night.

First time writer/director Joe Cornish has fashioned an unusual, sometimes hilarious, sometimes scary, often inventive sci-fi horror comedy. Yet he's done something more: buried within this silly monster-a-thon is some very pointed social/racial commentary. It doesn't preach, however. You can easily glide along the surface of this one and have a good time, never noticing the meaning in its depths. We get glimpses into the lives of the protagonists, the thugs that mugged a woman at knife-point in the beginning, but the movie never really tries to make you sympathize with them, never creates excuses for their behaviour. The characters themselves sometimes try to make excuses, but the movie won't let them. And suddenly the find themselves pursued by some big, bad, black beasties. The creature design here is wonderful in that it's so hard to pin down. Roughly gorilla shaped with rows upon rows of luminescent teeth (first shown in a brilliant reveal), the monsters are covered in deep, inky black...something. It might be spiky fur, it might be scaly spikes. I can't tell. You even see them quite clearly and fully in bright light...but I still can't quite nail their form or texture. Other than the form and the teeth, their just like a void of blackness. "It's so black you can hardly see it," one of the characters says. Indeed. And don't think this blackness is just an element of good monster design. It's no accident that the thugs suddenly have to fear black things in the night.

I must make mention of an incredible performance from newcomer John Boyega. His Moses is stoic and quiet, but authoritative, with a sense that there is some rage brimming underneath that steadily calm exterior, and, surprising in such an ultimately unsympathetic character, a sense of nobility and bravery. It's easy to see him as a leader. All the rest of the cast is good as well, especially Whittaker (who we see again of course, a nurse soon becomes a valuable commodity), Luke Treadaway as a stoner/zoologist who happens to get caught up in the fray (and offers his opinions on what the creatures are and what their motives might be), and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Paul) as the resident drug dealer. I must also mention the movie lost out on five stars only because there was so much London street jargon spoken in such thick accents that there were sometimes long stretches of dialogue I couldn't follow. Context helped sometimes, but not always. Subtitles might have helped more. Ultimately, though, the ride is lots fun, the characters and monsters are fascinating, the rise of its antihero is compelling, and its deeper messages and desire to make you look at yourself shine through if your looking for them, but don't overwhelm if your not. It comes at you like a beast in the night. As Moses would say, "Allow it."

"Buck"

*****

"If there was anything in real life like a horse whisperer, it would be Buck." Indeed Buck Brannaman was even an advisor on Robert Redford's film, and informed the character as Redford played him. Redford appears in this documentary, and says so himself, so I have it on good authority. He doesn't whisper to the horses of course, not really. But he seems to have an innate understanding of them, of how they think and function and perceive the world around them, and of how to work with them. He doesn't believe a horse should be broken. He understands that we're asking the horse to do some pretty strange things, comically suggesting you put yourself in the horse's place. "Let me throw some dead animal carcasses on your back," he says, " then let me put this bar in your teeth and pull back on it. It'll only hurt a minute."

Buck is a simple, elegant documentary from director Cindy Meehl that shines a light on a singular human personality. Buck Brannaman tours the country half the year, giving clinics on horse training, sometimes accompanied by his wife and daughter and his wife's plethora of dogs, but usually alone. Although not alone this year, for he's invited us with him through the eyes and ears of Meehl's cameras. And along the way we learn what staggering things he has overcome in his life. The victim of severe abuse as a child, Buck has astoundingly grown into one of the most calm, patient, tender men you will ever see. His methods for horse training, which we are told time and again tend to bleed over into everyday life and interactions with not just horses but people, emphasise patience, nurturing, generous rewards and only subtle punishments where necessary. And just watch the man on a horse! With the subtlest of movements, usually completely invisible to our eyes (but not to the horse's touch!) he has his horse shunting forward and back, side to side, breaking into a gallop and skidding to a sudden halt, and even doing a sort of sideways box step. It really is incredible.

One of the most compelling moments comes when a young, possibly brain damaged stud is brought to Buck, to see if there may be any hope for him. This horse is wild, and dangerous. At one point his rider is attempting to mount him, and he starts fighting back. The rider tries to stay beside him, avoiding the dangerous front and back, but the horse is quick, and the rider ends up a foot or two in front of him. Quick as a flash the horse leaps out, teeth bared, straight for the rider's face. I won't say how that turns out, but it's one of the most frightening single moments I've seen in a movie all year, and probably the sole reason for the PG rating. But what makes this so compelling is what comes next, how Buck, in assessing this horse that could have been saved from what it became, ends up assessing the owner, how she failed the horse, and what problems she might have in her life that need addressing before she tries to be responsible for another living thing. It feels a bit harsh of Buck in the moment, but based on the owners reaction, it seems a slap in the face was just what she needed. In the end his innate understanding of horses seems to have led to an innate understanding of humans. And that's fascinating.

"Fast Five"

****

Ten years after the first Fast and the Furious movie one would think the franchise, at an average of one movie every two years, would be running out of gas. Bad pun intended. But this fifth outing, economically titled Fast Five, is not only the most successful of the franchise, it's arguably the best, if not necessarily the most flat-out entertaining. After a bravura opening involving three cars and a prison bus, the movie kind of lags a bit. But it's what it does during this unusual (for a "F & F" movie) down time is also what sets it apart from the rest: it dares to attempt some actual character building. Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker), and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) come across as real people for the first time in the series. Dwayne Johnson joins the fray as federal agent Luke Hobbs, who makes Tommy Lee Jones' agent in The Fugitive look like a do-nothing wuss of the highest order. Sexy Elena Neves (Elsa Pataky), apparently the only non-corrupt cop in all of Brazil, joins Hobbs to track down Toretto and Co. The rest of the characters are one note, including the villain, but mostly lots of fun.

The introduction of most of these secondary characters (including several from previous "F & F" movies) as the new crew is rather amusing, and marks the turning point where the movie slips into a higher gear and starts delivering up the action and the humor in ample doses. After setting up a street race and then daring to have it occur off screen (gasp!), the movie more than makes up with a "just-for-kicks" drag race in police cars that is loads of fun and, right at the end, suddenly contributes once again to character. Hobbs and Toretto share one of the most bad ass Mano-a-Mano brawls I've seen in a good long time, even if it does end somewhat disappointingly. And it all leads up to one of the most wildly ridiculous but incredibly entertaining chase scenes ever, involving two sports cars, possibly hundreds of cops (all supposedly corrupt), and a dragging, several ton safe. Did I mention it was ridiculous?

Don't let my comments about character building fool you, ultimately the movie is as silly and irrelevant as the rest. But unlike the rest, it bothers to lay a little groundwork before pelting the mindless action at you. And for that, it earns a little more respect.

Post Script: stay tuned when the credits start; a final scene is tucked into them that not only sets up the inevitable F & F 6, but throws in a delightful twist!

"Summer Wars"

*****

I honestly don't know if Anime has changed, or if I have. I once would have told you I did not like it; that I found it visually simplistic with jarring color flashes and god-awful voice work. But here, now, we have the fifth Anime movie in a row to which I've given 5 stars. (Following Grave of the Fireflies, Tales from Earthsea, Howl's Moving Castle, and Ponyo. All fantastic movies and well worth a look.)

This is a sci-fi/romance/comedy/family drama/action movie. Yeah. And it pulls off all these elements wonderfully. Set in what I imagine is a not-too-distant future (the film never specifies), Summer Wars imagines a world where much of the technologically advanced world has joined an uber-social network called Oz. The movie opens with a sort of commercial for Oz, familiarizing us with this virtual space, that is nothing like Facebook. There they can play games, access endless resources, buy things (for the real or virtual world), or even work. In fact most people have linked Oz directly to their jobs, so they can just work from home. People have customized avatars in this virtual space, and their avatars have digital access to everything they choose. Hence some avatars would have government access, some access to power and water facilities, some access to satellites in space. They do it all in Oz.

Young math genius Kenji actually works for Oz, writing code. He also has a crush on the pretty Natuski. And when Natuski asks him to come to her hometown for the summer to do a job for her, he agrees immediately. We meet Natuski's family, an enormous group of interesting folks, many of them cops or firefighters, lead by a matriarch nearing her 90th birthday. She's one of the best characters: a very strong old woman with a long lifetime of wisdom and resources, a quick wit, and a quicker temper. Just after arriving, Kenji gets a message from Oz, with a long number sequence and the words "solve me." Kenji, who as all math geniuses seem to be is slightly obsessive, solves the problem after a few frantic hours work. He has no idea that he's just unleashed what is essentially an artificially intelligent virus unto Oz. Overnight, havoc is wreaked on public works systems, financial systems, lighting grids, everything; because everything is wired in. Then the virus (hilariously called "Love Machine" by its inventor) begins consuming other avatars. And gaining their access. It should come as no surprise that it's going to come down to Kenji, Natuski, and the entire family to save not just the virtual world, but the real world as well.

At times this movie is visually stunning. Do not be put off by the cutesy image on the poster up there. There are some cutesy elements, yes, but as a whole I think this:

is far more representative of the look and feel of the movie. The virtual space is visualized brilliantly through one of the best blends of hand drawn and computer animation I've seen. And a moment comes towards the end that echos Chernabog during his "Night on Bald Mountain" in the seminal Fantasia. This gave me chills. But beyond the visual, the movie is often hilarious, occasionally thrilling, very smart, and more than a little touching. It's got heart to spare, and it's dead on in it's representation of a large but close knit family. And of course it is somewhat unsettling. How far are we from Oz, or something very like it? Not far I'd say. Not far at all.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"

*****

Early on in this movie, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) receives the specs of his new mission from a little screen that pops out of a pay telephone somewhere in Russia. At the end we hear the now famous line, "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds," followed by a timer appearing on the screen. Hunt hangs up the phone, the screen retracts within, he starts to walk away and... nothing happens. Hunt turns back to the payphone and hits it, the oldest standby for making faulty gadgets work. And of course it works here, producing a sizzling sound and a puff of smoke from within the phone. This moment is very funny, one of many great laugh-out-loud moments in the film; but it is also the first in a long series of malfunctions with the tech used by the agents. Of course these malfunctions lead to some serious problems, and it's up to Hunt and his crew to resolve these problems personally. A theme has emerged: in the heat of the moment, you must rely on the people you trust to get the job done.

This is just one of many smaller themes running beneath the surface of this movie, and one of the many reasons I loved it so much! Director Brad Bird, arguably one of the greatest animation directors working today (The Incredibles, Ratatouille, The Iron Giant), has delivered his first live-action movie with as much humor, as much pulse pounding, kinetic action, and as much intelligence as he puts into animation, if not quite as much heart. Among the spectacular action set-pieces presented here is a chase through an enormous dust storm, a fight through several levels of an automated parking structure, and an attempt to scale and then descend a portion of the world's tallest building that, of course, does not go quite as planned. This last scene is an excellent reminder that the depth of 3D is not required for a movie to induce an enormous sense of vertigo. I should also make note that the movie is shot and edited in a very clean and straightforward way, and makes no use of the rapid editing and shaking, wobbly camera work that some directors (I'm looking at you, Tony Scott) seem to think is required for action. This is a breath of fresh air.

The cast is superb. Cruise has been playing this character for something like 12 years now, so he slips into it like a glove. Paula Patton is sexy and seductive, but can kick ass with the best of them, and carries a touch of grief with her through most of the movie (for reasons that become very clear in the early moments). Simon Peg is Simon Peg, and for the purposes of his role as tech man and first time field agent Benji Dunn, he need not be more; this man is living, walking comic relief. Jeremy Renner, as seems to be becoming his trademark, is better than he needs to be. As William Brandt he is burdoned by guilt over a secret he is carrying, and in some ways the slow revelation of who he is and why he's so burdoned is the very element that elevates this from really good movie to great movie. It's a touch of that heart that Bird brings in such abundance to his animated features. (Incidentally, Renner's character will take over the series once Cruise decides to step down.) And Michael Nyqvist, probably best known for playing the Daniel Craig role in the original Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo and its sequels, plays Kurt Hendricks, the very best kind of villian. No mad schemes of power or wealth for him, rather a pure and righteous belief that what he's doing is the right thing. He not only seems ready to die for this belief but it looks to me as if he expects to.

I didn't care for the first Mission Impossible; I found it unnecesserily convoluted and more than a little silly. But every one that has come has improved upon the last. And here, now , with the fourth in the series, we have not only the best Mission yet, but also very likely the best straight-up action movie of 2011.

"Contagion"

****½

This is the most un-sensational epidemic movie I've ever seen, and that's a compliment. It is so grounded in reality, so meticulous with it's scientific detail, that it steps ahead of the vast majority of other entries into it's genre. This could happen tomorrow.

Director Steven Soderbergh uses vast, multi-character plot lines to portray many different aspects of a pandemic, from scientists racing to identify the virus, trace it's origin, and create a vaccine; to panic stricken people doing whatever they can (even if they shouldn't) to survive; to an average American family devastated by quick, unexpected loss; to conspiracy theorists who see the whole thing as a profiteering scheme by pharmaceutical companies. Unlike many multi-character plots I've seen, every thread here works, and contributes to the greater whole of the story as well as having many thought provoking, subtle and not so subtle meanings hidden underneath.

The methods Soderbergh uses to follow the virus are ingenious in their simplicity. Never before while watching a movie have I been so aware of what people are touching. And where. And how often. And just how dire the consequences of a simple thing like a friendly handshake could be. I should note that if you're looking for an edge-of-your-seat thriller you should look elsewhere; this is not that movie, there are very few actual "thrills" here. But if you're searching for a well thought out, sober drama deeply exploring the implications of a global horror that will leave you with lingering concerns long after you finish watching, here you have your grim, unsettling, wonderful reward.

"Catfish"

****½

An incredible documentary (that some maintain isn't true). Part character study, part exploration of our increasingly social network based society, part thriller, it's a hard movie to review without spoilers. And the very fact that elements could be spoiled is part of the reason some doubt it's authenticity. Since I can't discuss exactly why I was so blown away by this one, I'll just say it wasn't what I expected. It built a surprising level of tension for a documentary, but ultimately, it turns out touching and more than a little sad. This is a must see movie in every way! And I will never accept a friend request on Facebook from someone I don't know again!

"Scream 4"

****½

Is it the best Scream movie? Arguable. Is it the best since the first? Easily. Is it funny as hell while simultaneously suspenseful? You bet. Will you jump out of your seat? One or four times. Is it an excellent commentary on the state of modern horror flicks? Completely. Did I have a fantastic time watching it? Oh yes I did. Was my opinion colored by nostalgia the moment I heard Ghostface's voice on the phone and saw Neve Campbell's face splashed across the screen? Perhaps. Is this review composed entirely of questions and answers? Yes. Yes it is.

"Limitless"

*****

I guess sometimes it's just the right movie at the right time. I thought I'd like this one, but oh boy did I underestimate it! I identified with the main character, saw myself in him (at least at the beginning) to an astonishing degree. And I was enthralled by the ride he goes on, it's ups and it's downs. The story moves around in interesting and fun ways, and with one very minor exception, I didn't see the twists and turns coming.

One should not ignore the performance Bradley Cooper gives here. As his options truly become limitless, and as he becomes very aware of this, it would've been very easy for the character to become smug (or Cloony-esque, if you will). It would then have been very easy to stop liking him, and the whole film would've collapsed as a result. But Cooper prevents this, playing him so that he always seems too thrilled with everything that he's doing to ever become self satisfied. It's not the kind of performance that earns Oscars, but it is the kind that solidifies movie stars.

I must also note the cool, kinetic visual style of the film. Film is an intrinsically visual medium, and when the drug takes effect, the director uses it completely. Colors suddenly heighten and pop. The view expands and augments with fish-eye lenses and even (somehow) complete 360 degree angles. Several times there are infinite zooms traveling down New York's long avenues (these shots are incredible, and I have no idea how they were done. I have theories. lol). There are camera pans that manage to cover time as well as space, when the drug begins causing gaps in his awareness. Some of these visuals are actually a bit jarring, even eye boggling, but it all heightens the effect.

 The movie will leave you with some unanswered questions, which I only note because I know some people don't like loose threads. For me it was just one more thing to discuss afterwards. Bottom line: I had a whole lot of fun, and ultimately, isn't that what matters most?

"Hanna"

****½

Smarter than your average action flick! And seriously, young Saoirse Ronan may be one of the best actresses out there. She acts circles around Cate Blanchette, and that's no easy task. This would not have worked so well if she weren't so very good in it, but boy is she!

The plot is beautifully cyclical, and director Joe Wright (director of Atonement, it is worthy to note) handles his slightly fantastical and surprisingly cerebral story with gritty realism and occasional visual flare. The opening sequences in a snow covered dense woodland and the closing sequence in an old, overgrown amusement park are beautiful, and evoke not only that old creeping dread of shadowy places but also reinforce the fantastical elements yet again.

Strip this movie bare and what you've got is a girl kept captive all her life who one day escapes to discover a wide world of wonders and relationships she never imagined. Sounds like a fantasy to me. No wonder I enjoyed it so much

"127 Hours"

*****

Incredible movie: visually stunning, perfectly acted, emotionally resonant, intense, and yes, graphic and upsetting. Franco must carry this movie on his shoulders; as mostly a one man show it would fly or die based on what he could do with it. (Not to discredit Danny Boyle's intense, awesomely visual directing style or A.R. Rahman's alternately throbbing/haunting score. Both are pitch perfect.) He is simply incredible, its a performance I'll never forget, and the film soars to almost ethereal heights of humor, despair, horror, and redemption. There are some moments that are hard to watch, but you MUST see this movie. You may never forget it!

"Thor"

****

The somewhat mighty Thor! Here we have a solid, though not exceptional, comic book movie. It opens with a huge back story that may run a little too long, and immediately had me a little worried. There were a lot of effects going on, and I think some pretty sweet battle scenes. I say I think because these scenes were very dark, and very rapidly edited, and I saw it in 3D, which just made the dark darker. I honestly wasn't sure just what was going on in these scenes! But once the movie arrives at the realm (planet) of the gods, it brightens considerably, and the design of this place is simply remarkable. I was especially impressed with the bridge that lead to the bridge. (That sentence will make sense once you've seen it.) Later darker scenes didn't give me the same problem, so that early issue clears itself up quite nicely. A last note on the 3D: the movie was stretched, not shot, in 3D, but the effect is done pretty well, better than most I've seen. And while Branagh doesn't exactly "use" the 3D to any extent, the depth is still impressive.

Once Thor is grown up and the plot really starts going we get wonderful, visually exciting action scenes; a strong undercurrent of good humor (at least on earth, Asgard seems like a deadly serious place); and, most importantly, a clear, well defined character arc for our main character. At the open Thor is a narcissistic, pompous warmonger. His father Odin (Hopkins) knows those ways can only lead to disaster, so he humbles Thor as completely as he can be humbled, and it is up to Thor to learn what leadership and heroism really mean. Hemsworth is cast perfectly. He looks every inch a Norse god, but more than that, he plays the extremes the character travels to a tee. Note the smile that fills his face as he discerns an imminent fight early on. Note how that same smile appears and softens later during a moment of levity. The movie would not have worked at all had he not played it so well. Portman, as the love interest, does perhaps the best she can with a character who's just not well developed. In fact, the biggest problem with the movie arrives right there. For all the fun on display, a linchpin element of the plot is the feelings Thor develops for her. They seem to get along well enough, but there never seems to be a moment of connection, never any real sparks. It came as a surprise to me when the movie informed us they were in love; I certainly hadn't seen any evidence of it.

Ultimately, what this movie is, is a setup for the forthcoming Avengers movie. Familiar elements of the Marvel universe abound, from SHIELD to references to Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Bruce Banner (the Hulk). Also watch for a cameo from Oscar nominee Jeremy Renner as fellow future Avenger Hawkeye, and the requisite cameo from Marvel creator Stan Lee. In that function, as set up for a future film, this is perfect. It establishes the character and furthers our understanding of the world in an awesomely fun, visually exciting way. As a stand alone film, however, it never reaches the heights it's aiming for. Nearly, but not quite.

"The King's Speech"

****½

For all the technical merits of a film, this one is astounding. The script feels organic and real. The art direction and set decoration evoke London in the first part of the 20th century perfectly, and even occasionally aid in your understanding of character. The direction is subtle and at times sublime, and the (Oscar winning) director has a unique and interesting eye. He frames his shots in unusual ways that are often artistic, occasionally slightly jarring, once or twice bordering on avant garde, but always interesting to look at, and often quite beautiful. (The king and his therapist walking through a park, the camera tracking in front of them, and everything vanishing behind them in the brightly lit, starkly white London fog as they walk. It's one of my favorite moments.)

The acting is absolutely perfect all around, especially Colin Firth, whose performance not only deserved the Oscar it won him, but deserves to be remembered as one of the finest performances of the early 21st century. I'm not exaggerating. A friend was impressed with his stammer, how real and organic it was, rising and falling with his emotions. For me it was far more than that. Watch his eyes. I've always thought the best performances happen in the eyes. He is completely earnest.

As a whole, though, this movie was not greater than the sum of it's phenomenal parts. Between moments of great drama and moments of surprisingly high humor, it seemed to drag, and I found my attention starting to wander. It would always come back around, but the very fact of it prevents me from giving the film a full 5 stars. I should note however by the end I was wholly absorbed again, and the film finishes with an emotional wallop. It's nice when a movie honestly brings out happy tears.

"The Last Exorcism"

*½

It's sad. Not only does this movie have an amazing, 5 star first act, it also has a truly revelatory performance. It begins by blatantly mocking exorcism cliches, which gleefully assuaged my fears that this would merely be a retread of said cliches. Rev. Cotton Marcus is established as a captivating character, all the more so because he seems completely unaware of what an ass he is. He doesn't really believe, you see, and isn't sure he ever did. It's all a show to him. So we've got an intriguing main character and fabulous first act...and then...well, nothing. It just all falls apart. No scares, no mood, tinkly supposed-to-be-eerie music that completely belies the idea that this is either documentary or found footage, and an ending that, well, let's just say I think I understand now how all those people that didn't like The Blair Witch Project felt at the end. I usually love these hand-held style movies, but this one just didn't work.

What saved it from utter loathing and elevated it to mere disdain was Ashley Bell. Her performance as Nell is astounding. She shifts effortlessly between wide-eyed innocence and seething rage. The magic really happens in her eyes. Note her simple joy when a gift is made of a favored pair of boots, or the shy enthusiasm with which she plays a song on her recorder. Then note the way she looks at the camera when she's discovered atop a wardrobe, or the sheer mania when the demon that may or may not be within her confronts Rev. Marcus. The camera lingers on her eyes in this moment, so you'll see what I mean. It is truly a wondrous performance, and truly unfair to her that the movie around it is such a steaming mess.

"Salt"

***

Salt spends much of it's run time trying to keep you on edge, unsure of what's really going on, where Salt's allegiances lie, and why. It twists around several times, gleefully doing the film version of a contortionist act. I usually love this stuff, but for some reason, I'm really not sure why, I saw every single twist coming. This wants to be Bourne with a girl-power twist, but eliminate the surprises, and what's left is a fairly run-of-the-mill action thriller.

Jolie is as always a joy to watch, in fact she's probably better here than she really needs to be.  Liev Schreiber also doesn't disappoint, but I found Chiwetel Ejiofor lacked much of the earnestness I've come to expect from him, probably because he doesn't have that much to work with: his character has little screen time and is decidedly one-note.

Ultimately, if you don't see the twists coming, you'll probably have a grand time (this was the case for others with whom I saw the film), and if you do, it still passes the time pleasantly enough. However, mild SPOILER ALERT here, must every new movie be a hook on which to hang a franchise? Is it too much to ask that we get an ending, rather than a dangling of further possibilities? Just asking.

"Audience of One"

****

You wanna see crazy happen? Watch this documentary, pay close attention, somewhere along the way you might just see the moment pastor Richard Gazowsky goes insane. Silly me, I missed it. It even took me until the last few minutes of the film to realize it had happened, but oh boy did it! It starts simply enough: man feels inspired by God to make a movie. He's not the first; more power to him. Things quickly go wrong, but he has faith things will come out right. God wants it to happen, right? The movie even sounds somewhat promising...if a little odd. But odd can work. But then, what happens when EVERYTHING goes wrong? Do you back down, humble yourself, and move on; or do you continue blindly ahead? Do you tell everyone the backers have guaranteed the money for the film, money that has a habit of doubling each time you mention it? Do you suddenly aspire in the midst of your failure to even bigger, grander, wildly ridiculous things? Watch how Gazowsky handles it, and just see if you can pinpoint the moment he breaks.

"The Taking of Pelham 123"

**

Ho-hum thriller. It's so hard to believe in Travolta as a bad-ass, and he really overdoes it. And Denzel, usually so good, seems to be just phoning it in. The direction is over-raught. The camera is constantly doing zoomy, blurry, streaky, flashy things which may be meant to ramp up the excitement but instead are very distracting. The script is atrocious, with f-bombs wedged in all over the place. I assume the profanity is an attempt to create realism, but it actually has the opposite effect, and feels, well, wedged in. And there are wholly unnecessary scenes where the police are moving the demanded-for money through the city and getting in fantastic and unrealistic accidents. This also, I assume, was an attempt to ramp up the action, and it also, shocker, fails. James Gandolfini is amusing as the mayor, and that's pretty much the only reason this isn't one star. I'd say avoid this, and maybe watch some paint dry instead. That would be much more riveting.

"Ringers: Lord of the Fans"

***

Amusing and frivolous. If you are a fan, like myself, chances are you will know much of what this documentary has to say already. The writing of the books, the high-brow slams and popular raves, the rising and falling waves of success over time (Frodo Lives!), the earlier animated film versions (Rankin & Bass, Ralph Bakshi), Peter Jackson's epic masterpiece; all this would be fairly well known and covered elsewhere.

There are a few bits of new and interesting info, though (to me at least). I was aware of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" and of course Led Zeppelin's near obsession with Middle-Earth, but not of all the rest of the Tolkien references in popular music, especially metal. Had to download "Rivendell" by Rush after watching! Also interesting that previous film versions were attempted in the 50s and 60s, but simply never worked out. (Could you imagine a LOTR film by, gasp, Disney?!) The interviews with fans assured me that I'm not as obsessive as I thought I was. Some of these folks are just plain nuts!

I'm not so sure I can agree with the movie's claim that LOTR was pretty much responsible for the counter-culture movement of the 60s, and a bit of self-indulgence at the end slightly mars the affair. In the end, if you are a fan, a Ringer, then you'll probably enjoy yourself. If not, stay away, you will be sooooo bored. Side-note: I celebrate Bilbo and Frodo's birthday every year. You see, its my birthday, too!

"The China Syndrome"

*****

During the near accident that begins the film, between the big tremors that everyone feels, there is a slight vibration that only Jack Lemmon's character notices. That vibration runs as an undercurrent through the rest of the film, with tension ever mounting because of it, and what it may mean. This is a terrifying film, more because of what it implies than what it shows. This could happen (and has.) That's just scary.

Modern sensibilities want this to be a disaster flick, which it is not, and I found myself, thanks to the ADD so many current films induce, drifting slightly. But every time that happened, it wouldn't last long, because some truly riveting moment would grab me and pull me back in. There are a lot of riveting moments here, half the movie leaves you perched precariously on the edge of your seat. One great scene cuts constantly from the loud, ratcheting sounds in the body of the plant, to the near-silence of the control room, and the intensity of Jack Lemmon's face. The effect is nerve-rattling.

And speaking of Jack Lemmon, WOW! Many of the great moments come from him, and his virtuoso performance. He deserved that Oscar nod, and I think he deserved to win. Jane Fonda is of course also fantastic in her nominated role. If Lemmon is the heart of the movie (and he is), then she is the brain that makes the whole thing run. She asks the questions we need answers to (mention must be made of the great screenwriting here, and the inspired idea to have the main character be a reporter). Plus she has a pet turtle, which is totally random and awesome.

Some, admittedly, may not enjoy a movie that relies so heavily on talking and the intensity of it's performers. Some may well be bored throughout. But I saw deft direction, excellent screenwriting, powerful performances, and yes, true fear. For me, this is one of the best thrillers ever made.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street"

****

Here we have a very capable remake. The story is ever so slightly different, with modern updates obviously but also a bit more of a connection made between Freddy's teen victims and the small children he may have once abused.

I quaked with eager anticipation at what Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach in Watchmen) would bring to this iconic role, and I was not disappointed. He slips into it like a razor-fingered glove. I especially like this one thing he does, twitching two fingers together, scraping the blades. It's subtle, but unnerving. And I love the new make-up job. Freddy finally looks like a real burn victim! There's really no need to mention the other characters/actors. They're done well enough, but ultimately they're just teen scream stock.

One excellent touch is the use of "All I Have to Do is Dream" by the Everly Brothers. Don't know why slow 50's pop songs can be so creepy, but they can, and this one adds excellent atmosphere. For the most part the visual effects work, though there is one moment that flashes CGI like a neon sign, as Freddy presses out of a wall. Funny how this effect looks exactly the same as it did when Peter Jackson did it in The Frighteners way back in 1996. This could easily have been a practical effect, and it would have looked much better. But even with a few digital strings showing, I still greatly enjoyed this one. It certainly ensures that an icon of horror will haunt our dreams for years to come.

"The Fountain"

*****

Here are some things that struck me on my fifth viewing of this amazing film. The director uses a pallet of basically four colors: mainly black and white, with occasional splashes of red, and everywhere washes of gold. These colors are all symbolic of life and death. Darren Aronofsky is a true visionary, a master of color and light and framing, and here is some of the most powerful and beautiful imagery I've EVER seen in a film.

But the imagery alone does not carry the movie. Aronofsky's skilled direction and tender, heartfelt script would mean nothing if not for the performances of the main characters. Rachel Weisz is always good, and this is no exception. And she is, in my opinion, more beautiful than normal, because here she seems so fragile, so delicate, a tenuous thing that must be treasured. And, brace yourself, kids, Wolverine can really act. Hugh Jackman's performance is amazing and heartbreaking, and I don't understand for a moment why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar here.

The compounding layers of story are dense, yes, but they do make sense if you just put forth the effort to understand. This is not a movie for casual viewing, and I think that's where most people had a problem. If you simply watch it, you will be lost. It requires dissection, discussion, and hard contemplation. It is a tough movie, about accepting the hardest facts of life, and I have no shame in saying I haven't been able to get through it yet without weeping copiously.

"Death is the road to awe." We hear this phrase several times in the movie. Think on this as you experience The Fountain, and if you reach an understanding, you will be awed.

"Let the Right One In"

*****

This is easily the best vampire movie so far this century, and quite possibly the best of the last 30 years. It follows the vampire mythology pretty strictly, and it takes its vampires very seriously. It is expertly directed by Tomas Alfredson, a man who really knows how to frame a shot; there are moments of intense visual beauty here. It is very light on visual effects (with the exception of some very CGI cats that are thankfully seen only briefly), and very heavy on suggestion and implication. Horror is created in subtle touches. This all works in it's favor.

But the movie, truth be told, relies entirely on the performances of it's two young actors, and in this it is pitch perfect. Lina Leandersson is stunning, let me say that again, STUNNING, as Eli the vampire. In her voice, her manner, and even in the depths of her strange silvery eyes, we sense the weight of long years, and longing for companionship she feels she can never have because of what she is. We also, when necessary, sense her hunger, and it is a fearful thing. All thoughts of the world-weary child vampire once played by Kirsten Dunst vanish in her presence. In perfect counterbalance is Kare Hedebrant as Oskar. He is simple and at times naive, ready to accept the impossible with ease, because he knows the mundane evils of the world so well. He is bullied, he is the product of a broken home, and he occasionally fantasizes about gutting his tormentors, making them squeal. There is much weight to his performance as well, but it always feels like your watching a real little boy struggling with these problems.

The sweet, innocent, preadolescent romance that develops between them is a wonderful thing to behold. I've barely scratched the surface of why this is so darn good, but trust me, it is. In a world where vampires are becoming jokes and brooding expressions of teen angst, this one does it right. So if you plan on inviting a vampire movie into your home, be sure you Let the Right One In.

NOTE: An American remake of this has been made titled Let Me In. It is not bad, but on the whole it is an inferior reproduction. Please do not be daunted by the Swedish language or the subtitles of the original, just watch it!

"Kick-Ass"

***

The best moment in this movie comes towards the end of the first act. Our titular hero, Kick-Ass, is poised over a man he doesn't know, ready to defend him from three armed thugs who attacked for reasons he doesn't know, while a group of people watch on the sidelines, making the recordings on their cell phones that will turn him into an overnight phenomenon. Sure, he has metal rods throughout his body making his bones hard to break, and nerve-ending damage making pain dulled for him (all the result of a previous beating), but really he's just an average kid. There is so much nobility and truth in this moment that I thought the movie had already firmly secured a 5 star rating and contention to be one of my favorites of the year.

Then, only a few minutes later, a little girl violently kills several people. Sure, they too are thugs and drug dealers, but, come on, it's a little girl! In fact, the vast majority of the surprisingly ultraviolent deaths in the movie are doled out by this pretty little girl. Something about this bothers me severely.

Everything else here is fun and funny. Aaron Johnson's performance as our main ass kicker is quite good. It's easy to believe in this guy, both as high school uber-geek and as crime fighting alter-ego, and the movie benefits greatly from this. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin) is also fun as the Red Mist. Over all I enjoyed this, but I just couldn't get over that adorable little girl, and all the blood she leaves on the walls.

"Lo"

*****

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have absolute proof that large budgets, visual effects, name actors, or, heck, even sets, are not required to make a good movie. What is required is a good, well thought out, original story, and good actors to convey it. This may be the lowest budget movie I've ever seen, and it does show.

The makeup for the titular demon, Lo (that guy on the cover up there) was probably the most expensive part of the movie, and indeed it is a fantastic makeup job. Also, it is a fantastic performance from Jeremiah Birkett that breaths totally believable life into the makeup. He is frightening, untrustworthy, prideful, and downright hilarious. Not an easy balance, but he pulls it off.

The movie as a whole is quite bold and daring, telling it's story in a most unconventional way. And it's funny as all get out. I've always admired artistic invention in the face of dauntingly low budget, and this one has it in spades. But more important than it's inventiveness, it's sometimes crude and profane humor (Cussing and smoking and sex jokes and baby eating jokes. You've been warned), it's good makeup and acting, it's surprisingly good sound design, more than all this, it is this movie's great big, beating heart that makes it so very, very good.

"Crank 2: High Voltage"

**½

There's really only two ways to do a sequel. There's a continuing of story and deepening of character, etcetera, and there's the "more, more, more" of the same style. It should come as no surprise that this one takes the latter approach. Much like Statham's Transporter franchise, if you saw the first you know what to expect: a high energy, frenetic rampage of action, violence, and sex all over Los Angeles. It's absolutely ridiculous, utterly impossible, and totally stupid. But there's so very much of the "more, more, more" and it goes so outrageously over the top in every way that it also manages to be just as much fun, if not more so, than the original. Until about the one hour mark.

I honestly don't know what happened, maybe the dual directors felt a need to stretch it out a bit. Between one hour and one hour fifteen minutes in there are three, count 'em, THREE back-to-back destroyers of momentum. First we cut away, in the very middle of a chase scene no less, to an extremely long and unnecessarily cruel plot-stopping joke relating to the first movie. Then there's what I'm assuming was some sort of hallucination, wherein a fight scene is shown as silly, unfunny, giant Godzilla style versions of the characters fighting each other in a miniature set. And finally, we get a piece of momentum-killing back story on Chev Chelios, our main character, which appears to be set on a British talk show.

All this could have been cut out, leaving a movie of around an hour and twenty five minutes or so, that would have been an easy four stars. As is, if you really liked the first one, you'll probably dig most of this, but not all, I promise. If you didn't like the first, stay far, far away.

"G-Force"

**

I didn't exactly go in to this one with the highest expectations, but the gimmick of 3-D often elevates a ho-hum movie into a bonafide event. This was the case with the recent Journey to the Center of the Earth. The movie was pretty average, but the 3-D made it incredibly fun. Not so here. The depth of the shots is decent, but there's really very little of that eye-popping, in your face 3-D we've come to expect from these movies.

Aside from that the story is uninspired, the visual effects are good, yes, but not great, the action is fairly lazy, and it just plain isn't funny. A chuckle here and there and that's about it. And I'm not alone here, the packed theater I saw it in (full mostly of children) remained fairly quiet throughout. And there's Tracy Morgan. See my review of Farce of the Penguins for my opinion on him and his vocal effect on comedy.

I will admit there's a good chance the youngest viewers may enjoy the cuddly characters and bright colors, but once they enter the double digits they'll probably be just as bored as you, the parent, will be. I'd say avoid this one. It is, in my opinion, the worst movie of 2009.

"Amusement"

*½

Amusement, or as I like to call it, Lemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfortunate Plot Holes, is not so much a movie as a series of vignettes which are drawn out of other movies and then strung together. The effect is very scattered, and does a fine job of destroying any kind of tension the movie may have built.

First we get a dose of Joy Ride, with the creepy trucker who's obviously up to no good. A little too obviously. Next comes Halloween, with a dash of Poltergeist thrown in for spice. The clown costume here, the one on the poster up there, might have been creepy in the hands of a more capable director. Next comes one I can't correlate to any specific movie, but it's the large, creepy house that causes everyone who enters to mysteriously vanish. A house that, I must add, though it has crumbling plaster and dripping water and vines crawling up it's walls, every character believes is a functioning hotel. And finish it off with a sort of Saw/Kiss the Girls mash up. Oh, and throw in some dioramas. Why not?

And did I mention the plot holes? What happened to the kids in the Halloween segment? Who is the woman who is interviewing our "heroine," and where did she come from? And just who is funding the elaborate homes and devices used by the killer? His job seems to be CEO of Murder (Vice President of Cackling Laughter), so just where does he get those wonderful toys? This really seems to be a perfect exercise in how NOT to make a horror movie. To sum up very simply: We are not amused.

"Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon"

****

Some movies, despite good intentions and the best of efforts, just come out bad. But some movies have all their intentions and efforts funneled into MAKING them bad. This movie is the latter. I've said before that a good director can even use his or her low budget to their advantage (see Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy and Peter Jackson's Dead Alive). Here director Richard Griffin has done the same. The acting, plot, fog, characters, dialogue, fog, creatures, lighting, fog... it's all just wonderfully ridiculous.

Things are taken so far over the top in such silly ways, and all for what, judging solely by what you see on screen, couldn't have been more than 200 bucks. Surely no more than that. And an amusing device is used to "represent" scenes that would have exceeded that meager budget. The film occasionally cuts from the live action into comic book-like panels, and in these we see what in a movie costing maybe 250 bucks would've been visual effects shots. And towards the end we have the glorious climax of all this silly badness (and the final, absolute proof of the director's intent) when we see a creature in a most unexpected outfit. I don't wanna give anything away, but let's just say there's lace involved. So, if you like cheesy horror, intentional train wrecks, or are a wee bit less than sober, check this one out, and laugh, laugh, laugh.

"Watchmen"

*****

I think it's important to establish right away that this is not an action movie. Those who see it expecting an action movie (as I was) may be disappointed by what they find (I was decidedly not!). This is not the next 300. It's more of a noir, with broader implications on what it means to be American, what it means to be human, and what it might mean if you're a little more than human.

The world the film is set in and the history of the Watchmen are both established during the title sequence in a series of beautifully created scenes that seem to bring photographs to life before our eyes, and this powerful and beautiful imagery continues throughout the nearly three hour film. If one thing can be overwhelmingly said for director Zack Snyder it's that he pays attention to every aspect of every shot he creates, painting in the corners, filling in the lines, creating amazing images for us to digest along with the surprisingly heady script.

The characters in this movie are by no means your everyday, righteous superheros. These are deeply flawed people living in a world they (or most of them at least) feel a duty to protect. But what can they do when, after all, they're only human (or most of them at least). You won't like all these "heroes," but you may see yourself in them.

Try not to go in with false expectations and you will find a beautiful, very visceral and disturbing, and richly rewarding movie.

"The Muppets Take Manhattan"

****

After recently re-watching this movie for the first time in, maybe, 20 years, I dropped its original rating by one star. Nostalgia and childhood memories implied a grand spectacle of humor, suspense, color, light, and music. This is not that movie. Which is not to say this movie isn't great, it's just not fantastic.

Anything the Muppets do will delight children, so this is a sure bet for the kids. For adults what you get is a slightly silly, utterly predictable musical comedy. There's a few catchy tunes here, I've had "Somebody's Getting Married" running through my head for days. Of course there's some wacky Muppet fun, a favorite of mine is water-skiing Gonzo and his harem of chickens. There's cameos and guest stars galore, though if you're under 25 it's likely you won't recognize many of them. There's even a few good punches at 80's America. I especially enjoyed the ultra-droll ad executives Gil, Bill, and Jill.

Though it's a shadow of its predecessor, it's still a pretty fun little movie, with a nice message about the importance of friends and family that even the smallest viewer won't miss.

"Cutthroat Island"

***

Cutthroat Island wants very badly to be a rip-roaring, crowd-pleasing adventure, and it almost succeeds. There's plenty of swashbuckling and daring-do, and lots of big, loud, explosions. Though at times the sword-play looks overly choreographed and the stunt sequences look like they're being done on a Disney World set before a live audience, next show in an hour.

Then there are the stars. Matthew Modine does his best impersonation of Westley from The Princess Bride, and it's not a very good one. Frank Langella spends all of his camera time gnawing voraciously on the scenery. And if the idea of Geena Davis as a beautiful, strong pirate captain sounds ludicrous, the sight of it is even more so. Her swordplay and stunt work are decent enough, but she lacks any real gravitas. She is neither commanding nor inspiring, and to be honest, she looks a bit odd at times here.

That is not to say that the movie is all bad. There is some beautiful scenery, and some of the action sequences were good. There are also a few amusing one-liners. "Since you lie and are shallow, I shall lie you in a shallow grave," says the captain at one point. "Chuckle, chuckle," says I in response, that was nicely cheesy. Oh yes, and monkeys are always fun. So if you're into sea-faring adventures you could do worse than this. It'll pass two hours of your time pleasantly enough, and then it will slip almost immediately out of your mind.

"Metropolis"

*****

This, the first filmed sci-fi epic (1927), remains one of the best. On a purely visual level, this movie is sublime. Fritz Lang's surrealistic vision uses religious and occult symbolism, art deco and totalitarian styles, and beautiful cutting-edge (for the time) cinematography and visual effects to create a world that had never been seen before, and has influenced almost everything that has been seen since. This is a true masterpiece, a work of utter brilliance.

Does this mean everyone will love it? Most definitely not. Some will be bored to tears by the slow pacing of the film. Most will probably appreciate it merely as a fine piece of history, an antique to be taken out, dusted off, and viewed as a reminder of times gone by. For me though, and I suspect for some others out there, this movie is absolutely thrilling. I found myself captivated, never distracted for a moment by the typical overly-theatrical acting used in all silent films.

In fact, I found the performance of Brigitte Helm quite good. She is the heart of this movie, and embodies her dual roles completely, changing the way she holds her face, the way she moves, and even the very nature of her posture and presence between the characters so you never for a moment have to wonder which one you're seeing, though the two look exactly alike.

It is a sad fact that portions of this film have been lost to history, and segments must be recreated using only title cards, filling in the blanks so to speak. (16 minutes previously thought lost were found on an old negative from I believe Argentina in 2008. These sequences were restored and edited back into the movie in a version called "The Complete Metropolis". When I see this version I will post a new review.) Kudos must be given for the fantastic digital restoration on the Kino disc and the inclusion of the original score, which adds whole levels of texture and emotion to the already emotional and textured visuals.

Watch this movie, as history, as entertainment, as art, for it is all three and more. Just watch it, and pick your jaw up off the floor when it's over.

"Gone Baby Gone"

****

Well, turns out Ben Affleck is a much better director than he is an actor, for here he has given us a tight, smart, suspenseful thriller. It is wonderfully well acted (obligatory mention of Amy Ryan's very rightly Oscar nominated turn as, well, not the best mother) and beautifully shot, with a script that moves back and forth from extremely profane (F-bombs drop like rain water - consider yourself warned) to sublimely poetic. And of course, a few nice twists are thrown in along the way.

Ultimately the movie becomes one that will challenge audiences, presenting some very hard moral choices. It ponders on right and wrong, but unlike many movies with similar themes, it does not decide for us which way is best. It merely presents itself and lets us decide for ourselves. That, my friends, is quality.

"Driving Miss Daisy"

*****

This is a top-notch comedy which has, as all truly great comedies do, very serious overtones. But yes, you will laugh. You will also be quite touched. Jessica Tandy and Morgan Freeman embody their roles perfectly, as does most of the supporting cast. Tandy was truly one of the great actresses of all time, and she is still sorely missed. I had not seen this movie before, and after nearly 20 years, it still has the power to entertain, to speak big messages in a small, simple voice, and to move. This is a timeless piece of cinema, one for the ages. It is rare to see such heavy issues covered so lightly and so well. Immensely satisfying, watch it and love it.

"Once"

****½

This film is so simply portrayed that it becomes somewhat disarming. No lavish, big-budget musical is this (it looks like it may have been shot on Super 8 film), but that very simple realism works to its benefit to create something that feels very real, almost like a documentary filmmaker found this guy on the street just as this girl came into his life and shook things up.

This, maybe more than any other film I've seen, is a musical that would work for people who don't like musicals. People do not randomly burst into song, rather they are musicians, and are creating songs that naturally develop out of what is happening to them. As for the songs, some of them are slightly odd, most of them are quite beautiful, and at least one of them will remain in your head for days afterward. It won an Oscar for Best Original Song, after all.

This film is, simply, a moment in two people's lives where they came together and created magic. I can think of few better ways to pass an hour and a half. I must note however, this one lost half a star for me due to HEAVY accents. It is hard to understand what is being said at times, and the most clear word at all times is the F-word, which is used heavily (consider yourself warned). But give it a watch anyway, you might find yourself moved.

"Changeling"

****½

Angelina Jolie gives one of her finest performances in Clint Eastwood's sprawling, powerhouse drama. This is a difficult movie, made all the more so because it is true, and should be viewed only by those wanting something heavy, something dark, something powerfully moving. It is disgusting to see the great injustices done to this woman, and you rally behind her in her struggle to seek justice.

"Never start a fight, but always finish it," she tells her son early in the film. And when the absolute authority of the ever-infamous LAPD starts a fight with her, she must conquer seemingly impossible odds to finish it. This movie is very sad, very harrowing, and very, very good.