Collateral

Within an actor’s career there is generally one film, sometimes more, that is viewed as a defining moment for that actor. The point at which no matter what is going on in the person’s public life, according to the media, or however many successful movies or flops they’ve had throughout their career, a moviegoer sees this defining moment and says “This person is actually a really solid actor, and completely sold me on their character, to the point I actually forgot who the actor was I was watching.” Or at least say or think something to that effect after watching the defining movie. Anyways, it doesn’t really matter how long a person’s career is, this moment can happen early or late in a career, it’s all a matter of the right material at the right time. For Tom Cruise, his defining moment, actually moments in his case, would be “The Last Samurai” and “Collateral”; the latter is the one I believe was his biggest moment. Both movies came later in his career, long after he had become a household name.

“Collateral” takes place in Los Angeles over the course of one long night for a cab driver named Max (Jamie Foxx), whose newest fare, an outgoing man named Vincent (Tom Cruise), is about to turn his life upside down. Unbeknownst to Max when he took this newest fare, Vincent is a contract killer who is in town to make five stops, which amounts to five kills, and then leaves L.A. as if he was never there. Now, Max must struggle with the fact that he is essentially becoming an accomplice to the murder of 5 people, while at the same time he is trying to find a way to not only survive the night, but also save a few of the people’s lives in the process.

For me, “Collateral” is the biggest defining moment in Tom Cruise’s career, I know I said he’s had two moments, but this movie is much more significant than “The Last Samurai”, in terms of how convincing his performance truly was. In this movie Tom Cruise still plays a likeable character, to an extent, but one with a much darker side than most of his characters, and over the course of the movie Vincent loses all of his charm, becoming even colder, to the point that there is no possible redemption for him in the audiences eyes. To my knowledge, this is the first time that Cruise has ever played an all-out villain, sure he’s played a few characters with questionable morals and what-not, but never one that is purely cold, calculating and in the end, evil. Another surprise for me, was the fact that Tom Cruise actually allowed his hair to be dyed gray, further evidence that he really wanted to sell this character to the audience and make them forget who it was they were watching, and know only the character on the screen. Everything about Cruise’s performance was brilliant, from his charm that masked his underlying evil, to his extreme intensity and sharp focus, he never once missed a beat, and that is what allowed “Collateral” to become such a defining moment in his long career.

The supporting cast, primarily Jamie Foxx, was very solid, engaging and thoroughly believable. Jamie Foxx delivered an excellent performance as a cabbie who is deluding himself and those around him into believing that he will one day own a limo service for the rich and powerful. The change Max endures over the course of this one difficult night with Vincent is so deep that you see everything about him change before your eyes. From his attention to detail and cleanliness to his delusions of grandeur, nothing about Max would ever be the same after this night was over, and Jamie Foxx handled the evolution of his character with such ease and believability, that it’s easy to see why he’s become such a big star in Hollywood.

Directed by acclaimed director Michael Mann (“Heat”), whose great attention to detail and character development is appropriately suited to just this type of material, the fate of “Collateral” could not have been in any better hands. Mann has managed to direct such big name stars as Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Colin Farrell throughout his career, and he’s become so powerful within the Hollywood system, that he actually had the clout to be able to reject Tom Cruise, at first, in regards to the role of Vincent. It wasn’t until Tom participated in a test, where he acted as if he was a deliveryman, a test that Mann used as a gauge for whether or not Tom Cruise could be believable in the role, that he won the role and the opportunity to prove just how talented he really was.

“Collateral” is the kind of movie that demands your attention from start to finish, as it continuously builds up an intriguing story and increases the tension as the minutes tick by, leaving audiences on the edge of their seats until the credits roll.

“Collateral” is rated R for violence and language.

Superman: Doomsday

In 1992, one of the biggest events in comics’ history was taking place over the course of multiple issues of DC Comics’ long-running ‘Superman’ titles. That event would be the landmark ‘Death of Superman’ storyline. That storyline followed by the ‘World Without a Superman’ and ‘Return of Superman’ storylines contain some of the best moments in the Man of Steel’s enduring career (in my opinion), and to this day rank amongst some of my most favorite comic book stories ever written. Fans of the comics, myself included, have often wondered and even hoped that one day a movie would be made chronicling this story, but realistically I knew it would never happen, not in live action anyway. Too much money, much too massive of a storyline, and the studios didn’t appear to be all that interested. However, after the massive successes of “Batman: The Animated Series” and “Superman: The Animated Series” followed by “Justice League”, animator/director Bruce Timm was given the go-ahead by Warner Brothers to begin work on an adaptation of this very storyline to be told in the form of animation. A medium that is perfectly suited for just this type of epic story. And with Bruce Timm at the helm, I figured that this particular property was in really good hands.

“Superman: Doomsday” is a loose adaptation of the epic storyline chronicling Superman’s death and resurrection. When Lexcorp accidentally unearths a spaceship, they unknowingly cause the release of a merciless killer monster. As the monster known as Doomsday cuts a massive swath of damage, only one man appears capable of stopping such an evil force of nature. And so, Superman (Adam Baldwin) flies head-on into battle against the creature, matching him blow for blow, neither combatant seeming to have an advantage over the other. As the battle wears on Superman makes one final, last-ditch attempt to stop Doomsday, but sadly in order to stop him, Superman sacrificed himself in the process as well. While the world mourns the loss of it’s greatest hero, everything seems so bleak and the world needs a hero. When suddenly it appears that Superman may not be dead after all. As a man who appears to be Superman begins saving the citizens of Metropolis once more, people are both excited to see their hero alive, but curious how it’s possible. However, as Superman begins to act much colder than he used to, showing no mercy at times to criminals, the citizen’s of Metropolis wonder if maybe this ‘Superman’ may not actually be the real deal. To complicate matters even further another Superman appears, this one in a black suit, claiming to be the true Man of Steel. But which hero is the true one?

After achieving so much success with DC’s many characters in animated form, would Bruce Timm’s apparent golden touch work on the Man of Steel’s best-selling graphic novel? The answer would be a resounding, ‘Yes’, and with flying colors, too. Bruce Timm’s work here is among his finest, the animation is crisp (as we’ve come to expect from his work), the story is well-paced with plenty of action and drama, and the voice actors he gathered together are excellent as always.

I had rather high expectations with this particular movie, not just because I knew the talent behind the movie was exceptional, but also because this is such a beloved character and story arc that you want it to be done faithfully. Now, I know that this movie differs from the overall storyline from the comics, but as the creative team had pointed out there’s not near enough time in a 75 minute movie to tell the amount of story contained in the Death and Return of Superman storyline. So of course some trimming was going to be required, and I wasn’t at all disappointed by the results. I thought the creative license that was taken was appropriate, I mean sure one does miss the chance to see the Cyborg Superman, the Eradicator, and Superboy, even Steel on some minor level. But you have to realize there was no way to show all of that unless you spread the story out over multiple movies (which would have been great). In place of them Bruce and his team have rolled up all of those characters into one specific character in the movie, so on some level you do get a slight hint of each of those pretenders to the throne.

The actors that were chosen to bring their animated counterparts to life were all ones that had not previously been associated with any of the series’ that Bruce Timm and his team had worked on over the years. A move that I somewhat liked, but also was a little frustrated with. I understood that the intention is to make these animated movies that Warner Brothers is producing be separate entities from the previous animated series’, but I would have liked hearing Tim Daly or George Newbern voicing Superman (“Superman: The Animated Series” and “Justice League” respectively) or even Clancy Brown as Lex Luthor again. Even without those actors, the cast for this movie was spot-on. I thought that Adam Baldwin did a terrific job of voicing Superman, and made it a point to provide different vocal inflections to signal the difference between Superman and the pretender. Anne Heche, though not my first choice for Lois Lane, actually did a really good job, and a couple of parts I actually really felt for her even though it was a cartoon. The remainder of the supporting cast were all equally strong in their performances, and each character was brought to life in very vivid ways that furhter enhanced the enjoyment I had for this movie. The quality of the voice acting, as it did during the various series’, continues to serve as a testament to the terrific voice direction from Andrea Romano (long-time collaborator on the various animated series’).

If there’s one thing that can be said for Bruce Timm and company, is that they definitely know their heroes, and how to produce high-quality projects that allow them to resonate with the widest audience, from the hard core fans to the average viewer, there’s a little something for everyone in each of their properties. From long-running animated series’ to feature films, the future definitely seems bright for DC Comics’ characters. In regards to this new batch of animated films that Warner Brothers and DC Comics are working on, “Superman: Doomsday” is definitely an incredible start, and sets the bar rather high for the films that will follow.

“Superman: Doomsday” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and minor sensuality.

The Hitcher (remake)

In the horror film genre you can always count on the fact that these types of movies will undoubtedly follow the trends of the time. In the early days of cinema monster films were the way to go. In the 70’s, John Carpenter set a new trend of the unkillable killer with his classic “Halloween”. With the 80’s came the era of the overly repetitive sequel with series’ such as ‘Friday the 13th’ and ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’. Then, director Wes Craven introduced the hip, smart-talking, mystery filled horror film with his mega hit “Scream”. But the most recent trend began in 2003 with the remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, thus the trend of the remake had begun and is still going strong. The most recent addition to this trend is the 2007 release of “The Hitcher” starring Sean Bean, a remake of a 1986 film of the same name starring Rutger Hauer.

“The Hitcher” is set during spring break when a young couple is taking a road trip to see some friends. But what started out as a peaceful, fun trip quickly turned deadly when the couple decides to pick-up a hitchhiker (Sean Bean), and this kind gesture is now a fight for survival against a psychotic killer that will never give up.

With many of these recent remakes I find myself wondering, “Why? What’s the point with these movies?” And for the most part I can’t come up with much of an answer for myself. I see to some extent that you may want to make the story a little more solid, or at least attempt to, maybe give some more background to some of these villains that have become cult icons. But for the most part, the biggest point to making one of these remakes is to up the blood and gore quotient of the original film. Generally the originals were made with far less emphasis on gore, and for some reason today’s directors feel the need to dump as many buckets of fake blood over the course of the movie as possible. And of course plenty of horror film enthusiasts will go out and see these films. Now I will admit that I watch horror films, and some of them I actually think are good (the ‘Scream’ trilogy, for instance), but I don’t watch these movies just to see blood and guts, in fact I’m fine with the more Hitchkockian approach of making the audience imagine what’s happening rather than showing them. What gets me to want to see one of these movies is if the movie appears to have a story, looks intriguing, and the possibility of a couple of thrills, and maybe even a jump scene or two. But with these recent remakes that Hollywood has been churning out, I’ve got to say, I’m not impressed. I haven’t seen a single one that was really worth anything. Most are simply the same story but with much more gore, not too much more depth is added to any other aspect of the original film, they all just seem like an excuse to splash some more blood on the screen.

With all that being said, and my rant on this most recent trend complete, I will move on to what I thought of “The Hitcher”. So, did “The Hitcher” manage to succeed where all the other horror remakes have failed or did it succumb to the same sad ending? In my opinion, “The Hitcher” succumbed. The movie started out with some promise, but quickly began to crumble due to not enough story and too many plot holes. I don’t know what the writers were thinking, perhaps they felt the audience was smart enough to just interpret the rest of the story for themselves so that they wouldn’t have to write it out. I don’t know, but for the most part there was too much left unexplained and too many ‘How did that happen?’ type of scenarios that caused this movie to fall apart in a hurry.

The actors all did well with what they were given to work with, Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton as the young couple were very capable as the victims, and Neal McDonough’s (“Walking Tall”) brief appearance as a police lieutenant was a bright spot for the movie. But the biggest kudos go to Sean Bean for his menacing turn as the villain John Ryder (originally played by Rutger Hauer in the 1986 version). Sean does very well in the villainous role, but what I don’t get though, is as good of an actor as Sean Bean is, why would he choose to sign on to a movie like this? I understand that maybe he wanted to play a character that is well known and try to put his own spin on it, but he surely read the script first. I mean when your character’s entire motivation for why he’s doing this is summed up with the words “You’re a smart boy, you’ll figure it out.”, you know you’re in trouble, because it’s obvious the writers couldn’t come up with a reason for why he’s a killer. My guess is that Sean was bored and just wanted a paycheck, otherwise there’s not much more reason for him taking the role in this lame remake.

“The Hitcher” is one of those movies that looked good, had what appeared to be a decent story, a solid actor as the villain, but somewhere along the way managed to fall completely apart. And clearly, I’m not alone in my thinking because the movie did not do well at the box office, staying only a brief time in theaters before being sent on it’s way to DVD shelves where it should have premiered in the first place.

“The Hitcher” is rated R for violence and language.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

In Hollywood, repeat collaborations between certain actors and directors is a very popular, and generally lucrative prospect for all parties involved. Each partner in the collaboration walks away a winner, mostly because the movie that was worked on was a success, earning them more respect, bigger star power, and sometimes even critical acclaim. There are currently a few big name collaborations that have been prominent over the last few years, George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh (“Ocean’s 11-13″), Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan (“Batman Begins” and “The Prestige”), Kevin Smith and the batch of actors that have appeared in almost every one of his films (from “Mallrats” to “Clerks 2″). But there is one collaboration that has existed longer than the others, since the 1990 release of “Edward Scissorhands”, the collaborators are, of course, Johnny Depp (‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ trilogy) and director Tim Burton (“Batman”). What’s impressive about this particular collaboration, sure the length of time is quite a feat by Hollywood standards, but the fact that this collaboration remains so powerful at the box office is astonishing. Almost every one of Johhny Depp’s and Tim Burton’s movies have turned a profit. In 2007, the duo came together yet again for the movie “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”, but before this film the two worked on the remake of the Roald Dahl children’s classic “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, the novel that had been previously adapted in 1971 with “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is the story of a sweet, good-hearted little boy named Charlie (Freddie Highmore) who lives in a rundown shack with his mother, father, and both sets of grandparents. They have next to nothing to live on, and Charlie’s birthday is coming up, and the only thing they can afford is one single candy bar. But not just any candy bar, a Wonka Bar, made at the mysterious Wonka Chocolate Factory located in the same town. What makes the factory so mysterious is that not a single person has been seen coming or going from that factory in 15 years, that is until an announcement goes out to the whole world that 5 lucky people will be selected to visit the factory and meet the reclusive owner, Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp). Most of Charlie’s life, good fortune has been rather elusive, but one lucky day changes everything as Charlie finds one of the 5 golden tickets that will give him access to Wonka’s factory, and the wonders that Charlie will behold will change his life forever.

When I first heard about this movie’s release, I wasn’t all that excited to see it, in fact I didn’t even want to see it at all. For starters, I didn’t care a whole lot for the original movie “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” starring Gene Wilder, so I didn’t really see what I would find of interest here. Plus, the original film was so well received by critics and audiences, that I didn’t understand the point behind making this updated version. However, one day I recorded the movie off of the Showtime network, and figured what the heck, I’ll give it a try. I mean, it’s Johnny Depp and Tim Burton together again, just how bad could this movie be.

Truth be told, the movie’s not all that bad. It’s obvious the reason that Depp and Burton continue collaborating is that there is a chemistry there that allows their work together to be so successful, and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was at least a decent addition to their list of collaborations, though not their best by any means.

As one could easily tell from the previews, and possibly the DVD cover for that matter, the movie is strange, no doubt about that. There’s a lot of weird things that occur in the movie, some that happened in the original, and some new, but the story is actually quite endearing as you watch this young boy’s innocence begins to reach this reclusive man, showing him that reaching out and trusting in others will bring a sense of belonging into his life. There were some elements to the film that I didn’t care for, primarily the song numbers, they were just flat-out irritating to listen to, and I found myself skipping ahead to the end of the song as they did nothing more than slow the movie down. Some of the characters were extremely annoying, but that’s not so much the actors fault as it was simply the way the character was meant to be, but I still didn’t care for them and couldn’t wait for them to get off the screen.

Performance wise, Johnny Depp did an excellent job as the quirky eccentric Willy Wonka, a role I was surprised that Depp was chosen for, but his chameleon-like ways with characters continued to serve him well in this movie. Some critics of the film felt Depp’s portrayal was a bit too much like Michael Jackson, leaving them with a creepy feeling when Wonka was on screen. Personally I didn’t read that into his Depp’s performance, though I can maybe see how some might think that. The other standout performance was Freddie Highmore’s, this talented young actor, who previously appeared in “Finding Neverland” with Johnny Depp, convincingly conveyed the innocence and naive view of the world that Charlie possessed, and he seemed like the perfect good kid, to the point he was a little unbelievable as a character. Charlie’s character, in this film, was just too perfect, he listened and obeyed everything that Wonka requested, yet in the original, if I remember correctly both he and his grandpa snuck away to mess around in some bubble room that caused them to fly for a little bit. To me this change came off a little too much like director Tim Burton was trying too hard to make Charlie seem so good compared to the other kids, so he changed the story to make Charlie seem perfect. Now I will say that I’ve never read the book, and I’ve heard that the original film changed numerous elements from the book, so maybe the reason Burton’s version didn’t have the scene was because the book didn’t, so I don’t know, maybe Burton got it right in the end, either way I would have preferred a little more complexity to Charlie to make his character a little more believable.

The sets for this movie were all intricately detailed, from Charlie’s family shack that was designed to be leaning as if it could fall over at any time, further illustrating the family’s poor lot in life. To the extravagance of Wonka’s factory, where each room was visually amazing, without feeling faked by CGI. Director Tim Burton’s eye for the unusual and keen attention to detail was evident in his sets, and his strong imagination and storytelling ability was perfect for a movie such as this.

Even with good performances, extravagant set pieces, and imaginative storytelling by director Tim Burton, this movie is still only average in my opinion. The parts I liked were entertaining, and the parts I didn’t weren’t that major, but as a whole the movie just didn’t grab me to the point that I felt like it was a great movie. I thought it was good to see once, but I probably would not choose to watch it again.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is rated PG for mild language.

World Trade Center

In 2006, acclaimed director Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”) delivered to audiences a powerful look at what may have transpired aboard United Airlines flight 93 on that dark day in September in his docu-drama “United 93”. That same year, the highly controversial, yet popular director Oliver Stone (“Alexander”) brought his view to the events of that day by chronicling some of the rescue efforts taking place at Ground Zero in the equally powerful and moving “World Trade Center” starring Nicolas Cage (“Ghost Rider”), Maria Bello (“A History of Violence”), and Michael Pena (“Shooter”).

“World Trade Center” begins on the morning of September 11th, 2001 and continues on into that evening, chronicling the horrifying hours spent buried beneath the rubble of Towers 1 and 2 by survivors numbers 18 and 19, John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena). As the minutes stretch into hours, John and Will struggle to keep each other awake and to not lose hope that they will soon be rescued, while back at home their loving wives (Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhall) cling to their family members and try to remain optimistic and strong, holding on to the hope that they will once again be reunited with their husbands.

When it was announced that the events of September 11th were going to be captured on film by both “United 93” and “World Trade Center”, some felt that it was too soon, or that the films would in some way exploit that day, disrespecting all who lost their lives that day and the heroes who tried to save them. For “United 93” that was pretty much where the criticism ended, but for “World Trade Center” another concern was that its director, Oliver Stone, would use his film as just another vehicle for his conspiracy theories as he had done before in the films “JFK” and “Born on the Fourth of July”. However, when both films were released to theaters all of the concerns regarding the content were quickly silenced. Both films showcased the utmost respect for those who were victims of that day whether they be those on the planes, or trapped in the rubble beneath the buildings, or the families left behind, all were honored and never once exploited.

For those of us that were pleased by the outcome of Oliver’s effort, there were some people that were disappointed in him for not presenting a more controversial viewpoint in “World Trade Center”, feeling that by choosing to make a more balanced and accurate account of that day, he had somehow sold out. I for one was proud of Oliver Stone for making, what is for him a brave decision, to set aside his penchant for controversy, and make the best movie he could make to accurately depict what these people went through and to honor their sacrifice. Bravo, Mr. Stone. You’ve now come one step closer to realizing that there’s not always a covered-up conspiracy behind every major event in human history, and that you don’t have to use controversy to make a great film.

The performances in “World Trade Center” were excellent all across the board. The most impressive performances were those of Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena, who for about 90% of the movie were buried beneath dirt, and realistic looking rubble with essentially only their faces in plain view. For an actor to not be able to make gestures of any kind while talking must be a very difficult test of their ability, I mean even everyday people rely heavily on their hands to get their points across in any given conversation (even when on the phone), so for an actor to be forced to only rely on their facial expressions to convey their feelings and actually succeed in doing so is a huge testament to their talent. The supporting cast led by Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhall were equally strong, and consisted of some of the most emotional aspects of the movie, as the wives focus inward to cope with the fear of losing their husbands, while on the outside remaining strong for their children and/or relatives. Rounding out the cast were two highly capable actors, Stephen Dorff (“Blade”) and Michael Shannon (“Bug”), who portrayed two of the most pivotal people in regards to John and Will’s rescue, the lead rescuer Scott Strauss and the marine who discovered their location, Dave Karnes. Though their roles were essentially cameo appearances, both men delivered very strong, believable performances; and for Stephen Dorff, it was possibly one of the best roles I had seen him in to date.

Earlier, I stated that all concerns regarding the two films were silenced upon their release (especially those regarding “World Trade Center”), this is true for most of the concerns, all except for one. The concern of some that it was just too soon was a concern that still remained even after the release, and for some it will never cease to be too soon. But for everyone else, “World Trade Center” is a film that should be watched, as it is an incredibly moving piece of cinema that celebrates everything that is great about the American spirit; our courage, compassion, self-sacrifice, inability to give up, and above all, our hope.

“World Trade Center” is rated PG-13 for language and disturbing images.

United 93

On September 11th, 2001, our nation was changed forever. Terrorists from overseas came to our land and dealt us with a devastating blow, attacking the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As the terrorists thought we were down for the count, we did what we’ve done so many times before, we came back stronger and paid them back in full, and are continuing to do so through the war on terror. In 2006, two films were released that chronicled certain events from that day, one was Oliver Stone’s (“Any Given Sunday” and “Alexander”) heartfelt tribute to the rescue efforts at Ground Zero in “World Trade Center”, and the other was the documentary-style “United 93″ from director Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Supremacy” and “The Bourne Ultimatum”). The latter of which is the film that I will be discussing here.

“United 93″ tells the powerful story of the passengers aboard the last hijacked flight who thwarted the terrorists from delivering another deadly blow to our country. As 3 hijacked planes had hit their intended targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the fourth plane landed in a field, unsuccessfully finding its target. On that tragic morning it seemed as if nothing could stop the terrorist plot, but as the passengers aboard flight 93, via cell phone conversations with loved ones, were quickly learning of what had been transpiring on the ground, they knew they had to do something. Because the only way their flight wasn’t going to be turned into another deadly weapon was for them to rise up as one, and fight back!

Many people felt that even after 5 years, it was still too soon to chronicle the events of that tragic day on film. Some even thought that the events should never be put to film, because for some the wound would never heal. For those people I have nothing but sympathy for them, and I completely understand why they would not want to see this film, or “World Trade Center”. However, for the rest of us, I believe that this film and it’s counterpart serve as chilling reminders of that day, of what evil actually lurks around in our world, but also of the incredible courage and indomitable will of the American spirit.

With “United 93″, acclaimed director Paul Greengrass, serving as both writer and director for the film, has crafted a very moving, incredibly realistic account of what may have transpired aboard that flight. Many of the scenes were based on cell phone conversations between the passengers and their relatives, what was heard on the cockpit recordings, and the rest was based on family members descriptions of what their loved ones were like throughout their lives. Compiling all of these elements together, Greengrass has made “United 93″ into a film that honors those brave souls that sat down as strangers and stood up as one.

Assisting Greengrass in honoring those victims of 9/11, was a cast of extremely talented, yet unknown actors and actresses that were given the unenviable task of playing these people in this highly emotional time, and not disrespecting their memory or their surviving families. Even though the actors/actresses were not a who’s-who of Hollywood, they all handled each of their parts just as good as any A-lister, delivering such heartfelt emotion and depth in every performance. A truly magnificent job on all of their parts, I honestly believe that they did an exemplary job of honoring the memory of the people they were portraying.

I know that many of the families of the victims of that day may never see this movie, but should they ever see it, I believe that they will be honored by the performances of the actors, and the very realistic and moving film that Paul Greengrass has assembled. For those of you out there that feel you don’t need to see this movie to remember that day, I understand your viewpoint, but I truly believe you should one day choose to watch this film so that you can remember that even in our darkest hour, there are those who will choose to be heroes.

“United 93″ is rated R for violence and language.

The Invisible

Supernaturally themed movies are an often times tricky lot in Hollywood. The reasons being that these types of films rely on the audience’s ability to suspend their disbelief and go along with the filmmaker(s) into the realm of the unknown. Sometimes these movies work out well, and provide audiences with a really entertaining piece of cinema and an enjoyable break from reality. But sometimes one of these films will be going along just fine, but a small plot hole or continuity error will derail the remainder of the film. If this occurs and the filmmaker doesn’t rectify this problem later on in the film, an audience will more than likely become confused. This generally will result in the audience losing focus on the continuing storyline, and shifting over to how they can make sense of what has confused them, and at that point the film has collapsed. With all that being said, let’s move on to the film at hand, “The Invisible” directed by David S. Goyer (director of “Blade: Trinity”).

“The Invisible” is the story of a bright young man named Nick Powell (Justin Chatwin), who is a gifted writer, longing for something more. During the last week of high school Nick stands up for one of his friends who is having some trouble with a small group of thugs. After standing up to the group Nick finds himself in their crosshairs, and when one of the group is arrested for stealing, Nick becomes the prime suspect for being the one who tipped off the cops. To pay him back, this small gang attacks Nick in the woods, the attack goes too far and Nick is left for dead. However, the next day Nick simply wanders out of the woods seemingly uninjured, and heads to school to confront those who attacked him. There’s just one problem, no one knows he’s there. As Nick deals with this new dilemma, he slowly begins to understand that his body is still out in the woods somewhere, and what he once thought was his physical body he now knows is merely his soul trapped here in a state of limbo, while his body lies dying. But, if Nick’s body isn’t discovered before it’s too late, his body will die and his soul will vanish to its final resting place.

Before I saw a single preview for this movie, I saw the movie poster at my local theater, and two things got my attention and piqued my interest. First was the slogan “From the producers of the Sixth Sense”, a movie that was so original and fresh (not to mention a perfect example of a supernaturally themed movie done right), and secondly, was the director’s name, David S. Goyer. For those of you that don’t know, David S. Goyer is the writer of all three ‘Blade’ films and “Batman Begins”, and also was the director for the final ‘Blade’ film, “Blade: Trinity”. So, with those two aspects of the marketing already holding my attention I was ready to see this movie, then I finally saw the preview, and the film’s appeal to me grew even more. For whatever reason though, I never made it to theaters to see this film, some of my friends and family saw it and thought it was good, so when it finally arrived on DVD I was really looking forward to watching it. However, after viewing the film, I have to say I was fairly disappointed. You may be reading this, and thinking to yourself that I had too high of expectations for this movie, after all it was only the second film Goyer had directed, and if that is your belief, that is fine, but I disagree.

Here’s what went wrong, in my opinion, with “The Invisible”. The movie was going along pretty well for a good majority of the movie, but about 20-30 minutes from the end, there occurs an unexplained change in one of the characters that became way too distracting to ignore. The character of Annie went from only being able to hear Nick when he would concentrate on her and yell, to where she could hear him at all times and even sense his presence around her. This tidbit of story information may seem spoilery to some, but Annie’s ability to hear Nick was included in the previews and mentioned on the back of the DVD case so I have no problem divulging that information. To me, this aspect of the story was left underdeveloped and was too much of a jump for me to follow along with even with suspending my disbelief, I just felt that Goyer was asking way too much of the audience, and that this ’special’ connection between the two characters should have been given more explanation. If that wasn’t enough an event in the final moments of the film is even more confusing, but I don’t want to get into any detail with it, so that I won’t ruin it for anyone that hasn’t seen the movie. These two plot points in the movie would have been fine had they been properly explained in the film, so that the audience (being me) wouldn’t have to either figure it out for themselves or just go along with it (which I felt was asking too much suspension of my disbelief), had that happened the movie would have been much better, still not great, but better. Instead, the plot holes became way too distracting and brought the rest of the movie down with them.

The actors in this film were not highly known, I had seen most of them in at least one or two projects prior to this, regardless of that; most of the actors did a decent job with their respective characters. None of the actors really just seemed to take charge with their characters to make them their own so to speak, most just used the written lines without adding anything extra to the parts, and sometimes that works just as well, which was the case here and in most films where a teen is the lead actor. I did feel that Justin Chatwin, who played Nick Powell, was decent in his role, a few times his performance seemed wooden and unsure, but that was probably due to this being his first true starring role (his previous work includes a small supporting role on the TV series “Smallville” and a few movie appearances), so I can give him some slack. With more experience, and perhaps a better story, I think that Justin could become a much better, more polished actor. The majority of the supporting roles were all decently cast, it seemed like Marcia Gay Harden was only cast as Nick’s mom to lend some credibility and more weight to the film, due to her longer, fairly successful career. Personally, I felt she didn’t seem to give too much effort for her role, almost as if she was just going through the motions and just collecting a paycheck, her performance felt the most one-dimensional of any of the actors.

Finally, we come to director David S. Goyer, still a relative newcomer to the directing chair, and an extremely talented screenwriter. The direction for this movie was very good, fairly straightforward and nothing flashy, which suited this movie’s story and overall feel. I’m sure that Goyer had a much easier time directing “The Invisible” over his previous effort “Blade: Trinity”, since this movie was a standalone and the other was the third installment in a highly successful franchise. So, the pressure had to have been significantly less on this film, there was no doubt other pressures that came along, since this was a stand alone film not tied into any franchise, he had to make this film work for itself, a task he accomplished fairly well. My one complaint about having Goyer direct this movie, is that he didn’t work on the script, he merely used someone else’s script to shoot from (a decision possibly decided by the studio or Goyer’s schedule, who knows?). The fact that Goyer is such a talented screenwriter; I would have thought he would have been able to spot the problems in the story that I mentioned above, and been able to correct them. Maybe he did and wasn’t allowed, I don’t know, but this possible oversight on his part definitely surprised me.

Overall, “The Invisible” isn’t a horrible movie; it’s actually pretty good for a majority of the film, but a few plot holes causes the whole experience to fall apart in a hurry. Had more time been put into the story, and a little more work from some of the actors, then this could have been a very entertaining movie experience; instead we’re left with just an average movie with so much unused potential.

“The Invisible” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Reign Over Me

In 2007, Adam Sandler released two movies that were as different from each other as night and day. Both films were being hailed as the best in their genre for the year, but only one of the movies actually earned the accolades being bestowed upon it. The first film was the supposedly hilarious comedy “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” that was so thoroughly disappointing that I wondered why people would even think it was the funniest film all year. And the second film, and the one that actually came through on the promise made by the advertisers and critics, was the powerful drama “Reign Over Me” starring Adam Sandler (“The Longest Yard”) and Don Cheadle (“Ocean’s 13”).

“Reign Over Me” tells the story of Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a lonely widower who lost his wife and daughters in the terrorist attacks on September 11th. He lives out his days trying to convince himself that he never had a family, and has separated himself from anyone that could remind him otherwise. One day he meets his former college roommate Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), who is aware of what had happened and sees what his old friend has become, and is now hoping to reawaken this man to what life still has to offer. The more time Alan spends with Charlie, the more he begins to understand the pain Charlie endures daily, but he also begins to see signs of life sparking within Charlie, and the realization that though his pain is great, there is hope that the healing process will begin.

This movie is an example of just how surprising one can be by an actor’s performance. Adam Sandler is an actor primarily known for his hilarious comedies, and sarcastic, sometimes crass, sense of humor, yet he displays here an incredible talent for drama that I never thought possible. It’s strange that in the same year, Sandler gave what was probably his worst performance ever in “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry”, and then went on to deliver a brilliant turn in “Reign Over Me” that should change critic’s opinions of him from now on. Supporting Sandler in this film was the always capable Don Cheadle (“Hotel Rwanda”), who gives another terrific performance as a loving husband who feels trapped by his own life, yet through the process of reawakening Adam’s character to life he reawakens himself as well. The scenes that Adam and Don shared in this film (which is a majority of them) were so well-written that I really became engrossed in these characters. The most incredible scene for me, was when Charlie finally broke down the walls he’d built around himself and let Alan into his life by telling him about his family and what he’d lost that horrible day in September, 2001. In that scene, Sandler’s performance was so moving and genuine, that I actually got tears, and that’s saying a lot for me to get teary during a movie, and Cheadle perfectly played his part as the caring friend and listener, conveying each of his emotions through his facial expressions alone, it was just terrific.

The story for “Reign Over Me”, written and directed by Mike Binder, was so well-crafted and paced that I didn’t feel like I was watching a fictional movie. The characters were so rich and believable, and their story was one that could have been that of any of the victim’s families from that day, that it almost felt as if it were a documentary depicting the far reaching effects that day has had for so many people. Even though the movie is a very heavy dramatic piece, it does have a few welcome moments of comedy to lighten the mood, but not too much to take away from the overall tone of the film.

It was interesting that director Mike Binder opted to not show any big sweeping establishing shots of New York City for this movie, most of the time when a movie takes place in New York, or any big city for that matter, there’s the obligatory city shot, but not here. As he stated in the ‘Making of’ special feature on the DVD, he wanted the movie to take place on the street level of NYC, allowing the movie to feel more intimate and personal to the audience. It was a surprising choice, but one that worked well for the movie.

In the end, “Reign Over Me” is a powerfully moving story of one man’s shattered life being put back together by the bonds of friendship. This is one movie you should definitely see.

“Reign Over Me” is rated R for language and sexual references.

Annapolis

Some movies are so by the book and clichéd that you can see what’s coming in the story a mile away, and that’s just from watching the previews, so as you can imagine when you begin watching the film the feeling is just as obvious. Most of these movies wind up going Direct-to-DVD, but there are a few that make it to theaters, though not with much box office success. Most of these films are not too well received by movie audiences or critics, but every once in a while one of these run-of-the-mill movies sneaks through and actually offers a few new ideas or perspectives on some old ones that makes the movie rise above average and win over some audiences and maybe even a few critics along the way. One instance of an average movie rising above its Direct-to-DVD destiny would be the military/sports themed movie “Annapolis”.

“Annapolis” tells the story of Jake Huard (James Franco), a hot-headed shipbuilder’s son whose dream is to fulfill his late mother’s belief that he could make it in the navy. After gaining acceptance into Annapolis, Jake soon discovers that achieving his goals is going to be much harder than he initially thought, thanks in no small part to his tough-as-nails commanding officer Lt. Coal (Tyrese Gibson), a marine assigned to the school as a new instructor. As Jake struggles to keep his anger against Lt. Coal in check, he soon realizes that the only way to prove to Coal, and all other’s who didn’t believe in him along the way, is to settle their differences in the ring while participating in the annual boxing matches known as ‘The Brigades’.

As I said earlier, “Annapolis” is a movie where pretty much everything has been done before, but there are a few surprises in the story along the way. As clichéd as the movie may be, it is still a fairly enjoyable movie, that presents your standard underdog story in a different way by combining a sports movie with a military themed movie. This concept worked very well for the movie, and is a big part of why “Annapolis” was better than expected. Sure, I could see where the story was going to end up by the end of the movie, who couldn’t; but the way the story was broken up between the standard Naval training and the boxing training, gave a nice mix of drama and action that managed to keep me entertained.

The performances in the movie were all fairly solid with some unevenness, a few moments felt strange or out of place, but these were few and far between. James Franco’s (“Spider-Man 3″) performance seemed the most flat, he didn’t really show many emotions, and his facial expressions and voice remained fairly even so determining what his character was feeling proved to not always be easy. When he did choose to show emotion on his face and in his vocal inflections, I thought they seemed a bit forced, a good example of this would be when he yells at his Dad out of nowhere about not being supportive. I generally think James Franco is a solid actor, and he played the part of the stoic hero well, though he should have shown more emotions and varied the tone of his voice, this was definitely not his best work.

On the other hand, Tyrese Gibson (“Transformers”) is an actor who was perfect for his role, and his delivery though very even as well, was dead-on for his character. You may be asking why Tyrese’s, some would say wooden, performance was accepted and not Franco’s. The difference is that Tyrese’s character isn’t really experiencing an emotional journey, whereas James’ character Jake is enduring what to him is a rollercoaster ride of ups and downs. In that respect Tyrese nailed the part, where I felt Franco dropped the ball.

The supporting cast led by Donnie Wahlberg (“Saw 2″), Chi McBride (“I, Robot”), and Jordana Brewster (“The Fast and the Furious”) were all well suited for their respective characters. Although, I personally felt that Wahlberg’s character was underutilized, he just seems to pop-up every once in a while, but when he does he essentially steals the scenes with great ease. Brewster as a trainer and future love interest for Jake was a good choice for showing both the military’s acceptance of women in positions of authority, and as the only obvious outlet to squeeze some unneeded love story element into the movie, not to mention the men needed some eye candy to behold. Lastly, Chi McBride had probably the least to do in this movie, even less than Donnie Wahlberg, but he managed to make the best use of his time on the screen.

Even though “Annapolis” is as by the book of a movie as you can get, it still managed to do a good job of entertaining me, and even educating me in some instances, and that’s never a bad thing. It’s a shame that the movie didn’t strive for more, because this could have been a much better film, and possible great military movie rather than just an average one with some highlights along the way.

“Annapolis” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

License to Wed

Think back to the time in your lives when you were preparing for your wedding, those of you that are married, think about all the hassle and frustration and trouble you had to go through for the perfect wedding day, of course it wasn’t all difficult there were fun parts throughout as well, but for most the planning is often times fraught with difficulty. For those of you that are currently planning a wedding, you are most likely having to endure one or all of those experiences currently, if you haven’t yet, just wait. In the end, all of the work is worth it when you see the smiling face of your spouse by your side as you stand in front of the minister and your friends and family on what should end up being one of the happiest days of your life. But what if throughout the entire wedding planning process you had to deal with an intrusive, obnoxious, borderline insane minister who will put you through a battery of tests to determine whether you and your significant other are destined to be together. Well, most likely you didn’t have to deal with this particular obstacle to your upcoming marital bliss, but in the Mandy Moore romantic comedy “License To Wed”, both she and her fiancée weren’t so lucky.

“License To Wed” is the story of a young couple, Sadie (Mandy Moore) and Ben (John Krasinski), who are wishing to be married in the church that Sadie grew up in. However, before they are allowed to tie the knot they must pass an extreme battery of tests at the hands of Reverend Frank (Robin Williams). Now what they thought would be an average wedding preparation course turns out to be a gauntlet of classes from better communication, to childbirth, and fighting fairly, all of which will test Sadie and Ben’s patience and relationship to the breaking point. But, if they are able to survive Reverend Frank and his course, then they can survive anything life will throw at them.

When “License To Wed” came to theaters it would be fair to say that most critics hated the film, most felt that it was another run-of-the-mill wedding themed comedy, except with Robin Williams added to spice things up and attempt to elevate the movie from dull to mediocre. Despite the critics blasting of the film, my wife and I still thought the movie looked good, and oftentimes we disagree with the critics anyways on these types of films, so we figured it was probably better than they said it would be. So, we rented the movie shortly after it was released on DVD, and laughed (sometimes hysterically) from start to finish, and when it was over I for one felt either we watched a completely different movie than the critics or else they need to have their sense of humor checked.

I will give the critics this; they were right in the fact that the story is fairly basic. At least, the main plot line for the movie is, but once Robin Williams shows up, the torturous tests he subjects this couple to is anything but run-of-the-mill for this type of movie, but the result is still what you expect in the end from a light-hearted romantic comedy, but at least a portion of the journey is original. Plus, as my wife pointed out, when you watch a romantic comedy you have certain expectations about the movie and its outcome and you really don’t want those expectations to be let down. And she’s right, if certain elements of a romantic comedy weren’t included then it just wouldn’t be right, such as, a couple who thinks they know all there is about each other, the relationship is put to the test, they fight and forgive and fight again, they break-up, and then in the end one or both see the light and all is made right in the world. So, as predictable as these movies all are, it’s that very predictability that makes them so appealing to audiences, and it’s what we want to see when we watch a romantic comedy.

Each of the actors and actresses were all very good in their individual roles, most are veterans to romantic comedy, or at least comedy, so knowing what it takes to make the audience laugh came easy to this group. Mandy Moore continues to improve her comedic timing with every new movie she makes, not bad for a former teen pop star. Lesser-known actor, John Krasinski was an ideal match up for Mandy’s character Sadie. Both actors shared an obvious chemistry that felt genuine and their interaction was perfectly natural and full of laughs. And of course, Robin Williams was doing what he does best, being hilarious and stealing every single scene that he was in. Unlike some comedies that feature scene-stealing stars, “License To Wed” didn’t seem to hit any lulls in the laughs department, when Williams’ character Reverend Frank wasn’t on the screen.

“License To Wed” as I said earlier, is a hilarious romantic comedy, and one of the better ones that I’ve seen. Full of crazy, over-the-top obstacles for the couple to overcome on their way to matrimony, but also packed full of all the classic elements that makes a romantic comedy so appealing to moviegoers.

“License To Wed” is rated PG-13 for language and sexuality.