JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX Review

They say the art of originality is knowing how to hide your sources but if you saw the first Joker film you know writer/director Todd Phillips has no qualms about sharing his sources. Interestingly enough, it would seem the basis of Phillips' foray into the world of his titular character was not only to make something in the vein of some of his own inspirations but also to tell a story of inspiration itself while somehow crafting a film that doesn't feel the least bit inspiring. "They" AKA Shakespeare also stated that “all the world's a stage” and it is this divide within the psyche of our main character who so badly desires to be the center of attention - the main character of his own story if not others as well - yet is unable to necessarily stand out without doing something drastic that hangs over Phillips' follow-up. It is this coming to terms with his actual mediocrity that pains Joaquin Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck to the extent he doesn't know which side of himself to turn to in the aftermath of killing five people (actually six) - one of which was live on national television. As lost as Fleck seems to be it would appear the same could be said for Joker: Folie à Deux, the sequel to the billion-dollar-earning and Oscar-winning 2019 film, at least over the course of its first hour. 

On the one hand, Phillips is keen on making a film that so subverts expectations that it doesn't allow itself to fall into any trappings audiences might expect from a typical sequel. The desire to subvert going so far as to cause the filmmaker to claim this is a musical, but this is true only in so far as the characters sometimes burst into sing-songs that further highlight their emotions in ways intended to deepen our understanding of these aforementioned psyches yet these moments never transcend the reality or develop into full-on musical numbers. The splitting of hairs between avoiding the obvious path of a Joker sequel and committing to being something else entirely give the result an unbalanced feeling; as if the ambition and desire are present but the passion to execute is not. Somehow, this identity crisis becomes the main text of the film which is an interesting idea yet in addition to feeling unbalanced the film also becomes something of a tedious experience where the overarching intent is never quite clear. The film even going so far as to acknowledge how much the Arthur character wanted to do what the audience expected him to do, for him to give them the Joker they're begging for, but instead simply admits he could no longer carry on the facade, essentially coming clean about his state of mind during the murders and how desperate he is to begin anew - conveying to the audience and more specifically, the fanbase, that they may want to do the same. Admirable, bold even, but not always entertaining.

New Trailer for the Coen Brothers’ THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS

While the first trailer for The Ballad of Buster Scruggs debuted back in September prior to the films festival run it has still taken some time to come to terms with the fact that 1) we're getting a new Coen Brothers movie this year, but that 2) their latest endeavor will in large part be seen via Netflix. Given the prestige typically lauded upon Coen Brother films it feels oddly anachronistic in terms of the level of time and care put into the project and the level of time and care through which it will be consumed (for the most part anyway, Netflix is dropping it in a few theaters this Friday so as to be eligible for awards consideration). All of this is to say that while I would most definitely prefer to see a Coen Brothers movie on the big screen as opposed to my TV I also find it highly unlikely the film will play in any theaters around me and it will be unbelievably hard for me to not press play when a new Coen Brothers movie is at the convenience of my remote control. Either way things go it seems the Coens have ensured a hell of a good and rather beautiful time as they've constructed an anthology film comprised of six stories, each dealing with a different aspect of life in the Old West. This anthology of Western stories was originally planned as the Coens' first foray into television, but ultimately morphed into the feature length film at Netflix we have today. While it might have been interesting and easier to swallow had the Coens stuck to this original plan and delivered ten or so hours of content to be digested piece by piece rather than it feeling as if their next feature was being reduced to a television premiere this latest trailer certainly sells the appeal of what always makes the Coens' work so enthralling; this balance of comedy, drama, and violence that is as brutally funny as it is straight-up brutal. The cast is something to write home about as well as Tim Blake Nelson plays the titular Buster Scruggs and is accompanied by the likes of Tyne Daly, James Franco, Brendan Gleeson, Bill Heck, Grainger Hines, Zoe Kazan, Harry Melling, Liam Neeson, Jonjo O’Neill, Chelcie Ross, Saul Rubinek, Tom Waits, Clancy Brown, Jefferson Mays, Stephen Root, and Willie Watson. The Balled of Buster Scruggs will receive a limited, one-week theatrical run starting November 8th before expanding globally in select US and European cities and premiering on Netflix November 16th, 2018.

Teaser Trailer for PADDINGTON 2

I was late to the party when it came to 2015's Paddington, an adaptation of the children's literature character as created by Michael Bond in 1958, that received glowing reviews and seemed to amass loving fans all over the world while remaining rather distant here in the States. Of course, I could have a misconception of how much attention the film received this side of the sea, but I don't know that I do. Paddington simply didn't seem to play in as many theaters and was certainly released much later stateside than it was in the UK. The run was so limited, in fact, I remember distinctly not being able to catch it during it's theatrical run, but instead buying it out of good faith on Blu-Ray and hoping for the best. I wasn't disappointed as the film was more or less what I expected: extremely pleasant and extremely cute. Director Paul King, who also helped pen the screenplays for both the original and the sequel, was able to craft a tender tale that seemingly captured the heart of the children's books it was based on while appealing to modern audiences all the same. Honestly, with all the positive word of mouth around the film I couldn't wait to see it and by the time I finally did I couldn't help but to agree with the fact it was a delightful piece of work; nothing especially exceptional by any means, but the best kind of example for the type of movie it was intended to be. With a budget of $55 million and a worldwide gross of over $265 million it seemed a no-brainer Studio Canal and its partners, including The Weinstein Company's Dimension division, would want another film in the series. And so, here we are, as Paddington 2 will continue to follow the adventures of the titular bear (again voiced by Ben Whishaw) this time having him face off against a thief who has stolen a book that is quite special to our Paddington. This first-look teaser doesn't give away too much by way of story, but it does feature plenty of shots of the newcomers to the cast including Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, and Jim Broadbent. Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Imelda Staunton, Peter Capaldi and Julie Walters all return as well with Paddington 2 set to open on January 12th, 2018.

LIVE BY NIGHT Review

The problem with Live by Night is that it is both too much and never enough. Ben Affleck, who has proved himself a strong storyteller in his screenwriting and directing skills, certainly has a fine ambition in his latest effort, but it simply never seems to pan out the way he originally imagined it. This is to the point that Live by Night is as big, extravagant, and sexy a gangster drama as one could hope to get made in the studio system today and yet the story is nowhere near as compelling as it should be to make the amount of effort put into the costumes, production design, and other period details matter. The question on my mind as the film came to its one too many endings-none of which are satisfactory, I might add-was, "how did this happen?" How did a filmmaker such as Affleck, with a story he himself adapted from a Dennis Lehane novel (Gone, Baby, Gone, Mystic River, Shutter Island, The Drop), in this time period, and with a star-studded cast that features stand-out performances from the likes of Chris Messina and Elle Fanning end up sinking as quickly as a dead body attached to a boulder in a river? There is seemingly never a clear answer as to how so many promising parts can come together to form a subpar whole, but with Live by Night the majority of as much seems to fall on the script never knowing exactly what type of story it wants to tell and as a result, the momentum of the pacing never finding its footing well enough to keep viewers invested. There is always more material in a novel than a two hour movie can handle and it seems rather than relay what was more or less the same story the source material was telling through the prism of a single perspective or theme that Affleck instead attempted to cram in as much of Lehane's novel as he could resulting in the film feeling more than overstuffed while still leaving the viewer hungry for more. When talking of adapting a book for the screen director David Fincher said, "The book is many things. You have to choose which aspect you want to make a movie from." It seems Affleck might have learned a thing or two from his Gone Girl director as this lack of a singular viewpoint is exactly what Live by Night is missing; delivering so many characters, ideas, and plot strands it's hard to care about any of them.

ASSASSIN'S CREED Review

I won't pretend to know anything about the Assassin's Creed video game series or, for that matter, much about video games in general given the last one I played was probably Crash Bandicoot on the original PlayStation circa 2001. This is to the point that I'm typically indifferent to the idea of video game to film adaptations especially given most tend to be financial failures with the few I've seen being rather forgettable as well. It is with this Assassin's Creed adaptation though that my interest was piqued as not only had it attracted Michael Fassbender to star in another potential franchise, but that it also gave Fassbender cause to recruit his Macbeth director, Justin Kurzel as well as cinematographer Adam Arkapaw, it felt as if there might be a chance to break the mold. Despite the fact Kurzel somewhat shortchanged Shakespeare's story he indisputably made a visually stunning representation of The Bard's play and with Assassin's Creed coming from a medium very much based on the visual storytelling element it seemed as if this was a logical choice and that both Kurzel and Fassbender were very much intent on keeping the same visual style intact. That's what Kurzel does best, that's why Fassbender imagined he would make a good fit. They do, but the fact the visuals the film offers via its flashbacks to Spain in 1492 aren't the highlights of the film speak to how much better this is, but still how much better it could have been. Granted, the sequences in Spain are certainly the most breathtaking in terms of visuals and contain well-paced and seemingly well executed action sequences, but they aren't developed nearly as much character-wise as the other sections of the film. This is all to say there is an interesting premise here. Like I said, going into the film I had no idea what the objective of the game was or even who or what the titular assassins or their creed might be, but as we get to better know Fassbender's Callum Lynch (a character apparently made up specifically for the movie) we come to better terms with this world that three screenwriters have seemingly cobbled together from what I assume are the most interesting parts of the game. Faithful or not though, Assassin's Creed, the film, is an average enough action flick that has a core idea it certainly could have done more with and in more interesting ways, but takes shortcuts around the deeper questions posed by its central premise while hoping to garner enough return so as to potentially explore such questions and ideas in a sequel that will likely never happen.

New Trailer for ASSASSIN'S CREED Starring Michael Fassbender

Like I said back in May when the first trailer premiered, I won't pretend to know anything about the Assassin's Creed video game series or video games in general to the point I'm typically indifferent to the idea of video game film adaptations especially given most tend to be financial failures with the few I've seen largely being forgettable. It is with this Assassin's Creed adaptation though that my interest is piqued. Not only for the fact it has Michael Fassbender in the starring role, but that it has the actor re-teaming with Macbeth director Justin Kurzel and his cinematographer Adam Arkapaw who, despite shortchanging Shakespeare's story, made a visually stunning representation of The Bard's play. With Assassin's Creed it seems as if Kurzel and Fassbender were very much intent on keeping the same visual style intact as this new trailer gives us an even better glimpse at the visual prowess of their interpretation and how gorgeous it will be if nothing else. As far as story goes, I was don't know what to expect and while the little bit of plot offered here concerning the fact Fassbender's character is key more for his bloodline than any traits his person might currently possess is interesting I'm curious to how things will unspool from that premise. Given the game is said to be set in a fictional history of real world events and follows the centuries-old struggle between the Assassins, who fight for peace with free will, and the Templars, who desire peace through control-it seems screenwriters Bill Collage, Adam Cooper, and Michael Lesslie have plenty of mythology to work with. This trailer, while naturally delivering more footage, alsograbs my attention by giving a protagonist in Fassbender's Callum Lynch that is initially against whatever he us about to undergo, but seemingly comes to enjoy it. It may be a slight detail, but I like what that could mean for the tone of the film overall. Assassin's Creed also stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Michael K. Williams, and opens December 21st, 2016.

First Trailer for Ben Affleck's LIVE BY NIGHT

In the wake of the fall movie season kicking off this week with the release of the Warner Bros. Sully it seems the production company has gone into full media blitz mode with the remainder of their fall slate that contains many of their likely awards contenders. We already caught a glimpse of the WB's Christmas week release on Wednesday with Collateral Beauty and now we have our first look at Ben Affleck's directorial follow-up to his Best Picture-winning Argo. It's been four years since Affleck directed a film and in the interim has worked with Terrence Malick, David Fincher, and Zack Snyder who likely have contributed to what growth we might see in Affleck's fourth feature. Given the actor, writer, director, and producer has been enamored with the DC extended cinematic universe as of late with more being made about the pre-production of his solo Batman film (which will be his fifth directorial venture) than that of his upcoming turn in Gavin O'Connor's The Accountant which drops in theaters in just over a month it's nice to finally see a glimpse of what Affleck has been up to behind the camera as I'm in the middle of reading the Dennis Lehane novel on which Live By Night is based. Set in the prohibition era Affleck plays Joe Coughlin, the youngest son of a prominent Boston police captain who has long since turned his back on his strict and proper upbringing for a career in the pay of the city's most fearsome mobsters. Honestly, I love the look and the tone this trailer conveys and even the soundtrack featuring Hozier's "Arsonist's Lullabye," works. Affleck enlisted legendary director of photography Robert Richardson (The Aviator, The Hateful Eight) and the particular aesthetic shines through here as visually the film looks as thrilling as the story should be. While I was worried that the film would for some reason end up getting dumped amidst the early spring crowd WB seems to have confidence in the film as they've scheduled it in the same slot as The Revenant last year with a limited qualifying run in December. Here's hoping they're right. Live By Night also stars Zoe Saldana, Elle Fanning, Sienna Miller, Brendan Gleeson, Scott Eastwood, Chris Cooper, Titus Welliver, Anthony Michael Hall, Chris Messina, and opens on January 13, 2017.

First Trailer for ASSASSIN'S CREED Starring Michael Fassbender

I won't pretend to know anything about the Assassin's Creed video game series or video games in general to the point I'm typically indifferent to the idea of video game film adaptations especially given most tend to be financial failures with the few I've seen largely being forgettable. It is with this Assassin's Creed adaptation though that my interest is piqued. Not only for the fact it has Michael Fassbender in the starring role, but that it has the actor re-teaming with Macbeth director Justin Kurzel and his cinematographer Adam Arkapaw who, despite shortchanging Shakespeare's story, made a visually stunning representation of The Bard's play. With Assassin's Creed it seems as if Kurzel and Fassbender were very much intent on keeping the same visual style intact as, if there is one thing that stands out about this trailer it is how gorgeous it looks. As far as story goes though, I was unsure what to expect and while a little bit of reading will enlighten one to the fact the game series is set in a fictional history of real world events and follows the centuries-old struggle between the Assassins, who fight for peace with free will, and the Templars, who desire peace through control-I still wasn't sure what to expect. This summary sets up your basic good versus evil situation, but the trailer for the film makes this premise slightly more enticing by introducing us to Fassbender's Callum Lynch, a death row inmate who is taken to a pharmaceutical company known as Abstergo (which seems to indicate some future conflicts) as they go through with a procedure on Lynch that enables him to experience the memories of his ancestor in 15th Century Spain. Consider me enticed. Also, I dig the music choice. Assassin's Creed also stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Michael K. Williams, and opens December 21st, 2016.

IN THE HEART OF THE SEA Review

Looking at director Ron Howard's latest, In the Heart of the Sea, from a broad perspective there is nothing seemingly wrong with it. It is a handsomely mounted film with charismatic actors playing dress up and tells an adventure story that, while it is said to be the inspiration for the tale that's come to be known as Moby-Dick, takes many of the same beats from this familiar story and applies them here. Unfortunately, if one is looking for anything more than a standard adventure/survival tale this is not the place to go. A director who has become more hit or miss as of late Howard only skims the surface of the conflicts and dynamics that could have been explored here. While I've never completed Herman Melville's crowning achievement and I'd not even heard of Nathaniel Philbrick's novel on which this is based prior to the film's first trailer, it is pretty easy to see where things are going the moment our two heroes step onto their boat. While this isn't always an issue given things have become more about the journey than the destination in this saturated movie market, Howard and his team simply don't bring enough insight or a fresh enough perspective to make this endeavor feel like it's worth joining. One wouldn't necessarily know or realize this as they watch the film unfold given it's just captivating enough, and just big enough to keep us entertained and wondering what choices certain characters will make, but as the film comes slogging to its conclusion it becomes more clear that's all the film is-just enough. Just enough isn't enough to warrant an emotional reaction though, and it's not enough to constitute a real investment in the characters or even their quest that seems so foreign at this point that it could have proved fascinating, but is more or less rendered irrelevant due to the fact the films only interest lies in the massive sea monsters rather than the men who come up against them. Seeing massive sea creatures on the big screen is never a bad thing-in fact, it's almost as inherently epic as one can get, but for it to mean anything more than just a moment of wonder there must be some depth to the waters surrounding them and In the Heart of the Sea is simply too shallow to come up with anything interesting to say.

SUFFRAGETTE Review

Suffragette is a movie that survives solely on the strength of it's true story. Beyond the compelling and often times unfathomable way that men treat women in this film, there isn't much to grab a hold of or really sink your teeth into. It's disheartening given all the film clearly has going for it, but thus is the way things seem to go when a writer makes interesting and even somewhat daring if not completely agreeable choices in their screenplay. For instance, our lead character is a fictional invention in order to convey a certain perspective on these historical events, but given the way the film comes to a swift and unexpected conclusion based on the actions of a different character whose actor didn't even make the poster the film as a whole can't help but feel slightly impromptu whereas the obvious, in my opinion, choice for the narrative direction would have been more straightforward. We are talking about an incident that concerned militant suffragette Emily Davison (played in the film by Natalie Press) that effectively serves as the climax of the film, but given we've seen Davison in less than a handful of scenes prior the impact of her actions is not nearly as gut-wrenching as they could've been. I realize that writer Abi Morgan (The Iron Lady, Shame) is giving audiences more of a relatable character arc by delivering the typically passive Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan) who is more or less pulled into her life of activism, but given that Davison was jailed on nine different occasions and had to be force fed no less than forty-nine times I'd say that not only does Davison deserve a movie about her life, but that it generally sounds more complimentary to the cinematic landscape than that of the everywoman Morgan has made with Maud. That isn't to say Mulligan or her character are ineffective as they work up to a certain point, but unfortunately that is as much as can be said about the film as well. With this subject matter and these events that clearly deserve to be recognized not to mention the talent on hand it's strange how uninspiring the film can sometimes feel. It has it's moments, sure, but for a fight that's unforgettable I likely won't remember much about the movie past next week.

TOP 10 OF 2014

For me, 2014 has been something of a transitional year. A year where my tastes have shifted and my ideas of what makes a lasting film have changed. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily more cynical, but obviously the fact I continue to see more and more films and build a larger pool of knowledge makes it tougher for each individual film to impress me more. That being said, I actually found it easier to craft a top ten list this year than ever before. I've pretty much seen everything I imagine might have a shot at making my list except for maybe Selma (which I won't see until January 7th), but at this point the only year-end awards bait films I'd even consider including in a top fifteen are the likes of Foxcatcher and American Sniper. After repeat viewings one of them might even crack the top ten, but as of right now I feel strongly about the films I've selected. What I've done differently this year is to begin to leverage expectations; I thought this might help the films be more impressive if I didn't go in expecting too much, but even with that state of mind many of them simply met expectations or felt more insignificant than substantial. I don't believe this has made me a snob or prude in any sense as I would still boldly place The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in my top fifteen of the year when it is clearly nothing more than a pure popcorn flick and on top of that, one most critics absolutely hated. For me, Marc Webb's super hero sequel was one of the most entertaining experiences I had at the movies this past year and one I can watch at any time without fearing boredom. My final top ten will likely come off a little more pedigreed given that introduction, but while me liking something such as Spider-Man may make you question my taste just know that I went into every film this year really wanting to like it and the ones that follow are the ones that surprised me with their quality or surpassed every expectation I held for it. Enjoy!

Teaser Trailer for IN THE HEART OF THE SEA

There was somewhat of a renewed sense of optimism in Ron Howard after last years Rush. After teaming with Tom Hanks on two Dan Brown adaptations with only the convienent Frost/Nixon separating them it felt as if the once ambitious director had become, well, comfortable. While another Brown adaptation is on the way, it will hopefully stand to be noted that his back to back Chris Hemsworth efforts were a return to the diversity that always made Howard an interesting if not consistently reliable filmmaker. That is, of course, all based on the assumption that his latest, In the Heart of the Sea, is as good as it promises to be based on this first teaser trailer. Based on the book by Nathaniel Philbrick that recounts the story that inspired Moby Dick, In the Heart of the Sea tells of an expedition that led one whaling ship to encounter a beast so mythical in size it destroyed everything around them and put the 25-man crew in the most dire of situations while pushing their humanity to its breaking point. Long-time Danny Boyle collaborator and Rush cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle returns to assist Howard on this outing as well and if there will be anything people take away from this first look it is just how beautiful the film is. While it is upended slightly by the CGI-reliable shots near the end, there is a presence to the color palette and composition that better elicits the mood and action that is being captured here. I typically enjoy Howard's films no matter what genre he's operating in and he looks as if he's put together a strong team both in front of and behind the camera that will hopefully deliver a truly compelling piece. In The Heart of the Sea stars Chris Hemsworth, Benjamin Walker, Tom Holland, Brendan Gleeson, Cillian Murphy, Ben Whishaw, Jordi Molla and opens on March 13, 2015.

CALVARY Review

From the outset of John Michael McDonagh's new film Calvary there is a deeply ominous tone due mostly to the nature of conversation and a single threat that lingers over the picture. The film is decidedly honest in the way it approaches the subject of life and pleasantly unpretentious in the way it deals with the psychology of religion and faith. These aforementioned subjects, these lines of thought and the conversations that spurn from them are always of an interest to me that surpass that of any material subject and McDonagh, working from a script solely of his own doing, plays with these ideas and themes in a way that entices without distancing itself from those who find solace in God. In a way, McDonagh uses the comforts and consolation given by faith and Christ as a cushion for the stories of human nature he chooses to explore here. Not only does the inclusion of a heavy hand in the church bring an interesting dynamic to the more individual stories being told, but it adds layers of concentration on sins and virtues and what, if anything, they add up to. It is easy to look at something such as Calvary and praise it for its beautiful cinematography, its gorgeous music, its fine performances and intelligently constructed screenplay that oozes with dialogue that screams serious thought, but it's the fine line the film walks between being serious about its subjects and ironic about their thoughts that make it all the more fascinating. McDonagh is a sly writer who puts an emphasis on character and lets the themes and ideas breathe through the development of these people and the interesting set of circumstances he has placed them in. The dialogue that says so much and could easily be read deeper into concerning the writers stance on certain issues and points of view simply come off as true to the character speaking them than as any kind of agenda or showy quality. It is to this effect that Calvary succeeds in being more than a story about the priesthood and the scandals that have come along with that profession, but what it's like to be a person in that role innocent of the stigmas and the vicious cycle that rarely forgives the exceptions.

EDGE OF TOMORROW Review

There will come a day when Tom Cruise not only doesn't make action blockbusters like this, but when he won't be able to and when that day comes we will miss it. We won't miss these films strictly out of a sense of nostalgia, but because Cruise is the last of a dying breed; one of the only true movie stars left who, despite his image being tainted over the years, can demand the kind of budget and talent it takes to put together an original effort worth standing behind. He has displayed such influence throughout his career, spearheading projects like The Last Samurai that would have never been made on the scope they were without the involvement of Cruise. So, even though the artistic edges of his earlier work may have faded in the wake of his public life being more important than his acting ability he is still able to make movies he seems interested in, but that are more or less of a certain genre that has better odds of making a solid return than maybe a historical drama. With Edge of Tomorrow, or All You Need is Kill as it was originally, less-generically titled (interestingly enough, I don't remember seeing a title card) Cruise has again stepped into the world of science fiction as he seems to enjoy these kinds of worlds and the different rules in each of them he can explore. What makes Cruise the still magnetic force and pure movie star that he always will be though is how he digs into the motivations of the character and makes what could easily be looked down on as silly or nonsensical into a valid threat, a valid journey, a valid plan. To a certain degree audiences expect films of the sci-fi genre to feel gimmicky or sound corny yet here that is made all the more real, all the more immediate by not only the surprisingly rational dialogue, but by the fervor in which Cruise delivers it. Yes, Cruise is chief among his co-workers as a man who can still open a film and get people interested simply by having his name over the title. Still, what struck me more as I watched a nearly 52 year-old Cruise ride a motorcycle on the outskirts of some ravished city that highly referenced any number of Cruise films was that one day we will long to simply go to the movies and have the ability to watch a Tom Cruise blockbuster. Unfortunately, those kinds of opportunities will not always be here and so we should appreciate these occurrences especially when they are as entertaining and and thrilling as Edge of Tomorrow.

THE COMPANY YOU KEEP Review

Robert Redford has always slightly eluded me. I haven't seen much of his work except for a few major players like Butch Cassidy and The Sting, as well as several of his directorial efforts, but I've never felt particularly close to the guy despite the kind of status he has commanded in Hollywood for quite some time. That may sound odd or even a little delusional, but in terms of growing to feel as if you know an actor by the kinds of roles they play, or figuring out what they might be like in real life, and what conversation topics might come up if you had the chance to speak with them make viewers feel as if we could actually get to know these people. This usually happens with what turn out to be our favorite actors or at least people who are considered movie stars, and it usually means they have the charisma and the charm to connect with a mass audience on different levels thus the reason they are granted that precious title of "movie star". And though Redford has clearly been knighted with that honor and been in the high ranks of movie-making for a long time I've never quite understood the fascination. He's clearly a talented and attractive figure and he seems to have a real love for making movies and creating pieces of art that mean something. While The Company You Keep may not be the best example of that kind of high art what it does do is serve a purpose as a fairly satisfying exercise in the investigative drama that features an all star cast who will have you playing a guessing game of who might pop up next. It is easy to see how this might be passed on as tired and conventional but the story is intriguing enough and the chase to the end to find a resolution and sort out the mess of politics these people have gotten themselves into had me from the beginning and I was willing to run with it, whatever it was they asked me to do and wherever it was they asked me to go.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.

Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) is a formidable threat.

What I was most concerned with going in was, as I said earlier, the premise. After the writers of that Johnny Depp franchise seemed to exhaust every possible plot related to pirates I wondered first and foremost where this movie was going to take me. The film centers itself around its idiotic if not slightly charming and simply named Pirate Captain. With Hugh Grant doing his best surly growl mixed with that upper crest English accent, he makes the Pirate Captain a lovable simpleton. He (mis)guides a crew of interesting characters that in no manner resemble the classic pirate archetypes we have grown familiar with. I loved that they each had simple descriptive names such as The Pirate with Gout (as played up by the great Brendan Gleeson) and The Pirate with a Scarf (the soon to be Bilbo Baggins but who I will always identify as the British Jim). Anton Yelchin gets in a few laughs as The Albino Pirate and in a great running gag Ashley Jensen, a pro at voice work who you might have seen on Chlesea Lately, is the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate. The ragtag bunch is on a quest to help their fearless leader win the coveted Pirate of the Year award that he has had a long standing losing streak with. Naturally, the prize is claimed by the pirate who steals the most gold, and though he is dedicated to his craft, The Pirate Captain is not the most skilled or intimidating enforcer.

The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his rag tag crew.

Sounds like pretty standard fare so far huh? Yea, that's what I was thinking until the writers threw a pleasant little twist into the mix. The pirate gang, while in the process of hijacking ships and looking for "booty", come across Charles Darwin ( David Tennant).  Darwin sheds light on the fact The Pirate Captain's faithful companion Polly the parrot is not a parrot at all, but the rare dodo bird that could be the answer to his untold riches problem. This leads them through a rather interesting game of double crossing and lies as Darwin wants the praise for his find and the Captain wants his rewards. They run across the pirate-hating Queen Victoria (the wonderfully evil Imelda Staunton) who becomes more of a central focus than her first impression gave, but at least adds depth to the shallow outline of what I thought we would be served. Clearly there would need to be more than I expected, but I guess what I'm really saying is that the experience of "Pirates!" was not the light endeavor I anticipated but in fact turned out to be a rather great investment that in the end was hugely enjoyable. It's weird because I still don't think the movie overall was as exceptional as some likely will, but it was at least a fun and clever written piece. It has a distinctive style that the target audience will probably find engaging as it mixes the stop motion and computer animation, but it also carries that British wit that will help keep the parents in the crowd awake and chuckling.

Darwin's faithful companion seems to be the
most intelligent character around.

As I watched the beautiful, hand-made creations move flawlessly from scene to scene that initial hesitation to embrace the style of animation seemed to fade. I was now seemingly on the other end of the spectrum where I almost appreciated the fact the makers had made such an investment in telling this story that I wanted to applaud it more. It even seemed to give the whole movie a more personal tone, a more human effort. We weren't simply watching characters that animators had constructed inside a digital world while sitting behind a computer, but instead were seeing a hands-on, detailed piece that came from the skills they inherently possessed. That is not to say computer animation doesn't take time (its incredibly detailed work) or doesn't require talent, but this is talent of a different kind. When applied to this medium, while not the most popular at the moment, it still lends a different kind of gut reaction from the audience watching. This is a labor of love and that is what is most evident about "Pirates! Band of Misfits". There is always the supporting characters voiced by more familiar names like Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek (even Al Roker shows up as The Pirate who Likes Sunsets and Kittens) but it is the charm of watching these blob-like characters set against the digitized settings lurch through the film while providing great farce. I could never have seen this film and my life would be no different for it, but even though I can shrug it off doesn't mean it's horrible. It's here and it's probably the best option you have if you're looking for good, family entertainment this weekend.

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS Review

I have an odd relationship with stop motion animation. I am not particularly attracted to the style of animation and am never very interested to see the films when prompted by their trailers. Whenever I manage to end up seeing one though, I'm usually pretty glad I did. From the beginning I have been rather skeptical of "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" due to the lack of a tired premise. Not a year after the tired fourth entry in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise it seemed the testy premise of adventures on the high seas might be out of commission for a while. Instead, what the always reliable Aardman studios has produced here is not exactly a laugh out loud comedy, but is instead a sly little satire on the ways of old Victorian England. It makes keen observations about pirates and their interesting ways with plenty of blink and you'll miss them asides. I was neither hugely entertained or bored with the movie. It is indeed a very British kind of humor that brands the film, which is great as I enjoy that dry wit, but despite the intriguing charisma of the characters there doesn't always feel like enough substance to the story to really warrant a full length feature. I say that and immediately feel bad though, because it really is a delightful little film and breezes by at a brief 88 minutes. There is a stellar voice cast here and the young audience that crowded the theater seemed to enjoy it immensely despite it being somewhat unconventional to their usual 3D fare. It isn't a film the youngins will want to rely on for adequate history lessons, and it isn't something they might even want to re-visit, but in the moment it is exciting and charming.

SAFE HOUSE Review

Many people will bash "Safe House" for being exactly what it promised to be. This is because they wanted more from it, they expected, with such a top notch cast, for it to deliver a little more than the standard CIA-gone rogue story. You shouldn't expect more though, simple as that. This is a February release that boasts enough talent and enough action sequences to warrant the price of admission and get you into a seat and ready for a film that doesn't let up. No, Denzel is not working again with Tony Scott, though director Daniel Espinosa would like to have you think so with his tinted film stock and contrast to color ratio a bit off. Sadly, this is no "Man on Fire" but it fits nicely in line with other recent Denzel thrillers like "The Taking of Pelham 123" and "Unstoppable". Reynolds redeems himself somewhat in the wake of two bombs and with a strong supporting cast in Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, and Vera Farmiga it is inevitable that you won't be at least entertained by the film. I'm not saying this is high art and it is nothing close to original, but it means well and it delivers on our expectations, occasionally even exceeding them. If you plan to see "Safe House" though you most likely already know this. You know what to expect and more importantly what not to. What you do get is a high octane, brutal and gritty picture that creates an aura around Denzel as being the most badass CIA agent ever. Mission accomplished.

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) prepares his safe house
for its first guess in a long time.

The set up might be the best part about the film though and despite most of it being given away in the trailer we are engaged from the first sequence where Reynolds Matt Weston and Washington's Tobin Frost are inter-cut in their proceedings leading up to their confrontation. Frost is the rogue CIA agent that has a secret meeting with a mysterious man who is of course a devious looking guy and they exchange some kind of high tech chip that contains what is no doubt some very important information. This triggers a group of strange assassins to hunt down Frost and try and extract that information from him, but we don't exactly know why. Meanwhile, Matt Weston is just a guy trying to get ahead in life and has currently been serving 12 months monitoring a safe house in South Africa. As the trailer shows you the safe house is compromised and Weston gets his chance to step up to the plate and prove himself as a real agent when he is given the task of bringing Frost in. From here it is a series of shoot outs and narrow escapes as Weston tries his best to be a serious agent without letting Frost into his mind and Denzel plays it very much like we would expect Denzel to play it as he runs around with that air of superiority that tells you he is much smarter than you are. Not that this isn't exciting and fun to watch it hints that the layers of the plot shouldn't really matter, but Espinosa keeps the narrative on track and doesn't let his gun battles run away with the story. It is not quite a cat and mouse thriller, but it contains that consistent tone that speaks to the audience and says all is not what it appears to be and though we also probably knew that from the trailer, it is nice to see the film stay so committed to being more than the average action flick.

Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard play CIA officials who have
the fate of both Weston and Frost in their hands.

You have seen this film before, no doubt countless times, but there is a level of understanding with this film. It knows what it is and it flaunts it unabashedly. It executes its story with finesse and documents its action in the free hand, sloppy style that mimics the films environment. The straightforward, no hesitation with which Frost kills his enemies is inherently the way a sociopath might act. He is a jaded agent, one who knows his lies have become his truth and that he can hardly tell the difference anymore. He shows no hint of conscious and will do anything to get him ahead, to keep him winning. Denzel plays it perfectly. He is one of only a few actors that can truly be as charismatic and ooze appeal in a villainous role as he can playing the hero. He dominates every scene he is in and gives Reynolds, the one usually playing the charming, charismatic type a chance to play opposite his stereotype. I actually really enjoyed Reynolds performance here. Despite his obvious physical stature he is still a guy who is insecure and vulnerable to the task at hand and makes us as unsure about his chances as he probably feels. There is an unnecessary love story tacked on for Reynolds that somehow managed the to nab the final scene in the film (no spoiler there!) but despite each of these actors having to speak in dialogue that only a Hollywood action thriller would provide they still come off as likeable and honest performances that along with the great and intense fight scenes and exhilarating chase sequences escalate this to a solid action flick that sticks to its guns while doing them a little bigger than some of the other boys.

Carlos Villar (Ruben Blades) helps out his old friend
Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) in a time of need.

I really enjoyed the movie, even with seeing a late show of it and yawning before I entered the theatre I never once was given the opportunity to be bored or even consider nodding off. The audience I watched it with seemed to generally enjoy it as well, especially when Washington let his little Denzel-isms run rampart on the rest of the cast. Reynolds holds his own though despite the bite the name Tobin Frost offers, together these two more than capable actors deliver a predictable yet entertaining ride. It will certainly fulfill your need for action until we get closer to the summer months and the higher-budgeted actioners start to arrive (especially that new Bourne installment that was so strategically played before this movie). Even then it will be hard pressed to find one that has the privilege to cast someone as commanding as Washington in the lead role. I said in the beginning, that if you go in expecting what the film has promised then you will not be let down. Through the process of writing the review that remains true but I think even now I might appreciate the ferocity and blunt force the movie produces with a no apologies type mentality that forces us to confront these characters and their predicaments. Yea, this may be standard stuff but it pulls you in and doesn't let go. Its good solid action and really, would you want it to be anything else?

SAFE HOUSE Review

Many people will bash "Safe House" for being exactly what it promised to be. This is because they wanted more from it, they expected, with such a top notch cast, for it to deliver a little more than the standard CIA-gone rogue story. You shouldn't expect more though, simple as that. This is a February release that boasts enough talent and enough action sequences to warrant the price of admission and get you into a seat and ready for a film that doesn't let up. No, Denzel is not working again with Tony Scott, though director Daniel Espinosa would like to have you think so with his tinted film stock and contrast to color ratio a bit off. Sadly, this is no "Man on Fire" but it fits nicely in line with other recent Denzel thrillers like "The Taking of Pelham 123" and "Unstoppable". Reynolds redeems himself somewhat in the wake of two bombs and with a strong supporting cast in Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, and Vera Farmiga it is inevitable that you won't be at least entertained by the film. I'm not saying this is high art and it is nothing close to original, but it means well and it delivers on our expectations, occasionally even exceeding them. If you plan to see "Safe House" though you most likely already know this. You know what to expect and more importantly what not to. What you do get is a high octane, brutal and gritty picture that creates an aura around Denzel as being the most badass CIA agent ever. Mission accomplished.