A Town Called Panic (2009)

Overall Score: 8.50/10

I have to be honest, A Town Called Panic frustrates me deeply. It is almost entirely Univarn critic proof. My usual go to items on character development, lack of narrative flow, or blatant misnomers pale in comparison to the film's sheer "WTF" factor. A factor so pushed to the extreme of its capabilities, one might imagine this film ought to be watched through multiple levels of consciousness if only in the name of determining which level most amplifies this film's more unique qualities. Because let's be honest, there's absolutely no way you could complain about the movie's weak characters and still keep a straight face when suddenly the image of cow kamikazes works itself into the forefront of your brain.

So I find it hard to know what to say about the film. I think it's pretty much a movie that can only be reviewed on the enjoyment factor. That's how it sells, and presents itself. There's no "now my main character will twist his head in a slightly downward and away direction in the hope of gaining audience sympathy even though he has less dimensions than the marketing's cardboard cutout of him" scenes which press the dramatic issue that's just not there. Nope, A Town Called Panic starts off with a small slice of zany, and just continues piling until the credits roll.

Which leaves the question - how much of the film did I actually enjoy? A pretty good percentage. I won't say I found everything to be quite as glorious, and certain sequences left me wondering more about what will happen next and less about what's going on in the moment. But that is the film's greatest strength. Even during its moments which are low on entertainment, there's a constant feeling that what will happen next can only be even better. This is important for a reason all too often forgotten by Hollywood blockbusters - it keeps you smiling, guessing, and wanting more throughout the film. There's no better feeling than walking away from a movie knowing that at no point did you think "this is a waste of time."

Now I'm not going to deny that A Town Called Panic appeals to a very specific base of filmgoers. Those who expect nothing less than a montage of 'realistic' over the top action sequences loosely tied together by what someone calls a plot, are probably not going to be quick to hop on the Panic bandwagon. Same might be said for those who see the world in only "chick flicks" and "everything else." So if you're going to seek out and indulge in this experience, consider yourself warned. But I should say, I'd recommend indulging in this anyway.

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

OVERALL SCORE: 9.50/10

Regret can be debilitating even among the strongest men. It's worse when all the regrets of your life spawn from a single series of interconnected events twenty-five years ago. Retired legal counselor and federal agent, Benjamin Esposito (Ricardo Darin) finds himself at a crossroads in his life. With little to do, and less in mind, he decides to write a novel about the events that surrounded the rape and murder of Lilana Coloto (Carla Quevedo).

What transpires is a tale of passion, unrequited love, and justice in a world of political upheaval. In love with his young boss, the now Judge Irene Hastings (Soledad Villamil), Benjamin is a man fascinated by passion. Too reserved to ever express his feelings, he idealizes Ricardo Morales (Pablo Rago), Lilana's widower who spends every day at the train station hoping to one day find her killer.

In essence, that's what separates Secret in Their Eyes from so many of our modern-day generic crime thrillers. It's not a film with a series of twists and turns, desperately trying to get you to guess and second-guess who the killer could possibly be. The killer is revealed very early on into the tale. Instead, the movie is about what happens afterward. How those events so affect these characters that it breaks them down to their very raw emotional beings. What happens when these characters are finally forced to address the very things they've been repressing for years.

Once those shells have been stripped away, we finally get to see these characters for who they truly are. Often sad and lonely people trying to get through life with as little regret as possible. Sure, they work well-paying jobs, maybe they have a marriage or a loved one, but none of these things complete them. The things they truly want in life have either been taken away or not come along when they were in a position to grab them. As such, much of Secret in Their Eyes is about missed opportunities. Lives currently filled with reflection over action.

That's one of the many aspects I absolutely love about this film. Many will tell you it's a thriller, tense and ominous, and it is, but Secret in Their Eyes is so much more. Writer-Director Juan Jose Campanella majestically wraps a tale of complex, emotional characters around a captivating thriller with enough twists and turns to constantly keep you wanting more. As much a mood film as it is an emotion, Secret in Their Eyes constantly draws the viewer in with a perfect balance of intensity and reality.

One would be hard pressed to pin-point a single genre for the wide-spread narrative. The movie flirts with a wide variety of topics, with each character embodying a different form. Through their eyes we encounter politics, justice, love, loss, and addiction. We see how failing to gain closure on some of the biggest events of life can leave gaping holes that must be closed. And through it all Campanella finds hope in even the most solemn of life's moments.

Unrelenting, Campanella navigates the tale with a keen understanding for direction. His timing is as impeccable as his characters are fallible. Sentimentality is the name of the game, and everyone plays. Every scene is an expository moment, making even the most meandering scenes captivating.

At times the film may waver under the weight of its melodrama, but the characters and Campanella carry it through. There's no need for action to keep your attention, only tension and well designed characters. Simple enough to make you love them, complex enough to request you get to know them. All in all, The Secret in Their Eyes is one of the best films I've seen in years, and a surefire classic.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Juan Jose Campanella
Written By: Juan Jose Campanella & Eduardo Sacheri
Novel By: Eduardo Sacheri 

Police, Adjective (2009)

POLICE, ADJECTIVE

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: CORNELIU PORUMBOIU

OVERALL SCORE: 7.75/10

Torn between his duty to arrest a teenage hashish user in his local district and the inevitable consequences it'll have on the teen's life, young police detective Cristi (Dragos Bucur) tries to hunt down the teen's dealer before he is forced to make the arrest.

-----------------------------------------

Police, Adjective, the 2009 Romanian entry for Best Foreign Language Film, is a captivating tale about the battle between duty and conscious. Director and writer Corneliu Porumboiu beautifully captures a few days in the life of Cristi with a methodical precision, slow pacing, and wonderful use of single camera angles. 

Porumboiu's lack of constant cuts, and quick movements, adds an element of realism to the world he creates. The audience is presented with the feeling of being another member in the room, or on the street, with Cristi, as opposed to an omnipresent being. As Cristi becomes aware of things, the audience in turn becomes aware. Though what is most striking about Police, Adjective isn't its ability to shock and wow, as so many cop films try to do, but rather its dedication to the mundane events of police work.

Don't get me wrong, PA is not two hours of paperwork filing. What I mean is that while Cristi is doing a stakeout, we are there with him for event. Any suspicious vehicles he sees we see, any third party member coming and going we both investigate. When Cristi trails someone we're there through every street, turn, and staircase. If Cristi is interrupted by a dog walking by, so are we.

Cristi is handled wonderfully by Dragos Bucur, who manages to capture that sense of struggle without constantly flaunting it. Bucur and Porumboiu allow Cristi's struggles to reveal themselves in the way he treats others, especially his coworkers and wife. The moments of brief frustration and remorse. The way Cristi tries to get his mind off of work with conversations on music and grammar. Cristi's acts of self justification, and the audience's desire to sympathize with him.

The ultimate 'climax,' if one dares call it that, puts Cristi's beliefs to the test in a wonderfully intelligent way, devoid of any over the top action. Like the rest of the film, this climax is slow, taking its time to get to the point with a strict realism. For those who admire this type of story telling, Police Adjective is a perfect example of how effective it can be when used correctly. For those who don't, Police, Adjective will most likely be an exercise in patience and interest.

Slow, methodical, and dedicated to realism, Police, Adjective is an engrossing tale about the mundane actions and human choices that confront the Police every day. Porumboiu delivers a simple and straight forward tale that lacks the twists and turns of conventional narrative, maintaining interest through realistic characters and events.

Note: This film was watched and reviewed by birthday request of Brian's Film Review Blog. If you're celebrating a birthday and want to request a review let me know at twitter.com/univarn or lifeinequinox@gmail.com

The Red Riding Trilogy

In the Year of Our Lord - 1974:

Directed by: Julian Jarrold
Trilogy Written by: David Peace (novel) & Tony Grisoni

Grounded by a solid performance from Andrew Garfield, and a great supporting cast of Sean Bean, Eddie Marsan, and Rebecca Hall, 1974 is a beautifully shot introductory element to the trilogy. Setting the series in tone, and in narrative, it creates the starting point from which the other two films must follow.

The film's shining quality is how it blends plot, action, and character breakdown seamlessly. Capturing deep emotional struggles beneath, as each character tries to present their own uncaring to what's going on around them.

While it will provide some answers to the questions it presents, 1974 leaves you hooked, and begging for more. My one real complaint would lie in the middle in which the plot begins to drag before heading into a powerhouse of a finale. A finale which, quite honestly, saves the film several times over.

In the Year of Our Lord - 1980:
Directed By: James Marsh

In the context of the entire trilogy 1980 suffers from 3 problems. The first being that it is in many respects a stand alone story which provides some context which is later developed in the final installment. Secondly it lacks the beautiful imagery, and style, of the first and final installment. Lastly, there's just not enough depth there to make it gripping.

There's no hiding my enjoyment for watching Paddy Considine act, and here he brings some of his best acting to the forefront. As well you have lesser known British actors such as Sean Harris, Tony Pitts, Maxine Peake, and Warren Clarke stepping up to meet that level, giving 1980 one of the best all around performances of the trilogy.

1980 also benefits from having a rather quick paced plot with plenty going on. Lots of dealing with uncovering corruption, murder, and providing a bit of rounding out to some of the character's we've seen, but not known until now.

In the Year of Our Lord -1983:
Directed By: Anand Tucker

Perhaps the most visually surreal entry, 1983 does a brilliant job of tying together the loose ends left by 1974 and 1980. Linking the three films together in a story of redemption, and uncovering. Headlined by two strong performances by David Morrissey who spends the first two installments as a back ground character, and Mark Addy as a solicitor trying to prove the innocence of those accused of the lead in crimes.

Perhaps the most striking thing about 1983 is how those characters who merely served as background for the first two installments really come to light here. How much impact they really had on the plot development of the previous two films, and the crimes surrounding them. If nothing, I greatly enjoy how it all tied together, even if it isn't a perfect knot.

The only real issue I had with the plot lied in the heavy use of flashbacks. They were in many cases necessary, but not well blended, and towards the end it became hard to keep track of what time frame I was looking at. Luckily the placement of certain characters makes it a bit easier on the viewer.

--------------------------

As a whole you won't find many television movies as provocative, or indeed captivating, as this Red Riding trilogy. The acting is splendid throughout, and, while it never achieves an element of perfection, it certainly makes for a gripping weekend event.

Black Dynamite (2009)

BLACK DYNAMITE

DIRECTED BY: SCOTT SANDERS
WRITTEN BY: MICHAEL JAI WHITE, BYRON MINNS, & SCOTT SANDERS
OVERALL SCORE: 7.75/10

Local legend Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) must team up with a group of revolutionaries to take on The Man for a series of drug related incidents that have plagued his local ghetto.

"Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!"

Ever seen a film so indescribably awesome you secretly want to mate with it? No? Just me? Well, then you obviously haven't seen Black Dynamite. A pitch perfect parody of 1960's and 1970's blaxploitation films (specifically films like Shaft, Disco Godfather, Three The Hard Way, among many others).

In order to get you hooked, Black Dynamite dives right into the spoof, with scenes so incredibly over the top you're instantly aware of its comedic intentions. And while some may find it getting old, Michael Jai White and Scott Sanders are there at every turn to bring something new to the table. How do they do this? Quite simple: start small and just get exponentially bigger and crazier.

It's a brilliant scheme. Just when you think you've scene all this film has to offer, it brings something entirely out there to the table. This includes fight scenes involving ninjas, presidents, and just regular thugs. The kind of fun you can only get from films like this and I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (a fellow spoof on blaxploitation films made in 1988). Where each scene is a brilliant look into the low production values, the high cheese factor, and, above all, the notion that when it doubt, just entertain.

And entertain is what it most definitely does. Each cast member is willing to ham it up to the extreme to make it work. Nothing is taken too seriously, and the film glides on the wings of its own insanity. No comedy in the last few years has made me laugh nearly this hard. And that's saying something.

If you enjoy your films packed with plenty of cheesy goodness, Black Dynamite is the film for you. Never taking itself so seriously it looses sight of its main goal: to be a hilariously off the wall parody.

A Single Man (2009)

A SINGLE MAN

DIRECTED BY: TOM FORD
WRITTEN BY: TOM FORD & DAVID SCEARCE
NOVEL BY: CHRISTOPHER ISHERWOOD
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

8 months after the tragic death of his lover (Matthew Goode), university English professor George (Colin Firth) still struggles to get through each day. Constantly at war between his loneliness, societal view on his lifestyle, and constant desire to look back.

There's a risk one takes when they opt to perform a very stylistic drama. The style can either support or detract from the drama. Tom Ford's first directorial outing, A Single Man, is a perfect example of a movie that does a bit of both.

The strength of the style is so indisputably beautiful, I found myself abruptly thrust into the film's vision. The opening shot moving to the somber Abel Korzeniowski score, riddled with such heartbreak and depth. The reiteration of this stylistic approach multiple times throughout the opening creates a very beautiful introductory segment. Then, almost as if playing with the view, the film begs the question: how many times can someone hear the same musical score to a beautiful slow motion shot before it gets old?

That's perhaps the most telling thing about Ford's striking debut. For all its amazing strength in acting, and visual design, I continuously felt like I was experiencing déjà vu. A feeling of non-movement that really gripped me mentally, and curiously frustrated me. Repeating the same style, while only vaguely moving the plot forward.

Firth's George is the only character who appears to move forward (though it takes him a long time to do so), and only in a melancholy subtext. His conversations with the various people around him stand as testaments to Firth's indisputable talent, but at times I questioned their relevance/purpose. Often giving insight to the uneventful daily routine that surrounds George, but still forcing a bit of dark comedy where it wasn't really needed.

The characters have the presence, and emotional depth, to hold the film goers attention. Heartbreaking, amusing, somber, and at times poetic, each character is a stand alone feature the movie puts on display. During these character moments I found myself so entranced, I was ready to spend hours watching their daily struggles. Alas, a few tears, nude swimming scenes, and an emotional breakthrough later, the movie rushed to its unsurprisingly surreal, dark, and visually impressive ending. If only they had just kept it a bit more simple, the real emotional connection could have blossomed.

Tom Ford's directorial debut is an amazingly beautiful film, riddled with poetic imagery. Yet weighed down by non progressive characters (intentional or not) and a repetitive style that doesn't always connect.

Defendor (2009)

DEFENDOR

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: PETER STEBBINGS
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

Well meaning, but delusional, Arthur Poppington (Woody Harrelson) dresses up at night as the superhero Defendor, hunting down Captain Industry. After getting beaten up by some local thugs, he teams up with a young hooker, Kat (Kat Dennings), to take down a city crime lord.

Defendor is the kind of film that without blogging I would never get a chance to see. This small budget Canadian film would likely have not even gazed near my radar, and what a shame that would have been. A dramady centered around a couple of personally flawed individuals trying to find their place in the world, is a captivating, and emotionally griping tale.

A parody the loves the genre cheesiness, but at the same time truly cares about its characters. Much of the film really takes the time to develop Arthur. We get to see his past, what made him the way he is, and what he aspires to be. His tale is heartbreaking, and Harrelson handles it with a dimwitted charm that makes him beyond lovable. While Kat Dennings doesn't offer much, she provides a suitable counter balance to Arthur, with a well developed backstory herself.

It's the attention to its characters that really struck me about the film. The two main leads are the only developed ones, but they are well developed. And, at the same time, they provide a good amount of comedy to keep the film refreshing. The movie knows when it's funny, but it doesn't try to force it. Never halting the progress of the story to try and make it funnier. The characters natural actions take care of that.

The real downsides for the film lie in some mishandling. Above the main four actors the second tier performances are skiddish at best. And while Stebbings does a commendable job, during many of the key dramatic moments I felt he came up a bit short in writing and direction. Not really grasping the levity of the moment, and settling for an extra bit of cheese, when not necessary.

Regardless, Defendor is a perfectly entertaining affair. Grounded by solid action, absorbed in superhero mythos, and completely full of heart.

While far from perfect Defendor is the rare kind of parody that manages to be both amusing and heartfelt. A little gem of a movie, that definitely gets my recommendation.

The Boondock Saints 2: All Saint's Day (2009)

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS 2: ALL SAINTS DAY

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: TROY DUFFY
OVERALL SCORE: 4.00/10

After spending years living quietly in the hills of Ireland, the MacManus brothers, Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) return to Boston to enact vengeance on the crime boss who had their ex-priest murdered.

The original Boondock Saints is about as polarizing a film as anyone I can think of. For me, is was hilarious in its own stupidity, lovable for its parody, and enjoyable for its style. A great guilty pleasure, one I've enjoyed revisiting on several occasions. So, when I heard a proper sequel was finally to be made and distributed, I began to get psyched up. What would Duffy bring to the table this time?

Well, the answer to that question is simple: nothing. Boondock Saints 2 is merely a hollow shell of its original form. A mimicry more than a continuation. It's as if Duffy's only talent is for trying to do the same thing he already did. Only one problem: this time, he just seems to have no direction.

The jokes are unfunny. The parody is bland, and uninspired. The action feels forced, and monotone. While our actors just feel happy to be in front of the camera. There's just nothing here. Dare I say, even by comparison, it's just a disaster of misguided efforts.

While the first was self-reflexive in its humor, this new one feels self-indulgent. Like a schoolyard bully proving his own awesomeness by doing the same trick over and over. Even in its most charged moments I couldn't care.

And the characters don't help either. I love Clifton Collings Jr., but his character here is a badly planned out Rocco replacement. While Julie Benz, as the Willem Dafoe replacement, suffers from horrid accent syndrome. And another character caught up in themselves.

There's just no real emotion this time around. It's all fabricated. The moral questioning, and questionable, nature of the original is lost in look at this spinning move moments that make the original seem tame. To be honest, I just couldn't stand what I was watching. It's bad on another level. The kind of movie you regret having seen, instead of walking away indifferent.

Despite the cult fanbase, Duffy's Boondock Saints 2 is everything you never wanted it to be, and less. It's a two hour car-wreck played in slow motion and bad design. Riddled with self superiority, but nothing to support it.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS

DIRECTED BY: TERRY GILLIAM
WRITTEN BY: TERRY GILLIAM & CHARLES McKEOWN
OVERALL SCORE: 7.25/10

After thousands of years of making bets with Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), a physical personification of the devil, Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) must face the ultimate consequence. If he cannot claim five souls before his daughter's (Lily Cole) 16th birthday she will belong to Mr. Nick for all time. With only two days remaining Parnassus enlists the aid of charismatic, amnesiac, Tony (Heath Ledger) for one last go.

I have to admit, pretty much nine times out of ten I don't go for the Terry Gilliam idea over story framework. I like my stories far too much to delegate them to an afterthought. So, I went into watching Parnassus with a great deal of hesitancy, and worry as to what to expect. And, much to my surprise, here Gilliam has managed to find a strong balance between them.

Wonderfully navigating the old school good vs. evil for the souls of mankind tale, Gilliam maintains his tale with wonderful visuals interwoven, creative characters, and a solid, if ill-explained, plot, bounded in subtext. Parnassus knows it involves many plot devices, and openly utilizes them as it deems fit. For that's the benefit of its premise. In a world where your imagination defines what occurs, one can do anything, and manipulate anything they want. A powerful tool for any filmmaker.

And for the most part Gilliam captures his world wonderfully. He plays to the quirky side of things, but develops the characters fully. They go through emotional rides, and in return so does the audience. And as for the cast, they handle these transitions wonderfully. Ledger is a testament to the strength of his career, and the trio of Law, Depp, and Farrell support that persona. While Plummer stands out as a highly memorable Parnassus, Cole and Andrew Garfield (slight of hand/stage-man Anton) also manage to hold their own. Waits is also a nice surprise as the quasi-villain of the story, whose random appearances are filled with smooth, and amusing plays on humanity.

The only weak link the cast I found was in Verne Troyer, as Parnassus' long time follower and friend Percy. The character just felt flat, one note by comparison, and Troyer's never really had the vocal range with emotion to elevate a character beyond that. It's a shame, but hardly something to whip out the complaint stick too heavily over.

Parnassus, despite offering its actor a wide range of emotions, is really about the visual world it creates. The bright lighting and colorful Imaginarium is beautifully in contrast to the dark, cloudy, allies of these characters reality. Though at times, especially towards the end, I felt like the film gets ahead of itself. Mr. Nick's schemes and plans seem to weigh down, and get muddled up in I really don't get why he's doing that moments. Gilliam holds it together as best he can, but I think he could have gone for more in the ending. Instead he settles on a rather cheap, predictable, trick. It closes the movie with a smile, but it's hardly the hammer home a film as high minded as this could have had.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus isn't going to break the narrative bound, but it does offer a nice, refreshing, play on an old tale. Breathing life into each sequence, and giving a good deal of depth to an otherwise visual bound tale.

Crazy Heart (2009)

CRAZY HEART

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: SCOTT COOPER
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

Stuck on the road most of the year, playing bowling alleys and rundown bars, ex-legend country singer, Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is an alcoholic with little going for him. After meeting up and coming reporter Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Blake slowly starts to turn his life around.

Some great performances, and even better songs, trapped in mediocre direction and writing. That's about the best way I can summarize Scott Cooper's directorial coming out event. An event so saved by its performances I can see why Gyllenhaal and, to a greater extend, Bridges have gained so much love. Perhaps it is cosmic return for all of Bridges' hard work over the years, and some guilty feelings for the Rourke snub last year (yes, I still contend Penn's performance was only the 5th best of those nominated). Still, Crazy Heart has an admirably charming side to it. The kind of side that really gets audiences, and voters to rally behind it. It's dark, but never that dark. Sad, but never that sad. It's a product of hope, dreams, and lost ways. You know, sort of like what you used to hear musicians sing about.

Bridges is a delight to watch, even if his character is a bit on the scruffy side. He's got a great natural charm that really lights up the screen. While Gyllenhaal handles the emotionally torn romantic interest with a not so cheerful past. Together they create just a strong enough dynamic that it really helps make the film what it is. Of course smaller, but still solid, entries from Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall only add to this. They help to carry the film through a muddy middle portion, as the film tries to hammer out all of its characters' flaws and backstories. It creates a real emotional core for the film, bringing out those quiet moments, and making you really care for the audience.

Still, the entire time I couldn't help but be a little frustrated by Cooper's writing and directing. He's like an artist who can repaint all the great works, but can't figure out why his isn't the same. It, perhaps ironically, seems to really lack a little bit of heart. Blake is an enjoyable character, and easy to sympathize with, but we're never really let in. He drinks a lot, but then again it seems all worn down ex-celebrities do (just watch VH1). We never get to know why he is the way he is. Similarly for Jean. We see who she is, and we know there's reasons why she is that way, but we're never told. A couple subtle hints, and a fight, and that's about it. As well, during the really hard moments, Cooper seems to shy away from the emotion, and instead push the plot along. I hope in future films Cooper learns it is good to let some emotion sit, and resonate with the viewer, every once in a while. Still Cooper makes just enough of his writing to bring the film home. A good film, but not quite great.

About half way through Crazy Heart, it should become incredibly obvious to the viewer it's very reliant on two things: 1) the performances and 2) the songs. And when it has those two in unison it's a heck of a film, when it does it, it walks the thin line between good and mediocre.

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT SCHWENTKE
WRITTEN BY: BRUCE JOEL RUBIN
NOVEL BY: AUDREY NIFFENEGGER
OVERALL SCORE: 6.25/10

Chicago librarian, Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) as an odd genetic condition: at random times, triggered by various things, he jumps through time. Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) has been in love with Henry since she first met him as a child, when he was a much older adult. As their first meeting comes very difficult, can they make such a complicated relationship work?

Sometimes you watch a movie, and while it's perfectly fine, you can't help but feel as if it would be far more developed in its original novel form. The Time Traveler's Wife is perfectly fine in and of itself, and it ranges between drama, romance, and comedy, but at times it feels a bit underwhelming, and illexplained. You see Time Traveler's Wife is, for the most part, told from the point of view of Henry, and his time line (except when needed to develop a character or move a plot point along for scene purposes). Still I never found the film difficult to follow, and I quickly bought into its notion of time.

Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are by no means amazing, but their natural charisma, and chemistry, really works in developing this romance. This is critical as we come in at two very different points in their romance. For Bana our first encounter, is his first encounter, and we see his confusion over this girl, who has known him her entire life, being so excited to see him. The supporting cast are perfectly fine, but aren't asked to deliver a whole lot of emotion. Overall the story does take some adjustment, as well as time to get to know their relationship, and the story's way of dealing with time travel.

If there's one thing I often find to be most people's constant complaint is that the film's perception of time travel, doesn't match their perception (similar to what happened in Star Trek). And since nobody's yet to prove anything time travel related, it's sort of like arguing who has the better wormhole in their basement... just stop your grumping already.

Overall though, Time Traveler's Wife is really nothing special. It works because it does everything just fine, and carries the interesting, and story from start to finish. It's executed well, and works within its own confines. It never tries to be anything more. It never tries to be something massive. It simply intends to be a love story, about two individuals torn apart by a complicated issue. There's a few things I could note that would have been better, had they done them differently, but overall I feel as if it executes its romance perfectly well enough to be worth a recommendation.

While it's by no means a perfect film, The Time Traveler's Wife works despite its flaws, because of a captivating story, and two charismatic (not to mention easy on the eyes) leads.

Whip It (2009)

WHIP IT

DIRECTED BY: DREW BARRYMORE
WRITTEN AND NOVEL BY: SHAUNA CROSS
OVERALL SCORE: 6.25/10

Drowned by her mother's beauty pageant dreams, Bliss (Ellen Page) seeks out the world of women's roller derby as an escape. As she slowly becomes a hit in the circuit, she must balance her friends, new boyfriend, and sudden popularity with her family's old school values, and high school friends.

I've said it in the past, and little has changed since, I was very wary going in to watching this movie. It's plot really didn't scream out to me, but I figured it would be a solid 2 hours of entertainment. And ultimately that's about all I got. You see, for all its best efforts, Whip It is a fun film, caught in a very generic plot with cardboard characters, and lots of over the top characters. I feel as if for every entertaining moment there's another movie out there that's done it, and done it much better. And while I hate that argument, it can be an overbearing feeling, especially while watching coming of age sports movies.

That's not to say the movie does anything necessarily bad. Ellen Page delivers her premium performance you'd expect, and the rest of the cast hovers around decent. Most characters are more caricature than anything, especially when it comes to Juliette Lewis and Drew Barrymore. They gain a couple of laughs, but I found them rather bland, and annoying, at times. I'd like to think there was something more to their characters than there is, but ultimately they're just prototypes. Kristen Wiig and Marcia Gay Harden (whose eyebrows are slowly approaching Hugo Weaving level) were refreshingly well handled characters with some depth. While I'm always game for a Daniel Stern appearance (love Home Alone). Still, I say this all the time, I could do without a Jimmy Fallon... in anything, ever.

As for her first time directing effort, Drew Barrymore shows a knack for not getting in the way of the acting. She also handles the derby sequences rather nicely, even though they often feel a bit disconnected. With some more efforts I believe Barrymore can become a solid film director, there's definitely the prowess there, but she may do well to learn how to highlight moments (most "big" scenes in the film felt about the same as other scenes). And the writing, Shauna Cross handles it, though it can be a bit repetitive, it carries the film just fine. Though I do wonder if the characters are given more depth in the novel...

Even with some solid entertainment power, and pro strong-women stance, Whip It is weighed down by a collection of mediocre characters, and generic moments that never feel as real as they should.

The Informant (2009)

THE INFORMANT

DIRECTED BY: STEVEN SODERBERGH
WRITTEN BY: SCOTT Z. BURNS
BASED ON THE BOOK BY: KURT EICHENWALD
OVERALL SCORE: 5.50/10

Company executive Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) decides one day to aid the FBI is capturing his company in an international price fixing scandal. But as the FBI gets closer and closer to making the case, Mark finds his life getting more and more difficult.

I have to admit I've been sitting on this review for nearly a month now. Walking away from the credits I had no idea what score to give the movie. Part satire, part comedy, part character study, all mildly interesting, even at their shining moments, The Informant felt to me like a movie grounded by a single great performance, stuck in a world of mediocrity. Sure there's some good side performances, and I'm always up for a Joel McHale sighting, but throughout the entire tale I never felt any interest in where it was going.

The main character is not likable in the least bit, and I think the movie knows it. Our supporting cast range from bumbling to generic company executives, all the while we have nothing really to connect to. Perhaps I believe the biggest mistake of the film was to make it a satire, rather than a thriller/drama. Throughout the runtime there's an overbearing feeling of forced jokes, bland social criticism, and a narration, that while perfectly done, feels as if it's weighing down the film. These satirical moments feel as if they remove the film of all of its tension, and I have to say they seldom inspired even near a chuckle.

Even with the knowledge that I tend to find movies like this funnier after the fact, and on repeat viewings, throughout the time I found myself more concerned with what time it was, than the characters. Their attitudes all felt cardboard, and disinterested to me. While Whitacre's tale is painful to watch, and easy to get emotionally involved in, I never much cared about the guy. And for a character study piece you need some sort of emotional investment, regardless of whether or not it's positive or negative to see it through. Here it all just felt jumbled. As if the movie wanted to be way too many things at any particular point. It wanted to be a dark comedy drama with social context and an anti-corporation executive stance. In the end all I saw was a film that had more potential than execution, and more intended jokes than actual ones.

While I'm sure it will appease those with its particular brand of humor, I found little to praise, and even less to care about, with this 2009 Soderbergh outing.

Pontypool (2009)

PONTYPOOL

DIRECTED BY: BRUCE McDONALD
WRITTEN BY: TONY BURGESS
OVERALL SCORE: 7.25/10

Vulgar morning radio host, Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie), is unhappy working in the small town of Pontypool, in Canada. Yet one morning, a morning no different from any other, he and the skeleton crew he works with begin to take calls of mass violence occurring throughout the town. Is it just a huge prank? Or is the city of Pontypool slowly succumbing turning into a zombie-like apocalypse?

Let me just get this out there and say Pontypool is perhaps the most fun I've had watching a horror film in a long time. Finding the right balance between absurdity, hilarious, and tense, Pontypool is just pure entertainment from beginning to end. Of course it helps that, much like those experiencing the events, we spend the entire film stuck in the radio station with the cast. As they experience the varying horrors of the outside world, so do we. This ingenious use of off screen violence (though not all off screen mind you) really sets a harsh tone that carries the movie through its weaker parts.

The lead cast of Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle (show's producer), and Georgina Reilly (show's technical editor) each perform admirably, though at times their dialogue is a bit on the weak side. Yet Pontypool is really two movies in one. At the half way point, as things begin to get explained, it becomes obvious to the viewer that Pontypool is a movie that's out of its own damn mind... and I loved it. The *twist* (if you will) is one of the more creative, and I'd say absurd, of twists I've heard in a long time, and really provides a lot to the film. It adds tension to the cast, and some good laughs to the viewer. McHattie without a doubt steals the show several times over with his absurd antics, and crazed expressions (he reminds me a bit of Lance Henriksen).

Of course Pontypool does need McHattie's dynamic performance to pull it off. The show's final act is a bit too absurd in its own way, but at the same time it does fit with the twist that has been presented to us. Backed by solid direction from McDonald, this allows for Pontypool to be a refreshingly original horror film, while at the same time being enjoyable for just about any audience type.

While it's twist may be way on the absurd side, Pontypool is an awesome, and highly enjoyable small horror film, well worth the view.

Bright Star (2009)

BRIGHT STAR

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: JANE CAMPION
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) and John Keats (Ben Whishaw) share an up and down romance over three years before Keats death at the age of 25.

As the credits rolled on this much praised 2009 film, I found myself torn between two extremes. On the one end, Bright Star is easily one of the most beautiful films I have seen in some time. While on the other, the writing and story fail to even come close to that beauty. Spending nearly 1/3rd of its time on pre-romance, Bright Star is a slow evolving tale, that capitalizes on the beauty of those involved, but fails to capitalize on the beauty of their story. Over simplifying, and struggling to really delve in to their relationship, I was struck by how little time, on screen at least, our lovers spend together.

Often separated, only communicating through various writings, Campion seems unsure of how to develop their strong romantic connection. Ultimately Campion settles on a moments approach. Instead of developing, Campion opts to visit a collection of key moments in their romance, show them, and move to the next one. Perhaps it is uncertainty with how to compile 3 years of information, but this approach gives us all of the heart, with none of the context. Which is a shame, as this movie should be far more moving than it truly is. Instead the viewer is left to find the romance in the subtle gestures, and a collection of heartfelt moments that so defined their love. It's there, and romantics will definitely be able to evolve it to full form, but it's never grounded enough to truly hit those emotional cords.

Of course Campion's effort are backed by astounding performances from Abbie Cornish and Paul Schneider, as Keats work friend . Ben Whishaw is great, but is not given nearly enough to really work off, except for a handful of quiet moments. Yet their performances lay the ground work for the emotion that the viewer is to feel. As such we can feel the chemistry being developed, which allows us to buy into the romance, even on the most minute level. This allows Bright Star's runtime to float by, as we go on this journey with the characters, and see how their lives unfolded. Make no mistake about it, this is not a John Keats movie, this is a Fanny Brawne movie.

As beautiful as this film is to watch, it's really a shame the story fails to live up and compare, otherwise this could have been legendary.

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG

DIRECTED BY: RON CLEMENTS & JOHN MUSKER
WRITTEN BY: ROB EDWARDS, JOHN MUSKER, & RON CLEMENTS
ORIGINAL STORY BY: ED BAKER ("THE FROG PRINCESS)
OVERALL SCORE: 6.50/10

Hard working New Orleans waitress, Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) is accidentally transformed into a frog when she kisses the newly arrive Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) who was transformed himself after trying to get a local witch doctor (Keith David) to provide him with unknown riches.

Oddly dark, comically amusing, dreadfully formulaic, but still reliable. That's the best summarization I can come up with for this 2009 Disney installment. Following that same formula that a women can't find love until either she, or the prospecting male, is transformed into another entity of some sort, Disney rehashes everything in its power to bring this tale to life. Of course when you're producing the first ever Disney princess film centering on the trials of a black woman in the US... you're going to play it as safe as humanly possible.

To do this Disney relies on some old school functions. The crazed witch doctor/sorcerer (ala Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, & Snow White), the plucky side kicks (Mermaid style), and of course the random evil sidekick. In fact the only thing I can say that is truly new about the film is a presence of a strong central female character. In the past Disney "princesses" (with perhaps the exception of Pocahontas) were overly reliant on the male character in order to escape their predicament. Here, the female is at the crux of most of the action, and the two work amicably to find a way out of their problem... a very nice middle ground selection I must say.

Still, like my fascination for so many olden things, I found the combining of a modern flair with jazz, and that old school Disney style just the refresher I was looking for. The film works because it intends only to tell its tale without much in the way of social commentary. It doesn't weigh itself down with unnecessary side plots, and actually takes a few moments to develop its central romance (kind of). The songs, which are at the crux of any Disney animated film, are enjoyable, but all have this overbearing feeling of deja vu. The fact that this film failed to make as much money as Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 is sadly a painful statement on the current times we live in. Princess and the Frog may not be the most original film in the world, but it has all the class you'd ever want.

Despite its overbearing lack of originality, The Princess and the Frog is just entertaining enough to get your moving and grooving, well adapting the classic Disney formula to modern times.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

SHERLOCK HOLMES

DIRECTED BY: GUY RITCHIE
WRITTEN BY: MICHAEL ROBERT JOHNSON, ANTHONY PECKHAM, SIMON KINDBERG, & LIONEL WIGRAM
CHARACTERS BY: SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
OVERALL SCORE: 7.25/10

After completing their final case together, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey. Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) must team up once again with the re-appearance of their final foe, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who has come back from the grave for one final act.

Throughout the run time of Sherlock Holmes I couldn't help but feel as if this movie wasn't so much of a reboot as a sequel to non-existent Sherlock Holmes tale. No setup, backstory, or really any development, we are quickly thrusted in to the modern day trials of the legendary novel detective. For those familiar with the old Sherlock Holmes tales, this introduction will be rocky, but not without balance, while those unfamiliar (and unfortunate) people will likely spend most of the films first 30 minutes with bewildered by all that is going on. Though of course even still this is not your typical Sherlock Holmes.

The fun outfits, hats, magnifying glasses, and off the cuff personality has been subsided in favor of quick-witty remarks, tough physique, and a more gritty Victorian appeal. Of course when you have a cast compromising of Downey Jr., Law, Strong, an underused (but always beautiful) Rachel McAdams, and the oft underrated Eddie Marsan, there's little down that the characters can carry the blunt of the story. And that they do. The character dynamic is quite impressive, the emotional strain obviously there, and each do an excellent job of helping to develop the layers behind each character. A refreshing development against modern action films with too many explosions and so little character.

At the same time Ritchie is able to re-establish himself as a very talented visual director, making the most of each scene. While his slow-motion pre-attack breakdown felt heavy handed, Ritchie managed to squeeze as much beautiful imagery as possible from each shot. Perfectly combining an age of mysticism, national growth, and general British appeal. No matter what Ritchie does, it never hurts when you have a musical genius like Hans Zimmer hiding behind each scene. His musical score, taking a small sampling from Once Upon a Time in the West, breaths refreshing life into the film. Quirky, comical, and yet daringly dark, it's definitely among the best musical scores of the year. Yet for all its strengths the 2 hour 8 minute runtime feels a bit stretched out, and could probably have cut down about 10 minutes worth of unnecessary audience reminders. As well the story is far from unpredictable, but the crew unite strongly to make it enjoyable all the same.

While I dearly miss my "elementary, dear Watson," Guy Ritchie and company have thrown a nice, more modern, spin on the classic detective, with broad appeal, and solid narrative development.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

THE LOVELY BONES

DIRECTED BY: PETER JACKSON
WRITTEN BY: PETER JACKSON, PHILIPPA BOYENS, & FRAN WALSH
NOVEL BY: ALICE SEBOLD
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

After her death, Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) watches over her aching family and friends from the in-between world (between earth and heaven).

When I first started hearing calls for The Lovely Bones being an over-directed mess I was doing the equivalent of putting my hands on my ears and making noises to avoid hearing it. Upon watching it, I highly regret to inform that I have to agree on some level. Jackson's knack for striking images comes at the backlash of his desire to include a little bit of everything. He wants the action, the heartbreak, and the whimsical awe all wrapped up into something that stands for more than what it is. Unfortunately, in trying to jumble all of these, Jackson looses focus on many occasions and his efforts to put them together in a simple straight forward narrative fails to mesh.

Though I don't put it all at the foot of Jackson. The source material is inherently just not straight forward enough for a novel to cinema translation. Jackson tries to pull out that epic stature from Lord of the Rings to make it work, but even still the film feels all to weighed down by the many story lines, none of which are really ever fully explained enough for the audience to follow. Then again it doesn't help Jackson that much of the cast just feels detached from their performance. Ronan, Tucci, and Sarandon shine, but Whalberg continues his post oscar-nomination slump, while Rachel Weisz's role is far too underwritten to make anything of it. Even the small performance from Nikki Soohoo (whose character plays a transitioning character for Ronan) just feels more comical than real, and a such, connectible.

Lovely Bones ends up spending most of its runtime fumbling back and forth between striking visuals, great scenes, and horrid scenes. All too disconnected from one another to truly grab the audience. Years travel for these characters, and yet nothing seems to change. Their bonds as humans never leave, and while there's certainly something there for analysis as to why, it never begs you to get that deeply involved. Of course that's not to say that Jackson doesn't make it involving. Maintaining a brisk pace, Jackson keeps the viewer intrigued throughout the runtime, dragging them through the awful scenes, by utilizing that basic human nature of curiosity. Yet at the end of the film there's still that feeling of unfulfilled emotion. Nothing ties together well enough for any sort of closure, nor is it explained well enough for us to truly grasp the importance of some scenes. Jackson, sadly enough, can't bring it all together.

Despite his best efforts, and a couple of great performances (and a couple awful ones), Jackson can't tie everything together, and ultimately falls under the weight of trying to bring such a complex story to life.

It's Complicated (2009)

IT'S COMPLICATED

DIRECTED & WRITTEN BY: NANCY MEYERS
OVERALL SCORE: 6.25/10

As all her children are moving out Jane (Meryl Streep) begins her life long dream house additions, with the help of the recently divorced architect, Adam (Steve Martin). While attending her youngest son's college graduation in NY, Jane gets drunk one night with her ex-husband, Jake (Alec Baldwin), who has sense remarried his mistress, and the two begin a timid affair. But as Jake's wife becomes suspicious, Adam and Jane grow closer, and her children struggle with whether or not their parents are getting back together, Jane finds this affair is more complicated than she originally thought.

There are some movies that are just good. They're funny when they want to be, emotional when they want to be, and they're never really exceptional at any particular moment. It's Complicated is a prime example of a movie that's just good. Alec Baldwin's smooth ex-lover attitude provides many good chuckles, while Martin reminds us why he was famous to begin with (perhaps a more sad fact than it should be). Meanwhile Streep is her normally excellent self, but she's never really asked to do a whole lot. It's Complicated is a movie I imagine everyone walking out of with a solid consensus that it was good. It won't start any arguments (unless the affair topic is a touchy subject for you), and it's just naturally pleasant.

Though without a doubt it's the chemistry that makes It's Complicated's 2 hour runtime move by so smoothly. The characters interact well, and while there's some moments of questionable dialogue choices, it feels like rather genuine interactions between people. Perhaps that's what makes it enjoyable. It's not an over-achieving flair, nor does it really seek to be anything more than it is. It's a movie that rolls with its own punches, gets you smoothly from scene to scene, and when is all said and done, you'll be happy on some level that you went to see it.

Though of course that attitude is on some level it's own undoing. Because it never really goes for the knockout punch, It's Complicated is little more than 2 hours of mindless entertainment. You'll likely forget about it soon enough, and for the most part it never manages to really hit at the heart of the matter. Most of the film's emotional scenes are crammed into two minute conversations (or wall staring) that are meant to have ultimately changed drastically the opinions of each other. This may be good for keeping the movie rolling, but it comes off hollow when you're thinking back on it. Never the less, it's far from a disaster, or as mediocre as many have pointed out. It's an enjoyable movie, with lots of fun to offer, and don't go in expecting more.

Despite some great cast chemistry, and fun moments, It's Complicated is too run of the mill to matter too much, but that doesn't stop it from being perfectly entertaining.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

DIRECTED BY: WES ANDERSON
WRITTEN BY: WES ANDERSON & NOAH BAUMBACH
NOVEL SERIES BY: ROALD DAHL
OVERALL SCORE: 8.00/10

After his wife (Meryl Streep) told him she was pregnant, Mr Fox (George Clooney) swore off his bandit lifestyle, instead taking a job as a column writer. Continuously seeking his old, more wild lifestyle, Fox decides to return to his bandit lifestyle and steal from three local farmers. But when these 3 local farmers band together to weed out Fox, he realizes his ways have not only put his family at risk, but rather everyone he knows.

With a stacked cast of Anderson regulars and critical darlings, it's no wonder Fantastic Mr. Fox was seen as a chance for Anderson to re-take the reigns on his career path. Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an amusing, well captivating tale, that honors the history of stop-motion in its moves, while enjoy modern techniques and just really having fun. As is a growing trend, FMF is a children's story that's not really a children's story. It deals teenage angst, trials of a middle age man, and the destruction of an entire population. Characters die (well one character), cuss (though instead of actually saying the words they just say "cuss"). It's a mature film, wrapped in shell of a childhood fable, wonderfully combining elements of both. It's no Up mind you, but it's strong enough to have fun with itself.

Though no matter what I have to admit it took me a while to get into the visual style. The opening is a bit of a throw you into the mix, and it took me some time to develop a genuine acceptance for the style. Not to mention Anderson spends basically no time on backstory, instead allowing the movie to develop over time. This is good in that we grow to understand the characters as they grow to understand themselves, but much like them we're often left in the dark on why they make the decisions they do. Not to mention there's not a lot of depth to be found, but that's hardly that big of a negative. Really what Anderson does best here, is what he does best in general, analyze, not criticize, characters.

Anderson has fun with characters, and as usual, his characters have fun (in their own weird way) within their world. He develops odd character attributes that sets them apart, while keeping them grounded to the confines of the story. It allows Fantastic Mr. Fox to be fast paced, fun, and constantly on the go. Though what makes it enjoyable is the childlike spin Anderson has applied. Fantastic Mr. Fox never takes itself too seriously, and even during its more dramatic moments there's a sense of levity, and curiosity that grabs the viewer. It keeps the viewer captivated, and allows for those silly scenes to work all the more. It's a shame this was so badly marketed. There's a lot to enjoy here, and it's sure to leave a smile on your face.

If you can buy into its style, you'll find Fantastic Mr. Fox a highly enjoyable experience, that's sure to leave a smile on your face.