50/50: 4 ½ STARS

50/50, as Kyle (Seth Rogen) says, is pretty good odds. “If you were a casino game you’d have the best odds!” But he’s not a casino game, he’s Kyle’s best friend Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who has been diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.

Twenty-seven-year-old Adam is a clean living guy. Doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, he even recycles but yet after having some back pain a routine check-up reveals he has a rare form of cancer. The main people in his life, girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), best friend (Seth Rogen) and mother (Anjelica Huston) all react in their own, distinct ways. Only two fellow chemotherapy patients (Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer) seem to understand what he is going though. A bubbly but inexperienced therapist (Anna Kendrick) provides some comfort, but may not be able to keep a professional distance.

Cancer is no laughing matter, we all know that. But “50/50” breaks taboos left and right, using Adam’s cancer as the basis for a comedy. Luckily it’s tempered with great performances, a smart script and real emotion. There’s no a false moment thanks to a script written by Will Reiser, the real life inspiration for the story. Reiser, a pal of Seth Rogen (who also produced the movie) and cancer survivor, finds just the right balance between mortality, romance and cancer jokes—one character says the more syllables the name of your tumor has, the worse it is—in a script that will have you laughing and crying at the same time.

Gordon-Levitt is the film’s centerpiece, giving a natural, authentic performance as a person facing his own mortality even though he can’t quite believe he’s in that situation.

Rogen, not surprisingly, is the comic relief. Once again, after getting sidelined by super hero movies and the like, Rogen is doing the work that reminds us why we liked him in the first place. As Adam’s skirt-chasing best friend he’s lewd and rude but he’s also brimming with warmth. His talent is his likeability.

The rest of the cast performs well. Bryce Dallas Howard, who seems to be making a career of playing villainess characters, brings her a-game. Ditto Angelica Houston who breathes life into Adam’s over dramatic mother. Kendrick also impresses as the therapist in over her head both professionally and personally.

“50/50” is a unique film. It takes a realistic approach in portraying a cancer patient’s life, but doesn’t forget to present a fully rounded view. It never pokes fun, but also doesn’t deny its darkly (and not so dark) humorous moments.

30 MINUTES OR LESS: 3 ½ STARS

The plot of “30 Minutes of Less” is simple. That’s a good thing because this movie burns along at such a clip there isn’t much room left for subplots, story arcs or narrative aesthetics. It’s a bottle rocket, a small but entertaining burst of bad taste and action adventure.
    
Very loosely on the Collar bomb case, a strange Erie, Pennsylvania bank robbery, the story involves a slacker pizza delivery boy (Jesse Eisenberg) who is kidnapped by two moronic criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson) who strap a bomb to his chest and order him to rob a bank or, in ten hours, everything will go boom.

That’s it.

There’s more about a best friend (Aziz Ansari), his sister (Dilshad Vadsaria) and a psycho killer (Michael Peña) but their stories are add-ons to keep the action moving a bullet-like pace.

There’s nothing genteel about “30 Minutes or Less.” The presence of Danny McBride assures that. For me the “Eastbound & Down” star is a love-him-or-hate-him actor. There’s no middle ground. If you don’t find his brand of foulmouthed, anything-goes humor, then you’ll find very little to like here. He isn’t the star, per se, but his toxic style sets the tone for the movie.

But, if McBride turns your crank, you’ll find much to like here. “Social Network” star Eisenberg gets in a good joke about facebook, Ansari is a ball of manic energy and there’s way more wild action than you usually find in a comedy.

I guess “30 Minutes of Less” the spiritual, but foul mouthed cousin to Eisenberg’s “Zombieland,” a mix of unexpected action and jokes.

127 HOURS: 4 STARS

Wikipedia defines survival as “the struggle to remain alive and living.” Next to that definition should be a picture of Aron Ralston, the poster boy for survival at any cost. His name may not ring a bell but his remarkable story of how he literally found himself between a rock and a hard place will make you wonder how far you would go to stay alive. You see, Ralston is the American mountain climber who was trapped by a boulder for five days in May 2003 and was only able to free himself by amputating his own arm. His story is told in unflinching detail in 127 Hours, starring James Franco, a film is so intense some audience members have suffered panic attacks and lightheadedness.

That reaction is the result of careful direction by Danny Boyle. Because we essentially know how the story is going to end Boyle keeps us along for the ride by building up tension slowly as he moves toward the movie’s Big Scene ®. It’s not always a pleasant experience, but it is rather masterful filmmaking. When he does get to the amputation scene (admit it, you’re curious) he creates a movie topping sequence (it starts to get grim at about the hour-and-fifteen minute mark) with visuals that leave something to your imagination and a jarring electronic soundtrack that is less grueling but more effective than any cutting scene from the “Saw” series. It may not show everything, but trust me, it’ll be a long time before you order a rare steak or beef tartar in a restaurant again.  

Boyle fleshes out the bare bones of the story, adding in heartbreaking hallucinations of survival and a montage of soda commercials that illustrates what happens when thirst goes beyond the physical to become a mental thing.

It’s all tied together by Boyle’s visual sense. He uses a variety of shooting styles to really give us the idea of why Aron loves this terrain and how dangerous and extreme it can be. It gives us a feeling for both the isolated vastness and beauty of Aron’s surroundings.

At the heart of it all is James Franco as Aron. Like Ryan Reynolds in “Buried” this is a performance that isn’t limited by its physical circumstances. Reynolds spent ninety minutes in a box and gave the performance of his career while Franco, trapped by a boulder, alone in a tight uncomfortable space does some seriously good work. His choices of roles have been esoteric of late—playing Allen Ginsberg in “Howl” for instance—but in “127 Hours” he has found the part that should earn him some well deserved recognition from the Academy.

“127 Hours” isn’t an easy movie. When Aron tells himself “don’t pass out” during the amputation scene he could well be talking to the audience as well. Imagine the most uncomfortable you’ve ever been. Now multiply that by a thousand. No wait, a million. That’s the experience Boyle and Franco are offering up, a grueling but worthwhile story of survival against all odds.

2012: 2 ½ STARS

“It’s the end of the world as we know it… and I feel bored.” Nothing like a quick paraphrase of a classic R.E.M. song to sum up my feelings toward the latest end of the world CGI spectacular from Roland Emmerich. Unlike the 1970’s disaster genre, which tended to focus on one particular mishap, like a boat sinking or an office tower bursting into flames, “2012” is an all-purpose disaster movie. Emmerich lays it on thick, utilizing earthquakes, tsunamis and every other natural catastrophe in the Master of Disaster Handbook, to bring life as we know it to a screeching halt.

The film centers around a global doomsday event coinciding with the end of the Mayan Long Count Calendar's current cycle on December 21, 2012. In other words, four days before Christmas, 2012, the world goes boom. California falls into the sea, the South Pole ends up somewhere in Wisconsin and the Himalayas are submerged underwater. Staying one step ahead of the devastation is divorcée Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who pulls out all the stops to get his ex-wife, kids and a handful of stragglers to a lifesaving Noah’s Arc in China called Genesis.

The fifteen year old boy in me enjoyed watching the world blow up real good; the adult in me, however, wanted characters I could believe in. Or at least care about a little bit. It’s not exactly the actor’s fault that I didn’t warm to / care about anyone on screen, they were simply doing their best with a script that had been run through the Cliché-O-Matic before filming began.

Occasionally the cheesy dialogue raises a smile. During a lover’s spat one character says to another, “I feel like something is pulling us apart,” as an earthquake splits the floor between them but more often than not each and every character is saddled with dialogue that would make Ed Wood Jr beam with pride. As all hell is breaking loose the president says to his daughter, “you look just like your mother when you get mad,” and everything is the “most important (insert event here) in the history of mankind!” A thousand monkeys banging away on a thousand typewriters for a week could probably write this script.

But clever wordplay is not why we go see movies like this. We go to revel in a make believe orgy of destruction. Nothing much happens in the first forty minutes however—we meet the large cast, but by the time George Segal shows up the cameo quotient begins to resemble an episode of “The Love Boat”—but when the earth’s crust begins to destabilize at the forty minute mark many spectacular scenes of world demolition follow. Hope you have a huge appetite for destruction because for the next two hours that’s pretty much all there is. “2012” becomes an end of the world spectacle to end all end of the world spectacles, which, works if a doom boom is all you’re interested in, but after a while the elaborate special effects becomes visual white noise.

Emmerich could have kept up interest by adding some real drama beyond timers counting down to zero or placing the hero in life or death situations that he is most certainly going to survive, or by shortening the running time—at a butt numbing 2 hours and 40 minutes “2012” feels like the end of the world is playing out in real time—but instead was content to fill the screen with flashy CGI and little else.

9: 3 ½ STARS

For those who thought last year’s “WALL-E” was the last word in animated post apocalyptic entertainment along comes a dark fable about a war ravaged world populated by brave burlap dolls (numbered 1 through 9) and terrifying machines. Call it Sock Puppets Save the World if you like, but despite the kid-friendly lead characters, “9” isn’t as cute and cuddly as “WALL-E.”

Set ten years after the war to end all wars actually ended everything, “9” really picks up when the title character mistakenly awakens a terrifying machine with the ability to create other machines of destruction. As 9 and the other dolls fight the evil machines they discover the very essence of their existence; that they were created by a scientist who knew the end of life as he knew it was near. Rather than see all life disappear he created these limited edition rag dolls, each with a special skill, to continue life.

The basic idea behind “9” is something we’ve seen before—technology goes wild and machines turn on humans—but what makes this film unique is, bless their little burlap hearts, the rag dolls. Each has a well defined personality and while the voice work isn’t terribly strong—save for Christopher Plummer as 1, the king doll—they all bring something interesting to the story.

Jennifer Connolly voices 7, a kind of ninja beanie baby character. She’s a strong female presence in a genre that often lacks interesting roles for women. Other voices in this eclectic cast include Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Crispin Glover and Martin Landau.

“9” isn’t so much a story as it is a series of action set pieces bound together by ideas. The narrative is simple—man has been destroyed and now these little saviors must defeat the big bad machines or they too will be crushed—and little effort is spent developing the story past a certain point. Lots of effort, however, has been put into creating the elaborate action scenes that make up the bulk of the film.

The wild scenes—mainly of demonic looking machines trying to kill the little dolls—may be too intense for young kids. Ten and eleven year olds should be fine with the imagery—human skulls attached to winged metal skeletons and the like—but anyone younger than that might have trouble sleeping after these frenetic, violent sequences.       

Of course, there is an environmental message attached to the story; this is, after all a movie aimed at the young. It’s not heavy handed, but lines like “This world is ours now… it’s what we make of it” subtly push kids to think about their surroundings.

“9” is cool sci fi for kids with imaginative characters and lots of action that doesn’t talk down to its audience.

50 DEAD MEN WALKING: 3 ½ STARS

Earlier this year a movie called Hunger took us inside Ireland’s brutal Long Kesh prison to illustrate how IRA volunteer Bobby Sands had starved himself to death for the right to be declared a prisoner of war rather than a criminal. It was an artful, yet fierce film set against the backdrop of the Northern Ireland Troubles. More conventional, but equally as effective is 50 Dead Men Walking, a true story based on the life of Martin McGartland, a twenty-two-year-old recruited by the British police to infiltrate and spy on the IRA.

Set in late 80’s Belfast, as the story begins Martin (Jim Sturgess) is a two-bit hustler, selling stolen goods from door to door. He’s a charming apolitical rogue who’ll do anything to make a quick and easy buck. When a friend becomes the victim of violent IRA intimidation Martin becomes a person of interest to both the IRA and the British police. Siding with the police Martin takes on the job of double agent, joining the IRA, gaining their trust and reporting on their every move. Despite the constant danger of being found out and subsequently tortured and killed, Martin hands over information that saves the lives of at least 50 people. When his position is compromised, however, he must make the most difficult decision of his life.

Once you get past the heavy Irish accents—they’re as thick and rich as a pint of well-poured Guinness—the story unfolds in standard bio pic fashion, but never fails to maintain interest. The movie’s desaturated, grainy look gives the story a naturalistic, gritty feel and Canadian director Kari Skogland shows a steady hand at moving the story along while keeping it believable.

The film’s ferocious pace is slowed only by a love story that feels tagged on. The romance adds dashes of melodrama that marginally intensifies the film’s climax but adding a girlfriend and child and dwelling on the consequences they may suffer as the result of his actions doesn’t add much to the overall story.  

At the center of it all is Jim Sturgess, a young British actor who is turning into one of the most versatile actors going, handing in solid work in everything from Julie Taymor’s frou-frou musical Across the Universe to period work in The Other Boleyn Girl and a convincing American turn in the big studio picture 21. Here he’s playing in an indie feature, one that relies on integrity and performance and he pulls it off. As the heat turns up on his character his sweaty veneer looks real and not spritzed on by an overly attentive make-up artist. It’s good work from an interesting new actor.

50 Dead Men Walking has been described as a Belfast Donnie Brasco, and while the two may share a similar storyline they are different beasts. Brasco is a crime drama, and an entertaining one, but 50 Dead Men Walking is something deeper. It offers up a slice of our recent, troubled history and is buoyed by good performances from Sturgess and co-star Ben Kingsley (unfortunate wig excluded) coupled with a provocative, powerful story.    

17 AGAIN: 2 ½ STARS

You could be excused if you experience déjà vu while watching 17 Again. The story, about a depressed 37 year-old man (Matthew Perry) who magically reverts to his 17 year old self (Zac Efron), mixes and matches bits of Back to the Future, Big, Vice Versa and even It’s a Wonderful Life to come up with a plot that is as unimaginative as it is derivative. Luckily it has a secret weapon, and I don’t mean Efron’s abs, which are on display throughout. No, I mean Thomas Lennon, an actor you’ve likely never heard of unless you stayed up late and watched Reno 911 on cable television.

When the movie begins it is 1989 and Mike O’Donnell (Efron) is at the top of his game. He rules the basketball court, has a line on a university scholarship and goes out with Scarlett, the prettiest girl in school. He’s 17 and has the world by the tail. Everything changes when Scarlett gets pregnant and he chooses to give up everything to be with her. Twenty years later Mike (now played by Perry) is a pudgy, unhappy mid-level executive, alienated from his kids, on the verge of a divorce from Scarlett and about to be passed over for yet another promotion. Kicked out of the house he’s rooming with his best friend, the impossibly rich, but impossibly nerdy Ned (Thomas Lennon). “Of course I want to live in the past,” he tells a mysterious janitor / angel at his former school, “it was better there.” Fate gives Mike a second chance at happiness when he is astonishingly transformed back to the age of 17 (back to Efron). Will his trip back in time give him some perspective on life, or will he simply try to relive his best years?

17 Again is High School Musical star Efron’s first move from juvenile roles to young adult parts on his way to an adult career. He’s been quoted as saying that this role was a stretch for him because he had to play a 37 year old, but while he’s an agreeable screen presence in that shiny toothed teen idol way but doesn’t show any more range here than he did in the HSMs. He carries most of the movie and he’s the guy 99% of the audience is going to pay to see but the movie would be much less enjoyable without the unhinged comic presence of Thomas Lennon.

As Ned, former high school nerd—“a good day was when I didn’t get my head dunked in the toilet”—turned soft ware millionaire nerd. He’s the ultimate fanboy with a house full of light sabers, LOTR shields, comics wrapped in acid free plastic sleeves and a bed shaped like a space ship. He’s an outrageous character and Lennon doesn’t shy away from any opportunity to get a laugh, but his larger-than-life portrayal gives the movie some much need steam and cuts through the more predictable aspects of the story.
 
Chandler Bing... er... Matthew Perry is essentially playing his familiar character from Friends in what is really little more than an extended cameo. His appearances bookend the film and he disappears completely for more than an hour of the film’s 102 minute running time.

17 Again is an amiable movie that tries hard to please everyone, from the teens who have followed Efron from his HSM days—there’s even a short dance number or two—to the couples that may be drawn by the love story, but apart from Lennon’s gags and, for some, Efron’s abs, it was more enjoyable the first few times around when it was called Back to the Future. Or Vice Versa. Or It’s a Wonderful Life.

10,000 BC DVD: 1 STAR

Director Roland Emmerich, whose films usually portray the end of times—Independence Day saw aliens try and conquer the Earth while The Day After Tomorrow had Mother Nature taking a swipe at life as we know it—has, this time, chosen to take us back to the beginning of time.

10,000 BC is what used to be known as a “caveman” movie, but in these more politically correct times is now called Neanderthal Drama.

A bombastic cross between Quest for Fire and Encino Man it tells the story of D’Leh (model and actor Steven Strait), a caveperson of considerable physical charms, whose mate Evolet (Camilla Belle) is kidnapped by marauders on horseback who D’Laeh mistakes for “four legged demons.”

Lovesick, he vows to get her back. In his quest to find his love he must battle giant computer generated Saber Tooth Tigers, Wooly Mammoths and something that looks like a steroid-crazed giant chicken.

Keeping the tradition of other Cro-Magnon epics like Teenage Caveman and When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth, 10,000 BC doesn’t skimp on the kitsch—dialogue like “You see that star out there, the one that doesn't move? It's like my love for you, in my heart” would be hard for any actor to pass off, let alone one wearing a loincloth—and don’t look for a history lesson either. In Emmerich’s version of history cavemen don’t live in caves but thatch-roofed villages. They travel on wooden sailboats and worship at pyramids and temples thousands of years before either of those things actually existed. Call it historical fantasy.

Apart from a wild Wooly Mammoth battle near the end I’m afraid even fellow caveman Fred Flintstone might give this one a pass. So to paraphrase the world’s best known caveman is 10,000 BC a Yabba-Dabba-Do or a Yabba-Dabba-Don’t? I think Fred would choose the latter and rent ancient epic Apocalypto instead.  

88 MINUTES: MINUS 88 STARS

In 88 Minutes Al Pacino is Jack Gramm, a troubled college professor whose forensic psychiatrist testimony put serial killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) on death row. On the eve of the execution Gramm receives a mysterious phone call informing him that he only has 88 minutes to live. As the minutes speed by Gramm narrowly escapes several attempts on his life as he and some of his students (including Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, and Benjamin McKenzie) attempt to track down the mysterious caller.

88 Minutes was shot two years ago in Vancouver and has been languishing on the shelf ever since, save for a DVD release in Brazil. Too bad for us that it made its way from the shelf to our theatres. From its ridiculous story to Pacino’s poodle hair 88 Minutes is an ill advised mess.

It’s a thriller with no thrills that ineptly tires to use the “real time” tricking clock to create tension and excitement. 88 Minutes? It feels more like 88 hours as Pacino sleepwalks through this absurd waste of time. Even though Pacino’s character is trying to beat the clock to avoid a mysterious death sentence I guarantee you’ll be looking at your watch more often than he does during the film’s running time.

Years ago actress Jennifer Tilly told me that whenever she’s made a really bad movie it’s because she needed the money to put a new roof on her guest house or the like. With that in mind, and having just seen 88 Minutes, I wonder how the renovation on Pacino’s guest house went.
 
21: 3 STARS

For most of us Las Vegas can be summed up in two words: lost wages. Everybody knows that the odds favor the casinos, but a new movie from the director of Legally Blonde would have you believe that if you are smart enough and cunning enough you can beat the house. 21 is the based on the true story of five MIT students who use their mathematical skills to bilk the casinos out of millions of dollars. It’s part Good Will Hunting part Cincinnati Kid with a little taste of The Sting thrown in for good measure.

The caper begins innocently enough with Ben Campbell (Across the Universe’s Jim Sturgess) applying for a scholarship to Harvard Med. He’s a cerebral stud who has spent his entire life with his face buried in a text book in preparation for his dream of attending Harvard. When it comes right down to it though, he knows his chances of admission and scholarship would be better if he had some actual life experience.

Enter Professor Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey), math teacher by day, gambling guru by night. He runs a club of super smart students who specialize in an elaborate method of card counting that is virtually guaranteed to pay off at the blackjack tables. Every weekend they make a quick trip to Vegas, don disguises and pump up their bank accounts.  

Micky, sensing Ben’s card shark potential tries to recruit him for the club. Ben is reluctant to join, but soon sees the blackjack scam as a fast easy way to make the $300,000 he needs for tuition. Once the money starts rolling in his standard issue school outfit of jeans and t-shirts is replaced with Armani threads and his old nerdy friends get swapped for new high rolling acquaintances.

Of course it isn’t all aces and face cards. Professor Micky turns out to be closer in personality to tough guy Mickey Cohen than Professor Higgins and when an ill tempered specialist in “loss prevention” (Laurence Fishburne) gets on the case Ben soon realizes that success in Vegas comes with a dangerous price.

21 is actually a few movies in one. It’s a caper story, a true-life drama (although the details have been changed considerably from what actually happened), a suspense and even a romance as Ben falls for blackjack wizard Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth in her third film with Spacey). Director Robert Lucketic, best known for fluffy comedies like Legally Blonde and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, deftly balances the film’s various tones, and nicely delineates the drab classroom drama of the MIT scenes from the considerably more glamorous “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” feel of the gambling story.

Of the older cast members, Spacey seems set to chew through the scenery but Fishburne brings just the right amount of old school Vegas menace to the role of a casino detective with a score to settle. Of course, nobody is going to see this movie for the senior members of the cast; this one is strictly aimed at a younger audience.

Heading the ensemble of card cheaters is Jim Sturgess, an unknown British actor who made a bit of a splash last year in Across the Universe, a little seen film based on the music of The Beatles. His odd, variable American accent notwithstanding, Sturgess does a nice job anchoring the cast with a performance that sees him change from nice guy to egomaniac blackjack stud. His appealingly Paul McCartney-esque good looks allow him to be believable as the nerdy student and the high roller, but it is his trip down the rabbit hole as he tries to cram a lifetime of living and frivolity into his weekend jaunts to Vegas that make his character interesting.

Unfortunately the rest of the cast of players aren’t quite as attention-grabbing. Kate Bosworth is pretty, but pretty dull as the, well pretty blonde member of the blackjack team, while Aaron Yoo, Liza Lapira and Jacob Pitts aren’t given enough screen time to make much of an impression as the secondary members of the card counting crew. Only Josh Gad, a Jack Black look-a-like, stands out among Ben’s friends as a memorable character.  

21 doesn’t roll as high as Ocean’s 11 but is a good bet for your weekend entertainment dollar.

27 DRESSES: 1 STAR

Katherine Heigl, star of the hit hospital dramedy Grey’s Anatomy and last summer’s blockbuster comedy Knocked Up may be the new Meg Ryan, or possibly even Julia Roberts for the next generation. She’s beautiful, likeable and has a knack for romantic comedy. Too bad then that 27 Dresses, the story of a young woman doomed to be a bridesmaid forever, is none of those things.

Heigl stars as Jane, an eager-to-please assistant to the world’s most perfect boss (Ed Burns). She’s secretly in love with him, but is too insecure to allow her private feelings to become public. When we meet her she’s shuttling between two weddings on the same night, changing in the cab as she zips between the two ceremonies. It’s a pretty good scene, one with some energy and good comic possibilities.

When she hires the cab she offers $300 for the night provided he doesn’t peek while she is changing. At the end of the night she gives him $120 and says, “You know what you did.” Funny stuff, and well played by Heigl and the cabdriver (Michael Ziegfeld) who both make the most of the slapstick possibilities of the sequence. From there on in, however, it’s mostly like the rubber chicken served at most weddings—you know what it’s supposed to be, but it doesn’t quite taste right.

The story, such that it is, involves terminal bridesmaid Jane, who has stood up for 27 of her friends, having to arrange the quickie wedding between her model sister and her boss, the man she secretly loves. Things get more complicated when the New York Journal sends the dashingly handsome Malcolm Doyle (James Marsden) to cover the wedding for their Commitments page. Sparks don’t immediately fly between Jane and the cynical reporter, but somehow you just know that they will eventually work out their differences.

The trouble doesn’t lie with Heigl, she’s trying her best with a script that is duller than most wedding speeches. Penned by the same screenwriter as The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses has none of that movie’s biting wit or clever plotting. Even the workplace scenes—certainly the greatest pleasure of Prada—aren’t particularly interesting, save for Judy Greer as Jane’s caustic friend and co-worker Casey.

27 Weddings isn’t so much a movie as it is a premise, a one line story pitch—with the odd funny line: “I feel like I just found out my favorite love song was written about a sandwich,” Heigl says about one of life’s disappointments—that really needed more thought before becoming a full length movie.
 
30 DAYS OF NIGHT: 3 STARS

It’s amazing that more bad stuff hasn’t happened in the isolated town of Barrow. Located literally at the Top of the World, this fictional Alaskan town is desolate, freezing cold and has one month a year with absolutely no sunshine whatsoever. It’s the stuff that Hollywood nightmares are made of.

When this sleepy little town is invaded by blood sucking freaks who move fast, howl for no reason and are in desperate need of a visit to the dentist, the townsfolk are terrified yet spend most of the movie running through the snow yelling, “What the hell is going on?” to anyone still left alive.

Why they are surprised is a bit of a mystery to me. Anyplace that dark and out-of-the-way is just asking for a supernatural invasion of some kind. They should just be thankful it didn’t happen a long time ago.

It’s a good set up for a horror film. 30 Days of Night mixes the isolationism of The Thing with the conventions of a zombie film—the survivors hole up in a “safe house” while chaos reigns outside—to create an effectively creepy story with enough gore to keep the hard core fans happy.

With a setting this perfectly creepy the cast doesn’t have to do much other than swing the odd axe and grimace appropriately through blood smeared lips. Josh Hartnett is the love-sick sheriff who one ups George A. Romero’s classic “shoot them in the head” defense by getting up close and personal with these creatures of the night and using an axe to decapitate them. Former Australian roller skating national champion Melissa George is his gun toting ex-wife, while Danny Huston, son of Hollywood legend John, brother to Angelica, is Marlow, the head vampire with a mouth full of rotten fangs and a wardrobe that looks borrowed from Marilyn Manson. Mark Boone Junior is great as a Grizzly Adams type who meets a particularly… grizzly end.

Based on a graphic novel of the same name, 30 Days of Night is packed solid with thrills and is the best horror film of the year.

3:10 TO YUMA: 4 STARS

There was a time when Westerns ruled the movie theatres. John Wayne, Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea were all larger than life cowboy stars and the sight of a wagon train coming over a mountain pass was pretty much a guarantee of a healthy box office. Then times changed. The western went urban as big city cop dramas squeezed cowboy stories off the big screen. This season, however, after an absence of several years two new westerns are slated to gauge audience interest in good old fashioned horse opera.

The first of the two, 3:10 to Yuma, is a star driven remake of a 1957 Glenn Ford oater (look for the awkwardly titled The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford in late September). The original is a classic of suspense, a tension filled battle of wills between two men, one bad to the bone, the other righteous but desperate. I’m happy to say that the new version takes only slight liberties with the story such as upping the violence and even changing the ending, but maintains the spiritual core of the first.

Christian Bale, hot off his star turn in Rescue Dawn, is Arizona rancher Dan Evans. He’s a Civil War vet, but an injury sustained in battle and bad luck has made it nearly impossible for him to make a living from his land. He’s in debt and about to have his land repossessed by a greedy landowner not above using violence and intimidation to get Dan and his family off their land. Dan feels like a failure, and worse yet, his kids and wife seem to agree in that assessment.

The answer to Dan’s problems, both financial and self esteem wise comes in a strange package. Ben Wade is the outlaw’s outlaw. He’s a gunfighter and gang leader responsible for a trail of lawlessness and bloodshed. When he is separated from his mob and captured, Dan, who was once the best shot in his platoon sees an opportunity to make some money and rehabilitate his reputation with his family. For $200 Dan joins the posse of lawmen charged with the dangerous job of escorting Wade to the 3:10 to Yuma prison train.

The passage is dangerous, made even more so by Wade’s gang, led by the psychotically loyal henchman Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). These guys delight in ultra-violence and are desperate to have their leader back. The journey, peppered with violence, vengeance and tension isn’t merely about the physical, however. This is a spiritual journey for both men, a chance for each of them to prove what they are made of; to dig deep and reveal their true natures.
Director James Mangold (Walk the Line) has a lot on his plate with this remake. The original is a well loved classic (although few people under 40 have probably seen it) with a riveting central performance by Glenn Ford in a rare bad guy role. To his credit (and the benefit of the movie) Mangold cast the major characters with actors known for making roles their own, and this is one of the strengths of the film.

Bale brings just the right amount of vulnerability to Evans, while Crowe digs in to create a bad guy, rotten to the core, who begins to doubt his evil nature. It’s the only way of life he knows, but given a glimpse of decency he doesn’t exactly change his ways, as much as simply acknowledge that under his tough exterior there is a beating heart. It’s like he says after brutally dispatching a man who insulted his mother. “Even bad men love their mamas…”          

Also notable are Peter Fonda as an old time Pinkerton cop and Hollywood’s psycho du jour Ben Foster, who takes the standard role of the rancorous goon and injects it with a fierceness that makes him standout in a movie of great performances.

Like Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma is a great Western cow opera about men looking inside themselves to discover the true essence of their lives. These two polar opposite men find a meeting place in the existential grey area between redemption and damnation. 3:10 to Yuma is a handsome remake and a smart enough movie to allow for a healthy dollop of existential angst amid the horse and gun play. If all the new westerns were all this good, maybe they will make a comeback.

1408: 2 ½ STARS

Mike Enslin (John Cusack) makes his living off of the fear of the unknown.

As the author of a series of books like Ten Nights in Haunted Hotel Rooms he is a professional cynic who doesn’t believe in ghosts, and delights in debunking the supernatural beliefs of others. He’s stayed in hundreds of spooky places, but it isn’t until he checks into room 1408 of New York’s Dolphin Hotel that he experiences true terror for the first time.

Based on a short story by horror specialist Stephen King, 1408 isn’t just a ghost story, it delves into the psychological trauma suffered by Enslin as the result of the death of his young daughter.

At first the only evil thing about room 1408 is the price of the beer nuts in the mini bar, but soon enough strange things start to happen. The clock radio mysteriously turns itself on, and if that isn’t creepy enough, every time it turns on it’s playing a Carpenter’s song. At first he tries to rationalize his feelings of dread— maybe he’s been drugged, the visions he’s seeing are hallucinations, maybe he’s overtired—but soon the terror grips him and he wants out of the hotel. Trouble is he can’t leave. It’s like the Hotel California, except with ghostly apparitions, paintings that come to life and that damn annoying Carpenter’s song. The question is: Will he survive the night? Or will he become room 1408’s fifty-seventh victim?

1408 has some spooky scenes and some OK special effects, but unlike The Body, another King short story that inspired Stand By Me, 1408 doesn’t have enough meat on its bones to warrant a long-form film. Director Mikael Håfström takes a story that might have made an interesting hour-long episode of The Outer Limits and stretched it to a long 94 minutes by inserting lots of filler scenes of John Cusack making scared faces.

The psychological catalyst for the story—the death of Enslin’s daughter and his subsequent loss of faith in a God that would allow a child to die—has been done before, most recently in The Reaping from earlier this year. More interesting is the idea that by debunking the idea of ghosts Enslin is somehow taking people’s hope of life after death away. Neither idea is explored in any depth, but at least the latter concept adds some weight to the paper thin story.

1408 has a great trailer but fails to deliver the spine-tingling goods.

28 WEEKS LATER: 3 STARS

28 Days Later was a full-blown Halloween flick, a scary story complete with drooling angry zombies that so unnerved my P.M.C. (Preferred Movie Companion) that we had to go see Finding Nemo immediately afterwards to settle her jangled nerves. Five years on the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, doesn’t offer much that’s different or better than the original, but will likely inspire the same kind of nightmares that only Nemo can soothe.

We pick up the story you guessed it, 28 weeks after the outbreak of the rage virus which turned the citizenry of Britain into red-eyed brain chompers. Don (Robert Carlyle) who survived the zombie holocaust, and his two children who were vacationing outside the country at the time of the outbreak, are among the first survivors to be relocated in a safe zone run by the US Army.

Don stayed alive after cowardly abandoning his wife, leaving her to become zombie food while he ran to freedom. When she returns he is remorseful and contrite, and doesn’t notice that her eyes carry the tell-tale sign of the virus—they’re bloodshot. She either has the illness or was drinking with George Clooney the night before. Soon it is determined that she carries a dormant form of the deadly Rage virus, and before you can say, “Run for the hills!” hordes of newly infected bloodthirsty creeps are roaming the streets.

28 Weeks Later is written like a big American action film—loads of clichéd dialogue, cute kids in peril—but is shot like a European art film. Taking a note from the original, director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo goes handheld for most of the film, shooting on grainy film stock which gives the movie a documentary feel. His frenetic editing builds tension, but since the movie mostly takes place at night, or in darkened settings it’s sometimes difficult to figure out what exactly is happening on screen. More than once I found myself wondering, “Who’s eating who?”

Stylistic quibbles aside, 28 Weeks Later tries hard to unnerve the audience. When the going gets “wet” (as they call it in the horror biz) it’s gory enough to keep the hardcore zombie fans happy, while those looking for something more will find some social commentary tucked in amongst the blood and guts as they draw parallels to the very real US presence in Iraq and their fictional, heavy-handed efforts to rebuild London.    

28 Weeks Later is an effective, but given the success of the original, slightly redundant, piece of speculative fiction that pushes the zombie myth to the next level. Although in the wake of the American government’s lame attempts to rebuild both New Orleans and Bagdad, the idea that they could be instrumental in rejuvenating the British Empire in just 28 weeks is perhaps the most far-fetched thing about this movie.

300: 3 ½ STARS

300 is the film equivalent of a heavy metal concert—it’s loud, brutal and completely uncompromising. The story of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, in which the King of Sparta led three hundred soldiers against the might of the Persian army is bloody, and like the soldiers it celebrates, takes no prisoners.

Based on the Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name 300 stays true to its graphic roots. Director Zach “Dawn of the Dead” Synder and his team of tech wizards created something called “the crush” which desaturated the black areas of the image while enhancing the color. The result is a visually arresting look that is utterly unique and brutally beautiful. Imagine a neoclassicist painting come to life and you’ll get the idea. Shot entirely on soundstages against blue and green screens in Montreal the backgrounds were added in during post-production and are surreal, though meticulously crafted.

Also meticulously crafted is star Gerard Butler’s sizeable six-pack, a grouping of muscles so impressive they really should have been given an above the title credit of their own. Butler, best known for his roles in Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life and The Phantom of the Opera is a charismatic actor with a rabid fan base who hasn’t quite broken through to the mainstream yet. 300, with its excessive violence isn’t likely to change that, but it does showcase his leading man charisma, and of course, those abs.

300 contains more than a few jolts of adrenaline, but aside from the battle scenes—the bloody ballet of the film—there is much to admire. The breakneck speed at which Synder attacks Miller’s story is breathtaking and exciting. He has paired the plot down to the essentials and doesn’t allow for any fat. He keeps his foot on the gas the whole time, allowing scenes to flow effortlessly and quickly.

300 is bound to be controversial. Critics of the film will cite its violence and surreal staging as overkill, but I would argue that any movie that features a blood soaked poster with a tagline that screams Prepare For Glory isn’t going to be subtle.

Politicos will wonder about the film’s idealogical stance. Are either Spartan King Leonidas or Persian leader Xerxes modeled after George Bush? Some will cry that Bush is Xerxes, the Persian God-King who let loose a million man army on a small country defended by zealous patriot soldiers to finish a job his father had started. Others will compare Bush to the Leonidas who vowed to defend freedom at any cost. Either way it can’t be denied that 300 is timely and bound to provoke conversation.

13 CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING

This is a difficult, wordy little picture that asks a single question: “How do we achieve happiness?” Of course there is no answer, but director Jill Sprecher and her sister, co-screenwriter Karen, offer up four scenarios that offer up interesting variations on the fragile nature of happiness. Matthew McConaughey is Troy a swaggering lawyer who is slowly torn apart by guilt after committing a hit-and-run. Walker (John Turturro) and Patricia’s (Amy Irving) marriage is collapsing under the weight of his infidelity. Beatrice (Clea DuVall), a good-natured young woman who cleans rich people’s houses, has her life and outlook altered forever after a near fatal accident. The final and best storyline involves Gene (Alan Arkin), an insurance claims adjuster who fires his happiest employee simply because he can’t stand to see him smile day after day. This is an odd film – one that takes some warming to – but it does get under your skin, particularly Alan Arkin’s scenes which are played with the skill, insight and timing of a master.  

24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE

The Factory Records scene, born in Manchester, England and home to acts like Joy Division and The Happy Mondays was one of the most vibrant musical movements of the 70s and 80s. English director Michael Winterbottom has documented the rise and fall of the label and its founder Tony Wilson in an interesting, but not entirely successful way in 24 Hour Party People. The film attempts to cover the years 1976 to the early 90s, the birth of punk rock to the waning moments of acid jazz but is too ambitious in its scope. Names and dates are glossed over, and while you get a sense of excitement you’re frequently left wondering what is so exciting. The film takes piercing the fourth wall to a whole new level as Steve Coogan, the English comic who plays Wilson, frequently addresses the camera with asides. “You’ll see more of that scene on the DVD,” he says at one point. Those who aren’t familiar with the Factory Records scene won’t learn much, and those who are won’t learn anything they didn’t already know. I left the theatre with the nagging feeling that this material might have been better served in documentary style, something like Julien Temple’s look at the career and influence of The Sex Pistols The Filth and the Fury.

THE 25th HOUR
In recent years I have found Spike Lee movies to be very frustrating. Fifty percent of each movie I really like, but then there’s the remaining fifty percent that just infuriates me. It’s not bad filmmaking; it’s just unnecessary filmmaking. There is a lot of stuff in these films that doesn’t further the story, that is preachy, and simply doesn’t belong there. But the stuff that’s good is really, really good, and I found The 25th Hour to be another example of that.

Ed Norton plays small-time drug dealer Montgomery Brogan, who, after being arrested by the DEA, reevaluates his life in his last 24 hours before beginning a seven-year jail term. Interesting premise. Why then muddy it up with a commentary on September 11th that seems out of place, and kind of badly chosen? Exploring the relationship between Brogan and his two best friends, Jacob and Frank (Phillip Seymour-Hoffman and Barry Pepper) and how their friendship will change once Montgomery goes to jail would have been a great character drama.

Instead Lee adds a September 11th angle that feels tacked on and doesn’t add to the movie. Don’t get me wrong, it probably comes from a very sincere place. Spike Lee makes incredible movies about New York and is passionate about the city and probably felt like he had to find a way to tell this story, but he ties the September 11th angle to Montgomery’s story, and in the context of the whole movie I didn’t really understand the connection. If we are supposed to infer that the life New York was changed by the terrorist attacks just as the life of Edward Norton’s character was changed by getting arrested I think it is a weak comparison, and frankly, inappropriate. The dynamic between the three friends is great. I wanted more of that. Loose the September 11th stuff, some of the peripheral story lines and just tell me that story and it would have been a better movie.

25th Hour is classic Spike Lee – brilliant, fearless but at the same time troublesome.

28 DAYS LATER

28 Days Later begins with a great horror movie premise. A group of British activists free infected animals from their cages, unleashing a deadly “rage” virus on the human population. Twenty-eight days after the virus took hold of the city, a bicycle courier named Jim awakens from a coma, unaware of the devastation. In one of the year’s best cinematic sequences, horror or otherwise, Jim leaves the hospital to find a deserted London. Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Shallow Grave) infuses the shots of the empty streets with a sense of dread. As Jim wanders through the vacant Piccadilly Circus the feeling of foreboding grows as he realizes that something catastrophic has happened here. And that’s just the first ten minutes. (The scenes of London’s deserted streets were shot just after dawn on weekdays. Because of the traffic, they could only shoot for a couple of minutes each day. Crewmembers frequently had to stop and ask clubbers not to walk into shots.)

Boyle deftly juggles two distinct ideas in 28 Days Later.  It is a full blown Halloween flick, complete with drooling angry zombies, (although hard-core gore fans will be disappointed, most of the horror here is psychological) but at its core it is also a compelling study of human nature and the will to survive. Each character is fully rounded, and none are superfluous in this tough drama.

Selena (Naomie Harris), for example, isn’t a damsel in distress, nor is she simply a hard-nosed zombie killer. She is a layered character, a normal person who is placed in an unimaginable circumstance and is dealing with it on an instinctual level. She isn’t a killer, but she’ll kill to survive. “Staying alive is as good as it gets,” she says grimly.

Boyle (and screenwriter Alex Garland) give a wide berth to the stereotypical character traits found in horror movies – the screaming girlfriend, the witless teen, the gung-ho monster slayer – and instead concentrate on developing believable characters and situations in an unbelievable scenario.  

In addition to believable characters 28 Days Later also re-invents the cinematic zombie. Gone are the lumbering, “We’re coming to get you,” living dead from years past. Boyle’s ghouls move with frightening speed, hissing at the scent of human flesh, and attacking at random. These are the zombies that nightmares are made of.
Shooting on digital video this time out, Boyle has left behind the visual showiness of Trainspotting and the austere picture-postcard look of The Beach, trading those in for a grainy, almost documentary feel. The jagged feel of the video gives the movie a sense of urgency and energy which seems appropriate for the subject matter. Unlike Soderbergh’s Full Frontal this material actually benefits from the use of video.

28 Days Later runs out of steam as the third act winds down, but up until its closing minutes it is as good as speculative fiction gets.

40 DAYS AND 40 NIGHTS

Josh Hartnett should be ashamed of himself. If he weren’t so damn cute this stupid story about a young man who gives up sex for lent would stop his career dead in its tracks. 40 Days and 40 Nights is puerile, insulting and at 96 minutes about 93 minutes too long – I liked the music in the first three minutes of the opening credit sequence.

8 MILE

8 Mile is a light-weight showcase for hip hop chart topper Eminem. This story of a downtrodden white kid the wrong side of town who dreams of being a rap star borrows heavily from Saturday Night Fever and almost every Elvis movie ever made. Can Eminem act? That’s the big question raised by 8 Mile. Well, I’m not sure if he can act, it’s too early to tell, but I can tell you he has charisma to burn. With his knitted brow and underdog stance he is electrifying on-screen. Think of him as a slimmer and shadier James Dean. Despite a cliché ridden script and a really silly love scene Eminem emerges as a forceful presence. He may not be able to top this performance, but it will be a long time before we see another screen debut of this calibre.