Olympus Has Definitely Fallen

This review may contain some spoilers, but I use that term loosely, as I won't actually be "spoiling" anything for you. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor by telling you what happens. Just spare yourself the 2 hours needed to actually watch the film.

A while back I watched "White House Down," a cheesy action flick with Channing Tatum about an attack on the White House. It was OK for what it was. There was another really similarly themed movie that came out that same year, which I assumed would be the better of the two. It took a while, but "Olympus Has Fallen" finally arrived on cable. Directed by Antoine Fuqua, or "Training Day" fame, and with an all-star cast including Gerard Butler, Dylan McDermott, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett, and Melissa Leo...how could you go wrong. This movie, my friends, is how. What happened to the good old days when action and action/comedy films had sharp, witty dialogue, solid performances, thrilling scenes, and plots that may not have been completely believable, but at least followed some sense of logic? Die Hard, Midnight Run, the Lethal Weapon films, Beverly Hills Cop, Total Recall. I haven't seen an action film like that in ages. 

OHF was just a complete crap fest. Butler was actually serviceable as the hero. But if you want to see him in a decent performance in an actually decent film, try "Law Abiding Citizen," which ironically also features Jamie Foxx, who was in "the other White House movie." Once you get past Butler, there's pretty much nothing redeeming about this movie. Dylan McDermott plays a fellow Secret Service operative who ends up being the token traitor, as he sells out to the North Korean terrorists who take over the Washington D.C. landmark. There is never a clear motive established for his character having wanted to harm the President or his country. Yeah, there's the money factor, but shouldn't we assume it would take a little more than that to turn an operative whose sole job it's been to PREVENT the President from getting hurt? 

The sort of MacGuffin of the film (an object that one or more of the characters spends the majority of the film trying to obtain) are the "Cerberus Codes." It's explained that these were a set of three codes...one in possession of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, one held by the Secretary of Defense (Leo), and one by the President, that when entered into the computer (conveniently located in the White House bunker where all three of those people were being held hostage), would basically give access to and control of the United States' nuclear arsenal. The North Korean villain started to torture both the Chairman and the Secretary to get their codes, but the President (Eckhart) ordered them both to give up the codes, insisting that he would never give up his, so they would be useless to the terrorist. 

The evil Kang's plan to subvert this ploy by the President, was to capture his young son, knowing that the threat of harm to the kid would break the President and lead him to surrendering the final code. However, the very next thing that happens is the kid rescued by Agent Mike Banning (Butler), and everyone in the bunker finds out that he is safe. Then, for some reason that can't possibly be explained, Kang is able to obtain the third code from the President anyway. Completely nonsensical. To add to the mystifying actions by the characters in this film, the Speaker of the House (Freeman), who is now the acting President, since the Vice President is also being held in the bunker, caves into Kang's demand that the US start withdrawing all of its troops from the North/South Korea border. THEY'VE ALREADY RESCUED THE PRESIDENT'S SON and supposedly thwarted Kang's entire plan, so why would he possibly make this decision? 

Of course, Agent Banning ends up shutting down the Cerberus system as the "clock" ticks down to its final seconds...a tired and predictable action movie sequence. And then, he kills Kang in one of the most boring villain kill scenes I can remember. 

Overall, this film was a waste of everyone's considerable talent. Hard to believe they assembled a cast and director like this and got these results. Even more incomprehensible is...THERE'S GOING TO BE A SEQUEL!! "London Has Fallen" is due out next year, and almost everyone except Fuqua is returning. Yeah people...no thanks!

REVIEW: Let Me In

As a stand-alone film, I suppose Matt Reeves' remake of the Sweden's Lat Den Ratte Komma In (Let the Right One In), itself an adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel, is a worthwhile cinematic venture. In other words, if you haven't read the source novel or seen the Swedish film, you might enjoy Let Me In. Having seen Tomas Alfredson's attempt at adapting Lindqvist's story though, I am captive to the realization that Reeves' and the rest of the American crew missed a golden opportunity. Plainly speaking, the Hollywood redo added absolutely nothing to what was, in my estimation, a good but not great film. All the movie snobs start whining and turning up their noses as soon as they learn that a U.S. filmmaker is going to dare attempt an adaptation of an overseas film product. However, if there is room for improvement, then why not? That should be the rule with all remakes...they should only be considered when the story can be lifted to a higher level...or at least masterfully updated for a new era in time. Reeves' project does neither. Of course, it seems that most people think more highly of Alfredson's preceding film than I did, but I can only build off of my own opinions.

The main themes of the original film (and presumably the novel, which I have not yet read) are loneliness, desperation, feeling like an outcast, the notorious effects of bullying, the formation of unlikely companionship, unattainable love, and the like - all worthwhile segments of life to explore. The story centers around a downtrodden and fearful pre-adolescent boy (Oskar in the Swedish telling, Owen in the retread), who is being tormented at school, and is caught in emotional quicksand at home as he's bounced between two inept parents in the midst of a divorce (in the Swedish film, his father is an alcoholic, in the U.S. film, his mother is, and we don't see the father, though it is hinted that he is at the least, a deadbeat jerk). A cute girl, appearing to be around his age, moves into his housing complex with a man one would assume was her father. After an initial reluctance on the part of the girl (the first film's Eli, now christened Abby), the two lonely kids form an endearing friendship. After dropping cryptic hints to Owen, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road), throughout the first quarter of the film about how different she is, Abby inadvertently reveals her secret (not so secret if you've already heard about the story)...she is actually a hauntingly old vampire who has been trapped in the body of a 12-year-old girl for eternity, and consequently, she needs human blood to survive. The man with whom she lives, played here by Richard Jenkins, is not her father, but somewhat of a servant who commits heinous murders on Abby's behalf in order to provide the much-needed sanguinary nutrition.

From my own viewings of the films, combined with reading several reviews of both, I can determine that the audience is to buy into the idea that Owen is so distraught with his own life, that he would rather befriend, and in effect, give himself over to, a murderous, otherworldly creature, rather than continue on with his miserable existence. In parallel, Abby is perhaps deeply regretful of the eternal enslavement she's fallen victim to, and the hideous actions it requires her to take. I think my main problems with both the Swedish and American film versions, stem from the fact that I simply wasn't sold on either of these scenarios. Owen's predilection for all things violent (something that was much more readily apparent in the Swedish film), and vulnerability to succumb to Abby's barbaric charm, are just not justified by what we see of  his life before. I think the American film should have taken the time to create a much more unbearable existence for Owen; one that would have made it more believable for him to end up in the situation in which he does. Likewise, Abby, as played by Chloe Grace Moretz (500 Days of Summer, Kick Ass), doesn't seem remorseful in the least; not of what she has had her father figure do at her behest, nor of her own killings, nor of the empty fate she is intent on bestowing upon her new-found friend. It's therefore, utterly unclear with whom we're supposed to be sympathizing in this whole, unsettling universe. Do we root for the lonely, yet murderous bloodsucker? Do we root for the weakling human outcast who doesn't seem fazed by unprovoked serial homicide? Or, do we root for society to catch up with them and put a stop to the killing spree...sure to otherwise continue for centuries to come. A daunting choice, indeed. The Swedish film does not do an adequate job in setting up the Oskar/Eli relationship, and likewise, Let Me In also fails to build off of its predecessor and make the Owen/Abby saga believable.

I am assuming that the characters are much more well-developed in the novel, and perhaps, that might make the reader's emotional involvement more clear-cut. I will likely do something I've never done before - read a novel after having seen not one, but two film adaptations. I've never even read a book after having seen one film adaptation, so it should be interesting to see how much my knowledge of the story will enhance or detract from the literary experience.

REVIEW: The Social Network

Just a warning...there are spoilers in this review, so if you are planning on seeing The Social Network, you might want to just read the intro synopsis paragraph and skip the rest.

Critics everywhere seem to be having "filmgasms" over this true-ish account of the creation of, and lawsuits surrounding, the social networking site, Facebook. I definitely found the moviegoing experience entertaining, and it's one of the better films of 2010, however, I think my overall impression falls a little short of the adoration being heaped upon The Social Network. Director, David Fincher (Se7en, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The American President, TV's The West Wing) take what, in real life, was most likely a relatively bland and unaffecting series of events, and transform it into a compelling story of a socially awkward intellect, who, quite ironically, created one of the most intrinsically social environments the world has ever seen. The performances, for the most part, were pretty solid, particularly Jesse Eisenberg as Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The dialogue was very sharp, adding some comic relief, and again, making this a tellable story. There was something about the experience that left me feeling as if the dramatic component fell somewhat flat. Although there were individual  moments of palpable tension amongst the characters, I never got that subtle chill down my back or that "oh shit" feeling that the best dramatic films have a way of stirring up. That, for me, leaves the final grade as a B+...somewhat short of greatness, but still a very worthwhile all-around film. Also, as a fun side note, there is one scene in which Mark Zuckerberg is seen wearing an "Ardsley Athletics" t-shirt. This is of absolutely no consequence to anyone, except for the microscopic sliver of the U.S. population who reside in, or have resided in, the small-town burb of Ardsley, NY. As a graduate of Ardsley High School, it was just cool to see that on screen, as I am sure it is the only time Ardsley has been, or will be, immortalized in film. Unless, of course, another product of the Ardsley school system ever accomplishes something cinema-worthy.

Here's a breakdown of what went right and what went wrong with The Social Network:

DIALOGUE - Aaron Sorkin is probably best known for creating the long-running TV series The West Wing. He was also the scribe behind one of the best films of all-time, A Few Good Men, and another very good film from the 90's, The American President. He also created a great, but short-lived TV dramedy, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which unbelievably only lasted one season. This guy is a more than accomplished writer. His dialogue in The Social Network is really what drives the film. It's through Sorkin's words that the audience gets insight into the ineptitude of the central character, Mark Zuckerberg, to adequately communicate with other human beings. He feels in his most natural state when his fingers are doing the "talking" - on a computer keyboard. This is, of course, if we are to accurate the entire content of the movie as accurate. The on-screen incarnation of Zuckerberg has no clue how to effectively establish a relationship with a girl, for instance, but he needs relatively few words to systematically tear down those who oppose him and his efforts regarding Facebook. The main victims of these terse tongue-lashings are the attorneys for the Winklevoss twins, who claim Zuckerberg derived the idea for Facebook by stealing their concept for a Harvard-based social networking site, and Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg's former friend, who was pushed out as CFO and significant stakeholder of Facebook. So, who doesn't like to see attorneys get their comeuppance?

JESSE EISENBERG - Not exactly award-worthy, but a very assured portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg as the character was written. He's very believable as the awkward nerd genius, who becomes, as indicated by the title of the book on which the film was based, an "accidental billionaire."

MAX MINGHELLA - The son of the late, Oscar-winning director, Anthony Minghella (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain); he portrays Divya Narendra, a business partner of the aforementioned Winklevoss brothers. This was not a prominently featured character, but Minghella steals the scenes he's in, briskly conveying Narendra's incredulity at standing idly by while Zuckerberg usurped the idea for The Harvard Connection social networking site.

ANDREW GARFIELD - In playing one of Mark Zuckerberg's only friends, Eduardo Saverin, Garfield gives what is probably the most accomplished performance in The Social Network. I didn't really feel bad for the Winklevoss brothers; they didn't really do anything that I could ascertain, to warrant credit for the launching and subsequent success of Facebook (at least as events were depicted in the film). However, Saverin, in Garfield's hands, becomes the most sympathetic character in this whole ordeal. He forked over the seed money that allowed Zuckerberg to accumulate the Internet bandwidth necessary to launch the early incarnation of Facebook. He subsequently poured additional capital into a bank account as the Facebook phenomenon spread. And the thanks he got for all his early personal and financial support - he was purportedly tricked into signing documents that relieved him of his significant financial stake in the company, as well as his title of CFO. Saverin's pain, anger, helplessness, and sense of betrayal are all central to the core of the story, and Garfield hits all the right emotional notes.

DIRECTING - David FincherSe7en and Panic Room well enough, but wasn't so sold on Zodiac, which was probably his most critically acclaimed film until now. And Benjamin Button was, quite simply, a bore. I'm eager to see what he does with the Hollywood adaptation of the Swedish supersmash literary "Millennium Trilogy," otherwise known as The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo books. With The Social Network, I've already divulged my main gripe regarding the level of drama. For me, this was most evident in two scenes. One, was when Eduardo Saverin finds out that he's signed away his financial stake in Facebook and title of CFO. A particular directing convention is employed here, and it's one that I happen to hate. Here, you see Saverin and some other character, most likely a company lawyer of some kind, conversing in a small conference room at the new Facebook offices. The camera pans back so the audience is on the other side of the glass wall, and you see the characters' lips moving, but you can no longer hear what's being said. This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I detest when directors do this in film. To me, it completely interrupts the emotional momentum. Another example of Fincher losing his grip on the tension, comes in the very last scene of the film. Marilyn Delpy, one of the associates on the legal team representing Mark Zuckerberg, is left alone in the room with Zuckerberg. She attempts to convince him of why he's going to have no choice but to agree to settle the two lawsuits out of court. In my estimation, this should be a bone-chilling realization for Zuckerberg, who up until then, had been quite cavalier in his attitude toward the entire proceeding. As the screen overlay in the next few moments tells us, the Winklevoss brothers and partner Narendra received a cool $65 million in their settlement. This must have been a bitter pill for Zuckerberg to swallow. Rashida Jones, as Delpy, takes a more cutesy, flirty stance in explaining the situation to Zuckerberg. Kind of anti-climactic.

JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE - I'm sure pretty much everyone will disagree with me on this count, since people seem to drool over everything this guy does. The audience was to believe that Mark Zuckerberg was completely and utterly mesmerized by Napster co-founder, Sean Parker; that he was that enigmatic of a personality that Zuckerberg mindlessly pushed his best friend aside in order to follow the advice of his new found business mentor. This was supposed to be an unabashed man crush from the very first meeting. I just didn't buy Timberlake as someone emanating those electric vibes. Maybe it's because I personally just don't get the whole Timberlake phenomenon, and I was projecting that onto his performance here. Maybe it's because when I see him, I think of his SNL sketches. Who knows? I just wasn't sold on this particular bit of casting.

And that's pretty much it :-)

The Film That Should Be Set on Fire

The world seems to be abuzz with chatter about the "Millennium Trilogy," as the triple set of blockbuster novels by Swedish author, Stieg Larsson, has been labeled. Not only have all three books been adapted into Swedish films, but now, acclaimed American director, David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, ...Benjamin Button) has signed on to helm the upcoming Hollywood revamps.

I, myself, have read the first two books in the trilogy, and as of today, have also seen the first two Swedish film adaptations. My assessment: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a good, but not great novel, that received a pretty decent transfer to the cinema. There were some glaring details from the book that were dropped in the making of the film, but I don't really fault the filmmakers for that. It was more a shining example of why it is so difficult to adapt books into films. Even at 2 1/2 hours, there simply wasn't enough room to include everything. Moving onto The Girl Who Played With Fire, you have a great novel with a couple of minor flaws, that has been demolished by a complete and utter hackjob of a film adaptation. If the objective of the filmmakers in this instance was to suck all of the drama, suspense, and emotion out of the story, well - Mission: Accomplished.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, an entirely different creative team was behind the scenes of this second film, than there was for the first. Perhaps that explains the nosedive in quality. Things started off promising. They lopped off an entire story thread from the beginning - one which, in my mind, constituted the most obvious flaw in the novel. So, I was happy to see they did not include it in the film. Then, throwing in a hot lesbian sex scene never hurts. But, from there, it was all downhill. Again, one must be cognizant of the inherent problems involved in the book-to-movie transition. However, this adaptation was just sloppy. First off, certain supporting characters appeared toward the beginning of the film with virtually no introduction or explanation of who they were. I think one hallmark of a great adapted screenplay is that someone should be able to see the movie without having read the book, and still enjoy the experience. That is impossible to do here, because if you haven't read the book, you'd have absolutely no idea what was going on.

Secondly, they changed things that didn't necessarily contribute to keeping the running time of the movie down. There was simply no reason to change them. There was a particularly critical juncture where the heroine, Lisbeth Salander, was supposed to have been at the scene of a double murder around the time that the crime occurred. This lent a sliver of doubt in the readers' minds as to whether she may have actually had some involvement in the killings. In the book, there was also a clear connection between those deaths, and a third murder that took place. Again, placing Salander's innocence in question. In the film, Lisbeth's whereabouts are completely rearranged, as far as what the viewers can see for themselves. There is passing mention made by another character that she was supposedly at the location of the first killings, but it's never explained why we're supposed to know that. That one seemingly minor oversight deflates the power of the entire mystery that is central to the plot. Later, there is another scene in which one of the major villains is entangled in a fight scene with two supporting characters. The way those characters escape the grasp of the enemy is just made up out of thin air by the filmmakers. It's totally and unnecessarily different from what happens in the book. Here, instead of being dramatic, it just makes the entire sequence of events seem hokey and unrealistic.

The third thing that prevented me from enjoying this film, was the editing. I know absolutely nothing about film editing, but despite that, I could tell this was done with extreme incompetence. The movement of the characters in several scenes was so jarring, I literally threw my hands up in the air as if to say, "WTF?" In one instance, Lisbeth had broken into the apartment of her nemesis, and then was seen rifling through his things while he slept. But, without knowing what was going on from having read the book, you almost couldn't tell that she was in the same location. One second she was just inside the front door, the next second, she was sitting at some desk.

Lastly, there were a couple of climactic scenes in the story, where the emotion should have been running high. But the way those scenes played out here on screen, I felt like I might as well have been watching a panda chewing bamboo in a zoo exhibit.

The whole thing was utterly disappointing. Especially because I was looking forward to seeing what Noomi Rapace could do as Lisbeth in this second film. One major reason I liked reading The Girl Who Played With Fire more than I did ...Tattoo, was because the Lisbeth Salander character was so much more developed in the continuation of the saga. We finally started to get a glimpse into her backstory, and instead of being a mysterious supporting character, which is essentially the role she played in ...Tattoo, she evolved into the emotional center of the story. Seeing a couple of English-speaking interviews with Rapace, it was immediately evident what an amazing transformation she underwent to "become" Lisbeth. I really thought we might be in for an award-worthy performance in this second film. But she simply had nothing with which to work. Salander barely even spoke throughout the entire film, once again relegating the character to being a small part of an ensemble.

For those who have read the books and seen the first two Swedish film adaptations, the fear seems to be great that Hollywood is going to completely ruin the trilogy, as it is alleged to do with all reworkings of foreign films. I, for one, am actually hoping that a skilled group of American filmmakers can transcend what the Swedes have done, particularly with this second film. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait a while. The U.S. version of the first film is not due out until Christmas '11. Here's hoping the third book will at least tide me over until then.

INCEPTION: The verdict

So, I've been building this one up for a while, as have many critics and movie buffs. See one of my previous posts for my explanation of why I was so eagerly anticipating this film. Basically, the director (Chris Nolan), and several of the actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Cillian Murphy) have all been involved in prior favorite movies of mine, so I felt like this was a "can't miss." At the same time that this notion led me to have grandiose expectations, it simultaneously forced me to lower those expectations, because how could I not be somewhat disappointed after already anointing Inception the movie of the year? Bottom line: it was not the epic film I was hoping it would be, but it also was not as much of a letdown as I feared it might be.

I'm going to describe very little about the plot, so as to not spoil things. The film centers around Dom Cobb (DiCaprio), who is a thief-for-hire; his specialty is inserting himself in people's dreams in order to pilfer their ideas for his own (or, presumably, his employers') gain. He has a team of skilled assistants: his long-time right-hand man, Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt); Eames (Tom Hardy) - who can shapeshift himself to take on the physical characteristics of another person; Yusuf the chemist (Dileep Rao); and, for the latest job that serves as the focus of Inception, new hire, Ariadne (Page) - who is an expert architect saddled with the challenge of creating the landscapes of the dreamworld in which all the action takes place. In the movie, a Japanese tycoon, Saito (Ken Watanabe), hires Cobb and his team to pull off an "inception." This is an instance where the team must insert themselves into someone's subconscious, not to steal ideas, but to plant them. Saito wants to trick a business rival, Robert Fischer (Murphy), into wanting to break up his dying father's business empire, effectively giving Saito a stranglehold on the worldwide energy industry. Inception is a highly dangerous and unpredictable undertaking, and no one is really sure whether or not it can be achieved without dire consequences. The motivation for Cobb is that he has been prevented from seeing his two kids back in the U.S., and Saito claims to be able to rectify this situation, upon Cobb's successful completion of the mission at hand. To explain any further would be inadvisable.

One thing has to be said above all else: you will not understand this film after one viewing. I, myself, am contemplating whether I want to shell out the cash for a second go. I probably won't see it again until it's on cable, but just keep in mind that anyone writing a review after seeing it for the first time needs to reserve the right to change his or her views on the film.

That having been said, let's start with what was great about Inception. There likely will not be a more creative, imaginative, or original movie out this year. Also, DiCaprio was pretty spot on in the lead role. Sometimes, I have a hard time taking him seriously, because he still looks so young, but he's a formidable enough actor that he seems to often be able to make me forget about that and become engrossed in the character. This is at least true for the last four films in which I've seen him: The Departed, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, and now, Inception. Third, I usually prefer movies that are thought-provoking. If I'm still talking and/or thinking about a film weeks after seeing it for the first time, then that automatically wins some points in my book. I am positive that Inception will be such a film. Lastly, the ending was pretty much perfect. I've written before that one of my pet peeves with cinema, is when Hollywood simply doesn't know how to wrap everything up. There is a tendency in those situations to either try to tie all the ends up in a nice, neat bow, kill off almost every major character (see the hideous Mel Gibson flop, Edge of Darkness, from earlier this year - or, on second thought, don't see it), or create a final scene so ambiguous that it's just plain annoying and unfulfilling (hello, No Country for Old Men!). All throughout Inception, I was 100% positive that I knew exactly how it was going to end, and I was dreading the cop-out, predictable conclusion. And Nolan did end it that way...sort of. He put enough of a twist of uncertainty on the otherwise foreseen closing shots to win kudos from me. I can't describe it in any more detail without giving critical things away.

Now, for what didn't work. First and foremost, naturally, is the overall ambiguity of everything that occurred in the film. Thought-provoking and creative: good. Brain-melting mindfuck: not so good. The average filmgoer simply can't keep track of all the reality-bending layers of plot that Inception throws at us. It makes for an interesting experience, but at the end of the day, we kind of want to know what in the Hollywood Hills is going on. One aspect of the film that has been repeatedly ripped by critics, is that Ellen Page's character, Ariadne, basically serves as a point of exposition for the audience (exposition is when the writer deliberately utilizes the dialogue to explain the story - typically a major no-no in creating a quality film). The fact is, though, that without some exposition, we'd be even more lost. It was simultaneously necessary, yet detracting from the artistic integrity of the film.

Secondly, Ellen Page, as much as I love her, was grossly miscast here. Ariadne, in addition to untangling things for the audience, also served as a confidante and conscience to DiCaprio's Cobb. The character needed to be much more strong-willed and dominant, in my estimation. Like DiCaprio, Page's cross-to-bear is her youthful looks, but being 12+ actual years younger than Leo, it's much more of an obstacle for her at this early stage of her career. Seeing Juno in this movie was simply unsettling. What's more, DiCaprio and Page had virtually zero on-screen chemistry. I didn't believe for a second that they cared one iota about each other (not in a romantic way - that, thankfully, was not what the filmmakers were trying to depict). In fact, the entire "team" of dream invaders felt like it was just patched together, rather than being a tight-knit group of highly-skilled comrades. I just never believed that they were working together because they wanted to be.

That leads me to my next issue. I felt the supporting characters were rather under-developed. When you have a team of players moving the story forward in what basically amounts to an action-thriller, you need to have really sharp writing in order to keep the audience interested in each character. That simply wasn't the case here. Eames (Hardy) was designed to be the wise-ass, sarcastic guy. Yet, he had virtually no funny lines in the entire film. As for Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt), it was unclear to me exactly what role he played on this team. He's been described in other reviews as the "organizer." But I really had no idea what his place was, and generally didn't care about his character at all. They tried to construct one funny scene between him and Ariadne, but it fell somewhat flat.

Another supporting character, that of Saito, presented one significant problem; I could understand virtually nothing of what Ken Watanabe was saying during the entire film. I don't know if it was his Japanglish creating the problem or if he was simply mumbling his lines, but I was unnerved by this the whole time. There were some pretty crucial lines of dialogue that I missed completely.

Overall, Inception was one part action flick, one part heist film, one part psychological thriller, and one part love story. Those last two elements worked...the first two did not. Some of the action-oriented scenes, particularly those set in the snowy mountains toward the end, were just plain boring and confusing. And I was not invested in the caper involving Cillian Murphy's character. The whole thing surrounding Robert Fischer and his domineering and unaccepting father, Maurice (Pete Posthlewaite), was a retread of all the daddy issues we've seen time and time again in film...and these characters were barely even relevant to the most compelling parts of the movie. For me, the love story between Dom Cobb and his wife, Mal (and by extension, with their two kids), was the aspect of Inception by which I was most captivated. Mal was played with perfect sadness, regret, and desperation, by Oscar-winner, Marion Cotillard. This thread was almost a sub-plot, but it was the most dramatic and compelling layer of the film by a longshot. It provided the emotional center of Inception, and served to set up the few genuine plot twists, as well as the craftily-handled ending. I almost wish that Dom, Mal and their kids had been the main focus, with all the other acid-trippy stuff serving as the decorative wallpaper for the film, but I'm not sure how that would have turned out.

In short, Inception is a good film, falling somewhat short of great. Some are saying it is Chris Nolan's masterpiece. I say that accolade still belongs to Memento, a film that likewise, takes the viewer on a mind-boggling journey of what's real and what's not, but that in my opinion, pulls it off with much more flare, and stands as one of my favorite movies of all time. 

I would recommend Inception, again with the caveat that you will be confused, and potentially be compelled to see it more than once. Overall grade: B+

In My Dreams?

If you've read my "Movies of the Decade" blog post from last October, you'll know that my Top 4 cinema selections from the 00's were, from #3 (tie) to #1, Memento, The Lookout, The Departed, and Hard Candy. Now, if you go read Entertainment Weekly's "Summer Movie Preview," you might be inclined to believe that somebody, somewhere, infiltrated my dreams and assembled my perfect storm of director and actors to come up with this Summer's sure-to-be blockbuster, Inception. Christopher Nolan, who helmed both Memento as well as the #16 entry on my list, The Dark Knight, wrote and directed this one. As for the cast? Let's start with Leonardo DiCaprio, who was part of the amazing ensemble from The Departed, and who also turned in a gritty performance in my #11 flick from last decade, Blood Diamond. Leo is joined this time around by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (The Lookout), and Ellen Page (Hard Candy). And just for good measure, let's throw in The Dark Knight's Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. Seriously, somebody was sifting through my thoughts while I slept. There's no other explanation for how they came up with this masterful array of silver screen professionals, tailored specifically to my off the beaten path tastes. But the real kicker? The film's plot is centered around a group of thieves who insert themselves into strangers' subconscious and steal their dreams for corporate gain! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone theme here) I mean, that's exactly what they did to me in order to create this movie! Now, of course, the only thing that remains to be seen is if Inception can live up to my lofty expectations. It seems like every time I think a dream cast has been assembled, I'm only left disappointed (see Heat, with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, and Chris Nolan's own Insomnia, with Pacino and Robin Williams). Al Pacino's not interfering this time, so hopefully, all will be well. All I know is, I know where I will be on July 16th...in a movie theater, ready to add the next entry to my list of Top Movies of the '10's. Anyone else who wants to hop into my dream state and turn things into reality, feel free.

Oscars Schmoscars

Well, since I'm always chiming in with my opinions on movies, I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring with respect to the Oscar races. I'm utilizing the typical Should Win/Will Win format, as employed by most major respectable magazines and newspapers, because...well...I'm not creative enough to come up with something original. So, here it goes...

Let's start with the least interesting...what Entertainment Weekly classifies as "The Other Races." These include Best Visual Effects, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography. Safe to say, I wouldn't know a brilliant sound mixer if he or she hit me over the head with a...er...sound mixing machine. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Avatar SHOULD and WILL win all of these. It won't, but I know it should and will win at least half of those, so the odds are on my side here. Primarily, if it doesn't win Best Visual Effects, an international investigation needs to be launched.

Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Precious - Geoffrey Fletcher
WILL WIN: Up in the Air - Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: I haven't seen either The Messenger or Up, but based on how much I enjoyed the other three films here, I'd say one of those two deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Inglorious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino. QT hasn't won anything significant since Pulp Fiction, so I expect this to be the Academy's make-up kiss to him. It's possible that voters might go with The Hurt Locker here in lieu of giving it the nod for the more major awards.

Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Mo'Nique (Precious) - I didn't quite flip out over this performance as much as others have, but it still blows away the other two nominees who I actually saw...Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from Up in the Air. Kendrick has no business being nominated for anything...she gave one of the most annoying performances of the year, in my opinion. I didn't see Nine, but it certainly looked ridiculous, and Penelope Cruz got her award last year. I also didn't see Crazy Heart, but according to general consensus, Jeff Bridges overshadows everything else in that film.
WILL WIN: Mo'Nique - this is as much of a lock as Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were a couple years ago for There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. There is absolutely no way on Earth Mo'Nique loses.

Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Haven't seen enough of these films, but I wonder why Alfred Molina wasn't rewarded with a nomination over Matt Damon (Invictus) for his work in An Education. I walked out of the theater halfway into that film, but he was the only even mildly entertaining aspect of it.
WILL WIN: Christoper Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) - Not quite as much of a walk as with Supporting Actress, but close. If The Lovely Bones had been a box office and critical success, this would have been Stanley Tucci's to lose, but the lackluster response to that film led The Messenger's Woody Harrelson and especially Waltz to leapfrog him in the awards season showdowns.

Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia) - On another planet, in another cosmos, in some distant time, Sandra Bullock's name might warrant mentioning in the same sentence as Streep's. But sorry, Sandy...not in this world. The surprising thing for me, was how much I actually enjoyed Julie and Julia. That marks the second year in a row that Streep led the charge in what I thought was one of the best films, or in last year's case of Doubt, THE best film, of the year. I was also surprised that I liked The Blind Side, but it was not even close to J&J.
WILL WIN: Meryl Streep - She's becoming the Susan Lucci of the Oscars. Although she won three awards earlier in her career, she's 0 for her last 12 nominations. I think it's time to put an end to that nonsense. I can only pray that Bullock's name is not called, which it may well be. I also think Gabourey Sidibe deserved more buzz for her performance in Precious. Why did Mo'Nique get all the attention there when she was only in a supporting role?

Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: My SHOULD WIN unfortunately wasn't even within 10,000 miles of being considered for a nomination. Robert DeNiro in Everybody's Fine, to me, was a return to form for our generation's greatest actor. I still don't get how nobody else liked that film. Out of the actual nominees, again by virtue of the fact that I didn't like the three movies I saw (Invictus, Up in the Air, and The Hurt Locker), I'd say either Colin Firth (A Single Man) or Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart).

WILL WIN: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) - If you had asked me three months ago, I would have said George Clooney, hands down. Crazy Heart originally wasn't even supposed to be released in time for this year's Oscar race. So Bridges basically came out of nowhere, but it looks like he is a strong favorite.

Best Director
SHOULD WIN: James Cameron (Avatar) - I know I'm prone to hyperbole, but I say this with extreme seriousness; if Cameron loses to The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow, his ex-wife, somebody, somewhere should die a slow and painful death. I mean honestly, there will be no comprehensible excuse. There's already no excuse for her beating him for the Director's Guild Award - a primary reason many people now think she'll actually win the damn Oscar. True, I know nothing about the nuances of film direction, but for the love of Pandora, Cameron freakin' invented the technology he used to helm Avatar. He basically revolutionized film making as we know it, with the entire industry now scrambling to figure out how to make every film 3D and not look like colossal failures up against Cameron's benchmark work. Please tell me how...HOW does Bigelow's accomplishment even approach this level? Thankfully, she's the only threat and no one else has a shot.
WILL WIN: I'm sticking to my guns and saying James Cameron wins.

Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Avatar - It bears repeating that Cameron is easily a much better director than he is a writer, as the story here was not up to snuff. But for once, that truly was nearly inconsequential. I think it's painfully ironic that this was the year, of all years, that the Academy opted to expand to 10 nominees in this category. I mean, this is the freakin' year where they may as well have had only ONE nominee. For me, it's Avatar, and then everyone else. The blood, sweat, and tears that must have gone into this film couldn't possibly be comparable to what it took to produce An Education or The Blind Side. People completely overlook how difficult the acting tasks must have been...playing against blank screens, having to get accustomed to the technology being used, and even learning an entirely new language! I just don't get how anyone else is even in this conversation.

WILL WIN: Avatar - Again, many people believe The Hurt Locker is now the film to beat. I'm thinking that babies and kittens will cry if that happens. And we wouldn't want that. I say saner heads will prevail. As an anonymous industry Producer so eloquently put it in an Entertainment Weekly sampling of how four Academy voters voted, "He (Cameron) is such a bastard. He's really a hard guy to root for, and always has been, but what he created with this movie--just the beauty of it--he blew me away." Even THAT chick didn't vote for The Hurt Locker!

I'm still looking forward to seeing more of the nominated films, so there are some holes in my analysis here, but oh well...there are other things besides movies.

Avatar

So, no sooner did I write a status update on Facebook lamenting how wary I've become about movie reviews, than the film critics decide to get one exactly right. From the varying write-ups I read on James Cameron's long-awaited Avatar, the descriptions and evaluations of the film were mostly spot on. The long and short of it is - the visual nature of the movie is mind-boggling, the script is somewhat of an afterthought.

To say that Avatar is visually stunning would be the understatement of the decade. Being that the decade is over in two weeks, that's saying something. If you are going to see this movie, you absolutely MUST see it in IMAX 3D. I don't know what the regular 3D looks like, but I'm telling you - don't bother unless it's IMAX 3D. This was the first film I'd ever seen in IMAX, and I think my jaw practically hit the soda-stained floor upon the very first scenes. One reviewer, I forget which one, nailed it when he said that somewhere, Brett Ratner, Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich and the rest of the Hollywood action flick elite are peeing their pants because James Cameron just raised the bar for special effects through the roof. Everything - the colors, the creatures, the landscapes - simply mystifying. For that alone, all of the technical crew associated with the film should win every Oscar available. They should probably create new technical Oscars just for Avatar. The one award category in which it will not collect accolades is screenwriting. That's not to say the writing was terrible; it wasn't. The story was just completely overshadowed by the physical beauty of the film. The mythology, the character development, the dramatic turns in the story - they don't suck you in like Star Wars did 30+ years ago. It's not even up for debate as to whether Colonel Miles Quaritch will take a place in film history alongside Darth Vader, or if Jake Sully is this generation's Luke Skywalker. These characters will never pierce pop culture like George Lucas' did. The last quarter of the film was rather silly, actually. And again, that's exactly what was mentioned in some of the reviews.

So is it worth the $15 or whatever it costs near you to see an IMAX 3D film? I'd say yes. It's an experience. And once the movie is out of theaters, the opportunity to have that experience will be gone forever. There's no way watching this one on HBO would even come close to measuring up. I usually laugh when people say they want to go see a film just for the special effects. This is one time when I'm not laughing at that notion.

Movies of the Decade

The title of this post is pretty self-explanatory. Here, I will list my Top 20 favorite films of the 2000's (my apologies to the ones that have not yet been released this year...tough break). Just some notes - the absolute worst year for movies this decade was the first one, 2000. Best film that year was Meet the Parents, but that doesn't quite make it into the Top 20. 2003 wasn't much better...can't even decide my favorite for that year (not in a good way). The two best years...2006 far and away had the strongest Top 5 films - the only year in which the Top 5 all made it into the master list, including my overall #1...and 2007, which far and away had the greatest output of above-average movies in theaters, but they were all more evenly matched with one another than those of '06. So, here's the Top 20:

20. The Class - One of two foreign films on my list. Normally, the subtitle thing annoys me, and I wouldn't consider myself the most cultured person, but this was a really compelling (and true) faux-documentary about the trials and tribulations of students at an inner-city Paris school, and one teacher's methods of dealing with them.

19. Last King of Scotland - The lowest in my Top 5 of the great year of 2006, but still shows off amazing performances by both Forest Whitaker as the ruthless dictator, Idi Amin, and James McAvoy as Amin's personal physician.

18. The Invention of Lying - The most recent movie on this list. Just saw it a couple days ago. It could have been even better and funnier than it was, but the originality of the script by Ricky Gervais still pushes this into my Top 20 of the decade. The devoutly religious among us likely will not appreciate the overtly atheistic undertones of the story, but it's satire, folks.

17. Tropic Thunder - An outrageous performance by Robert Downey, Jr., and a hilarious cameo by Tom Cruise are the highlights of this film within a film. Downey playing a white guy playing a black guy. Enough said.

16. The Dark Knight - No, I wasn't really all that blown away by Heath Ledger, and didn't buy into the hype. Plus, the ending didn't satisfy me so much. But still, the non-stop action and tight performances from Christian Bale and Morgan Freeman, made it my third favorite from last year.

14 (tie). The Sea Inside/I Am Sam - Every "best of" list worth its salt contains at least two ties. So here is the first of two on my list. These films have something in common - they were elevated by phenomenal individual acting performances. Without Javier Bardem's turn as a quadriplegic who fights for his right to die, this movie, the second foreign film on my list, may not have been all that. I Am Sam was a cheesey, and sometimes cliche-ridden film, but the out-of-this-world performance by Dakota Fanning, given she was 6 YEARS OLD when they shot this, might be the most incredible display of acting of the decade. The fact that she was not even nominated for a Golden Globe or an Oscar is unforgivable. This girl WILL win the big prize one day.

13. One-Hour Photo - Robin Williams is one of the most versatile actors of our generation. Unfortunately, he's wasted precious time on schlock like Flubber, Toys, and Patch Adams. However, it seems like at least once a decade he takes a role and nails it to the wall. Good Morning Vietnam in the 80's, Awakenings in the 90's, and his turn here as a maniacal photo lab employee is his good deed for the 00's. Maybe now that we're almost in the 10's, it won't be that much longer until he wins his next Oscar.

12. The Kingdom - A team of FBI agents travel to Saudi Arabia to avenge and solve the murder of their friend and colleague in a terrorist bombing...blah blah blah. I can't really do this one justice by describing the plot in two sentences. Amazing cast, great action, and what I always love...a movie that knows how to end appropriately. Unfortunately, the whole war in the Middle East thing hasn't had much luck at the box office, but this one is most definitely worth a rental.

11. Blood Diamond - This film has the distinction of being the only one on this list that I was never intending on seeing. Leonardo DiCaprio? An expose on the corruption surrounding the diamond trade? Wasn't really interested. A friend and I just happened to make an unplanned trip to the theater, and this just happened to be the next movie playing. Good move. A stunning and emotional script, great visual backdrop, and a gut-wrenching performance by Djimon Hounsou. Most people thought it was an upset because Alan Arkin beat out Eddie Murphy for Best Supporting Actor at the 2007 Oscars, but the real upset was Hounsou losing.

10. Deja Vu (Sorry I don't know how to make those little accent thingies) - This movie came and went, and shockingly, I had never even HEARD OF IT, much less seen it. I'm usually in the know about even the most obscure films, so when I stumbled across this gem on cable, I was surprised, quite pleasantly. Director Tony Scott and Denzel Washington have teamed up several times, but never with better results than this sci-fi/government thriller. Now things always get a little hairy when you deal with time travel, but they put a new twist on it here, and it works brilliantly. Val Kilmer hasn't exactly racked up the amazing films throughout his career, but oddly enough, this is not his last appearance on my list...

9. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - ...that honor goes to this grossly overlooked film. Shane Black may have gotten $4 million for writing the awful Geena Davis vehicle, The Long Kiss Goodnight, but this is clearly his masterpiece. A sharp, witty script, pairing the top-notch performances of Kilmer and Robert Downey, Jr., in a film that's part comedy, part crime story. Original, entertaining, and criminally under-distributed - making barely over $4 million at the box office. On principle, Shane Black should have been forced to turn over the dough he made from The Long Kiss Goodnight, just so this vastly superior film could have doubled its rake.

8. Doubt - I snuck into this one (shhhhh), so I can't say it was worth my money, but the theater did charge me full price for what should have been a matinee ticket, so we'll call it a wash. Stunningly, this film only won 1 out of 15 awards for which it was nominated amongst the Oscars, Golden Globes and SAG Awards (Meryl Streep got the SAG for Lead Actress). This is one of Philip Seymour Hoffman's strongest performances, and that is saying something, considering he may be the younger generation's DeNiro. Watching him and Streep go at it for two hours is worth the price of...er...well, you know what I mean.

7. Talk to Me - If Philip Seymour Hoffman is the younger generation's DeNiro, Don Cheadle may be a very close second. If only he could score more leading roles. The first half of this film had me on the way to thinking that it might just end up in my Top 3 of the decade. Cheadle comes out with six guns blazing as the outrageous ex-con turned DJ, Petey Greene. Chiwetel Ejiofor does a great job as the straight man as well. But somewhere in the middle of the story, it morphs from a historical comedy into a sappy social commentary and a depressing look at Greene's fall from grace. The shift isn't anywhere near dramatic enough to ruin the experience, but it does prevent Talk to Me from charting higher on my list.

6. Waitress - Every good list has to feature at least one guilty pleasure, so here's mine. Felicity's Keri Russell stars as a small-town waitress stuck in an unhappy marriage and a going nowhere life, who is, naturally, dreaming of bigger things. A "chick flick" at first glance, but it's really a lot more than that. It's funny, charming, and emotionally gratifying. The standout performance here is from Jeremy Sisto (also great in the prematurely canceled 2006 TV series, Kidnapped) as the waitress' abusive husband. TV icon, Andy Griffith also adds great spirit to the ensemble. I really thought this film would ride the sympathy card to the Oscars, as Adrienne Shelley, who wrote, directed, and co-starred was senselessly murdered in her apartment before its release. I highly doubt making my list is any consolation, but I guess it's better than nothing. Just try watching this one without singing the "Gonna Bake a Pie" song repeatedly when it's over. The only bad thing about this film is, it was so good, that I was inclined to give Russell another go-round by seeing the abysmal August Rush.

5. The Wackness - Sir Ben Kingsley as a dope-smoking shrink. Sir Ben Kingsley having a love scene with Mary-Kate Olsen. Sir Ben Kingsley being nominated for a Razzie (the anti-Oscars) for Worst Supporting Actor. Sounds great so far, right? Well, the title is certainly appropriate, as the shrink forms a bizarre friendship with one of his patients (also his pot provider), and various familial dysfunctions abound. For me, as someone who graduated high school in 1992, the performance by Josh Peck as the above-mentioned dealer and soon-to-be college student, is pitch-perfect. He plays the role with equal parts awkward faux-confidence, trying to impress a girl, and true heart, just trying to find his way out of adolescence, into the real world. Not a single false note in this one.

3 (tie). Memento/The Lookout - The proverbial second tie on the list. We're getting into serious cinematic territory here. If you haven't seen these Top 4 films yet, go do it. One of the common threads between these two is, they both do that Tarantino-esque thing where the plot doesn't necessarily have a nice, neat order to it, and you don't always know what's going on. In fact, Memento was renowned for featuring a storyline that actually unfolded BACKWARDS. Guy Pearce and Joe Pantoliano are riveting here, while Christopher Nolan began what would be, for me, and up-and-down writing and directing career, featuring the awesome (this and The Dark Knight), good (Batman Begins), disappointing (Insomnia), and utterly unwatchable (The Prestige). Meanwhile, The Lookout features stars of 3rd Rock From the Sun, Dumb and Dumber, and Pauly Shore's Son-in-Law, plus Borat's fiancee. Recipe for an amazing film? Apparently so. 3rd Rock's Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is spot on as a young man whose life is forever altered by a devastating car accident, which leaves him unable to retain things in his memory for extended amounts of time, forcing him to get through the days with guidance from his own written instructions - yet another commonality with Memento, whose main character is afflicted with similar short-term memory loss. Gordon-Leavitt's character subsequently gets tangled up in a bank robbery plot. No synopsis could do either of these films justice though, so just take my word for it and see them. Unless you have no short-term memory...then there's kind of no point.

2. The Departed - Depending on which year my #1 film would have been eligible in if anyone had considered it for any awards, I'm inclined to say that in 2007, for one of the only times I can think of, the Oscars actually got the Best Picture winner right. Dead on. This one is a tour-de-force...mainly because every "best of" list about film is required to use that term at some point. Everyone involved nails this one to the wall...from Scorsese to Nicholson to Matt Damon to Alec Baldwin to Mark Wahlberg...hell, even Leo again. Drama, thrills, violence, comic relief, amazing script. Everything a classic movie should have is found here. My one gripe was that the last 1/4 of the film goes a little overboard on the violence, gratuitously and just plain silly at some points. However, the payoff of the very final scene pretty much renders the slight misstep forgiven.

1. Hard Candy - Regardless of whether you consider this a 2005 film, which is when it was featured at the Sundance Film Festival, or a 2006 picture, which is when it actually hit movie screens, it was the cinematic achievement of the year...and the decade. A pre-Juno Ellen Page should have won a Lead Actress Oscar, hands down. Patrick Wilson should have won for Supporting Actor. The script should have won. But, the film was largely ignored. Page's performance here as a young teen who is seduced online by a much older man, and subsequently lured to his apartment, is simply off the charts. The dialogue is biting, sarcastic, and funny, but this is no comedy. On the contrary, the drama jumps off the screen at some points, climaxing with one of the most brutally in-your-face endings I can ever remember seeing on film. It's an imperfect ending, in the sense that it doesn't tie everything up in a nice, neat bow. But it's perfectly imperfect. As a moviegoer, my absolute pet peeve is when Hollywood screenwriters don't know how to wrap up a story and end the damn film. It happens probably 80% of the time. So it's only appropriate that my #1 movie of the 2000's sticks the landing with a perfect 10. Just wow.

The Oscars - Ratings Down the Tubes

Much has been made about the Academy Awards telecast being the lowest-viewed Oscar broadcast ever. I'm still trying to figure out how you can put a negative spin on being the number 1 rated show of the week, higher than all three American Idol episodes. What kind of expectations are we setting when 30+ million viewers and a 29% share of the total audience is not good enough? An Entertainment Weekly article cited the highest-rated Oscar show of all time from the 1950's, which raked in almost 90% of American TV viewers. Well guess what folks...that ain't ever happening again...not even close. There was what - one other TV program on at that time? There are freakin 9,000 channels, mobile phones, IPods, DVRs, and all sorts of other things sapping our already short attention spans. If you lock down 32 million people for a 4-hour TV show, you are doing a damn good job. You simply can't compare the numbers to even those broadcasts from only within the past ten years. We live in a different world now. Yes, maybe there is more of a focus on smaller, "artsier" films than there used to be, but hey, who cares? If Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer or whoever wants to go ahead and make an Oscar-worthy film then make our day! I'm sorry though...the general movie-going public is drawn to (for whatever ungodly reason) Spiderman at a 10x higher rate than it is to There Will Be Blood. But are we going to honor dreck like that for appealing to the lowest common denominator? Gosh I hope not. I didn't agree with the Oscar choices this year, and I usually don't. But I know that the 300-million dollar epics are not going to make the grade. Hollywood needs to resign itself to the fact that the Oscars are the #1 game in town - albeit a much lower #1 than ever before. We should all be so unfortunate.

Movie Review: Vantage Point

This is a review of the movie, Vantage Point, starring Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, William Hurt and Forest Whitaker.

**Spoiler Alert**

OK. I don't think this review really contains any crucial spoilers, but anytime you write about movies, you're bound to give something away that people would rather have seen for themselves, so proceed with caution.

The one knock against this film that I've heard a few times so far from critics is that the repeated flashback structure becomes annoying. For those of you who are not familiar with the gimmick of this film, we are shown the same 5-or-so-minute sequence (the shooting of the President of the USA) from the perspectives of several different characters who witness it. Each time we get to a pivotal event during each sequence, the action "rewinds" back to moments before the shooting, and we are shown the next character's vantage point. The pivotal event or "cliffhanger" that was not fully revealed is then explained in one of the subsequent sequences. I actually thought this device was interesting and unique. It's really difficult for filmmakers to come up with ideas that have not been used in film before...that's why we see so many mediocre and derivative films. So I say that the director, Pete Travis, and the writer, Barry Levy, neither of whom who have really done any previous work of note, deserve some credit for making their first major box office offering different in some way.

All of the acting performances are pretty spot on, particularly that of Dennis Quaid, who plays a Secret Service agent returning to the job for the first time since taking a bullet for the President months earlier. Totally believable as a rugged, stoic but emotionally shaken Secret Service dude. It's also nice to see Matthew Fox in a role that is not just a retread of Dr. Jack Shephard from Lost. Whitaker's character is kind of lame, but he does with it what he can.

The big faux-pas they make is, of course, laying out one of the big reveals of the film in the trailer. If you've seen it, you know what it is, so I won't go into further detail. Not only was it unnecessary to make the trailer enticing to moviegoers, but it severely impacts the emotional response from the audience during the viewing of the actual movie. However, I think there are a couple of other major reveals in the film that are not known beforehand...so this carries the drama factor despite the misstep in the coming attractions.

One positive I've heard about the film that I would actually count as a negative, is the car chase. I thought it was over-the-top and didn't really add much to the experience.

The film suffers another demerit for never revealing the motivation of the bad guys. I suppose this isn't incredibly important in the grand scheme of things, but I prefer when a movie ties up the loose ends. However, this is somewhat redeemable by the very last line of dialogue in the film, which is a nice touch (that's all I'll say about that).

All in all, there won't be any awards bestowed on this film, but as an action-thriller, it works. It's an enjoyable use of an hour and a half of your time on the weekend.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10 stars/B