The Town - Affleck's Best

The Town **** (4 stars)

Director – Ben Affleck (Screenwriter)

Starring – Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner, Rebecca Hall, and Chris Cooper

MPAA - Rated R for strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use.

Actor/Director/Screenwriter Ben Affleck rises to Scorsese level brilliance in the crime drama “The Town.” This is a brutal, profane, movie that delivers thrills better than “Heat.” Affleck has made a film here that will be difficult to ignore at the Academy Awards.

The Town is Charleston Massachusetts, the capital of bank and armored car robberies, and slum suburb of Boston. Amidst prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, and a daily threat of violent death, lives Ben Affleck’s character Doug MacRay. His life is run by the local boss “The Flouriest” and he plans and runs bank heists with his buddies. While trying to dig himself out of the pile of refuse his life has become MacRay falls in love with a hostage from one of his bank robberies, Claire (Rebecca Hall – Frost/Nixon). Their lives become an entangled web as MacRay and his friends are the prime suspects in an FBI investigation.



Co-Starring as MacRay’s closest friend is Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) who plays a vicious murder parolee whose life is lived under the shadow of death at each step. Affleck and Renner make a dynamic criminal duo reminiscent of Affleck and Damon in Good Will Hunting. The characters all are living tragic lives, but there may be hope for redemption.



I might say this film is like Good Will Hunting meets Heat and The Departed. Take the twisted plots and high caliber acting, meld them together and you get The Town. This is not a film for the faint of hear. While the violence is not over the top it is realistic and brutal, the dialogue has an F-word for every minute of playing time, but the overall film is gripping and tense.

This is the kind of drama I live to see in the theaters; a film with excellent character and plot development, good script, top notch acting, and intense action. This is a first class action/drama, one that is guaranteed to thrill.

Sex/Nudity – 8 out of 10 – In a very quick shat we see a stripper spin on a pole, and we see a glimpse of one breast and then we see the exposed buttocks of a stripper. A woman straddling a man from the waist up they moan and we assume they are having sex. We see a man with his shirt off laying on top of a woman, they moan, we assume they are having sex.

Violence – 8 out of 10 – There is a lot of machine gun fire against innocent bystanders, police officers, and security guards. Quite a few people are shot, there is some blood. One man is hit repeatedly in the head with the butt of a gun, we find out later he is in ICU but okay. One man crashes into a car and dies, we see his bloodied head and body.

Profanity – 150 or so F-words, multiple uses of other profanities and religious exclamations.

Dark City Director’s Cut **** (4 Stars)

Director – Alex Proyas (Wrote and Directed)

Starring – Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, Kiefer Sutharland, Richard O’Brien, and William Hurt

MPAA – Rated R for violent images and some sexuality.

I never saw or even heard of this film until one day I was reading old movie reviews by Roger Ebert and I came across his review of Dark City. He loved it so naturally I had to see it. I popped it into the player and I was instantly hooked. This film might fall under film noir, but it also falls under Sci-Fi, murder mystery, and almost horror genres. Dark City is a wonderfully twisted film that seems to be part Truman Show, part Bourne, part Matrix, and part Inception. Intact this film probably made the Matrix trilogy and similar films a possibility.

Dark City is not the best movie ever made, but it is work of art. All the sets are done on an indoor sound stage, and everything is real. These are not computer generated sets; this is not a film that thrives on CGI. Of course there are some computer graphics at work here, but the vast majority of the film is wonderfully real. The film has a very distinct palette like, The Matrix, of greens and yellows. The sets and costumes are heavily influenced by 40s gangster and detective films, and while we assume it is a modern film it is difficult to tell.

Dark City is a film not to miss. It is a brilliantly crafted Sci-Fi thriller. This film delivers first class edge-of-your seat thrills. The graphics are a hair cheesy in one or two places, and the sound stage sets suspend reality a little bit, but the stages gave so much control to the director as far as lighting and sound goes that it works out to the film’s advantage. There are great twists and turns here plot wise, and while not everything is explained, the audience is not lost in the mystery. Dark city is an 8.5 out of 10 in my book.



Sex/Nudity – 7 out of 10 – A woman is seen changing into a robe and there is a brief glimpse of full frontal nudity. A dead woman is seen with one bare breast exposed in two scenes. A man is seen naked from the back.

Violence Gore – 7 out of 10 -There are a few scenes in which dead women are briefly shown with circular symbols carved into their skin. A few people die and their blood splatters quite a bit.

Profanity – 3 out of 10 – there were one or two mild profanities and not more than 10 religious exclamations.

Dinner for Schmucks

Dinner for Schmucks *** (3 Stars)

Director: Jay Roach

Starring: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, Bruce Greenwood, and Jemaine Clement

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of crude and sexual content, some partial nudity and language.

I haven’t laughed this hard since I saw “The Other Guys” earlier this month. I guess that isn’t saying much, but you have to realize I practically peed my pants at that movie, and at “Dinner For Schmucks” I left the theater with an aching body I had been laughing so hard and so long.

At first I thought Dinner for Schmucks was not one of those batty Saturday Night Live skit style films; but then I realized this is a movie directed by the man responsible for the Austin Powers series and the Meet the Parents films, both long SNL skits with SNL casts. Dinner for Schmucks takes what was funny about those films and combines it with the antics of comics Steve Carell and Paul Rudd to make a film that shook the theater walls with laughter.



Dinner for Schmucks is the beginnings of a hybrid between the classic SNL film style and the newer comedy style of The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up. While all these films have their roots in the slightly perverted sexual comedy Dinner for Schmucks manages to be considerably toned down compared to Austin Powers or Knocked Up.

This is still a wacky sort of comedy. The premise for the film is an odd buddy comedy matchup between the corporate ladder climber Paul Rudd and the lonely taxidermist and socially retarded Steve Carell. In order for Rudd to make his promotion at work he must bring an idiot to a work dinner. The purpose of these dinners is for the corporate guys to display their idiots for amusement.



While Rudd is bothered by the prospect of mocking innocent idiots he runs into (literally) Carell, whose special hobby is stuffing mice and using them to make vignette scenes such as The Last Supper. Rudd decides this is a sign and invites Carell to the dinner. What happens though is a long series of disastrous events with Rudd lying to his girlfriend, Carell inviting over Rudd’s personal stalker, and the star of Flight of the Concords Jemaine Clement’s bizarre cameo as out-to-lunch artist trying to steal Paul Rudd’s girl. This mix brought tears to my eyes as I tried to hold my guts in, I was laughing so hard.

What really works here is Steve Carell’s innocent character. This is not the
Michael Scott, the idiotic and rude social inept of The Office. This is a sweet, mild mannered and innocent man whose story is almost heart breaking; but whose incapability of normal social interaction causes more problems than Bugs Bunny to Daffy Duck. Carell is just so innocent though that anything he does is just passed off as “oh that poor man” instead of “what a moron”.



Dinner for Schmucks is a little bit of a dirty comedy. There are a lot of sexual jokes and profanity. However this is also one of the funnier films this summer. I’m giving this movie a solid 7.5 out of 10. The plot here is not brilliant by any stretch, but the characters are so wild and bizarre and the whole thing so entertaining it is a winner in my book.

Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 – There are a lot of sexual jokes and references. We see a picture of a woman’s bottom in skimpy panties with a message “are you touching yourself?” We see a man and two women being photographed they have only feathers covering their genitals and the woman have feathers over their breasts, the man invites two other men to have sex with him and the two women, the men decline the offer. There are a lot of cleavage revealing outfits as well.

Violence/Gore – 4 out of 10 – A man cuts off another man’s finger we see blood on the severed ends and a vulture takes the finger and flies away with it. A woman chases a man around an apartment in a playful way until he throws a blanket over her head and she fall over a railing, then she begins throwing bottles of wine at him.

Profanity – 6 out of 10 – 2 or 3 F-words, around 100 or so other obscenities and sexual references as well as religious exclamations.

The Ghost Writer, okay, but not what I wanted

The Ghost Writer

Director – Roman Polanski

Starring – Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan with Tom Wilkinson

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for language, brief nudity/sexuality, some violence and a drug reference.

The Ghost Writer plays like an Alfred Hitchcock style thriller from the 60’s but with much more interesting cinematography. Polanski knows how to direct a thriller without using bad teenage gimmicks like mutilated bodies or other horror shocks. Instead this is a thriller built piece by piece. Actions and dialogue stack on top of each other to the point that, along with a musical score that captures the heightened tension and strained emotions, as an audience we realize our hearts are pounding and our palms are sweaty. This is a tense political thriller/drama.



That being said The Ghost Writer is not an action film and has almost no violence. Anyone expecting gunshots and fistfights should go see something else. The Ghost Writer is a film about dialogue and names. If you can’t remember names I suggest the subtitles function because what is being said is vital to the plot.

I was kind of hoping for a blend of masterful thriller and wicked action, and I was a little disappointed by The Ghost Writer because of the lack of action. I was kind of hoping for something like The International which is a superb thriller, like The Ghost Writer, but also managed to have one of the best gun fights I have ever seen. But I can’t complain too much, this was an exciting film, although from the hype critics are giving it I was expecting a much more intriguing plot.

I really liked how the mystery was set up though. Ewan McGregor plays a ghost writer, a man who writes other’s memoirs. He is working on Adam Lang’s, the former prime minister of England. In the process he is led to the possibility that there are many more secrets to Lang’s administration than we suppose at the start. This is slowly discovered as the ghost writer talks to Lang and his wife, finding little inconstancies. The story looks pretty straightforward and then, as the music crescendos, everything falls apart.



I did not love The Ghost Writer. I wasn’t very impressed by the acting. With names like Pierce Brosnan and Tom Wilkinson supporting Ewan McGregor I was expecting something a little higher caliber, like Micheal Clayton or something, but you have to account for the fact that Brosnan and Wilkinson each had only 10 minutes of screen time. McGregor was just not that interesting to watch in this film. His performance, which the film hinged on, was a little wish washy, and he seemed not to have much direction for his character. For a 40 year old writer there was little development to his character.



All in all The Ghost Writer was a little bit of a letdown. I was expecting an Oscar worthy movie, and while I was still happy to see a visually appealing film, that was also a good thriller, I wasn’t impressed by everything that happened. I wanted more dynamic acting and a little more action or drama or something to pick up the pace a little. This is a decent film, 7.9 out of 10, but it is not as high caliber a film as I was expecting.

Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 – We see a fully nude man from the side, his groin is hidden by his leg and hip, he crawls into a bed with a naked married woman who slides on top of him and begins kissing him. They wake up the next morning in bed together and discuss the affair. There are a few references to a man’s affair with a woman, and we see a man from the chest up in a bathtub.

Violence/Gore – 4 out of 10 – A man is shot and we see a little blood on his head. A man is punched in the stomach and face. We hear the impact of a man being hit by a speeding car, but we don’t see anything. A newscast shows a terrorist being tortured by water being dumped on his face. A body is seen washed up on a shoreline.

Profanity – I heard one F-word, there might have been one more, and there were about 40 or so other profanities and religious exclamations.

The A-Team

The A -Team *** (3 Stars)

Director – Joe Carnahan

Starring – Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel, and Patrick Wilson

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence throughout, language and smoking

Another underestimated summer remake, “The A -Team” turns out to be a fun pop-corn flick with lots of laughs and some good explosions. This rebooting of the old TV show is actually pretty entertaining and worth catching at a discount theater or at the video store when it is released. While I am too young to have seen any of the episodes – except a rerun or two at grandma’s house – I found “The A –Team” to be an exciting and witty film, one that I plan on renting in a few months to get a little bit more of the action.

Like I said I have not really seen enough of the old TV episodes to know if anything but the names are the same in this updated film, so I am going to try and judge this film on its merits as a movie and not as a faithful remake. “The A – Team” is kind of one of those guilty pleasure films. It is a movie that you have to go into with no expectations so you can just sit back and enjoy what happens.



The movie starts off with bringing the four Rangers together in their first mission wreaking havoc on a dirty Mexican general. Then we are fast forwarded “8 years and 80 successful missions” later to the Iraq war where the four are brought together to take on one very important and classified mission. It goes off without a hitch until they are double crossed and end up stripped of rank and in jail. From here they must break out and clear their names.

This movie manages to go pretty quickly from a heist film to a prison break film, back to a heist film and then over to a revenge flick fairly quickly without leaving us as an audience confused at all. The writing for the film wasn’t amazing, and this movie was far from not having any plot holes, but it was not a serious film, and no one was taking it seriously. Instead all the actors were just having a fun time messing around and being funny. Even the double crossing bad guy was kind of a goofball.

I really enjoyed the film’s casting. The actors were a lot of fun to watch and listen too. They took a mediocre script and managed to make it entertaining and lively. Bradley Cooper and Patrick Wilson both kind of stole the show for me. They are good looking guys who know how to make an audience laugh with their clever come-backs and wicked smirks. Wilson plays the CIA agent Lynch. He was kind of diabolical but very funny as he fumes at his incompetent CIA cohorts. Cooper was the smooth talking Face who got the girls and the good one-liners.



There was also really good chemistry between B.A. Baracus and Murdock (Quinton “Rampage” Jackson and Sharlto Copley, respectively). The two kind of had a love/hate relationship. Murdock as the pilot has to deal with B.A.’s fear of flights and dopes B.A. up a few times, B.A. then threatens to “kill all you fools” until he is soothed as Murdock promises B.A his favorite cooked dinner. Copley’s half insane Murdock was a hilarious character whose bizarre antics and country accent made for a flavorful addition to the cast.

I can’t help but compare this film with “The Losers”, another action/comedy/buddy flick with pretty much the same plot. Notice that this summer has done a lot of the same movies over and over again. “Bounty Hunter”, “Date Night”, “Killers”, “Knight and Day”, all were pretty similar movies involving couples getting into trouble and then getting to blow stuff up. Then “The Losers”, “The A-Team”, and “The Expendable” all with a bunch of action gurus blowing more stuff up while being double crossed and having to clear their names. It is just funny to see the different studios all making the same movies.



Anyone who liked “The Losers” will for sure enjoy “The A-Team”. Both films are very similar and I enjoyed watching them. I don’t think I could pick a preferred film. Both had great one-liners and almost no plot to get in the way of all the action and laughs. These are perfect guy movies.

One thing that kind of bugged me with “The A-Team” was that some of the action was just too fast to see. The camera swung around quickly, blurring the scenes and it was impossible for me to catch what was happening to the characters. I prefer crisp clean action where I don’t lose track of whose who and what is going on. There were too many times where the action on screen just got fuzzy or too dark and it was hard to figure out what exactly was going on. On top of that a lot of the one-liners were masked by loud explosions and music. In theater they call it holding for laughs, and while movies are not theater there still needs to be a pause here and there for the audience to catch the jokes.


“The A-Team” delivers an overall entertaining if not simple movie. The plot and script are average and no one is going to the Oscars on this film. But because those involved with the film were able to take things lightly, and not get too serious with the movie, the whole thing was able to remain and energetic and exciting action movie that beats out a lot of the competition to date. I’ll tie this film with “The Losers” at 7.5 out of 10. Nothing exceptional was done here, but all in all it was a fun flick to watch.

Sex/Nudity 4 out of 10 – A man is seen shirtless a few times. It is implied that a man and a woman have had sex as a woman takes her panties off of a bed and puts them in her pocket. A man kisses a woman, she slaps him and they kiss passionately. A man admits to sleeping with another man’s wife. Some women wear cleavage revealing outfits.

Violence/Gore – 6 out of 10 – There are a lot of explosions, gun fights, fist fights, and killing. The action is stylized but still realistic. A lot of people are shot and punched some people die, but there is relatively little blood. No dead bodies are seen or anything like that.

Profanity – 5 out of 10 – 2 incomplete F-words (Mother F - then an explosion cuts them off), 3 military WTFs (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot), a few birdie flips, 2 or 3 B-words, 30 or so S-words, 50 or so mild obscenities and religious exclamations.

Salt - The Russians Are Coming to take on Angalina Jolie

Salt *** (3 stars)

Director – Phillip Noyce (Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, The Saint)

Starring – Angelina Jolie, Liev Schrieber, Chiwetel Ejiofor

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.

The Russians are coming, right back out of the 80’s, and they are as cunning as ever. While this formula might be tiring for some of the older audiences it works well for the younger crowd here in the non-stop action/thriller “Salt”. This one may be overlooked at the box office because it is not full mindless explosion after mindless explosion as the trailers seem to imply. Instead “Salt” is more of a political thriller combined with the ruthless action/violence that made “Taken” such an impressive film.



Anyone who liked “Taken” will find “Salt” at least as impressive. While not at all as brutal as Liam Neeson’s character, Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is still a blast to watch as she takes down anything standing in her way and leaves them lying bruised and unconscious…hopefully (As opposed to Liam Neeson who managed to blow away anyone who considered giving him trouble).



Evelyn Salt (a top notch CIA operative) is accused by a Russian defector (I didn’t know we still had those after “The Hunt for Red October”) of being a sleeper agent for a secret Russian government program. She goes on the run from her counterparts Schrieber and Ejiofor leaving us almost in the dust and as clueless as the cast is to the truth. I can’t give much more away, but the previews for the film really failed to show us what “Salt” was all about, in fact they were downright misleading.

This movie was not as incredible as “Inception” but in a summer run of very average films “Salt” is definitely one of the better ones. It is an incredibly clean film, low on the swearing and nonexistent in the sex category (though Angelina still manages to show us what she looks like in lingerie – even though she is being beaten and interrogated at the time). The action is pretty hard core, but stays safely in the PG-13 range, making us mostly believe that not everyone is being killed.

I found it refreshing to see a throwback to the days of the KGB and the nuclear threat. So many films today beat the middle-east conflict into the ground and “Salt” pays a little homage to the spy thrillers of Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy.



In short “Salt” is not a film you will regret seeing. It is a little over the top in showing Evelyn Salt’s abilities (hoping from the top of one semi to another while bullets graze her), but the action is done in a way that we can still believe the possibility that Salt is just super good at what she does. In fact I have never seen Angelina Jolie take such a ruthless beating while plowing through a high speed thriller like this one. I am not going to say this is Jolie’s best, nor is it this year’s best, but “Salt is a top notch action/thriller that actually manages to surprise the audience and leave them fully satisfied. An 8.5 out of 10 in my book.

Sex/nudity - 2 out of 10 – a husband and wife kiss a few times. A woman in a bra and panties is beaten while being interrogated.

Violence/Gore - 6 out of 10 – This is an almost non-stop action film with a lot of guns, shooting, killing, fighting, and the like. There is limited blood. There are also a lot of car crashes. There are a lot of fist-a-cuffs. Many people are knocked unconscious, some might be killed it is not certain. A man shoots up a whole room of unarmed people, lots of bullets and sparks fly around the room, almost everyone is left dead.

Profanity - 4 out of 10 – 1 muffled F-word (I am pretty sure it was there) , 10 to 20 other mild profanities and religious exclamations.

Eclipse - zzzzzzzzzz (look at the bottom for an additional post)

Eclipse ** (2 stars)

(My brother and I had two vastly different opinions here and so I have posted his review after my own)

Director – David Slade

Starring – Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some sensuality.

I have to say, as a guy getting dragged to the Twilight films, that there is an automatic wall I of defiance I put up saying that I will not like these films. I mock them, I yawn at them, and in this case I refused to go see it until Eclipse hit the discount theaters. I thought why waste money on a movie ticket for a film I’ll hate. My brother took my wife to see the “Eclipse” opening night and the two of them loved it. Then I heard from another buddy that he really liked it, so months later my wife dragged me over to the discount theater so I could see number three in the Twilight saga, “Eclipse”.

This is not the lust-fest I heard it was, though there were enough tanned shirtless werewolf boys and Bella/Edward make out/conversations to wet any 14-year-old’s panties. Which I suppose is the point. The basic message here for the younger crowd is that you should wait to have sex until you are married, but all the spit swapping and Levi loving you want is okay. Again I say “Eclipse” was not a dirty teen sex movie, but there were plenty of onscreen raging hormones. Amazingly all three of the films have managed to keep most of the cast members clothed.



I was not bored by the film … nor was I particularly impressed by anything that happened. This is the third in an unimpressive franchise designed to make teenage girls think their first crush is going to be the orgasmic love of their lives. “Eclipse” manages to encompass all the silliness of high school relationships. We are again faced with the Bella/Jacob/Edward love triangle, made all the more complicated now that there is an army of newborn vampires at large in the Pacific North West. Of course a person would only know what was going on if that person had read all the books and seen all the movies. But these films are mostly made for the fans and not for the idle movie goer anyway.

I am mostly put off by Kristen Stewart. She is just plain bad. I have only seen her in the three Twilight films, but each faltering line mumbled out of her thin frowning lips makes me cringe. She is not a good actress and she is not fun to watch.

On top of her inability to deliver a single line clearly there is the general feeling that all the actors went to Soap Opera school before filming. Everyone’s face has furrowed eyebrows and drooping lips. No one smiles or takes any delight in being a part of one of the most financially successful franchises to date. Instead the cast is far too serious about the seriousness of the situation. I think I saw a smile flit across someone’s lips once while making a witty quip, but I can’t remember who it was or when. The serious stares and brooding dialogue was just too over-powering.



I will give “Eclipse” credit for being vastly more entertaining than the first of the saga. But that is like going from a 1 out of 10 to a 5 out of 10. The cinematography is infinitely superior and the CGI is far more advanced. I was quite entertained in fact by the marbled vampires smashing each other to smithereens. The brutal slow-motion fist fights were exciting, though I was sorely disappointed at the apparent uselessness of the giant wolves whose teeth were supposed to tear through vampire flesh. All they managed to do was look scary and distract the bad guys.

Eclipse is not terrible filmmaking, but there is nothing about this movie that makes it anything more than a 5 out of 10. I think a lot of people will enjoy the action, and a lot of teenagers will enjoy the sexy love story. I am just anxiously awaiting the close of this series, though I hear the last book will be a two part film so there will be a few more years of this nonsense. I did not like Eclipse, I don’t think it is a film worth watching. My wife however loves the books and the movies, and I am sure other fans will feel the same.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following is written by my brother, the one who took my wife to see the movie opening night.)

So arrives the third installment in the Twilight Saga with all its promised fan fulfilling splendor and eye candy, (i.e. shirtless Jacob Black scenes, Vampire/Vampire & Vampire/Werewolf battles, funny one-liners, making out between almost every couple in the franchise, and of course almost an entire hour of close ups of Kristen Stewart’s face, and everyone else in the movie for that matter.)

For Twilight Saga fans, avid readers of the series, or just the movie followers in general, it is simply said that “Eclipse delivers!” Everything in the book, from costumes, character speech patterns, attitudes, dialogue, scenery, basic storyline including details, etc. has been smoothly and finely translated into a movie form that is action packed, hopelessly romantic, and good story telling; without being too choppy, too long, or too poorly acted.

Eclipse has come a long way from its predecessors, Twilight and New Moon, in many aspects. The filming feels heavy with a more than healthy dose of close ups during intimate dialogue scenes but feels balanced out with Vampire fast action sequences. Music in the movie is classic Twlight Saga’esque featuring the regulars such as The Muse and others. The overall acting from the cast has improved greatly since Twilight, with some great line deliveries from (Charlie), Taylor Lautner, Robert Pattinson, and Kristen Stewart to name a few. Robert Pattinson takes the spotlight more than a few times and impresses us with some good powerful and emotional acting.

Though Eclipse certainly doesn’t compare to movies like Beautiful Mind, Remember the Titans, Saving Private Ryan and other classics, what it was made for, (all those Team Edward/Team Jacob shirt wearing, fanatic, cheering, screaming, fans wanting a movie version of their beloved book) it dishes out excellently. In conclusion though people who make fun of, dislike or are just not into Stephanie Meyer’s work may not enjoy this latest release of the Twilight Saga, fans of the Franchise can expect to walk out of the theatre more than satisfied with Eclipse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 - A teenage boy and teenage girl kiss passionately on a bed. They discuss having sex, the boy indicates he wants to wait until they are married. A girl and a shirtless boy kiss passionately. Several shirtless men are seen throughout the film. A man and teenage daughter discuss having protected sex. A woman relates her rape and we see her grabbed by a group of men.

Violence/Gore – 6 out of 10 – There is a lot of fighting and vampire violence. Some people are attacked and their blood is drunk by vampires. Many vampires fight and their bodies are smashed and broken. The film style has made the vampires bodies look like marble statues when they are smashed. There is a lot of fist fighting between vampires; giant wolves also fight with vampires. It is not a gory film, but there is a little blood and some frightening sequences, especially for children.

Profanity – 3 out of 10 - 9 to 10 mild profanities and religious exclamations total.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Clash of the Titans *** (3 stars)

Director – Louis Leterrier

Starring – Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Mads Mikkelsen, Hans Matheson, with Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence, some frightening images and brief sensuality.

Sam Worthington takes another dive into the mindless action film genre with the remake “Clash of the Titans”. I was very young when I saw the original film so I am not judging this new film on its faithfulness to the original but instead as a new film.



Upon finishing “Clash of the Titans” my first thought was how the title relates to the films. If I remember correctly the titans were created to kill the gods or something like that, and there are no titans clashing in this film (yes you could argue contrary but lets face it the movie is full of far many more holes than this). Instead it is the demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) fighting Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and his kraken. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is a minor role as the creator of mankind, and the jealous Hades is working to undermine his brother’s love for man. Somewhere in the mess of a plot there is a lot of fighting and death and one or two quick kisses.



I enjoyed watching the amazing CGI graphics in Clash. It was awesome to see the giant mythological creatures. The producers here spared no expense in making the computer graphics as realistic as possible. If the makers of “Prince of Persia” had bothered to put this kind of CGI detail into their film, then I might have actually enjoyed it. The incredible special effects is really the only thing “Clash of the Titans had going for it. These effects blended right into the film so there was no clear line where the effects began or ended. There were a few scenes on the ocean that were pretty obviously studio filmed with green screen backgrounds, but they were brief scenes that are easily overlooked.



But a movie cannot stand on graphics alone. I know some people think so, and that is why pointless films like this get hyped up and pumped into the market all year. Clash is only half a movie. The other remaining pieces like plot, character development, and dialogue were left out. I mean there is the bare bones structure of a plot to be sure, and there is talking of course, and there are people in the plot doing the talking…but that is about it.



Usually in mindless action films the film makers try to make the movie humorous in order to create a quick emotional connection between the characters and the audience. With “Clash” though the actors are all pretending that they are a part of a serious epic like “Troy” or “Gladiator” when instead “Clash of the Titans” is a film more akin to “Transformers” or “GI Joe”. There were all the elements of a Transformers style summer action film, but the actors were taking everything so serious it was difficult for me to settle into the film and enjoy some good CGI violence. It was like the producers wanted a Neil Simon comedy and the actors wanted a Shakespearian tragedy. Lighten up guys no one is getting an Oscar for this film.

In short “Clash of the Titans” is a completely plotless action film made for 14-year-old boys. I loved the visual effects but was frustrated by the constant plot holes and failed attempts at both drama and comedy. If the producers had wanted an epic then they should have put a few more years into script development instead of shooting this film down the Hollywood assembly line. This is a mindless film that is barely saved from complete ruin by some pretty awesome special effects. I enjoyed watching the film with a big group of friends. We were able to make fun of the parts that sucked while gleaning a little fun from the action scenes. This is a 6.3 out of 10. I’ll tell you a secret though, I would definitely see Clash again before re-watching “Eclipse”.

Sex/Nudity - 5 out of 1 0 – A Greek god sleeps with a mortal woman, we see her bare shoulders and him naked from the back for a second. We hear a story about a woman being raped by a god. We see some bare-chested men.

Violence/Gore – 6 out of 10 – There is a lot of CGI action and violence. When any man dies there is little blood and the scene usually cuts away from any potential gore. The only really gory part is when a man stabs a giant scorpion monster and a lot of green blood bushes out. It is an intense movie with a lot of sword play and large monsters killing people.

Profanity – 2 out of 10 – Some mild obscenities and a few religious exclamations and name calling.

Toy Story 3 - A MUST SEE!

Toy Story 3 * * * * * (5 stars)

Director – Lee Unkrich

Starring (Voice Actors) – Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack and Michal Keaton

MPAA – G

Pixar is a company that astounds me. Every film they have made is absolutely amazing excepting “Cars” which was fun but not groundbreaking. The idea of a third “Toy Story “really had me worried. I was not to keen on the idea of another sequel because the market has been so bad these last couple of years. Originality is so hard to find at the cinemas and the vast majority of sequels are so inferior to their predecessors. But I remained optimistic based on the track record of the past 10 Disney/Pixar films (one of them being the hilarious and touching “Toy Story 2”).
Then out came “Toy Story 3” and the buzz from both viewers and reviewers was the same, it was supposed to be the best film of the year. I put off seeing it for too long and when it opened in the discount movie theaters today in 3D I forced my wife to come with me. And even though I had to suffer the indignity 3D glasses (a wholly pointless gimmick might I add) and the previews for infantile films “Toy Story 3” was indeed another notch on Disney/Pixar’s belt of superb movies.



Having just had the absolute pleasure of experiencing the masterpiece that was “Inception”, I was not prepared to be overwhelmed with the beauty of another A+ film in the same week. While being a part of a different genre “Toy Story 3” is almost a dead tie with “Inception” for the best film of 2010 yet. The only thing that might be holding it back from ultimate greatness is that it was not quite as original as “Inception”. “Toy Story 3” still took its characters to infinity and beyond and with it went my imagination.



I say it was not as original because of course this is the third installment in a series; but the plot was still new and exciting. There were a few running gags from the first two Toy Stories, but the plot was a new experience and a new concept. The toys are faced with Andy’s departure for college, and are accidentally donated to a day care instead of being stored in the attic like Andy wanted. But instead of being the same story as the second film – that of stranded toys trekking the city to get back to their owner – the toys are instead faced with the idea of being rejected by their beloved Andy and they must now find a way to fit in with a new crowd. I’ll keep to this vague plot description to avoid giving anything away, but let it be known that the writers made a brilliant script that plays out very well.

“Toy Story 3” did not however out-do Pixar’s last two films “Up” and “Wall-E”. It would be difficult to do anything as incredible as those two films; films that were original, entertaining, and heart-warming. While I would rate both those Disney/Pixar ventures as 9.9s “Toy Story 3” is not far behind with an easy 9.5 out of 10 ten. This movie is as near to perfect as a movie can get. There was nothing to be critical about.



One thing that really surprised me is how well the makers of this film managed to stay away from elements of the earlier movies. There was no return to Al’s Toy Barn, no Zerg (except a blip in the credits reel), no emergence of the Wood’s Roundup. Instead everything was fresh and new. Yes there were a few elements used across all three movies, but those are the fun things that tie the trilogy together.

Not only did “Toy Story 3” stay true to the other films, it also stayed true to the magic of all the Disney/Pixar movies. This is a movie that is clean and appropriate for all ages (although there are quite a few frightening moments). It is also a movie that brought tears to my eyes, both from laughing so hard and from heart-warming and touching moments. My wife leaned over to me while I was sniffling during an ending scene (it was just such a happy moment I couldn’t hold it in) and whispered to me, “Are you crying?” “Of course not,” I retorted haughtily; there was no way I was going to admit tearing up during a G-rated Disney film in the middle of a theater. But here I am now confessing because Toy Story 3 truly was a beautiful film.



My only beef is this whole 3D deal. It is a useless gimmick for scoring more dollars from the movie goers. My experience was not enhanced in any way by going to this film in 3D. I only went because that was the only format available at the theater. SAVE YOUR MONEY! “Toy Story 3” is an outstanding film and doesn’t need the cumbersome label of ‘3D’ to be better. Go see “Toy Story 3” before it is no longer in theaters. If there is one film you have to see this year it is Toy Story 3.

Sex/Nudity - 1 out of 10 – You see a shirtless Ken doll and there is a kiss or two between toys.

Violence/Gore – 2 out of 10 – There are some frightening images and some adventure peril that is a little on the intense end. The kids behind me kept switching from crying to laughing.

Profanity – 1 out of 10 – Please, if this movie offends you then do us all a favor don’t go see movies, don’t read books, stay in your bed with a pillow over your face. There is some name calling along with uses of Darn and Heck.

Inception - OSCARS here we come!!!

Inception

Director – Christopher Nolan

Starring – Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe,
Cillian Murphy, and Michael Cain

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout.

WOW. This single phrase encompasses everything I felt about watching Inception. I walked into the theater expecting to see the best film of the year and I walked out having seen the best film of the year. I have watched other great films this year, but I have yet to see a movie this good that was released this year. Inception is a completely original masterpiece. It is film-making at its best. I already dread the Oscars when this brilliant and captivating piece will be passed over for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Cinematography by films not even half as good.

My writing teacher told me to choose words for their precise definitions. Masterpiece for instance means: an outstanding work of art or craft; the greatest work of an artist; something superlative of its kind. I am not misusing this word when I call “Inception” a masterpiece.



First it is an outstanding work of art. This is the kind of movie I live to see. Not only is the plot engaging and original, it is also a nail-biting thriller. The movie combines gun-fighting, fist-a-cuffs, and mind-blowing special effects with an intricate plot that captures the imagination. I have a wild imagination, but in my most bizarre dreams I could not conceive of a film so flawlessly put together.
This is a film about entering people’s dreams and stealing their ideas; a notion that is impossible. Leonardo DiCaprio leads a team of specialized mind probers into the psyche of businesses’ elite taking corporate espionage to a new level. The Matrix-esque idea is original and intriguing. Since “The Matrix” no other film has stretched the mind the way “Inception” does.

While “Inception” is an exceptional example of movie making, it is also the greatest work yet seen by Christopher Nolan. This film was 10 years in the making and is worth every second poured into it. Christopher Nolan surprised us all with the brilliantly intricate film “Memento”. This film was so interesting because we see it played out backwards. I had to watch this film three or four times before I understood what was happening. “Memento” however is only the foreshadowing of what “Inception” is.



“Inception” starts somewhere towards the end of the middle of the story, then jumps to the beginning. The characters in “Inception” frequently move from different levels of dreams, dreams with in dreams you might say. And the plot moves that way too. For the first 30 minutes of the film we are not sure what part of the movie we are in, but slowly everything begins to make sense. Christopher Nolan truly outdoes himself with an intricate story line that plays out flawlessly, leaving no question unanswered.



For something to be superlative it must be of the highest possible excellence. This is the third definition of a masterpiece, and describes “Inception” well. These days it is almost impossible to find a movie that combines a flawless plot and good character development with first class special effects and almost constant action sequences. Somehow, amid the flying bullets and mind-bending CGI, there is still a deep plot and realistic characters. The one thing I have not mentioned is of course the acting, which is just as magnificent as every other aspect of the film. Inception truly has it all.

I cannot say enough about how good “Inception” is. The IMDB is currently giving it a 9.1 out of 10. I would venture to give this movie a 9.9 out of 10. Not only is this a brilliant film, but it is free of Hollywood’s obsession with splattering blood, shameless sexuality, street urchin profanity. This is a film so good I fear it will be passed over by the elitist Academy Awards, but we who go to the movies will know “Inception” to be a true masterpiece.



Sex/Nudity – 0 out of 10 – A husband and a wife kiss, a young man and woman kiss, there is slight cleavage exposes in one scene.

Violence/ Gore – 6 out of 10 – This movie is full of gun fighting and fist fights. There are a lot of explosions. Some people get stabbed and shot. All this however happens in a dream world where if you die you wake up. This does not however take the excitement out of the many death defying stunts and the edge-of-your-seat action sequences.

Profanity – 4 out of 10 – a total of 25 or maybe 30 profanities are used total. There are one or two S-words, a few religious exclamations, and a few mild obscenities.

The Other Guys - SNL at its BEST

The Other Guys

Director – Adam McKay

Starring – Mark Whalberg, Will Ferrell, Micheal Keaton, Eva Mendez with Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson

MPAA - Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, language, violence and some drug material.

Happy Birthday to me; my aunt took my wife, my brother, and me to this film for a little birthday present. It was opening day, a matinee, and the theater was pretty dead; but this did not stop my aunt and I from busting our guts laughing through this riotous film. I was in the mood for a goofy Will Ferrell comedy and I was not disappointed.

This is the best Adam McKay/Will Ferrell collaboration I have seen yet. “Anchorman”, “Talladega Nights”, and “Step Brothers” were all funny to be sure (all though “Step Brothers” was mostly offensive and awkward) but they all strayed a little too far from reality to be anything more than random SNL movies. “The Other Guys” however manages to take the clever and bizarre dialogue from McKay’s earlier films and combines it with everything good about buddy/cop films to make a hilarious combination of action and comedy. Anyone who loved McKay’s earlier movies will flock to “The Other Guys” in droves, but this movie also will bring in the crowds who are less fond of Will Ferrell because co-starring with Ferrell is the heart-throb Mark Whalberg.



Whalberg is a fun actor to watch and in this film he is given the freedom to mesh his bad-boy attitude from “The Departed” with the goofy absurdness of the SNL style film. Whalberg helps to ground the random humor so prevalent in McKay’s films. So often in the other McKay/Ferrell films there are moments when I would turn and look at who ever I was watching the film with and just shrug my shoulders in complete confusion at where a particular joke or scene was coming from. Sometimes I was so baffled I didn’t even laugh. Most of “Step Brothers” I was just embarrassed. While there are plenty of mind-bogglingly weird moments of dialogue in “The Other Guys” instead of being mystified by the absurdness of the moment I was just caught up in the hilarity and almost peed my pants as a result. The humorous dialogue is so well played out.

The film starts off with action super-stars Samuel L. Jackson and “The Rock” cruising through the city streets blowing stuff up and catching bad guys. These two are the dynamite heroes that everyone loves and they know that their stuff don’t stink. Whalberg and Ferrell are on the sidelines; desk jockeys, who are unappreciated and almost unneeded. Then suddenly the action stars are gone and the two mismatched partners are left to fill the shoes of Jackson and The Rock. Whalberg and Ferrell blunder badly across crime scenes yelling and fighting with each other and of course eventually doing what happens in all cop films – finding the bad guys and becoming great friends while causing billions of dollars in property damage and making the audience roll around the isles laughing.



I am definitely heading back the theaters to see “The Other Guys” again. It is a witty and random comedy that is really the apex of the SNL genre. I love the action/comedy genre when it is done right, and this is an example in excellence...goofy excellence. Yes, this is a random film; and anyone not amused by Saturday Night Live, Adam McKay, or Will Ferrell will probably not appreciate “The Other Guys” or recognize it as anything other than a foolish teenage-boy film. It is a little crude, there is a little profanity, but it is very very funny.



I’ll give it a 7.8 out of 10. I can’t give it much more than that because then I would be suggesting that there was good plot development or other artistic elements of higher quality than that of other films in the genre. That would be misleading. This is not a deep film on any level. It is a long SNL skit but thoroughly entertaining; delivering non-stop laughs.



Sex/Nudity – 5 out of 10 – There are a few sexual references, sexual jokes, and a husband and wife exchange sexual propositions using an elderly woman to deliver the messages. There are a few scenes with women wearing cleavage revealing outfits. A husband and wife disrobe while preparing to have sex, we see her briefly in lingerie and he is shown briefly with his shirt off. A man’s car is stolen, and when it is recovered the police report that it was used for a gay orgy of homeless men. This gag is used two or three other times and the homeless guys are seen later again trying to steal the car.

Violence/Gore – 5 out of 10 – 3 men jump to their deaths in different scenes, we see their bodies hit the ground but there is no blood seen. There are a lot of gun fights, explosions, and everything else you see in a cop movie. There is very little blood. A car runs over a few dead bodies and a little blood spurts out.

Profanity – 6 out of 10 - There are various sexual references, maybe one F-word, somewhere around 100 uses of the S-word, A-word, and other mild obscenities.

Extraordinarily Plain

Extraordinary Measures

Director: Tom Vaughan

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Harrison Ford, Keri Russell

MPAA - Rated PG for thematic material, language and a mild suggestive moment.

A warm-hearted film that fails to be the wrenching drama it wanted to be, “Extraordinary Measures” is instead a nice family film the never really takes off. I enjoyed some of this film but I would have never seen is had it not been for Harrison Ford’s title billing, and if I had seen it without Harrison Ford I would have shut it off half way through. Harrison Ford is really the only reason to watch the movie, and even then it wasn’t the most interesting of his films.

This was a film that needed to delve deeper into character development and not spend as much time on showing story line pieces. The characters are so thinly put together we have to focus on who the actor is to get any depth out of the characters.



Brendan Fraser for instance plays a character similar to himself, a nice guy who cares about his family – I guess passionately cares, but it is hard to tell – and he stays true to that character the whole movie, but it is never that interesting. Harrison Ford plays an eccentric professor and doctor who develops a treatment for a rare disease. He plays country music extremely loudly ah he tests his theories, and he yells a lot at anyone who does things differently from him. Ford is entertaining, but he doesn’t get enough screen time to develop anything interesting, and we never get to find out why he is such a pain in the butt.
Brendan Fraser and Keri Russell play John and Aileen Crowley, the parents of two children afflicted with Pompe disease. This is a rare disease and there is no cure. Both children have a life expectancy of one more year and so Fraser’s character seeks out Dr. Robert Stonehill (Harrison Ford) who may have a treatment that will save the kid’s lives.

The film tries to be a movie about a family and a movie about two men developing a treatment and a movie about kids overcoming adversity ( I think that is all). Instead of masterfully combining the three genres we get a hodge-podge mish-mash that kind of skims the surface of all three genres; never taking enough time for the audience to get a grasp on the message. Do we feel bad for the kids? Yes, but we only see them for a minute and then we are on to another scene. Do we connect with the parents who are desperately trying to save their children? Yes, but the fact that these parents are millionaires and can afford all the medical treatments for their children plus whatever else is needed does little to help us feel the desperation. Do we feel for the cranky doctor who is on the verge of a medical breakthrough but is socially inept and unappreciated? The check for 16 million dollars says “NO!”

And that is the problem with “Extraordinary Measures”, it is interesting enough to watch, but it fails so badly at greatness. This movie needs a focus and character development, then it might be worth a second go. For now it is a mundane film that is mildly entertaining and kind of makes us feel warm and fuzzy. It is a 6.9 out of 10.

Sex/Nudity – 2 out of 10 - a husband and wife kiss and make out on a couch and are interrupted by a nurse.

Violence/ Gore – 0 out of 10 –

Profanity – 4 out of 10 - 25 obscenities – Son of a “B”, the “S” word, and so on - plus a few religious exclamations.

Not a Loser of a flick!

The Losers

Director - Sylvain White

Starring – Jeffery Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans, and Jason Patric
MPAA – Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, a scene of sensuality and language.

“The Losers” is one of the better graphic novel movies to come out. It is exciting, funny, and holds its own against the onslaught of summer garbage dumped on filmgoers this year. Pitting this movie up against last year’s “GI-Joe” I would watch “The Losers” ten times before I suffered through GI-Joe again. In fact I would definitely watch this film over “Knight and Day” and “Prince of Persia”, two films I have recently reviewed. I liked “The Losers” a lot. Not because it was an amazing action thriller like the Jason Bourne movies, or because it was as clever and as witty as “Ocean’s 11”. I had fun because it was an old fashioned action film that didn’t try to do anything more than make me laugh.



I was reminded of the camaraderie held between the players in “Ocean’s 11.” “The Losers” comprises five Special Forces officers; each man having his own specialty; electronics, weapons, and the like. They each have witty parts and they trade banter back and forth in general good humor. The five men are all good at being funny and are very cool. They trade jokes and insults as they sprint across roof-tops firing large guns, destroying all the bad guys in their way; and it all works in a fun stylized action movie. Each man had his own character, different than the others. This kept this film interesting as we saw the brotherhood of these renegade soldiers.

The story goes like this: these soldiers go into Bolivia to take out a drug dealer, they paint the target with a laser and the house is set to be blown to smithereens. Then the Loosers see there are kids in the house and the defy orders to rescue the kids. However this pits them against an unknown villain named Max. This film marks the beginning of the hunt for Max.



Speaking of Max, he is played by a hilarious Jason Patric; whom I am convinced had way too much fun playing the villain. Of course he was the cookie cutter evil psycho who is offhandedly kills employees and enemies alike. But he is so much funnier than most villains we see in these small action flicks.

I also enjoyed the cinematography in this film. Any time a movie puts extra effort into creating a visually appealing picture I always take note. It is not difficult to achieve this picturesque quality in films, and “The Losers” shows that. Yes there is plenty of CGI action, but it is very minimal compared to others of the genre. Most of the movie is just good old flying bullets and wise cracks, and I loved it. “The Losers” gets a 7.5 out of 10 in my book. It was not an exceptional movie, but it was so much fun to watch.



Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 – There are two sex scenes, one is prolonged and we see a woman in her bra and panties, and then just her bare back. We see women in swimsuits, a lot of cleavage, and there are few sexual jokes and references.

Violence/Gore – 7 out of 10 – BOOM, KAPOW, SMAK! There is a whole bunch of gun fighting and shooting; people die, things blow up, and there is almost no blood accompanying it. There are a lot of fist fights as well, and these come with the accustomed bruises and bloody noses, but in general the gore is limited but there is a plethora of action.

Profanity – 5 out of 10 – There is 1 F-word, and about 30 or so obscenities and name calling with about 15 religious exclamations.