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.

Tears of the Sun

Tears of the Sun

Director – Antoine Fuqua

Starring – Bruce Willis, Monika Bellucci, Cole Hauser,

MPAA - Rated R for strong war violence, some brutality and language.

“Tears of the Sun” manages to take a standard search and rescue jungle movie with a predictable plot and make it into a thought provoking, if not somewhat disturbing, action/thriller. I liked “Tears of the Sun” a lot for this reason. I was not blown away at how amazing this movie was, but I did enjoy how this film used a Nigerian coup and genocide to show the audience a change of character in Bruce Willis’s part. The film uses excellent cinematography to paint a dreadful and haunting, but beautiful, African jungle; and used that background for us to see Lt. A.K. Waters (Bruce Willis) change from a hardened warrior to a man fighting for a cause.



This movie reminded me a lot of the Oscar winning “Blood Diamond.” Though not as heart breaking or as structured, “Tears of the Sun” is still a well made film that shows the horrors of war, but still manages to develop characters and plot a little bit. Yes this movie does dive into some of the age old Hollywood cookie cutter parts. Yes there is virtually no dialogue (everyone is running through the jungle trying to not get killed, there is no time for talking). But through these flaws we still get a powerful story.



I was really captivated by the stunning shots of the African jungles. The cinematography was stupendous. What the film lacked in plot and dialogue was made up in dramatic music/film sequences with shots of Willis’s face looking mournful. These scenes helped us to see the effect the genocide witnessed by Willis’s character had on him, and how he was changing into a better man.

Waters (played by Willis) leads in a group of Navy Seals to extract American doctor Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci) from the middle of a Nigerian Civil war and ethnic cleansing. The doctor refuses to leave without the refugees she is caring for. This creates inner conflict for Water’s and he struggles with his conscience and with his orders as he and his men trek the jungle with the refugees as the Nigerian army closes in.



I liked “Tears of the Sun”. It was not an amazing film but it is definitely worth watching once. The action junkies will like the long battle sequences, and those searching for a deeper meaning will enjoy it as well. This is not a film for the faint hearted, it is violent and brutal; but it shows the horrors in Africa and I feel the makers of the movie might have been making a political statement here. ‘Tears of the Sun” gets a 7.8 out of 10 in my book. Not excellent, but it was worth watching for sure.

Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 – 2 rape scenes and we see part of an exposes breast. A woman shows quite a bit of cleavage throughout the film.

Violence/Gore – 9 out of 10 – This is not quite as brutal as “Saving Private Ryan but it is still messy. Most of the gore is in a rape scene where we see a badly beaten woman; we get the impression and we are told later that her breasts have been cut off. It is a violent film, but I would not say it is gratuitous violence, it was not for fun.

Profanity – 20 F words and a few other obscenities.

Remember Me

Remember Me

Director – Allen Coutler

Starring – Robert Pattinson with Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan

MPAA – Rated PG-13 for violence, sexual content, language and smoking.

“Remember Me” is a well written film, with deep characters and a riveting plot. It’s greatest fault is that the characters are inevitably linked to coincidences that in the end made me wonder why I bothered to invest two hours into a movie that decide to cheat me out of a good ending. Roger Ebert says the film is like two people meeting and falling in love and then a refrigerator falls on one of them, tragic, but who wants to see it? And that is exactly how I felt about “Remember Me”; I felt cheated out of a good film.

What worked was everything leading up to the completely coincidental ending. I loved the cinematography. The filming was done in deep rich colors that are found in good action movies, but the plot is realistic, and the combination is interesting to watch. On top of the beautiful picture, I was captivated by the depth of the characters. The script was surprisingly well written. Usually this type of movie is geared towards teenagers, and therefore the scripts are so bland and uninteresting the films barely hold together. Instead the dialogue is rather impresive.

Robert Pattinson and Emilie de Ravin have pretty good chemistry, and both are talented young actors. Pattinson manages to shed his cold vampire acting (wich was intolerable in the Twilight series) and is instead a warmhearted – if not troubled – young man. He still manages to lose all ability to act when he first starts talking to the blonde beauty De Ravin, but he gets better in time. She is a lot of fun too, and her strong willed character is well developed and realistic.



We get to see Pattinson’s character in his normal life. He picks up his little sister every day after school, he goes to work at a book store, he is troubled, hates his dad, and it is clear something terrible has happened in his life. The main plot revolves around a romance that develops between Tyler (Robert Pattinson) and Ally (Emile de Ravin). Both have strained relationships with their fathers (Pattinson’s is Pierce Brosnan and de Ravin’s is Chris Cooper). These two men have small roles, but they play their parts well. In fact the background stories of all the characters are well put together and make the film that much deeper. Both Brosnan and Cooper each have dynamite confrontational scenes that are emotional and truly prove each mans high caliber abilities.



I really enjoyed the side story and character of Tyler’s little sister played Caroline by Ruby Jerins. Having three younger sisters myself I felt like Jerins’ older brother as well. I just loved her character. As a young actress she just needs to be cute and adorable to carry herself, but she plays the character well and I think Ruby Jerins has a lot of potential. She has a really heart-warming part to watch.



I grew attached to the characters and I wanted things to work out. I wanted the family issues to be resolved, and then came the ACME safe, right out of the sky, and my hopes for the film were crushed. I can’t give the film anything higher than a 7 out of 10 because of the “coincidence”. Everything worked up till then. It is a great story, with excellent characters, the acting is good, the plot is well structured, but I felt cheated, robbed, and I was left conflicted between excellent development and a bummer ending.

Sex/Nudity – 6 out of 10 – There is a lot of sexual dialogue, and some really heavy kissing. There are two sex scenes where we see a lot of shoulders and bare backs; these scenes are a little longer than most.

Violence – 6 out of 10 - There are a few gritty scuffles with a bit of blood, they are very realistic.

Profanity – 6 out of 10 – There are 2 “F” words and many other vulgarities.

Fantastically Fun

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Director: Wes Anderson

Voice Actors – George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, and Willem Dafoe

PG - Rated PG for action, smoking and slang humor.

Oscar nominee Wes Anderson combines the genius of his movie “The Royal Tenenbaums” with some of the most entertaining stop animation yet to create a marvelously entertaining, if not odd, “Fantastic Mr. Fox. This movie plays like a children’s picture book, but is so unique in presentation it captures the imagination of the old and young alike. This film flourishes on rich the rich texture of the furs and fabrics and stop motion that gives the “Wallace and Gromit” series a run for its money. There is true artistry in the movie, and I felt like I could stop the movie at any second and just stare and the hand crafted detail for hours.

In fact all the pleasure of reading a particularly amazing picture book to an interested child is captured in the beauty of “Fantastic Mr. Fox”. The plot is simple enough to follow so that a three or four-year-old can watch the movie sitting on his 30-year-old father’s lap, while dad is also held captive to the screen enjoying the more sophisticated jokes. While the film is a little twisted in that there is a darker side to the movie, it is a film nonetheless that a whole family could take delight in while watching, though the movie can aptly be described as weird.



Mr. Fox (George Clooney) is a reformed chicken thief in a land where the line between animal and human is blurred. Animals live in the woods; in trees and holes, but they have nice furnishings and wonderfully intricate clothes. Humans live in the city but there is no apparent lack of communication between humans and animals, they all seem to speak English, though the villains have rather ominous British accents. Mr. Fox decides to go for one last chicken raid and succeeds only in causing a war between three farmers and the animals. Here we get this “Over the Hedge” feel to the movie that blends in nicely with the humor and wit of “The Royal Tenenbaums”.

George Clooney steals the movie and dwarfs the other voice actors. His rich baritone gives Mr. Fox this Danny Ocean quality that makes the dialogue very fun to listen to. Meryl Streep plays Mrs. Fox, but she has so few lines and they are delivered in such a flat monotone I couldn’t help but wonder if she was merely a money name to draw viewers. However the movie was so fun to watch this little conundrum weighs little on my mind.



“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a fun family film that can be enjoyed as a wonderfully artistic picture book, and as a film with slightly deeper implications. As with other Wes Anderson films (and with the books written by Roald Dahl – author of the children’s book “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”) there is more to film than just the funny story and witty dialogue. This movie scores a 7.5 out of 10 in my books. I enjoyed it, but it was a little weird to be truly great. Visually this is a treat, intellectually it is a bit of a puzzle, but a really fun one.



Sex/Nudity – none

Violence/Gore - 3 out of 10 – There is some shooting and a little bit of cartoon blood. A fox catches and kills chickens; we see their broken necks in the fox’s mouth. A fox and a rat have a fist fight, the rat has a switch blade knife. There are references to killing and death.

Profanity – 3 out of 10 – there are no traditional profanities but the word “cuss” is substituted for any and all swear words. There are many uses of phrases like “what the cuss”, “are you cussin’ me”, “cluster cuss” and the like.

Knight and Day, Ha Ha...What?

Knight and Day

Director: James Mangold (Kate and Leopold, Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma)

Starring: Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Peter Sarsgaard, Paul Dano

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence throughout, and brief strong language.

Another playful romp through mindless summer movies, “Knight and Day” delivers laughs and action and very little of it is memorable. It is a movie that we have all seen before in many different pieces. Cameron Diaz is the blonde sexy starlet who has never fired a gun before and screams a lot the first half of the movie and then settles in during the second half. Tom Cruise is the muscled action hero that can out-run, out-think, out-shoot, and out-wit everyone, but is absolutely hooked on his lady co-star. This all plays out amidst flying bullets and explosions.

The problem here is that nothing is remarkable or lasting. I laughed and then five minutes later I forgot what I had laughed at, then something else funny comes along and I forgot about that scene seconds later as well. The concept of the film is entertaining, but ultimately unsatisfying. Anyone going in to the movie expecting anything more than light summer fluff will be disappointed. We pretty much saw the whole movie in the previews anyway.



I did enjoy the watching the film. I had a few laughs and the action was so-so. The best action part of the movie was when Tom Cruise takes out a plane full of assassins one by one. That scene is the only one with some real one-on-one fighting. The rest of the movie is chock full of relentless car chases and gunfights that would give similar films from the 80s heart-attacks. The problem is, after all the gunfire has stopped and the situational comedy has come to a halt, there is emptiness to the movie that left me disappointed.

“Knight and Day” could have been a lot better, and all in all it scores a 6.5 out of 10. It was an entertaining and average film for the summer; but no one will be talking about “Knight and Day” in a month. It was unremarkable, but the summer crowds will flock to it in droves.

Sex/Nudity – 3 out of 10 – A man and woman kiss a few times, a man is seen without a shirt in a few scenes, a woman is seen in a small bikini. There are also a few sexual innuendos and some sexual dialogue.

Violence/ Gore – 6 out of 10 - Lots of gun fighting and people being killed, almost no blood, there are some fisticuffs, a few people get stabbed. A lot of the killing is done in an almost comic book style and there is very little realism in the action.

Profanity – 6 out of 10 – One loudly pronounced “F” word, 6 or 7 “S” words a few obscenities and 10 or so religious exclamations.

One Good Man - a hit for Mormons

One Good Man

Director: Christian Vuissa (Baptists at Our Barbeque)

Mormondom will praise this family friendly film for its high standards and sturdy plot. “One Good Man” was not an amazing movie, but it one that actually holds its moral ground and is surprisingly deep. Amidst the onslaught of silly Mormon films, this movie is remarkably sober, without being cheesy, and holds its own even with the stigmatic amateurish feeling of the fledgling Mormon cinema genre.

I actually liked “One Good Man.” It is a slower film that never really takes off, but still manages to hold an audience. Those of the LDS faith will be able to connect to the plethora of problems faced by the title character, Adam Young (Tim Threfall). Adam is a middle aged father of five (maybe six, it is hard to keep track of them all, ha ha) who faces company layoffs, trouble with kids, and difficult church responsibilities. All the problems any LDS man might face…packed into 90 minutes. This slightly over stuffed plot seemed a little excessive, but since things never really come to a head the many difficulties were needed to pull the audience through the film.



The film does feel a little amateurish. The cinematography is okay, but has a soap opera quality. It is acted and made by people with relatively few film credits to their names. “One Good Man” however goes far beyond the childish humor saturating the LDS film market. Instead we have a nice movie that warms our hearts a little bit and makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. The script feels a little more like a play not a movie; but the acoustic guitar score playing in the background works well and wouldn’t transition onto the stage well. The actors also seem more accustomed to the stage than the screen. Lines seemed a bit forced in some areas, though the lead Tim Threfall was quite convincing in his role. The best actor of the film was a side character played by Adam Johnson who indecently played a similar role as the non-LDS boyfriend in “Charly” (which might be the best LDS film to date next to “Saints and Soldiers”).

“One Good Man” gets a 6.8 out of 10 in my book. It was not a half bad movie, ameraturish like I said before, but still a quiet and gentle film that the whole family can watch. There is nothing offensive in the movie. It delivers a few chuckles, but ultimately is just warm and fuzzy. It is a good start to the more serious Mormon movies.

Sex/Nudity – 0

Violence/Gore – 0

Profanity - 0

Prince of Persia - Fun for the Gamers, Lame For the Rest of Us

Prince of Persia

Director: Mike Newell

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, and Alfred Molina

Prince of Persia is a long CGI fest made for someone with the attention span of a 10-year-old. The gamers out there will probably love the film because it was like watching someone play a video game the whole time. The spotty plot and had more holes than a sponge, and was even less absorbing. The Prince of Persia is an empty movie that relies exclusively on its big budget special effects, and fails to deliver anything more than a slight chuckle and a couple of yawns.



CGI has become a slow and painful plague on the summer blockbuster and it is all too evident in the constant action sequences barely held together by a videogame plot with a script aimed at pre-teens. Some of the stunts are fun and exciting feats of acrobatic prowess, but they are ruined by the obviously green screened in sets. Then the really ridiculous action scenes are so farfetched it is absolutely unconvincing to the audience.

The costume design however was really amazing. This is definitely the only category that Prince of Persia might be considered for an Oscar in. There was intricately designed armor and beautiful flowing silk robes. The amazing costuming did lend an authenticity to the film and helped me to ignore the video game scenery.
This film was not a terrible movie. It will be a popular movie especially for lovers of the video games and for the younger movie crowd. One thing that really bugged me was the movie maker’s indecision as to who the film was targeting. It was trying too hard to get adults, teenagers, and little kids, of either gender into the theaters and make them enjoy the film.



The side characters were the absolute worst part. Alfred Molina plays an outlaw who is supposed to be the leader of a roughish band of killers and thieves. This is just a cover however for a secret society of ostrich racers who don’t want to pay taxes. Molina is supposed to be the anti-hero-fun-villain. He is instead the worst written character to ever co-star in a film. He is a stock character that the filmmakers tried to revive, but it felt forced and badly written.

Prince of Persia is an overused plot in the time-traveling and event-fixing genre. It is fun to see a live-action Aladdin style film, but the writing and filming of the movie were done in a very popular way, made to appeal to the masses in a generic formula. I won’t give Prince of Persia anything higher than a 5 out of 10, but most people will find it a fun adventure film.

My appetite was just spoiled by the over used computer special effects. Once these special effects were used to add a little spice to already exciting movies; however, now they are used as the meat of a bland and tasteless dish. It is a tragedy that CGI and green screens is now the thread-bare blanket not quite concealing the shoddily constructed plots they are draped over.




Sex/Nudity – 2 out of 10 – There are a few shirtless men, woman in cleavage revealing and skin tight costumes, and some kissing.

Violence/Gore – 6 out of 10 – There are a few violent battle scenes with lots of sword play, some explosions and killing. There is very little blood at all though. A few people get stabbed and we see little trickles of blood. There is quite a bit of death, some people get hit in the chest with arrows or bolts and we see a little blood at their mouths and chests. We see dead corpses and bare skeletons a few times. Some men are attacked and killed by snakes, a man kills a few snakes.

Profanity – 2 out of 10 – there are a few religious exclamations and some name calling.

Saving Private Ryan, one of the best films ever

Saving Private Ryan

Director: Steven Spielberg

Starring: Tom Hanks, Tom Sisemore, Edward Burns, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, and Matt Damon
One of the most brutal, gripping, heart-breaking, and uplifting films ever made, “Saving Private Ryan” is one movie no American should miss. This film is almost as perfect as it gets; I cannot praise “Saving Private Ryan” enough. The five time Academy Award winning film is worth every second of it’s almost three hour run time. Granted this is one of the most violent films ever made, showing the unimaginable horrors of the D-Day invasion down to flying body parts, gushing wounds, and spraying blood.

The violence is not of the mind-numbing and gratuitous sort though. Spielberg did not make the violence and gore for the purpose of entertainment. It is instead as realistic as you can imagine, and draws the audience in to the scene, capturing the imagination, and churning our stomachs. But the violence is counterbalanced by the beautiful French country-side, a wonderful plot, and characters that that are well developed to the point that we as an audience are heartbroken at every death, and elated by every act of heroism.



“Saving Private Ryan” is not just a war movie. There are plenty of movies out there that exist on the raw battles and action scenes with little character development. Here there is an excellent combination of the two. Each action scene is well balanced by great dialogue that connects the audience to the individual characters. In just a few lines, and short scenes we see a fully developed human being in each character. I wasn’t forced to watch three hours of people being shot and blown up only to wonder if I really cared who lived and who died. Instead every one of the main characters had qualities that made them whole individuals and not just cannon fodder for the screen.



The movie starts off with the most heartrending war scene ever depicted in a motion picture. The action is chaotic and senseless. The audience feels like they are running onto Omaha beach themselves, lost in the spray of German machineguns. It is the scariest, most thrilling 30 minutes of war footage ever depicted, and also manages to build the characters we come to love through the duration of the film.



Tom Hanks leads a group of seven other men through Nazi occupied France looking for Private Ryan. Their mission is to find and extract Private Ryan, who has earned a ticket home through the death of his other three brothers in different parts of the war in a three week period. The eight men can all see the ridiculousness of their mission. Risk eight lives for one? A complete waste of men, right? This emotional struggle runs throughout the film as disaster strikes the men at every turn. Spielberg is not afraid to let our heroes die, and each death felt like I lost a personal friend, a man that I admired through all his weaknesses. These are not super heroes, but sons and brothers, fathers and husbands, and while watching I found that these were men I could relate with, and each one was someone who was making the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of others.



Saving Private Ryan is a film that I would not have missed for the world. It is exciting, full of excellently written dialogue and took me on the emotional roller coaster that I crave in good film making. I enjoyed almost everything about the film, and while it is violent beyond any proportions I have ever seen “Saving Private Ryan” is still a beautiful film that earns a 9.8 out of 10 in my book. If the violence had been toned down a hair it would have been a 10 out of 10, that is my only complaint.

I laughed, I cried, I loved “Saving Privet Ryan.”

Sex/nudity – 2 out of 10 - There are a few sexual references and two men tell stories from home that involves a little sexuality.

Violence/Gore – 10 out of 10 – it is war, it is violent, if it can happen it does. It is very realistic, but not for the purpose of entertainment, more for the purpose of showing the horrors of war.

Profanity – 7 out of 10 – 20 to 25 ‘F’ words and quite a few other swear words.

Ghosts of Girlfreinds Past - Formulaic but Funny

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

Director: Mark Waters

Starring: Mathew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Michael Douglas

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sexual content throughout, some language and a drug reference.

The director of “Freaky Friday”, “Mean Girls”, and “Just Like Heaven” brings us another fun little romantic comedy that uses Charles Dickens’ classic “A Christmas Carol” as a frame for the womanizing Mathew McConaughey to fall in love again. He is the Scrooge, and love is bah humbug. But he is taken on the journey of the classic fairy tale meeting his womanizing uncle, Michael Douglas playing the Jacob Marley style character, and shown his misdeeds to women’s hearts. Of course it is not the very active sex life he is condemned for, no sex is okay, but it is the toying with women’s hearts that he is to blame for. No one ever seems to get the point that flagrant pre-marital sex and heartache go hand in hand and as the many loose women fail to realize, the cause of their grief is their eagerness to screw the hottest thing on the market, hoping he will treat them differently than all the other women he has left alone after a one night stand.



This is a very sexual comedy that does what most Hollywood films continue to do, blur the lines of casual sex, love, and marriage. Of course the final theme is that true happiness is monogamous love, but that is found only after years of casual sex and flagrant promiscuity. In fact promiscuity is the prevailing theme and as the many women McConaughey seduces complain about his arrogant and womanizing ways, they also remark how they sure wouldn’t mind another roll in the hay, keeping it causal though, cause that is okay.

“Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is a decent film as far as laughs and heart go. It is pretty cookie cutter on two fields though. One is that it has everything any adaptation of Dickens’ classic has, including waking up the next morning and asking a little boy outside if it is Christmas, and two there is everything a wedding disaster film has including a psychotic bride and a ruined cake. The film follows each mold precisely, hoping no one notices the aged formula through the camouflage of plunging necklines, blunt sexual dialogue, and bantering.



There is not much acting involved in this film. No one stretches to change character at all. Jennifer Garner is smart and sexy as any heroine in a romantic comedy must be. She is fun and flirty, and likeable, but nothing new or different than any other movie...except “Elektra” but that was terrible and we will pretend it never happened. Mathew McConaughey is equally as entertaining as Jenifer Gardner and is as cookie cutter as they come. Anyone in fact looking for any kind of interesting acting choices should look elsewhere , but of course that is not who this film is marketed to.



This is a fun little date movie, but its heavy sexual themes might be a little turn off for some. The sexuality is not easily edited form the film, and for those who prefer clearplay and the like, this might be one to avoid totally. For those who enjoy the slightly more scandalous they may enjoy this fun twist on “A Christmas Carol” though it is definitely not a Christmas movie. We have a 6 out of 10, until the film tries to end and bumps its self to a 5.6 or so just for some really dumb closing choices. It is a fun date for the ladies, but nothing to satisfy the real movie lovers.



Sex/Nudity - 7 out of 10 – There are a lot of cleavage, women in underwear, and sexual situations. A man speaks rather bluntly to different women trying to get them to sleep with him. There is no actual nudity, but some kissing and heavy petting and implied sex.

Violence/Gore – 2 out of 10 – A man hits another man. A man his slapped by a few women. A man is thrown into a grave and dirt is dumped on him(this is a dream like sequence).

Profanity – 5 out of 10 – There is a ton of sexual dialogue, and about 50 or so obscenities including religious exclamations and name calling.

Green Zone, Visually Interesting, Emotionally Empty

Green Zone

Director – Paul Greengrass

Starring – Matt Damon, Amy Ryan, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleeson, and Jason Issacs

MPAA: Rated R for violence and language

Director Paul Greengrass might have done a lot better here had he teamed up with Oscar winning Kathryn Bigelow director of the Hurt Locker. I have to compare the two films because both are Iraq War films, but one was far superior. The Green Zone is a decent film but from the get go fails to really establish a link between the audience and the characters. There is decent action, but rarely was I on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen. In The Hurt Locker Bigelow blows away her one A-list actor in the first 10 minutes, making viewers believe there is a chance that no one is going home in her film. Green Zone does not have that kind of suspense.

Greengrass does do a great job with his classic gritty swinging camera shots he made famous in the last two Bourne films. It makes the action a little chaotic but ads to the tension of the scenes; but compared to the second Bourne film the cameras in Green Zone were practically standing still, so sea sickness is not a problem at all for viewers. Also there is an interesting use of the night vision lighting that makes the picture very graining in some shots. This adds a gritty feel to the harsh condition of a bombed out Iraq.



The movie begins in 2003 as America bombs Baghdad at the beginning of the invasion on the pretence of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program. Matt Damon is a Chief Warrant Officer in the US Army charged with finding said weapons. It seems though that every piece of intel takes them to another empty site, void of any WMD (side note the acronym WMD was said so many times it almost got on my nerves, is there really no other way to say it?). The film turns into a manhunt for the mysterious Iraqi contact who knows the truth behind WMD in Iraq.

This plot twist puts Jason Issacs – whose vicious role as the British rebel hunter in “The Patriot” is comparable to this part in Green Zone as an angry and determined intelligence officer set on finding and killing this Iraqi leak – up against the more gentle Matt Damon, who wants to bring in the source and expose the lie about WMD. This could have been an interesting matchup of two brilliant actors, but there was little time to develop any characters in the film as most of the dialogue was shouted or whispered quickly over while actors ran through alleys, hurried down stairs, and rushed to important meetings. A little tension was built, but the lack of development kept me aloof as an audience member.

This movie makes you wonder about its use of British star power with American accents. Issacs and Gleeson (both with Harry Potter credits to their names) have good American accents, but it is the English accents that make them so much fun to watch. Issacs did an excellent job in his role as a sadistic soldier, but Gleeson seemed underused. He was not very interesting at all really. “The Office’s” Amy Ryan (Michael Scott’s HR rep and girlfriend Holly) has a bit part here, but doesn’t do much to add to the film either. Greg Kinnear does a decent job here, but again there is so little connection to the characters the filmmakers had to get popular names in order for the audience to have any emotional connection at all. Even Damon’s character was nothing out of the ordinary.

In brief Green Zone is a so-so war flick, that is really only worth a single viewing and even that viewing wasn’t all that interesting. I’ll give it a 6 out of 10 because while the filming was interesting and the plot was a unique take on the mystery behind our invasion of Iraq, the lack of connection with characters kept me from riding the emotional roller coaster I so enjoy when watching a movie.



Sex/Nudity – 1 out of 10 – We see some men and women in bathing suits at a swimming pool and a lady in a slightly cleavage revealing shirt.

Violence/Gore – 7 out of 10 – Violence in this film is very PG-13. I would have no problems having my teenager watch this film as far as violence and gore goes. There is a lot of shooting, but relatively little gore accompanying it. It is a tasteful war movie free from the splattering blood found in most films of its genre. There are a few gun fights, some people get gunned down, there is a little bit of splattering blood.

Profanity – 30 to 40 F-words with about 30 other obscenities including 10 religious obscenities.