Angels & Demons

I thought The Da Vinci Code was moderately palatable. Nothing spectacular. Which is why I was surprised to see a sequel. The film made lots of money but just was not that good. Why someone chose to make a sequel is beyond my understanding. Angels & Demons was a waste of time. Of course, I watched it during an international flight...so I had nothing better to do.

Angels & Demonsis bad on many levels. Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, who has been summoned to the Vatican to help solve the kidnapping of several Cardinals following the untimely death of the Pope. In a contrived and completely unbelievable turn of events, Langdon finds himself at the middle of a conspiracy within the Church. Langdon has a somewhat apostate view of church affairs so an intended irony exists in his effort to save the Institution while attempting to save the lives of thousands of residents and visitors to the Holy See (and surrounding area). The plot manages to squeeze and stretch reality with an impossible time line that often seems laughable. While solving Da Vinci Code-like riddles, Langdon manages to unravel the location where each Cardinal will be assassinated while trying to get ahead of the killer and solve the broader mystery. Langdon does not realize that he is a pawn who has been brought in to further the conspiracy.



This is where the plot really loses me. The plot relies heavily on Langdons ability to solve the mystery within an incredibly tight time line. There is also a scene where Langdon could easily have lost his life, in which case the broader plot could not have evolved properly and the entire elaborate set-up would have been for naught. There were other inconsistencies in the plot that just seemed to incredible...like managing to get a helicopter on stand-by in the courtyard of the Vatican within minutes. Even a carefully orchestrated plot would fail to execute a time line so quickly and precisely...depending on such minute details as another individuals ability to string together riddles and solve them...just one minute one way or the other changes the outcome. Not likely.

The characters in Angels & Demons are woefully bad. The characters are flat and predictable. The stereotypes would probably create outrage in communities other than the Christian (Catholic) Church. I was shocked at how blatantly religious considerations were disregarded with complete impunity. I am not Catholic and was not offended by the film personally. But I could easily see how someone could find the material offensive. Not simply because of the conspiracy and behind the scenes politics demonstrated in the film, but by the treatment of several of the characters, who are one-dimensional caricatures. It seemed like some liberty may have also been taken with historical facts.

Read More About Angels And Demons

Intacto

While searching for an interesting title to watch, I came across Intacto. The premise immediately captured my attention. Unfortunately, the concept was not executed as well as it could have been. Intacto exercises a premise where all people possess a certain amount of luck…most people very little. Those people are sort of pawns, whose photographs can be exploited to increase the power of those who possess them. Others possess a great deal of luck and can draw more luck from those around them. Whether they steal the luck of fellow passengers on a plummeting aircraft or inadvertently consume the luck of close family members in a fleeting moment of crisis. Either way, their ability to take the luck of persons less lucky makes the idea of luck more a commodity to be bartered away or taken with a touch rather than being a possession of the fickle wind of fate.



The idea of presenting luck in this manner is unique to me. I don’t recall having seen a storyline quite like this one. The plot was hard to follow at times, with subtlety being used to convey sometimes ambiguous ideas, which made things hard to follow. The pacing was seldom sluggish, but did bog down at times. The characters were well developed and interesting. The background on several characters was developed slowly, with biographies evolving during the course of the film. The rich and diverse characters, each with a gift that might be a curse, were believable within the context of the film. An undercurrent of love was threaded throughout the film leading to a theme that questioned which was stronger, luck or love. The ending was thoughtful, avoiding the easy path and allowing some interpretation.

I am unfamiliar with the work of Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and did not recognize the majority of the cast. The film sets seemed prop-ish at times, but was at its best when highlighting the rich architecture and gorgeous Spanish scenery. The film keeps viewers guessing a great deal, which was part of the films appeal. However, the sketchy nature of some of the exchanges was almost too cryptic. The themes were evident, but this is a film that needs to be watched over again to catch the minutia. Fresnadillo also co-wrote the film with Andres M. Koppel. The cast consisted of Leonaro Sbaraglia, Eusebio Poncela, Monica Lopez, Antonio Dechent, Max von Sydow (a face I recognized), Guillermo Toledo, Alber Ponte, Andrea San Vincente, Marisa Lull, Luis Mesonero, Jaime Losada and Susana Lazaro. The interaction of these players was convincing, even when I felt utterly confused, picking up the action piece by piece, where I could. Although sub-titled through a good portion of the film, the acting was convincing.

Read More About Intacto

Lions For Lambs

Lions For Lambs presents an overlapping drama that follows three story lines. The film attempts to challenge the conduct of the "War on Terror" through by tracking dialogue between a reporter and rising Senator, a Professor and a promising student, and two students who previously studied under the professor, who are involved in escalating operations in Afghanistan. The intertwining stories attempt to take an anti-war stance in a rather sophomoric plot that seems more preachy than touching. This film would have been more effective using a subtle message than to stand on a soapbox the way that this film manages to do. I watched it for entertainment...if I want a sermon, I can go to church for free.

There are several problems with the plot. The most glaring issue is the ending, which was both anti-climactic as well as boring. It seemed the writers used an unimaginative ending that was intended to be thought provoking in one aspect, and cliche in another. The ending left me wondering why I wasted 88 minutes on an unintelligent, unoriginal propaganda piece. The dialogue was okay at times, and utterly boring at others. The acting was shockingly bad. The major actors were upstaged by their unknown counterparts in this film. The segments that focused on the professor (Robert Redford) and his prize student (Andrew Garfield) felt more like an after school special than anything. However, Garfield was surprisingly likable and sharp in his role. The storyline between the Senator (Tom Cruise) and reporter (Meryl Streep) was a yawner...I've seen soap operas with more meat to them. Streep delivered on the emotional aspects surrounding her own inner turmoil, but the script left her with very little else to work with. The best segments surrounded the action in Afghanistan between friends (Michael Pena and Derek Luke). Although the special effects were laughable, the interaction between these two young actors was excellent. They were the bright spot in an otherwise forgettable film.



Lions For Lambs attempts to bring home the human side of the war through the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But Director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan spent too much energy focused on the message and missed the opportunity to develop the action in Afghanistan. The two characters seemed genuine, with a back story that provided some depth to the characters, as well. The briefing room scene felt authentic and started to draw me in at the beginning of the film. But once the pair get on a helicopter, the opportunity seemed squandered. The action sequences were incredibly fake as was one characters decision to jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the mountains. No way. No how. The fact that he lands feet from his friend (and they both live) is even harder to swallow. The scenery for the rest of the action in Afghanistan seems like a bad Hollywood set. The low lighting was incapable of adding any realism to the scene. The ending of that segment was even harder to accept. Things just don't happen that way. The fact that Redford included induction notices for the two...when the draft hasn't been around for decades was another not-so-subtle attempt to engage in hyperbole.

The storyline involving Redford was preachy and a bit condescending. Although Redford's character (Professor Malley) claims to encourage free thinking and stimulate discussion (which was a major theme in this film...one that it failed to observe)...his comments about the two soldiers in Afghanistan are a bit disturbing. Malley passes judgment on the two, summarizing their decision as a mistake...a wrong path chosen...and he accepts some of the "blame" for their decision. What is wrong with wanting to serve your country or make a decision to join the military. Many people would not consider that decision a "mistake," they would consider it patriotic or heroic. The judgmental language with no attempt at balance undermined the entire train of thought. The quality of the writing and video in this segment felt like an after school special. I disliked almost everything about that entire section of the movie.

Read More About Lions For Lambs

District 9

"Prawns" have a strange affinity for cat food and rubber. An odd diet for an alien species that resemble their seafood moniker both in appearance as well as reputation (as bottom feeders). Their spaceship first appeared in the skies above Johannesburg, South Africa two decades ago. After months of waiting, contact was finally made. The aliens were in a sad state of malnutrition and severely disoriented. After relocating the colony to a ghetto located beneath the ship, their numbers quickly multiplied to nearly two million. Their idea of fun is our idea of havoc. They quickly wore out their welcome.

So what do you do with a colony of aliens that seem to be worker drones who are easily duped into anything? Other than their ability to create weapons, which are biologically engineered (meaning they can only be fired by fingers that contain alien DNA...they really have no purpose than breeding, scavenging and causing problems. Of course you have the Nigerians who exploit their ingenuity for weapons they cannot use...and the government, who conducts endless experiments...but life is pretty drab. That is, until a relocation effort gets under way, spoiling the plans of the one mastermind hidden among the race.



Throw in a do-gooder (Wikus Van De Merwe, played by Sharlto Copley) who works for the government and is tasked with creating the legal mechanism for the relocation. Through a series of mishaps, Van De Merwe ends ups up needing the assistance of the conniving prawn mastermind. The two team up to take on both the government and the Nigerian posse who all have an intense interest in our lowly G-Man, Wikus. The action-packed sequences the two engage in end in an anti-climatic final act that left me scratching my head.

It is hard for me to complain about the writing in a film when it includes concepts that haven't played out a hundred times elsewhere. Although this film borrows from others before it, the look was fresh and felt original. But there were huge problems with the plot, the most glaring being the fact that I felt cheated. The abrupt ending seemed to point toward a sequel and failed to tie up loose ends. But, if you accept the film as the beginning of a trilogy, then the sudden ending might not be so bad. But there were other problems. You have weapons that are useless to anyone but an alien. The warlord collecting the alien weaponry seems to be a bit consumed by the creatures which could explain his exploitation of the aliens for weapons that are junk to him. But that plot line often felt contrived and stretched to its limits. The idea that the prawns were capable of creating such intricate weaponry, as well as the immense intellect of the main alien character seemed contradictory to me. I had a hard time accepting the major elements of the plot.

The dialogue was interesting, largely because of the excellent locale chosen for the backdrop. The rich dialects were showcased at times, in a documentary type narrative that sometimes included sub-titles for the odd inflection and cadence of the actors (as well as the alien clicking...which reminded me of the dialect featured in The Gods Must Be Crazy). Although the dialogue was rich, the characters were rather flat and predictable. Wikus was quirky and interesting, but beyond his part, the rest were boring.

Read More About District 9

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds appealed to me from the very first trailer I viewed. The limited scenes of Brad Pitt cast as a gritty countrified team leader of a band of Jewish Americans chosen to hunt and kill gnat-zees piqued my interest immediately. Often, trailers are a tease, often giving viewers the best two minutes in the movie, but falling far short of the hype. I am happy to report that Inglourious Basterds manages to maintain the sharp dialogue and exceptional acting visible in the trailers for the entire 153 minute duration of the film. It really did not fell like a two and a half hour movie.

Inglourious Basterds takes certain liberties with the real history of World War II to bring us the story of a misfit part-Apache Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Al-do is tasked with training a team to drop behind enemy lines in France, where they ruthlessly kill and maim German soldiers. Their reputation as vicious killers quickly spreads amongst the German soldiers. When a twist of fate has Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) holding his film premiere at a French Theater, several plot lines head toward a collision course. The theater owner, Shoshonna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) had escaped four years earlier from the brutal "Jew Hunter" Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz). Colonel Landa ends up running security for the premiere. The star of the premiere, Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) is smitten with the beautiful Shoshonna, whose attempts to rebuff him are futile. A famous German actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), who works as a double-agent, has agreed to get the Basterds into the premiere so they can kill the Nazis...while Shoshonna has developed her own plan. The elements are carefully constructed culminating in a climax with an interesting but enjoyable twist at the end. So, Tarantino took liberties with history to devlier an action-packed and incredibly fun (and violent) film...it was worth it.



One thing I enjoy about Quentin Tarantino films is the dialogue. It is easy to get hung up on expressions or langauge that are comfortable. Tarantino doesn't find comfort zones, he challenges them. That gives Tarantino an open palate upon which to create his characters and dialogue. The characters are unique and intersting (although maybe a bit one-dimensional). But the dialogue is rich with intersting expressions and exceptional one-liners. The film had elements of graphic novel and spaghetti western thrown in to create a very unique look and feel that had Tarantino written all over it. Even the plot managed to catch me looking the other way. I guessed the ending about one minute before it happened.

Growing up, my favorite actor was Clint Eastwood (I was happy to see his Gran Torino earlier this year...likely his last film). I have never adjusted my icon for another Hollywood hero. I finally find myself seriously considering replacing Eastwood with Brad Pitt. I know the girls like Pitt simply because he's Brad Pitt. I have been a fan of Pitt's work, but his latest films have shown an incredible adaptability and range. In Inglourious Basterds, Pitt has outdone himself. I would never have read the script for this film and thought...that sounds like an excellent role for Brad Pitt. I would have looked for an older, grittier actor like the guys from the Dirty Dozen. Someone cast in the mold of Charles Bronson. Brad Pitt hit this one out of the park. He was unbelievably credible as the tough-as-nails ruthlessly violent Lieutenant. Bravo, Brad.

After slathering on that kind of praise for Pitt's performance, would it be fair for me to claim that Pitt was, at times, upstaged by the exceptionally deviant performance of Waltz as Colonel Landa? Where Pitt showed broad appeal, Landa brought scheming trickery layered with a heavy dose of self-preservation. The vile back-stabbing brand of preservation. Waltz was uncanny at times, combining cunning and violence to create a character that was the eseence of dishonor. Waltz was equally superb in this film. I was surprised to Mike Meyers in the film, in a cameo as British OSS or Military Intelligence. I thought Meyers might bring some comedy to the role, but his part was rather small and uneventful...no knock on his performance. Sgt Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger) gets his own "back story" in this film. Schweiger was a credibly ruthless Nazi killer. The cast was superb top to bottom.

Read More About Inglourious Basterds

The Last Mistress

Steamy sex scenes are always a good sell...at least towards those audiences who appreciate a little bit of tastefully revealed skin. Okay, maybe not even tasteful...tawdry sex scenes in a credible setting make you feel better about the voyeuristic nature of watching the deed on film. Even if you know that the scene is simulated...it can be, well...titillating. By setting The Last Mistress in the 19th Century, I guess it makes the sex scenes art. And I guess that makes me a connoisseur.

The sex scenes were really the highlight for me in this otherwise drab film. The concept held promise but was poorly executed. A young stud, Ryno de Marigny (Fu'ad Ait Aattou), carries on an affair for nearly a decade before marrying a rich heiress (Hermangarde, played by Roxane Mesquida), to whom he professes his true love. The relationships between the trio are explored ad naseum through first-hand experiences and rumor-mongering and manipulation of other aristocrats too familiar with the trio.



The plot was okay...sort of a star-crossed love story with some tragedy thrown in. The use of flashbacks kept the pacing of the story moving when it was prone to become sluggish, but the overall story lacked relevance. There was nothing in the characters that captivated me or caused me connect with the film. The story was rather average, the characters bland and predictable and the attention to detail a bit flawed. I will give the film a nod for dialogue that was often interesting or at least unique. I did not find the overall theme of the film to have credibility. The major theme of the movie seemed contradictory to me. I have not read the book (Une Vieille Maîtresse written in 1851 by Jules-Amédée Barbey d'Aurevilly) upon which this film was based. I think that this may definitely be one of those situations where the novel was better than the film.

The acting was tolerable, but not exceptional. I thought Aattou was okay in the lead role or Ryno, but not stellar. I really did not care for Asia Argento as Vellini, the mistress. Mesquida was nearly invisible as Hermangarde, really only around to pout here and there. It was almost as if her part were an afterthought at times. Ryno spends far more time in dialogue with her grandmother. The supporting cast were solid, but the bulk of the film concentrated on the ebb and flow relationship between Aattou and Argento. I did not feel that their chemistry was convincing.

Read More About The Last Mistress

I'm Through With White Girls

I'm Through With White Girls, on the surface, seems to be a story filled with characters with racial identities that break stereotypes or fail to find a pigeon hole in any particular niche. Although this film is as much comedy as it is drama, the underlying story seems to be about finding your own identity and not changing yourself to fit somebody else's definition. The racial identity crises in this film provide the platform for interesting antics and fun word play.

Courtney Lilly has done some writing for television sitcoms, with I'm Through With White Girls standing as the only screenplay contribution. Lilly must have had fun preparing this script, which contains an interesting and eclectic array of characters with endless quirks. Although the dialogue is serious when it needs to be, Lilly maximizes the characters and situations to have fun with the dialogue. The exchanges were funny but still believable within the context that Lilly creates. Director Jennifer Sharp did an excellent job of bringing together Lilly's script with an excellent cast of characters to deliver a polished enjoyable film.

I'm Through With White Girls tells the story of a black bachelor, Jay Brooks (Anthony Montgomery), who has tastes that stereo-typically run white. Jay likes super heroes, indie rock and white girls. His string of bad luck with white girls (who he never really seems to be able to break up with...instead he sort of avoids them) leads to a mission known as "Operation Brown Sugar." Jay is convinced that he needs to meet a black woman in order to end his unlucky streak. An awkward beginning with an aspiring writer, Catherine Williamson (Lia Johnson) leads to the development of a promising relationship.



Jay seems unsure how to progress in his relationship with Catherine, who has her own race-defying quirks. Catherine is afraid of public speaking, due in large part to her valley girl accent. Jay acts supportive, but over analyzes his relationships, choosing not to read Catherine's book, in spite of his outward support for her. Jay's underlying problem stems from what seems to be a fear of commitment. As things take a serious turn it becomes too much for him and he tries to bail on the relationship before having a change of heart. However, Catherine discovers some things that Jay has been hiding and the cover up leads the two to part ways. Can Jay undo the damage? You'll just have to rent the movie to find out.

Lia Johnson was phenomenal. Her acting was credible, bringing broad dimensions to her unique character. Johnson completely sold her part. Montgomery had a "Raj" from "What's Happenin'" thing going on. It was a little distracting at first, because I kept expecting "Rerun" to show up and steal the scene. After getting past the "Raj" thing, I had to applaud Montgomery for his role as well. It has to be difficult to balance racial identity quirks with reality to deliver a character that does not become too cartoonish. Both actors sold their parts, creating balanced, deep individuals that had unique but credible traits. The two also had excellent chemistry. Jay's fried in the movie (Matt) was played by Ryan Alosio. His character also experienced some racial issues, but came across to me as a bit contrived. He was very "Vanilla Ice" in this film. Maybe it was intentional, but it seemed cheesy to me. The rest of the cast contained some well known actors and actresses (it took me a minute to place Johnny Brown, who played Bookman on "Good Times.") The supporting cast was superb.

Read More About I'm Through With White Girls