Pavel-8 Reviews

Juno (2007)

Cute and likable.

[7/10 · 18 January 2008]

Independent films are an interesting breed. Made outside the mainstream studio structure, the best ones compensate for their lower production value with a better story and characters. Every year an indie or two does captures the collective fascination of critics and the public by doing so. This year's darling is "Juno", the name of the newly pregnant teenage girl around whom the simple story revolves.

Like many such films, "Juno's" strengths lie in its unique characters. Foremost among them is the titular one, who has a singular vernacular and attitude that carries the movie. As she decides what to do with the child, she must also deal with the various reactions from her family and friends. But rather than become depressed or reclusive, Juno instead chooses a positive approach, dealing with her issues directly and responsibly. This leads to a relatively sunny take on subjects often approached in a dark or politically charged manner. The movie does tell you what to think about issues; it does not argue strongly either way; it just tells you what characters are doing, and gives a little of their rationale, somewhat like Clint Eastwood's phenomenal "Million Dollar Baby" a few years back.

On one hand, making light of serious situations like abortion and divorce feels wrong. Conversely, the ability and opportunity to laugh at potentially overbearing situations is a relief, and it is part of what makes us human. While such reactions likely would not be appropriate in reality, movies are not reality, but an escape in which a little levity is more than appropriate.

From the guitar-laced harmonic strains of its soundtrack to the aforementioned quirky characters, "Juno" is a quintessential indie flick. Like "Garden State", it has a few transcendent glimpses into the human soul, but they are too few and far between to carry the movie to extreme heights. Like "Little Miss Sunshine", it places quirky characters into unusual and often comic circumstances, but the humorous moments here do not approach the hilarity of "Little Miss Sunshine". Most of the comedy is based upon the unique dialogue or the continual series of culture clashes between Juno and everyone, which are amusing throughout.

Some critics (Roger Ebert) are hailing "Juno" as the year's best film, which is a drastic overstatement. Such grand labels are a joke, and a statement on how monotonous comedies have become. Its ipseity amidst the dramatic leanings of most Oscar contenders makes the movie better and more enjoyable than it actually should be. Juno is a cool breeze drifting through an open window, not an eye-popping blast from the air conditioner. It is enjoyable and well-crafted, not the best film of the year, maybe a fringe contender for the top ten.

Bottom Line: The movie is equivalent to its main character: cute and likable, but lacking in a few areas. Recommended primarily for indie fans. 7 of 10.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

[8/10 · 28 December 2007]

"No Country for Old Men" is a not an over-hyped blockbuster movie. If you have seen the trailer, you probably thought it looked rather strange. You would be right, but in a wonderful way.

The movie is difficult to pigeonhole, but the story, set in 1980 in rural Texas, is fairly straightforward. Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss, a rugged native who stumbles across a deserted murder scene where he discovers and absconds with a case full of money. From that point on, two men head up two very different methods of pursuit. Tommy Lee Jones is small town sheriff Ed Tom Bell (phenomenal name), who is trying to figure out what happened. Javier Bardem, whom you might recognize from "The Sea Inside" or a small role in "Collateral", is a ferociously single-minded individual who has been hired by less than scrupulous people to track down the missing cash.

The movie is directed by the Coen Brothers, who have put together high quality offbeat films like "O Brother Where Art Thou", "Fargo", and "Blood Simple". In those movies and many of their others, the brothers combine familiar movie elements into a single amalgam that defies being defined as a single genre. With "No Country for Old Men", they have done the same thing, creating a movie that might be best described as a neo-western. Its deliberate pace, scenic framing, and South Texas location call to mind classic westerns. The tagline for the movie is that "There are no clean getaways," which implies that this is a heist movie. There are parts of that genre, and there are major components of a chase picture, all tweaked to fit the technologically crude era of 1980.

Now, that's the setup, but is this offbeat movie any good? The critics sure think so. Plenty of critics societies have already named this the best picture of 2007, including groups from from New York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, D.C., and the National Board of Review. It's also probably the current favorite to win the Best Picture Oscar, for praiseworthy reasons that are easy to spot and completely justified.

The three lead performances have grabbed the headlines, and understandably so. Javier Bardem is absolutely terrifying in his atypical villainous role. There is no gimmicky mask or superpower, just pure evil. With merely a look or a stride, he exudes menace, more force of nature than mere bad guy. He is a bad dude, both fantastic and frightening. Because Bardem is so good, he overshadows Josh Brolin, who disappears into his self-confident Texas denizen, playing the chasee with a confidence that makes him an excellent anti-hero. Tommy Lee Jones is stellar as usual. He embodies a world-weary sheriff with one of the best combinations of drawl and lingo that you will ever hear. His drawl is accompanied by a script that is taken in large part directly from the book on which the film is based. The words are rife with a vernacular that could not be more perfect, eliciting grins from the viewer with both their humor and suitability. Even when you don't know what is said, you know precisely what it means. Of these three turns, Bardem has won many awards already, and will almost certainly be nominated for and win an Academy Award. Even though Brolin and Jones have not yet received many accolades, both are worthy of such honors; the problem being that that they are frequently eclipsed by Bardem's chilling portrayal.

Due to the magnetic acting of the leads and the character actors, who are great as they look and sound as though they have spent their entire lives baking in the dry heat near the Mexican border, the movie is extremely compelling despite a deliberate pace and almost no background music during its two-hour running length. Most chase-type movies are fast-paced and action-packed, leaving little time for suspense to grow; this is the opposite. There are no quick-cutting action scenes, but instead heart-pounding scenes that slowly ramp up the tension. Those intense parts are complemented by quieter scenes of conversation or investigation that maintain a foreboding dramatic undertone of upcoming conflict. While the film loses some of its building momentum late in the story, and the denouement does not quite match the brilliance of the preceding hundred minutes, the closing moments remain appropriate for a movie that doesn't offer any easy questions or answers.

All in all, this is a movie that is definitely worthy of the countless honors that it is receiving from critics across the country. Assuming the writer's strike doesn't waylay the Oscars, I suspect that this will be the front-runner for Best Picture, and I'd bet a good chunk of money that Bardem will snag a Best Supporting Actor trophy. His performance and the film on the whole stand out from the year's crowd and are worth seeing, not for the popcorn movie crowd, but for fans of good, well-crafted cinema and story-telling.

Bottom Line: One of the best of the year. 8 of 10.

I Am Legend (2007)

You are not alone.

[7/10 · 28 December 2007]

"I Am Legend" debuted with a monstrous $77 million weekend, but is an atypical Will Smith blockbuster, largely bereft of the slam-bang action and/or comedy common to his big movies like "Men in Black" or "Enemy of the State".

As learned from the tagline and excellent first trailer, the premise is simple: Smith is Dr. Robert Neville, the last man left in a desolate New York City, but he is not alone. Someone or something lingers, a mystery that drives the first hour, which is absolutely fantastic. With the exception of a few flashbacks that gradually answer the hows and whys generated by the plot progression, Smith interacts with no one except Sam, his loyal German Shepherd.

In this regard, "I Am Legend" is a cousin to the amazing "Cast Away". While their respective tones are drastically different, both are set on islands void of humanity. Instead of a volleyball, Smith anthropormorphizes a dog. Hanks wrestled with inner demons on his deserted island, Smith confronts outer demons of some sort. The difference in supplies is noteworthy, and the two main characters are driven by widely disparate motivations, but the isolated survival instinct is similar, and watching Smith stretch himself as an actor is extremely enjoyable. Smith's character still possesses elements of the cocky, wise-cracking nature that moviegoers know well, but with merely a glance or a twitch, his confident veneer often cracks to reveal the effects of his time spent alone. Seeing that uncharacteristic vulnerability is initially disorienting, because we're not used to seeing a hero crack like this, but the awkwardness soon yields to awe at the powerhouse solo performance.

Aside from Smith's turn, the highlights of the movie are the breathtaking shots of a desolate New York City. We've seen the empty streets of a booming metropolis before, in movies like "Vanilla Sky" and "28 Days Later", but this is different. Not only is everything deserted, but also overgrown and eroded by nature and time. The minimal music and slow-moving cameras allow for an eerie and appropriate quiet within the movie, creating a game of I Spy in which one's eyes dart about, searching for familiar landmarks like Jumbotrons or Broadway signs.

The only downside to all this quality is that it doesn't last throughout the entire movie. Without giving too much away, I can say that following a key plot development, the third and final act transforms into a more familiar, action-type of movie, leading to a finale that satisfies, but doesn't quite match the preceding hour-plus. This dissonance is very reminiscent of 2004's "Collateral", which similarly enthralled throughout before wimping out at the end, like a color scheme that matches at first glance but clashes upon closer inspection.

If you know what you are in for, you will enjoy the movie more thoroughly. "I Am Legend" is much more "Cast Away" than "Independence Day", more "Signs" than "Bad Boys". In his best performance yet, Will Smith proves that he has the acting chops to match his pretty face and ripped physique, deepening his own cinematic legend as he frequently carries this movie to great heights.

Bottom Line: Two-thirds of a great movie plus one-third of an average movie equals a good movie. 7 of 10.

The Mist (2007)

Do you have any hope at all in humanity?

[7/10 · 28 December 2007]

I haven't read any of Stephen King's books or stories, but I have learned two things from his movies. He possesses phenomenal insight into the human mind, and he is a freak. "The Mist" proves both points fully with a simple story: a mist engulfs a small New England town, and a few dozen of its denizens are isolated in a grocery store, forced to deal with enemies both outside and inside the store, both strange and familiar.

The best and brilliant parts of "The Mist" are the explorations into the psyche of the various trapped townsfolk. If someone's character is truly exposed when under pressure, then the extreme circumstances of this movie strip souls down to their essences, with frightening results. There are heroes and villains, leaders and followers, stalwarts and cowards. In previous uses of King's source material, writer/director Frank Darabont burrowed into the heart of hope in "The Shawshank Redemption" and delved into faith and the supernatural with "The Green Mile". Both movies placed normal people into extreme circumstances, and did so exceptionally well. In that general thematic regard, Mist is similar to those two excellent films. More specifically though, it varies greatly, stressing the negative aspects of humanity rather than positive traits. Along the way, plenty of complex issues arise, and they are most frequently addressed with a rough, dull blade that gashes boldly through the moral fiber of civilization. The results are rarely pretty, but always compelling.

Lest you think this is a philosophical art house movie, let it be known that as a horror flick, independent of any deeper meaning, "Mist" consistently entertains, with a handful of superb knuckle-whitening scenes enhanced by an excellent cast. But a dark decision in the final act makes it impossible for even the most casual moviegoer to completely ignore the thick subtext of King and Darabont.

What prevents "The Mist" from being a great movie is the frayed nature of that subtext. While the story is rife with interesting points, the commentary fails to coagulate into a comprehensible bigger picture. In a sense though, the fractured themes better befit such a moody picture, one that strikes its audience at many levels, leaving the mind spinning in a mist of its own.

Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for a movie far smarter and deeper than the glut of recent horror releases.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

I remember everything

[8/10 · 28 December 2007]

One of better movie series of the last decades possibly concludes with the release of "The Bourne Ultimatum", the third movie that follows super-secret spy/assassin Jason Bourne as he attempts to track down his past against the wishes of the United States government that trained him. The original, "The Bourne Identity", was one of the best pure action movie in recent years. The sequel, 2004's "Bourne Supremacy", was unsure and not quite as polished, but still solid. Now comes the series third installment, which just about wraps up the summer movie season.

The storyline follows a natural progression from the previous two movies. Now that Bourne has figured out who he is now and atoned somewhat for his sins, he wants to know who he was. In order to do that, he must race the government to various people who know the secrets behind his black-ops work.

Few cinematic characters are as perfect for action movies as Jason Bourne, from both an action and narrative standpoint. As he learns his past, he takes the audience along for the ride. But that process is not tedious backstory or mediocre character development, as is often the case in such movies. Instead, his quest is the story, which makes for a rapid-fire flick that simultaneously entertains and enlightens. Matt Damon's determined yet understated demeanor is ideal for the role, and the no-frills approach never distracts from a driving story that is filled with plenty of high-tech action.

In a lesser movie, the technological implausibilities might weaken the movie or distract from the storyline. But "Ultimatum" dodged that bullet in two ways. First, the story moves quickly enough that the viewer barely has time to think about what might or might not work before the flick is on to the next frenetic sequence. Secondly, the movie does not use the technology as a dominant point of the movie, like "Enemy of the State". Instead the devices are merely a means to an end.

Also overshadowing the technology is another strong supporting cast. The always-good Joan Allen returns this time, joined by Scott Glenn and David Straithairn, from "Good Night and Good Luck". Strathairn and Allen are compelling in every scene, particularly when they are together. Their exchanges crackle without flying over the top, and their restrained focus is as intense as any shouting match. They add a layer of gravity to the goings-on that separates "Ultimatum" from other summer action like "Live Free or Die Hard".

Other differences between this and "Die Hard" lie in the technical aspects of the film. Director Paul Greengrass also helmed "Supremacy", and he and his crew remedied one of the main problems of the second movie, which was the overly shaky camera work. Most of the shots are still hand-held, but they are more static than before and pulled back a little in the fights. The music is surprisingly good too. As Bourne trots through Europe and Africa, the music travels along, mixing in pulsing strings, African drums, and even going completely silent when appropriate.

"Ultimatum" often echoes "Identity", which is a good thing. Both possess a similar driving intensity interspersed with quiet moments that allow humanity to leak through. This one lacks the originality of "Identity", but replaces it with the satisfying resolution that Bourne is seeking. On the whole, as the summer movie season wraps up, this is the best action film of the last few months. It's better than "Die Hard", although it doesn't provide as much fun. It's a better film; "Die Hard" is a better movie, if that makes sense.

Bottom Line: Better than the second; not quite as good as the original, but still a bang-up way to end the summer movie season. A slightly generous 8 of 10.

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Not bad, but it's no Mystic River.

[7/10 · 28 December 2007]

As I am federally mandated to point out, "Gone Baby Gone" is the directorial debut of Ben Affleck, a fact that is impossible to overlook while watching the movie. Sometimes I wish I could watch a movie while completely ignorant of its director, but that's another post. Anyway, Affleck clearly cares about this crime drama, both in content and location, and his loving fingerprints mark the film with a unique raw edge.

For a multitude of reasons, "Gone Baby Gone" can succinctly be described as a light version of "Mystic River", which was likewise based on a Dennis Lehane novel. The subject matter is equally heavy and thick, also exploring family dynamics through a painful crime involving a child. Both movies are set in Boston, and the one thing that "Gone" does better, largely due to Affleck's devotion to his hometown, is capture the seedy bizarreness of the local culture. Beyond that, "Gone" trails "River" in every aspect, not to an extent that makes "Gone" a poor film, but merely a decent one that does not remotely reach the great heights Clint Eastwood achieved four years ago.

First, the story itself is weaker and more transparent, due in slight part to a bit of foreshadowing. The moral waters here are equally murky, but shallower once fully explored. Secondly, the cast is weaker; that's not so much a swipe at a solid troupe includes the always good Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris, but rather reminds how loaded River was with proved, veteran talent (Penn, Robbins, Bacon, Fishbourne, Linney, Harden). The younger faces here, like Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, and (especially) Amy Ryan, acquit themselves well, but they do not possess the gravitas that can make such a film so much better. They are simply in a different league, the NFC versus "River's" superior AFC. Similarly, Affleck's movie sports an effective rough look and a less effective uneven flow, as opposed to the smooth and polished texture of Eastwood fluid masterpiece. For a first film though, Affleck's end product is impressive and worth watching for fans of the genre.

Bottom Line: Always decent, sometimes quite good, but it's nowhere near "Mystic River". 7 out of 10.

Ratatouille (2007)

Pixar does it again, for everyone.

[9/10 · 4 August 2007]

"Ratatouille" is the latest computer-animated release from Pixar, the company that has produced the best animated films over the last decade. The odd title is the name of vegetable stew and doubles as a pun on the main character, a rat named Remy.

Remy is no ordinary rat though. He resides in France amidst a colony that lives as rats do, thriving on the garbage and remnants of others, Remy is the exception because he has a finely-honed sense of smell and loves cooking. Through a series of fortunate events, Remy finds himself in Paris at a fine restaurant, where he learns how to interact with a kitchen boy named Linguini to create magnificent meals. Things of course get complicated, as Remy attempts to balance his passion with his family, and Linguini must handle being a celebrity through no talent of his own, while dealing with a sinister restaurant critic.

Like all of Pixar's work, "Ratatouille" looks phenomenal. The rats in particular look good, with fine detail paid to fur in various states. The humans are not the most hyper-realistic creations seen on screen, but neither are they intended to be. This is a cartoon, and the artists seem to know that, because most of the characters border on caricature. The slimy French chef is ridiculously short and sports a pencil-line mustache. The critic has long and angular features that scream evil. Even though the movie is made with the most modern of technology, it is a throwback to the classic days of Disney and Looney Tunes, when merely a glance at a character would explain everything about a character. The bad guys look bad; the good guys are goofy but likable, and the gray characters share attributes of both, leaving the viewer guessing for a while.

One thing that separates "Ratatouille" from most of its Pixar brethren is the pervasive kinetic energy. Plenty of other movies, like Cars and The Incredibles, were drenched with action and movement, but it feels different here because the scope of the movie is centered on a rat. When you watch Remy race through a kitchen or up a building from close-up, it feels much wilder and more dangerous than watching a human make the same thirty-foot trek, which is appropriate since it is more hazardous for a rat to make that trip.

The question about all Pixar movies is twofold: how well does it play with kids, and how well does it play with adults? I suspect that Ratatouille may not be as accessible to kids as most of the rest of the Pixar library, because many of the characters are rats. Rodents are not as marketable or over-the-top memorable as a giant furry blue monster or an innocent little clown fish. Nor is the story quite as simple as some others. But the pace is brisk enough, and the story is understandable enough, thanks in large part to the brilliant animation, that kids should still enjoy the movie. Adults should enjoy it too, with the fine images, clever humor, and various twists and turns of the story. On the whole, "Ratatouille" is not as memorable as "Finding Nemo" or either "Toy Story", but it is good enough to be tucked right behind them with "Monster's Inc." Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for the best family film of the summer. What the heck, call it 8 of 10.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Best action movie of the year.

[7/10 · 14 July 2007]

If you're worn out by the relentless parade of movie heroes sporting tights or transforming into robots, good news currently awaits you at the theater: "Live Free or Die Hard", a physical, action-packed antidote to comic book movies, which is the fourth chapter in the cinematic adventures of Detective John McClane. Having already survived Germans at Nakatomi Plaza, revolutionaries at Dulles Airport, and more Germans in New York City, McClane (Bruce Willis) is once again in the wrong place at the right time, as his simple task morphs into yet another odds-defying assignment.

Willis brings back his familiar character with a pitch-perfect blend of world-weariness and cocksure attitude. While he's saving the country, McClane has an innate ability to blend comedy with capability, willingly hurling unsavory nicknames and spewing determined anger rather than blandly yet skillfully executing his mission. Live Free separates itself from traditional action/adventure movies by organically working the humor into the fabric of the movie, rather than lazily relying on comic relief characters or contrived situations. Justin Long, perhaps most recognizable as the Mac guy in Apple's television ads, plays off Willis well as he is sucked into the chaotic events, with a defensive sarcasm and semi-rebellious side that effectively embody his role as a twenty-something computer hacker.

The comedy isn't the selling point of the "Live Free" though. The trailer promised huge effects, and the movie delivers in a BIG way. Over-sized vehicles ranging from semi trucks to fighter jets are involved in adrenaline-pumping confrontations, and of equal importance, they bob and weave in relatively sensible ways. As opposed to the incomprehensible massive chaos of "Transformers", there is an elegance to the action here. It's still over-the-top, but in an linear, choreographed manner that is easily followed and relished. Even though many of the stunts undoubtedly use CGI, the old-school physicality provides a sharp and enjoyable contrast to the digital attack the enemy is unleashing on the United States, as well as the cartoon-ish nature of many comic book movies.

"Live Free" has its share of improbability, as characters survive dangerous falls and endure endless physical abuse, and the technology sometimes seems all too easy. But in a movie like this, such conveniences are accepted if not expected as part of the genre. This isn't a serious Oscar contender with grand themes or undertones; it's summertainment, a popcorn movie designed as a diverting escape. In that regard it succeeds wildly, inducing winces, yells, and cheers from the audience.

One interesting note is that this rendition of Die Hard is rated "only" PG-13, no doubt in an attempt to lure the lucrative teenage demographic. Some will be outraged by this apparent neutering of a franchise that was largely defined through the the R-rating earned by the pervasive vulgarities of the first three installments. Even the signature line (Yippee-ki-yay...) is obscured by sound effects. On one hand it's disappointing that Hollywood acquiesced to the almighty dollar. On the other hand the absence of a constant barrage of language is scarcely missed, as McClane's aggressive attitude is still intact, accompanied by plenty of derogatory terms that are not quite as profane. Maybe he mellowed with age.

Bottom Line: The best action movie so far this year. A rock solid 7 of 10.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

The second-best movie in the series.

[7/10 · 14 July 2007]

After a summer of movies filled with second, third, and fourth sequels, the most anticipated follow-up is finally here, and it is a fifth installment. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is the story of Year Five at Hogwarts for lead characters Harry, Hermione, and Ron, although a large portion of the movie occurs outside the grounds of the teens' school. More than a children's book, this episode builds upon strong themes of fear and friendship to create a solid piece of cinema.

(Note: I have read only the first five books.) "Order of the Phoenix" ("OOTP") tracks the ongoing saga of the interactions between the dark Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter, who is aided by the titular order, a sort of wizard Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many in the wizarding community doubt Harry's story that Voldemort has returned, and the Ministry of Magic has it in for Dumbledore, all of which means that Harry feels more alone than ever, despite the presence of people and places he loves. As always with a movie adapted from popular literature, two questions must be answered. 1) Was it a good movie, and 2) Was it a good adaptation of the book? Pleasantly, the response to both questions is yes, though each affirmative requires unique qualification.

Having read the book, judging the movie strictly on its own merits is very difficult, because gaps on screen are filled in subconsciously by knowledge of the book. But this movie seems to succeed apart from those pages. Relatively unknown director David Yates keeps the story Harry-centric, giving it a brisk pace and making the main arc easy to follow, although a few other truncated story lines and characters will be enjoyed more by those who know them fully. Expanded motifs of Harry's anger and loneliness are expressed clearly but not heavy-handedly, through both pictures and the words of multiple characters. As was the case with the previous two installments, viewing this movie without first reading the book may result in confusion or at least a lesser understanding of everything, but having seen the first four movies will be plenty to let one comprehend this episode to an enjoyable extent.

The latter question is more complicated. Many people will complain about plot elements that vary from the book. Those objections are true but invalid. Maybe a beloved character was axed, tweaked, or minimized. Perhaps a treasured moment was omitted or included in a disappointingly disparate manner. Make no mistake about it; many things were altered. But when an 870-page tome is being condensed into a two hour and eighteen minute movie, cuts must be made. Much like time constraints demanded that "The Lord of the Rings" focus largely on Frodo at the expense of favorites like Tom Bombadil, this story must focus on Harry Potter. There are reasons that he is the title character. So no one gets to see Firenze teach or Ron and Hermione fight or anything about Quidditch or prefects. Looking objectively at the modifications though, the primary story arc does advance satisfactorily without those missing parts. Perhaps the galloping pace could have slowed to a canter, as the movie was indeed a rarity that could easily have been twenty minutes longer. But the purpose should then have been to expand upon the elements already in place rather than to add missing ones.

The more important goal is that the movie be faithful to the spirit of the book, and on that level, "OOTP" hits its mark. "Prisoner of Azkaban" displayed the world of wizards better than any other Potter movie because of two key inclusions: the little ways magic was used in the background and the fantastic scene-setting shots. Yates nearly recaptures Alfonso Cuaron's brilliance, approaching it with elements like kittens wandering around in pictures and spectacular zooms over Hogwarts. Of equal importance, he also executes small moments even better than the source material, wonderfully depicting simple enjoyments like laughter and friendship are a stark contrast to the lurking complex evil of You Know Who. These small interactions imbue the movie with a soul that adds substance and humanity to an adventurous and magical universe.

"OOTP" suffers slightly from middle-film-in-a-series syndrome, but in a good way. Much like "The Two Towers" or "The Matrix Reloaded", one gets the feeling that it picks up and ends mid-story, with only a necessary modicum of resolution, as though setting the stage for something grand. That promise of something huge just ahead actually enhances the power of the movie. It leaves one desperately awaiting the next chapter more so than any other Potter movie. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", the next in the series, screams to be (re-)read before the seventh and final book is released next Saturday.

Ultimately, viewers who have not read the book should be able to follow along easily, and the movie should quench the appetites of fans with reasonable expectations. The gist of the book is explored in numerous ways, resulting in an experience that will leave one with a few thrills and chills, and a smile on one's face.

Bottom Line: A concise return to the spirit of the book, capturing the world with a proper dose of cinematic license. 7 of 10 for the second best movie in the series.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

This could be the end of Spider-Man.

[6/10 · 3 July 2007]

Buckle your seat belts. It's time for the summer movie season. Let's get this out of the way first: this is the summer of the sequel. Of the ten most hyped movies in the next four months, eight of them are sequels, and seven of those are at least the third in the series. Sequels are a tricky business, because there are often massive built-in expectations and points of reference. They can't be too similar to the prequels without risking boredom, but if they stray too far from the tone of the original, they risk alienating their audiences. Like last year's summer season, this year kicks off with the third movie in a blockbuster series. In 2006, the first out of the gate was "Mission: Impossible 3"; in 2007, it is "Spider-Man 3".

When we last left Spidey three years ago, he had rid the world of Doctor Octopus, and had his identity revealed to his two closest friends, his girlfriend Mary Jane and his buddy/enemy Harry Osborn, whose father was the Green Goblin in the original picture. "SM3" picks up not long after, in a New York City where Spider-Man has gone glam, with his name and image plastered all over the media. Peter Parker relishes his newfound fame, so much that it begins to impede his relationship with Mary Jane. As that hits the rocks, he finds himself vulnerable at an inopportune time, which leads to the chaos that forms the crux of the movie.

One strong point of the movie is that is has the same principal cast as first two and also possesses a continuous story arc. Both features (think about it) are actually rarities among superhero trilogies. That definitely helps in the continuity department, because the characters, locations, and relationships are familiar. On the downside, the similarities amplify the fact that little of the movie is original. We've seen Spidey swoop and soar through city canyons, and we've seen him fight nasty villains. With the exception of an early chase scene, nothing is particularly different, either in style or content. That's disappointing, as a Spider-Man movie begs to be exhilarating. Say what you will about the vastly different styles of the three Mission: Impossibles, but each of them had a unique feel that individually defined each movie and made like events more interesting.

While the lack of novelty is disappointing, the most significant attempt at being unique provides the most unusual portion of the movie. As Parker/Spidey undergoes a transformation in the middle act, the movie takes a bizarre turn into romantic comedy. The idea is commendable; too few movies take too few chances. But this one doesn't work. For twenty minutes you understand what is happening, but still can't quite believe it. It would be like if Golden State had gone into a stall offense when they were up 20 against Dallas last night. Sure, it makes sense given the circumstances, but it still feels completely wrong and out of place.

The bigger problem is the end consequence of the emotional speed bump. It's something very rare in superhero movies: Peter Parker is not likable. Granted, that is part of the point, but when one starts disliking the title character, one loses interest in the movie, and that is huge strike against this kind of flick.

Like the later Batman installments, "SM3" also has too many characters and stories for one movie. Instead of completely marginalizing the hero like "Batman & Robin" did, "SM3" races through the stories of the antagonists. Two of the three could easily have filled the requisite two-plus hours in finer fashion. Then the villains' stories could have been fleshed out better to create the rare well-rounded superhero movie. Not only that, but Peter Parker's issues could have been expanded as well, in a manner more like its predecessors. One of the taglines for the movie is The Battle Within, and that promising fight unfortunately is not fully addressed, though in a pleasant surprise, numerous positive themes of responsibility and choice are.

Having said all that, I must provide the disclaimer that Spider-Man just doesn't do it for me. Batman does; Superman does; but Spider-Man doesn't. Maybe it has to do with Tobey Maguire's relatively diminutive stature, that I don't believe he could be a butt-kicking hero. Maybe the face-covering mask dehumanizes Spider-Man for me. Whatever.

People won't care that much; "Spider-Man 3" will still make a webful of money. If you like the other two Spider-Man movies, you'll enjoy this one, which isn't painful to watch. There are plenty of characters and eventually plenty of action. But "Spider-Man 3" matches its predecessors ways it shouldn't and doesn't match them in ways it should.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10 for the first big release of the summer and perhaps the final Spider-Man movie. Not bad, but nothing special.

Shrek the Third (2007)

Where is Shrek?

[5/10 · 3 July 2007]

The first "Shrek" came out of nowhere, an offbeat fractured fairy tale with a story suitable for kids and jokes aimed at adults. "Shrek 2" contained more of the same, particularly the latter, with an emphasis on MORE. The story was cruder, with images and humor that I wouldn't want my kids to see, and overbearingly bloated with gags, as the writers stuffed aural and visual pop culture references in like Mark Mangino at a buffet. Watching the sequel felt like being bludgeoned with a comic hammer that screamed Look what we can do! That progression leads to "Shrek the Third", batting second in the summer of the sequel, featuring an underwhelming trailer that threatened to continue the slide of the series.

Not unexpectedly, this is the worst of the three, but the reasons for its limited appeal are surprising. The creators heeded the complaints about "Shrek 2" containing too many pseudo-clever jokes, which is good. Specific allusions like "Mission: Impossible" or "Lord of the Rings" have been largely replaced by general parodies of events like high school life and Broadway musicals. This alteration in humor is welcome but too severe, stripping the franchise of its definitive irreverent nature, which is bad. "Shrek 3" swings the comedy pendulum from the in-your-face extreme of the second past the moderation of the first to a unpleasantly safe converse. It frequently feels more like a less saccharine Disney movie than a Shrek movie, complete with a schmaltzy moral at the end.

That's not to say that the movie isn't funny. The writing occasionally crackles; excellent comic timing is pervasive; and the sundry offbeat appearances of noteworthy characters like Captain Hook and Snow White are still entertaining. But on the whole everything feels restrained, like a kid who was reprimanded for doing something wrong and is now afraid to do much of anything. As much as I didn't like all of the prequels' base humor, this one needs more of it. The less flamboyant nature of the movie also diminishes its appeal to children, as does the metamorphosis of Shrek himself from rambunctious troublemaker to calmer father figure, a transformation that makes him more accessible to adults than kids.

In the end, the movie ends up feeling much like the main character. Just as Shrek himself feels that the confinements of the crown prevent him from being himself, the movie feels muzzled, neutered by knee-jerk reactions to the second movie. It isn't gratingly bad, but neither is it actively good. "Shrek the Third" (good title, by the way) merely idles its way through a rightfully short eighty-seven minutes.

Bottom Line: Third verse, different from the first (and second). Not quite the same, and notably worse. 5 of 10.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Close your eyes and pretend it's all a bad dream.

[4/10 · 3 July 2007]

Batting third in the summer of the sequel lineup is "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End". Shot simultaneously with last year's "Dead Man's Chest", this one picks up where that one left off. Which is to say…I have no idea.

Okay, that's not entirely true. When last we saw Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, he was being swallowed by the giant sea monster Kraken, which means that he's now surrounded by himself in a strange sort of purgatory located, that's right, at world's end.

The story initially involves getting Jack back from Davy Jones' locker, which is necessary in order to save pirates from extinction, because (if you remember from the second one) the British Navy is holding Jones' heart hostage, and thus forcing him (he's the octopus-faced undead pirate) to exterminate the remaining pirates. If you were able to follow all that, good, because that's the most comprehensible portion of the plot. It's the trunk, from which plot lines and motives sprout like Hydra heads from every possible location, layering on additional story arcs that only complicate things. Hammering out all the whys and hows would take far more time and effort than such a movie is worth. Too often, the details of what's happening are fuzzy or uncertain, which is most frustrating because the plot is actually relatively simple.

Fortunately, that barely matters, because the point of the movie is to create moments and imagery that awe and enchant. On this level, Pirates 3 succeeds wildly. There are battles with visual effects so stunning that they are scarcely noticed. There's a great scene accompanied by wailing electric guitars that calls to mind the classic westerns of Eastwood and Wayne. The dramatic score is again filled with hard-driving strings and horns that rile adrenaline and make for an over-the-top movie experience. Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom are still beautiful people. There's a great cameo by a legendary rocker, and Depp still owns the idiosyncratic Captain Jack in every way possible. Just look at that poster! Is that not the epitome of cinematic coolness? All these similarities to the first two are good, but also part of the problem. Some sequels ("Shrek the Third") get ripped because they are too different from their predecessors. Others get downgraded because they are too similar, which is the category that "Pirates 3" falls into. Many of the parts are good, but essentially it's is just more of the same, with an emphasis on the MORE. There is too much here in the almost three hour movie. Continuing the tree trunk analogy, the movie is an out-of-control tree that needs to be pruned back. Clip off those stray branches. Trim the bunny trails and betrayals. Shape the tree into a more presentable and palatable two hours plus.

Bottom Line: "Pirates 3" had its moments, and wasn't a bad experience overall, but the exhausting length constantly throws needless curves and double-crosses into the relentless fray. As my dad said at the end, "I hope they stop." 4 of 10.

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

Analog players in a digital world.

[7/10 · 3 July 2007]

The latest movie in this summer of the sequel is a departure from the first three heavyweights of "Spider-man 3", "Shrek the Third", and "Pirates 3". Aimed more at adults than adolescents, "Ocean's Thirteen" is the clean-up hitter this summer. In baseball, a clean-up hitter usually has power. "Ocean's Thirteen" has star power, perhaps more than any other release this summer, and the movie wields its weapons well.

While Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are not back for this installment, all the men of "Ocean's Eleven" and "Ocean's Twelve" do reprise their roles. George Clooney and Brad Pitt head up the gang of thieves, aided by Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and the rest of the crew that moviegoers have come to know over the last six years. The biggest addition to the cast is a name bigger than all of them, and his character is the catalyst for the caper that drives the entire film. The man is Al Pacino, playing a flashy casino owner who incurs the gang's wrath by betraying Elliott Gould's Reuben Tishkoff, setting the stage for the rest of the revenge movie.

The first film was a modern classic that thrived on the energy of Las Vegas and the cool confidence of Clooney and Pitt. Twelve lost much of those factors by bouncing around Europe and putting the band of thieves on the run. Thirteen returns to the franchise's successful roots, taking place predominantly in the colorful world of Sin City and also placing the heroes in control most of the time.

In restoring those two key elements, "Ocean's Thirteen" recaptures the spirit of the original. The dialogue isn't as crisp or smart, but it's close, and elements of the past glory are present. Things like con-man lingo and everyone bilingually communicating with The Amazing Yen provide well-done unexplained humor. Writers Brian Koppelman and David Levien (who penned quality guy flicks like "Rounders" and "Knockaround Guys") do overuse the borrowed elements, as though they decided to repeat the good parts of the original's script as often as possible, and the resulting jokes wear a bit thin over the course of the movie.

Returning to Vegas is a wise choice that simplifies the plot. Though staples of heist movies, like double-crosses and sleight of hand, are present, the story is largely straight forward. You know what the guys are going to do; you're just watching to see how the crew overcomes the various inevitable obstacles. This makes it slightly less entertaining, but also makes for a very comfortable viewing experience, despite the required suspension of disbelief. The cinematography of Steven Soderbergh (under the pseudonym Peter Andrews) helps too; the pictures and transitions are not to the impressive level of "Eleven", but they have their moments, as do the quirky uses of titles and graphics.

As is the case in many sequels, the cast slides effortlessly back into their roles. Clooney and Pitt are smooth; Damon is trying to prove himself; Bernie Mac is a fast-talker, etc. As the new guy, Pacino effectively joins the fray with a surprisingly underplayed part. He's not the big, bold, brash near-caricature that he has morphed into through movies like "Scent of a Woman" and "The Devil's Advocate". He still looks the over-the-top part with his deep tan and vibrant suits, but he is more kniving than bombastic, which is a very appropriate choice for the movie.

"Ocean's Thirteen" is the cinematic version of a lazy river ride at a water park. You hop in your inner tube and cruise around the lengthy pool, admiring the view, chatting with friends, and generally enjoying the laid-back experience. Unlike many of this summer's blockbusters, it does not bombard you with loud effects or action scenes. It won't shock and awe you by pulling wool over your eyes with a mind-blowing twist. Instead, gentle turns and reveals are sprinkled throughout, providing an enjoyable two hours spent with familiar and entertaining characters.

Bottom Line: A good summer diversion that returns to the roots of the series. Not as good as the first, but better than the second. 7 of 10.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Why are you destroying our planet?

[5/10 · 3 July 2007]

Five movies into the summer of the sequel, the first release that is not a third installment is finally here. "The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" is merely the second in a series, following 2005's original that introduced moviegoers to Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffold), The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba), her brother The Human Torch (Chris Evans), and The Thing (Michael Chiklis). (Audio review here.) The story in this follow-up is basic superhero stuff, picking up not too long after the last one ended. Mr. Fantastic is getting ready to wed The Invisible Woman, then bad things happen, and The Fantastic Four are called upon to remedy the problem, which involves the Silver Surfer destroying the planet and Dr. Von Doom doing whatever it is he does.

From there the heroes do their hero thing, which is accompanied by just enough side story to form slightly rounded characters and plot. Like its predecessor and the comic books on which they both are based, "Silver Surfer" is a different breed of superhero movie, one that varies in tone and content from recent renditions of more popular heroes like Batman, Superman, and Spider-man. With its multiple lead characters, "Silver Surfer" occasionally reminds of the X-Men flicks, but does not match the gravity present in those movies or other recent hits featuring the aforementioned main characters. Those are serious, more intense movies that can create wonderful cinematic experiences that feel more "real". Not that any of these kinds of movies are truly real, but both of the Fantastic Four movies have a more cartoon-ish feel that distances them from reality.

This is both a blessing and a curse. On the downside, "Silver Surfer" does not have the emotional attachment that other superhero pictures have or at least desire, which limits the scope of the movie's power. A surprising side effect is the everyday levity that is provided. If you and your buddies had bizarre superpowers, wouldn't you frequently be making fun of each other's gifts and using your own for not entirely kosher reasons? Movies with solo protagonists are rarely able to capture such interactions, but with its tight-knit lead characters, Surfer can and does, with degrees of success that vary like most attempts at humor, from clever and hilarious to flat and unfunny. Nothing is brilliant or profound, everything just creates a casual surface relationship between movie and viewer.

The minimal depth also allows for a streamlined hour and a half movie that has cursory side stories, unexplainable technology, and vague villainous motives, all of which is completely fine, if not preferable. Just as popcorn should not be loaded with substantive fruits and vegetables, popcorn movies like this one should not be loaded down with messages and complications that don't enhance the story.

The shallow story and characters possessing only one or two dimensions means that the movie never has much chance of succeeding on multiple levels, so if you expect a serious action movie, you will be disappointed with "Rise of Silver Surfer", as you likely were with the original. If you expect mindless superhero entertainment and a near carbon copy of the first installment, then you will leave the theater content with what you saw.

Bottom Line: There is a place for movies like this: DVD rental. 5 of 10.

Transformers (2007)

Less than meets the eye.

[2/10 · 3 July 2007]

I have low expectations for summer movies. I realize that they are often mindless entertainment with minimal plot and multiple explosions. That's fine. There is a place for such flicks, and I watch them without much hope of something grand. Remember that as I say this with no exaggeration: "Transformers" is the worst summer blockbuster I have ever seen. Let me take you through the anatomy of this horrible movie.

From the stiff opening voice-over that details the backstory, you sense trouble. Thirty minutes in, you're still waiting for the movie to gain traction, even though a big action sequence already happened. As the action wanes, the awkward dialogue blares through. You realize this isn't Shakespeare, but George Lucas could have improved this script. Simple words in the midst of action are one thing, but as the focus of several too-long scenes, the lame dialogue is painfully amplified. When you're not sure if the humans are delivering their lines better than the robots, that's a bad sign.

But you know more transformers are coming, so you wiggle your feet impatiently while anxiously awaiting their arrival. Finally the rest of the good guys show up. "Wow, those are sweet looking robots!" you think. You begin to settle in for a rip-roaring second half, until you realize there's not much else to them. It's like finally getting a date with that hot girl you've been crushing on, then realizing how unbelievably vapid she is before the main course is even served.

By then of course you're stuck for the remainder of the evening. You deal with the ill-fated attempts at creating drama. Every ten minutes, you wonder what the heck is happening or question the movie's logic, which is awful even for the genre. You laugh several times, though the causes are largely unintentional. Is that John Tuturro wildly out of place? Does Tad Hamilton actually have a leadership position in the military? You hope desperately that the show might end with something redeeming like an epic battle. Here come all the bad guys (out of nowhere), this could be good...but no. The final clash is big and loud, but also confusing and by that juncture, pointless. Emotional attachment isn't necessary in a popcorn movie, but there needs to be at least a minute level of curiosity. You don't care if they kill the humans or kill the robots or kill all of them. Whatever.

You sit through the credits, unsure of whether or not you want to be rewarded with a bonus scene. Yep, there's one. Yoikes, that was bad. At least it was short. Wait, there's one more, a final reminder of how miserably the movie failed, like the last rock that always crushed Wile E. Coyote.

The worst part is that "Transformers" has potential, as the trailer proves. Vehicles turn into giant robots! How is that not cool?!? But the flick scarcely if ever delivers on that promise. The visuals are representative of the whole movie. Well done, occasionally impressive, but too often fights or transformations are seen either from a distance too great or too close, depriving the audience of the true scope of the shot, and of any interest in the movie.

Perhaps a knowledge of the source material, with which I am only passingly familiar, would make the movie more palatable, but I doubt it. Director Michael Bay, whose projects have steadily declined since 1996's The Rock, has reached a new low.

Bottom Line: Please don't encourage a sequel by seeing this movie. 2 of 10.

The Prestige (2006)

Great story. Well made.

[8/10 · 9 December 2006]

"Every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called The Pledge; The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called The Turn; The magician makes his ordinary some thing do something extraordinary. Now if you're looking for the secret... you won't find it, that's why there's a third act called, The Prestige; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before." The above quote is from perhaps the year's best trailer, and also appears early in "The Prestige", which features one of the year's best casts and crew. The quote parallels the movie quite well, explaining what works, what doesn't, and why.

Directed by home run hitter Christopher Nolan ("Batman Begins", "Memento"), "The Prestige" stars a couple erstwhile superheroes (Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) woven into a turn of last century tale about two rival magicians intent on one-upping each other. Simple enough, that's The Pledge.

The Turn, which takes up the majority of the running time, is where Nolan and company work their movie magic. The story is told largely through various flashbacks before going linear in last act. A little work is required to follow the multi-pronged timeline, but if one lets the pieces float for a bit, they will come together over the course of the film. The patience to wait for that confluence shouldn't be a problem, because all involved sell the period piece wholeheartedly. Capes, canes, and top hats often induce boredom, but although the costumes are period, "Prestige" doesn't have the antiquated feel that many such films possess. Instead it radiates energy, feeling similar to a Broadway play thanks in part to the star wattage of Jackman and Bale, who both slip comfortably from rubber suits to three-piece suits. Their previous and future movie roles actually inject a little humor into the proceedings as one envisions Logan or Bruce Wayne donning such outfits and dealing with the various circumstances. Interestingly, Batman would likely be comfortable in this world, even though Prestige is set a century ago, because cinematographer Wally Pfister crafts a intriguing, borderline-Gothic world calls to mind his dark work in "Batman Begins", a movie that appears very different, but also shares themes like mystery and illusion.

As one would expect from a magic-themed movie and as The Prestige implies, there are a number of twists and turns, several of which are unveiled in the third act. Figuring these things out in advance may hamper or at least alter your enjoyment of the film, particularly if you are expecting to be surprised. In one sense a line from the movie is true: when the secret is known, the trick seems ordinary, and that extra layer of quality is stripped away. But such knowledge in no way ruins the showmanship of the trick, or in this case the remarkably high production value of the film, which pushes the a good story to a higher level.

Bottom Line: A well-made film with an original story that entertains to the end. 8 of 10.

The Departed (2006)

If only it had finished well...

[7/10 · 9 December 2006]

On the heels of the annual fall movie lull comes the beginning of Oscar season. And you know what that means: lots of pretentious films that aren't very good! Yay! First in line, from Martin Scorsese, the man who brought us the overrated borefest that is "The Aviator", is "The Departed"...or is it? Plow on, fair reader...

Generally speaking, Martin Scorsese's films all have a similar theme: exploring the complex lives of unlikeable people. His latest is The Departed, which follows two Boston police academy graduates who take drastically disparate paths. The movie is tortuous in every sense of the word. Plot twists are prevalent; people are not always who they seem; and deceit is the rule rather than the exception. Therefore Scorsese is the perfect director for this film, which can be neatly compared to a good piece of rope. (Go with me on this one, okay?) "The Departed" opens with a handful of story tresses that are related but different. Each arc appears to be going the same direction, although the connection isn't immediately evident. But the big picture soon begins to come into focus as the strands are woven together. The noteworthy editing of Thelma Schoonmaker, who has chopped most of Scorsese's work, contributes mightily to this effect. Early on the movie is nearly disorienting, jumping rapidly from story to story at almost random intervals, as quickly as second by second. This fitfulness soon settles into a comfortable equilibrium, in part because one becomes accustomed to it, and in part because the stories braid themselves tighter and tighter.

As the film finds its rhythm, it occasionally soars on the wings of its stellar cast. In their parallel roles, Leonardo DiCaprio continues to mature with his hard-edged part; Matt Damon plays an interesting spin-off of his altar-boy image, and as a local crime boss, Jack Nicholson is...well...Jack Nicholson. Even though the hard-nosed characters are not particularly likable in themselves, Scorsese takes the time to provide glimpses into the quieter parts of their lives, not just the adrenaline-pumping moments. Like the characters or not, this makes them more human, more interesting, and more worthy of sympathy. It also produces the movie's best moments, which are not entirely congruous with the rest of the film.

As a Boston-based crime drama, "Departed" virtually demands comparison to 2003's stellar "Mystic River". Clint Eastwood's film holds a few things high above Scorsese's, namely a soul. Like Kevin Bacon's detective, Vera Farmiga's fresh-faced police psychiatrist brings some semblance of a moral center to the project. But as she is sucked into the vortex of chicanery, she slowly blends into her surroundings like Darwin's peppered moths. Another key difference lies in the closing act. River didn't wrap things up cleanly, but satisfyingly left story arcs somewhat resolved while still open. "Departed", on the other hand, tries too hard to tie a pretty bow on this occasional present to moviegoers, and that is where Scorsese's project disappoints most.

Regardless of how strong a piece of rope appears at its center, the ends are what define much of its value. Likewise with a film, if the final act isn't finished well, the film loses much of its punch, as "Departed" does. Rather than tie off the end or perhaps unbraid the story lines, Departed instead sloppily hacks off the end of the stories that pull the viewer along. The final scenes may seem like an acceptable finish upon initial glance, but a closer inspection reveals not a snip and a solder, but a absurdly quick chop-chop, a slovenly deus ex machina that jarringly diverges from the slow build of the previous two-plus hours. It almost feels like one of those wisely discarded alternate endings on a DVD, like something someone jokingly threw out as an lazy way to conclude matters.

With its frequent outbursts of intense violence and words, hard-living characters, and twisty story lines, "The Departed" is a Scorsese work through and through. At times the director, aided by a loaded cast, provides wildly entertaining moments and scenes. But like a couple of Steven Spielberg's recent movies ("War of the Worlds", "Munich"), the discordant final act prevents this movie from attaining greater heights. Perhaps Departed could have joined the pantheon of mafia-type films ("Godfather I/II", "Goodfellas"), but the late shortcomings prevent it from reaching even the strong second tier ("Untouchables", "Road to Perdition", etc.).

Bottom Line: A slow but steady start, a strong middle third, and a weak last act make "The Departed" recommended only to those interested in seeing it for genre- or Oscar-related reasons. 6 of 10.

The Last Kiss (2006)

Misguided in many aspects.

[4/10 · 9 December 2006]

In general, I'm not a big fan of holding one movie up to another when reviewing it. But sometimes the nature of two films virtually demands those comparisons. Such was the case in part for "World Trade Center", and such is the case for "The Last Kiss"...

Comparisons between "The Last Kiss" and "Garden State" are unavoidable, largely because Zach Braff stars in both movies, but also because both are wandering missives on particular stages of life. None of the characters are the same, but this movie is still a pseudo-sequel to "Garden State". While Braff did not direct or write "Kiss" as he did "State", his influence on many parts of the movie is undeniable, from quirky mannerisms to the laid-back soundtrack that he produced. His presence also lends more credence to the movie, because if he did not tote residual quality from "State", "Kiss" would feel like a cheap knock-off of his previous picture. Instead, it just feels cheap.

"Garden State" addressed that gray time in one's early twenties between school and adulthood, while "Last Kiss" focuses on the late twenties jump from young professional to marriage. Michael (Braff) and his girlfriend Jenna (Jacinda Barrett) have just learned they are pregnant. That news rolled together with the variables contributed by their semi-dysfunctional circle of friends and family leaves Michael a little uneasy about his planned future, an issue complicated by the sudden arrival of the sexy, care-free co-ed Kim (Rachel Bilson) into his life. Unfortunately though the veneers of "State" and "Kiss" are similar, they differ widely beneath the surface, and "Kiss" takes the worst of every comparison despite good work from a similarly solid cast.

"Garden State" seemed to genuinely explore a confusing time in life, while "Last Kiss" seems to have a message: that marriage as something to be dreaded rather than eagerly anticipated. Beyond just providing numerous negative examples, the movie treats such miserable relationships as normal and unavoidable, which is where the movie truly falls short. Much of the skepticism raised is legitimate when approached as means rather than ends. But rather than use those doubts as impetus to burrow into the coal mines of relationships with hopes of finding a diamond, "Kiss" turns off the lights and dams up the entrance, leaving everything dark and frightening with scarcely a ray of hope. It's enough to discourage anyone from getting hitched or even seriously involved with someone else. And that's bothersome. The negative aspects of marriage are emphasized, and the positives are largely ignored. The portrayal isn't aggressively negative, but seems to rise from a basic misunderstanding, probably from experience, of how marriage can and should work. It's impossible to get past this pessimistic view of an establishment that is in actuality so wonderful.

(end soapbox)

Beyond the moral issues of "Kiss", which I suppose are debatable, the movie lacks rationale, even by cinematic standards. Everything on screen doesn't have to be fully logical or sensible, but when characters possess only two disparate dimensions, normal and insane, they end up depressing and wearing out the audience, like the clueless mother in the supermarket who hasn't a chance of calming her screaming child. That inadequacy overshadows any positive elements "Kiss" might have presented.

"Garden State" had fantastic highs in its small moments. "Last Kiss" tries to match that potency in a few situations, but ends up looking like one of its characters, a college kid trying to fit into an adult life. At times the movie's sentiments are okay, but more often than not the accurate observations are drowned out by all the yelling. What's missing is a reasonable understanding of the big picture, which might have elevated the movie to watchable status. As is, "Kiss" is just not strong enough to reach nearly the same heights.

Bottom Line: The only redeeming values here are the mellow soundtrack (artists like Imogen Heap and Coldplay), which is essentially Braff's latest mix tape, and how the movie can spur thoughts about relationships. But there are better ways to experience both. Obviously not recommended. 4 of 10.

(And for the record, I gave "Garden State" a 7. Great moments, but an inconsistent film.)

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Perhaps not better, but more important than recent Eastwood films.

[8/10 · 9 December 2006]

Of all the American wartime photographs ever taken, the most famous and meaningful is likely Joe Rosenthal's snapshot of six men raising a flag atop the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Not only is the picture technically impressive, with its sharp lines and determined exertion frozen in time, it also came to be the face of World War II, as the United States government's public relations machine utilized this image as the engine behind a massive fund-raising effort that ultimately helped win the war. "Flags of Our Fathers" is the story behind that iconic photograph.

"Flags" is not a typical World War II film, in that only about half the movie portrays military conflict, and does so through multiple layers of flashback. In the modern day, James Bradley, who penned the like-titled book, is discovering the past of his father, John "Doc" Bradley, one of the six soldiers who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Doc was then one of three men yanked from combat to spearhead the fund-raising campaign. The core of the film is a complex character study of those three soldiers, the wildly different manners in which they handle their newfound fame, and the various truths behind what appears to be a straightforward image.

Though "Flags" does not reach the heights of his previous work, Eastwood crafts a film that may very well be his most important and pertinent, considering the current post-9/11 state of constant military strife. Like many war movies, this one dwells on the concept of heroism, but does so more thoroughly. "Flags" not only looks at how the soldiers deal with the heroic life-and-death struggles on the battlefield, but at how they handle being labeled heroes back home. While on tour, the three were hailed as conquering kings, regardless of what each one may or may not have actually done. This is the opposite of "Born on the Fourth of July", in which Tom Cruise's character was treated poorly upon his return from Vietnam. But this raucously positive reception was equally as difficult for these three men to handle, which makes for a fascinating examination of how various human psyches accommodate adulation and stumble along the often blurry line between hero and celebrity.

As mentioned, "Flags" is not quite as pervasively good as Eastwood's recent "Mystic River" or "Million Dollar Baby" (keep in mind that those were my second-best and best films of their respective years). This stems partially from a strong younger cast that performs admirably well, but simply has no chance to match the magnetic appeal of older actors like Kevin Bacon and Morgan Freeman. The main trio of Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach, all perform admirably though, with Beach impressing most through his complex turn as one of the rare Native Americans sprinkled into the military. A deep roster of talented veteran actors like Barry Pepper and Neal McDonough makes the film easy to watch, despite how the flashback techniques employed limit much of the potentially gripping drama. Simultaneously though, because the information is gathered as James Bradley himself gathered it, the emotion slowly builds into a unexpectedly strong climactic twenty minutes. Like a deft boxer, the film jabs at the heart here and there for two hours, before delivering a fierce flurry of heavy emotional blows as the postbellum lives of these three men are revealed, elevating the power of the entire film and striking near the soul of anyone who knows a veteran.

Along with Tom Stern, his recent cinematographer of choice, Eastwood's best choice is the washed out color scheme present on the island. The technique has become fairly common in war movies, but rather than choose the green-laden palette of "Saving Private Ryan" though, Eastwood and Stern opted for a nearly black-and-white look that sets "Flags" apart. The resulting contrasts work wonderfully well with the black sands of Iwo Jima and make many of the bloody incidents all the more potent. Outside of the appearance, the occasionally gratuitous battle scenes, which do effectively differentiate this conflict from Normandy, are most noteworthy for the opening minutes before the fighting breaks out. The inter-cutting between the viewpoints of the Americans and the Japanese creates immense anticipatory and sympathetic tension. In creating perhaps the film's best moments there, Eastwood also foreshadows "Letters from Iwo Jima", his companion picture (due out December 20th) that relates the same battle from the Japanese perspective.

"Flags of Our Fathers" probably won't go down in cinematic history as one of the great war films (unless "Letters" is phenomenal). But what Eastwood has crafted is more ambitious than many "mere" war movies, and he accomplishes his goal of interestingly examining how three specific lives were altered by the simple act of raising a flag on a Pacific island. If you enjoy war films, you will enjoy "Flags". If you usually don't, the history behind the photograph is intriguing enough to engross you, although you may want to peer through your fingers during the battle scenes.

Bottom Line: Eastwood. War movie. Not much chance I wasn't liking this one. 8 of 10.

The Nativity Story (2006)

Christians will enjoy it more than others.

[7/10 · 9 December 2006]

For a movie like "The Nativity Story", two vastly different audiences exist: Christians and non-Christians, or in movie-going terms, those who see it as an historical film and those who see it as another way to be entertained for two hours.

For the Christian audience, "Nativity Story" is a good though not great film, generally hitting the mark on the two key fronts of historical and narrative accuracy. With a full Hollywood budget behind it, the movie looks and feels wonderful, effectively and impressively recreating an authentic Israel from two millenia ago. Having toured much of the country a mere six months ago, I can vouch that the villages looked like they had been reconstructed straight from the ruins I saw, and I could practically pick out where I was standing in various shots of Jerusalem.

This veracity serves as a foundation for a generally adherent interpretation of the events that led up to Jesus' birth. Making a full-length movie out of a few chapters of Scripture means that most of the dialogue and many of the plot details have been manufactured or drawn from non-canonical resources. While I haven't done exhaustive research by any means, anyone who knows the story well will be able to pick out a few inaccuracies and liberties. Some of the changes, like moving the Magi's visit up a few years, were made for cinematic reasons and admittedly allow for a few quality moments. Some, such as the fact that (I think) Herod didn't know what he knew that soon, are fairly inconsequential. Others, such as the absence of a multitude of heavenly hosts, seem like missed opportunities that could have injected the film with needs like a sense of awe. It's not an entirely precise screen translation, but I found it faithful enough in its facts that the sureness of the spirit makes the errors disappointing rather than overly detracting to a Christian audience.

For non-believers, I'm not convinced that this is a riveting picture. If the spiritual significance of the story is stripped away, the narrative alone probably isn't enough to engross. Anybody who sees this is going to know at least a rough outline of the plot, which deprives the film of most of its dramatic power. Something like United 93 is able to work through such a shortcoming in part because (I feel borderline sacrilegious saying this) the superficial building blocks of the story provide a stronger pull. If you remove the religious aspects from this, there isn't a ton of interest piqued by a man and woman who are awkwardly engaged, then travel across the country, semi-pursued by a king who doesn't have a direct connection; that's an inescapable weakness of the film as it attempts to reach a broad audience.

For all viewers, "Nativity Story" accomplishes two things that such a movie should. First, it contextualizes and humanizes Mary and Joseph. Joseph in particular has several classic conundrums and facial expressions as he handles inexplicable circumstances like his future wife being pregnant. These accessible emotions are definitely present in the Biblical telling, but are made more evident on screen. Second, it captures the iconography of the events. If these monumental happenings are going to be put on film, memorable moments are mandated, and the movie comes through, even if a few cinematic conveniences are required to create such snapshots as a living creche. (Pssst...wise men...a little to the right so we can see Mary.) Since the birth of Jesus was probably the second most important event in human history, it seems that a filmic rendering of the story should be as grand as the most important event (Christ's death and resurrection) was two years ago. In that regard, "Nativity Story" comes up short, because while the movie is impressive, it doesn't have the epic or visceral feel of "Passion of the Christ". On the other hand, an understated approach matches the muted nature of the actual occurrences, and even though it ebbs the potency of the film, is more appropriate for the material and makes for an easy viewing experience for any Christian who isn't overly anal about historical tweaking.

Bottom Line: High production value and a relatively faithful retelling make this occasionally enlightening movie worth seeing for anyone interested in the story. 7 of 10. Higher for Christians; lower for others.

Casino Royale (2006)

He'll kill you.

[8/10 · 9 December 2006]

In a cinematic world that is so often disappointing, a flick that knows its target and hits it squarely is always a welcome sight. Enter "Casino Royale", the 21st and latest James Bond movie., featuring Daniel Craig in his debut as Agent 007. Because all Bond movies feature essentially the same parts, the differences arise from the quality of those parts and how they fit together, so allow me to examine the pieces...

Story: "Casino Royale" begins near the beginning, as Bond became Bond, earning his license to kill and diving headlong into the espionage world. This automatically adds depth and interest to the plot, because origin stories are almost always interesting (see: "Batman Begins"), allowing for explanations of various Bond trademarks. That part of the plot is very good. As for the main storyline, it's about par for the course. There are the mandatory jaunts to beautiful locations like Miami and the Bahamas, and the flick pleasingly manages to avoid the high-tech gimmicky nature that plagued the recent movies. The centerpiece of the movie is a high-stakes poker game, and while I liked that, I wonder what non-players thought of those scenes. Being a poker player, I was able to call virtually every card, but that didn't erode much of the enjoyment, because Bond movies aren't renowned for their unpredictability.

Villain: Meh. Mads Mikkelsen isn't given much to work with as Le Chiffre, a upper-class money launderer who affiliates with terrorists. Sure, he looks creepy, but that's about all we learn about him. The lack of a classic villain has been a major weakness of the recent Bond movies, and this one is no different. Without a memorable story or bad guy, "Casino Royale" was forced to rely on other avenues for its quality. That was risky considering this is Daniel Craig's first turn as Agent 007. Fortunately...

James Bond: Merely from the trailer, one could see that Craig brought different elements to Bond, and those glimpsed traits erupt into full view as the picture rolls. He doesn't quite have the suavity of Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan, but more than any other Bond portrayer, Craig is physically imposing. He could kill you. He has an attitude that adds a modern hard edge to the Bond prototype, one that still oozes sexuality despite the dearth of the puns and double entendres that had become too ubiquitous in Bond movies lately. This is an installment more physical than any other, so both of those additions are very important and greatly appreciated.

Bond Girls: The best Bond girls always have a more exotic look than the women that often dominate American cinema. There are two main female roles here; the Italian model-turned-actress Caterina Murino is a classic Bond vixen, exactly what you'd expect of an Italian model-turned-actress. Her role is secondary to that of Eva Green's (Kingdom of Heaven) Treasury agent Vesper Lynd. Her beauty doesn't leap off the screen early, as her character's bookish side dominates, but she later vamps it up with varying results. Sometimes she looks like a teenager girl playing dress-up, but when she tones down the glamour, she fits the mold well, if perhaps a little too understatedly. (Yes, it's a word.) Gadgetry: The number of gizmos in "Casino Royale" are toned down significantly from prior versions. While they are missed in a nostalgic sense, they aren't missed within the context of this movie, because of the different action scenes, which segues nicely to...

Action: The action scenes are infused with a physicality that sets this one apart from any of its predecessors. The black-and-white pre-credits sequence is a superb intro that has an indie feel, and the first extended chase will leave you exhausted in your seat. Bond is frequently bloodied and bruised as he He bleeds, and you feel it. That's a good thing.

Many have said that "Casino Royale" reminds of "The Bourne Identity", a comparison that is understandable but slightly misguided. While the gritty look does call Bourne to mind, the overall tone is much more elevated. Bond is not an everyman like Jason Bourne; he wears a tuxedo and dabbles in high-stakes games of poker and espionage in which the fate of the world is on the line. That creates a loftier feel that makes potentially mundane scenes (and the entire movie) better and more enjoyable than they should be.

Bottom Line: It's a Bond movie. And a pretty good one. A convenient 007 of 10.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

A missed opportunity for greatness.

[6/10 · 9 December 2006]

As the cinematic writing debut of Zach Helm, "Stranger Than Fiction" may very well have the most creative storyline of the year. Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is a nondescript IRS agent who awakes one day to hear a woman narrating much of his life. Unbeknownst to him at the time, the voice belongs to a well-known author who routinely kills her main characters in her novels. No big deal, except for the fact that he soon learns of his fate. That of course horrifies him, and he spends the majority of the film coping with that inevitability.

Unfortunately the lofty possibilities raised by such a fantastically original idea are never fully explored. "Stranger" doesn't take the time to delve into the life-and-death complexities that could arise from a man searching for the why and who behind his future demise. Nor does it address most of the unique moral questions and obligations that would arise. Instead the script settles for clichés like a typically rushed cinematic romance, premises that aren't all that bad, but are more suited to be side stories, not main arcs. These shortcomings glaringly keep Stranger from reaching the Oscar-winning level of something like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or other Charlie Kaufman work. In fact this movie might be best described as Diet Charlie Kaufman, a pop psychological movie, a thinking movie for those who don't really want to think.

As Adam Sandler did for "Punch-Drunk Love", Will Ferrell will no doubt receive heaps of praise for his portrayal of IRS agent Harold Crick. Make no mistake, Ferrell is fine, but don't let anyone convince you this is an Oscar-worthy turn. The simple fact that he plays it straight, without getting nearly naked or over-reacting doesn't automatically create a great performance. The reality is that while he has his moments, Ferrell is the straight man in this picture, a tepid character who contrasts well with Maggie Gyllenhaal's anarchist baker Anna, Dustin Hoffman's Yoda of literature professor, and Emma Thompson's work as author Kay Eiffel, which results in the best performance in the film. She lends the part a wackiness that seems genuinely fresh, in odd, unteachable ways like how she touches both sides of a door frame when passing. She acts crazy enough but not so crazy that you sense the acting as she neurotically haggles over how she can kill off her protagonist.

In the end, "Stranger Than Fiction" is like Anna's cookies. They both taste good at the time, as the movie does have its humorous and entertaining moments, but their long term value is limited due to their lack of nutrition. Nothing here is going to linger, but if you're interested, you won't be sorry you saw it.

Bottom Line: A missed opportunity, but still worth a rental or cheap theater ticket. 6 of 10.

Invincible (2006)

A decent sports movie.

[6/10 · 9 December 2006]

If you've seen the trailer for "Invincible", then you know the story of Vince Papale, a Philadelphia everyman who earned a spot on his beloved Eagles through an open tryout in 1976. The fact that most of the plot is known is a negative in the sense that it robs the movie of most drama, but doesn't affect enjoyment much, because most sports flicks are straightforward anyway. Instead, the common underdog-turned-hero plot, along with strong lead performances from Mark Wahlberg and Greg Kinnear (as Coach Dick Vermeil) makes for an easy viewing experience.

While Wahlberg is the headliner, Kinnear performs equally well in a parallel role, as Vermeil makes the jump from college football to the pros. He wisely chooses not to do a complete impersonation of Coach Vermeil, but does relate Vermeil's easy-going aura. If you have watched much of Vermeil in the last few years, then you will certainly find a few moments in the movie that make you chuckle and nod, thinking Vermeil would have said or done exactly that. As for Wahlberg, not many Hollywood stars would be believable as football players. Can you really see someone like Tom Cruise 0r Adam Sandler (ok, bad example) playing in the NFL? Didn't think so. But Wahlberg is an exception. He has the physique and attitude of an elite athlete (see: Calvin Klein ads), and in part because of his street background, he has the tough guy image down (see: "Four Brothers"). But despite his evident charisma, he doesn't rise above his fellow cast members like Cruise sometimes does. Instead he represents the working man quite well and seems just like one of the boys from South Philly.

The energy of those everyday Joes is the gas that drives the movie's engine. Through Papale's circle of friends and family, "Invincible" captures two types of football passion wonderfully. Papale's bar pals exhibit the hardcore fanaticism that power any team's fanbase, and the generational enthusiasm that is passed down from father to son is also portrayed expertly via Papale and his dad. Both symbolize an ardor that transcends team loyalties, allowing fans of any team (except maybe the Giants) to share in the story. As everyone who has lived through 9/11 knows, sports can provide joyous moments, even in difficult times, and the movie effectively displays football as such an outlet without resorting to melodrama (ahem..."Rudy").

In addition to these positive aspects, "Invincible" has many of the characteristics mandatory in sports movies. There's a wet blanket female, adversity to overcome, and a handful of scenes that induce chills. The crunching football scenes are good too, although most of the action takes place either in practice or isolation shots involving Papale. The quality of football ought to be high though, since this is the first movie since "Jerry Maguire" that was officially approved by the National Football League. The NFL's okay was vital in lending authenticity to the movie, as the real logos, name, and places create a fun game of who-was-that during the flick. Anyone who watched football in the 1970s will enjoy picking familiar names off jerseys, and recognizing names and venues as they are mentioned and shown.

Sports movies are men's equivalent to chick flicks, pointing out a difference between the sexes. Women want to fall in love; men want to be sports heroes. So even though the plot is fairly routine, "Invincible" provides solid sports entertainment, particularly in the current build-up to football season, during which Disney was smart to release the film. It surpassed my mediocre expectations, and that's good enough for a recommendation from me.

Bottom Line: As "Rocky" in cleats, it satisfies a fix, and does so in surprisingly efficient fashion. 6 of 10.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Snakes on a Plane!

[7/10 · 9 December 2006]

"Snakes on a Plane" revives a lost art in Hollywood, the B-movie, a movie that realizes its own shortcomings and cheesiness, and relishes such things, following in the recent tradition of "Eight-Legged Freaks" and "Starship Troopers". Therefore you must have the proper mindset going in. If you expect an action movie like "Mission: Impossible III", you will be disappointed. If expect a tense thriller similar to "Die Hard 2", you will be disappointed. If you expect an Oscar contender, you're just plain stupid.

The storyline is largely irrelevant. Strike that. It's entirely irrelevant. The bottom line is that hundreds of poisonous serpents end up on an trans-Pacific flight. The build-up to the anticipated action isn't that bad; but at half an hour, it still takes too long before the snakes appear.

Fortunately for all involved, Samuel L. Jackson is an FBI agent on the flight. Not only is he there to save the flight, he's there to endow the movie with a little respect. As one of the few familiar faces, Jackson is perfect for his role, in which he more or less plays himself, or at least his screen persona. But he is perhaps the only actor who could fill such a part, one that requires a sense of seriousness among laughably wacky situations. He brings with him a gravitas that lends credibility to the movie. His mere presence as an actor elevates the flick beyond its late-night cable pedigree to something worthy of being on a big screen.

Part of the reason "Snakes" fits that pedigree is its lack of subtlety. Like its title, the movie paints in broad strokes, both in plot and character. The people on the flight are little more than caricatures, ranging from a effeminate male flight attendant to a rich chihuahua-toting heiress. That's fine, if not preferred. In a movie where many of the characters are going to soon meet their doom, who cares about any intricacies of spirit? The movie just draws a few necessary outlines before splattering them with blood and snakes.

Much like the avalanche of recent horror movies, the blood and the accompanying screams are the point of the whole shebang. You go to this movie to gleefully cringe at the awful fates and almost equally awful dialogue. You go to scream at the jump scenes, to cheer at motivational speeches, and to recoil in mock shock at just about everything. The difference between "Snakes" and its horror counterparts is that this movie possesses a sense of humor. The movie is so ludicrously over-the-top that you can almost see and hear the makers winking and chuckling behind the camera. So if you see it, do so with a group of friends and overreact to everything; "Snakes on a Plane" is a movie best experienced corporately, although it's definitely not for children or anyone who fears slithering reptiles.

Bottom Line: Good times. 7 of 10 for a wildly entertaining experience that meets expectations wonderfully.

World Trade Center (2006)

It's not United 93, but it's not bad.

[7/10 · 9 December 2006]

Movies about September 11th, 2001, are not easy to watch, nor are they easy to review. On a lesser scale, they are this generation's equivalent of Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation watching World War II films. I remember my grandpa discussing "Saving Private Ryan", and he was always hesitantly uncomfortable, acknowledging that it was a well done, but he didn't enjoy it much. In a like vein, the fact that its viewers lived through the described day both abets and ails "World Trade Center", Oliver Stone's emotional story about two emergency workers trapped in the rubble of the twin towers.

Speaking of "Ryan", "WTC" also faces the same quandary as "A Thin Red Line", in that it follows a similarly themed movie that might be the year's best film, "United 93". Like "Line", "WTC" differs widely from its chronological predecessor even though the general subject material is the same. Though set at Guadalcanal, "Line" wasn't really about war, while "Ryan" was precisely about the horrors of war. "United 93" told a story from a primarily objective standpoint, allowing the audience's own genuine emotions to affect their viewing experience. Differently, WTC is about specific experiences on 9/11, looking to share the feelings of a the trapped officers and their left-in-limbo families. Those people certainly have their moments of primal emotion that can only stem from situations of life and death. The most touching ones spring from the family members left on the outside, forced to wait and wonder. For whatever reason, imagining the loss or endangerment of loved ones is more potent than imagining one's own physical danger, and the portrayal of that blistering boredom cuts to the quick of anybody with a heart.

As soul-wrenching as these events are, and despite the fact that they are true, they still feel like movie moments. Strong and good movie moments, yes, but even the best of those cannot match someone's personal feelings from that day, feelings created by actually being there. Make no mistake, the movie is very well made. Although Oliver Stone did direct it, none of his trademarks are present here. There is no kinetic editing ("JFK"); there are no flashy visuals ("Any Given Sunday"); there is no agenda of any kind ("Platoon"). Were his direction not so publicized, one would have no idea of his involvement. He wisely lets the story tell itself, using a straightforward story-telling method that gently weaves together the disparate experiences of the two men and their families.

Perhaps I erred in seeing this on September 11th, after a day spent reliving my own emotions and those of actual people who were there on that day. "World Trade Center" is a good movie that contains raw human emotion more powerful than most put on screen. But even that drama simply cannot match what we personally experienced when living through that day, regardless of the dire circumstances. That makes the movie less compelling than it should be.

Bottom Line: Better drama than most, but missing an extra dose of passion to push it to the next level. 7 of 10.