Why the Discovery Channel Rocks

Boomdiada!

That pretty much sums it up.

88 Minutes

Here's another simple, somewhat recycled premise. Al Pacino plays uber-successful university professor and forensic psychiatrist Dr. Jack Gramm who, when he's not teaching class and being an all around confident guy, is a consultant and expert witness for the F.B.I. On the day before the scheduled execution of serial rapist/killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), a new murder scene is discovered bearing the exact same modus operandi as Forster. This turn of events, of course, not only raises doubts concerning Forster's guilt but also brings into question Gramm's expert testimony which was responsible for the conviction. To add to an already perfect day, Gramm receives a phone call telling him he has only 88 minutes to live. Ticktock doc. As the minutes fall away and the reality of the situation sets in, Gramm, convinced that Forster is somehow behind what is happening, realizes that the perpetrator must be someone very close to him, and he's going to need to push his skills to their limit in order to unravel the puzzle and hopefully stay alive.

Not bad - not great. I would say this movie rests comfortably on the low side of 'good', and that's only because of the performances of Pacino and McDonough. Pacino come through with his familiar I'm-a-forceful-but-charming-kinda-guy persona that he's perfected over the years except, in this instance, his character is highly intelligent and quick on his feet as well. Pacino adds the intelligence factor without coming across as pompous, which is a very good thing because it wouldn't have taken much for me to switch sides and root for the killer. This brings me to McDonough, the incarcerated serial killer who may be behind the machinations affecting Pacino's character. Honestly, I think I would have liked this film much more if McDonough had received more screen time. McDonough's portrayal of Forster was intense, calculating and just a tad chilling, and the interactions between Forster and Gramm were some of the best moments of the movie. I've seen several things with McDonough in the cast (Minority Report, The X-Files, Timeline, Band of Brothers) but this was the first I'd seen him play such an intense character - he should do it more often. The other two notables in the cast would have to be Leelee Sobieski as one of the grad students and Alicia Witt as Gramm's teaching assistant, both of whom bring a polished realism to their characters that could have easily slipped past other, less experienced actors.

All in all I think this was an adequate film considering the story, however, this definitely falls into the 'rental' category. Had it not been for Pacino and McDonough, this could have conceivably been a direct to video release and, considering the plot, if the four main roles were replaced with full time television actors, you'd have a perfect Lifetime movie. Now I realize that some people who don't read and aren't particularly fond of logic will find this movie much more satisfying than I did, and that's fine. Sometimes I wish I was one of those people because, then, I'd have so much more to like but, unfortunately, I'm not so I'm relegated to the disappointment isle, but that's just fine because it means that when something really well thought out and surprisingly written comes along, I'm all that more impressed by it and my day is truly improved. Sadly, 88 Minutes didn't fall into that category.

p.s. In case you're wondering what does fall into that category, considering the story line, look no further than the first season of The X-Files to episode 12 entitled: Beyond the Sea. Brad Dourif guest stars as a convicted serial killer about to be executed when crimes mirroring his m.o. begin to occur, opening the door to lots of questions and bringing Mulder and Scully to the prison since it was Mulder's profile that caught Luther Lee Bogs (Dourif) in the first place. Awesome episode and amazing performances from Duchovny, Anderson and, as usual, Dourif. Check it out - you won't be disappointed.

The Ruins

Well, this one's fairly simple. You've got your four American college kids (boy-girl couples) on a Cancun holiday when, two days before they're to depart, they meet Mathias (Joe Anderson), a friendly German who, following an afternoon of beach frivolity, offers to take them to the archaeological site where his brother is working. The site, as fate would have it, is very off the beaten path (even though they end up following an actual beaten path) in a secluded area found only by hand drawn map and consists of an obviously ancient and heretofore unknown Mayan pyramid. Jeff (Jonathan Tucker) & Amy (Jena Malone) and Eric (Shawn Ashmore) & Stacy (Laura Ramsey) agree to spend their last day of holiday as students of history exploring a site that has not yet become a tourist trap. Curiously, this situation could cause one to wonder at the origins of the phrase 'tourist trap'. Also on the excursion is tag-along history buff, Greek tourist and wannabe adventurer, Dimitri, who had been invited, along with his two Greek buddies, on the same day but, unfortunately, as the morning of the trip dawned, his two buddies were still sleeping off the previous night's festivities forcing Dimitri to leave them behind with instructions under their sleeping heads. So, as the six set off on their day of fun, the first thing that is apparent, at least to the initiated, is that if this were an episode of Star Trek, Dimitri would be wearing a huge red shirt. Anyway, after some riding and hiking, the group arrives at the pyramid only to be confronted by a group of locals waving guns, bows and arrows and shouting in a language no one understands. Things get violent and confused, quickly, and the group takes refuge atop the pyramid. It is at this point that the writers, producers and studio intend for the story to sprout and grow into full bloom.

This film is based on the novel (which I haven't and probably will not read) of the same name by Scott Smith and was, from what I understand, a bestseller. After seeing the movie, I've decided that either the book really wasn't that good and the mass of people reading it were not typically well read, similar in nature to the group that flocked to The da Vinci Code, or the book actually was good and, considering how movie studios have a propensity for altering novels, the original story was 'doctored' in a formulaic fashion with the intent of inducing the proper scares at predefined intervals along with anticipated higher ticket sales. Whatever the case, the movie was a disappointment.

The cast, consisting of four primary individuals, performed as well as could be expected. They were confused, exasperated, terrified, frantic, stupid, falsely noble and borderline psychotic right on queue. The performances were adequate but typically over-the-top. I know, I know, there are always those people who say something like, "Don't be so judgmental because you don't know how you'd act in a similar situation." Yes I do, and besides, only certain types of people find themselves in those types of situations and, since nothing remotely comparable has ever occurred to me, I'm obviously not one of those types of people. Additionally, the cast did their absolute best for what they had to work with and in a few scenes, they were as convincing as their surroundings would allow them to be. Curiously, the characters who I found most convincing and unnerving were the Mayan characters who spoke no English but easily conveyed a sense of panic, intensity and unease. So, all in all, I don't really think the actors can be held responsible for the lackluster story.

I realize I'm being a bit tough on this film so I feel I should clarify that the movie isn't horrible, it's just typical and the few truly clever devices and interesting aspects of the plot are never fully realized or explored in their entirety. Granted, the beginning of the movie, showing the four main characters partying in Cancun, is rather uninspired and does nothing to instill confidence in or imbue either character with any redeeming qualities. The first fifteen minutes are so vacuous, they could be used for the opening of a horror movie, a sci-fi movie, a 'teen angst' movie, a Lifetime Network 'action' movie or an episode of The O. C. However, once the actual story begins to play out, several potentially interesting and compelling scenarios are revealed but, as I previously mentioned, never fully realized. At one point during the movie, I thought, "Wow, this would have made an excellent episode of The X-Files........wait a minute, this was an excellent episode of The X-Files." My point being, similar setups can be found throughout the horror and sci-fi genres, but it's the exploration of the unique attributes that make the journey engaging. The X-Files had five or six similarly setup episodes, but each was uniquely different because of the scrutiny given to specific details and plot twists. There are obvious aspirations in The Ruins' but, unfortunately, rather than sharpen the thought provoking facets, the story succumbs to banality and ignores the gripping questions and aberrations that are posed.

I definitely can't recommend seeing this in the theater but I think this would be an adequate rental for, if for no other reason, exercising your brain's 'what if' capabilities. I know I spent a significant amount of time mentally exploring the possibilities that the filmmakers missed, which was surprisingly satisfying. Also, if you're a fan of typical 'horror' where predictable things occur and the effects are inventive and well done, then this would be a good rental, as well. Curiously, if you are a fan of horror (movies and books), then you may have already seen or read a somewhat condensed version of this story if you've ever read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew or seen the movie Creep Show 2 because the short story The Raft, which was the second segment of Creep Show 2, is remarkably similar to the overall concept of The Ruins. I hope that doesn't ruin it for you.

Doomsday

There are two synopsis' for this film, the first: A fast moving and atrocious super-virus surfaces in Glasgow laying waste to the population in short order. The government, anticipating that no cure or treatment can be found before every human in Scotland is dead and in an effort to prevent the spread of the virus (known as the 'Reaper' virus) to England, Ireland and possibly the rest of the world, quarantines a majority of the country and encloses it within a huge steel wall populated with automated and human sentries that annihilate any of the infected that try to escape. The idea is to let the virus die out after the last human perishes and then keep the area sealed off as a no-entry hot zone just in case further exposure could be possible. There is a huge surge as the uninfected try to make it out before the final steel doors are welded shut and, in one particular case, a mother sacrifices herself so that her young daughter will survive. Thirty years later, England's economy is failing as poverty forces more and more people into streets already overcrowded with the remnants of the thousands of individuals displaced because of the Reaper virus and the closest thing to a silver lining is the fact that after three decades, the shifty Prime Minister (Alexander Siddig) and his cronies are under the assumption that they were able to contain the virus and are, at least, safe from that threat. Wrong. Thanks for playing. Unexpectedly, the Reaper virus resurfaces in London forcing the government to go into high alert because they know they don't have much time before mass exposure. The drastic turn of events prompts the Prime Minister to reveal top secret satellite imagery to one of London's top 'special-ops' police commanders, Bill Nelson (Bob Hoskins), imagery showing the city of Glasgow and people who actually survived the virus. The Prime Minister explains that a cure must have been discovered by a Dr. Kane (Malcolm McDowell), who was in Glasgow working to stop the virus when the country was sealed. The plan is for Nelson to recommend an operative to lead an elite team into the hot zone, find Kane and/or the cure and rendezvous with the extraction team in 48 hours, or don't come back. Nelson immediately goes to Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra), who we had already briefly seen in action, knowing that not only is she tough enough for the job but, having been a child when she was evacuated from Glasgow, has her own personal reasons for wanting to return to her former home. What follows is her and her teams attempts to survive a world gone mad in an effort to prevent a similar, or worse, planet wide scenario.

Synopsis two: Normal and well armed bad-asses enter into a post-apocalyptic nether world and do battle with insane madmen (and women), who represent the vilest aspects of human retrogression, in an attempt to procure an item which will allow humanity as we know it (or as close as possible) to continue existing with some semblance of an evolved civilization.

Get it? You can follow the story..........or not - as long as you have the general idea, it doesn't matter, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Either way, Doomsday rocks! and I mean that from the bottom of my guilty pleasured heart.

Seriously, I had an absolute blast seeing this movie, but wait, this isn't a simple sit down and watch what happens movie, no way, this is a leave your doubts at the door and crank up the volume along with your suspension of disbelief, embrace the violence and the driving soundtrack and sink into the movie like you would a hot mud bath, because, like the mud bath, when the movie's over, you're going to feel surprisingly refreshed..........and a little dirty. That's what makes it so much fun.

I'll admit, I was already digging the movie before it even started because I knew I was going to enjoy it simply because of the prospect of watching Rhona Mitra look spectacular while kicking ass. I could not have been more spot on - Rhona (Hollow Man, The Practice, Boston Legal, Shooter) has ousted Angelina Jolie and now, along with Kate Beckinsale and Milla Jovovich, completes my ultimate trifecta of smart, forces to be reckoned with femme fatales. I know, I'm such a geek but hey, at least I'm honest about it. Anyway, back to the movie. Another reason I was looking forward to the movie was because I'm a sucker for those futuristic, post-apocalyptic, fight for your life, kill or be killed as anarchy reigns kind a movies. I was not disappointed and, trust me, if you're a fan of the more simplistic sci-fi with cool over-the-top outfits, heavy action, plenty of chases and ridiculous stunts, you won't be disappointed either. Anyone who's ever seen and, I hope, enjoyed movies like Mad Max, The Road Warrior, Escape from New York, Death Race 2000 or No Escape will feel right at home here because aspects from all of those films, and plenty others, are included in this action fest. I also got the distinct impression that the filmmakers were doing their best to pay homage to these earlier classics (rather than rip them off) while simultaneously trying to create something new and unique for the audience, and I'm happy to say that, in my opinion, they succeeded brilliantly. The crowning moment, for me, occurred during the final, frenetic chase scene as Mitra, driving a fantastically cool Bentley sports car, is pursued relentlessly and recklessly by the evil minions, all to the pounding sounds of Frankie Goes to Hollywood singing Two Tribes. It was practically a religious experience.

As for the acting. Who cares? Alright, I know, that's not fair and to be perfectly honest, the acting is leaps and bounds better than in some of the other films I mentioned - I mean, collectively, the acting in this film destroys Escape from New York (except for Kurt, of course) and all of the players are believable in the roles they are cast. Rhona Mitra is the obvious standout because of how well she was able to convey a seriously tough physical and mental attitude while remaining entirely feminine with an underlying alluring quality (geek boy, I know) - it's no surprise that she was the original model and physical promoter (in character) for the Laura Croft Tomb Raider video games as well as being the first consideration to play the character in the movie version, only to loose out to Angelina Jolie, whom the producers felt would draw bigger revenues. Bob Hoskins (Enemy at the Gates, Who Framed Roger Rabbit) is easily believable as a gritty no-nonsense police boss and it was a pleasure watching Alexander Siddig (Syriana, and Doctor Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) embrace his foul weasel-like character to the fullest extent. Malcolm McDowell is crazy in his patented calculatingly chilling way and Craig Conway (The Descent) is perfectly over the top as the leader of the cannibalistic metal-head gang, channeling Wez, from The Road Warrior, but taking the role to a completely higher level of insanity. The rest of the supporting cast is more then adequate in their respective roles, the soldiers are tough, the sick people are sick, the bad guys are bad and the gangs are off the chart with some surprisingly attractive, amazingly in shape members. I guess in the post-apocalyptic world, there's plenty of time to work out. Good to know.

Well, I've rambled on quite enough about this flick. It's obvious that I enjoyed it and it will definitely become a part of my collection on the day of it's release on disc. I realize that this type of movie doesn't appeal to everyone and I respect that, however, for those people who do enjoy this type of entertainment, Doomsday comes with my highest recommendation and for those people who do, on occasion, enjoy a mindless getaway or an action filled diversion, this film absolutely fills the order.

*Just a side note: The first image is the U.S. promo poster and the second is the French promo poster. I included the second because I thought it was cool........and it's got Rhona Mitra on it.

The Bank Job

Jason Statham stars as Terry, a questionable car dealer with a questionable past. Although Terry was never involved in any serious 'A-list' criminal activity, he and his mates explored their share of petty endeavors, however, now, with a wife and two young children, he's doing his best to make an 'honest' living and provide for his family even though things can be extremely difficult (as in loan sharks) at times. Which makes for a tough decision when the beautiful Martine Love (Saffron Burrows), one of the gang from the old neighborhood who went on to a successful modeling career, shows up with an interesting proposition. It seems Martine's current beau has given her information that offers a practically risk-free hit on one of London's Baker Street banks. Terry immediately sees this as his one opportunity to secure a comfortable and guaranteed future for his family where the odds of his succeeding far outweigh the odds of failing and losing his family for years, or worse. Martine's idea is to take advantage of the huge cache of safe deposit boxes which could hold much more in cash, jewels and other priceless objects than the bank alone, and also because the box owners may not want to report exactly what was taken, leaving the police to fend for themselves as the robbers go their separate ways. The only problem is that the boxes hold more than money and expensive baubles, they are packed with secrets, and to the people who these secrets belong, ranging from organized mobsters, dirty cops, and from prominent members of the British government straight up to the Royal Family, nothing, least of all the lives of the robbers, is more important than protecting their hidden knowledge.

I was surprised at just how good this flick was. The story is inspired by the infamous 1971 robbery that took place at Lloyds Bank in London at the intersection of Baker St and Marylebone Rd. While the true details of what the robbers absconded with remain steeped in mystery, it is a confirmed fact that four days after the robbery, the British authorities issued an official notice to the media requesting that they cease publishing or broadcasting news relating to the crime because of concerns regarding national security. The reasons behind the request were never publicly disclosed and the fact that such requests had been made have only recently been confirmed. The filmmakers, claiming that one of the producers has inside information about the robbery, expound on the prevailing theories and and craft an exceptionally well paced caper with a driving story that is both compelling and believable. All of the characters are well defined and fit nicely into the full arc of the film, however, the writers acknowledge that the lead female character, Martine Love, was created solely for dramatic purposes and is not based on any of their inside information. Thankfully, the writers knew what they were doing because the Love character makes for the perfect linchpin in a story that is as much about priceless intangible belongings as is it about physical objects that can be hidden in boxes.

I suppose my overall take on the film was helped by the fact that I went into the theater with only medium to medium-high expectations, and the fact that I'm a Jason Statham fan. Statham is one of those few guys that can pull off an all out action movie or a gritty realistic drama and for this outing, the drama won and, for the sake of this particular story, I'm glad it did. Despite my fondness for watching Statham kick ass, I'm never disappointed when he plays a straight non-action character, which he does remarkably well in this film. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, all of the characters are spot on and there is a particularly noteworthy chemistry between Burrows and Statham. The other amazing character that I absolutely must mention, because this is what took the film to an altogether higher level, is the character of the movie, itself. The easiest way to say it would be: This is the first new 70's movie to come out in almost thirty years. Now I'll admit, Fincher's Zodiac looked impeccable, exactly like the 70's, but this film not only looks the part, but carries all of the nuances as well. This movie could be watched between Dirty Harry and The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three and no time shift would be noticed, one would just flow into the other. At least that's my opinion. My other opinion is that if you like well acted and well told capers, regardless of the year, then you'll enjoy this movie, and if you're a fan of some of the great 70's flicks, you'll enjoy The Bank Job as much as I did.

The Other Boleyn Girl

Based on the novel by Philippa Gregory and directed by Justin Chadwick (Bleak House), The Other Boleyn Girl tells the story of Mary (Scarlett Johansson) and Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) and how they are thrust into the unstable and unforgiving world of Tudor politics by their father's desire for financial gain and their uncle's quest for power. Proceeding against the common sense and plainly thought notions of Lady Elizabeth Boleyn (Kristin Scott Thomas), Sir Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) and his brother the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey) contrive to ensure that, at different times, one of the Boleyn daughters becomes the mistress to and hopefully produces an heir for King Henry VIII (Eric Bana), thus securing the Boleyn family a prominent and beneficial place in the monarchy.

This film falls comfortably between 'good' and 'very good'. Based on the stellar cast alone, I was anticipating an exceptional film but unexpected lulls, an uninspired performance and overall directorial issues effectively reduced a great movie to a good movie. The story, even when examined historically, offers enough fodder for a compelling experience and this version, based on a steamy pseudo-fictionalized account, really should have increased the account exponentially. Unfortunately, the story only remains moderately compelling and most of the steam has evaporated leaving that kind of sticky feeling. In my opinion, the fault lies completely with the director, Chadwick. I don't want to be too hard on the guy, being that this is Chadwick's first big screen gig and all (he directed Bleak House which was awesome), but I felt he never really pushed the intensity factor, in the story or with certain character interactions, that could have made this film feel like a ride in a fast car with questionable breaks. Instead, I think he tried to reach a certain level, and then keep the film hovering at that spot for the duration. Also I felt he failed to use Eric Bana as a proper Henry VIII. Everyone thinks of Henry as a boisterous guy who knew what he liked and was absolutely thrilled about it and if something displeased him, everybody knew about it, because he made sure of it. Bana's Henry is rather low key and quiet and apparently channels all of his intensity through his eyes, leaving him to stalk around the movie looking like David Copperfield after making the Statue of Liberty disappear. Now don't get me wrong, Bana had his moments, he just wasn't what I would think the average, remotely familiar with history, person would expect. My final issue with the directing, and this may just be one of my personal nit-picks, was Chadwick's habit of filming through objects. Almost all, or, at least a fair amount, of the scenes opened with a shot through something, like a fence, or a grating, or some bars, or framed in a doorway with hanging curtains or really just about anything you could conceive to look through. I remember making a similar observation about Elizabeth: The Golden Age, except in that film, it was cool - the shots were used sparingly and gave the impression that the audience was eavesdropping on the characters in the movie. In this film those types of shots serve no purpose and once they are noticed, they become kind of annoying. After a while, I tried to make the best of it by guessing what the next shot would be through, but that's just me.

Enough complaining. Johansson was great and Portman was completely off the chart. It was great to see Portman work a devious and manipulating character to the hilt, however, in my opinion, by ignoring history and allowing Anne to succumb to her emotions before becoming shorter, the filmmakers missed a marvelous opportunity for Portman to truly shine. (It's also too bad that Anne didn't have someone like Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez to guide her, but that would have been a completely different story. Cool, but different.) I should also mention that Kristin Scott Thomas was excellent, as well, only she should have had more screen time. In fact, all of the performances were more than adequate (even Bana's at certain moments) including all of the supporting players, but I do think Portman's performance made the movie worth seeing - I'm just not sure it would be a theater experience for everyone. However, if you're a fan of well dressed period pieces and don't mind having the cast far outbalance the story, then, in a few months, this will be the a perfect Sunday afternoon rental.

In Bruges

Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are two hit men who, having just completed a not-so-flawless assignment, are ordered by their boss, Harry (Ralph Feinnes), to the amazingly maintained medieval town of Bruges to relax and await further instructions, which could come in two days, or two weeks. The pair begin by doing the best they can to fit in but, unfortunately, the only real way to fit in is by becoming tourists and that prospect holds little, if any, appeal for the younger and less experienced Ray. The older, wiser and more seasoned Ken is at ease with the notion of a low profile and settles into his role as a tourist while trying to be a mentor, a friend and, in a way, a father figure to the rather uptight Ray. While the days awaiting contact pass, Ray, who seemingly has a knack for the unusual, finds himself attracted to a local female, Chloë (Clémence Poésy), which leads to some darkly humorous situations involving drugs, a dwarf American actor (Jordan Prentice), the locals and even some tourists. Contrary to Ray's experiences, Ken begins to appreciate his surroundings and finds himself being mentally and spiritually uplifted by the simple and quaint qualities of the historically preserved city. As Ken is enjoying his peace and tranquility and Ray is dealing with his current exploits, while internally struggling with the prior hit, Harry's call finally comes though, turning everything upside-down and leading to some of the best (and darkest) humor as well as some of the most unforeseen emotion.

I first saw the preview for this movie, several weeks ago, when I saw The Orphanage, and I knew then, simply from the trailer, that I was going to like it. I've liked Brendan Gleeson since Braveheart, and his perfectly delivered sarcastic turn in Lake Placid solidified my substantial respect and admiration for him, only to be compounded by his recent embodiment of the Auror, Alastor Moody. This film finally offers Gleeson a much deserved abundance of screen time and his performance is characteristically solid and surprisingly poignant. And speaking of HP, Clémence Poésy, of Fleur Delacour fame, demonstrates an impressive command of frankness, drive and vulnerability as Chloë. In keeping with the wizard world refugees, Ralph Feinnes, as mob boss Harry, provokes fear steeped in unpredictability by bringing just the right amount of menace mixed with adamant lunacy to the character. However, for me, the standout performance was easily that of Colin Farrell as Ray. It's no great stretch to imagine Farrell as the guy not wanting to fit in or be a sheep-like tourist gaping at medieval architecture, but the surprise is how funny he can be while doing it. The other interesting aspect of Farrell's performance is the subtle way he plays up to the true issues haunting his character, revealing the unexpected emotional tough guy, which, again for me, is what made his performance such a standout.

And speaking of unexpected, the biggest surprise of the movie, by far, had to be the depth of the story coupled with it's touching human resonance. This was a perfect example of a trailer failing to do the film justice. I went into the theater expecting a rather light comedy with a few dark moments (after all they are hitmen) and sparsely populated with a few 'moral lessons' ending with the good bad-guys out maneuvering the bad bad-guys, much to the humor of the additional characters as well as the audience. Wow, was I ever wrong. My first thought when I realized my error in judgment was, "A lot of people are going to miss a really good movie, all because of a crappy trailer." Still, not to sell the comedy aspect short, there are hysterical moments and plenty of genuinely funny scenes and dialog, but it's their truthful representation that make them meaningful while being simultaneously humorous. The varying bright shades of humor are interwoven at angles among the larger somber qualities of the character's lives (death, guilt, loneliness, futility...) forming a kind of celluloid Tartan. Needless to say, I was extremely pleased that this film ended up being a far richer experience than what I was anticipating and I'm sure subsequent viewings will shed more light on the exceptionally nuanced performances.

There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's loose adaptation of the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair. The film chronicles the life and times of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), who transforms himself from a down-and-out silver miner raising a son on his own into a self-made oil tycoon. Plainview accomplishes this feat by going directly to the people who live above the oil and, using simple, 'shoot from the hip' language and masterful manipulation, convinces them that he and his crew are the best people to provide for them, in a timely fashion, the things they desire . With his young son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), at his side, and used as part of the manipulations, Plainview builds a massive empire and, over time, his obsession with success and power is only eclipsed by his growing paranoia and misanthropic nature. As Plainview centers on what could easily be the greatest success of his career in the small California town of Little Boston, he is confronted by an unlikely nemesis in the form of a teenage preacher named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). It is because of Eli's brother, Paul (also portrayed by Paul Dano), that the oil man knew of the deposits in the first place, having sold Plainview the information for his own personal gain and to allow him to be free of his brother's shadow. Unfortunately for Plainview, to succeed fully and without question, he must succumb to the local church and the will of Eli, who just might be an even greater showman than Plainview. As the battle of wills intensifies and their determination to succeed increases, so too does the cost of such lifelong endeavors.

If you're a fan of intense character studies within an epic storyline taking place during historic civilization altering events, then it doesn't get any better than this. I thoroughly enjoy this type of film, when all the stops are pulled and every possible detailed is conceived and made manifest, and with this production, I'm very glad to say, I was not in any way disappointed. I think what impressed me most was how well the grand scope of the transformation that was occurring in the United States was conveyed by a relatively small number of major players. The visuals are open and grand with a feeling of deep breath expansion juxtaposed by the less evolutionary adept human element becoming more pressured, or 'squeezed', to adapt and survive while the more robust elements spread tentative wings and begin to glide. The story seems rather simple, to begin with, but as the elements unfold, it becomes obvious that similar stories have played out time and time again, and in making that statement I'm referring to technological advances that have had huge sociological and ecological impact - impact which, as a civilization, we have yet to see the true extent. However, none of the films resonance would be possible without the powerful performances of the cast in telling the story of a very driven man whose primary desire is to succeed as he nurtures his contempt for all things human, himself included.

Speaking of performances, I must note that Paul Dano is excellent as the preacher/prophet, Eli Stone. Dano is subtle in displaying his character's balance of naiveness and aspirations and I'm sure he would have received more accolades had his performance (along with everyone else's) not been overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis'. Even though the only other best actor Oscar nominee I've seen is Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises, I can honestly say I'd be extremely surprised if anyone, even those who deserved a nomination but didn't receive one, put forth a performance that remotely comes close to what Day-Lewis achieves. Mortensen was exceptional (as I noted when I wrote about the film) and I'm not trying to take anything away from what he put into his character, however, there is an "effortless perfection" in the character of Daniel Plainview and Day-Lewis is so believable, so abhorrent and yet, so captivating that his performance is nothing short of mesmerizing. I've seen a lot of good performances over the past year, and I've written about all of them (I think), but Day-Lewis' performance easily stands above them all, but it's impossible for me to adequately convey how impressive and hypnotic his performance really is. In other words, I'm fairly confident in regards to who'll be going home with another little 'golden guy' on February 24th.

The Orphanage

Otherwise known as, El Orfanato (yes, it's subtitled), "The Orphanage," centers on a Laura (Belén Rueda) and the children's home in which she spent time as a child. Thirty years have passed since Laura lived at the orphanage and she has returned with her physician husband, Carlos, and their son, Simon, to begin a new chapter in their lives. Laura and Carlos have purchased the old seaside estate, which closed shortly after her adoption, with the intent of restoring the long abandoned property and making it a safe haven and care facility for disabled children. As their restoration work commences, Simon's active imagination blossoms to the extent of creating new imaginary friends, he already had two, who keep him company and create puzzle-like games for him to play. However, as the reopening of the home approaches, the games created by Simon's imaginary friends become less playful and instead begin to resonate with a darker and more disturbing meaning. After certain events transpire during the opening day celebration, Laura becomes convinced that her family has fallen victim to some obscure malevolence that has long been lurking in and around the house. As the days pass, Carlos remains skeptical while Laura deteriorates but still refuses to give in to her ever mounting fears as she becomes almost fanatical in her desire to simply find some type of answer that can explain the transformation of her once happy childhood home.

You know, the past few weeks have been exceptionally good for movies, at least for me and what I've been to see, and The Orphanage ranks right up there with the best of them. I was absolutely stunned at how good this movie really is and, even now, I have divided emotions concerning it because, on one side, I feel devilishly pleased (like I'm in a secret club) that I've seen such a fantastic film that so many people will miss out on merely because they 'don't do' subtitles, and on the other side, I feel inclined to go out of my way to spread the word about this movie in the hopes that everyone who truly loves a good story and superb acting will be aware of it and hopefully have an opportunity to experience for themselves and believe me, it is an experience. The opening sequence establishes a quaint seaside residence for a very small group of children who, judging by the fun they are having, are as content and happy as they would be if they were all part of the same family as opposed to being orphans. It is during this sequence that the very young Laura is introduced who will become the focus of the film when she returns to the place of her childhood happiness, thirty years later. Rueda's portrayal of Laura is nothing short of extraordinary as she deftly displays the emotional intensity of someone whose sturdy fabric of reality is fast becoming something more akin to gossamer threads. However, the real genius of Rueda's performance is in her ability to make her character vacillate between crazy/desperate and sane/focused, to the point where even I began to question what I thought was going on and what was really going on. In the end, the character of Laura is a brilliant fulcrum for a story that is exactly what it appears to be, except not in the manner in which it appears.

I would like to mention that even though the rest of the cast's role aren't as central as Rueda's, they do provide the perfect foundations for the story and are more than adequately portrayed. Fernando Cayo as the supportive and concerned Carlos and Roger Princep as the playful and imaginative Simon are exceedingly believable in their realism while Montserrat Carulla is properly spooky and cryptic as the social worker Benigna. The standout of the supporting cast is easily Geraldine Chaplin of Doctor Zhivago fame (and Charlie's daughter) as the psychic Aurora, working with a team a parapsychologists, who uses an impeccable balance of science and supernatural to suggest simplistic solutions.

This is the first feature film to be directed by Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona whose previous work has consisted primarily of music videos and noted short films, however, I was very anxious to see this movie based on the fact that it is executive produced by Oscar-Nominee Guillermo del Toro. For those not familiar with del Toro, his directing credits include Mimic, Blade 2, Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth, which was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film. Del Toro is definitely one of my favorite directors and, judging by this film, his exacting nature, development of characters and meticulousness for detail is going to be equally displayed by his production work. Because of his high standards and commitment to quality del Toro has become highly successful with potentially difficult and problematic movies that deal with the realms of the fantastic, making him a very in-demand director globally. As of this writing, del Toro is finishing post production work on Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, is in talks with Peter Jackson and his production company to take up the directorial duties for The Hobbit and it's proposed sequel and I've even heard that his name has come up in the infinitely small number of directors being considered for the final Harry Potter film(s). Impressive.

It's been several days since I've seen this movie and I absolutely cannot wait until I get to see it again. Movies like this are few and far between; it's difficult to combine scary and suspenseful with thought provoking emotion and make no mistake, this movie has some serious fright going on. I've seen many more 'horror' movies than your average movie patron, but the image of the small child at the end of the hallway in the orphanage uniform wearing the homemade burlap mask with one eye and the tuft of hair sticking out of the top is not something that I will not soon be forgetting, and this isn't even a horror movie. On the flip side, I can't think of many (if any) suspenseful films that have had such a surprisingly emotional effect on me upon it's completion (I'm not going to translate that statement for you). The Orphanage is an amazing and beautiful piece of work and even though it's in a limited release, if the opportunity presents itself, do not miss this film and if you're not lucky enough to be in a area showing the movie, write yourself a reminder and attach it to your bathroom mirror so you'll remember to look for it on disc in a few months. Go ahead and do it now. Hurry up.

Cloverfield

Beginning on July 3, 2007, patrons venturing out to see Transformers were treated to a movie trailer filmed from the perspective of a video camera and depicting a going away party for some guy named Rob. In the preview, the party is interrupted by the building shaking, lights flashing, an animal-like noise and a news report concerning calls pouring in about a thunderous roaring sound, which prompts the suggestion of going to the roof in order to possibly see what's going on. Once on the roof, an explosion is seen in the vicinity of the harbor and flaming debris begins to rain down in all directions forcing everyone back into the stairwell in a frenzied attempt to get to safety. The picture and sound cuts in and out as everyone races down the stairway and finally stabilizes as they exit the building and find themselves in a scene of utter chaos and disruption. The street is filled with people running in all directions (mainly away from the explosion) while other people are striving to see what's going on near the harbor. "What is it, is it coming this way?" is heard, followed by, "I saw it! It's alive! It's huge!" Unusual roaring noises reverberate in the distance and as party recipient Rob attempts to coral some of his friends, an exceptionally large object comes hurtling through the air, ricochets off a building about 40 floors up, smashes into the street displacing cars and SUV's and as it rolls to a stop amid screams of terrified people (Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!) you can see that the object is in fact the head of the Statue of Liberty. Oh my God! The preview then cuts to a party goer saying it was going to be the best night ever followed by a black screen with the words: In Theaters 1-18-08. And that was it. No title. No credits, other than the fact that whatever the film was, it was being produced by Alias and Lost creator and Mission Impossible III director J.J.Abrams. Transformers was a smash and was reported as such but, the mystery trailer was also in the news because everyone wanted to know what the heck it was but nobody was talking. Following months of viral marketing, the movie, known only as it's codename, 'Cloverfield' was finally talked about by Abrams and the true title revealed: Cloverfield. Other than the title, the only thing that Abrams disclosed was that the film was a modern monster movie filmed from the perspective of a video camera over the course of a single night. Well, now it has officially arrived and here's the synopsis with absolutely no spoilers:

Rob Hawkins(Michael Stahl-David) is moving to Japan and on his last night in the city he is surprised with a going-away-party populated by all of his friends, including his brother Jason(Mike Vogel), his brother's girlfriend Lily(Jessica Lucas), Beth(Odette Yustman) the girl he's been friends with forever and cares for more than he'll admit and his most loyal but dimwitted friend Hud(T. J. Miller). Hud's purpose is to man the camera throughout the party and record farewell testimonials for Rob to keep and cherish forever, and he does an adequate job when his attention isn't being diverted by Marlena(Lizzy Caplan), the newest acquaintance of the group and, obviously, the object of his desire. The party and typical accompanied drama are interrupted just like we saw in the trailer. Once on the street and after Lady Liberty's noggin has come to a rest, the core group of friends decide they should make their way out of the city posthaste because, yes, there is a monster and, yes, it's alive and it's huge. Oh my God! However, a plea for help in the form of a cell phone call alters their path and leads to the heart of the movie.

Absolute fun! This movie was extremely entertaining and held firm to what it aspired to be from the opening scene to the fade to black. I was especially pleased with the cast of near nobody's (although I was familiar with Lizzy Caplan from a few episodes of Tru Calling - yes, I watched the show, now let's just move on) and how well they came across as relatively average people who were somewhat cool (even the uncool people were kinda cool) and doing their best to deal with the situation of upset reality rather than lose their heads (like the Statue of Liberty). I didn't have a single issue with any member of the cast, their motivations or their actions in regards to the storyline and the situations in which they found themselves. Granted, it's easy to be more judgmental from the comfort of a theater chair but, given the intensity of their plight, I doubt their choices were much different from what mine would have been in a similar scenario, and, again, I feel that the non-famous cast helped me identify with the story on a more basic level. I did recognize one actor (Chris Mulkey - I looked it up), who turns up briefly as very minor character two-thirds of the way into the film, from his portrayal as a deputy in the original Rambo movie, First Blood, and also from his role as a bank robbing, fast car driving alien host in The Hidden but, for the most part, the people in this movie are no different than anyone you might see at any mall in any city. Very realistic.

My only complaint, and it's very minor, is in regards to another aspect of the film's 'realism'. While I appreciate the idea of the events in the movie all being captured on a video camera, I really wanted more. The shaky quality at some points or the realistically bad lighting didn't really bother me, in fact, none of the quality bothered me in any way because I understood the concept and limits of the perspective, however, I would have liked to have seen some aspects of this film from a secondary perspective. Judging from how good some of the effects shots looked through what is supposed to be a video camera, I couldn't stop myself from imagining what a wide aerial shot with full out digital effects would have looked like, but I'm sure that's what what the film makers were after considering the fact they were limiting themselves in the way they were. The film makers wanted to keep this story personal and on a smaller level, and they achieve that brilliantly - the movie plays like a small singular perspective of an exceptionally large and catastrophic event. Did I mention I really wanted more? I understand that the budget for the movie was around 25 million dollars, which is nothing when it comes to some films, and I really have to give director Matt Reeves kudos for what he was able to pull off when you consider how huge and expensive this movie could have been. So, for an unproven director, a fairly new producer (J. J. Abrams) and a unique concept for a classic genre, the studio forked out 25 million bucks to see what they could accomplish and the result is an engaging 84 minute monster movie that made 41 million dollars in four days. Having more than proven themselves, I'm really hoping their accomplishment will lead to a significantly larger budget for a sequel that will tell a bigger story from a grander perspective (maybe two cameras) and provide me with a few more details and deeper understanding of the events or, in other words, more.

Atonement

Atonement, based on Ian McEwan's best selling 2002 novel is brought to the screen by director Joe Wright, who, for this adaptation, reunited with his film making team from Pride and Prejudice and it's Oscar nominated star, Keira Knightley. It's 1935, the hottest part of the year and Briony Tallis(Saoirse Ronan), a mischievous 13-year-old fledgling writer with an overactive imagination, is enjoying a life of luxury and privilege with her family on their estate in the Surrey Hills in England. On one particular afternoon, after failing to convince her cousins, Jackson and Pierrot, the 9-year-old twins, and 15-year-old Lola, to rehearse the play she has written rather than go swimming, Briony, from her upstairs bedroom window, witnesses an exchange between Cecilia(Knightley), her headstrong sister, and the housekeeper's Cambridge educated son Robbie(James McAvoy), which, after obviously stoking her imagination, prompts her to pry even further into her sister's business and eventually leads Briony to bear witness against Robbie in regards to a particularly atrocious transgression of which he is most assuredly innocent. Having openly declared their love for each other mere hours before, Robbie is arrested and separated from Cecilia on a night whose events will have repercussions for all involved for the remainder of their lives.

By the time I arrived at the end, this film had become one of my favorites. For me, there was absolutely nothing to dislike. Everything, the story, the characters, the settings, the cinematography, even the small amount of computer-generated imagery used, was practically perfect. The performances of Keira Knightley and James McAvoy are outstanding and the chemistry that they are able to harness, between the two characters, truly breathes life into what could have very easily become just another period piece based on a good novel. The brief but powerful connection that Cecilia and Robbie forge is what makes everything that transpires during their separation so much more emotional and, as a testament to Knightley and McAvoy's talents, agonizing. However, I must note that it takes more than two incredible characters to create an outstanding film - without the cohesiveness of an equally compelling story, great characters are wasted. In this instance, the cohesive story comes in the form of another compelling character, Briony Tallis, brought to life amazingly, first, by Saoirse Ronan and then subsequently by Romola Garai and Vanessa Redgrave, with each incarnation being the bearer of specific emotions as the decades pass. The rest of the cast more than adequately provide support for the depths of the story and help bring about an intense and heartfelt realism that other films with similar aspirations so often lack.

I really can't say enough good things about this movie. I'm a sucker for romantic period pieces, anyway, but this movie hit it out of the park*. Another thing I should mention is an outstanding shot that occurs about halfway through the film. In the scene, Robbie who is now a British soldier in World War II, makes his way to the final point of British retreat on France's Dunkirk beach which is, understandably, a perfect study of weary defeat and disorganization. As Robbie makes his way along the beach, through and around hundred's of other soldiers and horses, the camera never cuts away, even as he doubles back and circles certain areas looking for a resting place - the shot continues, without a break, for five and a half uninterrupted minutes. As it turns out, on the day they intended to film that scene, the film makers were able to gather 1000 extras for that day only and, to make matters worse, the tide would soon be coming in and the set and pieces would begin to disappear. They had to make the scene in one day and the best way to do it was in a single shot rather then dozens of short ones. From what I've read, they were able to film the shot three times and, I think, ended up using the third take. For me, even though I was already aware of the shot, I felt that it added a significant amount of scope and realism to the scene as well as contributing to the overall depth and quality of the film and, to be honest, I was so focused on the unfolding story, the shot was probably half over before I realized I was seeing it, which is a good indicator that the technicalities didn't overwhelm the story and/or emotion.

Atonement is easily one of the best movies I've seen in months and I can honestly say that even the most hard-hearted person would find it difficult to not be moved by this story. I wish I could say that the film lives up to the book but, having not read it or seen a comparison of the two, I can't, however, I will admit that I'm shopping victoriously for a copy of the book as I write this and intend to have read it by the time the film is released on disc. What I can say is, if you have a penchant for moving, well thought stories joined with great acting and spectacular film making, then this is definitely a movie that should not be missed.



*I felt it was a good time for a manly sports reference.

No Country for Old Men

In this allegorical crime drama based on Cormac McCarthy's book of the same name, director's Joel and Ethan Coen bring to life a surprisingly poignant story about wants and needs and the brutal violence that can be brought about by both. Josh Brolin stars as Llewelyn Moss, a Vietnam vet barely getting by with his wife Carla Jean (Kelly McDonald) in a small town near the Rio Grande. During an afternoon of hunting, Moss stumbles upon the site of a drug deal gone very bad consisting of a significant number of bodies, one barely alive Mexican, a considerable amount of heroin and two and a half million dollars in cash, which he promptly takes. Because of an event I'll not disclose, the very bad men who want their money back become aware of Moss's existence and contract sociopathic killer Anton Chigurgh (pronounced 'sugar' and played by Javier Badem) to find Moss and return the money. Moss, now on his own and having hopefully sent his wife to safety must try and outwit or, at least, out pace the pure evil that is Chigurgh. Back in town, the local Sheriff, Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), is on the verge of retirement but has suddenly found himself in the middle of a series of murders that speak of a twisted apathetic individual possessing a ruthless cunning and wanton disregard for life. As Bell continues to piece together the events in an effort to track Moss and the suspect, he begins to fear the outcome of the convergence of their paths as well as question his own career.

I'll really be surprised if this film doesn't garner some serious Oscar recognition. Tommy Lee Jones, as usual, provides a strong but subtle performance as Sheriff Bell while Josh Brolin's portrayal of Moss is surprisingly fresh from an actor who has been around for some time but has never received any significant accolades. However, for me, the standout performance had to be that of Javier Badem as Anton Chigurgh. Badem masterfully captures the 'spirit' of a sociopath with unnerving results, to the point where it seems as if the character is continuously having an out-of-body experience which allows him to monitor his actions from the perspective of an observer and, thus, totally disassociate himself from any emotional connection that would normally be equated with such heinous acts. I should also mention that Woody Harrelson has a small but notable role as a bounty hunter named Carson Wells whose screen time is as comedic as it is unsettling. Lastly, the Coen brothers should be recognized for an amazing screenplay and their direction of the film in general because, if your familiar with their work, it's obvious that in this movie, as in some of their past features, they worked very closely with the cast and and made a point to emphasize each individual from the lead characters down to the least significant supporting role.

Overall, I thought this was an exceptionally well told story with the perfect amount of character development coupled with a believable premise. I really enjoyed this film and I'm looking forward to seeing it again when it's released on disc in March. I'm always fond of movies that begin with someone having a normal, uneventful day and suddenly things go haywire and this is one of those great stories that transpire simply because of a single, questionable action, and had it not occurred, the story would have been about ten minutes long, if that. Granted, the specific action serves to not only create the story but act as a window into the protagonist's personality, as well, while juxtaposing the actions and personality of the antagonist, Anton Chigurgh. However, in my opinion, had the main character, Moss, taken the opposite action, I would actually have considered him a smarter, but less empathetic character and it should suffice to say that if I ever find myself in a similar situation, my story will be the ten minute version.

I Am Legend

In I AM LEGEND, Will Smith joins the ranks of Vincent Price (in 1964's THE LAST MAN ON EARTH) and Charlton Heston (in 1971's OMEGA MAN) as the star of an adaptation of Richard Matheson's 1954 novel of the same name. Often surprising in its focus on loneliness and loss, this thoughtful, eerie, and restrained sci-fi horror film provides a parade of startling visuals, but never allows special effects to overcome the human element. Smith, in a strong performance very different from his usual persona, is Robert Neville, the lone survivor in a New York City where streets are overgrown and deer gambol among deserted automobiles. Following an epidemic, the Earth's population has been turned into an army of nocturnal zombies. Immune to the virus, military scientist Neville searches for a cure in his Washington Square townhouse. Haunted by visions of his family leaving quarantined Manhattan two years prior, he drives through the city with his German Shepherd, Sam, by day and barricades his home from the monsters nightly. But when Anna (Alice Braga)--another immune stranger-finds him, they will have to fight the onslaught twice as hard.

This movie rocks. I was very impressed with the movie, even though the connection to it's source material (the 1954 novella) is, at best, tenuous. Having recently seen several radically 'updated' adaptations of books and stories, I was very much prepared to see a completely new story loosely based on the original work, which allowed me to appreciate this movie as a separate entity - and appreciate it, I did. Will Smith is exceptional in his portrayal of a man who has quite literally lost everything and struggles daily with loss, guilt and loneliness; kept sane only by sheer drive, routine and his dog. The first half of the film is pretty much Will on his own forging a sympathetic emotional bond with the audience that greatly succeeds in conveying the scope of the Neville character's situation and motivation. I could have easily spent additional time exploring the isolated aspect of Neville's life. The second half if the film is where the intensity picks up and the story truly diverges from the book but, again, that's not really a terrible thing since the tale told is fast paced and never falls into the philosophical trap that could have so easily taken over the rest of the film.

This is a movie designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible without insulting the small percentage who are familiar with books and might actually own one or two. There are several instances involving the 'infected' that really made me stop and wonder about their 'evolution' and, to me, these instances screamed for more exploration but the movie proceeded on, leaving those moments in my mind like afterimages of the sun on my retinas. It's been a couple of weeks since I've seen this film and, yet, I still think of those moments more than any other part of the story. If it was the intent of the filmmakers to leave the audience with those lingering questions rather than simply running short of time and explanation, then all I can say is: Well done.

If you do see this movie and enjoy it, I highly recommend reading a copy of the original novella by Richard Matheson. The book is roughly 150 pages and could easily be read in a couple of days and would give you the true ironic meaning to the title. The novella is concise and well thought, like most of Matheson's work. In fact, most people are probably more familiar with Matheson's work than they realize. Matheson wrote the novel The Shrinking Man which was made into the classic 50's film The Incredible Shrinking Man, he also wrote several episodes of the orignal Twilight Zone series including the famous Nightmare at 20,000 Feet staring William Shatner. And speaking of Shatner, Matheson also wrote the episode The Enemy Within from the original Star Trek series (season 1) where Kirk, because of a transporter accident, is split into two people - one evil and one good. Also written by Matehson, I'll mention Duel - a 70's television movie starring Dennis Weaver and directed by an upcoming director named Steven Spielberg (recently released on DVD), and, one of my favorites, the original television movie The Night Stalker staring Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak, which went on to become a short lived series and the primary influence behind Chris Carter's The X-Files.

The Golden Compass

Based on author Philip Pullman's bestselling and award-winning novel, Northern Lights, The Golden Compass tells the first story in Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. There is a world where witches rule the northern skies, where ice bears are the bravest of warriors, and where every human is joined with an animal spirit who is as close to them as their own heart. This world is dominated by the Magisterium, which seeks to control all of humanity, and whose greatest threat is the last remaining Golden Compass and the one child destined to possess it. Twelve year-old Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) lives an extraordinary life as a ward of distinguished Jordan College. Tearing unsupervised through the streets on mad quests for adventure with her loyal friend Roger (Ben Walker), Lyra is accompanied everywhere by her daemon, Pantalaimon--a small, ever-changing animal that serves as a constant voice of reason. But Lyra’s world is changing. Her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), is embarking on a trip to the Arctic Circle to investigate a mysterious element called Dust, but the Magisterium would go to any lengths to stop him. At the same time, rumors of children mysteriously disappearing and being taken north become terrifyingly real when Lyra''s best friend Roger goes missing. She swears to go to the ends of the earth to rescue him, and when a new figure appears at the college--Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman), a beguiling scientist and world traveler--she sees her best chance to get away. But Lyra''s been drawn into a trap designed to take from her the one thing she possesses that the Magisterium desperately seeks--the Golden Compass. It is a mystical device that can tell the truth, reveal what others wish to hide and foreshadow--and even change--the future. Lyra realizes that she will have to embark on her own journey to rescue Roger and stop the Magisterium. But fate puts her in the protection of a tribe of seafaring Gyptians led by Lord Faa, Ma Costa and Farder Coram. Banding together an unlikely alliance with the Gyptians, the mysterious witch Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green) and Texas airman Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliott), Lyra is flung into an adventure that will take her over sky and ocean, to the wilds of the icy north, where she gains a powerful ally in a great armored bear named Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen). A great war is coming--with her band of friends and allies, and the power of the Golden Compass, Lyra will need all her skill and all her courage, to stop it.

Alright, let's get the simple stuff out of the way: This is a good to very good movie, in my opinion. If you're a fan of fantasy (literature or films) I can safely say that there's no reason not to enjoy this movie. The movie is only a 113 minutes long and moves at a nice brisk pace, considering the fact many characters must be introduced along with their motivations as well as the overall and rather involved storyline and while I might have enjoyed a longer more in-depth endeavor, the complete experience does not suffer because of the length - if anything, I'm more inclined to watch the movie several more times in order to piece together things I may have missed and that's not even taking into account the fact that an extended edition could be lined up for release on DVD and Hi-Def.

The entire cast, including the voice only acting, is fantastic. My only complaint would be that, because of having to introduce so many characters involved with the storyline, I would have liked to have seen more of certain characters even though they do work wonders with what time they are allowed. Daniel Craig conveys an intense drive for truth and knowledge, Nicole Kidman is chillingly calculative with a smoldering evil and Sam Elliot brings a down to 'earth' every-guy honesty into the mix. Eva Green is appropriately sensually cryptic and, in voice only, Ian McKellan is surprisingly awe-inspiring, gentle and devoted. I must admit that the standout performance, for me, was that of Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra. Richards is able to display a huge and shocking range of emotion and maturity - there are times when she is the typical twelve year old followed by moments where she seems like a person two or three times her age trapped in her very small body - I haven't seen such a range since Natalie Portman in The Professional - and yet, Richard's actually takes the maturity level even further. Very impressive.

Now, for the not-so-simple stuff. I would be remiss if I failed to address this so-called 'anti-God' propaganda. I would be willing to wager any amount of money that I could bring together in one lump sum on the fact that the vast (and I mean vast) majority of people who have taken issue with this film have never seen it nor have they read the book on which it is based. The 'issue' comes from the fact that Pullman has no qualms about professing his atheism and the fact that the antagonist in his books is a government based on an organized religion that is striving to be all powerful and controlling while, simultaneously stifling free will and the quest for knowledge. Of course, this ruling religion has everyone's best interest in mind but at what cost? At what point does control and removal of choice become evil? That's one of the fundamental thoughts of the story. Granted, the story may be anti-religion or, more precisely, anti-organized religion but that's an easy concept considering religions are all overseen by man - you know, corruptible man. I'm sure you've heard of him. Anyway, after almost two hours of watching the film, I found nothing that remotely hinted to being anti-God, but there was plenty concerning manipulating human thoughts and lives. As I left the theater, I couldn't help but wonder: If an atheist wrote a bestselling cook-book, would the book and the meals prepared from it be considered anti-God?

One last thought: For those of you who think the idea of a controlling, choice refusing, knowledge repressing Religion/Government is a ridiculous notion, here's a little tidbit that you should be familiar with. In the 1600' the Catholic Church pretty much controlled everything and the accepted view of the universe, according to the Bible mind you, was that Earth was the center of everything (indirectly saying that man was the center of everything) and that the sun and everything else revolved around us as in Ecclesiastes 1:5 from the King James version: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." Now several people, most notably Nicolaus Copernicus from Poland, had hypothesized that Earth wasn't the center of the universe and actually revolved around the sun which, of course, was heresy in the eyes of the church. Along comes Galileo Galilei with his telescope and after much observation, begins to write about the things he can see. Here's the outcome of his free thinking scientific endeavors:

In 1611 Galileo came to the attention of the Inquisition for the first time for his Copernican views. Four years later a Dominican friar, Niccolo Lorini, who had earlier criticized Galileo's view in private conversations, files a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo's Copernican views. Galileo subsequently writes a long letter defending his views to Monsignor Piero Dini, a well connected official in the Vatican, he then writes his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina arguing for freedom of inquiry and travels to Rome to defend his ideas

In 1616 a committee of consultants declares to the Inquisition that the propositions that the Sun is the center of the universe and that the Earth has an annual motion are absurd in philosophy, at least erroneous in theology, and formally a heresy. On orders of the Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine calls Galileo to his residence and administers a warning not to hold or defend the Copernican theory; Galileo is also forbidden to discuss the theory orally or in writing. Yet he is reassured by Pope Paul V and by Cardinal Bellarmine that he has not been on trial nor being condemned by the Inquisition.

In 1624 Galileo meets repeatedly with his (at that time) friend and patron Pope Urban VIII, he is allowed to write about the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical hypothesis.

In 1625 a complaint against Galileo's publication The Assayer is lodged at the Inquisition by a person unknown. The complaint charges that the atomistic theory embraced in this book cannot be reconciled with the official church doctrine regarding the Eucharist, in which bread and wine are ``transubstantiated'' into Christ's flesh and blood. After an investigation by the Inquisition, Galileo is cleared.

In 1630 he completed his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are discussed and compared and was cleared (conditionally) to publish it by the Vatican. The book was printed in 1632 but Pope Urban VIII, convinced by the arguments of various Church officials, stopped its distribution; the case is referred to the Inquisition and Galileo was summoned to Rome despite his infirmities.

In 1633 Galileo was formally interrogated for 18 days and on April 30 Galileo confesses that he may have made the Copernican case in the Dialogue too strong and offers to refute it in his next book. Unmoved, the Pope decides that Galileo should be imprisoned indefinitely. Soon after, with a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition and sentenced to prison and religious penances, the sentence is signed by 6 of the 10 inquisitors. In a formal ceremony at the church of Santa Maria Sofia Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors. He is then put under house arrest in Sienna.

Galileo remained under house arrest, despite many medical problems and a deteriorating state of health, until his death in 1642.

The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718.

In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.

In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of Prohibited Books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.

On October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Not bad, after trying to control knowledge and condemning a man to serve the rest of his life under house arrest, it only took 350 years for someone from the Church to express regret. What's even more amazing is that the ideas that Galileo proved, were accepted by the Church in 1835, but it took another 157 years for them to actually admit they were wrong.

It is exactly this type of atrocity that The Golden Compass endeavors to address.

The Mist

Following a violent thunderstorm, artist David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his young son Billy (Nathan Gamble) are among a large group of terrified townspeople trapped in a local grocery store by a strange, otherworldly mist. Local rumors point to an experiment called the 'The Arrowhead Project' conducted at a nearby top-secret military base, but questions as to the origins of the deadly vapor are secondary to the group's overall chances for survival. David is the first to realize that there are things lurking in the mist...deadly, horrifying things...creatures not of this world. Survival depends on everybody in the store pulling together...but is that possible, given human nature?

As reason crumbles in the face of fear and panic, David begins to wonder what is more terrifying: the monsters in the mist—or the ones inside the store, the human kind, the people that until now had been his friends and neighbors?

Full Disclosure: Huge fan of this particular story. I'm sure I've read it no less than ten times, which means I really had my hopes up going into this flick and was feeling pretty confident considering Frank Darabont's past track record with Stephen King material.

I was not disappointed.

Well, maybe a little, but I'll get to that.

The movie handles the story in a very straight forward manner opening with the intense storm and the introduction of David Drayton, his family, their next door neighbor, Brent Norton, and the animosity between David and Brent. Things move right along to the grocery store, the cast of unique characters of the quaint town and the abrupt arrival of the dense mist. Once the mist has cut visibility to six feet and the store patrons began to fear what may be lurking just beyond their field of vision, the story really begins to blossom. By the time things begin to seen, the real horror has already started to take shape. Thomas Jane, a veteran of Dreamcatcher, another Stephen King based movie, is very convincing as a man trying to deal with an intense situation while simultaneously looking out for his son as he fears for his wife who stayed home, alone.

However, the real star of this film is the breakdown of sensibilities and how accurately they are portrayed. Certain aspects make it perfectly clear how religion steeped in fear could have controlled society for hundreds of years and no character brings that to light better than Mrs. Carmody, played chillingly by Marcia Gay Harden. The character of Mrs. Carmody along with perfectly portrayed 'average people' truly make this a movie worth seeing if only because of it's microcosm display of how seemingly normal, every-day people can be coerced to put aside rational thought and partake in stupid affairs such as burning books and music or condemning scientific endeavors simply because they don't fit in line with something taught in Sunday School. I really had a difficult time deciding which monsters were the most terrifying.

Now, my only disappointment - without giving anything away: They changed the ending and I still haven't decided if I liked it or not. Just so you know, if you haven't read the story, the original ending was one of unknown - a classic 'Alfred Hitchcock' moment that could just as easily contain disaster as much as it could contain salvation. In fact, the end of the story often reminded me of the end of "The Birds" when Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedren, the rest of the family and those evil love birds pile into the car and drive off into the unknown surrounded by thousands of calm, for the moment, birds. The end and answers were left to your own imagination. That's how Stephen King's story ended. That's not how the movie ends. To be fair, had I not read the story multiple times, I'm sure I would have really been pleased with the end of the movie and I have a sneaking suspicion that, given several viewings, I'll learn to appreciate this movie as it's own entity. I base that notion on another book to movie example: The Bourne Identity. The Bourne movie (and the subsequent films) had next to nothing to do with the book and, at first, I was not a fan of the movie in any way shape or form but, priding myself on my ability to see things from various points of view, I watched the film again and slowly I began to separate the two the appreciate the film for an original story using the book as source material. Since then, I've become huge fans of all three Bourne movies while remaining true to my original fondness for the books. In a way, I've been able to enjoy six Bourne adventures instead of only three. It is with this in mind that I look forward to seeing The Mist again and possibly benefiting from two versions rather than one.

Gangster Wrap

Isaac Asimov stated: "Nothing interferes with my concentration. You could put on an orgy in my office and I wouldn't look up. Well, maybe once."

I know the feeling.

For the past two weekends I've made plans to see American Gangster, starring two of my favorite actors and directed by one of my favorite directors, only to find myself being responsible and concentrating on things that I wanted to accomplish to the point that I was unable to 'look up' and get to the movie. Granted, none of these things were pressing and a few of them were actually enjoyable, however, I still see not making it to the movie as a type of sacrifice regardless of what I accomplished or how much I enjoyed it. I'm a bit odd like that.

My other oddity is the fact that if I don't see a film within a preset amount of time, randomly applied to each movie by some small generator in my brain nestled deep in the temporal lobe - hidden in a synapse sparse crevice and utilizing no known logical algorithm, I tend to pass on that particular movie, opting to wait for the release on disc, and, instead, go see something else. A major contributor to that line of thinking is the fact that every couple of weeks brings something new that I want to see - sometimes more than one - and as we approach the holidays, that's going to occur almost weekly.

So, I'm afraid I may not see American Gangster for some time since next weekend will find me preparing for Thanksgiving and the following weekend will bring the release of Frank Darabont's adaptation of Stephen King's "The Mist," which is probably one of the top three things I've ever read by Stephen King (I've read it at least 6 times) and based on Darabont's previous adaptations of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, my expectations are high.

Additionally, now that the weather is staring to cool and the holidays are approaching, I'm going to have more time to devote to my senseless and seemingly endless ramblings - I'm just not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Well, at least if I spend a little more time here, maybe I'll stop receiving requests for 'submissions for our resident's pleasure' from some place called Guantanamo Bay.

We'll see.