(1 People gave this 1.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“Something elusive”

Click here to jump to the Swift’s Notes (AKA Cliff’s Notes) Review!

Swift shot:  In 1977, I was three years old, so there is no way I could have possibly seen Star Wars in theaters . . . but, I did.  I was probably four when my dad took me in his yellow MG convertible, the kind you had to snap shut, and (perish the thought) I sat in the front seat . . . with only a seat-belt to protect me, well, that and my dad.  Funny how we overlook the most important part of child safety, the parent!  Still, we went, and the roads were wet, and the air was kind of musty outside, like after a dog shakes and there is a light fog in the air.  I was really small, and the world was still new and exciting to me, I believed that anything was possible.  After I saw Star Wars, there is no denying this, I wanted to know what made Darth Vader so evil. Even before I saw Empire Strikes Back, I can remember being secretly happy that Vader didn’t die in the final battle in A New Hope.  He was . . . interesting, and I was compelled to know more about him.  Twenty-two years later, I would finally have a third of his legacy revealed.

Stavanger, Norway – the year was 1999; I had just gotten back from Albania, where I was doing Counter-Intel work for NATO where I saw more than I care to admit.  I saw humanity’s inhumanity.  With that backdrop, I was well ready for something to take my mind off of reality and to just be child-like again.

The film was released already in the states, it released in May, and it hit the can in August in Norway.  I had given strict instructions to every single American that I knew to reveal nothing to me . . . on pain of death!  Maybe the tone I took was sufficient, because no one revealed anything.  But, now we have all seen the film, and we are now thirteen years later, where all the questions have been answered . . . and then some.  So, I won’t pretend you haven’t all seen the film, and I will violate my rule of making spoilers verboten.

Let me start my defense of the film thusly.  When I was in high school, it wasn’t cool to like Bon Jovi, or Bon BlowMe as my friends and I all called them, because we were so damned cool.  But, years later I found out that we were all closeted fans, would go home and jam out to them, all while faking the funk back in school.  And, I think, that is what has happened with Phantom Menace.  I think it has become derivative to say you don’t like it, because of one stupid freakin’ Gungan! Ask yourself, honestly, when you saw it in 1999, was it so incredibly bad then?  Or were you sucking at the Lucas teat and waiting for whatever he would squeeze out, teasing you in anticipation of Episode III?  If nothing else, did not the film get your butt into the theater for Attack of the Clones?  I thought as much.

This first film holds a special place in my heart for being the first piece of a greater puzzle to make up arguably the most hated villain in Hollywood . . . Darth Vader.  When we first meet him, Anakin Skywalker is a slave boy who has dreams of grandeur and adventure . . . but he also is incredibly protective of his mother.  Is this fear of loss the thing that will finally make him the sinister lord of the Sith?  Well, you already know the answer, but I didn’t in 1999 – and neither did you!

Starring the incredible [Academy Award Winning] Natalie Portman as Padme/Queen Amidala and casting Ewan McGregor as the legendary Obi-Wan Kenobi was a master-stroke for Lucas.  Liam Neeson, no stranger to audiences now, and back in 1999 had a fair film resume and lots of hungry fans, plays Master Qui-Gon Jinn with Ahmed Best providing some exceptional voice-over work as the oft-derided Gungan Jar Jar Binks.  The pivotal character though, had to be a boy, had to be believable, and had to be someone you cared for in the end.  Jake Lloyd, all of ten years old had to step into some of the biggest, darkest boots Hollywood has ever created.

Could you have done better . . . at ten?  Hell, could you now for that matter?  There was one scene he had to get right . . . and he did!  When Yoda says there is much fear in Anakin, and Lloyd is looking at him with pure malice, that is one of the finer scenes of any young actor.  If he blew that moment, however subtle, it would have ruined the film for me.  That is the essence of Vader, he is an egoist, but he protects those he loves . . . anyone else is just in the way.  In that moment, Lloyd nailed it . . . at ten.  So, put that in your pretentious pipes and suck deep, cynics.

There has a been a lot of talk about Portman not doing a good job, bull, I think the scenes where she was being a queen, she was directed to be regal-sounding or something, and given that a lot of the work was done with a blue-screen, I think she did enough with what she had to work with.  Also, she had to alter her voice etc. to not make it obvious that she was Padme.  I must admit, in 1999, I didn’t know it for sure until she was washing R2-D2, after being (comically) ordered to clean the heroic droid by the “queen.”

Which brings us to the synchronicity quips of so many “critics” – it was “childish” to have C-3PO created by Anakin and to have R2-D2 already introduced in the series.  It was lame to have the force described in an organic, scientific fashion, and why did Lucas feel the need to force racial stereotypes in this film?  Because it is a film . . . it is a series driven by fan admiration, he was going to the candy store, maybe he did it one time too many with making C-3PO’s maker Darth Vader, but I actually thought that was a nice touch.  When he was a ” child” he created a toy, a “childish thing”, but when he becomes a man, that childish thing leads to his destruction.  Impressive.  Good mythology there, don’t ya think?  Or, did you not catch that, because you were too busy hating a certain Gungan?

Also, on to the Gungans . . . did you hate them all, Boss Nass, Captain Tarpals, every last floppy-eared “primitive life form?”  Or was Jar Jar the only Gungan you wanted to kill?  Newsflash, he was supposed to be annoying, he was the comedy-relief, buffoon, hell, even Obi Wan wants to leave him and can’t wait for him to shut up half the time.

All this is why I didn’t hate the film, because this is how I was already dissecting it in 1999, I was intrigued with the story-line, the epic battles, the droids, and then there was this new guy . . . Darth Maul.  When he makes his first appearance, it is one of those great movie moments, and when he engages the second blade on his light-saber, tell me you weren’t four years old again and thinking, “That’s cool!”

What I really liked about his character though, and the fight scenes in particular with him, he doesn’t say anything.  There is no, I am your father, I hate you, I am Sith, your mother is so fat . . . none of that trash-talking.  He just goes right for the kill.  I LOVED THAT, even though the dialogue is what fascinated me about Vader in 1977, in 1999 the lack of dialog had me thinking, woah, that Darth Maul is one bad mutha!

Episode I – The Phantom Menace had rich characters, a compelling plot that sets up the motions to create the Galactic Empire, and a few strikes which can mostly be over-looked to make for an enjoyable time at the theater.  The cinematography, albeit mostly CGI, was state-of-the-art for its time.  The ILM team may have used a softer stroke on the special-effects to create a more raw feel to the film, like they had to do in 1977.  In effect, they got too good, and they show-cased their work to the nth degree.  Still, the overall immersive feeling to transport myself outside of my theater seat was still there.  A few stilted lines delivered by a less than spectacular Samuel Jackson, and one overtly annoying Gungan, weren’t enough to ruin the film.  Telling the first part of the Anakin Skywalker trilogy, where he is but a small boy, the film does a fine job laying out all the pieces that will ultimately lead to his betrayal and his transformation to vile Sith Lord, Darth Vader.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Jill Sprecher

Written by: Jill Sprecher and Karen Sprecher

Cast: Greg Kinnear, Billy Crudup, Alan Arkin, James Detmar, David Harbour, Lea Thompson

So I started watching this film and I said to myself, “self, what’s this all about?” It seemed dull, dull, and dullier. “What was Greg Kinnear thinking when he took on this role?” Then all of a sudden, the film takes this funky turn and I’ve fallen through the ice and am absorbed in the story up to my neck…and it keeps getting better and better. With rapid and unexpected plot twists and turns and a climax that just sings, Thin Ice is a small gem of a film with great performances and a crafty everyman story.

Very reminiscent of both (Fargo-1996) and (A Simple Plan-1998) for it’s Bible-Belt characters and wintery location, Thin Ice carves out a place all its own that holds your attention and takes you on a dangerous journey of deceit and double-dealing.

The story goes like this, a Wisconsin based con-man insurance salesman (Greg Kinnear), separated from his wife (Lea Tompson), broke, and precariously near the end of his rope, discovers that an elderly client (Alan Arkin), whose account he stole from a new associate, has inherited an extremely valuable violin from his ailing sister and is not aware that it’s worth $25,000. Hatching a plan to grab the violin and sell it himself, Kinnear tries to build a friendship with the befuddled old man. But Kinnear is hopelessly out of his depth and that’s when things start to get really complicated.

Kinnear is wonderful in his endless desperation, Arkin is masterful as the old man, and Billy Crudup is explosively dangerous as a locksmith caught up in the whole scheme. The writer-director team of the Sprecher sisters (Clockwatchers-1997), themselves Wisconsin natives, show they have an intimate knowledge of their subject and place it on the screen beautifully, warts and all. Good job Everyone.

Thin Ice gets all the elements just right, taking the audience on a wild ride with an abundance of cannily plot contortions combined with some wonderful comic touches that will have you agonizing right along with the main character. It is a solid, enjoyable film experience.

THIN ICE is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Time: 97 min.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

A mindless bromantic comedy

Look, it’s Kirk’s Nemesis? – A Swift Thought

Girls, you may want to avoid this one, as This Means War wasn’t made for you. Not entirely. The first clue is the opening scene where we meet our intrepid heroes Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) at the tail end of their covert operation. Unfortunately, they forget to put the ‘c’ in ‘covert’ and the ensuing chaos has them end up riding the pine in the Los Angeles branch of the CIA offices until further notice, where boredom reigns supreme. FDR, a known lady-killer, and Tuck, a divorcee, are best friends as well as partners, so when Tuck decides to hit the dating scene again, FDR offers to gladly be his wing man. However, the closest Tuck will allow is a quick phone call to let FDR know if he needs an extraction or not.

What follows is a little perplexing. Maybe I’m so far gone from the dating scene that what transpired seemed odd and in reality is perfectly normal, or maybe the writers had no concept of a first date at all. Enter Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon), a product tester/blogger with a firm grasp of her professional life and no grasp of her romantic one. Against her will, her confidante and best friend, Trish (Chelsea Handler) signs her up for a dating site that pairs her with Tuck, resulting in a 5-10 minute first date that to me seemed more like a meeting. Although the attraction is instant and the pair enjoys each other’s company, Lauren tears herself away so that she could…rent a video to watch alone? Never mind we’re to believe that in 2012 there’s still a ginormous video store conveniently located near the ‘meeting’ site, but we’re also to believe that she’d rather watch a movie by her lonesome than possibly catch a bite to eat with a man she finds incredibly attractive despite his gigantic protruding tooth? Of course we are.

Movie serendipity, also known as “convenient writing,” steps in so that Lauren can meet bachelor number two. At where else? The movie rental place. Despite calling the player on his game and putting up the Great Wall of China, Lauren finds herself accidentally pitting the two friends together by dating them both. In the face of a gentleman’s agreement on the best man winning, all hell breaks loose as both CIA agents use every government-funded resource at their disposal to spy on Lauren, and one another, to ensure neither get the upper hand.

Once you get into the shenanigans, you can ignore the contrived plot devices and shut off your brain as the action picks up. Director McG (sounds more like a DJ by the way) may try to convince the ladies that this is a standard romantic comedy, but I’m here to tell you that is completely false. It sails more on the bromantic comedy side of things as we quickly come to realize that the story is about two friends who put their friendship to the ultimate test only to find out that they truly belong together…In a non-gay way, of course.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

It becomes clearer that this is more bromantic at the climax, where – shocker! – Lauren learns of the two’s friendship, but instead of the typical rom-com trappings where we have to endure 10 minutes of sadness, pining, and profuse apologies followed by a heartfelt wowing speech that had us at ‘Hello,’ we’re met with explosions and stunt work . . . not that there is anything wrong with that!

As vapid as this movie was, I enjoyed it for the popcorn-flick it turned out to be. So guys, if you want to avoid another romantic comedy with your gals, take them to This Means War . . . and enjoy pulling the wool over their eyes.

(1 People gave this 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“House Keeping”

Swift shot: I N T E N S I T Y – Intensity, Intensity, Intensity!

Ever have one of those “boring” jobs where you wish something would happen . . . anything, just to kill the monotony of your daily existence?  Well, Matt Weston, of the Central Intelligence Agency has one of those jobs.  He is a safe house keeper, meaning he provides an off the grid location for the Agency to put up friendly, and not so friendly, guests as the situation demands.  He has been the sole proprietor at his safe house in Cape Town, South Africa for 12 months.  Poor Matt hasn’t even had one guest stop on by.  Think your job sucks?  Director Daniel Espinoza does an excellent job in the opening sequence of developing the boredom so we can all relate, using a little Steve McQueen nod as well, right out of The Great Escape I should add.  And, escape is exactly what Matt Weston is seeking . . . escape from this most uninteresting assignment, ever.  Thing is, as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for, especially when you work for the CIA, because excitement can come in many forms!  And in “Safe House” it comes in the form of CIA spook, legend, boogeyman (insert other cliched titles here) Tobin Frost.

I heard NBC’s Matt Lauer said this one is “non-stop action”, and the hell if he wasn’t dead on!  Other than the opening sequence where we feel for Matt (Reynolds) to have even one guest, something, anything significant happen, when the shit hits the fan, it really is non-stop, in your face close quarters battles, gunfights on the streets of South Africa, car chases, foot chases, explosions, snipers, knives, broken glass and whatever the hell can deliver violence.

Matt quickly learns he may, or may not, be on the wrong side of the equation when he first gets introduced to his house guest, Frost (Denzel).  Frost literally re-wrote the book on psychological manipulation for the Agency (AKA mind-fucking), and now he is a victim of his own design.  Frost has been a rogue agent for over nine years and specializes in selling secrets to the highest bidder, at this point he is not interested in being a patriot, he just wants his money and understands that eventually everyone betrays everyone.  But Frost has one rule . . . he only kills professionals.

Not since “Training Day” have I been pinned to my seat just waiting for the next sequence to shock me.  Some lady sitting next to me must have said “shit!” twenty times as things kept going blam, splat, or boom and caught her unaware each time.  Much like real violence, it is brutal and comes seemingly out of nowhere, because that is when it is the most effective.  I mean, how many idiots call out, “Hey, you!” before opening fire?  The action sequences were incredibly well shot, crashes were believable, characters actually get dirty, beaten and bloody.  Continuity in this film was tight!  Overall it was a full-throttle spy thriller with plenty of bad guys, bullets and bravado.

So, why not five stars?  Well, to reveal that might be to include a spoiler as I didn’t much care for how the whole thing finally played out in the end.  Also, there should be a rule for modern cinema, we can tolerate bare-assed Ryan Reynolds if we get a likewise bare-assed beauty in Nora Arnezeder (come on, she is French, so we know she isn’t prudish).  A glancing side boob shot is not gonna cut it, what happened to women’s lib?  Where is the equality!?!  Other than those two things though (pun intended), this movie has no flaws!  See it at the theater if you can, and if you have a kick ass system at home, more power to you, because this will be fun wherever you watch it.  I wish all “spy” movies were this good!

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

When married couple Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum) are in a terrible car accident, Leo is fine except for a few bumps and bruises, but Paige ends up in a coma (she had taken her seat belt off and she went flying through the windshield.  That’s why it’s important to always keep your seat belt fastened!!).  When Paige wakes up from her coma, she has brain injuries that cause amnesia, but she’s forgotten only the past few years of her life.  To put it another way, she’s lost all her memories involving her husband, who is now a stranger to her.

Paige is the love of Leo’s life, and in flashbacks, we get to see the little things that Leo does for Paige that make her fall in love with him.  For example, when she was at work with a cold, he left her a box filled with medicine, tissues, etc, and every object in the box had a Post-It on it with something he had written on it, all to make her feel better.  Or when he wanted Paige to move in with him, he didn’t just ask her, he spelled it out for her, in blueberries!!  What a guy!!  While Paige is recovering, we are taken on a journey through Paige and Leo’s relationship, from when they first met to their rather unconventional wedding (it looked like it was in a museum and they definitely weren’t supposed to be there, since the security guards chased them out).

One day, during Paige’s recovery, Paige’s parents Rita and Bill Thornton (Jessica Lange and Sam Neill) show up.  Leo has never met them, and it turns out that Paige had a falling-out with her family several years ago and hasn’t spoken to them since.  But, her parents see Paige’s memory loss as a way to have their daughter back.  Perfect timing, too, as Paige’s sister Gwen (Jessica McNamee) is about to be married.  Paige ends up moving back in with her family so they can take care of her.  This is not good for Leo and his plan, which is to get Paige to fall in love with him again (since her memory shows no signs of returning).

Unfortunately for Leo, Paige does remember her ex-fiancé Jeremy (Scott Speedman) who’s kind of a jerk (he makes a comment at Gwen’s wedding and Leo punches him in the face for it).  Now, Leo is NOT a violent guy, not at all, but between the stress of his wife’s losing her memories, his trying over and over to win her affection again, and his failing business, who wouldn’t deck a guy who pretty much vowed that he would sleep with your wife??

Will Leo succeed in his mission??  Will Paige regain her memories??  I’m not telling here because that would be spoilers!!   Overall, “The Vow” was definitely a chick flick.  I don’t know of any guys who even want to see this movie, which is fine, because it is totally geared towards women.  I liked it because while it wasn’t totally depressing, it was a little sad but had the right amount of light-heartedness to balance it out.   I wasn’t disappointed with the acting or the story; I thought it flowed well and didn’t drag or have anything unnecessary going on.

Interestingly (to me at least,) “The Vow” was quite similar to the plot of the final episodes of a certain spy-related TV series that just ended last month.  It was similar in that the main female characters had their memories wiped, but only the past few years’ worth, and their husbands had to try to make them fall in love with them all over again.   There have also been comparisons to another Rachel McAdams movie, “The Notebook”, which is a great movie, but “The Vow” is not as sad as that one.

A bit of trivia:  “The Vow” is based on a true story.  At the end of the movie, we get an update on the couple the movie is based on, but I won’t let on if they are a couple . . . or not.  I guess you will just have to find out for yourself.

(1 People gave this 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Growing up a bonafide comic geek, my circle of friends would occasionally pose the question: What powers would you want to have? It was always a gas to hear the reasoning behind the power choices. One of my favorites discussed was the power to manipulate time…usually for criminal and perverted acts. My choices were varied at first, from super strength, to invisibility, and finally settling on Telekinesis. It was the one power that seemed limitless. You want to lift a car? Done. You want to fly? Done. You want to stay dry in the rain? Done. I could go on, but I’ll assume you get the picture. When tasked to see Chronicle, of course I jumped at the opportunity.

Until I realized it was a ‘found footage’ film, which meant shaky camera shots, poor composition, and weird angles that may or may not get the scene. So, yeah, I’m not a big fan.

I found myself pleasantly surprised, however, when watching Chronicle. Sure, there was every aspect that I hated about ‘found footage films’ present front and center; however, I think it was handled fairly well, and thankfully only a fairly short amount of time was spent on the hand held aspect of the cam. Once the boys get their powers, the shots get smoother, as one of them uses their Telekinetic ability to keep the cam afloat. Ingenious.

The other issue I had was that the plot might have been taken from a 2002 film called The Surge (or The Source, depending on where you’re from.) That movie was about a group of friends that stumble onto a rock in the forest that imbues them with powers – not at all dissimilar from Chronicle. Thankfully, that’s about all they share as the stories they tell branch off sharply from there.

As the boys fine tune their powers, all kinds of shenanigans ensue. Unfortunately, for those of us that previously had watched the trailers online and on TV, there won’t be many surprises coming that way. The hilarity doesn’t last long; however, as Andrew (Dane DeHaan, who incidentally, looks strikingly like he could be Leonardo DiCaprio’s brother) allows his home life and school life to affect his increasingly reckless behavior, boiling to the inevitable pulse pounding showdown between friends.

Chronicle does a passable job in creating a sympathetic villain in Andrew. He’s bullied at school, his father is abusive, his mother is terminally ill, and he barely has any friends. The pieces were in place, but the execution seemed lacking, as the only sympathy I could muster for him was superficial at best. His relationship with his mom was never solidified, or portrayed deep enough for you to see how he felt about her. There were glimpses, but nothing that convinced me his descent into madness was believable. Likewise with the abusive father. I got the impression the abuse was only recent, as his father was unable to cope with his wife’s ailment and recent job loss, but the resentment Andrew shows would indicate a longer stint as a punching bag than I’d imagined.

Those few hiccups aside, I enjoyed Chronicle. The story was good, and the way they altered camera shots to piece together the story kept it interesting. The special effects delivered most of the time, though there were a few noticeable missteps. And the acting was well done, considering how difficult it is to act like you’re not acting. All the boys handled that task well.

If you were on the fence about seeing Chronicle, hop off it now and go see it. You could do worse at the theater.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Rodrigo Garcia

Cast: Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska, Aaron Johnson, Janet McTeer, Pauline Collins, Brenda Fricker, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Brendan Gleeson, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Antonia Campbell Hughes, Mark Williams, James Green, Bronagh Gallagher, John Light

This film, an intricate tale of women passing as men in 19th-century Dublin, is a true labor of love for actress Glenn Close, and her performance is brilliant. She played this role on stage in the 80’s and has been trying to bring it to the screen ever since. I’m glad she did, for it’s thrilled me with what I believe to be the best performance by an actress in the past 10 years.

The carefully measured and calibrated performances by Glenn Close and her co-star Janet McTeer, as two women who succeed in passing as men in a stifling period of time where the only choices for women were virtually limited to being wives or scullery maids, or prostitutes, are a joy to behold.

Here’s the storyline: Professionally attired as major domo of the elegant Morrison Hotel, Albert Nobbs is a small, fastidious, impeccably correct gentleman, thought of fondly by guests and most of the other employees. When not working he keeps to himself in the dreary bedroom where he has carefully concealed every cent of his earnings under the floorboards. He lives a dreary, lonely life, devoted to his job and devoid of true human contact. Think of Albert as a sad Chaplinesque figure, walking stiffly, speaking in monotones, and acting masculine in a way that is at once captivating, revealing and yet heartbreaking.

This behavior has gone on since Albert was traumatized early in life and made the decision to hide her feminine self away in this elaborate disguise. All would have gone on like this forever, had not Hubert the painter (Janet McTeer) accidentally entered Albert’s life. Turns out, Hubert is also a disguised woman (married to another woman), who has been very successful in achieving a reasonable life for herself. She becomes Albert’s role model and then mentor. How Albert reacts to his/her renewed desires for a full life makes up the balance of the film. It’s a pure joy to watch, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, so just go see it.

The film is based upon the short story titled “The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs” by George Moore; and Glenn Close, Gabriella Prekop and John Banville painstakingly wrote the script. It was skillfully directed with grit, grace and a deep understanding of what a person’s singular dream of liberation means, by the talented Rodrigo Garcia, whose ability to pull tour de force performances out of actresses is becoming legendary.

“Albert Nobbs”  is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Sex and violence, more implied than shown.

TRT: 103 minutes

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

High on fun, low on believability.

The H-Bomb:  A mysterious man (Sam Worthington) checks into a Manhattan hotel alone.  He treats himself to an extravagant meal, then wipes the room clean of all fingerprints and climbs out the window and onto the ledge.  It’s not long before he’s spotted by some do-gooder on the street far down below, and a crowd gathers to see if he’ll jump.  Some even cheer for him to jump!  Soon the police and the media both show up, and the whole thing turns into a big fiasco.

Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks), a police psychiatrist with a drinking problem and a sad back story, is called to the scene to try and talk the man down off the ledge, and in their back and forths she gets the feeling that he’s not really suicidal, and that there is something else going on.  Of course, we the audience, through some rather clumsy flashbacks, already know more about this man than Lydia.  We know that his name is Nick Cassidy, that he is an ex-cop who went to prison for a crime he says he didn’t commit, and that he’s an escaped fugitive trying to clear his name.

But what does all that have to do with Nick dangling off the ledge in full view of hundreds of people?  Well, maybe it’s to keep people’s eyes off of what his brother, Joey (Jamie Bell) and Joey’s girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez) are doing across the street, in the diamond vaults of slimy, big shot Wall Street broker David Englander (Ed Harris).  Normally, I’d be reluctant to give that much away, but the trailer already did it for me, so I figure, the hell with it.

In fact, for the audience to enjoy “Man on a Ledge”, they’ll have to say the hell with it, too, because that is exactly the kind of movie it is.  The kind of highly contrived, ridiculously illogical thriller that Hollywood cranks out every so often.  The kind where if you scrutinize the plot, the characters, or anything that’s happening, you’ll just end up frustrating yourself, but, if you can just kick back and go with it, you’ll find it fairly enjoyable.

Basically, “Man on a Ledge” is a popcorn movie, one that wouldn’t cut the muster in the summer, hence it’s being released in January, when movie theaters resemble post-apocalyptic wastelands, but essentially it is 90 some odd minutes of pure, dumb brain candy.  Those looking for a tense, single location thriller like “Phone Booth” may be disappointed, as this actually is an overly plotted heist movie in the “Inside Man” vein, only about a thousand times more improbable, and not nearly as memorable.  It’s entertaining, but you’ll be straining to remember anything that happens in it the day after you see it.

As far as performances go, this really, truly is not a performance movie, but everyone on hand does their best. Worthington is an actor who has never interested me at all.  Frankly, I find him about as exciting as a piece of plain toast and as charismatic as a bullfrog, but here, he’s actually all right.  He hasn’t converted me into a born again Worthington fan or anything, but on this occasion, he managed to make me root for him… even though the Hasselhoff hair he sports doesn’t do him any favors.  Banks, as the alcoholic police shrink, does okay, as well, but like Worthington, I find her kind of bland.

Fortunately, the solid supporting cast does help spice up the mix.  Bell is funny as Joey, Nick’s well meaning but clumsy brother, Anthony Mackie is smooth as Nick’s best friend and a fellow cop who’s a little too interested in his predicament, and Harris hams it up nicely as the stereotypical smug, cigar sucking, fat cat bad guy.  Fans of William Sadler will be pleased to see him in a smallish role as a helpful Bellhop, it’s just too bad he looks as though he aged twenty years in the past ten. I was disappointed to see Ed Burns relegated to the throwaway role of some generic detective who spends the whole movie on the sidelines.  This guy used to be a full fledged movie star.  He helped save Private Ryan, for Christ sake!  What happened?

Of everyone in the cast, the one true standout is Genesis Rodriguez.  Never heard of her before?  Don’t worry, neither have I, but I have a hunch we all will in the near future.  Her turn as Joey’s girlfriend/amateur cat burglar is sassy, sexy, and almost steals the show.  The moment where she strips down in her bra and panties to slip into her skintight catsuit is perhaps the most hysterically gratuitous thing I have ever seen in any movie, but in a movie this hokey, it’s allowed.

And hokeyness is the order of the day with this one.  There are some intensely suspenseful moments (the bit with the news chopper is great), some nifty action towards the end, and even some laugh out loud moments throughout (the old Hippie in the crowd shouting about Attica is priceless).  It all leads to a climax that is both howlingly absurd and a little under-whelming, but if you keep your expectations modest and your brain turned off, there is fun to be had… provided you have absolutely nothing better to do.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi here!

Limacher Low Down:  A Separation recently won the 2012 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, and it is easy to understand why.  The film is a character study of several people living in Iran and the circumstances they find themselves in drives the movie. The acting is outstanding, and while a few things may be lost on viewers that don’t understand the culture, the story can easily be considered universal.

The movie begins in a courtroom, and we see two people through the eyes of the judge. Immediately we learn that a couple has filed for divorce, and the only thing holding up the proceedings is the issue of custody of their young daughter.  Nader (Peyman Moadi) is the father who wants to stay in Iran with his daughter to take care of his elderly father who is stricken with dementia. Simin (Leila Hatami) is the mother who wants to flee from Iran and move somewhere to be with her family without possible prosecution. Simin wants to leave right away before her passport expires, and does not want to leave without her husband and daughter. This is really an interesting set of circumstances. When most of us think of divorce, it is because of issues that cannot be resolved. This couple still loves each other, but because of insinuating circumstances, they need to divorce.

There is a moving scene in Nader and Simin’s apartment where they discuss the court proceedings with their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi). Nader is a loving father, and it seems while Termeh speaks with Simin, she wants to stay with her Father. Simin understands that she needs to leave and leaves the number of a person to take care of Nader’s ailing father since she will no longer be around to take care of him. Enter Razieh (Sareh Bayat) who becomes the caretaker of Nader’s father.

Razieh has strict religious beliefs which don’t allow her to take care of some of the duties that she needs to perform to take care of Nader’s father. After thinking long and hard about whether or not to return the next day, she does. This is interesting because it gives some insight into the religious beliefs of some in Iran, and where the line is truly drawn. It also shows that people can/will do whatever they can to support their family in times of need and that theme builds the crescendo of the film.

Razieh returns the following day to take care of Nader’s father, but leaves to take care of some personal business. Instead of taking care of Nader’s father, she decides to get creative with his care.  Nader returns home to find his father nearly dead lying on the floor.  Razieh and Nader exchange some words that leads into another story that starts to develop into multiple story-lines which all come together.  Putting the angst into the heart of the audience, the film made me question my own emotions and left me curious where the story would  go next.

Nader receives a call that Razieh is in the hospital and that Simin is still with her family in the city. Nader and Simin rush to the hospital to find out what happened to Razieh and to find out if there is anything they can do to help. They come across Razieh’s husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), who at first is very calm and thankful that Nader and Simin have come to the hospital to check on his wife.  While Nader is first greeted with grace by Razieh’s husband, things change rapidly and Nader finds himself the target of a lawsuit.  This is the point in the movie where I lost all control of how to react. I started to question the people and how I might react in a similar situation. This scene really opens up the characters to scrutiny, and when you think you have answers . . . all the questions develop more questions.

Facts come to light, but not all the answers are given and it remains up to the viewer to draw their own conclusion. The movie flows continuously and is unrelenting as a way of making the viewer not only question the actions of the actors, but also question how they would react in a similar situation. Right when you think everything is tied up the ending comes and leaves the biggest question of all.  Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi to get more of an understanding about the climax.

The film grants the audience the proverbial fly on the wall perspective to the drama that unfolds over the course of the story. While it may not be for everyone, people who enjoy drama and excellent story-telling will be more than inclined to go out of their way to see “A Separation”.  The thing that makes this film so compelling is the way the story sticks with you. These are not characters who are easily forgotten, and it is films like this that make movie going a genuine experience.