Poor guy. I don’t know whether director M. Night Shyamalan should consider himself lucky or snake-bitten. His first chance at bat (The Sixth Sense) resulted in a home run, while his subsequent films have ranged from solid (The Village, in my humble opinion) to average (Signs). I think he will forever be held to the standard he established with The Sixth Sense, which is somewhat unfortunate. I considered that movie to have been groundbreaking, and it’s one of my all-time favorites. It’s almost unfair to expect Night to duplicate his initial success, but he’s become sort of a joke in some circles.

Regarding his latest effort, The Happening, I must say that I enjoyed it. My opinion is not the prevailing sentiment, but I stand behind it. To each her own. I thought the movie was very high-concept on an micro-level, but I know others will take issue with the overarching outer concept, which is a bit fairy-tale ish. I apologize for the cryptic review, but I really don’t want to spoil the movie. The Happening chilled me to the bone. Maybe that’s lame on my part, but the concept of the movie was horrifying to me, and if it ever really happened in real life it would be the worst thing the U.S. has seen since 9/11, EASILY. Marketed as Night’s first R rated movie, opening on Friday 13th, The Happening was absolutely frightening. It basically explores what could happen if Mother Earth decided to punish her children for their misdeeds. Yeah, chew on that one for a second.

As I’ve mentioned before, I enjoy the psychological questions that doomsday movies present, and there were plenty of moral dilemmas and tough choices raised by the movie. The sense of urgency and panic in the movie resonated deeply with me, and I was on the edge of my seat throughout. Mark Wahlberg is an effective leading man, though he delivered some lines with a little to much wholesome innocence, if that makes any sense. Maybe I’m just used to him playing a bad ass.

Of course this movie is not on the level of The Sixth Sense, and we should stop holding Night to that standard and just enjoy his movies for what they are. For all of you that see this movie, hit me up, I’m curious as to what you think. tanyarlane@gmail.com

Now is the season for movie studios to roll out their blockbuster comic book movies, and the field is a little crowded this summer, with three that I can think of offhand (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight). If you broaden the category to include superhero movies generally, than I guess you can add Will Smith’s upcoming Hancock to the mix, bringing the total to four.

Marvel brought us Iron Man a short while ago, and now we have The Incredible Hulk, which sort of seems like a sequel to 2003’s Hulk, but not really. New director, new leading man, new love interest, and it doesn’t seem like the new story picks up where the last one left off, so I don’t know what’s up with that. The new one stars Ed Norton (Rounders), whom I LOVE. No movie he’s in can ever be that bad. I must admit that the caliber of actors portraying these comic book characters is quite good. Norton takes the reigns over from Eric Bana (the last Hulk) as Bruce Banner, the scientist whose experiment goes horribly wrong, transforming him into a mammoth green monster. The movie opens with a refresher that rolls during the opening credits, if you pay attention. We see Bruce trying his experiment on himself, and then turning into the Hulk. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the experimental drug was intended to be used as a military weapon. Now that he has turned into the Hulk and fled, the Army is after him so they can refine the drug and begin using it. When we meet Bruce he is on the lam, hiding out in Brazil, working in a bottling factory and managing his “condition” with breathing techniques to avoid getting angry and hulking out. William Hurt (Mr. Brooks) is the Army general on his trail, and his daughter Elizabeth (played by Liv Tyler of The Strangers) is the lovely doctor and girlfriend Bruce left behind.

Ed Norton brings a quiet, sympathetic thoughtfulness to Bruce Banner, and he seems like more of a tortured creature than a terrifying monster. This is underscored by the relationship between Bruce and Elizabeth. Their scenes are sweet and tender, both when it’s Bruce and Elizabeth and the Hulk and Elizabeth. The latter scenes reminded me of King Kong, watching this huge thing carry a woman in its arms. Despite relying heavily on obvious CGI effects, I still felt that the movie was very good and wasn’t hampered by the apparent inauthenticity of the Hulk. You know what’s funny though? When the Hulk busts out of his clothes, he manages to keep his pants on. LOL, how is that possible? I mean, I’m not saying I want to see what’s underneath, I’m just sayin’. It doesn’t make sense. Regarding the performances, Norton and Tyler had good chemistry together. Not much was required of William Hurt or Tim Roth (Gridlock’d) as the villains, but the presence of such accomplished actors can only enhance a movie. All in all, The Incredible Hulk is a worthy addition to the field of comic book flicks coming out this summer.

The mother of all “chick flicks” arrived and took theaters by storm. Much hyped, highly anticipated, Sex and the City met expectations – both from a financial standpoint and in the minds’ of fans. I wasn’t an ardent viewer of the show, but I have the first couple of seasons on DVD and knew enough about the series to keep up. The movie did a good job of explaining each character’s backstory and history for any first-time viewers. Samantha is as sex-crazed as ever, Charlotte the embodiment of sophisticated motherhood, Miranda the analytical, self-absorbed ladder-climber, and Carrie, the complicated fashionista that holds them all-together. I know that was a corny synopsis, but gimme a break. I’m not trying to do an in-depth character analysis here! They’re all a little more complex and not as one-dimensional as I just described, but you get the idea. Call me a slacker, but I’m not going to spend any more time on this review. It is what it is. I think if you were a fan of the show, you won’t be disappointed with the movie. Most people were pleased with it. One thing I have to take issue with is the insane level of excitement expressed by some women. One said it was women’s version of the Superbowl. Pump your brakes sweetie. More estrogen than the studio audience at the Oprah show, but it was a good time.

Yikes! This one gave me the heebie geebies, I can’t lie. The Strangers tells the story of an estranged couple’s absolutely terrifying night in a secluded cabin. James and Kristen have attended a friend’s wedding, and are spending the night in a cabin belonging to James’ family – one where he spent his childhood. We learn that something is wrong with this couple fairly quickly. It seems that Kristen has refused James’ marriage proposal, and the two must spend an awkward night together in the cabin. Don’t worry, I didn’t spoil anything for you: that little detail means nothing. Anyway, I mention that part of the story because it sets the stage early for the nature and progression of their realtionshiop, as events force them together, physically and emotionally. The movie is tinged with sadness from the very beginning. Although the pair have recently ended their relationship, their love and concern for one another is evident throughout the movie. Anyway, on to the stuff you really care about. I’d say that on a scariness scale of 1-10, I’d give it an 8. I think that’s pretty good. I can’t give it a perfect 10, because certain parts (as with most horror flicks) exasperated me. It started off pretty strong because it was realistic. James and Kristen pretty much reacted the way you or I would. They were placed in a fucked up situation and were at the mercy of others, essentially powerless. Let me tell you about the plot quick-fast, it’s really simple: a family (mom, dad, and teenage daughter) are terrorizing James and Kristen. Why? No reason. And that’s the scary part. I think it makes us feel better as human beings if we can look at tragedy and say, “well, they did it for revenge, or for money, etc…” When Kristen asks the strangers why they are doing this to her and James, the answer is simple and chilling: “because you were home.” Oh shit! I just scared myself. I’m sleeping with the light on.

For a while there the only Iron Man I knew about was Ghostface Killah, Wu Tang Clan’s loveable lyricist who adopted the alias Tony Starks. Lo* and behold he took the moniker from his favorite comic book hero of the same name. We’ve become inundated with superhero movies over the last several years, and I must admit I enjoy the genre. I think the first Spiderman movie set the bar pretty high, as Hollywood made a marked departure from the cornier superhero movies of the 1980’s (Christopher Reeves’ Superman comes to mind). With that being said, I think Iron Man continues the recent tradition of very good superhero flicks.

Robert Downey Jr. is one of those highly respected, critically acclaimed actors, despite his run-ins with the law and his substance abuse problems. It looks like all that nonsense is a thing of the past and Downey’s got that proverbial swag back. He’s in rare form as Tony Stark, brilliant billionaire weapons developer and ladies’ man extraordinaire. When Stark is taken hostage after traveling to the Middle East to debut a new weapon, he creates “Iron Man” as a means of escape from his cavernous prison. After a series of refinements, Iron Man becomes not only Stark’s altar ego, but a highly advanced, sleek weapon in and of himself. I’m not familiar with Iron Man’s bio, so I don’t know if he’ll evolve into the type of hero that saves everyday citizens by foiling bank heists and other such clichéd foolishness, but for the first installment our hero is just focused on making sure his weapons aren’t in the hands of the bad guys.

I must confess that when I look at Robert Downey Jr, I don’t immediately think of him as a superhero, but he did a great job. I guess I didn’t think Tobey Maguire looked like a superhero either, but I’m sure he has everyone sold as Spiderman. My point is that if you’re a good actor first, you can probably successfully portray a superhero or just about anything else. Unless you’re George Clooney in Batman. LOL. Anyway, Iron Man lives up to the hype. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the other highly anticipated comic book movies being released later in the summer: The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight. For now it’s probably the best movie based on a comic book in recent memory. Actually, I expect The Dark Knight to $hit on everything Iron Man stands for, but we’ll see!

*I am a spelling fiend and I hate misspellings. This is not a typo! You don’t put a ‘w’ in “lo” when it is used this way, as an interjection.

The premise of this movie seemed hilarious. A responsible woman who has unsuccessfully tried to conceive must rely on a surrogate to get the baby she so desperately wants – the only problem is that the woman carrying her child seems to be a child herself.

Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live) is Kate Holbrook, a successful, single executive who put her professional life ahead of the desire to start a family. Now in her late thirties, Kate’s biological clock has become deafening. When she learns that her oddly shaped uterus makes it unlikely that she’ll be a mommy (the scene w/ the GYN who tells her this news is hilarious), she decides to resort to alternative methods. Enter Angie (Amy Poehler, also of SNL) as a surrogate who doesn’t mind renting out her uterus for the right price. It’s funny because Kate and Angie couldn’t be more different from each other. Whereas Kate is straight-laced and “together,” Angie seems to be stuck in a second childhood. There are a couple of good twists that keep the story moving forward, and the movie wasn’t too predictable. It relied heavily on its premise but also showed Kate evolve from a total career woman into one that is more open for love and willing to let her guard down. Kate and Angie made a good yin and yang duo, with great comedic effect.

Of course I have a few quibbles, or else this wouldn’t be life and I wouldn’t be me. There were a couple of little racial jokes that I found rather offensive. That’s not to say that there wasn’t humor in the jokes, but it was the kind of humor that makes people uncomfortable. I’ll admit I’m sensitive to that sort of thing, and I don’t think it’s a reason not to see the movie. I just didn’t appreciate it, particularly because people tend to believe jokes that come from certain people, i.e. if Chris Rock makes a joke about Black people, Whites will probably think there’s a lot of truth there, after all Chris Rock is Black, right? So it must be true. Maybe, maybe not. Getting back to the movie, I have a problem with what I assume to be a White writer making a joke about the Black community and having a Black actor deliver the line, almost as if that will lend credence to the negative stereotype. Alright, I’m off my soapbox!

Go see the movie, it was good and it has a strong supporting cast featuring the likes of Steve Martin, Sigourney Weaver (most recently of Vantage Point) and Greg Kinnear (Stuck on You). Over and out.

Deception, the newly-released suspense thriller starring the talented Hugh Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) and Ewan McGregor (The Island) opened up this past weekend to dismal numbers, coming in 10th place amidst stiffer competition. I thought it was an intriguing movie and I enjoyed it, despite its disappointing finish.

McGregor stars as Jonathan McQuarry, a timid Manhattan accountant who lives a pretty lame existence. While auditing a law firm late one night he meets one of the firm’s partners, Wyatt Bose, both brash and confident. Guys like Wyatt are usually pricks, but for some reason he takes a liking to the awkward Jonathan, with whom he would seemingly have very little in common. They even fire up a doobie right there in the building, and this little bonding experience foreshadows the naughty lifestyle Jonathan will be experiencing now that Wyatt has entered his world. When the two men mistakenly grab each other’s cell phones, the trouble begins. When Jonathan receives a call (on Wyatt’s phone) asking if he’s “free tonight,” he doesn’t exactly go out of his way to tell the female caller that she has the wrong number. He meets the mystery caller in a posh hotel lobby, a beautiful blonde that looks like just the type of woman that would be phoning Wyatt. They go up to a room and Jonathan feebly confesses that he’s not the man she thinks he is. She asks if he’s the guy she spoke to earlier, and when he says yes the protest basically stops right there. This beautiful stranger makes love to Jonathan, and thus he embarks on a journey of late night, anonymous frolics with different women, each foray precipitated by a phone call asking “are you free tonight?” Now, of course these calls are intended for Wyatt, and Jonathan tells Wyatt about them. Wyatt encourages him to lose his inhibitions and enjoy himself, which he does. Things go awry (as they always do), but I don’t want to give too much away. Suffice to say that Wyatt isn’t the friend Jonathan assumed he was. The two end up engaging in a battle of wits with a mysterious femme fatale (Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain) acting as centerpiece.

Whew, I’ve said a mouthful, more than I intended. Deception was stylish and sexy to watch, but was noticeably flawed, particularly towards the end where a good twist was followed by events that defied logic. There was something about this movie that I liked though. Hugh Jackman was perfect as a handsome narcissist who preys on the weak, and McGregor was believable as the straight arrow who gets in over his head. I don’t think the movie’s eye-rolling implausibilities detracted from the overall noir, sleek feel of the film. It wasn’t as smart or provocative as Eyes Wide Shut, but the vibe was similar and I liked it.

Al baby, I love you. You know I do. You and Bobby D are two of my faves. *Sigh* I wanted so much more from 88 Minutes. It wasn’t COMPLETELY terrible, but it was not the smart, entertaining thriller I’d hoped for. A very mediocre script led to many little details that didn’t add up or just didn’t make sense. Okay, I’m getting ahead of myself; let me set it up for you in case you don’t know the plot.

Al Pacino (most recently of Ocean’s 13) is Jack Gramm, a psychologist and college professor whose testimony against a serial killer named Jon Forster resulted in his death sentence. On the day of Forster’s scheduled execution, Gramm receives a phone call from an anonymous caller informing him that he has 88 minutes to live. What follows next is a series of attempts to both frame Dr. Gramm for the serial murders and kill him. We’ve seen people be terrorized over the phone before (Die Hard With a Vengeance and Phone Booth instantly come to mind), and I think the idea is a good one. The problem with 88 minutes is that the cast is alternately annoying (Gramm’s teaching assistant), clichéd (the FBI agents questioning Gramm), or just plain stupid. So many little things failed to make sense, and I can’t discuss all of them here. I’ll give you one though. There’s a part where Gramm pays a cab driver to let him borrow his cab, but the driver sits in the back seat. Why the F did this happen? Gramm didn’t speed, so it wasn’t because he needed to drive the way he wanted; he let the cabbie remain in the car – so obviously the destination was not a secret; and he never used the cabbie as a distraction or as a means to trick the person who had been threatening and trying to kill him. It might seem insignificant, but it jumped out at me and I thought it was ridiculous. I thought the movie’s premise was a good one, but the execution was rather disappointing. Sorry Al, although your presence alone was enough to get me in the theater, it is not enough to save this movie. 6 out of 10, and that’s generous.

This movie just popped up outta nowhere, real random-like. I like random, so I figured, why not? Street Kings looks like your typical cops vs. bad guys shoot ‘em up, and that’s pretty much what it was. It was a little smarter than your typical variation, so I must admit I was pleasantly entertained by this gritty depiction of the unabashedly corrupt LAPD.

Street Kings stars Keanu Reeves (The Lake House) as Detective Tom Ludlow and Forest Whitaker (Vantage Point) as Captain Jack Wander. The opening scene sets the tone of the movie, as we see Ludlow abandoning the 4th amendment to nab some particularly nasty bad guys. He’s like a one-man wrecking crew, and it earns him the respect of Captain Wander, his mentor and protector in the department. Keanu Reeves is alright with me, I just think he always sounds like a surfer dude. He has an unwavering deadpan delivery. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but I thought he was serviceable as Detective Ludlow. His delivery lent authenticity to some of his character’s personality traits, particularly Ludlow’s naiveté to the widespread, far-reaching corruption in the department. Another thing I liked about the movie was that the director (or cinematographer, whoever) made the City of Angels appear very dark and ominous – the atmosphere was tense, which I think is a marked departure from the way L.A. usually is portrayed in film. David Ayers (the director) has written, directed, or produced several movies set in L.A., and his familiarity with the setting was an asset to the movie. He has a knack for showing the city’s underbelly, which made the movie better than I thought it would be.

Street Kings was worthwhile, nothing you’ll rave about to your friends, but certainly worth checking out. If you get past the violence and profanity (rated R, no doubt), there are some good performances from Whitaker (of course) and Chris Evans (Fantastic Four) as a straight-laced detective who teams up with Ludlow. A strong 7 out of 10.

Vegas hasn’t jumped the shark yet. It seems like within the last 5-10 years, Sin City has mushroomed in popularity, if that’s possible. I don’t know…maybe people have always been allured by a city out in the desert where vices can be explored in anonymity. A place where, as one character in 21 so aptly put it, “you can become anyone.”

It is that decadent, hedonistic ambience that attracts Ben Campbell, a broke MIT senior with aspirations of attending Harvard Medical School. Ben’s a genius, even by MIT standards. When he impresses one of his professors (Kevin Spacey, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil), he is offered the chance of a lifetime – an opportunity to make more money than he’s ever seen. It seems as if Mickey, the good professor, has been leading a team of students in a most interesting extra-curricular activity: high stakes Blackjack aka 21. Every weekend they fly to Vegas where they unleash their brilliant minds on an unsuspecting casino by counting cards. They’d like Ben to join them, as he’s one of the most gifted students in his class. His crush, team member Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth, Superman Returns) provides a little incentive, and soon Ben has entered a world previously seen in his dreams. In the words of Jim Jones, Ben is BALLLLINNNNNNNNNNNN. He claims that he’s saving money for med school tuition ($300K), and as soon as he gets that amount, he’s out. Of course the excitement of living a double life becomes intoxicating and he gets in too deep.

What I liked about 21 was that I got sucked in right along with Ben. Vegas is depicted as a separate universe, some otherworldly sensory paradise. The contrast between Vegas and Ben’s normal life in Boston was stark. Although he seemed to be living a fantasy, nothing seemed farfetched, which I guess is explained by the fact that the movie was inspired by a true story. This was the best movie I’ve seen lately, and it was well-acted and held my attention throughout. The main character was likable without being annoying and sympathetic without being wimpy. Kevin Spacey portrays Mickey as a presumably thoughtful professor, but we get a hint that something is not quite right. Laurence Fishburne (Akeelah and the Bee) also made an appearance as a casino employee who smells something fishy. 21 is a must-see Vegas movie. If you liked Rounders or Ocean’s 11-13 you will probably enjoy 21 as well.