I wanted to see this movie because it seemed moving and relevant. I wasn’t familiar with the military’s stop-loss policy, so I did some research to find out about it. It’s basically a clause in a soldier’s contract that allows the president to extend his period of service. It sucks because it’s like a “backdoor draft.” Like Carlito said, just when you think you’re out, they pull you back in.

Ryan Phillippe (Crash) is Brandon King, a decorated Army sergeant who just led his men into a deadly ambush in Iraq. One man was lost, and another was seriously wounded. When he returns home to Texas he reminds anyone who’ll listen that he’s done his time and is getting out. When he goes to turn in all of his equipment, he’s informed that he has been stop-lossed and will be re-deployed to Iraq. What follows is a depiction of Brandon’s struggle to accept the fact that Uncle Sam basically owns his ass. He panics, he feels helpless, angry, and betrayed. He served his country as a loyal patriot and feels like the Army is not keeping their end of the bargain. The movie is unabashedly critical of the war, showing the cruelty of the stop-loss policy and the horrors of Iraq. However, it also shows the flipside of Phillippe’s character in the form of his best friend, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum, Step Up). Steve is all about the red, white, and blue through and through. In a way they all are: Steve, Brandon (initially), and fellow soldier Tommy.

Stop-Loss was okay. Ryan Phillippe is a very very good actor. He infused Brandon with the appropriate amount of anger and heroism. His character wants out of Iraq, but he never seemed weak or cowardly, and I think that’s a reflection of the confidence and bravado Phillippe brought to the role. Of course I have criticisms, and they really stood out. Stop-Loss was produced by MTV Films, which may explain the music video-ish approach to some of the Iraq montage scenes in the movie. It also felt a little formulaic. Soldiers joking around and displaying juvenile male camaraderie? Check. Lots of pushing and shoving? Check. Cursory portrayal of post traumatic stress disorder? Check. Regarding the performances, I think Channing Tatum is a capable actor. He cried convincingly and I was impressed by that. He’s also nice to look at. My problem is that there was a 10 minute stretch when he broke into a TX drawl, and then he resumed his normal speaking voice. It was obvious. Does your character have an accent or not??!! I mean, I always wonder how no one catches the fact that a character is dropping in and out of an accent. I can excuse one word or two, but this was more than a slip. I’ll keep the other criticisms to myself so I don’t give anything away. I don’t think Stop-Loss stacks up well against other war movies. Jarhead puts it to shame, and I won’t even mention any of the older classics that portrayed the Vietnam War. Stop-Loss’ value lies in its current relevance, and it will be remembered as capturing people’s dissatisfaction and frustration with the war in Iraq. There’s something to be said for that, but the movie was solid, not great. It’s also depressing, so I wouldn’t see it unless you’re a fan of Phillippe or Channing Tatum. If you are then I’m sure you’ll enjoy.

Tyler Perry. I don’t fool with him too tough, but I saw Meet the Browns anyway – mostly just to hang out with my mom. I’ll try to go easy on Mr. Perry this time. The movie actually wasn’t half bad…which also means it was only half good. LOL.

One positive thing about the movie was that it starred Angela Basset (Akeelah and the Bee), with whom you can never go wrong. My only criticism (if you could call it that) of her is the same one I had of Forrest Whitaker in Vantage Point, which is that sometimes they come across as being bigger than their roles. In Meet the Browns Bassett portrays Brenda, a financially strapped single mom living in Chicago with her three children. Her eldest son is an aspiring professional basketball player (Lance Gross), and she is challenged with keeping him off the streets after he tries to hustle to provide money for the family when Brenda loses her job. Yeah, that part is a bit cliché, but okay – I can deal with that. I’m sure it’s not too far from a lot of people’s reality, especially in urban areas across the U.S. Rick Fox is a basketball coach named Harry who takes an interest in Brenda’s son. Brenda is naturally wary of him, as she’s been burnt by every man in her life, from her son’s father to her own father, whom she never knew. Again, this is familiar territory; we know how it’ll end. Boy meets girl. Girl disses boy. Boy wins girl in the end….yaaay! Can I go home now? Seriously, I don’t mind if I know how a movie will end up, at least let me have fun getting there. To Perry’s credit, Meet the Browns is funny. A large portion of the movie takes place in Georgia, where Brenda travels when she finds out that her father has passed away. As the title suggests, she meets her relatives for the first time, and this is where the comedic action takes place. Perry does a good job of balancing drama with humor, and he does allow Bassett to show her skills…my only negative observation is the writing. In some places the script is very contrived. I know that’s the nature of the movies, in some respects, but come on. For example, Harry just so happens to be from the same small Georgia town as Brenda’s family, and they meet up there. What??? Yeah RIGHT! They met in the large metropolis of Chicago, yet they both have roots in some podunk Georgia town and reconnect there. I mean, it’s not even like its Atlanta or something, which would still be implausible but a little more believable. They both are from a one horse town…just not buying it. Another thing I don’t care for is Madea, but that’s just me. “Her” appearance was really unnecessary and not all that funny. It was just an excuse for Perry to show up in his own movie. Don’t worry TP, we know it’s your movie – your name always precedes the title.

In sum, as with all of Perry’s movies, either you like ‘em or you don’t. Simple as that. Nothing I’ve said here will persuade or dissuade you from seeing it. So, have at it! 🙂

The heist/caper genre is usually a reliable one. I’m always entertained by the new methods Hollywood comes up with to tell the familiar tale of a band of misfits with their eyes on a seemingly unattainable prize. Whether it’s the clever approach of the robbery in Inside Man, the intricacies of the Ocean’s Eleven plot, or the innovative swipe in The Thomas Crown Affair, I love watching the so-called “bad” guys pull it off. If you’ve seen one caper, have you seen them all? I don’t think so.

The Bank Job’s title is straight to the point. Quite simply, a small band of crooks is planning to rob a bank vault. Leading the crew is Terry (Jason Statham, Crank), a small-time body shop owner desperate to get out of debt. The robbery idea was hatched by Martine Love, an old acquaintance who resurfaces with the plan. Terry rounds up a few more people, and the gang is in place. Problems arise when it appears that Martine’s motives for the job aren’t just to get rich. It seems she’s after the contents of one particular safe deposit box, and may have jeopardized the crew and pissed off the wrong London thugs in the process. What made this movie so fun was that the crew was getting it from all angles: dodging crooked cops, the British government, and the local hoods. Pretty cool, and it’s all based on a true story, which lends a certain air of realness to all the unbelievable predicaments in which they find themselves. Set in 1971, the movie touches on the Black power movement abroad, and Black militancy, as one of the vault’s boxes contains incriminating photos taken by a Black militant who is using them as leverage against the British government. Sounds farfetched, but apparently it’s true!

I like Jason Statham because he’s one of those ruggedly handsome actors that appeals to men and women equally. He’s attractive but not soft. This is probably the most acting I’ve seen him do, as he’s usually kicking ass all over the place. He didn’t resort to fisticuffs until the movie’s final act, but I knew it was coming eventually. The Bank Job is one of those fast-paced mile-a-minute movies that assaults your senses and keeps you fixated the entire time. I mean, it starts with a threesome for crying out loud. I’m like okaaaaaay, I’m here with my mom. LOL. Anyway, I really dug it, it reminded me of Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels. You won’t be disappointed if you’re a fan of the genre. Even if you’re not, who doesn’t like a good caper flick?

Will Ferrell (Anchorman, Blades of Glory) is back with his unique brand of foolishness for Semi-Pro, the story of the fictional Flint Tropics, a rag tag ABA team with hopes of joining the NBA. What can I say about this movie? Any comedy set in 1976 is already halfway there with the silliness factor. I love the seventies though, I wish I was more than a gleam in my parents’ eye back then. Anyway, Ferrell stars as Jackie Moon, a player for the Tropics and also the owner. The Tropics are pretty pitiful, with the exception of Coffee Black, played by Andre 3000 (Idlewild). Attendance is sparse, and the Tropics really just serve as a means by which Jackie can make money and have fun. All that changes when the Tropics have a chance to be absorbed by the NBA in the ABA-NBA merger of ’76. If the Tropics can finish in the top 4 of the ABA standings, they will be absorbed. Now Jackie decides to ratchet up the intensity and effort to vy for the last NBA slot. He brings in additional talent in the form of Monix, played by Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men). Monix revamps the team while Jackie increases attendance through ridiculous stunts, like bear wrestling and free corndog night. LOL.

Ok, enough of the plot, because this is really all about watching Will Ferrell act like a fool, something he is very adept at doing. Jackie is a pretty funny character. In addition to owning the Tropics, he also had a number one hit called “Love Me Sexy,” which plays during the opening credits. HEE LARRY OUS. Semi-Pro is better than I thought it’d be. Will Ferrell movies are hit or miss – for example, I didn’t enjoy Blades of Glory that much. Semi-Pro isn’t an instant classic, but it’s certainly funny and worth checking out if you’re a fan of Ferrell.

This movie was pretty funny. What’s that you say, it wasn’t a comedy? Oh shit. Could’ve fooled me. I, along with the rest of the audience, got in a few good snickers. Call Vantage Point another squandering of immense talent. While certainly not terrible, I can’t say it was very good.

The movie examines the chaotic aftermath of an assassination attempt on the president that takes place in Spain, as the US and Spain prepare to enter into some sort of vague (trade?) agreement. As the title suggests, we see the event from multiple vantage points. We see it in “real time” initially, then the events “rewind” to several minutes before the attempt, and we see a new perspective. I don’t mind this technique, but I understand how it can be exasperating. After about the FOURTH time, the theater was laughing and groaning audibly. I don’t think that was the intended reaction. Marketed as a political action thriller with suspenseful twists and turns, Vantage Point failed to live up to its hype and instead played like a hodgepodge of stories, none of which was particularly intriguing – at least not to me. You’d think someone could make a better use of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Sigourney Weaver (The Village), and William Hurt (A History of Violence). These three are Oscar winners/nominees, and I think their combined presence elevates a movie, but they weren’t really used properly. For example, Forest Whitaker is superb, but his performance just seemed overdone – like it was too big for this silly little movie, if that makes any sense. It’s like I’m criticizing him for being too good, which is weird, I know. Sigourney Weaver had a throwaway role, which didn’t require much. She was onscreen for about 10-15 minutes, and that was it. William Hurt as the president did nothing more than act as a helpless victim, waiting for Dennis Quaid to save him. They had one really corny exchange at the end, where I thought they were actually going to kiss!

The theater I went to was packed, and I’m sure people expected a little more. Don’t get me wrong, Vantage Point wasn’t a total waste, but I had high expectations. I thought the plot devices were overdone, and the interlocking storylines felt superficial and contrived. It is what it is: a forgettable contribution to the political thriller genre.

Jumper is one of those movies that appear to be all fluff and no substance. I’m not sure how much substance one could be looking for, but it seemed like it would be gimmicky. I’ll credit the studio with promoting the hell out of this movie, and their marketing efforts have apparently paid off, as the movie is currently #1 at the box office. Having said all that, I’ll admit that Jumper wasn’t the suckfest I expected it to be. Not exactly high praise, but I wasn’t disappointed.

Directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Jumper stars Hayden Christensen (Revenge of the Sith) as David Rice, a young man with a very special gift. He can teleport anywhere in the world just by willing himself there. He accidentally discovers his ability at the age of 15. He experienced a tragic, intense event that presumably got his adrenaline pumping, and the next thing you know he teleports from his high school grounds to the town library. Abandoned by his mother (Diane Lane in a bit part) at age 5 and enduring a strained relationship with his father, David takes off for NYC after discovering his newfound talent. He does what many people would do with such a gift, making the absolute most of it. He robs banks, since he can just magically appear within their vaults. He travels the world, and that’s perhaps the coolest part. He eats lunch atop the Sphinx in Egypt, chills out on Big Ben in London…you name it, he can do it. It was fascinating to watch him living a life without limits, where every whim is possible. There is also an emptiness to David’s life though, as he cannot share his secret with anyone and doesn’t have any friends. His is a solitary existence, filled with material possessions but nothing of any substance, no real relationships. That changes when he returns to his hometown of Ann Arbor and re-connects with his high school crush Millie, played by Rachel Bilson (The OC). Of course all good things must come to an end, and David’s charmed existence is bound to be noticed eventually, or else this wouldn’t be the movies. Enter Samuel L. Jackson as Roland (Black Snake Moan) a sort of jumper hunter, if you will. Roland thinks that only God should be able to do what David can. Fair enough. Roland doesn’t seem very religious though. Quite mean actually. Anyway, of course I have my complaints. Jumper ventures into the realm of the ridiculous when too many people find out that David can teleport. It’s supposed to be a secret, right? Also, doesn’t anyone wonder why he just disappears at times?? Come on now.

Jumper is fine enough for a matinee…but I wouldn’t make it a date night activity. Entertaining due to its concept but loaded with implausibilities, Jumper is good but not great.

There Will Be Blood has been touted as the best film of 2007. Respectfully, I must disagree. That distinction should be awarded to No Country for Old Men. Since critics were saying There Will Be Blood is a movie that viewers will remember for a lifetime, I had to see for myself. That’s high praise. My opinion: although not the best of ’07 and certainly not a movie that remained with me afterwards, There Will Be Blood was a powerfully engrossing and flawlessly acted film.

Directed by Paul Anderson (Magnolia), Blood captures an early 20th century America that was still new and uncharted, in many respects. The opening sequence is a fascinating depiction of the painstakingly dangerous task of oil mining. We watch as a miner chips away at an underground wall of gravel, deep below the ground’s surface. He plants dynamite and carefully climbs back up to the surface. Minutes later, there is an explosion. This process is repeated until the miner strikes oil. This may sound mundane, but it is an important scene because it sets the tone for the film and lets you know that men were willing to risk life and limb for “liquid gold.” The oil business is a serious one (still today), and to the victor goes the spoils.

Enter Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York) as Daniel Plainview, an enterprising oil man from humble beginnings. Plainview began as a digger, but the fruits of his labor soon afford him the luxury of power, and he is able to pay others to mine underground while he manages the operation. During a time in which many Americans carved out meager existences, Plainview’s entrepreneurial zeal is palpable. As a viewer, I had to admire his seemingly honest, forthright nature. His simple, straightforward approach to business dealings reflected the appropriateness of his surname. However, the glimpses of his ambitious approach to oil mining belie a more nefarious nature that would be revealed later. An important focus of the movie involves the relationship between Plainview and his young son, R.W. Their relationship appears affectionate, with Plainview almost treating his son as his contemporary at some points. There is an uneasy atmosphere to the film, a sense of lingering foreboding that is hinted at in almost every scene. Hey, look at the title. Something’s got to give eventually. The scene that reveals Plainview’s essence is a quiet conversation he has with another character saying, (paraphrase) “I don’t like to see other people succeed…I hate most people…” We see Plainview transform from an ostensibly loving father and businessman into a pathetic, hateful shell of a human being. Perhaps it is more of a duality than a transformation, as the same man capable of such paternal affection also proves to be guilty of cruel abandonment. Maybe it was the early 20th century American landscape that birthed this type of man, the sort of rogue individualist who views people with either apathy or contempt, never seeing them beyond the tangible purpose they may serve.

There Will Be Blood is a complex film that is difficult to describe but easy to appreciate. Lewis infuses Plainview with a carnivorous intensity, giving a performance that is so layered and nuanced that I’d be surprised if he didn’t win an Oscar for this role. He is the most powerful, dominant figure in every scene, even when he doesn’t utter a word. I think There Will Be Blood is a rewarding moviegoing experience, if you manage your expectations and go with an eye toward appreciating the performances rather than having a life changing experience.

In the words of Public Enemy, “Don’t Believe the Hype.” The trailer for Cloverfield will undoubtedly pique your interest as you watch New Yorkers flee some unseen Godzillaesque thing. Curiosity is sometimes enough to get you to the theater, I can dig it. A lot of people were suckered, because I see that Cloverfield is #1 at the box office, but if you listen to me, I can save you a trip and a few dollars as well.

Producer JJ Abrams (Mission: Impossible III) brings us the “real” account of an attack on NYC shown from the perspective of a group of friends. The prinicpal character is Rob, and it is at his going away party where the real action begins. The party is videotaped by Rob’s friend Hud, who wants to get an account of everyone’s well-wishes. There is a little drama as Rob’s ex-girlfriend Beth shows up accompanied by her new boyfriend. This is interesting because the movie begins with Rob filming Beth one month prior to the party, and they appear to be very much in love. Anyway, everyone is at the party having a good enough time until a thunderous boom brings the festivities to a jarring halt. Everyone goes to the roof, where in the distance they can see explosions and objects being hurled against buildings. In the streets, the scene is eerily reminiscent of 9/11, as pedestrians flee from huge plumes of smoke and ash, their faces masks of fear and bewilderment. Rob, his brother Jason and girlfriend Lilly, Hud, and a girl named Marlena all set out for the Brooklyn bridge. Rob wants to find Beth, who left the party eariler. Mind you, Manhattan is in a state of utter pandemonium. I do find the depiction of unbridled chaos to be strangely fascinating, but the movie quickly wears thin as it deteriorates into exactly what it is: a regular old, DUMB ASS horror movie, complete with stupid decisions made by the main characters. Hud does break up the tense atmosphere with funny commentary, but is isn’t enough to salvage the movie.

Cloverfield comes in a slick package, but in the end you will be disappointed as the unique premise does not remain plausible. For example, why the hell is Hud still filming everything, is this believable? I don’t know, I guess you can never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, but still. Catch it on Netflix.

I want to make an effort to see the Oscar contenders, at least the ones I think I can stomach – you know, the ones that aren’t too pretentious. That led me to Juno, the tale of a small-town teenage girl dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. I knew this wasn’t the typical teen pregnancy story, because the screenwriter used humor to tell the story rather than the more obvious serious approach. Juno is a cautionary tale, but it is more sweet than bitter.

Directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking), Juno plays out like real life. There is nothing glamorous about the title character (portrayed by newcomer Ellen Page), though she’s a cute kid. There’s nothing sexy about the manner in which she got pregnant, and there’s nothing cool about the pregnancy. Quite simply, it sucks. Juno has to deal with all the unfortunate byproducts of teen pregnancy, from disapproving stares to judgmental comments. Fortunately she has the support of her parents, best friend, and her pseudo-boyfriend and father of her unborn child. That role is played by Michael Cera (Superbad). I have to say that the casting is perfect, because the young couple really is quite sweet, and we can see that they are just babies themselves. Jennifer Garner (The Kingdom) and Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces) also gives strong performances as a young couple who are tied to Juno in a manner in which I won’t reveal, so as not to spoil it for you. I was particularly impressed with Garner, and I think she’s showing she’s the real deal and has successfully made the transition from small to big screen. Ellen Page made Juno a loveable girl you couldn’t help rooting for, and she conveyed the naiveté, frustration, and ultimate triumph of the character wonderfully. She was also funny as hell. This kid is up for an Oscar for the performance. She probably won’t win, but no one can say she doesn’t deserve it.

Juno is one of those small, sweet, endearing indie films that critics love. I think the most fitting term is “sleeper.” I can go with that, seeing as how the movie seems like a charming underdog. It’s nominated for 4 Oscars, and by the looks of it the budget was pretty small. It’s also a first-time effort for screenwriter Diablo Cody. Cody managed to craft a film that never came across as preachy or like a drag, but at the same time is not going to make teen girls want to run out and have a baby. I think it’s pretty hard to warn someone without lecturing them, and to accept something without condoning it. Cody managed to do this with teen pregnancy, a touchy subject given some of today’s headlines. Not bad for a first try, huh? Good luck to everyone associated with this movie, it was a joy to watch.

I’m going to make more of an effort to broaden my horizons and step outside of my comfort zone with my movie choices. For example, “feel good” movies are NOT my thing. They’re fine, but I prefer darker movies. I don’t really go to the movies to be inspired. Maybe that makes me a screwed up person, I don’t know. I was reluctant to see The Great Debaters, Denzel Washington’s second directorial effort, because I knew it was one of those tear-jerk happy ending numbers. After watching it I feel embarrassed for having been so hesitant. It was inspiring, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.

As you probably know, the movie is a fictional account of the true story of the debate team of Wiley College, a tiny Black school in Texas. Set in 1935, the film shows the courage, intelligence, and tenacity of the young debaters and their instructor, portrayed by Washington. It culminates in the team’s historic victory over Harvard. I haven’t given anything away, and if you have a TV you already knew everything I’ve relayed thus far. Comprised primarily of newcomers, the cast was very impressive, and there are some faces to watch for in the future. Denzel Whitaker and Nate Parker star as James Farmer and Henry Lowe, respectively. Farmer is the youngest member of the team, a sweet, smart young man whose affection for teammate Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett of Roll Bounce and Eve’s Bayou) is both comical and endearing. Henry Lowe is the most confident, headstrong member of the team, and he and Washington’s character briefly clash as Henry learns just who is in charge. Jurnee Smollett continues to show that she is no flash in the pan, and gives a weighty performance. As a matter of fact, with the inclusion of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) and Kimberly Elise (John Q), this cast was truly amazing. It’s nice to see a movie based on true events that inspires hope and leaves room for the possibility of wonderful things in life. The Great Debaters accomplished this without sugarcoating the racial atrocities that took place during the time period. It is this authenticity that makes the movie more than a cutesy, “feel good” flick, and for that reason I recommend it without reservation.