Nicholas Cage (The Weather Man, Lord of War) is one of those actors that annoys the hell outta me. I think it’s his voice and his mannerisms. I just don’t care for him ususally, because when you watch one of his movies you never forget that it’s him, and isn’t that the point of acting? Anyway, I saw Ghost Rider in spite of Nic Cage and it wasn’t half bad.

Based on the Marvel comic character of the same name, Ghost Rider (alter ego of Johnny Blaze) tells the story of a man who made a deal with the devil as a teen to spare his father’s life, and now must repay his debt. He must become “the rider,” collecting souls for his nefarious one-time benefactor. After dark and in the presence of evil, Johnny Blaze transforms into the rider: a leather-clad skeleton who rides a bad-ass mortorcycle, leaving a trail of flames in his wake. Okay, so the premise is interesting enough, as far as comic heroes go. Both the story and execution were pretty good. The special effects were decent, although let’s be real – this isn’t Spiderman or Superman. Ghost Rider has more of a lonely, everyman quality to him and the vigilante angle is a good one. Plus, he straight up kills people. No sticky webs to temporarily immobilize the bad guys like Spidey; Ghost Rider sends the dudes to hell. That’s pretty cool.

I feel like it’s unfair to critique the acting in a movie like this, but I have to give a quick word. It was marginal at best. Cage did a good job of looking alternately forlorn and corny. Eva Mendes plays his girl, and her role has about zero substance. It’s nothing. A resume-filler, that’s it. Sooo….in conclusion, Ghost Rider is the kind of movie you go see just to kill time or if you’re looking for something to do on a random afternoon. I know this isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement, but like I said, it wasn’t half bad. Unfortunately that also means it was only half good.

I was excited about Smokin’ Aces because this is really my type of movie: fast-paced, frenetic, violent, featuring characters with a singular focus who are hell-bent on carrying out the task at hand. However, I was a tad disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, Smokin’ Aces was a highly entertaining movie overall, it just came across as the product of a poor-man’s Quentin Tarantino. The dialogue was fast and funny, the acting pretty good…but something about the movie felt thrown together. Smokin’ Aces was akin to deciding to make a painting by taking a bunch of paint and throwing it on a blank canvas: some parts will look kinda cool, but others will look like a complete mess.

The cast is an eclectic mix of seasoned and inexperienced actors, from Ray Liotta (Goodfellas) to Alicia Keys. Jeremy Piven of Entourage is featured as the main character, Buddy “Aces” Israel, a washed-up Vegas high-roller turned government snitch. The movie begins with a quick (and I do mean quick) recitation of the plot, making it crystal clear what we’re in for: About a dozen hitmen will attempt to take out Israel before he can sing to the Feds, and a handsome sum will be paid to the victor. Israel doesn’t know about the bounty, but he has holed up in the penthouse suite of a Lake Tahoe hotel, awaiting the specifics of the deal he struck with the government. He’s guarded by Sir Ivy (played by the always-sexy Common), and two other henchmen.

The best thing about Smokin’ Aces was the dialogue; it was hilarious, risqué, off-color, crude, and very authentic. Piven was effective as the pathetic, sleazy Israel, and he actually manages to make him seem sympathetic a time or two. Alicia Keys and Taraji Henson (Baby Boy, Hustle & Flow) nearly steal the show as a pair of sassy assassins. You like that? Sassy assassins? Say that ten times fast. Alright, if you liked Lucky Number Slevin, Domino, or Running Scared (I loved all three), then you will probably enjoy Smokin’ Aces. Just don’t expect it to be as good.

Alpha Dog marks the film debut of Justin Timberlake in the story of suburban drug-dealers who bite off more than they can chew in a quest to add excitement to their vapid existence.

Based on true events, the movie chronicles the exploits of Johnny Truelove (Emile Hirsch, who I’d never heard of prior to this flick), a fake-ass thug who is a major weed supplier in California. Truelove and his band of idiots (including Timberlake) spend their days getting high in the California sun, having sex, pissing away their parents’ money, and generally behaving like disgusting pricks. When one of Truelove’s customers fails to make good on a debt, he decides to kidnap the guy’s younger brother Zack and hold him for ransom. The plot goes awry when Truelove, genius that he is, realizes that he’ll actually go to jail if he releases the hostage. What happens next is tragic and heartbreaking, as Zack is a naïve, sympathetic character. He’s out of his league with Truelove’s crew, failing to see that his demise is imminent.

Alpha Dog was wack as hell to me, partly because I think the individuals on whom the movie is based are lame. Every character is a shallow poser. I’ve heard that the film received critical praise at Sundance, and I’m astounded by that. Writer/director Nick Cassavetes has tried to present a psychological study of disaffected youth, but he’s failed miserably. Alpha Dog tries to be edgy, but just seems corny and ridiculous. The characters don’t have to be likeable (they’re actually deplorable), but it would be okay if they were at least interesting. They all seem like spoiled little shits, and as a viewer I could care less what happened to them. They weren’t even cool, despite Cassavetes’ lackluster attempt to make them bad-ass. Veterans Bruce Willis (Lucky Number Slevin) and Sharon Stone (Bobby) cannot save the movie with their supporting roles. Timberlake had his moments, but overall his acting was corny as well. He needs to work on his delivery…he might end up being a decent actor with a little more practice. If you want to watch a movie about white kids getting loaded and not giving a damn, rent Kids or Black & White.

This film was outstanding and is well-deserving of any future accolades, Oscar or otherwise. The acting and writing were superb, and there was never a minute in the film that didn’t count for something. Starring Judi Dench (Casino Royale) and Cate Blanchett (Babel), the movie tells the story of a young fresh-faced teacher named Sheba (Blanchett) who begins an illicit tryst with a student – Mary Kay Letourneau style. The film is masterfully narrated by Dench’s character Barbara, an older teacher who has taken a shall we say, healthy interest in Sheba. Barbara fluctuates between maternal friendship with Sheba and sexual longing for her. I’ve never seen Judi Dench in such a role, not that I’m terribly familiar with her work anyway, but still. It was creepy-good. Blanchett, conversely is both sympathetic and repugnant. She is, after all, sleeping with a 15-year old. There’s no excusing that, even though the boy is a willing participant. However, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for her character when she became the object of Barbara’s predatory obsession. Think Single White Female for the AARP crowd.

Notes on A Scandal is the best movie I’ve seen this year, so far. The performances of the two leads were outstanding. Dench portrayed Barbara as the well-intentioned schoolmarm with a hint of menace lurking beneath the surface. Blanchett is naively selfish, acting without consequence until it’s too late. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a movie that wasn’t at least mildly disappointing in some fashion. Notes on A Scandal was a refreshing change from the norm, and definitely worth seeing.

Children of Men presents one of the more fascinating movie plots in recent memory. The year is 2027, and planet Earth has become a barren wasteland, literally and figuratively. The only functioning society is found in London, as the rest of the civilized world has ceased to exist. All “immigrants” are arrested and anarchy fills the streets of London’s surrounding areas. As if it couldn’t be any worse, the surviving human beings face certain extinction, as women and men are infertile and the population dwindles. Enter Clive Owen (Sin City, Closer). It seems that his ex-wife (Julianne Moore, The Forgotten, Freedomland) needs him to transport an illegal immigrant (a character named Kee) to safety. This is no ordinary immigrant; rather this is a young lady who has managed to do what no one else in the world has been able to do for 20 years: become pregnant. Protected by a fringe political group, Owen’s character must shield his young charge from the government and escort her to a neighboring city for amnesty. They dodge bullets as it becomes clear that Kee’s protectors have their own agenda and plan for her and the unborn child.

Children of Men paints a provocative, bleak picture of the future that is both fascinating and depressing. Clive Owen is excellent as the reluctant hero, and you can’t help cheering for him and Kee. The movie falls short in its ending, which is rather abrupt. I saw it with a friend who also thought it started slowly. I think Children of Men is a good movie to check out if you like food for thought. The acting is great, with good supporting performances by Michael Caine (Batman Begins) and Chiwtel Ejiofor (Dirty Pretty Things, Four Brothers). If you’re looking for something a little outside the box, check it out.

To say that Dreamgirls is highly anticipated would be an understatement. Buzz has been building since word got out over a year ago that a big screen adaptation of the Broadway hit was on its way. Now there are Golden Globe nominations and Oscar buzz too. Dreamgirls has taken on a life of its own. Originally a Broadway musical, it’s loosely based on the rise and ultimate dissolution of The Supremes. The musical made quite a splash when it debuted in 1981, and the movie version is sure to please audiences even more.

Dreamgirls stars Beyonce Knowles (Goldmember), Jennifer Hudson (TV’s American Idol), and Anika Noni Rose, an actress best known for her work on Broadway. The three ladies portray Deena, Effie, and Lorrell, respectively. They comprise The Dreamettes, a girl group from Detroit aspiring for fame and stardom. When we first meet the ladies they are entering a talent contest, which they end up losing. It is here they meet their future manager, Curtis Taylor, played by Jamie Foxx (Miami Vice). He proposes that they tour as backup singers for James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy), a charismatic ladies’ man and soul singer. And so the journey begins, and it’s one filled with highs and lows as the girls navigate the pitfalls and triumphs of stardom. A budding relationship between Curtis and Effie is threatened by his growing attraction to Deena, and she eventually supplants Effie as lead singer, despite having a weaker voice. Rising tensions come to a head and the group dynamics change drastically. These principal plot developments reveal the movie’s core themes of following your dreams, remaining true to oneself, and perhaps most significant: forgiveness.

Okay, enough with all of that. Let’s get to the nitty gritty. The movie was wonderful. Period. Anyone who’s seen a live performance of the musical will tell you that the movie was about as on point as it could possibly be. It followed the script almost exactly, with the exception of a few artistic liberties that only enhanced the movie. The singing and acting were excellent. There were big shoes to be filled, and all of the players seemed to have welcomed the challenge. There were no weak links in the chain, but let me address the two strongest, Ms. Knowles and Ms. Hudson. For those who think the latter “stole the show,” this is only partly true. When Jennifer Hudson is on screen, it’s almost as if the other actors fade into the background. She dwarfs them with her presence, and with her voice – whether she is belting from her soul or giving Curtis a tongue lashing. She eats up the screen. HOWEVER, to say that she stole the show is to do Beyonce a disservice. If you are familiar with the musical and the original script, you know that the role of Effie is one that calls for more character development and depth. Deena’s role is more linear. Deena changes and evolves, but not like Effie. This is not Beyonce’s fault, this is simply the way the characters were created, and so it is a tad ignorant to assert that Jennifer Hudson outshone Beyonce, as some have suggested. She did a better job, but that is because she was called to do more. Her role required more, and she delivered. Having said that, Beyonce’s acting has vastly improved. Particularly, her non-verbal acting has become quite good. I always look for that, and she gave Deena all that the role demanded. I’m not so sure she deserves a Golden Globe nomination though. That’s a bit of a stretch.

Dreamgirls is a must-see for those who don’t mind the idea of movie adaptations of musicals. I attended an advanced showing with a group of friends, and the one person who disliked the movie was a friend who just detests the entire concept of the musical as movie. He also needed more character development, which is a fair complaint, but not if you’re familiar with the musical, which kinda throws you right in the mix with little exposition. If you didn’t like Chicago, Idlewild, Rent, Moulin Rouge…avoid Dreamgirls because you won’t appreciate it. Everyone else, prepare to be wowed by some powerhouse performances, especially that of Jennifer Hudson. Homegirl is on her way and I predict a #1 opening for Dreamgirls, if it can squeak by The Good Shepherd. Hell, go see it just because Little Ms. Perfect (Beyonce) drops the F-bomb and smokes a cigarette! I wonder what Mama and Papa Knowles thought about that. I knew there was a bad girl underneath that southern belle façade. All jokes aside, Dreamgirls is big, an instant classic like Cooley High, or Sparkle, or The Wiz or some shit. Don’t be that one person who’s outta the loop.

To paraphrase rapper Beanie Siegel, I’m going to be short and to the point like Steve Nash. The Good Shepherd? Didn’t care for it that much. Yes, it was a good film in the sense that it was well-made and well-acted, but there was something missing. The first 10-15 minutes almost bored me to tears. I’m not a child; my attention span is greater than that of a gnat, but come ON. Matt Damon (The Departed) is such a solitary figure in this movie, you really have to care about the story in order to care about the movie — and I didn’t. The subject matter was fascinating, I just don’t like the way it was handled. This is the sort of movie that some critics adore because of its pedigree, but I was not too impressed.

The Good Shepherd tells the story of the founding of the CIA through the eyes of Edward Wilson (Damon), an ivy-league educated well-bred young man selected for covert government service while still at Yale. The movie spans about 25 years, showing us how Edward is the perfect man for the job: dispassionate in the course of duty, possessing both a keen intelligence and superb instincts. Sounds a lot more exciting than it is, but perhaps that’s the way it works in the real world. The only time we really see any emotion from Edward is when he spends time with his true love, a young woman he meets while at Yale. Their relationship is doomed, for reasons I won’t go into. Suffice it to say he ends up marrying someone else (Angelina Jolie) and is left to wonder about what might have been. The movie really isn’t about Edward’s personal life beyond the way it’s impacted by his service to his government and country. He is driven by an unrelenting loyalty, sacrificing all others for his sense of duty and belief in America. The movie is all very cloak and dagger, but not in an interesting, captivating way. It’s all nebulous and more than a little long at 2 hours and 45 minutes. I feel like I am supposed to like this movie a whole lot more than I did. Deniro directed it for crying out loud. You’ve got two of my favorite movie stars in Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie…but I think it’s one of the least satisfying political thrillers I’ve ever seen. I’d give it a 7/10, and that means wait for Netflix.

Edit: I never read other reviews before I write my own. After I wrote this review I went to rottentomatoes.com and it’s rotten! I feel very validated now. I knew this movie sucked out loud. Nah, I exaggerate. It was just very OK.

Now, let’s take a look at Blood Diamond, starring Djimon Honsou (The Island), Leonard DiCaprio (The Departed), and Jennifer Connelly. This film was truly amazing. It tells the haunting story of a man named Solomon Vandy, forced to mine for diamonds. He has been literally torn from his family by rebels who use the diamonds to finance a civil war in Sierra Leone. They have kidnapped his son and forced him into combat. Rebels, the African government, and large diamond retailers are all in bed with one another for the sake of profit, and the consequences are shockingly savage. Enter DiCaprio as Danny Archer, an opportunistic smuggler. Solomon knows the location of a 15-carat pink diamond which he has hidden in hopes of bartering for the safe reunion of his family. Archer, who must deliver diamonds to his “employer,” needs the gem to stay alive. Now the two are in a race to recover the diamond without being killed in the process, becoming reluctant and unlikely allies. DiCaprio and Honsou turn in brilliant performances, and their scenes are truly captivating. DiCaprio’s role is layered and complex, as his character shows vulnerable humanity one minute, and callous viciousness the next.

Blood Diamond is a movie which cannot be done justice by mere words. Before I can describe the movie any further, let me pose a question or two. What is human suffering? What does it mean to feel pain? I’m sure we all have our personal answers and thoughts. Perhaps it is the death of a loved one, like a spouse, child, or parent. Perhaps it is surviving a crime, or a debilitating illness. All of these answers are valid, and who am I to question the things that make another person suffer? I say all that to say this: Blood Diamond made me rethink my concept of pain and suffering. I sit in my little corner of the world with no idea about the shit that happens on planet Earth. Blood Diamond isn’t just a movie; it is a fictionalized portrayal of REAL events. The characters are subjected to unspeakable horrors, all in the name of the almighty dollar. It raises questions about human nature and the forces that drive us all. For Archer, it is greed. For Solomon, it is the unconditional love of a father for his child. Blood Diamond is not a pretty movie, it is the type of movie that serves as a mirror — hold it up and you might not like the face staring back at you.

I go to the movies for different reasons, and different things happen each time. That is the beauty and wonder of art. If you view music, poetry, literature, and film as expressions of art rather than mere forms of entertainment, you can gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of the world, of your own environment, and of yourself and those around you. When you gain that appreciation, these are the times when art speaks to your soul, when it achieves something great. I’m not trying to be melodramatic, but I’m a person who likes to think and to feel. When you do anything that makes you really think, or really feel, I think that is a wonderful thing, and that is one of the many aspects of art that I love. I saw two movies this weekend (Bobby and Blood Diamond) that made me think and made me feel something. Let’s look at Bobby first.

It’s hard to believe that the life and assassination of Robert F. Kennedy hasn’t been tackled yet, but I think actor and director Emilio Estevez (Judgment Night, The Breakfast Club) is the first to take on the task in Bobby. The movie is as much about Kennedy’s effect on the American public as it is about the actual man. Bobby is told through the eyes of the occupants of The Ambassador Hotel, where RFK was shot in 1968.

Estevez has assembled an impressive ensemble cast, including Martin Sheen (The Departed), Demi Moore (Ghost), Helen Hunt (As Good as It Gets), Nick Cannon (Drumline), Lindsay Lohan (Mean Girls), Christian Slater (Murder in the First), and Joy Bryant (The Skeleton Key), among others. You get the idea – there’s a gang of people in this movie. The people are not important; what resonates so deeply from Bobby is the powerful effect RFK had on American citizens from all walks of life. People just don’t feel that way about politicians nowadays. I’m looking at the movie and I’m struck by how much people LOVED this man. Estevez interspersed the movie with actual footage of RFK, and there is no denying that the man was absolutely adored and that he had a good heart and a good soul. During a tumultuous time for our country, he offered some semblance of hope for the future, and not in that cheesy bullshit way we see now, but like he really gave a damn. I’m not trying to sip the Kennedy kool-aid, I’m just trying to convey to you what the movie conveyed to me. The man next to me in the theater was crying, and when the closing credits rolled over a Kennedy montage – no one got up to leave. That means that this man had more than just a passing effect on people. There has always been something sad and tragic about not knowing what might have been. That is the legacy of RFK: untapped potential, untold possibilities. He was a truly good man who was snuffed out during a time when the country seemed to be going crazy in a perfect storm of tragedy: the assassinations of JFK, MLK, the Vietnam War, etc. Bobby uses its ensemble cast of characters to convey this turbulent and desperate time.

The movie is not without its flaws, as the script is plodding in places and the dialogue borders on sappy. The transition between scenes and characters was less than smooth, a flaw which was magnified by the intersecting storylines and characters. Many scenes felt choppy and disjointed. All of these flaws were erased in the electrifying final 30 minutes of the film, which depict the actual assassination and its chaotic aftermath. Here the ensemble cast shines in its delivery of collective pain, suffering, comfort, and finally: despair. Emilio Estevez’ Bobby is ambitious and deeply meaningful in its portrait of a fallen paragon of hope, taken too soon as the great ones always seem to be.

Question: If the great Denzel Washington (Inside Man) stars in a bad movie, is the movie still bad? Answer: YES. If, like my mother, you believe that any time Denzel graces the screen it’s a cause for celebration, by all means – walk don’t run to your nearest theater to check out Déjà vu. However, if you need more than a handsome face to make your movie-going experience worthwhile, I’d think twice about it.

Déjà vu reunites director Tony Scott (Man on Fire) with Washington and super-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Con Air, The Rock). If these two are on board we at least know that a whole lot of shit is going to blow up. And it does. Washington plays ATF agent Doug Carlin, who is assigned to investigate an explosion that kills hundreds on a Naval Ship in New Orleans, during Mardi Gras. Simultaneously, he must solve the murder of Clare Kuchever (Paula Patton of Idlewild), whose death is linked to the explosion. To borrow a line from the script, if he can find Clare’s killer, he can find the person responsible for the blast. After this initial puzzle is established, we are introduced to the main concept which drives the film. The government has stumbled upon technology that allows it to not only record the past, but to manipulate it as well. As a matter of fact, they are able to send objects and people into the past in order to change the future (present). Agent Carlin is now looking at Clare’s last few days in order to uncover her killer’s identity and foil the terrorist plot.

This premise is acceptable, perhaps even intriguing, but its execution is flawed. I’m talking major plot holes and piss-poor writing. Have you ever been unable to comprehend something, not because it was so “deep” or “over your head,” but because it was just plain dumb? That’s Déjà vu! I don’t go to the movies to pick them apart, but I’m not an idiot either. Some of the things that happen in Déjà vu make absolutely no sense; it’s like the writers expect the audience to accept certain truths about this time travel technology although they directly conflict with other elements of the technology that have been presented. The implausibility level is 9 out of 10 in Déjà vu. Can the mere presence of Denzel Washington overcome these glaring flaws? Well, that depends on the viewer. Denzel will always be Denzel, but Déjà vu’s problems are bigger than him. In addition to the poor writing, the cast is wasted as the actors are relegated to one-dimensional beings that only serve to advance the plot. Jim Caviezel (Frequency, Passion of the Christ) is featured as the villain and prime suspect, while Val Kilmer (Heat, The Doors) is a federal agent assigned to the case. Neither one of these actors will be remembered for Déjà vu. If you want to see a movie that deals with concepts of time travel, fate, destiny, or government surveillance in a manner that is genuine and thought-provoking, I would suggest any one of the following: Frequency, The Butterfly Effect, Minority Report, or Donnie Darko. Despite a provocative premise, Déjà vu is ultimately disappointing, although Mr. Washington makes a valiant effort. He can’t do it alone though, and even if you put a diamond on a turd, it’s still a turd, feel me?