WALL-E

***1/2 – Making a movie that relies almost entirely on the pratfalls and squeaking noises of a sad little garbage can robot is a risky move. George Lucas did it successfully with R2-D2, but then again, he added his gay robot lover C3PO to play off of, as well as a huge cast of humans, aliens, Jedis, banthas, other assorted beasts, light sabers and laser weapons to flesh out the story. The main character of the Pixar film “WALL-E” isn’t quite so lucky, in that his only companions for over half of the film are a cockroach and a grumpy teardrop-shaped robot that looks kind of like that one robot that Professor Farnsworth got to replace Bender in that one episode of “Futurama”. I’ll just say that Pixar is dang lucky that I have a soft spot for robots and spaceships and futuristic landscapes because if “WALL-E” didn’t feature all of that in droves I probably wouldn’t think all that highly of it. The story (such as it is) is preachy, strange and a little overly simplistic, and there are a fairly large number of dull stretches. The film visually astonishes, though, which certainly helps make it watchable, and it probably would have made it a spectacular experience to see it in the theatre.

Ratatouille

*** - I like Patton Oswalt. His stand-up routine has some really good material, and he is kind of a nerd and likes science fiction, and I read somewhere that he collects action figures. So I think it’s fantastic that, for once, someone at least semi-deserving was able to land a lead role in a massive Pixar film, which probably resulted in a fat payday and a life on easy street. Leaving that positive aside for the moment, though, “Ratatouille” is still just a film about a rat whose conscience takes the form of a morbidly obese French chef, and who also controls some weird kid like a puppet by sitting on his head and pulling his hair. And it is as weird and somewhat creepy as it sounds. I have to give Pixar credit, though, that they were able to put a disgusting rat in a lead role and make him not only likeable and sympathetic, but not aesthetically terrifying as well. What this movie lacked – and most other Pixar movies have – was a great deal of humor. Yeah, there were a few jokes sprinkled in here and there, but for the most part “Ratatouille” relied on long stretches of rats scampering around and people cooking. If you are a food snob and are not horrified by rats, though, you might get a kick out of this one.

Cars

**1/2 – If your idea of high humor is a talking hillbilly tow-truck with buck teeth that speaks in an incomprehensible southern drawl and spits and farts constantly, then you may think that Pixar’s “Cars” is the greatest movie of all time. Personally, I do not find such things humorous, and that being the case, I found “Cars” to be the first Pixar film that I’ve seen that has been more of a chore to sit through than a pleasure. Besides being loaded with redneck clichés such as the above-mentioned tow-truck, several country music songs given great prominence, and lots of automobiles driving around in circles, this movie was also just plain dull. All Pixar movies are a little hit and miss with their jokes due to the fact that are trying to appeal to a very large demographic, but this one seems to narrow its focus to the ‘southern moron kid’ set, which is about as opposite from me as you are likely to find. That all seems like a lot of negativity for a film that – while it certainly wasn’t all that enjoyable for me - is really pretty innocuous, has a decent message behind it and certainly looks nice. But unless you are really big into American ‘car culture’ I can’t recommend going out of your way to see “Cars”.

Finding Nemo

***1/2 - While it starts out somewhat gruesomely with the brutal massacre of over 400 young anthropomorphized clownfish by some sort of barracuda-like creature, this 5th Pixar film is actually one of the more child/family-oriented of their many works. The animation is undeniably fantastic, and still holds up today despite there having been 7 years of advancements in CGI technology made in the meantime. Most of the voice cast does a fine job, especially the always reliable Albert Brooks, who adds considerably to the film because the voice he uses is the exact same one as that of Hank Scorpio (and, I assume, very close to his normal speaking voice). The only less than stellar performances were those of the ever-annoying Ellen DeGeneres as a retarded blue fish of some kind, and an unbelievably irritating ‘extreme’ surfer dude sea turtle. The only major flaw this had was the fact that its plot was almost identical to the first “Toy Story” movie, with all the toys replaced by sea creatures, and all the land replaced by water. That doesn’t hurt it too much, but the sense of déjà vu that it creates makes the movie seem a little boring at times. Some of the jokes bordered on being overly broad, but that’s what happens with movies aimed at kids, so what are you gonna do?

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

**1/2 – “Prince of Persia” is one of the rare video game based movies that isn’t a horrific ordeal to sit through. It is by no means a great film, but this action swashbuckler-in-the-desert type of movie has enough going for it to keep it out of the dismal realms inhabited by the likes of “Hitman” or any given Uwe Boll crapfest. The nicely realized desert landscapes, solid special effects, less confusing than normal story, and mostly entertaining and easy enough to follow action sequences were highlights. Not everything was as successful, though, as the dialogue is a little clunky and the attempts at humor provided by the comic relief character of Alfred Molina didn’t work very well (through no fault of Alfred). I didn’t particularly buy most of the leads as being Persians, though, especially the decidedly Nordic-looking Jake Gyllenhall, who seems as white as they come despite the weird hairdo and numerous cans of Insta-Tan that they apparently used on him. There is an overall goofy quotient that is pretty high, but if you are able to just sit back, click your brain over into cruise control and try to enjoy this for what it is you may find yourself somewhat satisfied by the time the end credits roll.

Hitman

*1/2 – Having watched so many of them and been almost always highly derisive of them, one would think that I would have learned by now to not bother watching movies based on video games. This one, 2007’s “Hitman”, is based on a game that unsurprisingly involves a guy going around killing people. Knowing that fact, it should be equally unsurprising to learn that this movie contains both a large amount slaughtering of people and a clear lack of story and focus, two things in which I am highly uninterested. The afore-mentioned characteristics place this one squarely in the action genre. Unfortunately, this movie’s action is about as confusing and lame as it gets. The editing and camera trickery that was used in order to try to make the fight scenes look cool backfired big time, and ended up making everything look sloppy, unrealistic and amateurish. There is a goofy romantic subplot tossed in that is borderline offensive in its portrayal of the female character as a helpless, slutty, rarely clothed whore who wants nothing more than the hero’s johnson (and, for some reason, a vineyard). The directing was a muddled mess, the cinematography was passable but without anything of distinction, and the score full of ham-fisted industrial-lite wankery. “Hitman” is unusually poor, even for the genre.

Déjà Vu

*** - Melding characteristics of crime drama, thriller and science fiction gave 2006’s “Déjà Vu” the opportunity to be a classic film. Unfortunately, an unnecessary focus on the action aspects and a number of inconsistencies and apparent plot holes keep this one in the realm of good but not great movies. And that’s a shame because the basic premise is intriguing, original and full of potential. While it starts out pretty much like your average police procedural or thriller - with a terrorist attack and investigation by ATF agent Denzel Washington – about 45 minutes in the sci-fi portion is introduced and it hits the viewer like an epiphany. The audience is likely to feel from the outset that there is something more to this movie, and then when it becomes realized it fills one with great hope. But then director Tony Scott decides to not explain any of the sci-fi portion, force the audience to take what is happening at face value, and shifts focus over to car chases and shootouts. I am tempted to lower my rating under three stars because of the extreme disappointment experienced when I realized that this outstanding concept was so corrupted, but I am not going to do that because despite its inability to fulfill its promise “Déjà Vu” was still pretty entertaining.

Unthinkable

** - Everybody these days is always yammering about their “rights.” All these governments and religions are going around assigning different people different numbers of different rights based on arbitrary superstitions and current fads in ideology. I call bullshit on that. I come from the George Carlin school of rights (from whom I stole most of the wording of the first two sentences of this review), in that I think there are really only two options; either everyone has the right to everything, or no one has the right to anything. This movie seems to go in a third direction, positing that the only people with rights are the people with the power (i.e. guns, money, belief in the correct invisible man in the sky, and torture implements) and that if you are a wishy-washy liberal who tries to be nice to people then the terrorists will win. It’s kind of a Republican fantasy, like the show “24”. Starring Sam Jackson and Trinity from the “Matrix” movies, “Unthinkable” (not to be confused with another - much better - Sam Jackson movie, “Unbreakable”) was not released in theaters for some reason, despite its fairly significant star power and plot that touches on things that a lot of people would probably get into. While its message is reprehensible, it’s kind of entertaining and most of the performances (with the notable exception of the ultra-wooden Trinity) are pretty good. The graphic torture scenes were a little much, though.

Mystic River

***1/2 – I have never exactly been renowned for being able to guess the killer in a murder mystery, or guess the plot twist in a movie with a plot twist in it. “The Sixth Sense”; I had no idea that Bruce Willis was dead. “The Usual Suspects”; I had no idea that Kevin Spacey was Keyser Soze. However, with 2003’s “Mystic River” I knew exactly who did what and who didn’t do what about 30 minutes into this two and a half hour film. But that is pretty much the only knock that I can give this movie. It is nicely shot, directed pretty well by Dirty Harry, features an all-star cast (including Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne), and even managed to keep my interest despite the fact that I was pretty sure I knew what was going to happen from very early on. That being said, this movie wasn’t really what I expected. For whatever reason - because the word ‘mystic’ is in the title, I presume – I went into this movie thinking that this was going to have some sort of supernatural element to it. I was somewhat surprised to find out that the film is not supernatural at all, and is actually named after the river in Massachusetts where Sean Penn dumps the bodies of the guys he kills. Oh well. It was still a pretty good flick.

Ultraviolet

** - I decided to write a trailer voiceover for this movie. Imagine this being read in the slow, sonorous tones of the guy who kind of sounds like Optimus Prime who does all of the action movie trailer voiceovers. “In a world where humans and vampires are at war, and security guards wear goofy-looking gasmasks and easily shattered glass vests for some reason, the only hope for peace is a skinny lady with weird hair who rides a motorcycle up the side of a skyscraper in order to save some kid.” And then you’d see a bunch of fast-paced action and fights and explosions. Pretty good, huh? It pretty much sums up the plot, anyway, which should give you a good indication that this movie was kind of dumb. In fact, it was really dumb. Milla Jovovich unconvincingly slaughters hundreds of heavily armed and armored guards while making her way from one huge metal building to another in some sort of futuristic metropolis. This movie starts out with a narration that says “I was born into a world you wouldn’t understand.” If you ask me, that’s a pretty lame way to give yourself an excuse for making a movie that an audience couldn’t understand. I did kind of like the CG city and landscape design, though. I could look at that kind of stuff all day.

Persepolis

*** – This 2007 French-made animated film centers on the trials and hardships suffered during the life of a young Persian woman. It details events from the oppressive regime of the Shah to the even more oppressive regime of the Ayatollah to attempts to fit into Western culture by moving to Vienna and Paris. This is really a very dark and depressing movie that shows how religious fundamentalism and intolerance can not only destroy one person’s life but also entire families and countries. This is a message I am fully on board with. Although as a film, I must admit that even though the message is great, there were some considerable dull spots and lulls. Animation and visuals-wise, “Persepolis” was quite simple but fairly unique and appealing enough to not be off-putting. The character detail was fairly lackluster - registering probably somewhere between “Clerks: The Animated Series” and the Monopoly guy – but the landscapes and backgrounds were very cool, and reminded me somewhat of the cover of “OK Computer”. So, despite its rather dismal subject matter and tone, its simplistic animation style and fairly crummy English-language audio track, it is probably worth watching, if for no other reason than to show that Iranians didn’t turn into crazy world-destroying idiots until about 1979.

The Informant

***1/2 – On the one hand, I have a certain appreciation for movies that take serious subject and turn it into comedy fodder. On the other hand, I don’t like it when movies try too hard to make things funny by adding goofball zaniness. Stephen Soderbergh’s 2009 “The Informant!” – which deals with the extreme financial malfeasance of agricultural product conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland and its employees in the mid 1990s – does a mostly good job playing serious subject matter for humor, but goes overboard at times. I am mostly referring to the score and soundtrack to this film, which was a combination of punchy horns, 60s spy movie themes and 70s variety show pomp. I feel that that sort of self-identifying wackiness is completely unnecessary, and a movie that is genuinely funny should be able to stand on its own. Add to that the fact that the sound was so poorly mixed (music was way too loud and dialogue way too soft), and it takes what could have easily been a great film and causes it to fall down into the region of just a good film. Matt Damon did a really nice job playing the pathologically lying lead character with enough humor and charisma to keep him somewhat likeable despite the fact that he is clearly very unstable.

Body of Lies

***1/2 – Sir Wiggly Scott once again tackles a genre that has been pretty nearly done to death with this spy thriller set in the war torn Middle East. The ground covered in this tale of espionage, deceit, terrorism and religious fundamentalism is nowhere near being fresh or new, but the acting, directing and script make what would otherwise be pretty mediocre at least entertaining, although not as stellar as it could have been if the two leads weren’t so heavily relied on and the plot didn’t have a distinct air of implausibility. Stars Leonardo DiCaprio and a tubby Russell Crowe get the top billing, most of the dialogue and good lines and all the attention, but the real standout performance was from the criminally underrated Englishman Mark Strong as the head of the Jordanian intelligence agency. He has once again proven that he can take on pretty much any role and accent or language and be both convincing and appealing. As enjoyable as this movie was for the most part, I don’t think I can ever completely forgive it for its use of a Guns N’ Roses song over the closing credits. Not only are they one of the most overrated bands of all time, but they almost certainly have the worst band name in history.

The Eclipse

*** - This Irish-made film stars Ciaran Hinds (Julius Caeser from HBO’s “Rome” series) as a widower of indeterminate employment (apparently alternating between teacher, writer, chauffeur, editor, publicist and handyman within the film’s 88 minutes) who chases around some English ghost story writing broad, and occasionally sees an actual ghost or two himself. This is billed as a thriller, but that is fairly inaccurate. It is, unfortunately, more of a romantic drama punctuated every 15 or so minutes with some sort of shocking image that is supposed to keep the atmospheric tension ratcheted up. I guess it is fairly successful in doing so, but there isn’t really a whole lot of story, and whether or not these supposed ‘ghosts’ that are popping up every once in a while are real or a dream of some sort is never revealed. The movie looks great, though. The lovely Irish countryside backdrop, vivid and clear cinematography and interesting camera work all come together in tandem to make this a practical visual feast. Still, that can really only take a movie so far. It would have been nice to have some sort of plot to follow other than bird chasing and the Aidan Quinn character’s continual drunkenness.

The Spirit

** - Starting off with a lengthy narration in which an inanimate object is frequently referred to by the pronoun “she” is not a good way for a film to endear itself to me. Following that up with a dull and slow-paced story, stilted dialogue and marginal acting, and a movie plops itself into a hole that it has no real chance of digging its way out of. Well, all that describes Frank Miler’s 2008 film “The Spirit”, which unsuccessfully grasps at ultra-stylized “Sin City”-like neo-noir hipster appeal, and ends up with considerably less than a handful of it. Sam Jackson adds to his recent string of poor film choices by portraying bad guy ‘The Octopus’ - one of the more irritating super villains I can recall seeing – who runs around the city with the Black Widow and a legion Tor Johnsons in an effort to defeat the title character, with whom he apparently has some sort of history. The plot is kind of weak, but easy enough to follow, and while the visuals are pretty good they don’t come anywhere near matching those of “Sin City”. The main problems with this film are the shockingly long stretches of nothingness and the broad, silly, sub-“Dragnet” lingo and dialogue. If you can get past that, though, it might be worth a watch.

The Machinist

***1/2 – This 2004 film is a solidly above average albeit not extraordinary entry in the genre of movies in which a guy has a traumatic experience and recedes into some sort of bizarre hallucinatory fantasy world as a way of compensating for it. It’s pretty nicely shot, but is for the most part really dark and dismal, which isn’t necessarily bad, but here just adds to the depressing nature of the rest of the aspects of the film, such as the emaciated lead actor, very slow and subdued score and rather grisly subject matter. The story is pretty neat and has a lot to offer the astute viewer, but doesn’t really break any new ground except in the fact that star Christian Bale turned himself into a gaunt skeleton in order to portray a hundred pound insomniac. Apparently he lost like 70 pounds or something in a couple of months in order to play this role and then gained it all back (and more) in order to play Batman. That guy needs to watch out, as that kind of stress is very bad for one’s heart. It does help to explain why he freaked out on the set of “Terminator” though. That kind of diet would make anyone cranky, give him a break.

LOST: The Complete 6th and Final Season

**** - The best dramatic TV shows that are aware of the fact that they are heading into their final hurrah walk their audience up to a precipice and then fling them over edge to a measured and well thought out ending with some bombast. As much as I have enjoyed watching “LOST” over the past five years, I must admit that that formula is not followed here. Instead, the precipice is reached and then the audience is nudged to the side and led step-by-step down the side of some other less dangerous cliff to a soft landing. I don’t necessarily dislike the fact that conformity was eschewed here, but I was also hoping that all of the mysteries that were introduced at various points in the series would be wrapped up, or at least solidly hinted at enough for the viewer to form a conclusion. That didn’t really happen with “LOST”. Without getting into any detail, there were a number of issues that I was hoping would be resolved that weren’t (more than one of which was pretty vital to the overall premise). While that is certainly a disappointment, I must say that the mysteries that were resolved were pretty well done and whether or not everyone had all their answers fed to them, it must be admitted that the journey of the final season was a pretty fun one in which to partake.

The Wrestler

**** - While it doesn’t have the frenetic pacing and ingenuity of his first two films (“Pi” and “Requiem for a Dream”) or the story depth and artistic quality of his 3rd film (“The Fountain”), Darren Aronofsky’s 2008 “The Wrestler” is probably his most poignant and finely crafted to date. The highlight of this is definitely the superb portrayal of fictional pro wrestler Robin Ramzinski (aka Randy ‘the Ram’ Robinson) by Mickey Rourke. It was an extremely realistic and believable performance and Rourke imbued the character with great warmth, sadness and even humor. If I have to criticize this film, it would have to be about two things. First, it’s about wrestling, and therefore features a lot of wrestling in it. I hate wrestling. So, much like the 2009 film “Crazy Heart” – which dealt with another of my most hated things, country music – I have to knock off some points for having so much of something I despise featured. Secondly, I thought the story kind of petered out in the later stages, and ended abruptly with a number of loose ends. However, those faults aside, I was remarkably entertained by a movie that had loads of pro wrestling in it, which is actually quite a feat on its own.

The Invasion

** – If I was a 6 year-old kid and my mother was Nicole Kidman and she walked around the house in a skintight nipple-exposing t-shirt and see-through pants revealing a skimpy thong, I think I would need some major psychiatric counseling. If I was the 6 year-old kid in “The Invasion” I’d be in luck, because my scantily clad superhot mother would also be a psychiatric counselor! That really has nothing to do with the plot of 2007’s “The Invasion”, but I thought I would point it out as it seemed rather odd to me. In any event, this is a pretty cheesy film. It has all the conventions of the action horror thriller genre, but never truly succeeds in creating a tense atmosphere or an interesting story. It also has a whole lot of chase scenes - mostly on foot but also in cars and even helicopters – which get pretty tedious. The worst thing about the movie is probably the startling number of convenient coincidences – such as Kidman’s lab technician friend inexplicably showing up to rescue her in a helicopter with a bunch of military guys. How’d he hook up with the army, and where’d he get the helicopter? Oh well, I guess I don’t really care.