Rendition

***1/2 – This film is based on a few true stories about the US government’s use of a policy called ‘extraordinary rendition’, in which they can pretty much detain anyone they want for any reason in one of a number of prisons outside the country and torture and interrogate them to try to get intelligence info. The acting in this is solid for the most part, and it is pretty well shot, but the interlocking storylines are told in a fashion that is a little confusing until the end. Critically-acclaimed actress Meryl Streep plays the head of some sort of evil government agency, but I have yet to see a performance from her in which I feel that her constant critical praise is warranted, including this one.

Moon

**** - A sci-fi film that hearkens back to the less action-oriented movies of the 60s and 70s, “Moon” stars Sam Rockwell as an astronaut stationed at a one-man lunar energy production facility who is beginning to go a little batty after three years there by himself. The lunar surface shots and station interiors are fantastic, and exactly how I imagine a moon base might look in the relatively near future. Rockwell does a nice job in multiple roles, and first time writer/director Duncan Jones pays homage to his predecessors while also carving out a spot for himself as (hopefully) the leader of a movement away from the constant explosions and chase scenes in most modern sci-fi films. This is supposedly the first part in a trilogy, and I am looking forward to the rest.

Inkheart

** - For a fantasy film to be truly enjoyable, it has to utilize the full promise of its ideas. The story behind “Inkheart” is that Brendan Fraser is one of the few people in the world who has the ability to make books come to life by reading them aloud. That premise – while somewhat problematic if one gives it some thought - is pretty interesting, and leaves open numerous possibilities to bring to life fictional characters from various books to interact with each other. Instead, this film features only a bunch of largely uninteresting characters from one made-up book and Toto from “The Wizard of Oz”. While it looks fairly nice and has some decent effects, the main plot line is rather mundane, and its inability to fulfill its promise is disappointing. That’s what happens when you aim a movie or book solely toward an immature audience. I’m still puzzled as to why Fraser was cast in the lead, since every other character in the film is British, including his wife and daughter.

Lucky Number Slevin

**** - In general, I am not a fan of Josh Hartnett. He looks to me too much like a mongoloid. However, his performance in this film is surprisingly watchable, despite the fact that his wardrobe consists of only a towel for half the movie. Beyond Mr. Pearl Harbor, the rest of the cast also does a great job, and the story is like a labyrinthine maze that you are able to eventually find your way through. A delectable Asian treat in the form of Lucy Liu appears frequently in this film, which also has some of the best conceived twists I’ve experienced. It’s certainly worth giving a shot.

The Lovely Bones

**1/2 - This is a rather strange Peter Jackson-helmed film about how it’s apparently okay to rape and murder 14-year old girls because they’ll go to heaven and everyone they knew will have happy and productive lives afterwards. I’m going to assume that that is not the idea that the makers of this wanted to convey, but it certainly is how it comes across. While it is well shot and contains some lovely CG backgrounds and effects, I’m not sure I could necessarily recommend it for all audiences. This is probably Mark Wahlberg’s best performance since “Boogie nights”, but I’m not sure how he still gets so much work.

Jumper

*** - Anakin Skywalker, Mace Windu and some rather attractive young lady that I have never seen before star in this sci-fi adventure film that has some promising elements but doesn’t really go anywhere. The special effects are pretty good, and the main idea behind this is fairly interesting, but the script falls flat in the dialogue and storytelling areas. It’s no worse than some of the “Star Wars” prequel trilogy films, though.

Next

** - Nicholas Cage’s rapidly thinning hair and Jessica Biel’s rapidly tightening blouse star in this abomination of a classic Phillip K. Dick story. While some of the basic elements of Dick’s original plot remain, I felt myself relieved that he is long dead, so he wouldn’t have to see what was done with his work here. Mr. Dick’s certainly drug-influenced plot is turned into a silly love story with only a passing resemblance to the original. There are some bright spots, but this could have been so much more. It’s a shame.

Street Kings

** – Featuring fast cars, fancy suits, rap music, rappers in acting roles, and an extraordinary amount of gun-related violence, this movie could have been a 2-hour long rap video if there were bikini-clad women and hot tubs in it. Keanu Reeves plays a dim-witted corrupt cop who is supposed to be the hero of the film because he is slightly less corrupt than rest of the outrageously corrupt cops. A marginally interesting storyline and the fact that no sort of romantic subplot was even attempted made this a step above the other films in this usually meritless genre. Forest Whitaker – as the lead bad cop – attempts some sort of unidentifiably bizarre accent and chews scenery in a fashion that I haven’t seen since the heyday of Eric Roberts (assuming Eric Roberts ever had a 'heyday').

Up In The Air

***1/2 – George Clooney puts in a solid performance as his usual charming self in this well shot film about a guy who flies around the country firing people for a living. The rest of the cast also do a nice job, although I must admit that I found the young girl character – although well played by the actress – to be extremely unlikeable. There were some pretty funny parts, but I wasn’t really able to connect with the drama aspect of the film. Personally, I found Clooney’s “backpack” philosophy pretty intriguing (although the actual backpack metaphor was kind of dumb), and felt that his backtracking toward the end was pretty silly.

Coheed and Cambria – Neverender

**** - This DVD chronicles one of four special 4-night performances from late 2008 in which C & C played each of their albums in sequence, one per night. There aren’t many bands that could pull such a thing off these days, but Coheed and Cambria have built their albums on a concept so it makes some sense. The musicianship here is astounding, and I love just about every song on all of their albums, so the 300+ minutes present in the set go by in a flash. My only quibbles here are that starting with night 3 they bring in an extra percussionist playing bongos and shit that is unnecessary, and also have two female backing singers who are basically just a couple of pole dancers who yelp a few lines. Also, a bloated Warren Haynes (from the Allman Brothers, Gov’t Mule, etc.) makes an appearance during the encore of night 4 to play a Dylan cover and a 2nd version of “Welcome Home” from album three, and he looks to be on the verge of a massive coronary. This set is, however, an absolute treat for fans of the group.

Idiocracy

***1/2 – Perhaps the best things about this movie were small roles for the guys who played Future Man and Bob Mapplethorpe in “Bottle Rocket”. Besides that pleasant surprise, this Mike Judge film has a lot of funny parts - especially toward the beginning – but sort of goes awry and gets really goofy as it nears the end. Many people (i.e. nerds) criticized this film due to its similarities to “Futurama”. I discounted these at first, but as I continued to watch, it struck me just how many similarities there are; not so much to the main plot of the series, but to various plots from several episodes. Be that as it may, this is still a pretty entertaining flick.

Coraline

*** - This is the 2nd consecutive Neil Gaiman-penned animated film that revolves around a teenage girl that I have watched. This one is not quite as creepy as “MirrorMask” and, thankfully, doesn’t have the live-action parts that that film did. The animation is top-notch, and while the premise is intriguing, I found myself a bit underwhelmed by its execution. There are lots of oddball characters who are pretty annoying (the old fat ladies, the Russian guy, etc.), and the mystery plot seemed to lose steam about ¾ of the way through. Like “MirrorMask”, this is a movie that seems to aim for a youngish audience, but the creepiness factor may put off that age group.

MirrorMask

**1/2 – This is one of those movies that tries to pass off creepy stuff as being charming, but only ends up proving that creepy stuff is actually just creepy. If there is anything more horrifying than a circus, it is a freaky European-type circus, and one of those is featured heavily for the first 20+ minutes of the film. Once the animation kicks in, though, the movie becomes much more enjoyable, due largely to the beautiful background/set design and interesting character choices. That being said, the plot is pretty confusing and the whole deal was considerably more child-oriented than I expected.

The Number 23

*** - Jim “The Horned One” Carrey puts in a shockingly solid performance in this film in which - for once - he doesn’t mug for the camera like an idiot or make his butt cheeks act like a mouth. Like Robin Williams, Carrey’s serious performances are far more watchable than when he tries to be funny. While parts of this film are a bit dumb, most of it serves the plot in one way or another. It has a twist at the end (sort of) that isn’t completely predictable and is actually kind of satisfying.

Paranormal Activity

*** - Horror movies are generally split into two types: (a) a guy with a weapon of some sort who chases people around and violently hacks them up, or (b) an atmosphere of tension and creepiness is built up without lots of gore. I prefer the latter genre, and “Paranormal Activity” definitely falls squarely into that category. While it is really no more than “Blair Witch” with a change of setting from the woods of Maryland to a suburban California home, this film keeps the tension ratcheted up to a high enough level to keep it entertaining. Like all the movies of this type, though, there is a long, dull stretch at the beginning where the filmmakers decided to try let the audience get to know the characters. That has always struck me as unnecessary.

The Blind Side

**1/2 – I was extremely skeptical going into this film. I assumed that it would be a schlocky, feel-good, wrong-side-of-the-tracks, cheeseball hard luck story… and that is pretty much what it was. Despite that, the movie was well shot and well acted for the most part and ended up being marginally entertaining. Sandra Bullock did a convincing job in her role as a bossy, self important, sassy, makeup encrusted, Southern woman who is probably supposed to be endearing, but I found extremely irritating. There’s also a little kid in it with a bizarre spastic manner of speaking that is also supposed to be endearing, but – once again – I found very annoying. This movie tries to prove Hooper X’s (from “Chasing Amy”) theorem that blacks “all just wants to be white.”

Cube Zero

** - Not a terrible film, but the arbitrary changes made to the successful formula of the 1st two films (“Cube” and “Cube 2: Hypercube”) didn’t work very well and made this third installment rather dull. This prequel decided to eschew the intellectual bent of the prior films and go for a more visceral horror/gore motif, as if the creators viewed a few of the “Saw” films and decided to go more in that direction. While not as unapologetically violent and sadistic as the apparently never-ending “Saw” series, this had that kind of general feel to it. “Cube Zero” was certainly a disappointment, but not entirely unwatchable, as the premise is still kind of neat.

Taken

*** – Qui-Gon Jinn is pissed, and he’s gonna take it out on a bunch of frogs and Albanian scumbags! Liam Neeson plays a retired government operative/James Bond-type figure that goes to Paris to rescue his daughter (played by Shannon from “LOST”) who has been kidnapped by fiendish Albanian immigrants and sold into sexual slavery. There isn’t anything particularly new or inventive here, but it contains enough entertainment value to be worth a watch. It receives an extra star for heavily featuring Albanians, but immediately loses that extra star because it portrays the Albanians as a bunch of cartoonishly evil, scruffy-bearded, unkempt, smelly, ugly murderers. Wait a minute… I think I just described myself pretty accurately (except for the ‘murderer’ part).

Fantastic Mr. Fox

***** - This is a very simplistic, yet extremely beautifully made and highly detailed stop-animation film written and directed by Wes Anderson and based on the Roald Dahl children’s book. While the basics (story, characters, some dialogue, etc.) of the original book are present, this movie adds a great deal to what would probably be about a 20-minute short if only material from the book was used. It starts out a little slow, but soon gathers steam, and is aided by some very funny lines and great performances by most of the voice actors. There is an aspect of it that would probably retain the appeal to children of the book, but this film version is definitely geared more toward the adult set. The designs of the scenery, characters and backgrounds are superb.

I, Robot

**** - While this film version of the classic Asimov story takes many liberties with the source material, and even stars Will “how the hell did I manage to become a film star” Smyth, it manages to be both enjoyable and somewhat poignant. Excellent special effects and some pretty enjoyable action scenes add to the bits of quality Asimov story that found their way into the script. Probably one of the better sci-fi films of recent years. This movie co-stars Tom Brady’s ex. Why he dumped her for that man-faced Brazilian broad is beyond me.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

** - This is a crappy prequel to the other two marginally entertaining “Underworld” movies that struggles to keep the viewer’s interest since it lacks the charismatic presence of Kate Beckinsale’s leather-wrapped hinder. Frankly, I’ve never really understood the appeal of the whole Vampire-vs.-Werewolf thing, myself. And the two species (or whatever they are) are supposed to be related somehow? How does that work? Anyway, if you plan to watch this movie to get the answers to those questions, you – like me – will be sorely disappointed.

Cube 2: Hypercube

***1/2 – If you like movies that contain lengthy conversations in which characters go in-depth into hypotheses regarding quantum mechanics and theoretical geometry, this is the movie for you! I do, in fact, like that sort of thing, so even though the story was pretty much a rehash of the first movie in the series (1997’s “Cube”) I enjoyed it. The only parts I didn’t like about this movie were the opening 3 or so minutes which consisted largely of a close-up of someone’s eyeball, and the fact that – being a Canadian production with Canadian actors – all of the characters (the male ones, anyway) kind of sounded like Barry Melrose.

The Man from Earth

**** – The following facts became very apparent to me early on: (a) shot on a single set, (b) shot on video, (c) cost less than $200,000, (d) directed like a TV commercial, and (e) the most noteworthy names involved are William Katt and the guy who played Tom Smykowski in “Office Space”. Well, this movie is about as good as a movie with the above-mentioned characteristics can be, and that is largely because of the outstanding story. This is essentially a sci-fi film without any FX about a guy who tells a group of co-workers that he is a 14,000 year old caveman. While the acting isn’t the best I’ve ever seen in all cases, the ensemble cast of nobodies and has-beens did a good enough job to do the story justice. This is certainly worth 90 minutes of one’s time. Is it wrong that I kept waiting for Smykowski to say “He made a million dollars”?

Hard Eight

***1/2 – Great performances by Lt. Bookman and Reed Rothschild make this film more enjoyable than is belied by its somewhat plodding pace and lack of much of a story. One can get a pretty good idea from this movie where Paul Thomas Anderson practiced all of the techniques that he later used to fantastic ends in “Boogie Nights”. While this movie lacks the hilarious dialogue of “Boogie Nights” and doesn’t have the great characters and situations of that film either, it is still entertaining to watch. I didn’t think Sam Jackson was all that great in this, but Gwyneth Paltrow was pretty convincing in her role as a stupid slut.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

** - I really enjoy TV shows that have a storyline that continues from one episode to the next. That is why I really like the show “LOST” and also the reason that I really liked “The X-Files” back in the day. I sort of tuned out of “The X-Files” at a certain point, though. I am not saying that it got to be a bad show, but I just sort of got bored with it. The first movie based on the series from several years ago was pretty good because it helped tie up some loose ends and continued the UFO-alien-whatever plot. This second movie, however, is completely separated from the series. It is kind of okay, but plays like a really long episode of the show that is disconnected from the main storyline. It made for a pretty dull and not particularly compelling watch.

Law Abiding Citizen

*** – This is a surprisingly good film with even more surprisingly watchable performances from two actors who I generally don’t particularly like – Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler. The trailer for this one made it look like a by-the-numbers revenge flick, but it actually had a bit more of a story to it and maintained enough mystery to keep the audience guessing as to just what might happen next. The only real downside here is that I never really had any sympathy for either of the two main characters, and I’m guessing that the idea was for the audience to have sympathy for both. I wouldn’t have been disappointed if both of them had kecked it in the end.

The Hurt Locker

***1/2 – So far (as of April 2010), I have seen 3 of the 5 movies nominated for Best Picture and Best Director at the 2009 Academy Awards. Of those, this one was - to me - only the 3rd best visually and the 2nd best overall. Despite saying that, “The Hurt Locker” is still a very good movie, despite the goofy title. It had a few scenes that were very well shot and had a pretty visually compelling overall feel. However, the whole ‘shaky camera’ thing has become pretty trite, and quite frankly, had me on the verge of nausea on occasion. The acting was solid, but the characters were pretty stereotypical as far as war movie types go. I found myself really hoping that the three alpha-male douche bag main characters were taken out with some sort of incendiary explosive device.

Lady in the Water

*** - While it certainly isn’t a great film, this is easily M. Night Shyamalan’s best film of the past several he has made. Some of the characters are pretty good, and the plot isn’t entirely predictable (like “The Village” and “The Happening”), but there is enough semi-offensiveness (the pothead guys and the Chinese people, especially) and unanticipated goofiness to make this somewhat trying to watch at times. The special effects are marginal at best, too, which certainly doesn’t help matters.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

** - One thing I learned from watching this movie is that Michael Bay apparently thinks that skanky, promiscuous college kids covered in sweat and grease and grime is attractive. Every character (human or robot) is despicable, whether because they are one-dimensional filth-covered morons or just annoying jerks. The story was largely incomprehensible; not because it was complex and intelligent, but because plot points were introduced at random, seemingly out of nowhere. The special effects are the only saving grace, but are not enough to make it a good movie.

LOST: The Complete 5th Season

****1/2 – A lot of TV shows hint at lengthy and complex mythologies and back stories, but never get around to showing details of these back stories. After several seasons of foreshadowing (or is it backshadowing?) and showing bits and remnants of things like the Dharma Initiative, Rousseau’s team, Jacob, and other past happenings, Season 5 of ‘LOST’ finally goes in-depth into a large chunk of its mythology. While, like pretty much every season of ‘LOST’, there are parts of this that focus on stupid stuff (romantic subplots, Hurley’s family, Sun, etc.) the good far outweighs the bad here. This is probably the best season since the first.