This is a surprisingly fun romantic comedy, featuring a great cast and a rather good script that somehow manages to put a slight spin on a tried movie formula.

Writing: Writer/director David Koepp tries his hand at the romantic comedy genre, with success. Having written and directed a number of thrillers and action event films, this is definitely a change for him. And true to his typical talent, he manages to pull it off quite well. The interesting thing is that the film actually plays into many of the typical elements of this genre film, borrowing pretty freely from the likes of Ghost, Hearts & Souls and others. However, through the use of distinct character writing and amusing situational writing, he manages to find a unique voice for the film. And the casting didn’t hurt.

Production: The most notable thing for a film of this type is how well the “ghost effects” work. In this case, they are about as perfect as one would hope for. They don’t actually try to go for any kind of ghostly appearance, but rather settle for just having the actors in the scenes and only use effects when they pass through something. While it’s an easy budgetary decision to make, I think using the simple approach like this typically helps the film creatively as well. It’s not needlessly distracting for the audience. The other tech areas of the film are first rate, with no shortcomings to point out.

Cast: Ricky Gervais brings his very British sense of humor to this leading man role, and it works spectacularly. His droll sense of humor is razor sharp and spot on, and he really makes the introverted, jerk of a lead romantic comedy character work from every angle. He also manages to make the transformation of the character seem real and not at all forced, not to mention still feel like the same character, which is often a danger of films like this. Then there’s the perfect casting of Greg Kinnear as the other kind of likable jerk - the one who really is more of an actual jerk. It’s somewhat hard to make a movie that centers around two lead characters that would on paper seem to be very off putting. These two very entertaining actors manage to not only make it work, but elevate it to a higher level. Add in the always-great Tea Leoni, an actress who often doesn’t get the attention or casting she deserves, and you’ve got yourself a fantastic cast. Leoni and Gervais work very well together in the film, which is key to a romantic comedy. Rounding out the cast are plenty of fine actors and actresses, including the likes of Alan Ruck, Billy Campbell and Kristen Wiig.

Music: Composer Geoff Zanelli is seemingly channeling the likes of Rolfe Kent and Rachel Portman, two composers who are very well versed in this kind of film. While it may just be a heavy amount of temp track influence, and not a choice on his part, it does work pretty well for the film. That might not result in the world’s most original score, but it works all the same.

While I’m a fan of writer/director Neil LaBute, this wasn’t my favorite of his films. It’s certainly entertaining enough, I guess, but it falls into a few too many genre trappings to work completely. One other problem this movie had was a trailer I’d seen a bunch of times that was at least twice as long as it needed to be, and gave away far too much of the film.

Writing: This isn’t a particularly bad script, it just doesn’t avoid some of the obvious trappings of the genre. One of the more interesting aspects to the film is the character played by Sam Jackson, who is an interesting mix of a good guy and a bad guy. He’s VERY gray area. At the start of the film, I was totally on his side, as he constantly corrected the terrible grammar of his kids. As somebody who is also depressed by the total lack of language skills of the up and coming generation, I almost cheered out loud at some of his moments correcting them. All things being equal, he’s a good parent, until his bad traits escalate a situation that causes him to come unglued, then all bets are off. The racial tension of the film is also one of the more uniquely styled parts of the story, and is thankfully one that plays against stereotype, with Jackson being the outright racist.

Production: There’s little to criticize here, as it’s a very solid production. Everything from cinematography to editing and sound design are well done. None of it is standout, overly praise worthy, but it’s all quite well put together. The final act is particularly effective in terms of location and filming technique.

Cast: The real scene stealer in the movie is Sam Jackson, but I guess that shouldn’t come as a major surprise. He plays the conflicting gray areas of the character very well, managing to come off as charming even at the character’s worst. Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington are adequate as the neighbor couple moving into the neighborhood, and setting off Jackson’s character. I suppose the two of them do lack the chemical spark that the characters needed, but they still manage to pull it off pretty well. The great Ron Glass gets to have a couple scenes, but doesn’t get material of particular importance. Generally speaking, a good cast highlighted by Sam Jackson.

Music: Neil LaBute chose brother composers Mychael & Jeff Danna to score this character thriller, which is an easy choice given their combined experience in scoring movies of the genre. Mychael in particular has done plenty of material previously to make working on this film a walk in the park. The two of them delivered a perfectly functional and well styled score, downplaying the dark nature of the material and giving it that moderately gritty tone. Not the greatest score for either of them, but definitely a solid effort.

I’ve mentioned numerous times during reviews of mindless actions movies starring Jason Statham that I really do like him as an actor, it’s just that he continually picks action movies that are actually dumber than the one before. Crank was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. But I’ve always said that when given the right material, Statham can be quite good. Here is one such example - one that was sadly overlooked at the box office.

Writing: While being a rather charming and intriguing crime thriller, rather closely based on a true story, this film is not afraid to embrace its R rating. There is no shortage of pretty much everything that can earn an R rating. It’s an odd combination of said charm and risque material. I’m not sure how much of that comes from the script, let alone the true life event, and what is imbued by the cast and director. The story is quite layered and pretty insane, not to mention British through and through.

Production: Guided by the ever-reliable, solid hand of director Roger Donaldson (well, we won’t hold Cocktail against him), this production is top notch and pretty slick. It isn’t overly slick like a Michael Bay film would be. It’s down and dirty, but very well crafted. Cinematography is very realistic, but adequately stylish. Same goes for the editing and sound design. Overall, a very classy production.

Cast: As I already stated, I actually quite like Jason Statham as an actor, and he is at his absolute best here. His rogue charm is in full force, and he easily drops into the role. Then there’s the constantly under appreciated actress Saffron Burrows, who does a marvelous job as the catalyst for the story. She gets to play multiple angles to the character, and she plays against the rest of the cast very well. The rest of the casting is done with spot on character actors, filling all manner of supporting characters, from scumbags to good ol’ British aristocracy and intelligence operatives. It’s like a veritable who’s who of “hey, I recognize that actor/actress” casting.

Music: J. Peter Robinson gets to have all sorts of fun with his crime caper score, striking a very nice balance between modern film making and 70’s period scoring. This is definitely one of his best career scores. He may not be an a-list composer, or one of my absolute favorites, but he does get some material from time to time that lets him show off his skills.

This is one of those movies that manages to remain entertaining enough, despite a completely implausible and ridiculous script. I’d probably give this a 6 out of 10 were it not for Michelle Monaghan (one of my favorite actresses) being one of the stars, which helps me justify bumping it up to a 7 out of 10.

Writing: While I must admit that this story went in a direction that I honestly wasn’t expecting, and the fact that it actually does contain some interesting ideas, most of the material is insanely unrealistic. Now, a movie can be great without being even remotely realistic. I happen to love many such films. The key is to not be trying to play into a realistic framework. And that is the first mistake of this film - trying to be real. Granted, there are some amusing bits of dialog here and there that poke fun at the ridiculous nature of what’s going on, but it doesn’t do enough to undercut the insanity. On top of the core ridiculous aspects of the script, there’s a complete lack of common sense and logic throughout the film. This is like those overly-complicated plans that Bond villains would make to kill James, when they should have simply shot him between the eyes. You know, the kind of stuff for which Scott Evil would make fun of his father, Dr. Evil. This story could have been over in 30 minutes if the ultimate goal would have been accomplished by one of a thousand simple methods, avoiding the whole cat-and-mouse material. But then you wouldn’t have a movie, would you?

Production: Having said all that about the writing, the production goes the extra mile to compensate. This is a first rate production. It features dynamic cinematography and editing, a wild sound mix, aggressive scoring and a nice attention to detail. Those who say that a production or cast can’t make up for a bad script are often right, but in this case I think it was pulled off. It’s hard for it to make it a great film, but it can certainly make it entertaining enough, as it did for this film. Director DJ Caruso (who’s previous film was Disturbia with LaBeouf) manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Or at least a well nourished chipmunk. Having also shared many production elements and people as Transformers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie more than Transformers.

Cast: Shia LaBeouf is one of those hot button actors these days, with many people either loving or hating his work. I’m not a huge fan, but I do enjoy most of his performances. This movie got one of his better performances (certainly better than Transformers - though the stuff he got to play in Transformers was much worse than what he gets in this film). As I said earlier, Michelle Monaghan is a favorite actress of mine, so my opinion is considerably biased. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), I thought she was great. Then there’s the rest of the cast, which is filled in by such a roster of quality, known actors, I was surprisingly impressed. From Michael Chiklis’ nice performances as the Secretary of Defense to Billy Bob Thornton’s intelligent pursuer, this is a well cast film. Rosario Dawson feels just a tiny bit out of place in her role, but she still does a good enough job to make it work. She at least plays off Thornton nicely. The great William Sadler gets a small role as the father to LaBeouf’s character, and of course he does a great job. The under appreciated Ethan Embry gets a small role as Thornton’s partner. The rest of the cast is well rounded out.

Music: Like his great score for AvP2, Brian Tyler swings for the fences with this score. Full of rich, dynamic orchestration and pacing, it succeeds in the struggle to keep up with the material on screen. He also manages to sneak in some nice thematic character material from time to time, particularly in the first act of the film. While the script may be overly ridiculous, it does give ample opportunity to dynamic music scoring.

This is one of those odd and charming indie films that moderately breaks through into the main stream. In this case, I think it’s primarily for the cast involved, and the somewhat easily marketable story.

Writing: There no doubting the low key, indie mentality of the script, featuring a number of screwed up and quirky characters. It’s the kind of stuff that actors spend their careers trolling for.  While the writing may not be perfect, it definitely has a unique voice and an interesting set of characters and interactions.

Production: Like the writing, the production of the film works to find a balance between low key, normal kinds of production and oddly unique levels of design and environment. Most everything is designed to allow the cast to cut loose and play around with the fun material.

Cast: Here’s the real shining highlight of the film. Anton Yelchin (the soon-to-be Pavel Chekov in Star Trek) delivers a fantastically charming and slightly off-center performance as the titular Charlie Bartlett. He manages to play both the naive and the wise aspects of the character equally well. And he plays off the rest of the cast spectacularly. Robert Downey Jr, who’s long been a favorite actor of mine, is spot on with his downplayed character. Him and Yelchin in particular are great together in their scenes. Kat Dennings, who stars in the upcoming Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist (a movie that seems to appeal to many of the characteristics of this film), is a refreshingly unique foil for Charlie, and an effortless romantic interest. Then there’s the perfectly odd Hope Davis playing Charlie’s very off-balance mother. Davis is an under appreciated actress, one who can play odd and complex roles like this to perfection.

Music: Christophe Beck, a very talented composer, comes through with an appropriately odd and downplayed score. It’s nothing that’ll grab attention as the best score of the year or anything, but it drops into the film with ease.

Since I’m so far behind on reviews anyway, I’ll ignore the big box office hits I still have outstanding and go with this movie that I just got back from seeing. So, I’m assuming when you first saw this review, your first thought was “I’ve never heard of this movie.” Well, neither had I until this past weekend. For those curious how I track down these movies, it’s quite simple. I look at showtime listings each week. In particular, I’ll make sure to pay attention to the listings for the 30 screen AMC theaters in the area. They tend to pick up a lot of under-the-radar “art house” films just because, well, they have 30 screens. If I don’t know what the movie is in a listing, I’ll do a click on it to see more details. And yeah, more times than not, it’s some Bollywood movie. But frequently, it’s some little independent gems that only get a limited release run. Such was the case with Transsiberian. The single greatest thing about trolling showtime listings for films like this is one can get away with knowing pretty much nothing going into the movie. I love a good movie trailer, but there’s a definite advantage as a viewer to know pretty much nothing about a film going into it. When I saw that it starred Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer, the cast already had me interested. I also quite liked the one-sheet poster (as featured in this review), which also gave away next to nothing. Then I did one other thing that I’ll occasionally do when I’ve locked onto a movie like this that I’m interested in seeing - I pulled up Roger Ebert’s review and simply looked at his score for the movie, which in this case was 3.5 stars. So that was enough for me. So, if you’ve got any real intention on seeing this movie, I encourage you to do the same, and stop reading this review. This was a great movie to go into not knowing a thing. It’s got a some language and occasional violence. If that’s not gonna bother ya, then stop paying any more attention and just see it.

Writing: This is a taught little thriller. It has a nice variety of characters, intertwined with some nice complexities and interactions. Then there’s the apparently simple plot, which if you think about it closely is actually pretty clever. It pulls off some nice misdirections of suspense, and plays against genre stereotypes in a subtle manner to keep the viewer a bit off balance. And in the end, it achieves a surprising amount of real life believability. Would that big budget studio films could pull off this kind of slick subtlety.

Production: One knows that they are viewing an independent movie at the very start, by not only counting the number of production companies, but the number of nationalities of said companies. The general rule is that the more production companies with logos up front, the tighter the budget (and pity the poor producer of the film, wrangling all these backers). This film is chock full of production companies, and boy the array of nationalities. From what I’ve figured out in a cursory glance at production info online, most of the film was shot in Lithuania, including the gorgeous exterior train shots (featuring some very nice aerial footage). Apparently, Lithuania is a good double for Russia (and why not, it’s a former Soviet state). It totally works. The crew does a fantastic job at making the movie look equally gritty and beautiful, but not overtly stylized. It features some fantastic scope lensing. Given the state of big studio “thrillers” these days, it’s fantastic to see a movie like this, steeped in the Hitchcock world of thrillers.

Cast: If the excellent writing and first rate production weren’t enough, we are treated to a great cast as well. Woody Harrelson gets to play his charming good guy side for this role, and he works marvelously. As the most overtly “good” character, he still brings some nice depth and chemistry to the role. Emily Mortimer get the lions share of the suspense material to play on screen, and as always, she does a fantastic job. I’ve never seen her give a bad performance, and this is certainly no exception to that pattern. She does a nice job selling the troubled history of the character, and she plays very well off all the other actors/characters. One of said characters is that of fellow traveler Abby, played very well by Kate Mara. It took me a bit to figure out what I recognized her from (We Are Marshall - in which she was excellent). Abby’s boyfriend, Carlos, is played by Eduardo Noriega, an actor that I didn’t really have any familiarity with. He does a good job in the role. Always reliable character actor Thomas Kretschmann delivers a silent, cold and menacing performance. And then there was the pleasant surprise of Ben Kingsley in the film. I failed to notice his name on the poster, and had no idea he was in it. Not surprisingly, he does a very good job (and pulls off a very convincing Russian performance - at least to my lowly American ability to recognize a convincing Russian portrayal).

Music: The low key score is well delivered by composer Alfonso Viallonga, somebody I was previously unfamiliar with. While the score does feature in the mix for some of the scenes, it manages to blend into the mix quite well throughout. It definitely lends the right mood and flow to the story. Not the best score of the year, but certainly a solid effort.

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT: One bit in the movie I particularly loved was the finale sequence, with Roy & Jessie making their big getaway on a train. That must be the first time I’ve seen characters attempt a spontaneous getaway on a steam locomotive. And the true shock is that it’s realistic in the fact that Roy, only an amateur train enthusiast, is unable to figure out all the controls on the fly, and their big getaway fails - as it most likely would in real life. The script relies more on being clever in realistic ways for their survival than making a big getaway using a train.

This may sound strange, but this movie was both exactly what I was expecting and a big disappointment. Perhaps I was hoping for something more than I was expecting. I continue to have to point out that I don’t dislike Jason Statham as an actor. Far from it, actually. But more times than not, I just don’t like the movies he is in. Typically, they are the outright action movies in his resume. While this one is nowhere near as bad as Crank (almost nothing could be, since it’s the worst movie I’ve seen this decade - though I fear the sequel to Crank likely will be), it’s still a headache-inducing, paint-by-numbers, utterly-forgettable action movie.

Writing: Legend has it that Paul W.S. Anderson has been trying to get this movie made for nearly 15 years, since he had success with the first Mortal Kombat and had struck up a relationship with Roger Corman, and had told him that he’d love to remake Death Race 2000. I’d be curious to see what his original treatment/plans were for said remake back then, before they became what I saw on the screen. I have to wonder if it was more in line with Corman’s satirical film, or was still the same brain-dead action movie I just saw. Corman’s movie at least had wit, humor, cleverness and despite a lower budget production, had more audacious action material. The cast is the main saving grace for this film, which I’ll get to in a bit. What was in no way of any help to the film was the writing. Tyrese Gibon’s character, in particular, is a confusing mess of a character (not in terms of being a messed up person, but in terms of unbelievably inconsistent writing). The elements of the plot that aren’t insanely predictable are otherwise pointless. Let’s see, what have we got: distopian future, check; wrongly-accused anti-hero, check; the world’s most copy & paste prison scenes, check; an overbearing prison warden, check; the elderly and intelligent prison inmate to become friends with, check; and on and on and on. It’s little more than a plot to hang the action scenes on…

Production: …Which is a particularly sad thing, because the action scenes aren’t even worth being hung onto the thin plot. First, let me get my biggest frustration out of the way - the cinematography, which is annoying at best. I’ve heard writer/director Anderson interviewed, where he was talking about what he had done to update the production to a modern quality, with a higher budget. Part of his intentions was to be able to get the viewer closer to the action, since he had fancier camera equipment than they had decades ago in the 70’s when they made similar gritty action films. Well, Mr. Anderson, thank you for your efforts, but after seeing the end result, I’ll go back and watch those 70’s films over and over again, and enjoy the VASTLY superior filming. With all the incompetant shakey-cam work all over the place in the action scenes, the over-edited confusion making it impossible to follow any spatial logistics, and the washed out malaise that makes every racer and car darn near interchangeable, I couldn’t care less about what happened to anybody on the track - including our anti-hero. All of this is a huge shame for the special effects teams, who seem to have put on quite the show from what I could see in the finished film. Anderson has gone on and on in interviews stating that he wanted to do everything in-camera, and not rely on visual effects and CGI, and “not make Speed Racer.” While I’m all for doing things in-camera if you can, you’ve got to still come up with something worth watching and be able to competantly deliver it to the screen. This film lacked imagination in every way. Or if it had any, the film makers couldn’t figure out how to catpure it. For the record, Speed Racer is one of my favorite movies of the year (and has a shot at actually being my favorite movie of the year). Frankly, I don’t care what technique was used in filming/producting the movie if it’s engaging, exciting and imaginative. At that, Death Race fails miserably. You’d think it would be at least as engaging as a boring NASCAR race, but I’d dare say it isn’t even that, with the aggitated editing and the frustrating camera work. At least NASCAR employs camera crews who know how to film an event. Ulimately, would I have watched the “Death Race” event as somebody who lived in the world of this movie? Absolutely not. Then why would I want to watch this movie, which is NOTHING more than watching the carnage of the event that’s being portrayed in the film. Frankly, this movie IS a video game. One in which you have no control. And how much fun is it typically to watch somebody else play a video game?

Cast: Here’s the one saving grace of the movie. Without the cast, this would be a complete failure. Like I said, I rather like Jason Statham as an actor. And he does what he can with his cookie-cutter role. They couldn’t have made his role more genre stereotyped if they tried, but he still manages to find a way to make it at least mildly interesting. One of the biggest disappointments in the movie is Joan Allen. Now, let me explain that. When the trailers first started running for this movie, it was Joan Allen that really made me interested and wanting to see it. It was such a wild bit of casting for such a role. I’m a big admirer of her acting, and thought it would be very cool to see her in such an atypical role. The disappointing thing about it is that that’s all there was to it. Take this weakly written role, and just to try and make it unusual and interesting, cast it against type. While that’s a smart thing to do, it does no favors to Allen, who gets absolutely horrible dialog, and almost nothing to do on screen. I mean, our anti-hero and her character get, I think, just two brief scenes together. And despite liking both cast members, they didn’t really hold much of a magical spark playing against each other. Arnold and Richard Dawson played off each other FAR better under similar circumstances in The Running Man, for goodness sake. Then there’s this piece of utter nonsense dialog they give Joan Allen’s character for shock value. After that line, I sat there bewildered as to who would come up with such an INSANELY lame line. It’s as if somebody wanted to come up with the lamest piece of foul language dialog, that didn’t make a lick of sense. Poor Joan Allen (and the audience). Another fantastic cast member is Ian McShane, who actually drops into his role with remarkable ease. Frankly, he’s the true highlight to the film. He’s the one that actually does manage to elevate the cookie-cutter writing into something memorable. Tyrese Gibson gets the single worst written character in the movie, and he does it no favors. Though I hardly blame him. Natalie Martinez doesn’t bring much to her “look at me, I’m hot” sidekick role, but she doesn’t make anything worse by being there, either. I must also give some praise to Jacob Vargas and Frederick Koehler, who play the crew hands Gunner and Lists respectively. In particular, Koehler really jumps off the screen in his small role.

Music: Paul Haslinger goes all-out in over-the-top gritty metal action score mode. He actually does succeed in writing a few good action cues in the process. And I must begrudgingly admit to kind of liking what he did with a couple of the guitar riffs in the scoring. Not a great score, but one that at least meshes stylistically with the film and does its job.

I was a big fan of the original Hellboy, and considered it a shame that it never quite got the success and attention it deserved. So, I was very happy to hear that a sequel was finally in the works - at a different studio no less (the original was a Sony film, with this sequel from Universal). In between the first Hellboy and this sequel, director Guillermo del Toro found huge success with Pan’s Labyrinth (a film I kinda liked, but didn’t think was all too great). So as I saw the first trailers for Hellboy 2, I definitely noticed some design influence from Pan’s Labyrinth. Of course, since making this movie, del Toro has made a bigger name for himself as the director of the upcoming Hobbit films. After having seen Hellboy 2, I must admit to not liking it as much as the first. Almost all the elements were entertaining enough, but not quite up to the level from the first film. The only exception I’d make to that statement is the visual effects, which were a bit hit-or-miss in the first, but gorgeous in this sequel.

Writing: The story for this sequel kinda holds together, but it’s a bit unfocused and forced. Worse still, much of it is a bit too genre standard in nature. It all just seems to be there to bounce from set piece to set piece. The character interactions are either a bit too contradictory, or a bit too convenient. And the ultimate big moment of the ending is a bit too obvious. And we also have characters that make little sense to have included in the plot, like that of Johann Krauss. For all his setup as a nemesis, they never pay that off in any real way, then suddenly he’s a good buddy? I don’t know, the writing in this one wasn’t horrible or anything, but it was very definitely the weakest point of the film.

Production: There’s little to complain about here. If there’s any weakness in the production, it’s almost a feeling of them trying just a bit too hard in sequences where less would have been more. It had that “sequel that must top the original” feel to it. Fewer action scenes and more character scenes would have been welcome. But the action is well staged with good practical and visual effects work. Cinematography is solid all around, with no real weaknesses to mention. Were I to have directed the Hellboy films, though, it would have been in 2.35 aspect ratio. But hey, if I were a director, I think everything I shot would be in 2.35.

Cast: The best strength of this sequel is the return of the great cast. Well, with the exception of the insanely lame off-handed mention of Rupert Evans’ character of Agent Myers absense. Ron Perlman is fantastic as Hellboy, of course. He’s not quite as playful as in the first, taking the role in a more aggressive direction, but he still works magnificently. Selma Blair, a favorite actress of mine, is excellent returning as Liz Sherman. Doug Jones makes an excellent return as Abe Sapien. And Jeffrey Tambor does his usual (and always fun) bumbling performance. Heck, even the great John Hurt gets to put in a small appearance in a flashback. Joining them in this sequel are Luke Goss and Anna Walton, who are very well cast as the brother-sister set of twins that are the new friend/foe quandry for the plot. All in all, not a problem to be found in the casting department.

Music: I was most saddened to find out that composer Marco Beltrami wasn’t returning for this sequel. Danny Elfman took over scoring duties for this one. His score is just like the movie itself, entertaining enough, but not up to the standards of the first film. It’s a playful and energetic score, with some nice moments here and there, but it’s missing the heart and soul of Beltrami’s original masterpiece. I flat out love Beltrami’s original, particularly Hellboy & Liz’s theme, and it was a sad thing that not only weren’t any of the original themes used, but there weren’t any particularly solid thematic elements to Elfman’s sequel score. His is certainly entertaining, but not a masterpiece.

So it’s a bit sad that I didn’t enjoy this entry quite as much. Am I sad they made it? No. It’s a fun enough follow-up. Do I wish it were better? Absolutely. Though after such a horrible super-hero movie as Hancock, I was happy to enjoy this one. But hey, in two more days, I’ll be seeing The Dark Knight - a genre movie which by almost all accounts so far is spectacular.

So there I sat in the theater, blinking in bewildered disbelief, watching this movie called Hancock skitter by on the screen, unable to make sense out of what could have possibly happened to cause a movie that at some point (I think) had an interesting premise fail so spectacularly. Ignoring the fact that there is a train wreck in the movie, I can’t help but use that descriptive for this utter mess of a movie. I scarcely know where to begin in describing it.

Writing: How could anything bearing the name of Vince Gilligan (The X-Files, etc) as one of the writers be as abysmally bad as this? Could an original draft of this script have actually worked? If so, what the heck happened? This feels like a movie that went through dozens upon dozens of rewrites, by countless scribes. Only two are credited, but who knows. Perhaps the studio got way too involved. Now I’m all for movies that work in many genres. I hate it when things have to fit neatly into one particular genre. But this movie has zero idea what it is trying to be. Absolutely no idea. It’s all over the map. The character could just as easily be bipolar and I’d be unable to tell the difference. Then they start throwing random pieces of mythology at the story to see what sticks. Is this a super-hero movie? Is it an anti-superhero movie? Is it a character drama? Is is satire? Is it a parody? The plot twists are not only undermining to the movie, but they make an already confusing narrative and scatter it to the wind.

Production: And if the story wasn’t already a complete and utter mess, the production is even worse. For every good visual effects shot there are 25 absolutely terrible ones. How in the world is a big budget, major studio movie kicked out with visual effects this mind-blowingly awful? Seriously, this movie has worse visual effects than any major studio movie I have seen in years. Then there’s the incompetent camera work. I’m not a fan of movies that rely on hand held camera work in nearly every shot. Very few have pulled it off well. Even Battlestar Galactica, which has mastered the technique as well as I ever expect anyone to master, still has some weak moments. But this movie’s camera work is constantly distracting. This isn’t quite as bad as the second Bourne movie (which still managed to work despite the worst hand held camera work in the history of film), but it’s up there with some of the worst offenders. I suppose I can say that the sound design seemed well done. At least I wasn’t actively noticing how bad it was, like I was for most of the other production aspects. Oh, and I suppose the practical effects teams did a pretty good job as well.

Cast: Oh, you poor, unfortunate actors. To be fair, Charlize Theron (one of my favorite actresses) is trying her best. I felt so very sorry for her. There’s some definite effort on her part to make this thing work. And Will Smith also seems to be trying against the odds to make it work. The always fun Jason Bateman does manage to squeak just a bit of entertainment into his role, despite the fact that he’s written as quite the flake of a character. Between the three of them, it’s amazing they couldn’t pull this movie out of the fire and make it at least mildly entertaining. But despite their efforts, I sat there slack-jawed, watching this train wreck run father and farther off the rails. Frankly, it makes the movie even more annoying to me to see a cast like this who are trying so very hard and given so very little to make things work.

Music: I was really looking forward to a new John Powell super-hero score. Sadly, this score pales in comparison to his spectacular X3 score. While it’s amiable enough with some moderately interesting action cues and the occasionally nice, warm character motifs, it just can’t escape the incredibly confused movie it’s in. Sure, there are plenty of examples of composers turning in fantastic work for terrible movies (Jerry Goldsmith has many such scores), but more times than not, a terrible film will trap the score. This is just such an example. Still, Powell’s score is probably the high point of the film, by process of elimination.

Ultimately, the blame falls to director Peter Berg. If there’s one primary job of a director, it is to maintain the tone of a movie. And at that job, Berg failed. Boy did he fail. Which is sad, because I thought his previous directing gig, The Kingdom, was very good. What really blows my mind is that the critics are being at all kind to this movie. Granted, most aren’t particularly praising it, but they aren’t laying into it very hard, either. What was the highlight of seeing this movie? Seeing the first theatrical trailer for Quantum Of Solace.

It’s funny how some movies can get away with the ridiculous, almost by the simple act of embracing said insanity. From physical insanity like curving bullets to mythological insanity like the “Loom Of Fate” (a truly brilliant piece of make-believe), it’s hard to not be amused.

Writing: Having not read the graphic novel material this is based on, I can’t comment on adaptation qualities. I’ve read other places that the original authors of it were pleased with the adaptation. There’s no denying that it has many story qualities one would find in such source material, and the movie makes such textures and story elements work for itself. The backstory for “The Fraternity” is equal parts genre-standard “skulls” material and audaciously original goofiness. Ultimately, the story pays itself off well in the end. One thing’s for sure, it doesn’t back down on the violence and language.

Production: Director Timur Bekmambetov has a proven track record of being able to direct surprisingly elegant and striking action scenes in his bold Night Watch and its sequels. While the action scenes are spaced a bit apart in this movie, when they kick off, they really kick off. While not all the bits in these sequences come off as realistic, they certainly come off as impressive. From the playful visual effects to the slick editing and unrestrained performances, it all has an odd vibe that works. Sound design is particularly striking. And the cinematography is spot-on.

Cast: The unusual casting of James McAvoy works very well. He brings something akin to Edward Norton’s performance in Fight Club to the film. In fact, there’s a number of moments in the movie that made me think of Fight Club. And while the casting of Morgan Freeman isn’t completely normal for this kind of film, it’s hardly unprecedented (see his great performances in films like Lucky Number Slevin and Hard Rain for example). Freeman definitely brings that stately calm to the role, as well as that slight edge of danger. Terence Stamp is a bit wasted in his brief role. But when it comes to style and action, the real star of this film is Angelina Jolie. It hardly comes as a surprise to see how easily she handles a role like this. I’m sure the film makers had to think for about one billionth of a nanosecond about who would be the easiest casting choice for her role. This is an “Angelina Jolie kind of role,” so why not just cast her in it, confident in your end result. It kind of helps offset the genre-first casting of McAvoy in the lead.

Music: Speaking of unexpected moves, picking Danny Elfman to score this film isn’t exactly a wild notion or anything, it’s just a bit unexpected. One would fully expect one of Hans Zimmer’s stable of composers to take on a film like this, or perhaps the current trend of picking Tyler Bates. Elfman brings a very cool range of styles to the score, fusing it with cool action cues and elegant orchestral and thematic style. It’s one of the highlights of the film, easily. Add to the fact that even does the vocal performances on the main song he wrote (”The Little Things”) that’s used in a couple places in the film (and shares some thematic bits with the rest of the score). One of Elfman’s best scores in recent years.

Put simply, WALL-E is the reason I’m a movie fan. I’ve been a PIXAR fanboy for many years. In fact, I’ve been a fan of theirs longer than most others, because it predates Toy Story. I’ve been a follower of the technologies of computer animation ever since seeing (and loving) Tron when I was 7 years old. It’s no secret that PIXAR was partially born out of John Lasseter seeing the production of Tron, having worked at Disney as an animator while it was being produced at the studio (though he didn’t have any involvement with said production). During the 80’s, PIXAR formed and started producing animated shorts, including the likes of Red’s Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack and the historic Luxo, Jr. When I initially heard they were going to produce the first fully CG feature film, I was thrilled to see the final product. And I wasn’t the only one, as Toy Story changed the world of animation forever. Since then, PIXAR has been firing on all cylinders, producing hit after hit, in stark defiance to those who continually predicted each film to surely be their first failure. Always imaginative, PIXAR continues to come through, time and time again. They are easily the best thing to happen to Walt Disney Pictures since Walt himself.

Writing: Despite the fact that PIXAR is on the leading edge of technology, always a step ahead of anyone else, it’s not the technical aspects that primarily drive a PIXAR film, it’s the story and character. WALL-E is a different film compared to the rest of their feature length productions. It actually has more in common with their short films. It has a minimal amount of dialog (their short films are notable for their lack of dialog) and is much more rooted in physical performance and precisely choreographed energy and blocking. The character of WALL-E himself may very well be one of the most fundamentally engaging and sympathetic characters ever committed to film (or saved to disk). The determined nature of the character combined with the effortless charm makes it basically impossible to not love him. I’m not typically much for action figures, but I think I will pick up one of the inevitable WALL-E action figures/toys. The story itself is actually rather simple, rooted in a great many science fiction staples and character stories. While PIXAR has proven themselves perfectly capable of more complex storytelling, they have an amazing talent at nailing the most simplistic of ideas and making them endlessly entertaining. Their animated shorts are just such examples. Speaking of which, WALL-E is preceded by yet another wonderful animated short, Presto.

Production: Having said all that, I continue to have my mind blown with each successive PIXAR movie I see. The technical aspects of this production are peerless. The cinematography is simply gorgeous, not to mention wonderfully dynamic. Production design is also spectacular, from the garbage-strewn, used up Earth to the hyper-real world on board the spaceship Axiom. The editing is extremely slick, keeping a brisk and smooth pacing throughout. The computer animation is breathtaking, not just in texture and quality, but in character animation. WALL-E is a remarkably animated character, both drawing on previous robots such as Number 5 or R2-D2, but also as a fantastically original design. We also get to meet a number of other fun robotic characters.

Cast: With such a small amount of dialog, it’s hard to think of the performances in the film in terms of casting. The real star is Ben Burtt, who is interestingly credited as the cast performer for WALL-E, as well as M-O, pretty much giving him top billing. It’s well deserved, as his sound design is a key component to making the character of WALL-E work so well. It’s no surprise that he is able to do such a good job, given the fact that he’s the man responsible for R2-D2 himself. I will be rather shocked if Burtt isn’t at least nominated for a sound award or two come Oscar season next spring. Other voice castings are amusing, such as having the Axiom ship’s computer voiced by none-other-than Sigourney Weaver. Fred Willard gets to perform a first for a PIXAR movie, that of an actual live action character. He’s a fun choice for the role. And of course it wouldn’t be a PIXAR movie without John Ratzenberger performing one of the voices. This time, they amusingly just went ahead and named the character “John.”

Music: While not his greatest score, nor the greatest score for a PIXAR film, Thomas Newman’s score is very good. Actually, Thomas Newman’s other PIXAR score is the best of the PIXAR scores, for Finding Nemo (also for writer/director Andrew Stanton). For WALL-E, Newman balances the ethereal sci-fi with the action and emotion of the film quite nicely. Of course it features Newman’s typical rich orchestration and unique instrumentation. A worthy score to a fantastic film.

I can’t praise this movie enough. Everybody get out there and see this one. I’ll be seeing it again very soon.

I’ve been a huge Get Smart fan since I was a kid. It’s a series that has always been pretty much in line with my dry sense of humor, so it’s been a natural favorite of mine. I own the series collection on DVD. I’ve got the soundtrack CD’s. I’ve got beat up old novelizations from the 60’s. Heck, I think I even have a Get Smart thermos around in a box of stuff somewhere. It was with some trepidation when I started to first hear about this new feature film in the works, wondering if it would end up as bad as most TV-to-movie translations over the years. Frankly, Get Smart has already had one disastrous feature film version from 1980, titled The Nude Bomb. They did make up for it with a surprisingly fun made-for-tv movie years later in 1989 titled Get Smart Again. However, this new version would be the first time somebody other than the late, great Don Adams was playing the role of Maxwell Smart. As soon as it was announced that Steve Carrell was taking over the role, I began to think that this new version might actually work.

Writing: The greatest thing I can say about the writing is that it does a marvelous job at referencing and respecting the source material. It touches on a good majority of the catch phrases, characters and dry humor that made the original so great. And while it may be rather vague and convenient in the plot department, I can’t really knock it too much, cause that was always a secondary concern to the original series as well. All we need to know is that there are bad guys trying to do bad things (as Max himself pretty much paraphrases during an intelligence briefing). One criticism I would make in that regard is that KAOS is shortchanged a bit in the film. I think they could have tossed another 5-10 minutes of screen time to that side of the story to round it out a bit.  I do like a lot of the little character touches, like Maxwell Smart being the secret agent that would rather make friends with the henchman than defeat him. Overall, the plotting does little more than hold the character writing, jokes and dialog together into a narrative arc, which is fine.

Production: I never quite expected to ever see a version of Get Smart with such a high production level. There’s no shortage of big action scenes, most of which are well executed in terms of production, performance and timing. And it’s all done in the correct, “let’s have fun with it” approach that the rest of the film has.

Cast: The highlight of the movie is the casting. Steve Carrell is fantastic as Maxwell Smart. His dead-panned delivery of jokes is spot-on. And his earnest, loyal personality is perfectly offset by his knack for unfortunate situations. Carrell nails Maxwell Smart, without even trying to mimic Don Adams. That’s an impressive accomplishment. The same can be said for the casting of Anne Hathaway as Agent 99. While I was a little bit surprised to hear of her casting in the role, primarily for the age difference, I was a fan of hers and figured she could make the role work. I was later a bit cautious when they started to show pictures and clips of her being this kick-butt super agent. But that was a bit of a misleading partial representation. They certainly portray her in that manner, but only as far as need be to make the softer side of the character that much better. It’s actually a fitting enough reworking of the character that holds true to the source material. Carrell and Hathaway manage to pull off the cute relationship factor that always made Max & 99 work in the series. And they even adopt a dog named Fang, which is a fun little touch for us fans. Alan Arkin is fantastically funny as The Chief, landing a few of the funniest moments in the film. Arkin’s always had a wonderfully dry sense of humor, so he was an easy bit of casting for this role. Dwayne Johnson gets to have fun chewing up the scenery as Agent 23, and he plays well against the other cast members. Terence Stamp, an actor who always seems to enjoy playing bad guys, does so with maniacal glee. He’s a nice bit of casting for the arch-nemesis role of Siegried. James Caan has fun playing a no-nonsense and somewhat inept President. Masi Oka (from Heroes) and Nate Torrence (from Studio 60) are a great duo of tech nerds. They get one particularly funny scene later in the film. Patrick Warburton gets to make a brief appearance as the robotic Hymie, in another nod to us fans (and perhaps setup for a sequel film, perhaps). I can’t think of a better bit of casting for Hymie than Warburton. And they get no less than Bill Murray to play the secluded and lonely Agent 13, turning up in a typically unusual location. Other small appearances are made by a fun roster of actors, from the likes of Kevin Nealon to Larry Miller. But I think the greatest bit of fun for us fans are the cameo appearances by Bernie Kopell (the original Siegfried) and Leonard Stern (executive producer/writer/primary dude during the run of the series).

Music: For the most part, Trevor Rabin does a great job with the score. He works in Irving Szathmary’s theme tune quite a lot throughout the score, in quite a few ways. There’s no doubt that Rabin can score action scenes, which he does here pretty well. He also gets the “spy” kinda vibe right in the scenes of the them sneaking around. Overall, a good score.

One of the best films of the year is one you haven’t even heard of. It’s also a very hard movie to try to explain to someone when recommending it (which I do, to anyone, without reservation). It’s actually kinda sad that a movie like this gets an R rating, because the violence that earns it said rating is quite fantasy-driven and story-book in nature. Personally, I think it should have gotten a PG-13. I’ve seen the film twice now. I really like it a lot after the first time seeing it, but after the second time, I think I’m going to go ahead and give it my favorite film of the year spot so far.

Writing: For lack of wanting to try to describe the story myself, I’ll just paste in a plot summary from IMDB: In a hospital on the outskirts of 1920s Los Angeles, an injured stuntman begins to tell a fellow patient, a little girl with a broken arm, a fantastical story about 5 mythical heroes. Thanks to his fractured state of mind and her vivid imagination, the line between fiction and reality starts to blur as the tale advances. That’s an adequate enough description, I guess. Though I can’t believe it’s as modern as 1920’s LA, rather than perhaps from the mid-teens. The worlds of fantasy and reality do blur in a wonderful manner in the film, thanks to a fantastic combination of stories and character that interplay quite well. I love the fact that some of it is even left open to interpretation. Director Tarsem has stated that he let much of the movie’s plot be dictated, very literally, by a little girl who didn’t even speak English. After shooting the interplay between the two actors in “real life,” much of the fantasy to represent the story they were sharing was fit to the results of that first shooting process. All things being equal, it’s a miracle that things work as well as they do.

Production: Everything about this production is perfect. Scratch that. Everything about this production is magnificent. It’s hard to not use superlatives when describing this production. After reading Roger Ebert’s report of interviewing Tarsem about the making of this movie (which is totally worth the read), it’s truly astounding to know that all these locations exist, as shot in the film, and are not CGI driven. The cinematography is breathtaking. Even in the “real world” the filming manages to find interesting ways to present and frame scenes. Editing is smooth as silk, and gets to have a lot of fun when in the realm of fantasy. Sound design is quite creative, paricularly in ways of finding unusual uses of silence. And the production design is beyond fantastic. Check out the great trailer for proof.

Cast: Lee Pace is somebody who I was already a huge fan of, from his great TV roles in Wonderfalls and Pushing Daisies (both of which are two of my favorite TV series). He also had a great role in the very overlooked and great Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day from earlier this year. He gets to play both reality-based and fantasy-based characters in this film, and does a great job with both. And his chemistry playing against Catinca Untaru is spot-on. Which brings me to my rave review of the performance of Catincu Untaru, the little girl of the story. The fact that the girl doesn’t actually speak English is amazing (the movie is in Enlgish). It definitely lends to that “little girl” method of delivery she has, since the Enlgish dialog she’s speaking is something she doesn’t even understand. There’s a sense of innocense that such a delivery brings that probably gives a whole new level of reality and honesty to her performance than what a child actor would normally embue such a character. Untaru & Pace just shine together on screen. Other performances vary wildly in nature and style, most of whom share counterparts between fantasy and reality (in some cases, in an almost Oz-like manner). But all those performances are excellent. I won’t bother listing them all off individually, but will just say they are all great.

Music: French composer Krishna Levy, who I had no familiarity with previously, does a fine job with the score. With the opening and ending so perfectly scored with Beethoven’s 7th, the rest of the score perfectly shifts gears between reality-based drama and the fantasy-based adventure. I wish the score would get a release. I may have to try and hunt down some of Levy’s other scores. Apparently a half-dozen or so of his French film scores have been released to date.

At any rate, if you have a theater in the area actually playing this film (most likely an art house theater or one of the massive 30 screen megaplex theaters, like where I saw it), get out there and see this movie.

A movie full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. I’m gonna be one of the unpopular people who likes Ang Lee’s Hulk much more than this paint-by-numbers superhero action movie. This film gets a sideways thumb.

Writing: Perhaps this movie can be saved by the rumored longer cut that’s headed to disc later this year, with possibly as much as 70 minutes that was removed from this film. From what’s rumored, much of that is the character writing that Edward Norton added into the script. I know that the highly publicized disagreements between Norton and Marvel were blown way out of proportion, but I will certainly be interested to see what a cut of the movie with some character depth is like. I rather liked Ang Lee’s film, despite how disliked it was. I don’t care that it “wasn’t the comic book.” Couldn’t care less, actually. If this movie is what the comic book is, then it’s not a comic I would find particularly interesting. Pretty much every character is one dimensional, even Bruce Banner - who’s main signature as a character is having a split personality. Despite that, Banner/The Hulk still comes across as one, flat, single-dimensioned character. The other main characters are total cookie cutter characters as well. Then there are ones like Betty’s current boyfriend, which feel as though they got left completely on the cutting room floor (heck, that character has almost as much cut footage in the trailer as he does in the finished film). It all feels like a movie that could have been quite good, but got too bogged down in “not being Ang Lee’s Hulk.” Most reviewers can’t help but compare this to Marvel’s other big movie this year, Iron Man. This film PALES in comparison. The wit, humor and intelligence of Iron Man is almost 100% absent from this monstrosity.

Production: This is a VERY hit-or-miss production. First and foremost, as one would expect, is the CGI character animation and effects. About half of it works, and about half of it doesn’t. And once it becomes CGI beast-on-beast fight, which we know is coming, even without having seen the sequence billions of times in the advertising, it becomes a complete and total yawn. Action scenes exist simply to be action scenes, and the effects feed right into that line of thinking. Very little of this film’s production doesn’t feel stolen from other far more inventive films, such as the big foot chase action sequence through the dense Brazilian city which is completely ripping off the Bourne franchise (right down to composer Criag Armstrong ripping off composer John Powell’s Bourne scores).

Cast: This is the one true saving grace of this film. The cast tries their darnedest to make things work. And quite frankly, with a lesser cast, I would totally give this movie a thumb down. Edward Norton manages to keep the Bruce Banner character at least marginally engaging. William Hurt, as one dimensional as his character may be, still lends some intelligence to the performance. Tim Roth somehow, against all the odds, makes his zero dimension role slightly work. Tim Blake Nelson tries a bit TOO hard to make his small role near the end of the movie entertaining, and succeeds more than not. Poor Ty Burrell, who plays Betty’s current boyfriend, is barely on screen, and I’m betting he had more material that would make his performance work. In the finished film, he doesn’t even get the chance, one way or the other. The one cast member that does manage to completely pull things out of the fire is Liv Tyler. She actually manages to get her role to leap off the screen and totally make it work. Despite having a few scenes that feel totally stolen from Ann Darrow’s role in the King Kong films, her sense of empathy with The Hulk, and with Bruce Banner, all feel right on. And hey, it’s cool to see them give a small cameo role to Lou Ferrigno.

Music: I expected so much more from the talented Craig Armstrong for this score. He was an unusual choice for the genre, but I was sure he could bring something new to it. Sadly, he doesn’t. His score is a miss-mash of action film scoring. The stuff that isn’t directly stolen from other films (such as the Bourne films) feels rather bland and been-there-done-that. It lacks emotionality and a good thematic base. It is cool to have at least a tiny bit of an appearance from Joe Harnell’s excellent “Lonely Man” theme from the TV series.

It’s perhaps a bit unfair to have to judge this film against the franchise it is part of, the lengthy delay of anticipation or the seemingly impossible expectations it has. Yet despite some problems here and there (that “fridge flight” for one), it’s marvelously entertaining.

Writing: The McGuffin for this story is a little bit out there, even for Indiana Jones. And it never completely works, particularly in the final act. It’s also a little bit too esoteric for the genre. Still, it keeps the movie moving forward and gives the characters a situation to play around in. And while the character writing is a little bit obvious, the cast brings it to life and really makes it work. We do get some great little touches, such as a reference to the criminally underrated Young Indiana Jones series. It’s also great fun to have Marion Ravenwood back in the mix. And I must admit that the Shia LaBeouf material turned out much better than I was expecting. Overall, this put forth a nice progression of the Indiana Jones character. It didn’t change him much, but it gave him a slightly more intellectual edge and a feeling of history. We do get some mention of previous characters, such as Marcus Brody and Henry Jones, Sr. And hey, George Lucas manages to sneak in a little bit of his American Graffiti obsession (and Spielberg gets to play with one of his obsessions, but I won’t say which).

Production: There’s plenty of action sequences and big, crazy set pieces on display in this film. Do all of them work perfectly? Not quite, but they’re still loads of fun. The previous Indiana Jones films were also something of a similar mix. You had the awesome in-camera stunts and sets combines with a mix of daring effects work, with varying degrees of reality. This one drops into that mold successfully. There are some logistically ambitious sequences that are great fun. Sure, most of them easily strain credibility, but you just gotta learn to enjoy the ride. Ben Burtt’s sound design is one of the most spot-on aspects of the production for matching previous entries in the franchise. All the punches in the fights have that Indiana Jones specific punch sound, etc. Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography is slick and stylish. Editor Michael Kahn, one of Spielberg’s most tenured collaborators (at the age of 72), still knows how to keep things moving. Overall, it’s got a great adventure movie production design.

Cast: There’s no need to say that Harrison Ford is fantastic in the titular role, but I’ll say it anyway. He’s still got it. Absolutely. And as I already said, it’s marvelous to have Karen Allen back in the mix as Marion, and as a main character no less. Shia LaBeouf does a surprisingly good job as “Mutt.” Not that I have anything against LaBeouf’s acting in general, it’s just that role like his don’t often work too well, but he really slips into the character quite well, and has a good chemistry with the rest of the cast. John Hurt gets to go off the rails a bit and have some fun with his role, and since he’s pretty much incapable of not turning in a performance that’s not at least entertaining, he definitely makes his role in this movie work. The great Cate Blanchett is the primary reason that the role of the main adversary works as well as it does. It’s a bit of a loosely defined character, and without somebody as engaging as Blanchett performing it, things probably wouldn’t work as well as they do. Toss in some other fine actors like Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent, and you’ve got a well rounded cast.

Music: I’d listened through the score CD a half dozen times or so before seeing the film (but avoided reading the track titles, as usual). I’d grown to quite like the score, and it definitely works very well in the film. While I don’t quite consider it likely to stand out as well as the scores to the other films in the franchise, it’s a great score none-the-less, and it has that John Williams shine to it. It leans very heavily, directly or indirectly, on the previous three scores. The action cues sound very much like Indiana Jones action cues. We get treated to a number of previous themes from the franchise. The Crystal Skull theme is quite nice, though I can’t help but think it sounds just slightly like Jerry Goldsmith’s Basic Instinct score (a masterpiece). There are some nice touches in the score, like Williams playing around with the Raiders March during the closing of the end credits. I’d love to give a new Indiana Jones score my top spot on the film score list for the year, but I can’t quite give it that top position. It’s definitely a healthy contender, at the very least. Like the movie itself, it benifits by the simple nature of its pedigree.

I reserve the right to change my opinions and placement after I’ve seen the movie more than once, and have let it sink in a bit more…

While I generally enjoyed this second entry in the Narnia franchise, I definitely found it weaker than the first installment. Featuring some world class visual effects work and solid production design, the story comes through as little more than functional.

Writing: I read at least a few of the Narnia books a couple decades ago, and I think I read Prince Caspian. I don’t remember it in much detail, though. A fair amount of the movie did seem familiar to me, so I assume it’s one of the ones I read. That said, I don’t remember it anywhere near enough to comment on how faithful it is to the source material. If it is, I can’t say I would probably be all too impressed with the book. The primary structure of the plot is incredibly by-the-numbers, and makes almost no twists or turns that are unexpected. Some elements seem almost arbitrary, while others border on not making sense (like the logistics of the castle raid, or why it failed). Aside from one nice touch of originality in the big final battle sequence (the underground bit), it all either smacked of been-there-done-that or saw-that-coming-a-mile-away. Add to that a set of primary characters that haven’t progressed much from the first film (alarmingly so, given that they stick with them having lived all that time in Narnia before returning back to England) and new characters that are lifted cookie-cutter style from every other fantasy/mideival movie ever made.

Production: Pretty much nothing to complain about here. There’s some fantastic visual effects work to be found in the film. Plenty of it is in some wonderful animal animation. Battle sequences look great as well. There are a few little bits and pieces here and there, particularly in the battle, that smack a bit of CGI animated movement, but they are surrounded by enough excellent work as to not be all too noticeable. The cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub is excellent. Perhaps not entirely inventive, but energetic and nicely stylish. The editing could have used some work, but that might be more a weakness of the script than the editing itself. The pacing definitely doesn’t flow all too well. Like the cinematography, the sound design is also solid.

Cast: Our returning siblings do a nice job in their respective roles. Just like in the first film, it’s Georgie Henley and Anna Popplewell that really shine as the sisters. William Moseley and Skandar Keynes do a good enough job as the brothers. Ben Barnes is OK as Prince Caspian, I guess. I know it’s such a superficial thing, but his accent just seems out of place in the film, and almost a bit goofy. Still, his performance is empathetic enough. Though like much of the film, his character is little more than functional. The excellent Peter Dinklage does a nice job with the also-functional loyal Narnian companion Trumpkin. And hey, if you’re gonna cast short people who live in the woods, you can’t pass up casting Warwick Davis. It’s movie-making law, after all. The rest of the cast does a decent enough job.

Music: Harry Gregson-Williams has a few moments of originality in his score (particularly with the rodent creatures), but the vast majority of this sequel’s score is lifted straight from his superior work for the first film. If there’s a lot of originality, it escaped me both in the film and on the soundtrack CD. Still, it’s a solid enough score. While heavily lifted from the first film, at least it’s lifting stuff from a great score. And hey, Gregson-Willimas got to do a brief voice cameo as a squirrel.

I just got back from a midnight opening screening of Speed Racer, as presented in shiny, glorious IMAX form. I’m a big supporter of the IMAX format, but would it kill them to change their little format demo that plays before each IMAX film one per, oh, I don’t know, decade perhaps? But anyway, I digress…

As a childhood fan of Speed Racer, I was quite interested to hear that the Wachowski Brothers were at work on a big screen adaptation. I’ve got the DVD’s. I know the characters. I love the theme song. Yeah, I’m a fanboy. I’m not a raving Speed Racer fanboy, just a moderate one. After hearing of the plans for the big screen version, I started to think to myself that it might just work under the direction of the Wachowski Bros. But would it still be the Speed Racer that I know and love? After seeing the first teasers, I was convinced they could pull it off. Well, I’m here to tell ya, the absolutely pulled it off. If there’s one work I would choose to describe this movie, it would be “fun.” If it were two words, it would be “spectacular fun.” This movie is just what I would have hoped for, the classic Speed Racer with a huge amount of big budget style and sparkle. The ol’ classic animated series was ambitious in intentions, but just couldn’t pull off quite the level of style that I think they would have loved to do. This film makes up for any of those shortcomings. This is one of those wonderfully rare movies where you just don’t want it to end. And that’s not to say that it’s too short, because this puppy actually clocks in at 129 minutes, and it moves (appropriately) fast for almost all of those 129 minutes.

Writing: Not surprisingly, the Wachowski Bros aren’t just the directors, but the writers as well. Everything about this movie puts forth the notion that these guys are major fans of the classic series. This film is littered with characters and references from the old show. They put their own spin on some of it, but it remains VERY faithful to the source material. While nobody is expecting a contender for best adapted screenplay Oscar here, the scripting actually lays a nice framework, covers a lot of story and character development (with some wonderfully fun editing and flashback transitions) and is quite engaging.

Production: Reality is not a word I would put in a list of descriptive terms for this movie. That’s not a criticism. Reality is absolutely not what they are trying to achieve here. This is an attempt as a stylistic, alternate world. While being primarily grounded in the world of live action, much of the more elaborate elements of the film are perfectly happy feeling more animated or comic in nature. The races aren’t meant to be something one would find believable. Once you let yourself go and join this alternate reality the film presents (which doesn’t take long at all, thanks primarily to the flashback structure of the narrative in the first act), the levels of reality are of no concern. You are then free to enjoy the wild, anything-goes production for all its glory. Numerous collaborators from the Matrix franchise are back, including John Gaeta’s fantastic VFX supervision, Owen Paterson’s captivating production design and Zach Staenberg’s (and Roger Barton) marvelously playful editing. One noteworthy change is the replacement of Bill Pope’s stark cinematography from the Matrix franchise to David Tattersall’s eye-popping visual feast. I don’t think I’d be wandering into hyperbole too much to call this the most colorful movie ever made. This movie will be a major high-def home theater demo disc once it hits Blu-Ray. Everything about this movie just glows in spectacular primary colors. It’s not just the colors, either. Everything has a pristine shine to it, and it radiates in high-contrast flair. It takes all of a few seconds time to realize what a colorful treat you are in for, as the studio logos that open the film are redone in kaleidoscopic visuals.

Cast: There’s nothing to complain about in the casting of this one. Emile Hirsch drops comfortably into the do-good title role. He perfectly balances the earnestness of the character with his more grounded emotional qualities. Christina Ricci plays Trixie for all she’s worth. I’m a big fan of Ricci, and she’s great here. She fully embraces the kind of movie they are making, and has a blast with the throw-back nature of her role. She seems to have the most fun playing with the dialog she gets. John Goodman is brilliantly cast as Pops Racer (there are some truly brilliant moments straight out of the animated series that Goodman fits into with 100% perfection). In terms of perfectly casting the role to capture the animated series, I think Goodman is the most spot-on of the cast. Susan Sarandon keeps things grounded in reality as the concerned mother. Matthew Fox does a fine job with the enigmatic Racer X. Roger Allam has an absolute ball chewing up the scenery as much as possible as Royalton. Then young Paulie Litt gets to go to town playing the comedy as Spridle. Incidentally, they include far more Spridle and Chim Chim material than I would have expected. And they honestly play it for the same level of comedy and absurdity as those characters were used for back in the series. Chim Chim gets plenty of laughs throughout the film. It’s totally goofball fun, and it works. The rest of the cast is populated by actors having fun with their respective roles, including such diverse casting choices as Richard Roundtree.

Music: Michael Giacchino has an absolute blast with the score for this film. He plays around with not just the main theme for Speed Racer all throughout the score, in a great many ways, but even many of the other elements of Nobuyoshi Koshibe’s incidental music from the show. Giacchino’s music is lively, big, fun and full of energy. It’s also in the vast majority of the film. From the comic moments to the massive action sequences, Giacchino is playing it all with the commitment and energy that the rest of the cast and crew are going for. It’s a fantastic score. His rendition of the main theme, which plays over the latter part of the end credits, is absolutely fantastic. It’s my favorite performance of the theme to date. The music over the first half of the credits, however, is the one and only complaint I’ll lay against the film. Ick.

All in all, the Wachowski Bros have pulled off a hugely entertaining piece of PG action movie escapism. I loved it.

What if you could have a Michael Bay-sized, big-budget action picture, with a fantastic cast, that didn’t actually suffer from the equal number of bad things about being a Michael Bay action film? Well, here is that film. It’s also near the very top of the list of comic-book-based movies.

Writing: If you go into the movie with the correct “comic book superhero genre” mentality and expectations of reality, this script holds up quite nicely. Like the second Spider-Man movie, I think the planned sequel might have the best potential (one could only hope the second is even as good, let alone better), now that the “origin story” aspects of this first film are out of the way. What we get in this first entry is, of course, just such an origins story, which does a nice job of setting up the characters and giving them their first franchise adventure, so to speak. Characters are pretty well defined. Dialog flows well, and is fun (I have to imagine there was a good amount of improv on this one). The plotting is straight forward enough, functional, but still engaging. If I have any criticisms, they aren’t specific enough to really point out, or matter. Perhaps some little details here and there, and the bits and pieces here and there that my genre-adjusted, reality-based, rational mind can’t quite completely overlook. And for the record, I only had a passing familiarity to the Iron Man character in previous forms. I knew the basics but little else. So I can’t evaluate the writing in terms of fanboy accuracy.

Production: There’s absolutely nothing to complain about here. While there might be just the slightest of not-completely-perfect visual effects moments, 98% of it is absolutely beautiful. This film smacks of wild and impressive production quality. Production design is absolutely gorgeous, from both the technological designs to the stunning set designs. Matthew Libatique’s cinematography is dynamic and beautiful (no surprise there, as he’s the guy who’s shot all of Darren Aronofsky’s films), though it’s slightly (intentionally, I would assume) restrained from something like an Aronofsky film. Editing is very good, particularly when I consider what it would have been if my example of it being a Michael Bay film had been true.

Cast: Robert Downey Jr. is a contender for the top spot on my favorite actor list. It’s great to see him getting so many high profile and great roles these days. His role of Tony Stark in this film is nothing short of perfect casting. He can pull off the comedic and flippant aspects of the character perfectly, and easily meet the challenge of dramatically grounding the character. I’m also a big fan of Jeff Bridges, and it’s cool to not only see him take a fun role like this, but to get to have him play it off of Downey on screen. I’m also a fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, who does her best work in roles like this. After having done such a great job on Sky Captain & The World Of Tomorrow (a movie I know I love more than most anyone else), she’s easily qualified for the kind of golden-age type of performance and character that she has here as Pepper Potts. Incidentally, it’s kind of amusing to notice that one aspect shared with her Sky Captain role is that name thing, since her character in that film was that of intrepid reporter Polly Perkins. Terrance Howard is a fantastically talented dramatic actor, but I never quite think he works completely in roles that aren’t outright dramatic in nature. His character is the weakest developed in the film in my opinion (but not in a way that really detracts from the film), and despite good chemistry playing against Downey, his character could have used a bit more humor. His performance doesn’t sparkle quite the way Downey, Bridges & Paltrow do. Supporting roles are well cast, from the enigmatic character played by Clark Gregg to Jon Favreau himself.

Music: Ramin Djawadi, yet another composer to emerge from Hans Zimmer’s Remote Control Productions, comes through with a perfectly adequate score, but nothing particularly special. With a bit more edge than the traditional superhero score, it flounders a bit trying to find any particular unique voice or style. It’s not a bad score, but I didn’t notice much that impressed me. Definitely not as cool of a score as his work for Mr. Brooks.

Oh, and make sure you stick around after the end credits.

While I’ve never read the book that this movie is based on, I’ve heard good things about it. I was looking forward to the movie more than I would be for the average horror movie, if for no other reason than the somewhat different look and feel of the story and the fact that it featured Jena Malone.

Writing: Like I said, I haven’t read the book that this is based on. I’ve got no idea how faithful it is to that story. Given that Scott Smith, the writer of the book, is the credited writer of the screenplay, I’d think it’s at least somewhat faithful. What’s up on screen works rather well. It’s a simple yet well structured story. It’s something that you’d hear as an urban legend or something. And it’s definitely creepy enough to work.

Production: Absolutely nothing to complain about here. From the nice location and set design to the simple yet dynamic cinematography, it all works very well. With the majority of the movie taking place on, in and around the ancient ruins, it was key that they get the logistics and gritty feel of that location right, which they did.

Cast: This movie doesn’t feature any big A-list kind of casting, but it does have some excellent actors at work. I’ve been a fan of Jena Malone since her excellent performance as a young Jodie Foster in Contact over ten years ago. She’s had a number of impressive performances since then, and this is yet another to add to the list. Shawn Ashmore actually has a pretty long credit list for his age, featuring a number of TV roles and some moderately high profile movie roles (such as the X-Men films, etc). He does a nice enough job in his role. I recognized Jonathan Tucker from the TV series The Black Donnellys (a series I definitely did not like), and was definitely impressed with his performance in this film. He gets the role of the med student who gets to practice said training much too soon. I had no familiarity with Laura Ramsey, who gets the toughest role of the girl that’s first infected, getting to go through a whole mental and physical breakdown as the story unfolds. It’s a raw, emotional performance, and she does an admirable job with it. Overall, it’s a good cast of young actors.

Music: Graeme Revell does a great job with the creepy and raw music score, which it a great fit for the film. It’s no big surprise that he could score a movie like this so well. His background and style makes him a perfect choice for this film, and he doesn’t dissappoint. It’s gritty and atmospheric with that excellent native instrument undertone. It’s as good a score as one would want for this kind of film. It’s draws little-to-no attention to itself, appropriately getting under the skin of the story and production (you’ll have to pardon that pun).

After the recent boom in fantasy adventure films, this one looked to be just another in a string of genre films. Thankfully, it’s a surprisingly entertaining fantasy film.

Writing: Like basically every other film ever made in the genre, this one is based on a series of books (seriously, are these movies every just written as a script first?). It has the requisite fantasy creatures, the alternate fantasty world, the family dynamics playing against the fantasy elements. In other words, your standard pieces to the puzzle. Yet thanks to some experienced screenwriting by the likes of Karey Kirkpatrick, David Berenbaum and John Sayles, it really works well.

Production: This is a state-of-the-art, fantastic production. Under the steady direction of Mark Waters (a director who can make most anything work well), this complicated production works brilliantly. This movie is filled with very complicated visual effects, utilizing many methods for interacting with live action filming. Creature design is equally genre-standard and inventive, as is the animation of said creatures. Cinematography is lush, ambitious and gorgeous. Set design is equally beautiful. You name it, it’s got it.

Cast: Freddie Highmore gets the highest praise here. He continues to impress, having had a number of high profile, excellent performances. He’s definitely one of the most talented child actors in the industry. For this movie, he gets special praise. He does something that’s not entirely easy for anyone, playing multiple roles. He plays a pair of twin brothers, who are pretty much only alike in looks. He does a perfect job at making the two feel like very distinct characters. In fact, I barely gave it any though while watching the movie, which is definitely an accomplishment. It is two very distinct performances. Mary-Louise Parker does a nice job as the mother who’s in over her head. Sarah Bolger does a pretty good job as the sister, who is into fencing (conveniently). Joan Plowright is a nice bit of casting as the aged great-aunt. And the excellent David Strathairn makes the eponymous role work easily. In terms of creature casting, Nick Nolte is a great choice for the main baddie. Seth Rogen is an amusing piece of casting for a fun, friendly creature. And Martin Short is a bleeding obvious bit of casting for the goofy, small and loyal creature friend.

Music: While this may not be James Horner’s greatest score, or particularly groundbreaking in any way, it’s still a great Horner adventure score. He’s got a talent for this kind of material, and his lush orchestration is a perfect match for the story and production. Definitely a nice addition to the production. Having slowed down a bit in recent years, it’s nice to have a fun, grand score in the more traditional style of Horner’s abilities.

An engaging movie that suffers just a little bit from the overly-indie nature of the story and production.

Writing: As Mark Poirier’s first writing credit, one can definitely see the potential of his writing. But I think this effort falls just short of the mark. When you compare this film to something like Wonder Boys, which has a certain amount of similarity, it would be hard to call Smart People a masterpiece (I’m a big fan of Wonder Boys). Then again, Wonder Boys is written by Michael Chabon, a fantastic author. What you get from Smart People is something more akin to The Savages - a smart and interesting character drama that wanders a little bit too much in narrative. In other words, an indie character dramedy.

Production: There’s nothing to single out as particularly impressive about the production, but there’s little to complain about either. It’s solid and gets the job. The editing is a little bit too loose for its own good, but it’s not terrible.

Cast: There’s no surprise in the fact that the acting is the true highlight of this film. Dennis Quaid is a hugely underutilized actor these days, and this movie proves that he should be getting more work. He really makes this imbalanced character work very well. Sarah Jessica Parker is a great foil for him. While they might not have a magical chemistry together on screen, they do in fact play well off each other. Thomas Haden Church is another vastly underrated actor, who needs to get more great roles. He works perfectly as the happy, slacker, adopted brother. And he plays off of the wonderful Ellen Page perfectly. Now, it’s hard to not judge or compare Ellen Page’s performance here with her spot-on perfect performance in Juno (my favorite movie of 2007). It’s a different character (quite different, in fact), and she nails it. Sure, there’s a couple comparable aspects, but for the most part, she’s hitting a different tone with the character of this daughter. It’s the relationship with “Uncle Chuck” that really sparkles, though. Page and Church get the best material, and they get a better chance to shine. Ashton Holmes does a nice job as the more incidental son character. And hey, it’s fun having somebody like Christine Lahti in a toss-away minor character role.

Music: Guitarist Nuno Bettencourt is responsible for one of the most stereotypically indie aspects of this film, the guitar-based music-score. Smacking of everything cheap and simple, I would much rather have seen this movie get a Thomas Newman or Rachel Portman score. Heck, drop in Christopher Young’s great score from Wonder Boys…

Director Michel Gondry’s film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is one of my favorite movies. He followed that up with The Science Of Sleep, a movie I completely hated. So, I was unsure of how much I’d like this latest of his directing efforts. While I didn’t hate it or anything, I give it a marginal thumb down.

Writing: Having been written by Gondry as well, it’s pretty much impossible to lay the blame for the failure of this film anywhere but him. The intentions of the story are charming enough, but the approach is too child like and naive for its own good. Add to that the fact that oversimplification of everything doesn’t feed into the fantasy aspects of the story all too well. If you’re going to play a substantial amount of fantasty into a plot like this, you need to try to ground things in reality as best as you can so that it doesn’t all feel strange. Despite some obvious attempts to do so, it just doesn’t work. And the narrative never flows smoothly enough. It all feels forced and disjointed.

Production: Despite a handful of clever shots (including the “camouflage” moment - easily the best single bit in the film), everything about this movie feels way too amateur. Yes, I know that amateur is the obvious intention of the film, both on screen and in the story, but it just FEELS too amateur to not be distracted by it. The Science Of Sleep suffered from the same problem (but it lacked any good performance, and had a story that was 100% nonsense). The production does a marginally adequate job at capturing the local community feel, at least. Otherwise, I found nothing particularly impressive about anything in the production. The more I consider it, the more I think Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind was a random fluke. Gondry seems to be entirely too earnest with his sincerity and strangeness, and the levels of amateur he brings to productions hurt things more often than help. He’s done some mind-blowingly cool things in a few music videos over the years, so he’s clearly capable of higher creative qualities. Somebody just needs to make him grow up a bit.

Cast: While the three leads are typically capable of good performances, their characters lack that extra spark to bring their performances out to their best potential. What you get is basically the actors doing what they do, as though they were only cast in the roles because the characters required what they were particularly good at. Jack Black plays the charming but clumsy goof, like he has in a great many movies. Mos Def is the also-charming but aloof character that’s slightly more grounded than Black, and his casting is equally obvious. Then you have the painfully obvious casting of Danny Glover as the patriarch to the two. It works well enough to keep the film from sucking. It’s probably the only move that managed to accomplish the film from completely failing. And hey, Sigourney Weaver gets to put in a brief appearance.

Music: Jean-Michel Bernard, the composer that Gondry used for The Science Of Sleep, turns in an equally obvious, indie-styled score. Yeah, it’s quaint and cute and earnest. And like much of the production, hits things too squarely on the head.

One of Will Ferrell’s funnier over-the-top comedies, with a great sense of 70’s fun.

Writing: How much does one really expect out of the writing for movies like this? As long as it can holds things together well enough to get the jokes across and give the actors some material to have fun with, it’ll do. Surprisingly, this script does sneak in some nice character material from time to time, mostly involving Woody Harrelson and Maura Tierney’s characters.

Production: There’s no shortage of great period design work on display. From the great sets and decor to the hilarious costumes, it all works splendidly. The production teams definitely take some creative license to take things just a bit farther than reality to give the period jokes that extra edge.

Cast: There’s no denying that movies like this only work when you can get the right cast in the mix. Will Ferrell’s role is nothing short of an obvious Will Ferrell role, so there’s no surprise in the fact that he works well in it. Woody Harrelson is a hoot as the washed up basketball star, and he plays very well off of Ferrell. The great Maura Tierney is well cast against Harrelson as a romantic foil. There’s some great little casting touches like Rob Corddry and Tim Meadows in fun roles. Other supporting roles go to a range of actors, who all have plenty of fun, including Will Arnett, David Koechner and Andy Richter.

Music: Theodore Shapiro probably scores more major studio comedies than most anyone else. And frankly, he does a better job at it than most, typically giving things a bigger, richer score than one would normally expect. In this case, he embraces the funkiness of the era while slipping into the ambitious sports scoring side of things nicely.