Traitor Review

Ultimately, this is really just another run of the mill movie about terrorism.  The story is kind of interesting though.  It features Don Cheadle as a former special forces operative that has found Islam and gone rogue into militant religious fanaticism.  The viewer is supposed to spend most of the time trying to figure out if he is ultimately good or bad.  For the most part, they do a decent job of masking his true intentions and, when they are finally revealed, there is no ambiguity to make you question anything.  In this, they have done a decent job of not making a double agent type movie too complicated with twists and turns that ultimately lead to a conclusion that is inevitable.  I did like that about it.  Double agent terrorist and spy movies tend to get confusing and dig too deep into the intrigue.  Traitor didn't do that and they made a movie that was pretty easy to follow.

I also like their use of international settings.  Nothing was over the top exotic.  They go from Yemen to France to the UK to the US to Canada.  While some of these places could be seen as exotic, all of the chosen locales and settings were very realistic to the nature of what the characters needed at the time.  From start to finish, the whole thing felt quite plausible.

So, they take a good story premise and film it very well.  However, they completely derail it with some very bad writing and subpar deliveries from some very decent actors.  The movie has Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce and Jeff Daniels in it.  These three are all accomplished and decent actors in their own right.  Not one of them was overly convincing in their line delivery.  The best would have been Pearce and he made me say, "meh"; especially due to a very fake southern accent.  I refuse to believe that all of these actors would phone it in on their own volition.  My best guess is that the director was just unable to motivate anyone to pick up their game.  And it's hard to do that when the writing is this contrived and, in some places, this cheesy.

I'm torn.  On the one hand, it is well shot and progresses well.  On the other hand, you have to sit through bad line after bad line.  Given the fact that we have a lot of good terrorist/espionage movies to choose from, I'd have to say Don't see it.  If it's free and you don't feel like searching for anything else though, it isn't a terrible thing to watch.

Safe House Review

This is what happens when you  make a movie using only that iPhone app that hipsters use because they think it makes their pictures look all cool and retro.  Instead, you get pictures that are just annoying to look at.  And, as long as they continue to use shaky camera work and unnecessary and awkward closeups, I will continue to bitch about it.  Those two things take away from what is otherwise a very believable and plausible situation.  And those two things (one thing really - the film making) are the only problem with this movie.

It is a terrific story with a Jason Bourne feel to it.  A young, unproven CIA agent whose only job is to babysit a seldom used safe house is thrust into trying to bring in one of the CIA's most wanted men.  What ensues is well placed and judiciously used action mixed in with very tense buildup throughout.  There are only a couple of times where it slows down a little too much but they are short scenes that don't dwell on making the story too human and moral.  With a film like this it would be easy to use the Tobin Frost and Matt Weston as a morality play about shades of grey and by the book isn't always right.  And while they do a little of that, they do not hit you over the head with it.

The acting is really good up and down the entire cast.  I'm not a huge Denzel fan.  While I do think he's a terrific actor, I also think that he's one of the unfortunate ones that has gotten too big for his roles and you seldom get past the fact that you're watching Denzel instead of a good performance.  Here, you forget you're watching Denzel.  He does a great job with the calm and collected "been there, done that" CIA veteran role.  Ryan Reynolds' performance was only slightly below that in calibre.  We all know Reynolds as being at his best when he can be a wisecracking, cocky guy.  But, through this and his performance in Buried, he's showing that he has some pretty good range.  And while I don't think their interaction is as good as that between Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx in Collateral, it is still quite strong.  (Collateral wasn't a great movie.  But I thought the dialogue between the two was great.)

Finally, I want to mention the location.  For a spy movie in today's political climate, it is easy to just make it happen in Syria or somewhere else in the Middle East.  Or, you could find some exotic European or Asian location.  Setting this in South Africa was brilliant.  It is just exotic enough to hold our interest but it lends that bleak, poverty aspect that keeps it grounded from becoming too Bondesque.

See it.  If you like that surreal, saturated look and shaky camera work, this will be right up your alley.  If you can get put up with it, it is definitely worth your time for the tension, great story and strong performances.

Feeling Minnesota Review

From the DVD cover, this movie is grossly misrepresented.  It makes it sound like a lighthearted romantic comedy where Cameron Diaz and Keanu Reeves hook up under dubious yet honourable circumstances and are then pursued by Vincent D'Onofrio who is Diaz' husband.  They only hit on half of that.  Reeves and Diaz hook up and are pursued by D'Onofrio.  But that's where it ends.  This movie is anything but a lighthearted romantic comedy.  Had they gone that way or had they gone fully to the dark movie that it is, it could have been a good movie in either genre.  Instead, they can't pull the trigger on either and it ends up being a poor film.  There's some good subtle dark humour and some over the top physical bits but the consistency with either is never really there.

That isn't to say that there is no comedy in the film.  There is quite a bit; especially when Reeves and D'Onofrio are interacting (ie. fighting) with each other.  I haven't seen such comedically awkward fist fighting since  Bridget Jones' Diary and Pineapple Express.  In fact, D'Onofrio is really the only thing that really works in this movie.  Even though it felt at times like he was trying to channel John Malkovich, it worked and most of what he does is is funny yet dark and that's what they were going for.  His performance is really strong and believable throughout.

The problem is that D'Onofrio is not one of the two main actors in the movie.  While, without his role there would be no film, the hero and heroine are Reeves and Diaz.  Neither one of them does a good enough job to grab the role and make you care about the character.  But it's for different reasons.  Reeves' character is flawed.  They try to make him some kind of suave and loveable guy while also making him an out and out criminal too.  His character is too layered and, while he's an OK actor, he can't do too much depth and couldn't really pull it off.  Diaz, on the other hand, is just an out and out terrible actress.  Her character had no depth and she still couldn't pull it off.  Her line delivery is always terrible and her body language is always annoying.  While she is a fairly attractive person, those other attributes are enough to just make you want to punch her.  She really played par for the course in this one.  I was actually relieved when she got shot.

Apart from those problems, I do have to say that the film is shot very well.  The lighting, setting, costumes and set designs gave it a real bleak and hopeless feel which suits the story quite well.  But without good characters and acting, that isn't enough for a good movie.

Don't see it.

Monsieur Lazhar Review

I don't know if it's the Indie film factor, the non-English language factor or the Canadian-foreign film factor.  But, when you step out of the typical Hollywood paradigm and set out to just make a good, heartfelt and meaningful film, you often wind up with a movie that feels stripped down yet very layered and deep.  Lazhar doesn't rely on exotic locales or big name, big face actors.  It's set in Montreal in the winter after all.  And all of the actors look like someone who might bag your groceries or do your taxes.  When you add the simple yet superb lighting and camera work, you find yourself immersed in a very believable story.

That story is a fairly straightforward tale of an immigrant who talks his way into being the replacement teacher for an elementary school class who's regular teacher has just committed suicide.  You find this out in the opening minutes of the film and I knew it going in.  So I was braced completely for a real dark and melancholic piece.  For the most part, the emotion of the film is just that.  But it is fantastically spaced and paced with well written dialogue and comic relief that you never descend into a film depression that would be hard to bring the viewer out of.  It does not take you on a roller coaster of emotion that many other film makers would want to do with this type of story.  Instead, Philippe Falardeau keeps you very level throughout.

That's a very good thing because, if they had tried to make the movie a piece solely about grief, we would have been deprived of all of the other levels that made up the story.  Monsieur Lazhar has a lot of different themes going on all at the same time.  It deals with managing change in your life, acceptance of other people, dealing with grief, finding your way, the direction of society, facing the consequences of your actions, etc.  (Most of these themes are best shown in Bachir's relationship with the students and how that develops - which is a treat to watch.  They have every reason to resent and hate him.  But he manages the change so well that he wins them over quite quickly.)  If you look at all of these themes, you can see that, yes, they are all closely related.  But, in the film, they seem separate while they intertwine with each other.  if you were to drop any one of them out of the movie, the whole thing would have suffered.  But, while watching it, you can see them each for what they are.  I'm not a film maker so I can only imagine that weaving together all of these different themes of a film would be very, very difficult.  Falardeau does it to near perfection.  There is just enough time spent developing each theme and character to give the audience the information they need to start developing their own attitudes and ideas about the story.  I'm sure that, if you see it, you would have a different viewpoint on the meaning but you'd probably still come away saying it was a very good film if not a great film.

Definitely see this movie.  While it is a sad piece for the most part, it is also powerful and you feel like a bit of a better person for having seen it.  And it has a final scene that takes your breath away.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Review

So this is how it all ends, eh?  From a cinematic standpoint, this one is a lot different from the others.  But, considering that it is essentially the second half of one movie, I'm not surprised.  It starts out fast and doesn't let go for quite a while.  The tension is pretty tight for most of it and it builds up to the big battle for Hogwarts.  Then, bam!  Deathly Hallows grinds to an absolute halt with this need to get all philosophical and it goes off in a direction that it never really recovers from.

That isn't to say that the final climax isn't exciting.  It is.  In fact, the action all the way through is some of the best in the entire series.  But after slowing down so much, it would have taken a lot more to get the momentum rolling to a pace that it was at before.  Because of that, the climax is actually kind of anti-climatic.  Right from when Harry goes back into the forest to face Voldemort alone, the film gets very confusing (almost to Prisoner of Azkaban levels).  For a story that was supposed to bring an end and some closure, they sure left some things unanswered.  I won't spoil it for anyone because I do believe that there are a lot of people out there who don't know how this story ends.  While Potter did permeate pop culture more than anything since Star Wars, the fate of Harry Potter hasn't quite gotten to the level of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father.  Case in point: if I hadn't asked my brother what happened when the Deathly Hallows book came out, I wouldn't have known what happened until I saw the movie.  And even then, I had forgotten all of it except for one line.  The world of fantasy is just too specialized in its followers.  If you're into it, you'll know.  If you aren't you'll know the story exists but you don't pay attention.  (This is an argument my brother, Andy, and I actually have had and I don't think either of us will ever give in on it ;-).)

So, while there are a few questions raised by the events in the climax, they are really limited to that small part of the story and can be just accepted by the viewer.  The overall questions that we asked throughout the whole thing are answered.  In that, it wrapped up nicely.  And, without spoiling it, I have to say I really, really like what they did with the Neville Longbottom character's fate.  For me, that took the theme of the movie from decent to very good.  And it just goes to strengthen my theory that this is not a retelling of the Christ story or an attack on Christendom.

Technically, I only really had one problem.  This one never seemed to find any consistency in its effects.  Some of the effects are absolutely brilliant.  The fire and magic effects are some of the best I've seen in recent memory.  But the goblin makeup effects were downright "Cabbage Patch Kids."  But, all in all, it was a net gain.

While I was disappointed for that 20-30 minutes of philosophical surrealness, I still recommend that you see it.  The two Deathly Hallows movies together make for a good evening's entertainment if you have the time and know the story.  But this one is better simply because it is the climax whereas Part 1 has the more dull buildup.

Tommy Boy Review

I'll start out by saying that the acting is bad.  In fact, in spots, it is very bad.  But it wasn't Chris Farley that was bad.  It was the performances by many of the peripheral actors and even David Spade.  But David Spade isn't much of an actor to begin with.  And Rob Lowe and Bo Derek really phoned it in too.  Given that, I don't think Chris Farley got enough credit for his abilities.  I will admit that his range was limited.  The only thing he ever really got a chance to do was play the loveable and hyperactive buffoon.  Sadly, we will never know if he could have made the transition into even more cerebral comedy much less drama.

This is the pinnacle of Farley's work and the movie he will always be known for.  And that's a good thing because it is one of the greatest feel good movies ever made.  I've seen it countless times and it still makes me laugh from start to finish.  I still want to punch Rob Lowe in the face and I still get sad when Brian Dennehy dies.  And I still feel good at the end when the wind starts to blow across the lake.  Because it can do all this, the movie is timeless.  For my money, it ranks right up there with any other classic mid 80s to mid 90s comedy.

And, speaking of which, it is very much of that era.  It's definitely got that feel to it.  That's largely due to the music and costumes though.  The music is that lighthearted score all the way through that feel good movies should have.  It makes the audience smile and enjoy themselves.  And that's really the point after all.

The chemistry and timing between Farley and Spade is classic and it further benefits from some very good writing in their scenes together.  But I think my favourite part of this movie is the little solo bits that Farley gets to do throughout.  Scenes like the crashing model cars, ordering chicken wings, martial arts with the hook conveyor and, my personal favourite, the "Guarantee Fairy" are scenes that you can repeat lines from and laugh about with your friends for a very long time.  And the Direct TV ads were right: Fat Guy In A Little Coat NEVER gets old.  You get the feeling that everyone really fed off his energy through the whole film making process.

See it.  It will never go down as one of the classic films of all time and it shouldn't.  But in its genre, it is among the cream of the crop.  Whether or not you like Farley, you have to admit that they captured something very special with Tommy Boy.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 Review

After seven movies, I've realized that Harry Potter isn't a real wizard.  He does not have a comical cone hat with stars and moons on it and he's never even said "presto changeo."  That's a spell that even the most basic of wizards would use let alone "open sesame" and "abracadabra."

Seriously though, it's hard to really review this one because it was planned as a part one movie.  So you know going in that there's going to be very few (if any) questions answered.  I believe they did two parts because it would be very difficult to cut anything out of the last book and still have a cohesive story.  The problem is that, if this one is any indication, there still isn't enough material in the book to make two full movies; especially if you want to make the movies more than two hours long.  It's a Catch-22.  There's too much for one movie but not enough for two.  So, what do you do?  You're kind of stuck making at least one of them a bit slow in its building up to a final climax.  In this one, there is way too much "wandering around" and doing nothing from the main characters.  In that, it's a lot like Valhalla Rising (a movie I can only describe as unbelievably boring).  Had they left out a lot of that and sped it up a bit, they could have had a very gripping 100-110 minute movie.

After watching almost all of these now, I've come to the conclusion that JK Rowling has some very strong political views.  In this one, there's a very real air of commentary on the evils of tyrannical oppression.  Like the battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore a few movies ago, I got a real "Rebellion vs Empire" vibe from Star Wars.  Then, while the three kids are wandering around, there's a real Lord of the Rings feeling with the locket and its effects on the kids.  Add the "Top Gun" rivalry from the first movie and it's fairly obvious the Rowling is heavily influenced by other stories.  I'm not saying that it is a bad thing.  Everyone gets inspiration from somewhere.  After all, there's only about seven actually distinct stories in the world and everything is a variation of those.  I'm just saying that you will see this inspiration in the movie.

Everything else is much of the same.  The acting, effects and writing are similar to all of the others.  Performances are strong, effects are believable and the story takes too long to actually get moving.  It takes almost an hour to actually find out what the Deathly Hallows is.  Because this is just Part One, there is not big climax at the end wrapping up one story to further another along.

As a stand alone movie, I would recommend that you don't see it.  But I cannot talk about the story as a stand alone movie because, like the Lord of the Rings movies, you need to view this and Part Two as a whole rather than sequels.  While I haven't seen Part Two yet, looking at this one in the light of just the first half, I have to say See It.  Even though it gets a bit boring in spots, it's starting to answer questions and you can tell it is building to something big.