DREDD 3D Is Uber-Satisfying, Old-School Badassery

DREDD 3D Review:

- I've never seen the Stallone version of Judge Dredd. Never wanted to - no interest. And yet, I always thought that Judge Dredd - the character - was cool. I wasn't super familiar with the Judge Dredd comics - most in America aren't. But I dug the look, and I was drawn to the bits and pieces of the post-apocalyptic mythology I had picked up as a kid reading Wizard magazine. I knew that some of my favorite writers and artists - guys like Alan Grant, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, and Brian Bolland - had cut their teeth working on the Judge's comic-strip adventures over the years, in the pages of Britain's 2000 A.D. magazine. In fact, I had heard so much about the legacy of the venerable publication that, during my semester studying in London during college, I made sure to pick up a couple of issues of 2000 A.D. to see what the fuss was all about. I knew instinctively way back when that the Stallone film had little to do with the gritty, darkly satirical vision of the Dredd comics. And so I hoped that this new adaptation would live up to the legend of one of the UK's most popular fictional badasses. And man, rarely has there been a more purely satisfying big-screen comeback than DREDD. The film delivers kickass action while maintaining a perfect tone of grim sci-fi mixed with pitch-black humor. The result is the kind of unapologetic B-action flick that would make the likes of John Carpenter proud - not to mention Dredd's creators.

First off, Karl Urban as Judge Dredd is just, well, definitive. The man becomes and is Judge Dredd - it's that simple. I can't tell you how satisfying it is to see an egoless comic-book performance like this one, with no considerations except making Dredd as badass and true-to-the-books as possible. Dredd's helmet STAYS ON for the entire movie. Urban acts through his scowling mouth, his jutting chin, and his body language. And he does a great job of it - and the integrity of the character is maintained. I'd liken the performance to Ron Perlman as Hellboy or, most recognizably, to Peter Weller as Robocop. There's no pandering to a mainstream audience, no movie-poster-ready glamour shots. Urban is Dredd, Dredd is Urban, and he nails the gravelly hero voice to an extent that Christian Bale should be taking lessons from him. 'Nuff said.

I also, somewhat surprisingly, thought that Olivia Thirlby was fantastic as Psy-Judge Anderson. In part, it's because the movie is very clever about how it uses her. For one, I'll backtrack for a second and say - thank the gods, this is NOT a Judge Dredd origin movie. The movie wisely realizes that we don't need Dredd's origin - he is a sci-fi Man With No Name, and Dredd stories are more about the world that Dredd finds himself caught up - the world that he's a product of - than the man himself. But, you still want interesting characters for him to play off of - and that's where Anderson comes in. This is, in some ways, her origin story. She is the one who has an actual character arc in the film, and it's fun to see her start out as a somewhat naive, nervous rookie - made a Judge due to her potent psychic abilities - and watch as she adapts to the violence and kill-or-be-killed environment she finds herself in. Thirbly does a great job with the role, pulling off the movie's tone to a T, and working well with Urban. I'll also mention Lena Heady - best known these days from Game of Thrones - who is a lot of fun as Ma-Ma (yep), the scarred drug queen who is the film's chief villain.

The movie, overall, does a nice job of just sort of throwing you into the world of Judge Dredd. The world is quickly established: post-nuclear world war, the U.S. is a burnt-out husk of its former self. The surviving populace lives in the confines of vast mega-cities, often in towering, enclosed constructs called Blocks (in a bit if dark humor, each Block - no matter how decrepid and horrible - has a fluffy name ... the main Block in this film, for example, is known as Peach Trees). Throughout the mega-cities, justice is dispatched by a police force known as the Judges. Armored to the teeth, the Judges were created to deal with the lawlessness and anarchy of the new world, by being granted the rights of policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. In Mega City One, the most legendary of all the Judges is Judge Dredd. And that's all the back-story you really need to know.

In this particular tale, Dredd and the rookie Anderson infiltrate Peach Trees to investigate a series of drug-related deaths, linked to the criminal Ma-Ma. In a bid to take out the Judges, Ma-Ma puts Peach Trees on lockdown, and sets out to hunt down and eliminate Dredd and Anderson. Suddenly, a simple investigation turns into a deadly game of cat and mouse, with the odds, certainly not in the Judges' favor.

It's a very simple story, and yes, there are some structural similarities to The Raid from earlier this year. But I wouldn't bother comparing the two too much. While The Raid is nonstop Hong Kong-style action, Dredd is more in the mold of classic Carpenter - more methodical and atmospheric, with a hefty dose of satire. And honestly, that's one of the best things about the film. It oozes that dark, bleak, pitch-black humor that the character is known for. Think Robocop. Think the kind of hard-R ultraviolence that typified the great 80's action flicks. Think the kind of dark dystopia that they just don't do anymore, the kind from before it was all about teens with bows and arrows. Yep - DREDD is a timewarp back to the glory days of 2000 A.D., Escape From New York, Robocop, and the like. The great techno soundtrack is the icing on the cake. As is the wryly funny script from Alex Garland - who wrote great modern horror/sci-fi flicks like 28 Days Later and Sunshine for Danny Boyle.

Complaints? Some it boils down to what were probably budgetary limitations. I wished that Mega City One looked a little more sci-fi and a little less like downtown LA. I wish we got a little more sense of scope and scale - some more imagery of the larger world of the film. To that end, the set design occasionally feels a little bland. Especially given how well they nailed the costumes and the look of the characters (impossibly, the Judge helmets look awesome), it would have been nice to have the locations feel just as pitch-perfect for this world. I also felt like Pete Travis' direction, while solid, relied a bit too much on some hoaky slo-mo bits for added drama. It all sort of ties in to the fact that the drug Ma-Ma is peddling induces a slow motion-like effect on its users ... but I still thought it was overused and a bit gimmicky. Same goes for the 3D - there were a handful of kewl in-your-face moments, but mostly, it seemed unnecessary. And with a darkly-lit movie like this, the 3D again seemed to make things unnecessarilly blurry and unfocused. Overall though, Travis does solid work, and he makes sure that the movie has a couple of great "oh $#@&!" moments that serve as great payoffs to the building intensity of the narrative.

DREDD in and of itself may not be an action masterpiece, but it's pretty startling how much it gets right, even in the face of obvious budget limitations. It 100% made me want sequels that get bigger and crazier and give us more exploration of the world of Mega City One and beyond. Honestly though, the biggest compliment I can give the film is that it finally made me realize the cool-factor of the characters and the world I admired from afar way back when. After watching the movie, I logged on to Amazon and purchased some 2000 A.D. collections - I was on a Dredd kick and eager to see where it all started. You can't ask for much more from a movie like this than that. And I think that's why old-school action fans should run out to support this legitimately badass comic book flick.

My Grade: B+

THE MASTER Asks Big Questions, But Provides Few Answers

THE MASTER Review:

- There's no doubt - Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the great filmmakers of our time. His movies are ambitious, thematically-rich, gorgeous to look at, and typically filled with stunning performances from top-notch actors. To me, Anderson reached his apex with his last film, There Will Be Blood, which was an incredible instant-classic. One of the top films of the last decade. And now ... after a lengthy wait, comes The Master. My anticipation for this film was off the charts. Anderson, teaming with Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman, in a film that was purportedly inspired by the life of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? It seemed fascinating, thrilling, and like a potential masterpiece in the making.

The truth is though - I came out of The Master with mixed emotions. I felt like I had just witnessed some of the very best performances I'd *ever* seen in a film. I knew what I had seen was stunningly shot, meticulously crafted. Certainly, the characters and the narrative left me a lot to chew on. But I just wasn't quite sure what to make of the movie. It felt scattered, disjointed. It felt like Anderson had a lot of disparate ideas about man and master, about religion and cult, about post-war America, about Id, Ego, and Super Ego. But I wasn't quite sure if he ever fully tied those ideas together into one cohesive whole. Not that there's anything wrong with a collage-style movie. Anderson, of course, has experimented with that very idea in films like Magnolia. But you need that one through-line, that connective tissue, those "aha! moments" where the bell goes off and you see the forest for the trees. The Master is a film that may reward multiple viewings in that manner - as its layers are peeled back and the Truth behind some of its mysteries is exposed. But my gut feeling is that, while this film will be analyzed and discussed for years to come, its sketchiness and looseness will make most interpretations seem like they're reaching a bit.

But let's go back to the acting for a second. For let it be said: Joaquin Phoenix simply takes things to another level in this one. As Freddie Quells, Phoenix has a Brando-esque rawness that is totally captivating. He lets it all hang out, and goes for broke. Quells is sailor returned from serving in World War II. To what extent he always was a certain way, and to what extent he's been changed and warped by the war, we don't quite know. But Freddie, when we first meet him, is like some kind of feral, almost neanderthal-esque man who wants to fight and fornicate. Post-war, he wanders from odd job to odd job, but his self-sabotaging ways get him into trouble. Ultimately, he stumbles onto a cruise ship while trying to escape from some guys he's run afoul of, and has a fateful meeting with one Lancaster Dodd. Philip Seymour Hoffman shapes Dodd into a bellowing, charismatic cult leader - "The Master" - a blowhard philosopher/intellectual who is the founder of "The Cause" - a new-age belief system that bears some resemblance to Scientology. Dodd, a man typically surrounded by followers and yes-men, takes a liking to Quells. There's something about Quells' unchecked id that fascinates Dodd. Dodd's entire belief system is about controlling and repressing man's basest and most animalistic urges - and yet, The Master hints that Dodd seeks to tame Quells as a means of, in turn, taming himself. In a way, "The Cause" seems as much a way for Dodd to come to terms with his own vices - sex, booze, rage, etc. - as it is anything else. But Dodd is also clearly a charlatan and a fraud - a modern-day Wizard of Oz. Even he seems uncertain of what B.S. he'll spew forth next. But like many con-artists, part of the game is conning himself. And so, Dodd and Quells enjoy a unique sort of relationship. To Dodd, Quells is almost like a dog to be trained. And in many ways, Quells acts like a dog - ever loyal to his master, only half-understanding the things being said to him, being trained to obey.

The relationship between Dodd and Quells is what makes The Master sing. The scenes between Hoffman and Phoenix are often electric - a clash of titans that will shake you and stir you. There is a love and a hate between the two characters that is truly epic. And that strange relationship is made all the more compelling by the two actors bringing it to life. Let me just emphasize: what Phoenix does here is totally remarkable. As theatrical and singular as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, yet with a naturalism and sense of immersion in character that I've rarely seen in film.

The problem is that there is a vague sense here of existential conflict, of life and death struggle, of a clash of wills between two men. But it feels like an outline that's not fully formed. In part, it may be that the film is actually hurt by its ties to the Scientology story. The fact is, there are some undeniable ties to the life story of L. Ron Hubbard - enough that it will be in the back of your mind throughout the movie - but the movie ultimately ends up having little to do with Scientology at all. To me though, the fact that the movie draws *any* comparison ends up hurting it. Because the moments that do evoke it also emphasize that the film doesn't really talk about the sorts of questions we all have about the religion: why would seemingly smart and well-off people join it? Why wouldn't they question the outlandish mythology on which it's based? And to what extent did L. Ron Hubbard intend for it to become what it has? The Master isn't really interested in any of these more specific topics. The movie is painting a picture in very, very broad strokes. It wants to explore why one man would follow another, even if the master's philosophy never really makes sense in any meaningful way to the follower. The movie posits that in fact, we are all Quells, and that only a thin veneer of B.S. allows us to function as civilized human beings. Because Dodd's "The Cause," says The Master, was never *really* about explaining the mysteries of the universe. No - it was, only, about creating a system that would bring this man followers - that would create for him a flock. Again though, while the movie works - and is thought-provoking - on this sort of big, grand level ... it's less compelling as an actual narrative.

Anderson stages the movie with a strange blend of matter-of-factness and dreamlike, surreal storytelling. At times, what we see may or may not be Quells' imagination at work - his delusions. But Anderson seems to shift from reality to fantasy on a whim. "He's making all of this up as he goes along," warns Dodd's doubting son to Quells - speaking of his father's philosophical principles that make up The Cause. Sometimes, the same could be said of Anderson's narrative. Maybe that's the intended effect? I don't know. But certain reveals fall flat. Quells' relationship with a young lover from back home is more awkward and baffling than anything else. So too is Dodd's strained relationship with his icy wife, played with great restraint by Amy Adams. Adams does a great job in the role, but her relationship with Dodd - and with Quells - is left so open for interpretation that it's hard to get a handle on. And that's the thing ... there are many puzzle pieces here, but few if any are moved into place by the movie's end. As phenomenal as the lead performances are, the film leaves you wanting for some sort of narrative meat to sink your teeth into. Anderson isn't trying for Lynchian abstractness, but he begins veering into that territory in a way that I'm not sure he fully intended. Perhaps Phoenix's brilliant but admittedly over-the-top performance ended up pushing the film in that direction. Perhaps Anderson - known for dreaming up disparate scenes and then later tying them together - never quite found that connective tissue I mentioned earlier. But regardless of his intentions, too many scenes in The Master left me wondering what the heck Anderson was trying to say. And no explanations I've seen or heard have yet sold me that there is, in fact, something major that I was missing. Maybe there is some grand, unifying theory of The Master out there that will change my mind. More likely, however, is that this is simply a case of big but vaguely-defined themes overwhelming the rest of the movie, at the  expense of  definable narrative progression and character arcs.

PT Anderson is one of the great modern filmmakers. And any film fan owes it to themselves to go see The Master - because even if it isn't a masterpiece, per se, it is one of those brilliant-but-flawed works whose high points are very, very high. The performances are breathtaking, the cinematography mind-blowing (not to mention - the intense, mood-setting score from Johnny Greenwood). Individual scenes are stand-outs. And yet, those high points make the movie's inability to fully resonate that much more frustrating. In a way, it reminded me a bit of this summer's Prometheus - grasping at the Big Questions but never quite addressing them head-on. The Master asks much, but rarely answers in a satisfying or definitive manner. And so you have to wonder - what story does this movie tell? I suspect that film fans will be wondering - and discussing - for a long time to come.

My Grade: B+

ROBOT & FRANK is a Funny, Heartfelt, Surprising Trip to The Twilight Zone

ROBOT & FRANK Review:

- Like a lost episode of The Twilight Zone, Robot & Frank is a sci-fi allegory, an all-too-human story, and a profound fable all rolled into one. I absolutely loved this film. It made me think, feel, and marvel at the spectacular, Oscar-worthy central performance of Frank Langella - at his very best here.

Robot & Frank is a simple story with a lot of depth. Like the Twilight Zone episodes of old, it's not exactly subtle in its storytelling ... and yet, there are indeed many subtle layers to Frank Langella's character ... it's one of those acting jobs that's amazing to just sort of sit back and watch and take in all of the little nuances. Robot & Frank takes place in the near future, in a world that's not too hard to imagine evolving from our current era. In this future, the analog age has even more fully given way to a digital reality. Robots are starting to become commonplace in the home and workplace. In particular, a sleek model of helper-robot is starting to become a mass-market item. A sleek, space-age automaton that looks like a cartoon spaceman as designed by Apple. One of the common uses for these helper robots is to care for the elderly. They serve as a butler, aide, caretaker, and, in a strange way, companion. Suffice it to say, the aging, grizzled Frank does not want the robot that his protective son Hunter (James Marsden) gives to him. James drives two hours to see his dad every weekend, and he's becoming increasingly concerned about the old man - his memory seems to be deteriorating, and Frank seems to be losing his ability to care for his home and for himself. The twist here is that Frank is no ordinary senior citizen. He's an ex-con. In his day, he was a master thief, a skilled cat-burglar, a legendary con-artist, and a man of adventure. At first, Frank resists the robot - he doesn't want an artificial caretaker telling him to excercise, take his pills, and find new hobbies. He is firmly of the same anti-robot mindset as his daughter, Madison (Liv Tyler) - though she is so because of an overwrought conviction that robots should not be used for labor in place of real people. Soon enough though, Frank begins to warm up to the thing. He begins to enjoy its company (he does, afterall, live alone in a rather isolated house on the outskirts of town). But what really gets Frank to warm up to the robot is when a lightbulb goes off in his head - when he realizes that the robot - adept at everything from picking locks to cracking safes to hiding evidence - could be his ticket back to the big scores of his criminal heyday. And therein lies the irony of Frank - going back to a life of crime is what makes him feel rejuvinated - sharper, spryer, happier and more fulfilled than he's been in years.

The less you know about where the story goes from there, the better. All I will say is that ... when I suggest that the movie is like a Twilight Zone episode, I'm not kidding. But the movie does a remarkable job of combining big, hit-you-over-the-head emotional and story beats with a whole lot of humanistic, heartfelt emotion. What Langella does here is nothing short of phenomenal. You can't help but root for Frank, even as he engages in criminal acts. At the same time, you can't help but feel sorry for the guy - especially as we see how his memory continues to evaporate, as Alzheimer's and/or dementia sets in. Anyone who has witnessed a family member go through this will feel twinges of sadness and heartbreak, as Langella brilliantly portrays his character's off-and-on symptoms, his self-denial, his frustration with his own loss of sharpness. An easy way to tell this story would be to have Langella play a badass who becomes unstoppable with the help of his new robot companion. But the movie takes a much more complex route to telling its story, giving Frank moments of triumph and tragedy - moments where he seems like the smartest guy in the room, and moments where he seems pathetic and ineffectual - an old man overreaching. But my god, to think that Langella puts on this performance for the ages, even as much of his screentime is spent acting with a robot (or a guy in a robot suit, I guess) - it's incredible. The way that director Jake Schreier crafts the relationship between Robot and Frank ... the way he makes us really care for them as a pair, despite one being a four-foot-tall machine ... again, it's pretty amazing. And I also give a lot of credit to the script by Christopher D. Ford. It's a fantastic piece of work. Funny, moving, and poignant. The tone here is a very delicate thing. Certain characters are deliberately more over-the-top and cartoonish (Tyler as the whiny, semi-oblivious Madison, Jeremy Strong as a slimeball who becomes Frank's mark). But Ford's script keeps things emotionally grounded, despite the movie's more fantastical and comedic elements.

This is Langella's show, but the cast as a whole is quite good. I'll give special mention to two people. One is Susan Sarandon as Jennifer, the librarian of what seems to be the last real library in the world, which happens to be Frank's favorite place (partly for the books, partly because he enjoys flirting with Jennifer). Sarandon is amazing in this role, especially as certain information about her character comes to light. And then there's Peter Sarsgaard, who voices Frank's robot. Sarsgaard is doing one of those classic HAL-style robot voices, but what's impressive is how he puts little hints of something more beneath the surface. The fact that we come to care for the robot - just as Frank does - is a credit to the script, to Sarsgaard, and to the film as a whole.

I found myself very surprised by this film. I didn't anticipate where it was going with its plot and character development. I didn't anticipate the brilliant way in which Frank and his robot's destinies would end up becoming comingled. I didn't anticipate that this movie would have the layers of social commentary and sci-fi allegory that it did. And man ... I did not anticipate the emotional gut-punch of the film's final act. Perhaps some may find the film hamfisted. But I was so invested in its characters, so won over by the movie's combo of humor and heart, that I couldn't help but be bowled over by its ultimate revelations. It left me a bit shaken, to be honest. Happy, sad, floored by Langella's performance ... and feeling like I had just seen one hell of a movie.

Go see ROBOT & FRANK. It's a fantastic movie, and one of the best things I've seen so far this year.

My Grade: A-

COSMOPOLIS Is a Haunting, Nightmarish Vision from David Cronenberg

COSMOPOLIS Review:

- David Cronenberg makes weird movies, movies that make you think, that can prove baffling, that haunt you. COSMOPOLIS is hardcore Cronenberg - the most extreme, hyperstylized, surreal, nightmarish movie he's made in years. This is a movie that will turn many off. You might hate it. I think many people in the theater I saw it in did. But as I watched, I did my best not to pay attention to others' reactions, and let myself get sucked in to the strange, nightmarish world that the movie presents. And man, did I get sucked in. I literally tossed and turned in bed that night, with scenes of the film playing over and over in my mind. This is a sticky one ... not easily forgotten or left behind. It's a movie of striking ideas and imagery. In short, this is classic Croenenberg - a mind-%$#@ of the highest order.

In Cosmopolis, Robert Pattinson plays Eric Packer, a young billionaire - a cold, almost emotionless asset manager who has become plugged-in practically 24/7 to his work, to his extravagant lifestyle, to the pursuit of money, power, sex, and material possessions. He lives in a bubble, sheltered as much as possible from the common people he shares his city with. That bubble is embodied in the film by Eric's tricked-out limo - a mobile fortress where Eric spends most of the film. We meet Eric exiting his towering office building, summoning for his limo to take him away, to go across town ... to get a haircut. But Eric's journey across town takes on the feeling of a waking nightmare. Eric is, at intervals, joined in his vehicle by business associates, mistresses, his personal doctor (he gets a daily physical), and other assorted people. All the while, he's tailed by his Head of Security, Torval (Lost's Kevin Durand), who is very concerned about his employer's well-being. The President, it seems, is in town, and an anarchist group has vowed to strike by causing chaos around the city. Supposedly, the President isn't their only target, but the city's wealthy elites - Packer, the ultimate one-percenter, might just be high on their list. As Packer's limo slowly wades its way through unmoving traffic, he also stops on occasion to meet with his equally cold and distant wife Elise, with whom he's yet to actually consummate his marriage of convenience, despite his strong wishes to do so. Meanwhile, the city is devolving into a hellish warzone as violence and anarchy escalates. Packer is mostly protected in his reinforced limo - but for how long?

As you can probably tell, COSMOPOLIS is not a straightforward narrative, per se. It's thick with metaphor, subtext, and ambiguity. The characters in the film talk in a hyperstylized manner - they seem robotic, alien, pre-programmed. The dialogue is written in a very unique manner that honors the style of the source material - the novel of the same name by author Don DeLillo. Characters talk in a hyper-formal dialect, using declaratory phrases, peppering their speech with repeated statements like "I do not know this." or "This is true." Some might get annoyed with the non-naturalistic speech. Personally, I found it fascinating. Cronenberg uses the formal dialect to paint a world lacking genuine human connection. People really do feel like automatons, struggling to communicate genuine feeling or human connection. This is exemplified in some of the great exchanges between Eric and his distant wife Elise. Eric can't understand why there's no physical or romantic connection between them, but he also doesn't seem to understand how to break down emotional barriers. Can Cosmopolis' protracted conversations at times get tedious? Yes, on occasion. But if you allow yourself to go with the unique rhythm of the dialogue and accept the artistic license taken, it becomes sort of fascinating.

There are lots and lots of big ideas in this film. At times, the dialogues the characters have do feel more like freshman-dorm-philosophy than legitimately substantive. But I think that's part of the point. These are characters who *think* they've got it all figured out, but don't. The underlying theme here though is that this is a world - an extreme mirror of our world - that is barely held together by a thin veneer of order. A world where men in ivory towers rule over society in a manner that just barely creates an illusion of democracy and individual freedom. But there are cracks. And when those cracks are made greater, when the shell is broken, all hell is poised to break loose. Cosmopolis paints a picture of two separate worlds on a collision course. On one hand is the world of the wealthy, the famous, the powerful, the good-looking, and those willing to sell their souls to be a part of that upper-echelon. On the other hand is the 99%, who grow increasingly restless, angry, rebellious, and desperate to reclaim their piece of the pie.

What's interesting about Eric's journey into the heart of darkness is that - even as he is strikingly cold and seemingly soulless, he keeps trying - sometimes half-heartedly, to dip a toe into the world that most people live in. He stops at all-too-ordinary diners for a bite to eat - perhaps trying to prove to himself that he can live just like everyone else, if he wants. And when we do finally meet his barber - played with old-world gusto by George Touliatos - we see that Eric clearly has a special affection for him because he's known Eric since he was a boy. He treats him less like an enigmatic billionaire, and more like a grandson - like a human being.

Robert Pattinson may seem like an odd match for David Cronenberg, but this is a part that the Twilight star is particularly suited for. The actor naturally has a sort of alien quality to him, and that otherworldliness makes him uniquely suited to play Eric here. Pattinson is engaging and does a great job with the distinct dialogue patterns of the movie. It's a performance that reminded me a bit of Christian Bale in American Psycho. Now, does Pattinson have quite the gravitas or range of Bale? No -  he does seem ever so slightly in over his head with how challenging the material is, and yet ... you can almost sense him getting better as the movie goes on. Pattinson really seems to find his footing in a climactic scene in which he plays a deadly game of cat and mouse with a disgruntled former employee played by Paul Giamatti. Giamatti is absolutely fantastic in the part - scary, manic, and pathetic all at once - and he and Pattinson play off each other brilliantly. The rest of the cast is very good, and everyone does a great job of playing to the off-kilter, left-of-center tone that Cronenberg is going for. There are some fun surprises, like Jay Baruchel popping up as an overenthusiastic lieutenant of Eric's, or Durand's slightly neurotic yet badass Security guy. I also thought Sara Gadon was a huge standout as Elise - despite being a frigid and aloof young woman, there's something absolutely hypnotic about the way Gadon plays her.

Like I said, there are segments of Cosmopolis that may feel like a bit of a slog, but I think you have to go into it open-minded. This is not a typical movie. It's theatrical, dialogue-heavy, and filled with big ideas that are never clearly spelled out - leaving a lot up to the individual viewer's interpretation. But I also never really found the movie boring - some, especially those prone to ADD, might. But I enjoyed going down this particular rabbit hole, I enjoyed being intellectually challenged. I think there IS a lot of substance to this movie, and while some may dismiss it as pretentious or as pseudo-intellectual, to me, there's nothing pseudo about David Cronenberg. He's a guy who knows what he's doing, and who clearly loves to push the boundaries of cinema and experiment. But make no mistake, Cosmopolis is filled with tension. It's disturbing, haunting, and oftentimes downright shocking. The echoes to our own socio-political reality are clear, but this is a through-the-looking glass, darkest-timeline version of our world - a nightmare reflection of what could be. Not for everyone - but for those filmgoers who love the weird, groteseque, challenging, and mind-bending, this one's for you.

My Grade: A-

THE EXPENDABLES 2: Stallone and Co. Are Back, and This Time ... It's Personal!

THE EXPENDABLES 2 Review:

- Rarely have I felt more deflated after exiting a movie than after seeing the first Expendables. I was hugely hyped for it, and with good reason. It was an all-star assemblage of some of the greatest badasses in cinematic history. It came on the coattails of Stallone's one-two punch of a comeback - the surprisingly great Rocky Balboa and Rambo. And yet, The Expendables was a letdown - instead of embracing its old-school roots, it tried to be all nu-metal and cool and whatnot. There was quick-cutting and shakycam galore, with action that rarely satisfied. The tone was all-over-the-place (Mickey Rourke seemed to think he was in another movie entirely), and the plot instantly forgettable. That said, what fanboy in their right mind wasn't *still* primed and ready for a Part 2? I mean, the mere concept of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Van Damme, Norris, et. all together in one orgiastic bloodbath on a level not seen since the heyday of 80's action cinema? Hells to the yeah. So, the bad news is that The Expendables 2 is still sort of a dumb movie. But the good news is ... it's gloriously dumb in a way that makes it incredibly entertaining. The Expendables 2 is not good enough to stand side by side with the best action flicks from back in the day ... but it is more than enough to have fans of those movies smiling stupidly with nostalgia-fueled glee.

The main thing you need to know about the plot of The Expendables 2 is that Stallone's Barney Ross is back, along with Statham's Lee Christmas - and most of the rest of the original film's team of adrenaline-juiced meatheads ("Stone Cold" Steve Austin is, sadly, MIA). So yep, Dolph, Couture, Crews, and Jet Li are all back (though Li kicks unholy ass for like five minutes, then promptly and inexplicably leaves the movie). They're also joined by a young, ex-military sniper, Bill The Kid, played with starry-eyed, baby-faced boyishness by Liam Hemsworth - a stark contrast to the grizzled badasses surrounding him. In any case, after a harrowing mission to rescue a captured Trench (the Governator himself) Ross is contemplating calling it quits on the mercenary biz - and young Bill is thinking of doing the same. But then along comes Bruce Willis' Church - who is apparently some sort of government agent dude - who recruits The Expendables for one mo' mission. Church introduces the team to the slinky-yet-deadly Maggie (Nan Yu), who has the know-how to open a high-tech safe that's carrying a nuclear trigger device. If the device were to get into the wrong hands ... well, you know. In this case, the wrong hands are those of the absurdly (awesomely?) named Vilain (get it?), played with arrogant aplomb by the Muscles from Brussels, Jean-Claude Van Damme. Also, at some point Chuck Norris drops in as Booker, aka "The Lone Wolf." Yep, it's action-star overload to the nth degree.

Director Simon West makes this one much more entertaining that Part 1, by imbuing it with the sort of B-action movie sensibilities he brought to films like Con-Air. West keeps things feeling mostly old-school, and gets rid of the chopped-to-bits editing style of the first film. To that end, EX2 has some genuinely badass action scenes - from Jet Li's anything-goes ass-whupping toward the beginning of the film, to Jason Statham's videogame-esque knife-fight, to a suitably epic Stallone vs. Van Damme showdown which serves as the film's climax. And, praise the action-movie-gods, the film ends up being a pretty hard R - so there's plenty of blood, gore, and dudes being tossed into spinning propellers. Not to sound masochistic or anything, but I'm glad that this movie ended up feeling like The Expendables and not the Power Rangers.

Now, what deflates the movie is the mostly-terrible script. For one thing, the dialogue is atrocius, with most of the chuckle-worthy humor being of the unintentional variety (but not to worry, between the uniformly wackjob line deliveries of Schwarzenegger and Norris, there is plenty of hilarious, unintentional humor). I mean, come on ... all you really need in this sort of movie are great one-liners - both of the badass variety and the funny variety (or both). But this movie mostly fails at that, delivering some true clunkers that, surely, did not even sound good on paper (worst offender: Van Damme: "Man up!", Stallone's retort: "I'll man you up!"). The writers should be sentanced to a week of watching great 80's action movies like Predator to bone up on their action dialogue. Meanwhile, the actual plot is pretty threadbare, with only the vaguest notions of character. Again, do I need that much character-depth from a movie like this? Nope. But it would be nice to have some character motivations. Mainly, the through-line is Stallone and Hemsworth's questioning of the life they have chose. But Jason Statham? His main arc is how his girlfriend (Charisma Carpenter) has him by the balls.

The other main problem - and this is partly the script, and partly the direction - is that the tone of the movie is so all-over-the-place. Overall, the jokey, campy tone is a much better fit than the would-be seriousness of the first movie. Still, EX2 can deviate a lot from what works best. On one end of the spectrum, you've got overly-emo scenes, like a funeral scene that's heavy on melodramatic brooding, or a sort-of romance between Stallone and Nan Yu that completely fizzles. On the other end of the spectrum, the movie goes a little too cartoony with its winks and nudges. How many times in one movie does Ah-nold need to utter "I'm back" ...? And do we really need the theme from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" to play whenever Chuck Norris shows up, suddenly making it feel like we're watching live-action Looney Tunes? Meanwhile, you have to cringe at some of the stuff in the movie that would have felt dated even in the 80's. Like when Willis tells Stallone that this agent Maggie will be joining his team, and Stallone exclaims "a woman?!". I mean, this is a movie universe where a bunch of saggy middle-aged dudes are kicking ass left and right - how is there surprise that a young and badass female military operative could do the same?

Of course, the actors pull off the whole B-action thing with varying degrees of success. Couture is still totally wooden - and it's weird that he seems to, undortunately, do more talking than ass-kicking in this one. Norris, too, seems like a total blank. I know he was never an acting dynamo, but damn ... the years since Walker: Texas Ranger have not ben kind. Dolph Lundgren - gets some good goofy moments. Willis mostly just squints and looks bemused. Hemsworth is okay, but he doesn't bring quite the gravitas to the table that his brother might have. Stallone has always been best at playing serious, brooding characters - and he does that again here and does a good job of carrying the movie and giving it most of its dramatic weight. But it is a strange contrast to, say, Arnold, who's in walking-quip-machine mode here. Statham is good - he's a better class of actor than a lot of these guys, and he's a funny guy to boot (Crank, anyone?). I'd love to see him do a buddy-movie type thing with Arnold or Stallone ... but here, he doesn't get to do a ton aside from lay the smackdown a bunch. Terry Crews is a scene-stealer - I think it's time for Crews to have his own action movie franchise, actually, because the guy is a.) jacked, b.) charismatic as hell, and b.) hilarious (mildly funny here, but see Idiocracy for further proof).

As for relative unknown Nan Yu, she's pretty decent, holding her own in the action scenes, and getting in some good one-liners. But, in a movie of icons, it would have been cool to have someone of similarly iconic stature to the movie's male leads. Get those rumors of a female-centric Expendables spin-off a-rolling ...

All that said, the true standout in this one has to be JCVD. Here's a guy whose acting skills have actually improved a lot since his Bloodsport days, and who is clearly relishing the role of villain (er, I mean Vilain!) in this one. Van Damme basically owns it in this movie, crafting a loathsome villain who will roundhouse kick a dagger into your chest and then taunt you for being a pansy. Van Damme is the best part of EX2, and I only wish that the movie gave him more screentime. While his brawler-vs.-martial artist faceoff with Stallone is pretty sweet, there are some true dream matchups that could have been ... Van Damme vs. Li? Van Damme vs. Schwarzenegger?! Man, there was some crazy potential there for ownage.

The Expendables 2 has plenty of groan-worthy moments, but it's also got more than enough awesome - or so-bad-they're-awesome - moments that yeah, if you're an action movie fan, it's an entertaining must-see. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer nerd-out factor of seeing so many icons together on-screen (and the movie is none-too-subtle about playing up the icon-factor). This is unquestionably better than the first movie - but I just think any future installments need to find the right balance of self-aware campiness and legit awesomeness. If there is indeed an Expendables 3, I want it to be not just an amusing nostalgia-trip, but a legit action-movie classic on-par with Predator, Rambo, et. all. For now, I can appreciate that while this one is a bit of a mess, it's also got enough badassery to be a fitting end-of-summer ride.

My Grade: B

PARANORMAN Is Creepy/Funny Fun

PARANORMAN Review:

I really wanted to love PARANORMAN. The movie's retro-horror cold open made me smile with geeky glee. Its uber-cool 80's-synth soundtrack instantly got me doing the monster mash in my theater seat. And its visuals - oh man - the movie's gorgeous stop-motion animation is a sight to behold - pure eye candy from start to finish. I wanted to love this movie, and all the elements were there to make this a modern-day horror/comedy/animation classic. But the script and story, unfortunately, were just too all-over-the-place to make it all come together. The movie veers wildly from heavy-handed moralizing to Saturday morning cartoon-style humor and hijinks. And most of its characters don't amount to much more than cartoonish cliches. That said, I still think this one is well worth a watch - and kids will probably love its just-slightly-subversive humor and fun (and not-too-scary) zombie invasion storyline. Others may not get as much from the story, but anyone can appreciate the dazzling house-of-horrors visuals - especially in 3D.

For a movie that unfolds in a rather straightforward manner, the backstory of Paranorman is a bit convoluted. Essentially, young Norman is an elementary-school outcast, made fun of by his classmates and chastized by his father for claiming that he can, well, see dead people. But Norman does see dead people - ghosts, specifically. He chats regularly with the ghost of his dear, departed grandma, and, everywhere he goes, he sees all manner of specters and spooks floating about. As it turns out - and as the old saying goes - with great power comes great responsibility. By way of his creepy uncle Prenderghast, Norman learns that it's up to him to keep at bay the curse of a witch named Aggie, who was famously put on trial hundreds of years ago, and who supposedly resurfaces to terrorize the town every four years. The witch has since become a cartoonish mascot of the town, but her curse is no laughing matter - she plans to raise a legion of undead zombies to wreak havoc ... unless Norman and his pals can stop her. His crew includes his new friend Neil - a chubby kid who's defiantly nonplussed by the bullies who torment him at school ... Alvin, one of those bullies who gets caught up in Norman's adventure ... Courtney, Norman's cheerleader teen sister ...and Mitch, Neil's meathead teen brother (who Courtney has a major crush on, of course).

Where I found some fault with Paranorman was in a lot of the characters mentioned above. Norman himself is a capable kid hero, but the rest of his gang all felt like total cliches, with very little to subvert the stereotypes. You've got the goofy fat kid, the thuggish bully, the airhead cheerleader, and the dumb goofy jock. Yes, there is a twist around the jock character that is revealed at the very end of the movie ... but to me it felt more like the punchline to a running joke than an actual bit of characterization. In any case, it's a shame because there is so much about Paranorman that feels so genuinely fresh and creative. But it veers wildly from imaginative and clever to kiddy and cliched. The humor, too, has moments of legitimate brilliance (a gag where a guy being chased by zombies pauses to grab some chips from a vending machine, for example, had me rolling), but there is also a lot of more juvenile butt-joke type stuff. It'd be one thing if the tone of the movie was that of an over-the-top comedy, but Paranorman is sort of all-over-the-place. There's some very serious, very emo moments of moralizing and drama - which makes the more silly stuff stick out like a sore thumb. Point being, Paranorman sometimes feels like a few different movies smashed together into one. Unlike, say, Coraline (the previous product from stop-motion studio Laika) - which felt very much like a singular vision that had one, consistent tone throughout. But Paranorman - I mean, it's got everything: old-school horror homages, Saturday morning cartoon humor, darkness, goofiness, subtle humor, gross-out humor, and a story with a pretty crazy mythology behind it that feels both convoluted and undercooked.

And yet ... Paranorman is often a joy to watch, because it quite simply looks awesome. The stop-motion animation is some of the most gorgeously-crafted I've ever seen. The use of color is amazing - reminded me a bit of the Tim Schaefer-produced game Psychonauts. There's a acid-tinged, funhouse look to the film that is totally delightful. I loved the character design from a visual standpoint. And the sense of energy, inventiveness, winking humor, and creepiness in the direction is fantastic. Studio Laika has outdone themselves in this regard.

I'll also give a lot of credit to the star-studded voice cast of the film. Sometimes it can be frustrating watching an animated movie so filled with recognizable actors, because you end up spending half the movie playing "guess that actor." But the cast is utilized so well that you have to appreciate the talent on display. I've been a fan of Kodi Smit-McPhee from his work in The Road and Let Me In, and he's great here as Norman. Anna Kendrick brings some unexpected depth to Norman's ditzy older sister. Tucker Albrizzi has great comic timing as Neil (his "Don't make me throw this hummus! It's spicy!" line is a winner), and Christopher Mintz-Plasse is quite good as insecure bully Alvin. Casey Affleck has some funny moments as Neil's big bro. You've also got Jeff Garlin and Leslie Mann as Norman's parents, Elaine Stritch as his ghostly grandma, and John Goodman as his crazy uncle.

A mention should also be made of the score ... which is awesome. Like the movie's tone, it too is a little all-over-the-place, shifting from big orchestral stuff to Carpenter-esque horror-synth ... but in both instances, it's really, really well done.

Like I said, kids will probably go nuts for Paranorman. It's the perfect sort of horror-movie gateway drug for kids just getting into creepy stuff. Kids will laugh at the bathroom humor, but what will ultimately leave a bigger impression are the touches of harmless-but-still-spooky horror. And those moments are what worked best for me - when the movie hit that perfect sweet spot of creepy-comedy goodness that's like peanut butter and chocolate on Halloween. But when it devolved into kid-pandering stereotypes, or during its big, climactic (overly preachy, overly expository) showdown that felt lifted from some bugnuts Japanese role-playing game, it felt like the movie was losing its focus and going off the rails. Paranorman doesn't quite have the timeless charm to become an all-ages classic, in the vein of The Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline, or much of the Pixar cannon. But it is a perfectly pleasant, spooky, funny, and visually-stunning amusement that's worth checking out.

My Grade: B

THE CAMPAIGN Is Funny But Lightweight Political Humor

THE CAMPAIGN Review:

- The Campaign is a really funny flick, but it's also a little frustrating. The movie has plenty of big laughs, and Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis are reliably hilarious. So why that frustration? Only because the movie seems to really want to be a biting satire of American politics, and it has moments that give us a glimpse of the sort of movie this could have been if it went just a bit darker and edgier. Most of the time though, the film is content to just be over-the-top and broad. That leads to some memorable gags, but it also makes the movie feel like empty calories when it might have had a little more meat. Earlier this year, I thought The Dictator was an underrated, fairly scathing satire that really nailed the balance between crazy comedy and on-point social commentary. This one feels a little tamer and a little more pandering to the cheap seats.

In THE CAMPAIGN, Ferrell plays Cam Brady - who is essentially Ron Bergundy meets Jon Edwards. Brady is a multi-term congressman who keeps winning elections despite his reputation for being a womanizing, bribe-taking, double-talking sleazeball. He's a local institution, and people tend to forgive him his sins because, hey, he's a consummate politician and talks a good game. Plus, there's the convenient fact that he's long run unopposed in his district. That changes when the wealthy Motch Brothers (obvious analogs for the Koch Brothers) decide to find themselves a puppet candidate to usurp Brady. They want someone who will carry out their money-grabbing plan to essentially sell off the district's land to the Chinese, making it ground zero for cheap labor and outsourced industry. To do their bidding, they select Marty Huggins. Marty comes from a prominent and wealthy local family - his father is a longtime associate of the Motch's. But Marty himself, as played by Galifianakis, is a total oddball - Ned Flanders meets Richard Simmons meets that one weird uncle you have. Huggins is a local boy who actually grew up with Brady, and he loves his home - so much so that his day job is working as a local tour guide. In any case, Huggins sees the Motch Brothers' offer as the opportunity to finally do his family proud and make something of himself (see: the plot of Chris Farley classic Black Sheep) - and he's too naive to understand the extent to which he's being manipulated by the businessmen brothers. Soon, Brady and Huggins are in a knock-down, dragout political battle, with Brady having to dig dep into his bag of dirty tricks, and Huggins being forced to go on the attack and match Brady at his own game.

Ferrell and Galifianakis are both in fine form here. While Ferrell's character resembles others he's played before (in addition to Ron Bergundy, I also saw a lot of Ashley Schafer from Eastbound and Down), he's so good at playing these sort of gassed-up egomaniac blowhard types that you can't fault him for going back to that well. But Ferrell's line-delivery, done in a John Edwards-esque drawl, is spot-on. Galifianakis gives Huggins an effeminate demeanor and a Sunday School teacher disposition, and he too is very, very funny here. Huggins is certainly the more multidimensional of the two characters, and Galifianakis does a nice job of making him more than just a simple goofball.

The supporting cast is also filled with A-list comedic talents. John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd play the Motch Brothers. Sarah Baker is hilarious and a huge scene-stealer as Marty's wife Mitzy. Brian Cox is always great, and he is great again here as Marty's gruff father. Dylan McDermot is quite good as the Motch's go-to hatchet man, who is brought in to run Marty's campaign and give him am image and lifestyle makeover. Jason Sudeikis pops up as Cam's right-hand man. And Jack McBrayer has a small but memorable cameo. Still, so much of the focus is on Cam and Marty that it does occasionally feel like supporting players get the short shrift. In particular, was hoping for some more great lines or moments from Lithgow and Aykroyd.

It's funny though, because while the movie's political satire feels a bit soft, it hits a homerun when it comes to pushing the envelope of shock humor. The movie's best and funniest scenes are when it goes blue, eliciting huge belly laughs from the perverse lengths it goes to comedically. Thought the dinner table scene in Talladega Nights was uproarious? Wait until you see the dinner table scenes in this one. Similarly, a raunchy campaign ad created by Cam Brady is a highlight - if only for how far it goes down the proverbial rabbit hole. Huge props go to Sarah Baker as Mitzi, as well as to the child actors who play Marty's kids, for delivering some particularly eye-popping lines with brilliant commitment and sincerity.

The movie starts out with a ton of momentum, and it continues to get big laughs as it enters into its second act. In turn, as we see Marty evolve his image, and Brady try to turn negative PR into a positive, we get some moments of genuinely funny and sharp political satire. As the film goes on though, I felt it lost some steam, especially as it started to become mired in cliches and multiple "big, inspirational speech" moments. Ultimately, the wind seems to have gone out of the sales a bit by the time we get to the closing credits. At first, the fact that neither Marty nor Cam knows a thing about actual politics is funny and part of the move's overarching joke. But eventually it wears thing, because it feels like a convenient way for the movie's comedy to avoid tackling any issues of substance. It makes the movie - as opposed to the Dictator, for example - feel a bit lightweight. Like everyone involved agreed that politicians were a ripe target for comedy, but couldn't figure out why, exactly, beyond the fact that politics tends to be more about style than substance.

The Campaign may not be brilliant satire, but it is plenty funny, and like I said, it's got some awesome gags that are more than watercooler-worthy. This is another solid entry in the Ferrell canon - but given the more pointed politcal stuff he's done (his George W. Bush parodies, for one), I was hoping for something with a bit more to say.

My Grade: B

THE BOURNE LEGACY Is Solid But Unspectacular Summer Action

THE BOURNE LEGACY Review:

- The Bourne franchise has always been notable for its genre-redefining aesthetics. When I think of what made the original Bourne flicks work so well, I think about the gritty, feet-on-the ground tone, the you-are-there cinematic style (embodied by Paul Greengrass' trademark shakycam), and the everyman-as-super-spy dynamic. What the first three Bourne movies never truly delivered though was a great mythology that you could sink your teeth into - they were content to keep things relatively mysterious for us, the audience - just as they were for Jason Bourne. So any new Bourne movie that seeks to restart the franchise is going to be inherently challenged - how to expand and build upon a mythology that was already pretty murky to begin with? The answer is: don't worry about it. Instead, load up the new, Bourne-less Bourne film with top-shelf actors and bouts of badass action, give some quick taglines about Jason Bourne being "only the beginning," and hope that that's enough. Is it? While it's not enough for this new Bourne to achieve greatness, it is more than suitable to make it into a very watchable - and occasionally kickass - action flick.

The star of this one is the great Jeremy Renner as a new character (but with a similarly movie title-ready name), Aaron Cross. Cross was a part of the same top-secret government program that yielded Jason Bourne - a genetically-modified, chemically-enhanced super-soldier who's essentially been bred to be a war machine. The film takes place concurrently with The Bourne Ultimatum, and so even as Uncle Sam scours the globe for Bourne, the pressure is on to hide all other traces of the program and eliminate all of the other operatives in the field - lest they, too, should go rogue and/or become exposed. And so, while on a training mission in a remote, frozen tundra, Cross is targeted by his own bosses. Cross narrowly escapes (in a pretty awesome sequence ... let's just say that WOLVES are involved), but finds himself on the run and without his "chems" - the multicolored substances that maintain his mental and physical faculties. Cross goes off in search of Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weiss), who used to oversee his government-sponsored chem injections. Cross - in frantic, Flowers For Algernon mode - is desperate not to lose his abilities - and Shearing is the only one who may be able to help him - and who he thinks he can trust. Meanwhile, a cabal of government operatives - led by an amped-up, uber-determined Edward Norton - are hot on the trail of Cross, aka the one (other than Bourne) who got away.

First off, let me say that Jeremy Renner is a great actor and a believable badass, and I actually like him in this role as much, if not more so, than Matt Damon. To me, the discrepancy between Damon's boyishness and Bourne's badassery always seemed to demand a backstory that never materialized, in order to rationalize the contrast. But Renner's face tells you what you need to know - the guy is an angry, haunted, tormented, pitbull ... that you don't want to mess with. He does a great job of carrying the film, but he's also got a phenomenal supporting cast to play off of. Rachel Weiss, for example, is an actress who you wish could be cast in every movie part that calls for a classic beauty who's also believably smart and intellectual. She nails the part of Dr. Shearing, and does a great job of conveying the kind of fear and in-over-her-head anxiety that a scientist would have after getting caught in the crossfire of a government-sponsored hit-squad. Plus, she has a very natural chemistry with Renner that is evident beyond what's necessarilly in the script. Meanwhile, the rest of the cast is top-notch. One huge scene-stealer is Zeljko Ivanek, as a scientist coworker of Weiss'. He is front and center in the movie's most memorable, chilling scene - and Ivanek's surprising, gripping turn is what makes the scene as haunting as it is. You've also got the great Stacy Keach doing what he does best ... being the grizzled, no-nonsense badass. Plus, Edward Norton gives the movie a lot of electricity, with his energetic, dynamic performance. Bourne series regulars like David Straitharn, Albert Finney, and Joan Allen all make cameos as well, firmly planting this one in the middle of the Bourne universe.

Director Tony Gilroy, who wrote all the previous Bourne films, and who's directed some showstoppers (Michael Clayton, for one), takes the reigns here. He foregoes the uber-slick shaky-cam of Greengrass, and instead goes back to an aesthetic more in line with the original film. The movie still feels sleek and gritty, but also a little more old-school than some of the other films. There are some nice action scenes (and the entire final act is essentially one long chase scene) - but, there's nothing quite as take-your-breath-away awesome as some of Greengrass' best sequences from the last two films (Bourne dispatching badguys with a magazine and a towel, anyone?).

Honestly, the biggest issue here is the plotting. The movie gets off to a compelling start, with Cross in a desolate, frozen wasteland with shades of The Grey from earlier this year. But as we meet Norton and his government cohorts, the movie bombards us with noise and jargon that feels like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. We're teased with backstory - but again, there's not much to latch on to. Why exactly did the government go to such lengths to create these supersoldiers, and why is the fear of exposure so great that they'd so abruptly end the program by killing off all of the soldiers? We get lots of bits and pieces, but it's mostly just filler. The same goes for the science behind the experiments. And most importantly, the same goes for Cross and his particular motivations. Who was he before the experiments - how much does he know / remember? What would happen, exactly, if Cross didn't take his "chems?" The consequences are never truly established to the point where we feel a real sense of urgency around his mission. A lot of compelling questions are raised here, but the movie doesn't seem all that interested in answering most of them. That sort of ambiguity was okay in the original three films, which told more specific, more tightly reigned-in stories. But here, the purpose of the movie is, in many respects, to pull back the curtain on the world of Bourne - to expand the universe. And The Bourne Legacy is only mildly successful in that regard.

Now, would there be some thrill out of getting a future sequel where Bourne and Cross team up to take down their common foe? Sure. And The Bourne Legacy certainly leaves that option open as a possibility. But that also means that Aaron Cross' journey in this movie doesn't feel wholly satisfying. For one, we never get deep enough into his character - or into the shady government program that spawned him - to really understand what's at stake here. For another, the overall arc of the film feels like it's about establishing Cross as a badass - which it does - but it's all foundation-building. Without knowing what, if anything, it's building towards ... it's hard to get all that excited. And some of that ambivalence stems from my overall feelings towards the franchise. It always feels to me like the plots of these films get drowned out by the action, aesthetics, and everpresent angst of the main characters. But the lead - the fact that THESE ARE GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED SUPER-SOLDIERS CREATED IN SECRET BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SOME UNKNOWN AGENDA - gets repeatedly buried. A lot of folks who just come for some cool action won't care, and hey, it's not like that prevents these films from being damn good action movies. But it does, I think, prevent them from being truly *great* films. Again, just not enough to sink your teeth into. And it's not like these are Hong Kong-style action movies that are all *about* the action, either. There's more than enough downtime between action scenes, more than enough technobabble and behind-the-scenes espionage stuff to make you yearn for better plot and better backstory to go along with it.

Where that leaves us is here: The Bourne Legacy is uber-competently made, superbly-acted and cast. It's a rock-solid action-thriller and well worth a watch. But this, also, is franchise filmmaking in search of a purpose for existing.

My Grade: B

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is a Powerful, Moving, Modern-Day Fairy Tale

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD Review:

- Haunting, lyrical, poetic, funny, and visually-stunning, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is a stunner that is among the best films of the year to date. This is a movie that shouldn't work. It's a modern-day fairy tale told in a magical-realism style - a tale of a great flood in the Louisiana bayou, crafted by twenty-something NYU grads. It features non-professional actors in its two most important on-screen roles. It's incredibly ambitious - thematically and visually, yet limited to an indie-film budget. This shouldn't work. But somehow, director Behn Zeitlin and co-writer Lucy Alibar make it work, and craft a poignant, powerful story - a movie that is both strikingly original and timeless.

As mentioned, the film plays out in a surrealistic, fairy-tale fashion. Beasts tells the tale of a fictional swampland village known as The Bathtub. The film takes place in a version of reality - maybe the future? - where The Bathtub is completely cut off from the rest of the civilized world. Beyond concrete gates and levees, an industrialized society - grey smokestacks and drab buildings - is visible. But within the confines of The Bathtub, a stubbornly isolationist community lives off the land. They grow and hunt their own food, make their own clothes, and live in ramshackle shelters cobbled together by hand. The community's children go to their own school, where they learn a mix of practical survival skills and passed-down folk wisdom. The people of the Bathtub are fiercely independent, and set in their ways - determined to continue living off the land and remaining apart from a world that's, mostly, left them behind in the swamp.

We learn about The Bathtub from the wide-eyed POV of young Hushpuppy, a scrappy six-year-old girl. Raised by her father, Wink, Hushpuppy has never known life beyond this place - and she's also never known her mother - who left for the outside world after Hushpuppy was born. As Beasts progresses, two things happen that shake up Hushpuppy's world, and that, eventually, force her on a far-reaching journey outside of her home. One is the long-prophecied storm - the great, fearsome storm that the people of The Bathtub knew would come, but that most stubbornly refused to flee or properly prepare for. The storm completely floods the village and forces those who stay into a deadly game os survival. And - for the outside world, the flood is an excuse to finally tear apart The Bathtub - to force its residents to relocate, and interrupt the years of isolation that the community has enjoyed. Of all the 'Tub's residents, it's Wink who's the most stubborn about not leaving. And that is the second thing that shakes up Hushpuppy's world - the fact that her father is becoming even more of a loose-cannon than usual - he's becoming unhinged, even deranged, driven mad by the outside world's encroachment on his home. More so than that, he is sick - maybe even dying - and Hushpuppy has to figure out how to survive in a world that, very quickly, has been turned totally on its head.

As Hushpuppy, young Quvenzhané Wallis is amazing. It's one of the best kid-acting performances I've seen - she makes Hushpuppy a pint-sized epic hero - inhumanly brave, yet all-too-terrified of what's happening to her formerly idyllic life. And her chemistry with Dwight Henry, who plays her father, is fantastic. Henry in general is just awesome as Wink - an unhinged force of nature. To think that he was not even a trained actor going into this film is mind-boggling. Somehow, Henry - a New Orleans resident - tapped into something inside himself and just unleashed it in this film. He makes Wink both noble and terrifying, a hero and his own worst enemy. This is one of my favorite film performances of the year so far - and I would love to see Henry receive a nomination come Oscar time for the remarkable work he does in this movie.

Visually, the film paints a vivid, dreamlike picture of both The Bathtub and the ominous outside world beyond its borders. It's a very immersive movie - thick with atmosphere. And when the Big Storm hits - it feels like an eruption of biblical proportions. Speaking of which, the other major thread in the film - and its most surreal plot-point - involves the mythical beasts known as the aurochs, who have been awakened from their ancient slumber by the coming of the storm. Reinforcing the idea of The Bathtub as a primal place, the movie flashes on occasion to the rising of the aurochs, and their migration back to their home from across the globe. Again, what might have been cheesy in lesser hands is instead awe-inspiring here. The visual f/x are fantastically done, and the mythological component of the film is elegantly integrated into the main story, adding to its epic nature.

My one complaint with the film, from a visual standpoint, is one that I've seen echoed by others: the overuse of shaky-cam. While appropriate for some scenes - like during the chaotic storm - oftentimes I felt the shakiness detracted from the storytelling, when more steady cinematography would have been more impactful.

But where I give this film a ton of credit is how deftly it balances its characters, story, and overarching themes. As I said, there was probably reason to be skeptical going in to this. Knowing the backgrounds of the filmmakers, and knowing that they were looking to make something very authentic to New Orleans culture ... you had to wonder if they could pull it off. You wondered if the film would come off feeling cloying and cliched. But I think Zeitlin and co. smartly avoid these traps. For one thing, the actors help to infuse the film with the authenticity it needs - no question. And for another, the surreal, fairytale storytelling style makes this world and everything in it - from the down-home accents to the cutesy character names - feel appropriate given the context. Point being: if you rolled your eyes when you heard that the main character of this film is a six-year-old named Hushpuppy, don't prejudge. In the context of the movie, it works.

What also makes the film work as well as it does is that there is, in fact, a real subtlety and evenhandedness in its themes. It's part of the brilliance of the Wink character - in some ways, you root for him. There is a nobility in his refusal to join the modern world, and in his desire to keep his daughter's experience pure and uncorrupted. But there is also a paranoia and madness to him - in being so stubborn, he's dooming himself, and potentially his daughter. He's not necessarily *right* in his conviction to stay in The Bathtub despite all reason - but he does, in his own way, have a *point.* And there is a certain, undeniable purity to the way he lives his life. When Wink and his fellow villagers are, eventually, forced away from Bathtub, there's an almost Tarzan-like quality in how out-of-place, afraid, and alienated they feel in the civilized world.

What I loved most though about BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is that it's just filled with big, memorable, cinematic moments. I don't mean big, necessarily, in the blockbuster summer movie sense (though there are some of those), but big in terms of sheer dramatic power. As we watch Hushpuppy's perilous, coming-of-age journey, there are moments of terror, sadness, triumph, and adventure - moments that will make you misty-eyed, moments that will give you chills.

To that end, run out and go see what may well be one of the big, underdog cinematic stories of 2012.

My Grade: A-

KLOWN is a Kult Komedy in the Making!

KLOWN Review:

- Every time I tell people about KLOWN - the outrageous Danish comedy that is like Curb Your Enthusiasm on crack - people ask me the same thing: "but how can it be funny ... if it has subtitles?" Well, I don't know, but it is. That's what happens when you've got jokes as expertly conceived and as shockingly executed as Klown's. If you're a fan of Curb, Louie, and other comedy that keeps things low-key, before building up to gut-bustingly funny punchlines, then you owe Klown a watch. This is some funny, memorable, quotable stuff - that brings the funny in hefty doses.

Klown is an offshoot of a Danish TV show of the same name. It's slice-of-life, Curb-style comedy that pairs two forty-ish guys in classic, Odd Couple fashion. Frank is our lead character - he's soft-spoken, dorky, neurotic, and tightly-wound. He earnestly tries to do the right thing, but he's often too dimwitted to realize that his efforts are going to somehow end up totally screwing him and pissing off the same people he's trying to make good with. Worse, Frank constantly seems to be led astray by his best friend Casper. Casper is the classic bad influence - though he's married, he is all about the neverending quest for girls, booze, and general debauchery. And he's always dragging Frank into his schemes. As KLOWN kicks off, Casper's latest scheme - a guys-only canoe trip designed by Casper to booze it up and meet women of loose moral fiber - comes at a particularly bad time for Frank. Frank's wife has about had it with him. She's sick of Frank's association with Casper, and wants him to grow up. She wants him to prove that he's ready to be an adult and be a father. Otherwise, she's threatened to leave him. So Frank makes a rare bold move: without consulting Casper, he decides to take his ten-year-old nephew Bo on the canoe trip. Frank wants to prove that he can be an adult and a good role model, and thus win back his wife. Only problem is: Casper is still 110% determined to keep the trip as debaucherous as ever. And so ... ten-year-old Bo is about to get the experience of his young lifetime, despite Frank's mostly-failed efforts to keep things clean.

Klown's premise is simple, but it is a great setup for all sorts of jaw-dropping moments of shock-humor. What makes it all work is the contrast between Frank - a mild-mannered, well-meaning guy - and the absolute craziness of the situations he somehow gets dragged into.

Now, there is a very TV-esque / episodic feel to Klown, and that means that sometimes, the movie does go for stretches without huge laughs. It also means that the movie can feel a bit meandering at times. But ultimately, the big joke payoffs are more than worth the slow build-up, with some truly WTF, "I can't believe that just happened" moments. What's refreshing is that, in an American comedy, you'd typically only get away with these sorts of big, shocking jokes in the context of a very big, broad, over-the-top comedy. But since much of Klown is played very straight, the crazy moments are that much more hilarious, and genuinely jaw-dropping.

I'll tease some highlights for you: in the course of Klown, Frank and Casper ... piss off a bunch of teens on a high school field trip, have a strange and perverse encounter with a cabin-dwelling woman, accidentally defile Frank's mother-in-law, and humiliate poor Bo in ways that no ten-year-old should ever be subjected to.

Another reason why the movie succeeds is Frank Hyam and Casper Christensen, playing fictionalized versions of themselves. The two have a natural, easygoing chemistry - again, similar to Larry David and Jeff Garlin on Curb - and the believability of their friendship helps ground the film. The kid who plays Bo is also a find - his hilairously stoic facial expressions and reaction shots are often priceless, and give the excalamation point to many of the film's best jokes.

Klown sometimes does feel like a Danish twist on American cable TV comedy, but the jokes and characters are sharp enough to make it work on its own merits - and it goes to places that I've seen few other comedies dare go. It's definitely got cult classic potential. And mostly, I selfishly just want people to see it so I can quote some of the best lines and have people know what the hell I'm talking about. The film is available on VOD and iTunes to rent, and in select theaters, so check it out now and see that - who knew? - the Danish can be funny!

My Grade: B+