The Grey

The basic plot of The Grey is nothing novel.  A group of roughnecks from an oil rig gets into a plane crash in the remote arctic tundra. There they must battle the elements and predators –  and sometimes each other — to survive.  Change a few details here and there and it could be the plot to any one of dozens of survival movies.

The Grey, however, stands on its own.  The cinematography is extraordinary.  At times the camera work reminded me of an art house film.  The framing, the fades, the blurred effects are all used to enhance the feel of the movie.  Even the sound effects — fading in and out to focus on the intensity of an individual moment or the overall power of the harsh elements — was noticeably more prominent than in your standard Hollywood film.

Liam Neeson is fantastic.  I’ve never seen in real life the face a man would make if he survived a plane crash and suddenly found himself waking up in the middle of a barren frozen wasteland with no sign of other survivors or even the wreckage of the plane.  But I sure believe it would look something very much like Neeson’s portrayal.  The intensity of his emotion– whether in anger, despair, or joy — was deep and believable.

The big reveal at the end was so well-timed and wonderfully subtle that my brain was still wrapping itself around the idea when the next big shock came along.  I’m a little concerned that it may have been too subtle for some in my particular showing of the movie.  Judging by the lack of gasping sounds from the rest of the crowd,  not everyone got the full force of the reveal.  Then again, to be fair maybe they just didn’t find it as shocking as I did.

The denouement to The Grey comes like a shock to the system.  There is no wind down.  Instead, it hits you with the full speed of the narrative.  The Grey is an excellent film that plays to both  your love for a good adventure and your more cerebral side as well.

Red Tails

This movie is all about fighting, and not only against the Germans. The Tuskegee Airmen (named for the college where they were trained as a controversial experiment) also have to fight frustration, racism, and their own weaknesses. The story follows the four pilots (to avoid confusion, I’m sticking to their call signs): Lightning (David Oyelowo), Easy (Nate Parker), Junior (Tristan Wilds), and Joker (Elijah Kelley), plus several others, through part of 1943 and 1944.

Their commander, Colonel Bullard (Terrence Howard), is back home trying to get better assignments for them, hoping they can finally prove themselves. Their second-in-command, Major Stance (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), tells them it’s a miracle they’re flying at all — anticipating those who answer criticisms of the movie by saying at least it’s a positive story about blacks.

Gradually, the Airmen move on to escorting bomber groups and earning the respect of the white troops. They finally get new planes with, yeah, red tails. There’s a little personal drama along the way. The reckless Lightning lands in trouble more than once — but one of his crazy risks results in a successful raid on the enemy. Squad leader Easy, who’s not the straight arrow he seems, regrets some of his command decisions. But all this is secondary to the fighting that takes up much of the screen time. (We see a few scenes of Lightning with his Italian girlfriend, but though they seem to love each other, they can barely communicate — which limits the depth of the  dialogue.)

A quiet turning point comes when one Airman, captured by the Germans, is welcomed among some POW’s planning an escape because “We know you’re not a German spy — being colored and all.”

For a war movie, there’s surprisingly little swearing or brawling, and just a touch of sex (between a seriously committed couple, at that). No one questions the rightness or effectiveness of the war; no one feels that he owes his country less because it’s treated him unjustly. Despite their harrowing circumstances, the characters project a certain innocence alien to our times.

Though the dialogue can be artificial (I think it reaches its low point when a Nazi pilot says in German: “Die, foolish African!”), the performances make it work — usually. (Some of the minor players fall short.)

If you’re not expecting deep insights into character and relationships, if you’re interested in the countless aspects of either World War II or black history, or if you just enjoy a good aerial battle, Red Tails is worth seeing.

One for the Money

He Said:
The fact that the character of Stephanie Plum was the bounty hunter heroine from Janet Evanovich’s popular book  series was the movie’s only saving grace for me. As a person who craves either incredible special effects or an incredible story, this is the kind of film I tend to avoid at all costs: a cheesy romance with an action plot. I’m not trying to bag on all romantic comedies, as there are some I really do enjoy. Just to give that statement some relevance, I thought Life As We Know It, which also starred Katherine Heig, was a decent romantic comedy.

Unfortunately, the story’s origin could not save the film’s interpretation from disaster. As I suspected, it was another cheesy romance with some action thrown in. I just didn’t feel pulled into the film. Probably my biggest issue is the severe lack of chemistry between the characters. Frankly, I like Jason O’Mara as an actor, but I think he should stick to the TV series Terra Nova or try a different kind a film. There seemed to be a lack of connection between him and the other characters in the film. I think Katherine Heigl regressed with this film. As much as I like her as an actress, I’m not really sure she can pull off an action heroine.

My Rating: TV or don’t bother.

She Said:
I can’t figure out why I keep insisting we see Katherine Heigl movies. I guess I just want to like her as I once did when she played Izzie Stevens on Grey’s Anatomy. Unfortunately, every time I watch her play the same girl-next-door-in-over-her-head character I have the opposite reaction – I want to punch that doe-eye surprised look off her face.

Heigl’s character, Stephanie Plum, is supposed to be a brazen, reluctantly courageous, funny character. On screen, she’s just annoying. The predictable plot focuses on Plum’s first assignment as a retail lingerie clerk turned Bounty Hunter – she has to capture corrupt cop, Joe Morelli (Jason O’Mara), who just so happens to be the boy she lost her virginity to several years ago. What an unlikely coincidence!

The unimaginative plot revolves around a tired push-pull anti-relationship between fugitive and captor. Didn’t I already see something like this with Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler in The Bounty Hunter? Actually, that’s not a fair comparison. The chemistry between Heigl and O’Mara makes Aniston and Butler’s chemistry look like Romeo and Juliet.

One for the Money was a colossal train-wreck. The screenplay is a convoluted mess, the chemistry is flat, the supporting cast is bland at best, and the dialogue is forced and unnatural.

My Rating: Don’t Bother

Underworld: Awakening

He Said:
I’m a huge fan of all the Underworld films. I saw the original Underworld in the theater and I absolutely loved it. Underworld does a better job than any other films at meshing the worlds of vampires and werewolves into a single story.  Unlike other movies in the same genre, this is not a teenage drama. These combine heart-pounding action and a story with incredible depth and motivation for all characters. Kate Beckinsale is the best female action star I’ve ever seen in a movie, and  not just because she’s exceptionally easy on the eyes. She completely embraces the role; you really feel she is a vampire with superhuman abilities.

I’m also a big fan of Scott Speedman’s character, a half vampire, half werewolf hybrid, stronger and faster than both species. I was a little disappointed when I heard he didn’t play much of a role in Underworld: Awakening. After all, his character was partly the point of the other films. The previews also had me scared that the movie’s computer generated effects were not going to be very authentic-looking.

I’m pleased to report that my expectations were completely blown away. Though Michael wasn’t a big presence in this movie, he wasn’t completely absent, and I thought the direction of the story was brilliant. I was riveted the entire film. The special effects were absolutely amazing, especially on IMAX 3D. I found myself jumping in my seat from a few different scenes. I thoroughly enjoyed watching our favorite death dealer, Selene, go to work.

My Rating: Worth seeing on the big screen in IMAX 3D.

She Said:
Since I’ve only seen the first Underworld movie, I wasn’t enthusiastic about seeing the fourth, but Michael is a fan of the franchise. If I drag him to chick flicks, it’s only fair I see the movies he’s interested in watching. Besides, the run time for Underworld: Awakening was 88 minutes. I can sit through just about any movie for that long.

It was way better than I expected! Kate Beckinsale  as hot, pleather-wearing kickass vampire, Selene is formidable as ever — able to create a likable character who’s a merciless killer.  I enjoyed her daughter’s presence – seeing Selene as a protective momma bear gave her character even more depth and motivation.

The storyline was easy to follow even if you’ve never seen any of the Underworld movies, the pacing was spot on, the action scenes were executed perfectly, and the 3D effects were simply awesome. For a change, I felt the 3D helped accentuate the story, instead of looking like an after-thought that was added on to create more box office draw.

My Rating: Worth seeing on the big screen in 3D

Contraband

He Said:
I’ll admit that I wasn’t a huge fan of this film. I’ll start off with the good. The movie was suspenseful. There were several tense moments that had you on the edge of your seat. However, the movie just felt like a glorified version of Gone in 60 Seconds. It just seemed like the same story where the main character used to live a life of crime, but tried to straighten out his act until relative X gets in trouble for doing something similar and the main character must come out of retirement to bail out relative X. I don’t know how many times this type of story has been done, but it seems like a lot. So, right off the bat, I lost some interest. In a way, it was a bit of a disappointment after Wahlberg’s last stunning film, The Fighter. Because the movie is action-packed and exciting, I feel like it would be a good one to see if you had nothing else to do and wanted to be entertained for a couple hours.

My Rating: Wait until DVD/BLU-RAY.

She Said:
I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, mainly because I enjoy most of Mark Wahlberg’s film choices. I first noticed Marky Mark in The Perfect Storm and Planet of the Apes. He earned a spot in my “likeable leading man” category when I saw him in Rock Star. So, while I didn’t expect Contraband to be a cinematic masterpiece, I was hoping it had a little more depth than the trailer indicated. Unfortunately it didn’t.

Contraband is another regurgitation of a familiar Hollywood plot line – former criminal goes straight but gets pulled back into the business for one reason or another. Yawn. The plot tries to be too complex, the visual effects are boring (seriously, a freighter crashing into a dock? Who cares?), and it felt like Wahlberg and Kate Beckinsale were on autopilot throughout the entire movie. In fact, I have a hard time understanding why Beckinsale was even cast in her role; talk about a waste of talent.

Overall, I was supremely disappointed with the movie. The only thing that I really enjoyed about it was the sweeping panoramic views of Panama and New Orleans. In retrospect, we probably should have stayed home and rented a couple of tourism videos – they would have been better.

My Rating: Don’t bother

How refreshing, then, to catch Die Hard, a nominal Christmas movie that eschews all of that nonsense for dumb, visceral violence. The film may have launched an ill-advised franchise (along with a hundred lesser imitations), and it may exemplify the overglorified violence that many critics rightfully decry in American cinema, but who cares? Sometimes, we need to cater to our base instincts. Especially sometimes during the holidays.

Enter Die Hard, a movie about a guy running around a highrise blasting, bombing, and bludgeoning terrorists. The story, as it were: a New York cop flies to visit his estranged wife in Los Angeles, meeting her at the Christmas party thrown in her lavish office building. Of course, just as he arrives at the party, a group of terrorists muscles its way in and takes the party hostage — and of course, it falls on our hero cop to sneak around the building, killing bad guys and thwarting their plans.

Die Hard is synonymous with Bruce Willis, the action star whose career the film helped launch. He elevates the film from a bad B-movie to an action classic with a believably weary performance as John McClane, the aforementioend cop. Willis uses the film’s ridiculous premise to his advantage. Around every corner,  as he finds another elevator shaft to climb or another terrorist to fight, the look on his face reads, “Really?” Exactly what we were thinking, John.

Alan Rickman turns in great scenery-chewing work as Hans Gruber, the smooth, smarmy, cerebral leader of the terrorists. Rickman’s character sends up the classic mad-zealot antagonist character by transparently playing one himself: he’s a self-interested thief who pretends to be a terrorist to throw police off his true intentions. In one scene, to stall police, he demands the release of a list of terrorists and activists around the world. “I read about them in Time Magazine,” he says to a bewildered accomplice.

Die Hard does have its over-the-top moments, and the sequels it spawned suffer from diminishing returns, but the original still stands as a breath of fresh air in the crowded landscape of Christmas movies. It’s worth a viewing just for one of more macabre uses you’ll ever see of a Santa costume.

He Said:
I feel that the Sherlock Holmes films are going down the path of The Pirates of the Caribbean, where it feels like the sequel was just more of the same, but for some reason with the Sherlock Holmes storyline, it doesn’t bother me. I loved the first Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey and Jude Law and I loved this one. I like seeing how Holmes breaks down the minutest details to solve the underlying mystery, and the lines in the movie are witty and funny. The story and character interaction alone is enough for me to want to see this movie, but the stop-motion filming makes for an even more suspenseful and action-packed adventure that is incredibly entertaining to watch. The film just contains all the components that make for a successful film: a good story with actors who can deliver a believable performance, witty humor, and lots of action with great special effects.

My Rating: Worth seeing on the big screen.

She Said:
This sequel is just as decadent as the first film. There were countless explosions, constant film speed changes, and a dangerous mystery that needed to be solved. It almost looked the same steampunk film we saw in 2009 but for one saving grace – the bromance between Holmes and Watson. The interplay between Holmes and Watson felt a little more familiar this time around, making me feel a little more connected to the characters.

I also liked Holmes’ opponent, Professor Moriarty. With absolutely no regard for anyone in his path, Moriarty had the mental fortitude and cunning to be a truly formidable foe for Holmes, making the plot twists and turns enjoyable. I don’t like movies where I can predict everything the villain is going to do, and Moriarty kept me guessing. The only thing I wasn’t wowed with was Jared Harris’ overly refined portrayal of the character – it felt as if he was holding back a bit. In my opinion, he didn’t have enough of a sinister energy to feel like a real threat to Holmes.

The fight scenes were excellently choreographed (as expected), but they didn’t feel like the same rehashed scenes from the first movie. Somehow, director Guy Ritchie managed to make them feel fresh. The slow motion effects might be considered a bit gimmicky, but you know what? I don’t care – they were visually stunning and plain old-fashioned fun.

My only complaint about the film is that it dragged a little after the enthralling opening. I had to fight to stay focused on the plot, but once the movie got past the sluggish spots, it was wildly entertaining.

My Rating: Worth seeing on the big screen.

1974′s The Man with the Golden Gun (released the same year as The Godfather, Part II), highlights both the entertaining aspects and flaws of that franchise. The film, Roger Moore’s second as the title character, devolves into the cheeky, nearly slapstick nature that characterizes Moore’s work as Bond. He replaces the aloof, ruthless efficiency depicted by Sean Connery (and later by Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig) with a lighthearted, sarcastic playboy persona. Moore’s Bond is above the proceedings — he’s almost self-aware, and using the fact that he’s in a spy movie as a fantasy vacation. Like all Bonds, he displays expensive tastes, but in Moore’s case, these aren’t just lingering in the background; they’re in the forefront of his personality. They’re, in fact, all he has.

As such a hollow protagonist, Moore’s Bond depends on the characters and settings around him to provide depth and flavor to his films. Golden Gun’s best feature is the eponymous assassin, played by Christopher Lee as an unparalleled marksman who’s chosen Bond as both an equal and an ultimate prize. Their eventual, inevitable showdown is a highlight of the movie, but Lee’s presence is too sporadic to carry the whole film.

The rest of Golden Gun is a pastiche of mid-70s junk culture and pan-Asian travel footage. We see Hong Kong casinos and belly dancers, a goofy secret British base aboard a half-sunk old battleship, the midget from Fantasy Island, and the unfortunate return of a redneck southern sheriff from Moore’s first Bond film, You Only Live Twice. The film starts with important stakes — Bond sets out to avenge the death of another agent at Lee’s hand — but quickly devolves into an unintentional spoof of a spy movie. It’s the kind of problem that plagues all of Moore’s work as Bond.

But… it’s not all bad. Moore’s reading of the character does make for some smirks (if not outright laughter), and his never-too-serious demeanor does highlight the moments when Bond gets vengeful and cold. The Moore movies may be divisive, but they’re good enough that even Bond fans who don’t count him as their favorite still need to admit that flicks like The Man with the Golden Gun are part of the canon.

Immortals

He Said:
I’ll start off by saying that if you’ve seen the film 300 and you were not a fan, you most likely are not going to like this movie, but if you’re like me and enjoy films like 300, you’re going to love Immortals. The effects were amazing in this movie. I was blown away by the stop-motion filming as I was with 300. I thought this movie raised the bar a little bit because the fight scenes were even more elaborate than they were in 300.

I’m not going to say that the film deserves an Oscar for acting, but it wasn’t bad by any means. I thought Mickey Rourke gave an excellent performance as King Hyperion. I also liked the performance given by Luke Evans as the god Zeus. I won’t say that Cavill gave a stunning performance as Theseus, but he definitely fit the role and was believable.

I’ve seen some other reviews that rake the plot across the coals, but honestly, I thought the plot was good enough to keep me enticed and wondering what was going to happen. Movies about mythology always catch my interest anyway, but I liked the twists in this movie, like that gods, while powerful, are not untouchable. And the fact that the gods get involved with human affairs make it all the more intriguing. The movie was incredibly entertaining and amazing for what it was, a special effects blockbuster about mythology, war, and tyranny. Anyone expecting the character depth and plot of a film like The Notebook is going to be severely disappointed.

My Rating: I’d definitely check this one out on IMAX on opening night if you can. I think to get the most out of this movie, you need a big picture and big sound.

She Said:
Before seeing Immortals, I didn’t know much about Theseus’ story. After seeing the movie and conducting a little research, I learned that I still didn’t know his story. The writers took a lot of liberty with Theseus’ story, so mythology purists be warned – you may not like this translation. Personally, I don’t mind seeing classic characters reimagined, especially if I don’t have an emotional investment in them to begin with.

I had a great time with this movie. The story was interesting and engaging and the visual effects were absolutely delicious. There’s a glossy artificial look to the film that made it captivating to watch. Director Tarsem Singh didn’t try and make it look like the movie was shot in our reality – his use of color and setting created a visual feast.

Henry Cavill was perfect in the role of Theseus. With his carved abs and tender, soulful eyes it’s no wonder the Virgin Oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto) gave up her *ahem* visions to be with him. As far as the acting goes, he did a fairly good job with the role. The character isn’t all that complex, but he made the most of what he was given. The real standout for acting, though, was Mickey Rourke as King Hyperion. Rourke completely embodied the cruel and sadistic Hyperion – making him positively engaging to watch.

Michael and I saw Immortals with two of our friends; we all walked out of the theatre with smiles on our faces, having enjoyed the movie. While the film does have a couple of shortcomings (mainly plot holes and weak character development), it’s still fun to watch. Its dazzling visuals and bloody pulp fighting scenes make the film riveting and entertaining.

Parents do need to know that the movie contains a lot of slow-motion slaughtering and violence. This movie is definitely not appropriate for young children. It’s rated R for good reason.

My Rating: Worth seeing on the big screen.

In Time stars Justin Timberlake as Will Salas, a man who is short on time. In this alternate reality / future people are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. From then on, individuals must obtain more time in order to continue living. Time has replaced money as the currency of the day.  The story is set at some indeterminate point in the future, but the precise era is difficult to determine.  The architecture and fashion look very current 21st century.  The cars have the distinctive whine of electric engines, but the style of the 1970′s.  Technology is far advanced in some areas (like genetic engineering) and far behind in others (they still use pay phones).

The rich have more time than they can use. The poor struggle to earn their time on a daily basis, living day-to-day with just enough time to get by. When a 105-year-old man decides that he has lived long enough, he commits suicide by giving Will all his remaining time — over a century’s worth.

Predictably, Will’s good fortune quickly turns sour. Pursued by the mob for his time and the by police for the death of the old man, Will quickly loses his extra time and is forced to take a hostage / love interest Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) on the run.

Their flight turns into a crusade for the poor. Sylvia turns against her wealthy father and joins Will in his quest. At this point the film takes on a decidedly Robin Hood-esque quality. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. For a couple with the smarts to put together such an encompassing and successful campaign against the economic powers of the world, they’re not very good at budgeting their own time, which causes frequent trouble for the two.

Despite a mediocre performance by Timberlake, In Time manages to deliver an entertaining couple of hours. Cillian Murphy (most notable for the role of the Scarecrow in Christopher Nolan‘s Batman films) delivers the most compelling performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham… sorry, I mean the time-cop charged with bringing in the rogue disrupting the order of things.