Year One

If movies had to be rated based on expectations, this one met all my expectations. Unfortunately, the expectations were for a pretty low quality, low humor vehicle for Jack Black and Michael Cera. Neither of these got to really show off their chops (see High Fidelity or Juno for these guys in their element). Instead, here we get a mild romp through a time-warped bible, meeting Cain & Able, Abraham & Isaac, and traveling to Sodom. Without the sci-fi benefit of an actual time machine. Black and Cera bumble around, chasing the girls and finally [spoiler alert] get the girls [end spoiler alert]. A little bit funny (very little) but not interesting. So the funny that is there doesn't get enough points to warrant the time.
2 stars (out of 5)

Sex and the City 2

I am a fan of the HBO series. One thing that makes you realize how good a show is, is to see something that tries to be that show, and fail miserably. Here New York, playing the role of "the City", doesn't even show up. There is no room here for the city to participate, so it is basically written out . One of the expendables in Star Trek (you know, the nameless 4th member of the away party that will never return from the planet). As for the sex, Carrie Bradshaw was a relationship columnist who was not afraid to write about sex. Here the character of Carrie is no longer a columnist, but a novelist. So presumably the writing has to be longer and more involved. An in depth look at relationships. But the quippy fun that can push a 22-minute episode (and even the first film to some extent) along doesn't really work here. It is just cliche. Forced "interfriention" for the sake of using the word. While the original series purported to be all about fashion, it was really about relationship, and fashion was a way of tying things together. Here, the movie is all about fashion, and relationship is just a way to tie one scene to another. Faux elegance and excess without real purpose or comment. The "lessons learned" from each column were a nice wrap up on TV, but by time we are done with this film, we just don't care... Yes, I understand that it can't be the TV show. But it isn't even the same tone or style, even though the surface does all it can to make it appear so. With all that said, I will say that the film is worth seeing for one reason... the opening wedding scene is Fabulous...
2 stars (out of 5)

The General's Daughter

I had avoided this a few years ago when it was in the theaters, primarily because the trailers made it seem like a slasher/rape movie. And while the plot does revolve around a rape, it is not explicit or horrific beyond what you might see on an episode of Law & Order. So what do we get? John Travolta is an investigator in the Army who is assigned to investigate the murder of young captain who happens to be the daughter of a retiring general and political hopeful. In unwinding the life and background of this captain, Travolta uncovers the secrets that will lead to solving the murder as well as the secrets that are embarrassing to the general, the army, the politically powerful, etc. So as an investigative thriller, it is sufficiently mediocre and I am not sorry to have only seen it as a late night diversion. What it did get me thinking about was Travolta. He plays a strong willed protagonist with a clear set of ethics that give him a "more moral than you" persona. I only mention this because it is the same persona he plays in so many of his other films (The Taking of Pelham 123, Swordfish, Civil Action, Michael, to name a few). It doesn't seem to matter if he is the good guy or the bad guy. He always puts his ethic to the audience as the one that should be valued, or at least appreciated. Not sure whether this bugs me or not, but it was something I noticed.
3 stars (out of 5)

Bright Star

I had passed this film up when it was in the theater. It seemed then to be too much of a standard period piece with not much new/interesting to offer. It seems now like I was right. Bright Star is the story of John Keats. He is a poet with out money who falls for a woman whom he cannot marry. The marriage is not possible because, living with her mother and siblings - father out of the picture, she must marry for money. She becomes Keats muse, battling his poet friend and all of society for the right to be in a relationship for love. In the end, Keats dies and she wanders the Heath late into the night, never forgetting the man she loves.

At least I had hoped to learn a bit about Keats from this film, but really all I know is that he was a poet, had an inferiority complex in his field, had no money, and died of TB. Most of that I could have guessed. What is fascinating (although not new to this film) is how strong the forces of class were on women during that period. That a woman must marry for money, and that a poor man would refuse to marry a woman if he knew she had no money of her own. Where are the stories of the cobbler's daughter finding love and getting married to the blacksmith's apprentice, in spite of the fact that neither has money. Perhaps those stories are simply not interesting.
3 stars (out of 5)

The Ghost Writer

Pierce Brosnan plays the role of the former English Prime Minister and Ewan McGregor his newly hired ghost writer as the two work to finish a memoir. The plot slowly unfolds the intrigue required for a political thriller, which of course includes hints of espionage, corruption, power and mixed loyalties. Probably the key to any good thriller (and effectively used here) is the word "hints". Never is there an outright revelation, or at least one that is believed as true. We also get hints at the U.S./English machinations surrounding the post 9/11 lead up to the Iraq war. But again, only hints. Add to this the fact that McGregor's character is all too trusting. He plays the roll of pop-writer well, admitting that he is not an investigative journalist and knowing that he is in over his head. As such, he basically trusts everyone with all his knowledge and we are left to figure out who will do what with his information. Until the last scene I was held, not quite sure how the resolution would be served. An excellent piece of work.
4 stars (out of 5)

The Deep End

It surely says something about a movie when you have to look over in the middle and ask your neighbor "Is this movie good?". Generally the question itself is an indication that the answer is No. In The Deep End a mother of three kids lives on Lake Tahoe with her father-in-law while the father of the children is on a U.S. Aircraft carrier somewhere. So from the start, we know there will be single mother stresses. As it turns out, the only character development in the entire film seems to be how much stress can mom show, while offering other characters no chance to be anything. The oldest son gets into a bit of trouble, mom tries to cover up a perceived indiscretion and some thugs come into the picture to try to extort money. I am sure that the film was made based on a treatment that included single mom stress and some sort of reference to a reverse Copenhagen syndrome. And if it were done well, that premise could have made a good movie. Show me something about why the daughter is a grease-monkey, why the son likes fish, why the father-in-law is treated with kid gloves. Instead we get a one dimensional mom and zero dimensional supporting cast.
2-stars (out of 5)

The Losers

Another summer action movie based on a graphic novel that is not well known by the general public. As such, it has no history (like a Batman would). Here we have a group of special ops soldiers who are betrayed by their handler (whom is anonymous) and engage in a mission of revenge. Sort of a poor mans Jason Bourne. Poor mans not because this film looked any cheaper to make, but because it is not as clever. The bad guy resorts to nonchalantly killing people in a way that makes me feel like I am part of a video game. Nothing graphic or gory, just unemotional and gratuitous, but a cheap way to make the bad guy bad without any effort in story or motivation. Overall, this is a lazy effort meant to cash in on graphic novel action. I read an editorial recently in the LA Times (I believe) that suggested we need to hold movies to different standards based on their intent. For example, it suggested that this movie would be worth it if it only cost $4 to see at the cheap theater. While I like the idea that different films have different value, I must disagree that this was worth $4. I tried to imagine wanting to see this streamed on netflix and even then I think I would feel ripped off. Skip this one.
2 stars (out of 5)