Changeling

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich & Jeffrey Donovan

A strong, engrossing drama featuring an impressive performance from Jolie and is another worthy addition to Clint Eastwood’s directorial resume.

While the story of Changeling, based on the true story of Christine Collin’s search for her abducted son in 1928 and the LAPD’s attempts to demonize her when they return the wrong child, is material that certainly brings up thoughts of Oscar nominations, especially given the performance from Angelina Jolie and direction by, frequent Oscar winner, Clint Eastwood; it would be foolish to dismiss Changeling as deliberate Oscar bait. Changeling is, nevertheless, a well made, well acted and engrossing drama.

The first half of Changeling follows a fairly standard course as we get early scenes of Christine Collins (Jolie) playing the hard-working single mother of a little boy Walter and how important he is to her. When she comes home from work one day to find Walter missing, she is, understandably, distraught and waits anxiously for news from the police that begin searching for Walter. The twist in the story comes when, upon being told her son has been found, she is presented with a child who is not Walter but claims to be. With the LAPD already under scrutiny on allegations of corruption, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake and face further embarrassment and proceed to pressure Collins into accepting the boy as her son. When she takes the matter public with the help of a local Pastor (Malkovich) she is deemed unstable by the police and sent into a psychiatric ward.

While the story here and its twists are powerful and gripping, made even more so because the events are true, the telling of the story is also very traditional. Jolie is convincing as the distraught mother, shedding tears when necessary and crying out in anger and frustration over her missing child with conviction as expected while other characters are portrayed as idealistically good, the Pastor, or villainous, Captain Jones of the LAPD (Donovan). Even scenes in the psychiatric ward run towards the familiar with nurses willing to hand out pills and shock treatment without question and the doctors quick to dismiss anything Collins says as a sign of madness although they are still effective in allowing audiences to feel Collins’ frustration at those that are preventing her from finding her son.

Fortunately, at the film’s halfway point, the narrative takes a darker turn and becomes altogether more complex when a boy found on a chicken farm reveals shock shocking, gruesome revelations involving kidnapped children. Changeling turns somewhat darker at this point with the added atmosphere of Noir pictures like L.A. Confidential as the revelations expose the police forces mistakes with Collins and her son whilst also sending the search down a different path and following up on the aftermath of what is revealed. Even when the film moves towards the use of two simultaneous trials, one against the LAPD for their treatment of Collins, the other for the prime suspect in the kidnapping of Collins’ and other people’s children, Changeling still keeps tensions high as we await the ultimate fate of Walter and the effect this ordeal has had and will continue to have on Christine Collins. Whilst the supporting characters and performances still run towards the black and white presentations of good and bad characters with the addition of an honest cop and an unstable suspect, Jolie is given plenty of material to work with and despite frequent reminders from other characters as to how strong a woman Christine Collins is, Jolie is able to convince us it just as well with her performance.

Clint Eastwood demonstrates the skills and experience expected of a director with the experience and award-winning acclaim that he has achieved. While Eastwood’s characterizations involve traditional good or bad stereotypes, the ability to cast talented actors like Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich and Amy Ryan ensure that the characters have more depth from the actor’s performances than the script alone would afford them. Eastwood also shows great ability to capture the feel of 1920s America with much attention to detail and his usual use of a jazz and brass instrument score that feels appropriate for the period. Also, in addition to focusing on the plight of Christine Collins, Eastwood is also able to effectively portray the treatment of women during that period of history in addition to ineptitude and corruption of the LAPD.

Overall, Changeling is very moving, very well made drama. In spite of its adherence to somewhat old fashioned storytelling techniques, it also aids in not only capturing the mood of the 1920s but also some of the feeling of the films of that period. With a decent opening and a strong second half, alongside Jolie’s impressive performance, Changeling is a very good film, worthy of Oscar attention though perhaps not of success.

Rating: 4/5

Choke

Director: Clark Gregg
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kelly MacDonald & Anjelica Huston

A very dark and funny comedy from the writer of Fight Club that may lack that film’s visual flair and its intensity but certainly maintains the writer’s dark wit and inventiveness.

Nine years after the release of Fight Club, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, we finally get to see another adaptation of the author’s work. While Fight Club only achieved moderate box-office success and received a lot of criticism for its violence and tone, it was nevertheless a cult success building up a faithful following and receiving positive reviews from many critics. In the aftermath, many of the author’s works were prepared for film adaptations but none were ever able to get into production and see release until now. Choke, while based on one of Palahniuk’s later and less intense novels, is still a successful adaptation and certainly an entertaining one.

Sam Rockwell stars as Victor, a college drop-out and sex addict who, through conning people out of money by faking choking attacks in restaurants and then milking his rescuers for money to help pay for the medical fees of his dying mother (Huston) who was once an activist dragging Victor from town to town as a child. Victor is a fairly unlikable character; he cares little for the women he sleeps with, feels no guilt for the kindness of his ‘rescuers’ that he exploits, and feels spite towards his mother whose medical fees keep him working yet she never recognizes him anymore and speak disapprovingly of the choices he has made, choices me has made to support her. Like Ed Norton in Fight Club, Sam Rockwell narrates as well as stars in Choke and like with Palahniuk’s other protagonists, his perspective is one of cynicism towards society.

Things begin to change for Victor however when his mother gets a new doctor in the form of Paige (MacDonald) whose resistance to his advancements to sleep with her and her general kindness towards him and his mother make him wonder whether he could like someone for once. When Victor also learns that his mother has lied to him for years over the identity of his father and is then presented with possibilities that his actual father may have ‘Holy’ ties, he begins to question his identity and his ways. Victor’s life, his sex addiction, his second job as a historical tour guide where everyone must stay in character, the other patients at his mother’s care facility and the revelations over Victor’s possible parentage is source for a lot of dark humor in Choke and it is this humor that makes the film so enjoyable especially given Rockwell’s deadpan, weary performance. In addition to the humor and the entertaining twists and turns of the plot, the film and Victor also give many insights into the nature of people, especially those prone to similar acts as himself and makes commentary on the meaning of good and kindness even in a world that has so much despair and meaningless relationships.

More die-hard fans, purists, of Palahniuk’s novel might criticize the changes made to the ending of Victor’s story in this adaptation and the changes are somewhat disappointing, leaning towards a safer, almost happier ending, but considering some of the novel’s themes and acts, that this adaptation stays faithful so much of it should hopefully satisfy most fans while entertaining audiences unfamiliar with the novel. Rockwell is perfect casting for the role of Victor and is well supported by Angelica Huston as his activist/now-dying mother, a sweet and endearing turn from Kelly MacDonald as Dr. Paige Braddock and a somewhat loveable loser in his best friend Denny, played by Brad William Henke.

Overall, while some Palahniuk fans might be disappointed by some other changes and Fight Club fans looking for something similar might be disappointed by the lack of intensity or immediacy in Choke, it is very funny, well performed and a very satisfying film and adaptation. Here is hoping the next Palahniuk adaptation does not take another nine years to be released.

Rating: 4/5

Body Of Lies

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe & Mark Strong

A well acted, visually impressive espionage thriller that, while entertaining in places, is not quite as deep as it would have you believe.

Ridley Scott is very talented director but if there were just one criticism to be made of his abilities it is that he often makes films that have much more style than substance. Frequently Scott gets the balance just right, impressing you with a meaty story and impressive visuals such as with Alien, Gladiator or Blade Runner (where, arguably style is the substance). Sometimes though, the style takes a bigger hold and despite coming away impressed you may later realize that there wasn’t as much depth to the film to truly satisfy such as in Matchstick Men, A Good Year or even 2007’s American Gangster. Scott’s latest film, Body Of Lies, falls into this second category. Body Of Lies does feature some strong performances, plenty of twists and turns and some technically brilliant action sequences but ultimately it keeps you on your toes so much that it rarely settles to allow more than the occasional insight into the war against terrorism.

Starting in England before quickly moving on to Iraq and then Jordan, we are quickly introduced to our main players. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Ferris, a CIA operative tracking a terrorist cell from Iraq to Jordan while liaising with Jordan’s head of intelligence Hani (Mark Strong). Ferris’ boss Hoffman, played by Russell Crowe, is a manipulative individual who controls and interferes with Ferris’ investigations from the comfort of the United States, watching the action from satellite feeds and communicating primarily by phone. With Ferris in the thick of the action, he often finds himself too close to see what other operations are going on and Hoffman, in a room more than a million miles away, can’t see the small, important details. The result is some operations are compromised and Ferris finds himself struggling to fulfill his objective while also trying to maintain something of a normal life in a job that involves secrecy and the risk of death, capture or relocation.

What Scott is effectively able to communicate is that the breaks in communication, between operatives and their handlers overseas, leads to more harm than good. What the film rarely does however, is stop to look too closely at the deeper, and more long term, effects of their strategies. Only in scenes where Ferris works alongside Hani and we can see the different methods, attitudes and results between Jordanian intelligence operations and those of the Americans, do we get an understanding into how the American drive for immediate results undermines their efforts and hinders their own progress. Also, an incredibly gripping final act where Ferris is forced to trade himself to the enemy for the safety of a woman he has grown to care for, we see the potentially fatal implications that operatives may face in the field with some detailed and shocking acts of violence and intimidation.

Body Of Lies, in addition to strong cinematography, also benefits from strong performances from its cast. Crowe entertains as the somewhat arrogant CIA chief back in America, though his performance while entertaining is also underdeveloped. Mark Strong puts in an impressive performance as Jordanian intelligence chief Hani, and effectively conveys the character’s intelliegence and confidence, but also his ability to intimidate even experienced officers like Ferris. Strong is able to command control over most scenes he is in which helps elicit a strong performance from DiCaprio as Ferris. DiCaprio has the hardest job in the film; acting across from Strong in the Jordan scenes while also having to act alongside Crowe when most scenes place them miles apart with just a phone connection to link them, DiCaprio needs to be able to live up to their performances while also making his character a believable CIA operative and human being when alone. Fortunately, DiCaprio succeeds and delivers a great performance.

Overall though, despite good acting, skillfully handled action sequences and the occasional insight into the real war of terror and its effects, Body Of Lies is still dominated by style over substance. Its characters are underdeveloped and the film is more content at showing you operations in action than delving into the hows and whys of terrorism or how better to fight it. Entertaining, but not wholly satisfying.

Rating: 3/5

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Director: Kevin Smith
Starring: Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks & Craig Robinson

Kevin Smith’s eighth film, and second not featuring his cult creations Jay & Silent Bob, is likely his most mainstream effort to date and while it sometimes lacks the bravery of some of his earlier pictures it still entertains and is very funny.

Kevin Smith and Seth Rogen make a good team. Smith has been making low-budget, ‘Indie’ comedies for 14 years now. While none of his films can make claims to being huge hits at the Box-Office, they’ve certainly garnered ample critical appraise based on Smith’s risqué yet honest dialogue filled with movie references, particularly Star Wars, whilst also capturing the thought and feelings of entire generations. Seth Rogen, with the help of director/producer Judd Apatow has done much the same as Smith only with slightly tamer material and with much greater commercial success with 40 Year Old Virgin in 2005 followed by Knocked Up, Superbad and 2008’s Pineapple Express. It comes as no surprise then that this pair should eventually collaborate on a project together.

Zack and Miri make a Porno is their first collaboration and the results are quite good and, as the title suggests, the subject matter is very risqué. Rogen plays Zack who, along with his housemate Miri (Banks) whom he has lived with for 10 years, find themselves too poor to pay their rent, their water or their electricity. With the prospects of facing homelessness they turn to an idea to make a porn film. Despite a long friendship, the pair believes they can keep things professional despite sex, and make the film that will solve their debt problems only to find that sex can indeed change a relationship.

The first half of the film is its strongest. Starting with a high school reunion where Zack and Miri face the reality that they have done much less with their lives than their classmates and featuring some scene stealing from Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) and Justin Long (Die Hard 4.0) as a gay couple, the film is then set up for its main plot when Zack and Miri decide to make a porn film of their own. Pulling in a few friends including Craig Robinson (Americas The Office TV series) and Jeff Anderson (Randall of Kevin Smith’s Clerks films) to produce the film and casting Traci Lords, Katie Morgan (Lords a former pornstar herself, and Morgan a current pornstar) and Kevin Smith regular Jason Mewes to act in the film they then have to decide on a plot and title, including many amusing twists on famous movie titles including Star Whores before launching into production. With dialogue laced with Smith’s trademark sex and movie references, Zack and Miri succeeds most when its characters are talking and the subject matter leads in to some hilarious scenes of sex acts and nudity including one moment when a stranger wanders into the set (a coffee shop being used out of hours) and another with Mewes involving an act referred to as the “Dutch Rudder” that ranks as one of Smith’s and Mewes’ funniest moments.

However, where Zack and Miri make a Porno disappoints is in the use of Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks in these later scenes. While Smith, Rogen and Banks, are happy to talk dirty, they all seem too afraid to actually ‘be’ as risqué which, considering the film’s title and the willingness of the supporting cast to engage in raunchy scenes is disappointing. This is especially so since not only has Smith shown he is more daring with his main stars within his earlier pictures, but also in knowing that Rogen and Banks have had much raunchier scenes, Banks in particular in 40 Year Old Virgin. However, Rogen and Banks are much more commercial now than they were then and by extension, in starring in a Kevin Smith film, they bring that level of commerciality to Zack and Miri. Perhaps all involved were a little too scared to cut as loose and brave as they had when there were less well known. Also, while Smith has shown he is willing to take more unpredictable paths with the relationships of his main characters, avoiding the usual Hollywood ending, in films like Clerks and Chasing Amy, here the path of Zack and Miri is a predictable one. This is not really a bad thing as the cast are likeable enough that the ending the film has is the one audiences want but is still a little traditional for a Kevin Smith film all the same.

Overall, there is still a lot to like and enjoy about Zack and Miri make a Porno. It is neither Smith nor Rogen’s funniest film to date but is still a solid addition to both their filmographies and future collaborations are welcome and the film also serves as better start to Kevin Smith’s non-Jay & Bob film career than 2004’s Jersey Girl. This is still a very funny film and audiences will be entertained.

Rating: 3/5

W.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell & Elizabeth Banks

At best, an average biopic of the most controversial American President since Nixon, but, at worst a disappointing and toothless effort from Oliver Stone, a director known for controversy himself.

On paper, W. (pronounced ‘Dubya’) looks to have the potential to be another classic in the filmography of director Oliver Stone. A biopic of an American President, an unpopular one at that, in a time when the US is embroiled in an unpopular war, which for Stone, who is known for his anti-war films (Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July) and his biopics (JFK, and the scathing Nixon) seems to be the ideal mix of subject matter and timing (with George W. Bush’s presidency in its final months). However, the result is something that is not only unsatisfying as a biopic, but also incredibly disappointing coming from a director such as Stone.

Opening in the White House, with George W. Bush already President and debating the name he and his administration are going to give to the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan alliance they want to reveal to the American public to aid in their plans to invade Iraq, the tone is somewhat mixed. Perhaps harmed somewhat by the real-life Bush still being in office, perhaps also by the large amount of ridicule he has faced on his actions and demeanour, this opening scene strikes a somewhat humorous (presumably unintentional) tone. While the casting of actors such as Brolin as Bush, Wright as Colin Powell, Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney look the part and certainly go on later in the film to inhabit the personalities of their characters delivering believable performances without merely being caricatures, in this early scene the commitment to the look and demeanour of these characters almost feel like parody. As said, while these roles are developed better later, diving straight into scene such as this so early in the film still mixes the tone of the film. Will W. serve to ridicule George W. Bush? Illuminate his past and his motives? Or will it outright condemn the man? The opening scene, and scenes, leaves this uncertain and by the end of W. the film ultimately fails to do very much of any.

Initially, once Stone starts jumping back into the past to show George W. Bush’s early years, we see many scenes with great potential for the future of the film. Leaping right into Bush’s college years and a fraternity party, we get a glimpse of Bush’s early, fun-loving, responsibility avoiding years. While little of Bush’s past is unknown given the scrutiny he has faced during his Presidency, actually seeing the enactment of Bush as beer-drinking, girl chasing young man who fights, gets arrested and constantly disappoints his father, Bush Sr., is a refreshing change from the Bush audiences have seen in the news these past 8 years. These scenes not only allow Brolin to deliver a more rounded performance as Bush, one that extends beyond looking the part or inhabiting the man’s mannerisms, but also serve to look at the events that helped define how a man who avoided responsibility might ultimately take on the ultimate responsibility and this lies in his relationship with his father.

However, while early scenes between Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. lay promising groundwork for what is to follow, Stone unwisely chooses to make this relationship the primary focus of defining Bush Jr.’s motivations. While it does not, and should not, excuse Bush Jr. of his later mistakes it certainly helps to take away some of his accountability. Skimming by other defining relationships in George W. Bush’s life such as that with his wife Laura (ably performed by Elizabeth Banks but sidelined to a role of supportive wife who keeps her opinions to herself and off screen), with Karl Rove (again performed admirably by Toby Stephens but without insight as to how their relationship developed) and most importantly his relationship with his faith which develops and strengthens all too quickly, we are ultimately left with a man who is driven mainly by Daddy-issues.

Also, Stone’s focus on George W. Bush’s relationship with his father leaves him avoiding the more controversial acts of his Presidency such as his election itself and his actions on 9/11 with more present days scenes taking place post-9/11 and pre-Iraq War as Bush Jr. and his administration look to how they can justify the war with Iraq and Iran the seek to engage in. While many of these scenes display evidence that Stone has lost all his skills for delivering political commentary on his subject matter (Colin Powell is portrayed as a reluctant hero, while Cheney and Rumsfeld are demonised as unsympathetic power-mongers) it rarely digs deep enough or for long enough before veering back to Bush Jr.’s father issues.

Performance-wise, W. does manage to excel. Brolin manages to embody the personality of George W. Bush by showing he can do much more than merely look the part and speak with Bush’s mannerisms. Brolin manages to make Bush Jr. a much more sympathetic character than many could imagine him being while also remaining true to the personality seen in the public eye. In supporting roles we have excellent performances from Toby Stephen’s as Bush’s advisor Karl Rove and from Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of State. Powell is portrayed as the reluctant, resistant figure to Bush’s actions with Rove the talented spin doctor that helped Bush justify his actions to many. Richard Dreyfuss and Scott Glenn deliver unnerving performances as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two men judged even more harshly than Bush during his presidency. While they are perhaps portrayed somewhat as caricatures (a little too evil?), given the actions and words of the actual men themselves these performances are nevertheless believable.

Overall, despite occasional moments of insight, of political commentary and despite some generally excellent casting and performances, Stone’s decision to focus too frequently on George W. Bush’s family relationships and not enough on other relationships or on the more controversial decisions he has made and the reasoning behind them result in a very unsatisfying biopic and an even more unsatisfying Oliver Stone film. Perhaps if Stone had waited a few more years to distance himself from the presidency and any critical/audience backlash he may have faced if he openly engaged the subject matter of Bush Jr.’s life while he still held the office of President, then Stone may have made a much more daring and satisfying film. Instead we are left with W., a film as disappointing as the man himself.

Rating: 2/5

Quantum Of Solace

Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko & Mathieu Amalric

A difficult follow up to the excellent Casino Royale, Daniel Craig’s second outing as Bond has many impressive moments but is held back by its own restraints and owes too much to its predecessor to truly stand out as its own film.

The return of the Bond franchise with Casino Royale in 2006 owes much of its success to the Jason Bourne films as it does to its new Bond (Daniel Craig). The last Pierce Brosnan Bond film, Die Another Day in 2002, came over as too bloated and smug compared to The Bourne Identity released the same year which was a more fast-paced, lean and mean affair. As a result, MGM Studios started the Bond franchise anew. Losing much of the usual Bond trademarks and creating a cooler, meaner Bond with Daniel Craig that was much closer to Ian Fleming’s original creation resulted in Casino Royale which achieved massive, and well deserved, critical and commercial success. With such a success, the follow up would under much pressure to live up to the standard of Casino Royale and subsequent Bourne films (The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007).

The result is Quantum Of Solace which, while maintaining the tone set by Casino Royale, is both entertaining but also frustrating. Starting off strong with a first for a Bond film, in that it is a direct continuation of the previous installment, with an impressive car chase and a sequence where in questioning a subject he reveals a secret organization with people in Bond’s own ranks that turns into a thrilling rooftop chase where Bond, and Craig, step up to show they aren’t afraid of the competition set by Bourne and Matt Damon. However, with such a strong set up for a later conflict, it is shame then that Quantum Of Solace seems content to take its time following lesser villains and their schemes. Having Bond search for the man responsible for the death of his lover, Vesper, from Casino Royale would make for a decent sub-plot, but with the man responsible being revealed to little more than a minor player and the amount of time devoted to the search, by way of bringing down a middleman (Amalric) who plots to buy up land in Bolivia and destabilize its government, results in a film that never really sets out to establish itself a worthy addition to the franchise and rather wraps up loose ends from Casino Royale while setting up events up for the next Bond film.

There are some things to enjoy about Quantum Of Solace, quite a bit in fact. As expected from a Bond film, the action sequences, the stunt work in particular, is excellent. With an opening car chase, rooftop chase, sequences on water and in the air and a literally explosive finally, Quantum Of Solace offers plenty of breathtaking action sequences with minimal obvious CGI (with the exception of an obvious parachuting sequence). In addition to great action and plenty of decent intrigue involving Bond’s initial attempts to investigate the secret group, named Quantum, and his subsequent attempts to avoid his own government as he goes rogue, we also have another strong performance from Daniel Craig as Bond. Keeping with the cold, yet charming Bond he played in Casino Royale, he makes Bond’s efficiency believable while also hinting at the deeper emotional depths of his character that Bond understandably tries to deny.

In addition to Craig as Bond, we have strong support from Judi Dench who reprises her role as M and with Olga Kurylenko who performs admirably as female equivalent to Bond’s emotionally damaged spy, a character who is also seeking her own revenge and is as willing to use Bond and others to get it as Bond himself. In terms of villains, the main villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) is less impressive. Written of early as a middleman who can provide Bond with the identity of Vesper’s killer and also as but one member of the larger Quantum organization, little is done to really establish him as a credible threat to Bond himself. Amalric, while generally a fine actor, also lacks the physical presence of Daniel Craig and thus is unable to compete with Craig when on screen together. Like much of the film, Amalric’s Greene is merely a step on the ladder to a bigger and more dangerous enemy/film in Bond’s future.

Overall, while maintaining an impressive Bond in Craig and offering some very strong action sequences, Quantum Of Solace is too occupied with other Bond films both past and those yet to be, that it struggles to really satisfy or stand alone. It is a film that will entertain for the most part but will be enjoyable at a later date when the next Bond installment is made and its place in the overall scheme is revealed. A solid installment but will ultimately be less memorable than Casino Royale.

Rating: 3/5

Eagle Eye

Director: D.J. Caruso
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Michelle Monaghan & Billy Bob Thornton

An entertaining thriller that just about makes up for its preposterous plot and lack of originality by delivering plenty of effective thrills and action sequences.

Reuniting director D.J. Caruso and actor Shia LeBeouf, Eagle Eye is a fairly entertaining action thriller that, like the pair’s previous outing Disturbia, takes a Hitchcock-style premise and adapts it for the Blockbuster generation. Where Disturbia was loosely inspired by Hitchcock’s Rear Window, Eagle Eye owes inspiration to Hitchcock’s North By Northwest in its innocent man on the run for something he didn’t commit with a larger conspiracy at play. However, as many a discerning filmgoer can imagine, no-one can match Hitchcock for building and maintaining suspense and while the set up for Eagle Eye is very strong, the execution and resolution is certainly less effective.

Despite some highly enjoyable action sequences (mostly all chase scenes too), the identity of the mastermind behind why copyboy Jerry (LeBeouf) has been framed as a terrorist and driven on the run along with distraught mother Rachel (Monaghan) is built up to be so powerful that much of the plot itself makes no sense until the end and even then still defies much logic. The necessity that Jerry be drawn into the plot the way he is, makes little sense due to how it draws attention to the mastermind’s plans by government agents Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton) and Perez (Rosario Dawson) and even the why as to why Jerry is picked rather than someone else only begins to make sense much later and stretches the plausibility as to how much Jerry and his, recently deceased, brother are/were alike.

Still, despite the need to suspend a lot of disbelief, the already mentioned chase scenes/action sequences are well executed and certain to satisfy fans of the action/thriller genre. In terms of characters, whilst only Jerry is given any real character development of insight into his past, most of the characters serve their purposes and are helped by the performances of the actors playing them. Billy Bob Thornton delivers a good performance as FBI Agent Morgan, Rosario Dawson is able as Agent Perez although has a certainly less developed role than Thornton’s. Michael Chiklis plays against type as a Secretary of Defense that actually seems to care about lives while Michelle Monaghan is strong enough to generate empathy for here character whilst also being forgettable enough as to not distract scenes away from the film’s star Shia LeBeouf. LaBeouf further demonstrates his likeability as a leading man, though this time around his character is somewhat less enjoyable that previous performances which may be due to his usual nervous wisecracking being toned down for this role. However LeBeouf still manages to carry the film well and is also able to point out the various improbabilities in the plot in a way that makes them a little more acceptable.

Overall, while Eagle Eye suffers under its own attempts to deliver a high-tech, modern blockbuster equivalent of a Hitchcock classic, the execution of the action is enjoyable as are the performances. Enjoyable if not particularly memorable, Eagle Eye is a decent enough film provided you are able to suspend your disbelief.

Rating: 3/5

Burn After Reading

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Starring: George Clooney, Frances McDormand & Brad Pitt

An entertaining, drama/comedy from the Coen Brothers which is enjoyable but less so than many previous efforts.

After the grim, gritty (and later to be award winning) crime drama of No Country For Old Men, it wasn’t too surprising to find the Coens following this up with something lighter as the Coens followed Blood Simple with Raising Arizona and Fargo with The Big Lebowski. This time around they’ve mixed drama and comedy again for a plot involving the CIA, lost documents, inter-marital affairs and internet dating whilst casting big Hollywood names like George Clooney and Brad Pitt into roles where intelligence rarely applies.

There is plenty to like about Burn After Reading. In true Coen style, the plot takes some unpredictable turns, mixes dark moments of humor and violence and features a strong cast delivering, generally, strong performances. The storyline’s central plot involve a fired CIA analyst (John Malkovich) and a copy of his memoirs that turns up in a local gym where two dim-witted employees (McDormand & Pitt) attempt to blackmail the analyst. Meanwhile, a treasury officer (Clooney) who is having an affair with the analyst’s wife also begins dating McDormand’s character. What occurs as a result is a mixture of mixed signals, paranoia, blackmail and murder. Additionally, as the big picture of what is occurring where and to whom, is seen by no one in particular, there are some amusing asides as we meet two CIA chiefs (lead by J.K. Simmons) trying to make sense of everything that occurs and failing (a sly stab at the actual Intelligence operations of the United States on the behalf of the Coens).

While there is much to enjoy, Burn After Reading also has its problems. For all its characters and the sometimes clever juggling of their storylines, Burn After Reading lacks an identifiable central character with which to root for. Is it Clooney’s womanizing treasury officer? McDormand’s slighty-dim if charming gym employee? Malkovich’s spurned analyst? Is it hard to really say, and with most of the characters bearing more unlikable traits that loveable ones, it is somewhat harder to root for any of them as you would have The Dude in The Big Lebowski or Everett in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?

The cast in Burn After Reading is impressive but also somewhat distracting at times. Clooney is entertaining but seems to have chosen to resurrect the same persona he used in Oh Brother Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty and, while it helps establish his character as a womanizer and sleaze, it also threatens to undermine some of the more dramatic scenes that occur later in the film. Pitt, too, is entertaining, letting loose as the gym trainer who lacks the mental stamina to match his physical training. Again, Pitt is entertaining but his status in Hollywood means his presence is often amusing but also distracts from the drama at times. More dependable are McDormand, Malkovich and Tilda Swinton (as the analyst’s ice queen wife) who are more well suited to the roles they perform while J.K. Simmons deadpan performance as a CIA chief is one of the film’s most enjoyable.

Overall, Burn After Reading is a good film and should entertain most audiences whilst satisfying most Coen fans, however, coming so soon after No Country For Old Men, and compared to many of the Coens previous efforts, Burn After Reading is also a little disappointing.

Rating: 3/5

Righteous Kill

Director: Jon Avnet
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino & John Leguizamo

A fairly predictable, cop-thriller that stands out because of the opportunity to see two great actors, DeNiro and Pacino, work side by side on screen. However, while somewhat enjoyable, the experience does not quite live up the expectations.

In 1995, director Michael Mann made movie history with the crime thriller Heat, which was not only an excellent crime film, but boasted the first, shared, on screen appearances of Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. DeNiro and Pacino, still considered to be two of the finest actors ever produced, received excellent reviews and after an already long wait to see them on screen together, audiences have been waiting for them to reunite again. In 2008, with Righteous Kill, audiences get that reunion only this time, while enjoyable, it doesn’t quite live up to expectations.

In an effort to come up with material worthy of starring both DeNiro and Pacino, Righteous Kill seems to try and be too clever for its own good. After the success of films like The Usual Suspects, Fight Club and The Sixth Sense in the 1990s, all films that had memorable twists in their endings, there have then been many imitators, most of which, sacrificed good stories and good characters for a big twist at the end and trying to capture the success of those films who began the trend. Righteous Kill broadcasts its intentions early on. With a, supposed, confession from one of its lead characters, Righteous Kill then proceeds to throw in additional suspects for the identity of a serial killer hunting criminals. In doing so, it undermines an otherwise interesting beginning that had potential to be a subtle character piece and builds it up for an expected twist that may, or may not come.

While the film takes a somewhat predictable course, there are still the performances of DeNiro and Pacino to enjoy and they are enjoyable. However, both DeNiro and Pacino have seen better days and neither has had the best record of quality films/performance post-Heat that they had pre-Heat. Both DeNiro and Pacino give decent performances in Righteous Kill and they are certainly enjoyable to watch working together onscreen but the flaws in the film’s script denies them the material with which to deliver a truly memorable performance though DeNiro certainly has more scenes and events to work with than Pacino. DeNiro and Pacino are also, ably, supported by John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahberg as fellow detectives, DeNiro’s love interest in the thrill seeking Carla Gugino and Brian Dennehy fills the stereotypical role of grizzled police captain with ease. The supporting roles are performed well enough without distracting from the central performances of DeNiro and Pacino which is the true attraction for audiences.

Overall, fans of DeNiro and Pacino should be happy, if under whelmed, by this second chance to see these two icons sharing screen time but it is a shame that the material is not worthy of either actor, even in their recent, less outstanding periods in their careers. A decent but disappointing thriller.

Rating: 3/5

Taken

Director: Pierre Morel
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace & Famke Janssen

A decent action/thriller that owes most its success to a suitably gritty performance by its star, Liam Neeson.

Taken is another action/thriller from the studios of Luc Besson, but where other efforts have focused on bigger action and featuring less established stars, Taken is a somewhat darker affair and benefits from the lead performance of Liam Neeson, well known as a talented oft-award nominated dramatic actor, who adds much gravitas and credibility to his role as an ex-CIA operative on the hunt for his kidnapped daughter.

The plot of Taken is fairly straight forward, an ex-CIA operative (Neeson), estranged from his ex-wife and daughter, finds his daughter kidnapped while in France leaving him with days to use his skills to locate her or lose her forever. With a lesser known actor, or one with less experience in drama, the abilities and weariness that Neeson infuses the character of Bryan with, might have come across as too forced or unbelievable but, with the credibility that an actor like Neeson brings and the decision to keep the action sequences smaller (i.e. guns but kept close quarters and with few explosions) adds to a genuine feeling of danger and of Bryan’s desperation.

Neeson is excellent choice to play Taken’s lead role, able to add feeling into his character’s expressions and body language to support the dialogue. In supporting roles there are decent, if one-dimensional, performances from Famke Janssen as Bryan’s bitter ex-wife and Maggie Grace as Bryan’s good natured, if spoilt daughter. However, while Taken has a strong hero/anti-hero in Liam Neeson, it is not so well served in the villain department. With no overall mastermind to the operation that kidnaps girls abroad, including Bryan’s daughter, we are left with many, faceless, goons working in various operations. All are dubiously portrayed as ‘foreigners’ (Eastern European or Arab) exploiting young women which, while also somewhat morally unethical, leaves no real impact as Neeson’s Bryan works his way through them one, or a few, at a time.

So, while the performance from Neeson is enjoyable, as is the execution of several action sequences, the overall storyline is less satisfying in its lack of ambition or originality. The dialogue is also somewhat lacking, with only Neeson getting any decent moments to deliver memorable speeches.

Overall, while not particularly original or memorable, Taken is still worthwhile entertainment if only for the strong performance of Liam Neeson who makes an unlikely yet enjoyable action hero.

Rating: 3/5