Sucker Punch…**½ (out of four)

I suppose the only way to really watch Director Zack Snyder’s latest film would be with the DVD commentary. That way we could have the invisible dots connected for us, or we would simply know that the director of electric “300” and excellent “Watchmen” has simply gone off the deep end. “Sucker Punch” is a visually striking film with little to nothing holding it’s world together. This is as frustrating a film as it is perhaps pointless. The film keeps you thinking simply by making you constantly guess whether it’s supposed to make sense.

The basic outline of the story is centered around “Babydoll” (Emily Browning of “A Series of Unfortunate Events”) who’s background is set to a warped sounding “Sweet Dreams”. After she’s sent off to an insane asylum for a crime she did not commit, she meets the level-headed and tough Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), her younger sister Rocket (Jena Malone whom you might remember from “Donnie Darko”), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). They will be her companions. Why do four of these girl have stripper names? That is because they may or may not be in a such a profession. You see the asylum supposedly doubles as burlesque club which is run by the unhinged Blue (Oscar Isaac) and the benevolently calm Madam Gorski (Carla Gugino). “Babydoll” will be lobotomized by the “High-Roller” (Jon Hamm…briefly). When “Babydoll” first dances for Blue and Gorski she imagines a world in which a wise old man (Scott Glenn) tells her she will need five things to be set free. The man is a sensei, she is now a samurai. As he says “”defend yourself” a towering and possibly robotic samurai charges through a snowy Asian setting with a massive mini-gun. Let me stop right there.

There would be nothing wrong the scene I just described if it’s context were at all decipherable. Why does she a imagine a world such as this? No answer. Why does she later imagine duels with robots and Nazi zombies? Maybe the film’s actual reality is set during WWII but that doesn’t explain the robots and dragons…oh yes there’s those too. We are given no real linkage as to what these images could possibly mean in “Babydoll’s” mind, and thus they don’t carry a trace of believability. They are stylishly forced upon us. We begin to make up mean jokes involving geeks wet dreams. This films seems experimental but it has no structure. One realm we occupy is fantasy, the other two are anyone‘s guess. The film’s end offers no real resolution because the survivors do not reveal to us what really happened. The perished may not have existed at all. Frustration at this point becomes apathy.

The film is well made no doubt. It’s action scenes are colorfully grand and exciting but they serve only as a distraction. The soundtrack is lively and fun but signifies little. The acting of the girls is fine and Cornish in particular nearly grounds the film by herself. Poor Emily Browning, she’s merely an unreliable narrator here. Glenn seems to be the only actor actually having any sort of fun but his character only adds to the mess. How exactly does he…but never mind, you might actually see this film. Zack Snyder is not a very passive director. His movies pulsate with energy and vague morality. If “300” was obvious and bold, and “Watchmen” was wiry and uncompromising, then this is disjointed and strange. It’s worth noting this is his first film not to be adapted from source material.

“Sucker Punch” can be debated like all movies not possibly existing in the world they are shown to us. Unlike “The Matrix” and even to a far lesser extent “Watchmen” this is a film that does not play by the rules because it can’t understand them. The holes in the logic are to obvious, it’s clues unclear. It’s difficult to call this a bad film because you constantly feel you overlooked something, anything in which logic may lie. It’s a try by Snyder to be sure but just as certainly it’s more or less a failure. Here is a film that offers no catharsis and thus it is not journey like good movies are but instead merely a viewing. “Sucker Punch” has style but it cannot even begin to understand substance.

I’ve been meaning to post something about this film for over a month, but I just never got around to it. If you listen to the program, you know that I’ve been raving about Delhi Belly and telling all the listeners to go watch it at Movies 12. It had a good 4 week theatrical run, but it’ll be out in physical format soon so go purchase it. I’m pretty sure that today’s teenagers will eventually hold it with the same amount of reverence that my generation has for Dil Chahta Hai. Aamir Khan is easily the most important figure in Hindi Cinema right now because whenever he acts in a film or produces one, it matters and I can’t say that about anyone else. Also, go purchase the soundtrack. It’s the best filmi release since Amit Trivedi unleashed the greatest soundtrack of all time with Dev.D.

I forgot to mention that these videos are awesome, but what happened to all my other videos? They look so warped and are drenched with advertisements. YouTube must have made some changes. I could fix them, but I’d rather go play Godfather Part 2 on the Xbox. I’m almost finished, which means I can finally start L.A. Noire.

I Am Number Four…**(out of four)

 “I am Number Four” plays out a little like a special effects heavy “Twilight” only if that particular story were tailored for 14 year old boys. That makes for a little less pretentious sort of presentation than that cash-cow of a film series but it’s only slightly more tolerable. I’m not sure if director D.J. Caruso, who scored a mild hit with the tween crowd when he helmed “Disturbia, wants to impress us by displaying a film with nearly every familiar high school and intergalactic cliché he can think or if the director is simply lazy. Perhaps a combination of the two.

Based off a recent series of books from author Pittacus Lore, “I am Number Four” tells the tale of a “John Smith” or Number 4 (Alex Pettyfer) who, despite being an alien, appears as a shy trim blond. Are the “Lorians” the race Number 4 represents, humanoid in appearance or merely taking up disguises? Movie doesn’t say although we assume that John’s accompanying guardian (Timothy Olyphant) could have this kind of answer. Number 4 and the remaining numbers, one thru three are dead, are being hunted down by the Mogadorians, a name which will inspire mispronunciations and snickers alike. These enemies exist merely to lurk, kill off a character, give the appearance of being creepy, and make us believe they can actually hit things with their guns. As John bounces around the country he also bounces from school to school. At the next one he meets Sarah (Diana Argon) an attractive outcast, and an of course the alien obsessed Sam (Callan McAuliffe). Eventually he bumps into number six (Teresa Palmer) who injects some energy into the film’s final scenes.

It’s not really the actors fault that they can’t rise above the material given to them. Pettyfer actually does good considering his character could have been not only boring but possibly unlikable. The rest of the teens are teens, and not even Olyphant can make his “do as I say or you’ll die” routine rise above tedious. It’s unfortunate that this Michael Bay produced flick only rises to entertaining heights when things are being colorfully destroyed in well choreographed fight sequences at the end. The action in this film is few and far between though. Instead it wastes time telling and showing us things we already know because we’ve seen the previews.

While there is much wrong with “I am Number Four” it’s main curse is being exactly the film the trailers advertise and presenting little more. The characters don’t undergo a sort believable maturity or anything along those lines. John was a nice guy at the beginning of the film. At the end he’s a nice guy who can shoot fireballs out of his hands. There’s an interesting little subplot with Sam’s dad but that’s the film only smirch of uniqueness. Did the writers feel uncomfortable with Sarah and Number Six? Sarah obviously has yo be attractive because this is a movie, but they make her an outcast because if she was popular a newbie like John wouldn’t stand a chance. Also she was shunned for pursuing photography instead of…cheerleading. Anyway they fall in puppy love, but not before John has to fend of the her jock ex-boyfriend. Number Six, the films coolest character mainly because kick the ass of the everything in her way and doesn’t say much, is barely in the film at all.

All of the teenager stuff is copy and pasted from other films (except for a hysterical scene where the ex tries to woo Sarah back by literally trying to scare the Holy Jesus out of her and kidnapping her…don’t think I’ve ever that tried before) but while this is a film populated by teenagers it doesn’t have to thrill only them. This is after all a sci-fi based tale right? We learn no interesting intergalactic tidbits, like how these aliens ended up feuding and taking that fight to Earth These aliens don’t do anything but brood, snarl or shoot fireballs, which I suppose will thrill the demographic.

Battle: Los Angeles…***(out of four)

The alien-invasion genre is some sixty years old now and thus it’s developed its very own clichés. What do the aliens in question want? Resources unique to only our planet? Are they friendly? As if…Will diplomacy work? No because diplomacy doesn’t usually pay back an 80 million dollar budget. How does this genre still remain so populated? I suppose by staying with what works but being unique where you can, which is exactly what “Battle: Los Angeles” does. With some superb camera work that creates exhilaratingly gritty battle scenes director Jonathan Liebesman’s “Battle: LA” is simply a good action film.

Instead of following around a group of citizens trying to survive an unknown and possibly invincible assailant we are introduced to a group soldiers capable yet overwhelmed by these military-only extraterrestrials. Here is where a typical failing of the genre occurs. These characters don’t stand out, and are instead classified by their instantly recognizable film characteristics. There’s a soldier recovering from the trauma of war, another is about to be married (Ne-Yo who is fine in the role), his wise-cracking best-man, the inexperienced first lieutenant, the inexperienced grunt, and even the grieving brother who still holds Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart; more on him in a minute) personally responsible for his brother’s death.  A few a given physical attributes I suppose to help us tell them apart during the chaos of battle. One has an African accent, one has a Southern accent, the other’s Asian, and another other is even a woman (Michelle Rodriguez). We even get a few civilians (an effective Michael Pena, and Bridget Moynahan) to spice things up. While these clichés are tiresome they aren’t particularly awful, just boring.

Just when you’ve stopped wanting to hear about the specifics our platoon they are called into action. Here is where the film stands apart. If you’ve been to L.A. you’ll know it doesn’t have a downtown like New York but is instead comprised of several neighborhoods. As the soldiers move into battle we aren’t confronted with the destruction of recognizable monuments (a la’ “Independence Day”) but suburbia. The battle scenes themselves are shot with skill and well thought out.  They echo “Black Hawk Down” not in the sense of blood and gore but in the sense they exist in real space and feature more ducking and dirt flying than explosions, slow-mo and fist-pumping. We’re never unsure what the soldiers are trying to accomplish in a scene because the camera isn’t afraid to show us the entirety of the fight instead merely alluding to it with shaky camera work. The aliens themselves are interesting in the sense we aren’t told much about them. Where are they from? Do they need our water because they’re carbon-based like us? Why do they have their armor forcefully grafted on? Are they slaves forced to fight? Movie doesn’t say. Instead it gives us something to think on in a film that is otherwise simply content on being a search & destroy, save & survive action film. It’s here that “Battle: LA” succeeds in being exciting.

While much of the script is devoted to saying things that I suppose are supposed to remind us how lucky we are have to such a vaunted military, which we are, it’s lead actor is the one who truly stands out. Eckhart is physically capable but also on the verge of retiring and not some hunk cut and pasted out of a “G.I. Joe” comic. His back-story is tragic but unfortunately rings true. Yet when he’s forced to perhaps comment and confront he doesn’t stray. Now isn’t the time is essentially what he tells his hesitant crew. He’s a good soldier and he knows it.

I wouldn’t argue with someone who didn’t enjoy “Battle: LA”. It’s not a very unique film (like “District 9”) but action films rarely are. Isn’t “The Losers” a take-off of “The A-Team”? The question remains then if the film isn’t original in its structure is it exciting in it’s’ execution. On that note “Battle: LA” more than fills the bill. As far as urban warfare-alien invasion (come to think of it, that is original description) films go it’s darn good…

…and to my cousin Megan and her husband Ryan: SEMPER-FI…I’d say you’re marines represented well here. This review is dedicated to people who do what you do.

The tone of a movie typically does not change so frequently. It dances around it’s conflict, its nature, it’s characters’ perception and then settles in while as a spectator you are aware of how the film’s tone is affecting your experience and opinion of it. Where “The Adjustment Bureau” succeeds so wildly as a film is in the constant fluctuation of this tone. The story is at it’s most basic a love story between a young senator played by Matt Damon and a young ballerina played by Emily Blunt. But going in we know not all is as it seems, because after all not many love stories carry such an ominous title. After a chance encounter at one of the senator’s early campaign functions where sparks fly between the two, we are waiting for the fates or something representing them to conspire to keep the pair apart. Then, sometime later the two bump into one another on a bus not having prior exchanged phone numbers. After trading digits, Damon the Senator-to-be is off to work where he opens a door to find men carrying lasers as they examine his frozen campaign manager. What’s their insidious nature? Well for starters they want that phone number.

One the film’s true marks of intelligence is that while we understand these “men”,  whom accost Damon and tell him it just isn’t happening between him and his muse, are all powerful yet we never quite know their nature. They work for a higher power known only as “the chairman” but do they represent a God and or some sort of deity with a stricter more self-serving agenda? They don’t appear to really want to hurt the young couple but they constantly warn Damon of the possible consequences of pursuing her further, and clearly have the means to deliver on those warnings. Three of these agents, will call them, are at the focus of the story. One is a sort of organizer of the senator’s fates (John Slattery of “Mad Men”), another is a possible enforcer of the limit’s of the pair’s free will (Terence Stamp) and the most affecting is a sort guardian angel (literally?) who is portrayed so calmly and effectively by Anthony Mackie.

Throughout the film, which takes place in a well-shot New York City, we are given hints as to a sort of classification of what the agents and their bosses actually are. I dare not go into detail. This is the sort of thing left for each individual viewer to have fun with and determine. This sort of label may simply only reside in our minds but it is crucial to the films unfolding. How else are we determine the morality of these “men” who claim to give us illusions of free will but ultimately steer humanity in a definite direction when we veer violently off course. Also essential to any story like this is whether or not we actually care about the persons falling in love. Thankfully Damon and Blunt have a great chemistry. He is believable as a senator with the simple ambition of improving conditions and she is refreshing as someone who doesn’t over value falling in love but realizes she still wants it because after all who doesn’t? Their chemistry together makes us fear their fates and even adds some humor to the grand proceedings. The skill of Anthony Mackie shouldn’t go overlooked as he advises Damon through his mysterious “conflict” with the agents. He gives us a humanity in a type of character we were sure wasn’t human at all. They may still not be, but Mackie shows that these “agents” have at very the least the capacity to emphasize with man’s struggles with his own perceptions of fate and destiny. We realize that not only do we fear for the couple but this particular “agent” too.

Caring about our characters is of the Number One importance in any movie and this is a movie that understands that. Director and Screenwriter George Nolfi’s “The Adjustment Bureau” understands a great many things. It knows it can’t break the rules it establishes for us in this sci-fi esque world. It’s tone carefully see-saws between the affection of a love story and unique grandeur of spirituality or science fiction. It never overstates but rather has confidence in it’s superb actors and unique story to affect us and make us care. On that note this adaptation of a short Phillip K. Dick story is one of the year’s best movies.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJ0TP4nTaE

I was a bit late to the Bridesmaids party, but I’m glad I finally got there. The way the film was promoted, as a sort of female version of The Hangover, really rubbed me the wrong way. I’ve also never really cottoned to Kristen Wiig’s particular brand of comedy. But the overwhelmingly positive critical reaction to the film inspired me to go check it out. Considering the dearth of well-done comedy films in recent months, it was a good choice.

 The film stars Wiig as Annie, a struggling single woman in her mid-30’s. Her business has gone under, she lives with a pair of obtuse English weirdoes, and her only romantic partner (Jon Hamm) could not care less about her. After Annie’s best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) chooses Annie as the maid of honor at her wedding, things start to unravel even further for her.

 The typically zany supporting characters are a huge boon to the film from a comedy perspective. The Office’s Ellie Kemper, Wendi McLendon-Covey, Rose Byrne, and former Gilmore Girls actress Melissa McCarthy star as the other bridesmaids and provide some solid laughs without being too far removed from reality, something that always annoys me in comedy films. Irish actor Chris O’Down plays Nathan Rhodes, the obligatory Kristen Wiig love interest, but manages to make a pretty bland role at least somewhat entertaining. The MVP amongst the cast, though, has to go to Melissa McCarthy as Meghan. Though the trailers make it seem like she’s simply aping Zach Galifanakis’ Hangover schtick, she actually shows some surprising depth as an actress. She also farts a lot.

 The film, directed by Paul Feig of Freaks and Geeks fame and co-written by Kristen Wigg, features an interesting combination of raunchy gags and introspective musings on the way friendships change as people get older. What it does better than your typical Judd Apatow film, though, is alternating raunch with pathos. Apatow films tend to be pretty goofy-until the last 20 minutes when things suddenly get very serious. This film weaves the two around each other in a way that both keeps things from getting too silly and prevents the rabble in the audience from getting bored.

I had two problems with the movie. The first is that Annie, the lead character, really is not very likable. She’s got an annoying “woe-is-me” type vide going on and, as Meghan points out, tends to blame the world for her problems rather than owning up to them. Wiig herself is a pretty charming woman, but her character does some inexplicable things that make it hard to really root for her completely.

My second problem is that the film is just a tad too formulaic. I understand that big-budget comedy films without much proven talent in front of the camera are going to be hesitant to take any risks, but the story was strong enough without having to resort to movie clichés, such as the whole love angle between Annie and Nathan Rhodes.

Final Analysis: Bridesmaids is a well done film that provides a lot of laughs while also making some good points about the challenges of friendships. Go see this movie while it’s still in theatres; I’d be shocked if a better comedy film came out this summer.

Grade: 8/10

Director: Kevin Munroe (TMNT)

Writers: Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer (based on the Italian comic book “Dylan Dog” by Tiziano Sclavi)

Starring: Brandon Routh as Dylan Dog, Sam Huntington as Marcus Adams, Anita Briem as Elizabeth Ryan and Peter Stormare as Gabriel

Describing Dylan Dog: Dead of Night for me is tough. I loved it! I really did. But, it just was not that good. There were good moments, nay, great moments. But overall, as a critic, I watched a film that didn’t finish storylines, had weak character development and suffered from mostly-unknown source material.

In New Orleans, Dylan Dog (Routh, Superman Returns) is a former private investigator who dealt with the wrongdoings of the supernatural (vampires, werewolves, zombies, etc.) until his finance was murdered by one of them. Now, he does work for husbands who expect their wives are cheating and insurance claims, the usual stuff, and tolerates his best friend Marcus (Huntington, also Superman Returns). Until a client, Lizzie (Briem, Journey to the

Brandon Routh stars as the titular PI in this supernatural action-comedy.

Center of the Earth), brings him a case that brings him back to his roots after her father is killed by something not so natural and a valuable unknown object is stolen. He has to deal with old friends (or enemies?) Gabriel (Stormare, Fargo), a werewolf, and club owner Vargas (Taye Diggs, RENT) along the way.

Easily the best parts of Dylan Dog are the eponymous title character and his sidekick/assistant/best friend Marcus. Routh, known for his portrayal of the Man of Steel in 2006’s underwhelming Superman Returns, is the driving force behind Dylan Dog. He plays the role mostly as a straight man, every once in a while (and always appropriately) diving into the funny man. Huntington, Routh’s best friend in real life, completes the duo with a wonderful comedic touch. When Routh earned the role of Dylan, he asked the producers to consider Huntington and found out that he had already been given the part.

And it works so well! Great one-liners! Great interactions! My personal favorite you can see part of in the trailer. Marcus becomes a zombie and must get his arm replaced. The arm he gets is a black man’s arm. The problem is that Marcus is Caucasian. Marcus exclaims his displeasure. Dylan replies, “It’s a loner. They were out of Caucasian in your size.” Another great one-liner that both Dylan and Marcus end up using, both when leaving a place, is “If I’m not back in an hour, call in a bomb scare.”

Great one-liners! I love them! But they never do anything with them! And there’s only five or six! The rest of the script is horrendous; you can pretty much guess everything that every character is going to say. A minor twist happened late in the film, but I totally saw it coming. The acting of Briem, Stormare, Diggs and wrestler Kurt Angle is horrendous. Briem especially is awful; she’s plastic, unemotional, uninterested, etc.

It’s too bad. The premise is a great one, I think. A human being the Sherlock Holmes of the supernaturals? That’s awesome!

But the execution is dreadful. I don’t know what director Kevin Munroe, whose uninspired direction may be the second-weakest thing about the film, was thinking while making this. If anything, it’s a good B-movie, a potential cult classic. The Italian critics ripped the film; Dylan Dog is based on a beloved Italian comic book series. Out of 18 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, only one is in any way positive: “Dylan Dog: Dead of Night’s not too mysterious; don’t take it too serious, and you’ll have a fine time” from Stacy Layne Wilson of Horror.com.

A great attitude to go into Dylan Dog: Dead of Night with, because that’s what you’re going to get: something not too serious and crappy, honestly. But Routh and Huntington, together and separate, will allow you to tolerate it.

Director: Neil Burger (The Illusionist)

Writer: Leslie Dixon (The Thomas Crown Affair) (based on the novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn)

Starring: Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morra, Robert De Niro as Carl Van Loon, Abbie Cornish as Lindy and Anna Friel as Melissa Gant

What if you had the power to use all your brain?

Ok, I feel like that’s how all those amateur critics started their reviews of Neil Burger’s latest film, Limitless. But really, I want to know, what would you do if you had the power to use all of your brain? Comment at the end.

Bradley Cooper plays a drug addict in Neil Burger's Limitless. Not the kind of drug you're thinking of, though.

Bradley Cooper, recent of The Hangover, plays Eddie Morra, a down-on-his-luck writer whose girlfriend Lindy broke up with him. He can’t get started on his book and is going to miss the deadline. He runs into Vernon Gant (Johnny Whitworth), his ex-brother-in-law, who offers him a sample of a drug called NZT-48, which allows users to use 100% of their brains. Eddie tries it out, finishes his book and seduces his landlord’s wife. Yippy yippy joy joy. When Eddie goes to Vernon for more, he finds his friend dead and a stash of the NZT-48. And a whole load of success. And a whole load of trouble. Just watch the trailer and you know.

The real problem with Limitless is its characters. Eddie is apparently a conflicted human being with a bunch of different decisions being made with a bunch of conflicting results. He sleeps with the landlord’s wife mere hours after being broken up with. He seduces several women while still claiming to be in love with Lindy. I don’t know if it’s Cooper’s portrayal or Dixon’s screenplay or the original material, but Eddie seems to be very apathetic overall. There’s not a lot of emotion overall through the film from Cooper, but he still manages to do a decent job.

Lindy and Eddie’s ex-wife Melissa seem to be casual additions to the screenplay, not really making much of a difference while attempting to be impact characters. Robert De Niro appears as a business executive who is supposed to be this ruthless boss of Eddie’s but really seems extraneous. The real villain is the addiction to NZT that Eddie develops.

The minimal props I give Limitless fall in its direction and its cinematography. Burger, probably best-known for the underrated (read: came out the same year as Christopher Nolan’s The Prestige with a similar-ish premise) The Illusionist with Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, keeps the audience entertained as much as he can. It looks painful, as the performances he gets from De Niro, Cornish, Whitworth and Friel (for all of three minutes or so) are pitiful and the script is worse. Jo Willems’ wacky cinematography at times intrigues the viewer to pay a little more attention.

But all that attention goes to waste. I started writing this review giving Limitless a B- review. Considering, however, that I gave Battle: Los Angeles a C+ and that was even more entertaining than this at times, I reconsidered. All because an intriguing premise is thrown to waste because of pointless characters and even worse acting.

Director: Duncan Jones (Moon)

Writer: Ben Ripley (first feature film script)

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal as Captain Colter Stevens, Michelle Monaghan as Christina Warren, Vera Farmiga as Colleen Goodwin and Jeffrey Wright as Dr. Rutledge

Well, first we’re doing Inception, now we’re entering the Source Code.

Unfortunately, Duncan Jones isn’t Christopher Nolan with Inception. Fortunately, he’s Christopher Nolan with The Prestige.

Source Code is this year’s Inception, a mind-bending, reality-duplicating film that relies on its intelligent script from freshman screenwriter Ben Ripley and strong lead performance from Jake Gyllenhaal. Yet the ending leaves us wanting more, or maybe questioning more.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Capt. Colter Stevens in Duncan Jones' sci-fi thriller Source Code.

Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) is, well, was a pilot for the US military before he woke up in a strange room with television screens. Oh wait, this is after he wakes up on a train as a person he doesn’t know talking a woman (Monaghan) he doesn’t know (but the guy he’s supposed to be knows), then dies in an explosion. He’s then talking to this lady in a uniform (Farmiga) in a chair with a headset on talking to him. Then there’s this wacky guy with a limp (a pitiful Wright) telling her what to do. Apparently he created the Source Code for this very moment: somebody blew up the train that Colter was “on” before and he has to find out who he was so they can stop a later explosion. Colter agrees to do this, but he also falls in love with the woman, Christina, complicating things since he repeats the 8 minutes he gets to find out over and over again. She forgets everything that happened because it didn’t happen. Also, she’s already dead.

Yes, a very convoluted premise. Blew my mind trying to figure out. But the great thing is that Duncan Jones, the director who impressed all critics with his debut picture Moon a couple years ago, crafts Source Code so that we understand most of it. Not all of it, mind you. I don’t think that’s the intention. But most of it. Jones steps out into the mainstream in a big way, creating more of a name for himself, not up there with Nolan, but there are bigger and brighter things to come. He is talking to Fox about replacing Darren Aronofsky for The Wolverine, the sequel to 2009’s mediocre X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

As I said before, the premise is very convoluted. But Ripley’s screenplay goes above and beyond with creativity, simplicity (despite the premise) and even a couple crazy twists. Gyllenhaal puts himself out there as a guy who can handle a little of sci-fi. He portrays all sides of the confused, competent, determined and tragic character of Colter Stevens. Farmiga and Monaghan play their parts well enough, while Wright comes out of left field with the pitiful performance of the wacky semi-villain Dr. Rutledge. I expected more, I suppose. And the ending, is a little iffy. Even a week and a half after seeing it, I don’t know exactly how I feel.

But that’s not to say that Source Code is a must-miss. In fact it’s quite the opposite. With Jones’ fantastic weaving of the story and Gyllenhaal’s emotional performance (a scene where he gets to talk to his dad as the guy on the train is moving), Source Code is most definitely the film of the year so far, despite the iffy conclusion to an otherwise entrancing movie experience.

I just posted a new movie review, this of Jonathan Liebesman’s Battle: Los Angeles! Click on the picture to see the review!

Director: Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning)

Writer: Christopher Bertolini (The General’s Daughter)

Starring: Aaron Eckhart as SSgt. Michael Nantz, Will Rothhaar as Cpl. Lee Imlay, Ramon Rodriguez as 2nd Lt. William Martinez and Michelle Rodriguez as TSgt. Elena Santos

The viral marketing bug bit again with Battle: Los Angeles, with the now popular date format of month.day.year. It really started with Cloverfield, so I came into Jonathan Liebesman’s much-hyped aliens-attack-the-earth movie expecting some shaky camera movements and crazy monsters/aliens. To be telling the honest truth, I’ve never seen Cloverfield, so I can’t say if the two are similar. But Battle: Los Angeles runs as your normal standard sci-fi action flick whose somewhat intriguing premise is followed up on poorly. It does well as the action film but it’s nothing else.

Aaron Eckhart stars as a Marine dealing with an alien invasion in Los Angeles in Jonathan Liebesman's Battle: Los Angeles.

Basically, aliens invade Los Angeles “masquerading” as meteors. The American military is called into action, particularly a unit of Marines. Among them are a veteran who is trying to phase himself out of the military after a particularly difficult last mission (Eckhart) and a new unit leader trying to prove himself (Ramon Rodriguez). The whole plot of the film is basically trying to kick them out.

And that’s where the script is weak. The whole concept of aliens invading Los Angeles is interesting in itself. I mean, think about where they could have gone. They could have made it a heart-wrenching character drama highlighted by stories of the soldiers and the civilians that didn’t get out in time. They could have made it the story of a veteran soldier trying to redeem himself from the mistakes he made on his last outing. They could have made it a District 9-type thing where they looked at the motivations of the aliens and the humans for their respective actions.

But director Liebesman and writer Bertolini don’t really take time to investigate any of those. If any, it’s the second. Aaron Eckhart’s Michael Nantz is the clear main character of this film. And despite the poor script and direction, Eckhart makes the movie watchable. Save for the first 45 minutes or so where Liebesman tries to build character backstories and fails, the guy who stepped into the mainstream as Two-Face in The Dark Knight brings a strong performance to a crappy movie. He’s a born leader, making those cheesy inspiration speeches somewhat bearable. Will Rothhaar turns in a solid performance as a Corporal in  Nantz’s unit. But other than that, all the acting is subpar, hurt so so much by the script.Even pop star Ne-Yo couldn’t do anything to save the film. Not that I expected anything from him or anything.

That’s what’s really too bad. Some actors turn in good performances that could have been great with a better script or better direction. Other films this year with that curse include I Am Number Four and Kevin Durand and Timothy Olyphant and Jamie Bell in The Eagle. But if you’re looking for a nice popcorn flick early in the year where there aren’t, well, any, Battle: Los Angeles suffices.

http://ericnovak21.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/movies-the-adjustment-bureau/

http://ericnovak21.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/movies-i-am-number-four/

Director: DJ Caruso (Disturbia)

Writer: Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Marti Noxon (based on the novel by Pittacus Lore)

Starring: Alex Pettyfer as John Smith/Number 4, Dianna Agron as Sarah Hart, Timothy Olyphant as Henri and Callan McAuliffe as Sam Goode

We’ve seen it before, and it’s too bad. The young actors in this film, paired with film and television veterans Kevin Durand (LOST) and Timothy Olyphant (Justified), should lead to something spectacular. But DJ Caruso, who helmed the excellent(ish) thrillers Disturbia and Eagle Eye, falls short in an attempt to adapt the successful young teen novel.

John Smith is one of an endangered species of alien who was transported to Earth from his home planet of Lorien to escape the attacking Mogadorians. Eight Lorien children escaped and can only be killed in numerical order. When his leg lights up after the third is killed, John and his guardian Henri move from Florida to Ohio. In Ohio, high-schooler John meets and becomes friends with Sarah, a reclusive amateur photographer whom he falls in love with, and Sam, a conspiracy theorist who is bullied at school. But trouble brews when the Mogadorians discover that John is in Ohio, and an epic adventure ensues.

While this film is incredibly predictable, it serves well for what it was supposed to be: a pre-teen/teenage boy’s action flick in February, where film business is slow. It’s got everything you need: action, cute girls (Number 6 is a girl played by Teresa Palmer, who’s easy on the eyes, if you know what I mean) to fall in love with and aliens. And Michael Bay, one of the producers on the project along with Steven Spielberg. With the effort Bay is supposedly putting into Transformers: Dark of the Moon, he may be gaining a bit of leverage in my book.

I Am Number Four thrives on the teen-alien angst of its lead, Alex Pettyfer, who is becoming a growing name in the film industry. In fact, his other film Beastly came out a mere two weeks later. He will star later this year in Now with other young stars Amanda Seyfried, Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy and Matt Bomer. Anyways, Pettyfer does a good job of portraying the material, which is weak enough that you can’t fault Pettyfer’s plastic acting because that’s who the character is. He’s two-dimensional in a two-dimensional character: kicking butt and being angry. Agron, whose turn as the popular-girl-in-school Quinn Fabray on Glee got me excited for this movie in the first place, plays a similar character in that she’s frustrated and screaming, because she’s just an outcast photographer. Olyphant and Durand make the best of their characters who are also weakly written, something we’ve seen before. Palmer’s an accented mess, while Jake Abel plays the school bully and Sarah’s ex-boyfriend to an A, A for average.

That script though. John falls in love with Sarah in a matter of three days or so. What? It’s saving grace that Sam is actually quite entertaining. The best line in the film comes when Sam kills a Mogadorian in the final battle. He says to Sarah, who witnesses that whole thing: “I play a lot of XBOX.”

In the end, that’s what I Am Number Four plays out to be: your average adaptation that would make your average decent action-adventure video game.

Director: DJ Caruso (Disturbia)

Writer: Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Marti Noxon (based on the novel by Pittacus Lore)

Starring: Alex Pettyfer as John Smith/Number 4, Dianna Agron as Sarah Hart, Timothy Olyphant as Henri and Callan McAuliffe as Sam Goode

We’ve seen it before, and it’s too bad. The young actors in this film, paired with film and television veterans Kevin Durand (LOST) and Timothy Olyphant (Justified), should lead to something spectacular. But DJ Caruso, who helmed the excellent(ish) thrillers Disturbia and Eagle Eye, falls short in an attempt to adapt the successful young teen novel.

John Smith is one of an endangered species of alien who was transported to Earth from his home planet of Lorien to escape the attacking Mogadorians. Eight Lorien children escaped and can only be killed in numerical order. When his leg lights up after the third is killed, John and his guardian Henri move from Florida to Ohio. In Ohio, high-schooler John meets and becomes friends with Sarah, a reclusive amateur photographer whom he falls in love with, and Sam, a conspiracy theorist who is bullied at school. But trouble brews when the Mogadorians discover that John is in Ohio, and an epic adventure ensues.

While this film is incredibly predictable, it serves well for what it was supposed to be: a pre-teen/teenage boy’s action flick in February, where film business is slow. It’s got everything you need: action, cute girls (Number 6 is a girl played by Teresa Palmer, who’s easy on the eyes, if you know what I mean) to fall in love with and aliens. And Michael Bay, one of the producers on the project along with Steven Spielberg. With the effort Bay is supposedly putting into Transformers: Dark of the Moon, he may be gaining a bit of leverage in my book.

I Am Number Four thrives on the teen-alien angst of its lead, Alex Pettyfer, who is becoming a growing name in the film industry. In fact, his other film Beastly came out a mere two weeks later. He will star later this year in Now with other young stars Amanda Seyfried, Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde, Cillian Murphy and Matt Bomer. Anyways, Pettyfer does a good job of portraying the material, which is weak enough that you can’t fault Pettyfer’s plastic acting because that’s who the character is. He’s two-dimensional in a two-dimensional character: kicking butt and being angry. Agron, whose turn as the popular-girl-in-school Quinn Fabray on Glee got me excited for this movie in the first place, plays a similar character in that she’s frustrated and screaming, because she’s just an outcast photographer. Olyphant and Durand make the best of their characters who are also weakly written, something we’ve seen before. Palmer’s an accented mess, while Jake Abel plays the school bully and Sarah’s ex-boyfriend to an A, A for average.

That script though. John falls in love with Sarah in a matter of three days or so. What? It’s saving grace that Sam is actually quite entertaining. The best line in the film comes when Sam kills a Mogadorian in the final battle. He says to Sarah, who witnesses that whole thing: “I play a lot of XBOX.”

In the end, that’s what I Am Number Four plays out to be: your average adaptation that would make your average decent action-adventure video game.

Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life (photo courtesy of: Kevin Jagernauth/The Playist)

The Tree of Life has been hyped about by cinephiles since the moment it was first announced. On monday, Empire magazine online reported that the U.K. would be the first country to have the film grace it’s big screens on May 4, 2011. But Hollywood Elsewhere has learned that this is not true.

Jill Jones, Summit’s senior vice-president of international markering and publicity released the statement to Hollywood Elsewhere:

”The information regarding the May 4th UK release is incorrect. Icon Film Distribution Ltd. does not have the right to distribute The Tree of Life in the UK, as it is in default of its agreement. The matter is pending before an arbitration tribunal in Los Angeles.”

The film started principal photography in 2008 but has been in post-production for nearly three years. Considering it was written and directed by the legendary Terrence Malick, then it’s hardly a surprise.

According to the official synopsis, the film “follows the life journey of impressionistic journey of a Midwestern family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldson son, Jack, through the innocense of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father.”

The cast if has two A-List stars in the main roles. The adult Jack is played by Sean Penn and his father, by Brad Pitt. Rising star Jessica Chastain plays the role of Jack’s mother.

While the synopsis sounds easy to understand, you only have to look at the captivating trailer to see the complexity of the film.

The film has two limited North American release dates on May 27, 2011 (U.S.) June 10, 2011 (Canada). It is also set to premiere at this year’s Cannes Film Festival in May.

Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Directed By: Jonathan Liebsman

Starring:

Michelle Rodriguez
Ramon Rodriguez
Bridget Moynahan
Ne-Yo
Michael Pena

Battle: Los Angeles is a film of epic proportion. It does not settle for anything less. It has an epic John Wayne hero in Aaron Eckhart. His  character concludes that he wants to leave the service, and epically says that all the promotions and the glory was an interest of  the past. The film has an epic young Platoon leader, Lieutenant that Michael Nantz. The film has epic aliens which are so various that we often think they came from a planet which was epically advanced. So advanced that they lack the usual lobes of the brain, and ordinary organs. They have an epic Command and Control which like an elevated island. The film has epic scenes of sacrifice from a to-be father and a civilian. It has epic close-ups filled with as much emotional intensity as a McDonald’s meal has calories. Aaron Eckhart looks at Corporal Jason Lockett, and epically remembers his fallen brothers information that you assume he had committed identity theft. It has an epically intriguing and well-developed hypothesis (NOT) about why the aliens are attacking the globe, and firstly Los Angeles. I may be the loner in this, but I believe they were hunting for Walt Disney’s Oscars.

Before  Staff Sargent Michael Nantz can retire, he must undergo this last mission which unlike his last, is larger than a middle eastern country-it involves the entire planet. Under young Lieutenant William Martinez, their Platoon is supposed to empty the city before the bomb raid against the belligerent aliens can begin. Unfamiliar with the enemy, obviously, this turns out to be a larger than life mission which the faith of the platoon is dependent on a handful of men.

The first paragraph was fun to write, but it also rings true about the spirit of this movie. This film is meant to be seen on a largescreen-theater or huge TV. The film maybe spends about a minute and a half giving us a half hearted hypothesis concerning the point of this invasion-from the view of a CNN correspondent. This film is visual candy. It is explosions of the highest order given to you from Jonathan Liebesman who in private must admire Michael Bay, or know that he is indebted to the master’s mindless action. Like Pearl Harbor which took itself too seriously, with its clichéd dialogue that was inspirational in the fifties, I believe that Battle: Los Angeles thinks it’s a love letter to the men and woman who serve selflessly, and with so much responsibilities back home are still willing to sacrifice their existence for their country and its glory. Like many similar films, this is wishful thinking. The film knows deep down it is their to entertain, and that’s all it does, and does it well. Very few films can escape my writer’s mind with such a minimal plot, and still make me enjoy them thoroughly. This does because of two elements: the swift, engaging action scenes, and Aaron Eckhart.

The film knows that the key to its success are the actions sequences, and it does not disappoint. The action is swift, fun, engaging, and often believable. No superhuman emerges that can put this aliens in their place-this is not a battle of wits versus brute identifiable power. From Nantz to the civilians, everyone is lucky and fortunate to survive. The film does not hide the fact that the alien forces are superior in their arsenal, and were it not for an eventual revelation from Nantz, they would destroy us and inhabit our planet. To its most minute details, the film is realistic about the faith of our characters. Michael Nantz does not survive because he is superior to the rest of the Platoon, but besides being and courageous side, he was very lucky. So, were the rest of the survivors. However, even the men who are unlucky, pass on because of their bravery. Were it not for courage, Joe Rincon would have darted out of the alien’s way, and grown old watching his son become an adult. He chose the less glamorous way, but one which showcased his selflessness in front of everyone.

The other element is the indispensible Aaron Eckhart. On a review of Basic Instinct 2, Roger Ebert said (I’m paraphrasing) that only someone of Sharon Stone’s caliber could play this cardboard seductress. In the same vain, I don’t believe anyone but Eckhart could stare into the camera and deliver his lines with so much enthusiasm and seriousness. It is not often difficult to be authentic in serious drama, but when dealing with a cheesy alien invasion like this, only an absolutely phenomenal actor can pull of a good and convincing performance. Besides being emotionally suitable for the role, Eckhart disheveled look also fits a man who tired of conflict and war, is sprung into of the most barbarous military encounters. The other performances, including Michele Rodríguezes’, are also authentic, but the weight of the film is on the shoulder’s of Eckhart.

Though the film at times takes itself too seriously, deep down it knows who its out to service and entertain, and it delivers for the audience. Critics have not been harsh on this film, for there are serious gaps in the plot, to be honest. For example, the alien’s reasons for invading earth is not implausible, but it so marginally discussed that one tends to believe that it seems to be taken from the first draft. However, I don’t believe that the makers were oblivious to the problems, but they seem to have embraced the shortcomings. Often when filmmakers embrace underdeveloped aspects of the script, and emphasize other secondary elements, it can come off as lazy and boorish. Yet, here, the action is so well done, and the characters are so believably cheesy, that it appears like they hit their goal of entertaining the masses on a Saturday afternoon.

Directed by: Debra Granik

Starring:

Jennifer Lawrence
John Hawkes
Lauren Sweetser
Garret Dillahunt
Dale Dickey

Imagine if you relatives, close and distant, where to settle within the proximity to each other, did drugs to the point of excess, made and sold Methamphetamine, used firearms in treating any nagging conflict between each other, and still were relatively poor. Winter’s Bone contains many characters that are conflicted by the above conditions, and as far as the film lacks any observable redeemable condition. They all are family, but in their midst it would be better to be a stranger, or best never to come in contact.

Winter’s Bone centers on Ree Dolly who in the absence of her father and the sickness of her mother, has to keep after her little sister and brother. Life is not easy as Ree’s family lacks many of the basic necessities of life that her family and neighbors benefit from, such as food and hay for the horses. Her neighbor always pitches in to help her out with such basic needs, but isn’t without her own intrusiveness about the affairs of the family. Despite the ardous conditions of life on the field, they live contently until an incident threatens to alter matters for the worst. It seems that their father who has been arrested multiple times for his illegal production and utilizing of Methamphetamine has put the house on bail and failed to appear for his hearing. If the family does not find him in time, they will lose their property. Ree sets out to find her father before they are thrown out of their house; a task she must be complete in less than a week.

Finding her father should not be the issue as the people he associates himself are fellowfamily members, but these people are not willing to reveal anything as it may be used against them in a legal context. Their unwillingness infuriates Ree as these are not only the only sources she can trace toward her father, but also because many of these people are close relatives of her father, such as Teardrop who is his brother. The family members are so coldly removed from each other that Ree must remember them that they are family, and that this must count for some level of trust. The Dolly family are so emotionally distant that a distasteful or insulting act by one member could entice close relatives to physically harm him. Everyone of may have inherited the surname, but their safety lies in their actions. This families safety and freedom does not lie in the hand of the Police, considering the amount of illegal activities they commit, but in the hands of the more powerful members of the family. No one dares to cross paths with the “Chief” of the Dolly family, as his large army of minions has enough power to crush any member of the family that he wishes. The Dolly family is not unlike the Mafia where one person rules, the Don, and the inferior men are continuously trying to ascend in rank. Unlike the Mob , however, a  large majority of the Dolly family are forever condemned to remain inferior. The treatment of the woman is deplorable as it is implied that their only concerns should be within the kitchen and the bedroom.

Jeniffer Lawrence’s portrayal of Ree is central to the film’s success as her presence makes the title character seem so empowered and determined to solve this mystery. She stares in the camera with such confidence that the idea that she has raised herself and her siblings seems convincing; her demeanor also suggests that her mother’s sickness is nothing new but it has been an ongoing condition. Lawrence is especially brilliant in some  very masculine moments of the film, such as a scene involving skinning of squirrels and teaching her siblings in using a rifle. Much credit is also due to Director/screenwriter Debra Granik who shows Ree’s inability to solve this case on her alone, and eventual surrender in the face of all the hardship that the Police and her family hurl in her direction. Granik has no intent to show Ree as a cowardly character, rather suggesting that without her family’s help she is quite helpless and must concede defeat.

This is a deftly created product where the insubstantial plot succeeds in seeming much more complex than it turns out to be. Winter’s Bone owes its success to its approach which familiarizes the audience with few admirable characters who trying to accomplish this not so easy task among the numerous villainous family members who are willing to do anything to prevent Ree from finding her father. The film is so captivating in its unique mood and atmosphere that its virtually nonexistent plot is only recognized near the conclusion. As unbelievablynd  odd and unlikely as the ending of the film may be, its bittersweet nature is as Dolly as Granik could have achieved.

I don’t know what Priyanka Chopra has to do with Bhangra, but I guess this party does coincide with the release of 7 Khoon Maaf so it’s all good. Oh yeah, there will be no 5 River Beat tonight because I’ll be at this event. But make sure you check out the program next week…the show will feature new material from DJ Vix and the Dhol Foundation.

…I wonder if this Bhangra event was named after the Deepak Khazanchi albums…I doubt it. If you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about…Khazanchi was the man behind Diamonds from Heera.

Here’s the trailer for 7 Khoon Maaf. I haven’t seen the trailer myself because trailers tend to ruin films and I am super-excited for this one.

Justin Bieber stars in this biopic/documentary/concert film in 3D.

Grade: B+

Director: Jon Chu (Step Up 3D)

Starring: Justin Bieber as Himself, Usher as Himself, Scooter Braun as Himself and Pattie Mallette as Herself

“Oh/saw so many pretty faces before I saw you/Now all I see is you/I’m coming for you/Don’t need these other pretty faces like I need you/And when you’re mine in the world/There’s gonna be one less lonely girl.”

Justin Bieber is an icon. An American icon. An all-American icon reminiscent of Elvis Presley with the way teenage girls fall at his feet when they see him or hear his music. There is no denying it. And whether you, the reader, like it or not, he will be for a long time.

The rise of the guy responsible for what is commonly known as “Bieber Fever” is chronicled in Jon Chu’s biopic-documentary-concert film Justin Bieber: Never Say Never.

The film follows Bieber’s My World 2.0 Tour in the two weeks leading up to his sold-out show at Madison Square Garden, flashing between that, the story of his emergence onto the world stage through YouTube and the show at MSG itself. We learn about Bieber’s mother, who was left by Justin’s father within a year of Justin’s birth, introducing her son to music through friends and later posting him singing on YouTube. We learn about Scooter Braun, Bieber’s manager who found him on YouTube and persisted until he had signed the kid, who was 12 years old at the time. We learn about Usher, who signed Justin to a major record deal at such a young age. But most importantly to Chu, we learn about the 16-year old himself: his life on tour, his life off tour, his family, his friends, his love for music.

The best part about Never Say Never is by far the musical performances taken from that sold-out show at MSG. Not only are the songs beautifully shot, the 3D actually makes you feel like you’re there! Unlike any 3D movie I’ve ever seen, Never Say Never actually puts you on-stage with the Biebs, in the crowd and backstage with Braun and Usher, who attended the concert and made an appearance when Bieber sang his hit “Somebody to Love.”  The music is very well-captured as well; again, it makes you feel like you’re actually there.

The overall presentation of the documentary is great as well. Chu crafts the film so that we see Tweets, YouTube videos, home videos and even a funny mid-film interruption by Bieber and Braun, yet Never Say Never flows smoothly.

What makes up the emotional part of the film is the numerous pre-teen and teenage girls that scream, cry and fawn at the Bieb’s sight or song. This was something that kept me from actually liking the kid when he first got big. But seeing how him looking at them or talking to them made them happy made me realize something. Braun put it best when he said that he and the Extreme Home Makeover guys have the best jobs in the world, making people happy.

So I make this review end with a call to all the haters out there. Yeah, he’s 16. Yeah, he has a somewhat high-pitched voice. Yeah, he may not dress like your normal teenager. But please step off your high horse and realize something. He makes people happy and doesn’t want to let anyone down. Leading up to the MSG concert, he had a throat problem and had to postpone tour dates. It clearly affected him, as he said, “I don’t want to let them down,” “them” being the fans. They showed him going up to a girl playing the violin on the same steps he used to play the guitar and give her money and encouragement. He is still a kid. He still hangs out with his friends from his hometown in Stratford, Ontario, Canada. He plays around with Braun and his security and his posse. He develops relationships with them and his vocal coach, a motherly figure who is firm with him, even though he is a celebrity.

You haters: stop. Please. You make judgements on the kid without knowing. See the movie with an open mind and talk to me again. Until then, I don’t wanna hear it.

Check out Justin Bieber: Never Say Never in theaters now. And make sure to see the 3D, it’s worth it.

Author’s Note: Originally, I gave this film an A-. I changed my grade to a B+ after long consideration. Considering that my top 10 films from last year included 4 or 5 A- films, it only makes sense that I would reconsider.

Justin Bieber stars in this biopic/documentary/concert film in 3D.

Grade: B+

Director: Jon Chu (Step Up 3D)

Starring: Justin Bieber as Himself, Usher as Himself, Scooter Braun as Himself and Pattie Mallette as Herself

“Oh/saw so many pretty faces before I saw you/Now all I see is you/I’m coming for you/Don’t need these other pretty faces like I need you/And when you’re mine in the world/There’s gonna be one less lonely girl.”

Justin Bieber is an icon. An American icon. An all-American icon reminiscent of Elvis Presley with the way teenage girls fall at his feet when they see him or hear his music. There is no denying it. And whether you, the reader, like it or not, he will be for a long time.

The rise of the guy responsible for what is commonly known as “Bieber Fever” is chronicled in Jon Chu’s biopic-documentary-concert film Justin Bieber: Never Say Never.

The film follows Bieber’s My World 2.0 Tour in the two weeks leading up to his sold-out show at Madison Square Garden, flashing between that, the story of his emergence onto the world stage through YouTube and the show at MSG itself. We learn about Bieber’s mother, who was left by Justin’s father within a year of Justin’s birth, introducing her son to music through friends and later posting him singing on YouTube. We learn about Scooter Braun, Bieber’s manager who found him on YouTube and persisted until he had signed the kid, who was 12 years old at the time. We learn about Usher, who signed Justin to a major record deal at such a young age. But most importantly to Chu, we learn about the 16-year old himself: his life on tour, his life off tour, his family, his friends, his love for music.

The best part about Never Say Never is by far the musical performances taken from that sold-out show at MSG. Not only are the songs beautifully shot, the 3D actually makes you feel like you’re there! Unlike any 3D movie I’ve ever seen, Never Say Never actually puts you on-stage with the Biebs, in the crowd and backstage with Braun and Usher, who attended the concert and made an appearance when Bieber sang his hit “Somebody to Love.”  The music is very well-captured as well; again, it makes you feel like you’re actually there.

The overall presentation of the documentary is great as well. Chu crafts the film so that we see Tweets, YouTube videos, home videos and even a funny mid-film interruption by Bieber and Braun, yet Never Say Never flows smoothly.

What makes up the emotional part of the film is the numerous pre-teen and teenage girls that scream, cry and fawn at the Bieb’s sight or song. This was something that kept me from actually liking the kid when he first got big. But seeing how him looking at them or talking to them made them happy made me realize something. Braun put it best when he said that he and the Extreme Home Makeover guys have the best jobs in the world, making people happy.

So I make this review end with a call to all the haters out there. Yeah, he’s 16. Yeah, he has a somewhat high-pitched voice. Yeah, he may not dress like your normal teenager. But please step off your high horse and realize something. He makes people happy and doesn’t want to let anyone down. Leading up to the MSG concert, he had a throat problem and had to postpone tour dates. It clearly affected him, as he said, “I don’t want to let them down,” “them” being the fans. They showed him going up to a girl playing the violin on the same steps he used to play the guitar and give her money and encouragement. He is still a kid. He still hangs out with his friends from his hometown in Stratford, Ontario, Canada. He plays around with Braun and his security and his posse. He develops relationships with them and his vocal coach, a motherly figure who is firm with him, even though he is a celebrity.

You haters: stop. Please. You make judgements on the kid without knowing. See the movie with an open mind and talk to me again. Until then, I don’t wanna hear it.

Check out Justin Bieber: Never Say Never in theaters now. And make sure to see the 3D, it’s worth it.

Author’s Note: Originally, I gave this film an A-. I changed my grade to a B+ after long consideration. Considering that my top 10 films from last year included 4 or 5 A- films, it only makes sense that I would reconsider.

Channing Tatum and Jamie Bell's master-slave relationship is the conflict in Kevin Macdonald's swords-and-sandals film The Eagle.

The Eagle

Grade: D-

Director: Kevin Macdonald (State of Play)

Writer: Jeremy Brock (co-writer of The Last King of Scotland)

Starring: Channing Tatum as Marcus Aquila, Jamie Bell as Esca, Donal Sutherland as Uncle Aquila and Mark Strong as Guern

Last year, a film was released called Centurion. Directed by horror master Neil Marshall, the film chronicled the demise of the Ninth Legion of the Roman army in Caledonia in ancient Briton. While being a very poorly done film, Michael Fassbender was great and the action was exciting enough.

This year, The Eagle tells the story of a man and his slave who go to find the legion or any remains of them. While not an official sequel, The Eagle is a film with similar poor filmmaking techniques yet fails to entertain with either its script or its actors or its action.

Tatum plays Marcus Flavius Aquilla, a Roman centurion whose father was the leader of the lost ninth Roman legion, symbolized by a gold eagle on a carried standard. In recovery after being seriously injured defending a fort he recently took command of, Marcus saves a slave from death in the gladiatorial ring. The slave, named Esca (Bell), is purchased for Marcus by his uncle (Sutherland). Inspired by Roman Senators who don’t believe the Eagle can be returned and that his father’s failure has doomed Marcus to eternal shame, the centurion and his slave, from two different cultures and classes, take off towards Briton to find the Eagle, which has rumored to have been seen in that northern area.

It is hard to imagine that a film based on historical legend, featuring talented(ish) young actors and a good director like Macdonald could be so dreadful. The problems begin in the script,  a script that deserves a Razzie. Everything that scriptwriter Brock and Macdonald made these poor guys say make me wonder how this movie even got made in the first place. I mean, I know that it’s early February and its a swords-and-sandals epic. Those usually do alright, right? On Saturday and Friday, The Eagle made approximately $8.58 million. That sounds decent, doesn’t it? Well, when the leading box-office draw of the week, the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Aniston comedy Just Go With It, made $31 million in the same time span, you have to wonder.

Maybe it was the timing, maybe it was the poor script, maybe it was the subpar acting. I’ve now seen four movies with Channing Tatum in them, and if I did like them it was not because of him. Jamie Bell won a BAFTA for his titlular role in Billy Elliot and was outstanding in his last film, Edward Zwick’s Defiance (a great film with Daniel Craig and Liev Schrieber set during World War II in Poland). He was maybe the best part of The Eagle, but that’s not saying a whole lot. As I sit here, I’m still trying to figure out if the acting was bad because the actors did a poor job or what the script made them say was horrific.

Regardless, I would recommend seeing something OTHER than The Eagle if you go to the movies. Even if you like action movies. The action scenes in the film were maybe two or three minutes long each time and very anti-climactic.

Down to its core, The Eagle has a tough time deciding exactly what it is. It goes back and forth between being a morality tale about the equality of all men and all cultures and being an action movie with a “touching” father-son storyline. That indecision contributed to the poor script in making The Eagle one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

Channing Tatum and Jamie Bell's master-slave relationship is the conflict in Kevin Macdonald's swords-and-sandals film The Eagle.

The Eagle

Grade: D-

Director: Kevin Macdonald (State of Play)

Writer: Jeremy Brock (co-writer of The Last King of Scotland)

Starring: Channing Tatum as Marcus Aquila, Jamie Bell as Esca, Donal Sutherland as Uncle Aquila and Mark Strong as Guern

Last year, a film was released called Centurion. Directed by horror master Neil Marshall, the film chronicled the demise of the Ninth Legion of the Roman army in Caledonia in ancient Briton. While being a very poorly done film, Michael Fassbender was great and the action was exciting enough.

This year, The Eagle tells the story of a man and his slave who go to find the legion or any remains of them. While not an official sequel, The Eagle is a film with similar poor filmmaking techniques yet fails to entertain with either its script or its actors or its action.

Tatum plays Marcus Flavius Aquilla, a Roman centurion whose father was the leader of the lost ninth Roman legion, symbolized by a gold eagle on a carried standard. In recovery after being seriously injured defending a fort he recently took command of, Marcus saves a slave from death in the gladiatorial ring. The slave, named Esca (Bell), is purchased for Marcus by his uncle (Sutherland). Inspired by Roman Senators who don’t believe the Eagle can be returned and that his father’s failure has doomed Marcus to eternal shame, the centurion and his slave, from two different cultures and classes, take off towards Briton to find the Eagle, which has rumored to have been seen in that northern area.

It is hard to imagine that a film based on historical legend, featuring talented(ish) young actors and a good director like Macdonald could be so dreadful. The problems begin in the script,  a script that deserves a Razzie. Everything that scriptwriter Brock and Macdonald made these poor guys say make me wonder how this movie even got made in the first place. I mean, I know that it’s early February and its a swords-and-sandals epic. Those usually do alright, right? On Saturday and Friday, The Eagle made approximately $8.58 million. That sounds decent, doesn’t it? Well, when the leading box-office draw of the week, the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Aniston comedy Just Go With It, made $31 million in the same time span, you have to wonder.

Maybe it was the timing, maybe it was the poor script, maybe it was the subpar acting. I’ve now seen four movies with Channing Tatum in them, and if I did like them it was not because of him. Jamie Bell won a BAFTA for his titlular role in Billy Elliot and was outstanding in his last film, Edward Zwick’s Defiance (a great film with Daniel Craig and Liev Schrieber set during World War II in Poland). He was maybe the best part of The Eagle, but that’s not saying a whole lot. As I sit here, I’m still trying to figure out if the acting was bad because the actors did a poor job or what the script made them say was horrific.

Regardless, I would recommend seeing something OTHER than The Eagle if you go to the movies. Even if you like action movies. The action scenes in the film were maybe two or three minutes long each time and very anti-climactic.

Down to its core, The Eagle has a tough time deciding exactly what it is. It goes back and forth between being a morality tale about the equality of all men and all cultures and being an action movie with a “touching” father-son storyline. That indecision contributed to the poor script in making The Eagle one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

Released on January 14, 2011