Lawless and Tom Hardy's Dichotomies and Paradoxes

Lawless (2012)

Directed by John Hillcoat 

Written by Nick Cave

Starring Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Gary Oldman, Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Guy Pearce

Release Date August 29th, 2012 

'Lawless' and Tom Hardy's Dichotomies and Paradoxes

Sean Patrick

Sean Patrick, Yahoo Contributor Network

Aug 27, 2012

MORE:Tinker Tailor Soldier SpyLawlessTom HardyNick CaveThe Weinstein Company

FlagPost a comment

Tom Hardy returns to theaters this week in "Lawless." The story of legendary 1920's bootleggers The Bondurant Brothers, "Lawless" is the latest violent epic from the team of director John Hillcoat and writer Nick Cave ("The Proposition").

In an interview released by The Weinstein Company, the film's distributor, Tom Hardy talked about why accepted the role of Forrest Bondurant in "Lawless"

"I take characters as they come that interest me… that have scope and diversity; different ranges and colors and characteristics that are interesting and I find paradoxes and dichotomies of man."

Here is a look at how this philosophy has influenced Hardy as his star has risen in Hollywood; his most diverse and fascinating 'paradoxes and dichotomies.'

"Bronson"

Hardy's break out role is among the most fearsome and daring introductions of any actor, I have ever seen. "Bronson" is all about performance and Hardy commands the screen with such vigor that he damn near wins you over toward admiring his utterly psychotic character; based on a real life English criminal who's been in prison for nearly his entire adult life. Here Hardy finds a wonderful dichotomy a man of complete charm who is utterly incapable of putting that charm to good use and instead becomes a violent sociopath.

"Inception"

As a reaction to the grit of his "Bronson" character Hardy chose to show off his dashing handsome side in the brilliant, Oscar nominated Christopher Nolan movie "Inception." Hardy's Eames is a chameleon who in the world of this movie can enter people's dreams and become just about anyone. Here Hardy in a supporting role explores the paradox of a man who can become anyone yet is fully self-assured and comfortable with who he really is.

"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

In the quiet English thriller "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" Hardy is once again a chameleon. As Ricki Tarr, a British spy charged with dangerous, often very violent tasks, Hardy plays the dichotomy of a man with no identity who finds himself in love for the first time and wishing he could reveal who he really is. When the love of Ricki's life is taken from him his identity becomes further fractured and he becomes even more dangerous. In any other movie this would lead to fights but in tight lipped, close to the vest style of British intelligence Ricki's dangerous side is expressed through the other characters and their concern for how his sanity might affect their well-being.

"Warrior"

The struggle for identity is once again central to Hardy's work in the family drama "Warrior." In the real life story of two brothers who rise through the ranks of Mixed Martial Arts to face each other for a championship prize Hardy plays a heroic former soldier who is eager for no one to know of his heroism. His reasons for hiding who is would constitute a spoiler so I will not delve to deeply there. That struggle however plays strongly opposite the other pain that drives him; the pain derived from his broken childhood. These two competing pains drive Tommy to feel little pain when he's fighting, yet another fascinating paradox.

"The Dark Knight Rises"

The paradoxes of Hardy's Bane in "The Dark Knight Rises" requires more spoilers than I am comfortable revealing even with a film that's already been seen most of the world. I can tell you that Hardy's unique magnetism and charisma shot through the prism of a sociopath every bit as dangerous as his 'Charlie Bronson' is a paradox every bit as interesting as the character touches the film adds to Bane late in the film.

"Lawless"

In his latest film, Hardy enjoys the notion of Forrest Bondurant as a naïve, almost childlike man who is capable of horrendous violence. At once innocent and dangerous, Hardy's Forrest is just the kind of mixture of warring characteristics that have driven Hardy throughout his rise to stardom.

Movie Review The Darkest Hour

The Darkest Hour (2017) 

Directed by Joe Wright 

Written by Anthony McCarten 

Starring Gary Oldman, Kristen Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ben Mendelsohn 

Release Date November 22nd, 2017 

With the release of the movie Darkest Hour starring Gary Oldman, there has been a new reckoning with the legacy of Sir Winston Churchill, one that has brought to light some of Churchill’s more horrific qualities. On his podcast Revisionist History, journalist Malcolm Gladwell reflected on Churchill with specific criticisms about the legendary Prime Minister’s policies toward India, policies that many feel were driven by Churchill’s Hitler-like disdain for the Indian people. Then there was the policy of strategic bombing in Germany which may have actually extended the war by two more years even as Churchill is recalled as that war’s great, heroic leader.

There is also talk of Churchill’s treatment of black people and women, none of it flattering. These revelations have cast a pall over the legacy of one of largest and most vaunted figures of the 20th Century. Thus, the release of a movie which chooses to focus on making the Prime Minister's legacy more suitably entertaining, it’s natural to cast a side eye at such a movie. Or one may be driven to madness trying to balance the notion that Darkest Hour is a very good film but one which aims its greatness at a figure who may not be so great, or at the very least, not worthy of such historic hagiography.

May 1940

Darkest Hour stars the inimitable Gary Oldman in the role of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The story picks up in May of 1940 in first days in which Mr. Churchill inherited the office of Prime Minister from the deposed Neville Chamberlain. Churchill was no one’s first choice, a suspicion confirmed by King Edward (Ben Mendelsohn) early in the film when he asks why Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane), his choice for Prime Minister, had passed on the job.

Churchill is the only candidate that both parties in Parliament will accept as a war time Prime Minister, despite what the King describes as a litany of military failures dating back to World War 1. Even with Churchill being offered and accepting the position, it’s barely a day before backbiting and jockeying for position to replace him begins, all the while Europe is falling quickly as German Panzer tanks decimate Holland and Belgium and begin an assault on France that will eventually lead to the beaches of Dunkirk and England’s "finest hour."

Find my full length review on the Geeks Community on Vocal 

Movie Review The Hitman's Bodyguard

The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) 

Directed by Patrick Hughes 

Written by Tom O'Connor 

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Salma Hayek, Gary Oldman, Richard E. Grant 

Release Date August 18th, 2017 

Published August 17th, 2017

The Hitman’s Bodyguard is a very divisive film. Not because it has any challenging themes but rather because it is both a laugh riot and quite a bad movie. At once, The Hitman’s Bodyguard is very, quite intentionally, funny and quite poorly directed. I call the film divisive not because audiences will either love or loathe the film in equal measure but rather because I am divided personally by the fact that I repeatedly laughed quite loud during the film and by the fact that the film’s green screen effects, storytelling, and casting are so shoddy that at times I physically wretched.

Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson co-star in The Hitman’s Bodyguard, with Jackson as the hitman and Reynolds as the bodyguard (the too clever by half poster parodies the Whitney Houston-Kevin Costner movie). Jackson is the world’s most wanted hitman, Darius Kincaid. He’s been captured by Interpol after they arrested his wife, Sonia (Salma Hayek) and threatened to hold her in prison until he turned himself and testified against world renowned terrorist and Belarussian dictator Vladislav Dukovich (Gary Oldman, so bored of this role he can barely keep his terrible makeup job from falling off from his obvious, repeated eye-rolling).

When Interpol is compromised by the single most obvious mole in history, played by Joachim De Almeida, who might as well walk around with TRAITOR tattooed to his forehead, Agent Amelia Roussel (Elodie Yung) calls in her ex-boyfriend, Michael Bryce (Reynolds) to take Darius to court. Naturally, this court happens to be all the way across Europe and the two mismatched pals must road trip through Vlad’s terrorist gang to get to their destination.

Yeah, this plot is terrible, ludicrously, painfully obvious and extremely played out. The Hitman’s Bodyguard is forced, clichéd, and predictable to the point of torture for anyone who’s seen more than one movie in their lifetime. Director Patrick Hughes then makes matters worse by topping his bad plot with even worse direction, including special effects that make the rear-projection in Saturday Night Live skits look great by comparison.

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Classic Movie Review True Romance

True Romance (1993) 

Directed by Tony Scott

Written by Quentin Tarentino

Starring Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Gary Oldman, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Wallker, Dennis Hopper 

Release Date September 10th, 1993 

Published September 13th, 2023 

True Romance is a mixed bag. On one hand, it's an entertaining crime thriller. On the other hand, 30 years after its release, and despite coming out before Quentin Tarantino became one of the most iconic and influential writer-directors of all time, it has the feel of off-brand Tarantino. True Romance, 30 years later plays like one of several hundred movies that tried to be a Tarantino movie and failed. This is despite having Tarantino as the film's screenwriter of True Romance. Something about Tarantino's unique way with words coming out of characters being shaped by another director, makes everything feel just a little... off. 

True Romance stars Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette as a most unlikely pair of lovers. Alabama (Arquette) is a sex worker who has been hired to seduce Clarence (Slater) as a birthday present from Clarence's boss. It's clear to us, if not to Clarence, that she's too good to be true. She meet cutes with Clarence at a Sonny Chiba triple feature at a sleazy L.A theater. She's the only woman in the theater and is clearly going out of her way to meet Clarence. She flirts with the intensity of someone learning to be an actor in a bad romantic comedy. She even seems to listen intently as Clarence tells her about his favorite comic book. 

Nevertheless, the ruse works on Clarence and the two have a great time together. Alabama even had fun, even as she was faking just about everything. This leads her to guiltily confess that she was hired to be his date and show him a good time. When Clarence says he's not bothered by this revelation at all, Alabama tells him that she's in love with him and he responds in kind. Thus is born a marriage proposal as these two unlikely souls tie the knot and set about a life together. Nagging at Clarence however, is Alabama's past, which includes an abusive pimp that Clarence feels he must confront in a misguided attempt to defend her honor. 

Said pimp is a vicious killer named Drexl Spivey (Gary Oldman). Drexl is introduced having a deeply lascivious conversation about oral sex before he murders two of the men he's been chatting with, including a well-dressed Samuel L. Jackson in less than a cameo appearance. Drexl is not a man who plays nice, and Clarence appears completely out of his depth in confronting him. Nevertheless, Clarence manages to not only kill Drexl but also steal more than a million dollars worth of cocaine in the process. Rather than be put off by Clarence's multiple murders, Alabama says the act is the most romantic thing anyone has ever done for her and their fates are sealed. 

The remaining plot of True Romance shifts to Los Angeles where Clarence and Alabama hook up with an old friend of Clarence's, an actor named Dick (Michael Rappaport. Clarence assumes that because his old friend is an actor that he will know who in Hollywood will buy more than a million dollars in cocaine for a fraction of the price. That he turns out to actually have that connection in Hollywood is a very funny circumstance, one symbolic of the tone that Tarantino's script is going for, though not exactly in line with the strengths of director Tony Scott who seems to miss just how funny this coincidence is. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Classic Movie Review The Fifth Element

The Fifth Element (1997) 

Directed by Luc Besson

Written by Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen

Starring Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Gary Oldman, Chris Tucker

Release Date May 7th, 1997 

I love the way Luc Besson views the universe. Besson sees the universe in bright bold colors. It’s the way I would like to view the universe. While my mind is often clouded by the often sad and tragic state of humanity, and especially man’s inhumanity to man, Besson manages to look beyond and see the beauty beyond our planet and into the stars.

The best example of how Luc Besson sees the universe, aside from his dazzling yet somewhat empty new film Valerian and the Planet of A Thousand Cities, is the 1997 film The Fifth Element, this week’s classic on the I Hate Critics movie review podcast.

The Fifth Element was well ahead of its time, a sci-fi movie filled with vibrant color, extraordinary costumes, and remarkable, often mind-blowing, special effects and production design.

If only that same vibrancy extended to the characters. You see, for as much as I am dazzled by the spectacle, the visual dynamism of Luc Besson and The Fifth Element, he’s not a director who is particularly interested in characters. Besson, though thoroughly detailed in costumes and set design and special effects, is not a director of actors.

Read my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Movie Review: A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol (2009) 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

Written by Robert Zemeckis 

Starring Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright, Carey Elwes

Release Date November 6th, 2009 

Published November 5th, 2009

Words associated with Robert Zemeckis's endeavor into CGI, Motion Capture and Digital 3D: Groundbreaking, lifelike, extraordinary, creepy, scary, goofy, rubbery. Opinions have varied on the success of the now three films that Mr. Zemeckis has crafted with his unique technical skills and toys. The Polar Express was magical in story but creepy in rendering. Beowulf was masterful in many technical aspects and still skin-crawlingly awkward in others. Now comes A Christmas Carol and again opinions vary.

Charles Dickens' legendary tale of skinflint turned softy Ebenezer Scrooge is among the most famous holiday tales ever told. There are numerous adaptations featuring as varied a group of players as Kelsey Grammar, Bill Murray even the Muppets who have given life to Scrooge over the years since Dickens popularized the concept of karmic retribution for lack of being charitable. Disney turned him into a duck. Children, even today, can recite the basics of the story from memory.

On Christmas Day the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his late business partner Jakob Marley. He is told that he will be visited by three ghosts. Indeed, haunted he is by the ghosts Christmas past, present and future. Each offers a lesson to Scrooge that if he does not change his miserly ways he will not be mourned by anyone, he will die penniless and alone. Reformed by this experience, Scrooge buys a giant Christmas goose for his longtime, terribly put upon assistant, Bob Cratchit and pays the medical bills of Bob's son Tiny Tim. Scrooge also, finally, attends the Christmas of his loving, kind nephew Fred. 

Dickens' tale is brilliant in its simplicity. But, why bring A Christmas Carol back again? According to Director Zemeckis it was one of his favorite stories of all time. All well and good but does his love justify yet another take on this oft told tale? No, frankly. Especially since Zemeckis brings no new insights to the story. Jim Carrey's Scrooge is faithful to a fault and leaves one to wonder: who hires Jim Carrey and binds him to a character so thoroughly that no wacky schtick can escape?

There is hardly a whisper of whimsy or moment of mugging mirth. Why bother hooking Carrey's well known face up to all that mo-cap technology when you have restrained him so tightly to such a dark, draconian character. Even in Scrooge's happy turn in the end Carrey remains restrained, allowing only for a smile and a brief jig. No actor wants to be shackled to a persona but Jim Carrey is JIM CARREY, his persona overwhelms the notion that he can simply be plugged into a character and have audiences simply accept a straightforward, non Carrey-like performance. 

A Christmas Tale lacks life or any form of whimsy whatsoever and that is not something that works for an animated film the animated spirit is greatly lacking. The one thing it seems that Robert Zemeckis has brought to A Christmas Carol is a dark vision of Dickens' dark words. Dickens' imagery has always been of the nightmare variety, this version of A Christmas Carol captures that vision with frightful faith. I would warn against taking children younger than 13 to this film.

That makes this version of A Christmas Carol more of an adult feature and that would seem to defeat the purpose of the adaptation and animation. This should be a story for kids but parents who take young kids will only come away with frightened youngsters. Sure, their is the happy ending to salve the wounds but many parents and kids will not make it that far.

Far too scary for young children and too well worn for adults, this version of A Christmas Carol seems at a loss to justify its existence. Why another take on this story? Was it just an exercise of the technology? A chance to be faithful to the dark images of Dickens that many adaptations had softened? I cannot tell you and I wonder if Mr. Zemeckis could either.

Movie Review Hunter Killer

Hunter Killer (2018) 

Directed by Donovan Marsh

Written by Arne Schmidt, Jamie Moss

Starring Gerard Butler, Gary Oldman, Common, Linda Cardellini, Toby Stephens 

Release Date October 26th, 2018

Published October 26th, 2018

Hunter Killer stars Gerard Butler as submarine commander Joe Glass. Glass has just been handed his very first command, aboard the USS Arkansas at a most inopportune moment. It is Joe’s task to take his hunter killer class sub crew into heavily guarded Russian territory and find out what happened to another hunter killer class sub which was sunk in the area, assumedly by a Russian sub that was also downed in the fight. 

What Joe and his crew find is something quite unexpected, both subs appear to have been attacked not by each other but by a third sub which subsequently begins attacking Joe’s sub. The Arkansas survives this encounter but having just sent another Russian sub to the bottom of the ocean, the international incident they were investigating may be exploding into World War 3 unless Joe can quickly figure out why this Russian sub has gone rogue. 

Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Charles Donnegan (Gary Oldman) has tasked Rear Admiral John Fisk with sending a team of Green Berets into Russian territory so they can get close to where the Russian President Zakarin (Alexander Diachenko) and his top military secretary, Admiral Durov (Michael Gor) are holed up near where the subs have been downed. 

What the Green Berets, led by Bill Beaman (Toby Stephens) , find is that there is a coup in process, the Russian President is the hostage of his top military secretary and the secretary is bent on starting World War 3. Now three arms of the American military, along with an advisor from the NSA (Linda Cardellini) must work together to come up with a plan to rescue the Russian President and avert World War 3. 

I must admit, that sounds like a pretty great description of a first person shooter video game. Sadly, Hunter Killer is a movie and thus not nearly as much fun. Hunter Killer is the latest in a long line of lunkheaded military rehashes from Millennium Entertainment, the group that rescued Gerard Butler from the Hollywood ash heap and given him a second act as the purest example of lunkheaded, ill-conceived 80’s action movies, the new millennium Michael Dudikoff. 

For those not among the 10 people who got that Michael Dudikoff reference, Dudikoff was the bargain action hero of Cannon Films, the group behind such glorious 80’s cheese as American Ninja, Avenging Force and the Missing in Action Franchise. Those examples should give you a good idea of the quality of Hunter Killer, we’re not talking high end action here, we’re talking about the kind of slapdash trash that used to go directly to drive-ins and eventually, directly to VHS. 

Hunter Killer is supremely dumb and not in a fun way. Rather, Hunter Killer is dumb in the most boringly competent ways imaginable. Hunter Killer was directed by a newcomer named Donovan Marsh who is just inexperienced enough and just talented enough to miss the point of the movie he’s making. He doesn’t appear to understand that Hunter Killer is cheesy and thus he commits to the idea with all his talent, not realizing that everyone in the cast knows they’re working on something cheap and disposable. They know the company they’re working for. 

Butler and Oldman have worked with Millennium Entertainment for years. Butler is there because Millennium was the only company willing to touch him after his toxic run of bombs from 2008 to 2011 that culminated with him playing a leprechaun in an almost career endingly bad segment of Movie 43. Oldman worked with Millennium because his name was just big enough to work on the box cover of a direct to DVD crime movie and their checks weren’t bouncing. 

No surprise to learn that Hunter Killer was on the shelf for a while before Oldman re-established himself among the Hollywood elite with his Academy Award winning performance in Darkest Hour. Hunter Killer is the kind of movie that if it had come out around Oscar time last year it might have cost him Best Actor just as many speculated that Norbit cast Eddie Murphy Best Supporting Actor by arriving around the time he was nominated for Dreamgirls. 

We know Hunter Killer has been moldering on the shelf for a while because one of the supporting actors, Michael Nyqvist died more than 18 months ago. It’s tragic that a fine, under-recognized pro like Nyqvist has Hunter Killer as the last thing on his resume but at least he was gone before the world had seen what a terrible film he’d closed his fine career with. Here’s hoping he was well compensated. 

I realize that some people enjoy this stinky cheese of a movie but it’s definitely not for me. Butler is his usually dopey self, swaggering about spitting nonsense dialogue in his god-awful American accent. He doesn’t appear to care that he’s not acting but caricaturing American swagger in the most unfunny way possible. It’s hard to know if I pity Butler for his complete lack of talent or if I am meant to laugh at his dimwitted burlesque attempt at bringing back the 80’s action movie. 

Hunter Killer is bad in a most bland and peculiar fashion. It’s not shot poorly, it’s inoffensive in that the jingoism is tempered by having so many foreigners lead the cast of this American action movie, Butler, Oldman, and Toby Stephens, are not Americans and appear to have no interest in selling America f*** Yeah attitude that a true 80’s action movie would. Had this film actually starred Michael Dudikoff it would have ended with him planting an American flag in the heart of the dead foreign secretary while American jets flew overhead dropping tiny American flags. 

I guess, in that sense, we can consider Hunter Killer restrained. Not any good, but restrained. Unfortunately that restraint keeps the movie too tasteful to be bad in a fun way. Instead, the film is bad for being deathly dull, populated by bored actors either over-performing or under-performing masculine military cliches and spouting nonsense jargon that sounds cool but comes off like boys playing with toys and not serious-minded military adults. 

Movie Review: The Unborn

The Unborn (2009) 

Directed by David S. Goyer 

Written by David S. Goyer 

Starring Odette Yustman, Gary Oldman, Meagan Goode, Cam Gigandet, Idris Elba

Release Date January 9th, 2009 

Published January 10th, 2009

The Unborn is one of the more challenging moviegoing experiences I have had in my less than a decade as a film critic. It's not the films content that was challenging, the content is far too goofball to be challenging. No, the challenge was trying to keep a straight face as the desperate, sad cast made their paces through this slog of utterly ludicrous horror cliches.

Odette Yustman, one of the last people killed in J.J Abrams 2008 hit Cloverfield, stars in The Unborn as Casey, a pretty but bland teenager haunted by visions of a ghostly child. One night, as she is babysitting for a neighbor, the little boy she is watching bashes her over the head with a small mirror and tells her that Jumby (Yes, that isn't a typo, JUMBY) wants to be born now.

Jumby was the nickname that mom and dad gave to the twin who died in the womb next to Casey when she was born. Casey was unaware that she was supposed to be a twin and while that could be intriguing or dramatic, I was left wondering what Casey's embarrassing nickname was? Bumby? Tumby? That question is more interesting than any question posed in The Unborn. 

Casey comes to find that her grandmother also had a twin brother who died at Auschwitz, oh yes they drag the holocaust into this goofy plot. According to family lore, that twin died and was replaced by an evil spirit, a Dybbuk, a Jewish legend about an evil spirit. Granny killed her brother after his possession and the spirit has haunted her ever since.

Now the evil spirit wants Casey and she pins her hopes on an exorcism to save her. Gary Oldman plays a skeptical Rabbi who takes up the exorcism after he is visited by Spuds McKenzie, the former beer spokesman, only his head is upside down and he's lost that ridiculous Hawaiian shirt. You have to see it for yourself perhaps, but I assure it's as funny as my description of it. 

The Rabbi calls on a priest friend played by Idris Elba for help and several cannon fodder volunteers who will helpfully die on command once the spirit is unleashed. We know these characters are DOA at the exorcism because they don't even get names, they may as well have victim 1, victim 2 and so on, written on name tags.

Cam Gigandet, an actor who betrays fratboy douchebaggery with his every douchebag mannerism in both Never Back Down and Twilight brings that malevolent maleness to the good guy role of Casey's boyfriend who may as well also just line up as potential victim number 4. I'm being harsh about Gigandet, I can assume he is a nice person. His performances however, lead me to my insulting conclusions about his characters, if not the man playing them. 

The Unborn was written and directed by David S. Goyer who wrote the script for the first 2 awesome Blade movies and then directed the abysmal 3rd one. He co-wroter script of The Dark Knight. Can you see the pattern? Maybe Mr. Goyer should stick with the pen and leave the directing to someone else? Then again, even the writing stinks in The Unborn. 

The evil spirit inhabits a neighbor child, a friend, an upside down headed dog, the priest, and several others in the film but for some reason beyond explanation, the evil spirit cannot get his hands on Casey. This is purely due to Goyer's inability to come up with a logical reasoning behind any of the decisions he makes in this movie. Leaving the audience asking too many questions is a surprisingly typical writing failure from a usually more talented writer. 

Unwelcome logical question number 1: If the evil spirit can inhabit anyone it wants, why does he need Casey? Number 2: If he gets her, what does he do then? I realize these questions are entirely unwelcome, especially in a movie where the director is more interested in his choice of creepy looking bug -potato bug instead of the traditional cockroach, for those of you scoring your horror cliches at home- than in actually crafting an engaging horror thriller.

Watching The Unborn, it was a chore to keep from bursting out into gales of laughter at the ill logic of the terrifically awful staging and most unfortunately at the performance of Ms. Yustman who amounts to little more than a pout and a hair style. Yustman is not a bad actress, she's just unfortunately stuck in this silly, poorly thought out plot that undermines anything good she might bring to this movie. 

The Unborn is a movie that the folks at the sadly defunct Mystery Science Theater would have loved. It has that perfunctory B-list star, the slumming Gary Oldman, and the overall air of attempted atmosphere and self seriousness that Crow T. Robot and company so successfully took the air out of. The Unborn will make you long for The Crawling Eye or This Island Earth with its awfulness. By the way, I'm told that members of MST3K have new incarnations of the MST brand online. Maybe someone can sneak them a copy of The Unborn. One can only wish.

Movie Review Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) 

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron 

Written by Steve Kloves 

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman 

Release Date June 4th, 2004 

Published June 3rd, 2004 

When Chris Columbus announced that he would not direct the third Harry Potter film, Alfonso Cuaron was not the first director who came to mind. His most recent work, the coming of age drama Y Tu Mama Tambien, earned an NC-17 rating. Not exactly the sensibility one would bring to one of the largest family movie franchises in history. A closer look however at Cuaron's body of work shows that he indeed may be the best choice they could have made. Cuaron's innate understanding of teenage emotions and adolescence are exactly where the Harry Potter series is headed with its young characters and the combination is electric.

As we rejoin our hero Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), he is back in the world of muggles, living with his awful Aunt and Uncle. This is not the same Harry Potter however who has cowered from his family's unreasonable behavior. Harry is becoming his own man and when a family friend insults Harry's late parents, he exacts a revenge that could get him kicked out of Hogwarts.

After running away from home, including an exciting ride on a ghostly wizard bus, Harry is told that he won't be punished for his illegal use of magic and he will be allowed to return to Hogwarts. The intimation is that Harry's destiny is so closely linked to that of Hogwarts that he can't be kicked out.

Soon, Harry is reunited with his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). Before the kids leave for school Harry is told that the criminal Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped Azkaban prison and may be looking for Harry, though it is unclear why.

On the train to Hogwarts, Harry meets one of his new teachers, Professor Lupin (David Thewlis). He also meets an entity called a dementor, a ghostly creature that is supposed to be hunting Sirius Black but whose actions are uncontrollable. Professor Lupin saves Harry from the dementor's soul sucking attack and once on campus at Hogwarts, the Professor becomes a mentor and friend to Harry as Sirius Black looms. Both Lupin and Sirius Black both have links to Harry's parents that are revealed late in the film

The first two Harry Potter films had the feel of self-contained action movies. One could exist without the other. This third film in the series however feels more connected to the series as a whole. There is a transitory feel to the story with more backstory and fleshing out of the characters. This is why the film feels deeper and richer from a character standpoint than the first two films but also why it has less narrative force.

The building of the backstory and characters shove this film’s main plot into the background. The main plot is supposed to be Harry's confrontation with Sirius Black yet Gary Oldman's character only comes into the film in the third act. The thrust of the film is laying out the characters not only for this one episode but also for the future of the series.

There are a number of good things about this film on its own. Alfonso Cuaron's artistic sensibilities bring a more artistic look to the series. His visuals are richer and deeper than ever before. His use of colors reminded me a little of his underappreciated remake of Great Expectations in 1998, a film that used the color green as the third lead character. This is a beautiful looking film and yet the visuals never overwhelm the characters, they deepen and enrich them.

There has been talk that the young actors (Radcliffe, Watson and Grint) may be getting too old for their characters and may be replaced when Mike Newell directs the next film in the series. I hope that isn't true, as each becomes increasingly comfortable as these characters. Especially good is Watson who has stardom in her future. Her spunk and smarts make Hermione shine even brighter than the star in name. Daniel Radcliffe is improving with every outing. While he still at times looks a little overmatched, another film and he could really show us something.

If I were to choose my favorite Potter film, I would say Chamber Of Secrets, which is the most artistic and exciting movie Chris Columbus ever made. That said, Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner Of Azkaban is the most visually impressive of the three and it's the most deeply emotional. It lacks only the narrative force and adventure of Chamber. If this is the way the Harry Potter series is going to evolve, the best of all may be yet to come.

Movie Review The Book of Eli

The Book of Eli (2010) 

Directed by The Hughes Brothers 

Written by Gary Whitta 

Starring Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon

Release Date January 15th, 2010 

Published January 14th, 2010 

I would characterize myself as an agnostic. I don't believe in a higher power but I am open to the idea that I myself am not all-knowing. How does my lack of faith inform my criticism? It doesn't really. The fact is Hollywood gives so little consideration to religion that it rarely comes up in a review. The new post-apocalyptic thriller The Book of Eli is, arguably, the most religious and faithful movie I have seen since I have been a critic. Rarely has religion been so unquestioningly treated in a movie and in all places, a big budget, ultra-violent, Denzel Washington thriller.

In The Book of Eli Denzel Washington plays the Eli of the title. Sometime in the distant future the world is a wasteland and Eli is simply walking. He knows where he is headed, west, but what he intends to find at the end of his journey, even he doesn't know. Eli is protecting a book that he is convinced can save what is left of humanity. Eli's travels take him through the tiny, barely civilized fiefdom of a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Having discovered a rare source of clean water, Carnegie has used it as a way to create a small kingdom that he protects with roving gangs of motorcycle riding henchmen.

The henchmen are searching for a book that Carnegie is desperate to get his hands on and wouldn't you know it, it's the same book that Eli is desperate to carry west. These two were destined to meet and fight and surely one or both of them will die. Standing between the two is Carnegie's daughter Solara (Mila Kunis) who is drawn to Eli's quiet purpose driven life but also wants to protect her mother (Jennifer Beals) from her father's violent tendencies. She joins up with Eli in hope that he will teach her the fighting skill he uses to protect the book.

Directed by the brilliant brother duo Albert and Allen Hughes, The Book of Eli is gritty yet stylish in its post-apocalypse. The Hughes Brothers are masters of atmosphere and tense showdowns and when Denzel backs up under a shadowy overpass to fight off some cannibalistic bad guys, the flash of his super-cool sword cutting body after body is an awesome sight.

Denzel Washington is perfectly cast as Eli, a man of devout faith who prays nightly and knows the bible by heart. In this future the bible has been all but destroyed and Eli is a last man of faith. Carnegie too seems a man of faith but is really a charlatan who hopes to use faith as Roman Emperors did to control a weak minded populace. This tension drives the conflict as does the book Eli is carrying is a classic MacGuffin with a strong pay off.

Though I am not a believer, religion in movies doesn't bother me. In fact, I am more often irritated with movies that pretend religion doesn't exist. Characters in horror films rarely seem to pray when faced with certain death. Sci-fi too often belittles the millions of people of faith in favor of technology as a pseudo-religion.

It is terribly unrealistic for movies to ignore the millions of earnest believers who attend dutifully to their faith. The Book of Eli is the rare movie that takes religion and faith deathly seriously and while the hardcore violence may not exactly be Christ-like, it is in service of a character who is serious about his faith in God.

The Book of Eli is intense and violent but also devout and earnest about Eli's faith. Religious folk may be turned off by the grit and violence but they will no doubt appreciate the Hughes Brothers straight forward portrayal of Eli as a solemn, faithful soldier in service of God.

If the God stuff makes you uncomfortable, you can still appreciate the very cool ways in which the Hughes Brothers frame Denzel Washington slicing and dicing bad guys. Whether it's the stellar overpass scene or a Tarantino-esque bar fight scene, The Hughes Brother and Denzel know how to get their violence on.

The Book of Eli is gritty, bloody, tense and faithful all in one terrific movie.

Movie Review: Batman Begins

Batman Begins (2005) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan 

Written by Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer

Starring Christian Bale, Katie Holmes, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman

Release Date June 15th, 2005 

Published June 14th, 2005 

Joel Schumacher has committed a number of cinematic sins. His destruction of Andrew Kevin Walker's darkly brilliant script for 8mm or last years 3 hour tin-eared musical Phantom Of the Opera come immediately to mind. But without a doubt Schumacher's most damnable sin is his destruction of the Batman film series. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are atrocious examples of a director completely bent to the will of marketing executives. A director more interested in creating synergistic toy products and fast food tie-ins than in making entertaining movies.

Eight years after Schumacher killed it, and through three years of torturous development Batman has risen from the ashes once again and in the hands of director Christopher Nolan, an artist and auteur of the highest regard, Batman is not merely back, the D.C Comics franchise is better than ever. Rivaling Raimi's Spiderman and Singer's X-Men, Nolan's Batman Begins is a visionary comic book film worthy of the icon status of the character.

Batman Begins is an origin story that brings fans into the mind of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) before Batman and shows us why a millionaire playboy would put on a bat suit and fight crime. Locked away in some far off Asian prison a scruffy but handsome American certainly sticks out. Battered and bruised Bruce Wayne has fought everyday he's been in this prison but his latest battle against several large thugs at once brings him to the attention of another handsome westerner, Henri Ducard played by Liam Neeson.

Ducard is a representative of Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), leader of the League Of Shadows, a thousand year-old order dedicated to vigilantism. The League Of Shadows fancy themselves ninja crime fighters and in Bruce Wayne they see an asset both physically and otherwise. The League is preparing to raze Gotham City, purging the city of its criminality and anything else that might be in the way. Bruce has a choice: join the League and destroy Gotham or return alone to defend the innocent people of the city.

Returning to his home in Gotham City (Chicago standing in, not New York in this version) Wayne finds the metropolis in ruinous poverty. Crime rules the streets led by mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). Among the few good people of Gotham are Bruce's butler, Alfred (the superb Michael Caine), and his childhood friend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), who works as an assistant prosecutor fighting a losing battle with corruption.

Bruce's fortune is intact, the family business is under the control of a corrupt executive played by Rutger Hauer and working in the shadows is a former family friend, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), whose work on various military projects for the company will certainly come in handy when Bruce Wayne is ready to transform into the caped crusader. It is Lucius Fox who creates the suit, the gadgets and the new military style Batmobile, even cooler than the sports car version from Tim Burton's Batman.

The film plumbs the depths of Bruce's past, the biggest factor to his becoming Batman. A childhood accident bred in him a fear of bats. It's a fear that is also linked to the death of his parents in a mugging outside a theater when Bruce was eight years old. A taste for vengeance is what led Bruce to his Asian adventure and the teachings of Ducard are what lead to his taking his fear of the bat as his symbol when he finally decides to take a stand against crime.

It's an extraordinarily detailed and logical story that fits perfectly into the dark atmospheric universe that director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer, of Blade fame, have created. This Gotham City is in part the vision of Frank Miller's Year One graphic novel balanced with the Auteurist vision of Nolan who nods to Miller but makes the look and feel of the film his own.

Christian Bale is the perfect blend of movie star handsome and brooding maniac, the essence of the Bruce Wayne-Batman dichotomy. Though Batman holds the typical moral values of a superhero-- he captures but does not kill-- he has a definite weird streak.  As Bruce himself points out, "A guy who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues". Those 'issues' are given a thorough and complete examination in Batman Begins and as played by Mr. Bale, they are given the depth and emotionality that the character has lacked in his former movie incarnations.

The supporting cast is exemplary, especially Gary Oldman as "Sgt." Gordon who we all know will someday be Police Commissioner Gordon. This is his origin as well and, with Oldman in this pivotal role, we have a solid basis for further great stories to be told. Katie Holmes is much better than expected in the role of Bruce's childhood friend and adult love interest. She looks too young and innocent for the position of District Attorney fighting the worst of the worst criminals but she has an unexpected steeliness to her that sells the character.

The villains, the most obvious weakness from the Schumacher films, are given a similar comic book realism to that of Batman. Based more in the reality and logic of the story, the villains in Batman Begins are not super villains with grand schemes of mass murder or world domination but logical extensions of the established corruption of Gotham City. Cillian Murphy is terrific as Dr. Jonathan Crane whose alter ego, the Scarecrow, is no psycho du jour but a functionary of a larger, more logical and ordered plot.

Obviously Nolan's Batman Begins cannot help but be compared with the lofty achievements of Bryan Singer's X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spiderman and it is without a doubt worthy of the comparisons. Batman Begins ranks only behind Raimi's Spiderman 2 as the best comic book adaptation I have seen. An awesomely entertaining and involving action packed feature, Batman is back and better than ever in Batman Begins.

Movie Review Red Riding Hood

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke 

Written by David Leslie Johnson 

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Max Irons, Gary Oldman, Billy Burke, Julie Christie 

Release Date March 11th, 2011 

Published March 10th, 2011 

Amanda Seyfried has yet to find the right movie for her particular talents. Seyfried mixes girl next door good looks, those amazing flying saucer-esque eyes, and inviting sensuality into one precocious package. She would be a dream come true in a Bertolucci movie or as captured by Antonioni's loving lens. Sadly, being a young American actress means offering her services for schlock such as "Dear John," ``Letters to Juliet," and her latest "Red Riding Hood."

Amanda Seyfried stars in "Red Riding Hood" as Valerie, the virginal daughter of a wood cutter (Billy Burke, Bella's dad from Twilight) who is promised in marriage by her mother, Suzette (Virginia Madsen) to Henry (Max Irons) the son of a wealthy family friend.

Valerie however, is in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez) and intends to run away with him. Their plans are thwarted sadly when Valerie's sister is murdered by a werewolf. Now, Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) is coming to the village to hunt the wolf and a dark secret Valerie did not know she carried will place her in the wolf's path.

"Red Riding Hood" was directed by Catherine Hardwicke, a talented director who has faltered under the weight of big budgets and special effects. Hardwicke is exceptionally talented in crafting warm and intimate scenes, as she demonstrated in her wonderful coming of age film "Thirteen" and in the quiet moments of her hit "Twilight."

Unfortunately, special effects simply are not Catherine Hardwicke's forte. The CGI in "Red Riding Hood," used to render the wolf and portions of the mid-centuries village, is amateurish in comparison to other CGI heavy films including such stinkers as "The Wolfman" and "Underworld: Evolution."

The Gothic air that Hardwicke attempts to bring to "Red Riding Hood" comes off campy rather than mysterious or forbidding. Attempts to mix period cliches with modern pop culture savvy feel forced and trite. What works is when Hardwicke focuses on smaller, intimate moments that take advantage of star Amanda Seyfried's innate eroticism.

The climax of "Red Riding Hood" is laughable as the filmmakers settle the allegedly mysterious identity of the werewolf by choosing a character at random. So indiscriminate is the choice of the identity of the werewolf that it is fair to wonder if the filmmakers knew the choice before they filmed it.

"Red Riding Hood" is a mess of feeble CGI and market tested pop culture. Though star Amanda Seyfried still manages to be radiant and alluring, the film is all Gothic bluster and teen targeted kitsch. Fans of Ms. Seyfried would be better served waiting for her next film, teaming with visionary director Andrew Niccol called "Now." That film hits theaters ..October 11th 2011.