Classic Movie Review Renaissance Man

Renaissance Man (1994) 

Directed by Penny Marshall 

Written by Jim Burnstein 

Starring Danny Devito, Mark Wahlberg, Gregory Hines, James Remar, Cliff Robertson

Release Date June 3rd, 1994

Published June 5th, 2024 

When I described what the movie Renaissance Man was about to my co-hosts on the I Hate Critics 1994 Podcast, they refused to believe that I was telling the truth. They refused to believe that Danny Devito plays an advertising executive who becomes a teacher on a military base and saves a group of at-risk soldiers by teaching them Shakespeare via hip hop. Reading back my description, I can understand the incredulous responses of my co-hosts. Reading back my own description, I can't really believe that the movie Renaissance Man exists. I also cannot believe that a movie this hackneyed and mawkish was directed by someone as talented as Penny Marshall. In fact, I choose to believe this was directed by her hack brother Garry as this is exactly the kind of tripe he always directed. 

Indeed, Renaissance Man stars Danny Devito as Bill Rago, a raging jerk of an ad-man who gets himself quite reasonably fired from his job for showing up late and generally bungling a big client meeting through his selfish, self-serving, arrogant, narcissism. Pro-Tip for screenwriters, how you introduce your main character is important, if you don't intend for us to hate your main character, come up with a way to introduce him that doesn't make us automatically loathe his presence. The fact this is Danny Devito and I cannot stand this character, says a lot. Devito is a beloved actor and seeing him in a lead role in a comedy should be welcoming. It's most assuredly not welcoming in Renaissance Man. 

Out of a job, Bill goes to the unemployment office were we get our third exposition dump in the first 15 minutes of this dreadful movie. Jennifer Lewis, a wonderful character actor, lays out the plot for us, does a bit of needless business that someone making this movie thought was funny, and then sends Bill on to the actual plot of the film. The unemployment office has found Bill a job on a military base. Since he has a masters degree, Bill will be teaching Basic Comprehension to a group of soldiers on the brink of being kicked out of the Army. 

The ragtag crew includes bumpkins and poor people of varying ethnicity. They bicker and bully and have no interest in saving their military careers until Bill decides to teach them Shakespeare. Apparently, learning and reciting Hamlet is somehow enough for these soldier to stay in the military after being on the brink of being kicked out? Who knows, this movie is so thoroughly idiotic that these soldiers could have watched a newsreel about venereal diseases and as long as they actually showed up, they would have been safe. So why does Bill even need to be here? Truly? The final exam for this 'Basic Comprehension' course that Bill randomly turns into a class on Shakespeare, is OPTIONAL. They don't have to take the final exam and they get to stay in the Army. What even is this movie? 

Find my full length review in the Geeks Community on Vocal. 

Movie Review The Gambler

The Gambler (2014) 

Directed by Rupert Wyatt

Written by William Monahan

Starring Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Michael K. Williams, Jessica Lange

Release Date December 25th, 2014

Published December 25th, 2014

Mark Wahlberg’s star power sustains “The Gambler,” a talky, existentialist meditation on gambling, addiction and self-destruction.  Without a star of Wahlberg’s charisma “The Gambler” would be a tough hike. Though playing against type as a philosophy-spouting, Dostoevsky-quoting college professor, Wahlberg finds just the right mix of magnetism and machismo to give life to the role of Jim Bennett. 

When we meet Bennett, he’s having an epic run of bad luck at a private casino owned by Asian gang members. In short order, Bennett goes way up and winds up way down -- $240,000 down. Desperate for help, Jim turns to his mother Roberta (Jessica Lange) who gives up the cash only for Jim to blow this $240,000 just as quickly. From there Jim begins a high-stakes scam, playing the money of one mobster against other mobsters, including Michael K. Williams as Neville Baraka and John Goodman as Frank. 

As good as Wahlberg is in “The Gambler,” he’s upstaged at every turn by Williams and especially by Goodman, who is Oscar caliber here. If you see “The Gambler,” see it first for a lesson in what Frank calls “Fuck-You Money.” This brilliant, sprawling monologue is delivered with such style and wit that you feel as if you really have learned something important, even if Jim doesn’t feel the same way. 

Also in Bennett’s orbit are a couple of students: Amy (Brie Larson), a talented writer, and Lamar (Anthony Kelley), a talented college basketball star. That Jim draws both into his massive scheme against his criminal debtors is an illustration of Jim’s twisted morality. Jim seems to have little empathy for others when his needs are involved. At least Wahlberg instills a heavy air of guilt in Jim’s manner. 

“The Gambler” was inspired by the 1974 film of the same title starring James Caan. The original was far colder and far more effective than the modern take. Where Wahlberg has guilt, James Caan has zero compunction about what he does to other people in his search for his next fix. Caan’s Axel was more obviously self-destructive than Wahlberg’s Jim. The only qualities the two characters really share are a shifty intelligence and charisma. 

Is Jim addicted to gambling? “The Gambler” doesn’t seem to be all that interested in that question. Certainly, Jim doesn’t seem capable of simply stopping. But his classroom oratories offer up an alternate theory for his gambling: a desire to feel something. As Bennett sounds off on Shakespeare or other legendary writers, he’s quick to share asides about his failure as a writer, where life has failed him and will fail his class. This gives strong indications about why he seeks out the highs and lows of high-stakes gambling as a way of coping with his life. 

“The Gambler” comes up short of greatness. It’s a little overlong in some areas and the soundtrack, though quite good, distracts from time to time. Nevertheless, the film is engaging and, with Wahlberg, it has a star who easily takes hold of our sympathies. Surrounded by Goodman, Williams and Larson, Wahlberg doesn’t always stand out front, but that’s to be expected because he’s among such an incredible ensemble of performers. 

Movie Review Instant Family

Instant Family (2018) 

Directed by Sean Anders 

Written by John Morris, Sean Anders

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Rose Byrne, Isabela Merced, Margo Martindale, Octavia Spencer 

Release Date November 16th, 2018 

Published November 17th, 2018 

I have struggled genuinely with how I feel about the comedy Instant Family starring Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne. This family comedy about a childless couple who decides to become foster parents to three orphan siblings is at times maddeningly, cringe-inducingly hard to watch. Characters occasionally drift into an area of being inhumanly silly. And yet, at the end of the movie, the uplifting message kind of works, to the point where I teared up. 

Did I tear up because the movie is that effective or because Instant Family is based on a true story and is, in many ways, a commercial for a charity of the same name, Instant Family, that works to unite orphaned kids and foster parents? I deeply admire the message of Instant Family and the few human moments that the movie gets right, it gets very right but did the movie cheat? Or is it actually good? 

Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne star in Instant Family as Pete and Ellie. Pete and Ellie own their own house flipping business where he handles the carpentry and she handles the design. Their lives are perfect but they’ve been so busy with business, they’ve neglected the notion of family. With Ellie’s sister Kim (Allyn Rachel) and her husband, Russ (Tom Segura), talking about having kids, it gets Pete and Ellie thinking about it. 

Both Pete and Ellie agree that they don’t want to be old parents, that they are passed the idea of having a baby. They are however, the right age for a 5 to 8 year old kid and thus adoption enters the equation. After Pete looks at a website of kids in foster care he is overwhelmed by the cuteness and the two enroll in an 8 week course to determine their fitness to be parents. Comedian Tig Notaro and Academy Award winner Octavia Spencer are the heads of the adoption agency. 

After several bad comedy scenes of Pete and Ellie and a group of colorful but not too colorful extras failing and succeeding at the basic necessities of being parents, the couples are ready to choose their kids. For Pete and Ellie, they fall for Lizzy (Izabella Moner), a teenager who they feel pity for because no one even talks to kids Lizzy’s age about adoption, she’s 15. Lizzy has more reasons why she’s been hard to place, she has two younger siblings, Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). 

Challenged by the adoption agents, Pete and Ellie decide to take a big swing and agree to become foster parents to all three kids. Now the question becomes, can they actually handle having an instant family? And what about the kids’ mom, a former alcoholic who is just out of prison and in a program in hopes of perhaps getting her kids back? Will the forced drama ever cease and allow the movie to have a genuine moment. 

Instant Family was co-written and directed by Sean Anders whose taste for low brow humor and gag focused nonsense, led to the creation of terrible movies such as That’s My Boy, Sex Drive and Daddy’s Home 1 & 2. I recognize that some people like the Daddy’s Home movies, but I do not and by extension, I really don’t care for Instant Family either. I was wondering throughout why the shrill, awkward, and unfunny gags of Instant Family felt so familiar, then I looked at the director’s resume. 

Anders has a hard time trying to bring a real moment to the screen. He’s so focused on terrible jokes that he loses track of trying to tell actual stories with relatable characters. His taste for broad and crude caricatures sinks what little good there is about Instant Family. Mark Wahlberg, Rose Byrne, and co-stars Margo Martindale, as Wahlberg’s mom, Tig Notaro and Octavia Spencer, appear to be trying to get to the heart of his material but the director and the script keep interrupting with nonsense. 

There is a running gag in Instant Family where the son, Juan, keeps getting hurt. It’s never funny but it just keeps happening where he’s hit in the face with any sporting equipment nearby, he steps in broken glass, he gets a nail in his foot. Why would anyone think this is a funny running gag for a child in a movie? Especially a child in foster care who may or may not have a history of abuse? 

There are occasional moments where the characters are allowed to be real but they are drowned out by moments of shrill hysterics such as a dinner scene that begins with a minor disagreement and ends with the kitchen table on fire and Wahlberg trying to put out the fire with ketchup. That sounds much funnier than it plays in the movie. In the movie it’s a lot of yelling and chaos and zero laughs. 

So why did I cry at the end of Instant Family? Because the film ends on a genuine note with Lizzy realizing that her new parents do really love her and her brother and sister and then the film cuts to a picture of the real family the movie is based on. And then it’s a montage of photos of families that the charity Instant Family has united over the years. You’d have to be some kind of soulless monster not to be moved by these photos. 

Does that mean the movie succeeds? No, it’s definitely cheating, even if it is cheating for a good cause. The movie is mostly bad but it does have its heart in the right place. I don’t recommend it as a movie but I do recommend Instant Family as a charity. It’s nice that Hollywood was kind enough to make a 100 plus minute commercial for Instant Family but that doesn’t mean the movie is worth your time. 

Instead, why don’t you google Instant Family Charity and look at the pictures of newly united families. You will have a far more moving experience without having to have this movie shout shrill gags in your ear for nearly two hours. 

Movie Review The Fighter

The Fighter (2010) 

Directed by David O. Russell

Written by Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Scott Siliver 

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo

Release Date December 10th, 2010 

Published December 7th, 2010

'Irish' Mickey Ward's battles with Arturo 'Thunder' Gatti are three of the greatest in ring wars that the boxing world has seen in the past 2 or 3 decades. These two warriors bloodied and battered each other for 12 rounds in three consecutive fights, two of which were named by Ring Magazine as fight of the year. The second fight likely would have also won fight of the year if it had not taken place the same year as the first.

How Micky Ward rose to those fights against Gatti, the apex of his career, is the story of “The Fighter” a sports drama from director David O. Russell and starring Mark Wahlberg in a role that he trained for four years for; all while trying to wrangle a director, turned down by Scorsese, abandoned by Darren Aronofsky, and a studio to make the movie.

As we join the story of “The Fighter” Micky Ward (Wahlberg) is a scuffling welterweight fighter in the midst of a losing streak. Many in the boxing world peg Ward's troubles to his brother/trainer Dicky Eklund a failed pro fighter who peaked in the late 70's in a fight with the legendary Sugar Ray Leonard before succumbing to crack addiction.

More than a decade after his boxing peak Dicky holds out hope of making an in ring comeback, a lie perpetuated by Micky and Dicky's mom/manager Alice (Melissa Leo). For now however, Dicky wastes hours and days in a dingy crack house when he is supposed to be prepping Micky for a bout on national television in Atlantic City.

The fight is a debacle as the fighter that Ward was supposed to face dropped out due to illness. The replacement is a full weight class above Micky but because no one will get paid if he doesn't fight, Dicky and Alice push Micky into the ring and Micky's career is nearly ended. This conflict unfolds in the first act of “The Fighter” and director David O. Russell elegantly flows these burgeoning conflicts into the second act where Dicky gets arrested, Micky gets hurt in the melee around Dicky's arrest and the family is shattered.

What separates “The Fighter” from your average sports movie? Not much really, despite a heavyweight cast “The Fighter” is essentially, at its heart, a classic sports movie. Director David O. Russell's challenge then was to find little ways for “The Fighter” to break the mold of the typical and he finds that in an indie style, low budget look that fits the rundown setting of aging Lowell Massachusetts, Micky and Dicky's longtime hometown.

Another departure from the typical sports movie comes in the clever mimicry of Micky Ward's actual fights. David O. Russell teamed with the real life sports director from HBO for scenes depicting Micky's Championship fight against Brit Shea Nealy. Using the actual call of the fight from the HBO boxing announcers brings an extra bit of authenticity to the brutal fight scene and underscores the reality of what we are seeing in the ring.

So many boxing movies amp up the noise of the punch or speed up the action to a point where two men could not possibly punch each other continuously without passing out from exhaustion; but not here, not in this movie. Restrained by Mark Wahlberg's strict adherence to the way Micky Ward actually fought and kept in pace by the actual call of the fights as they happened back in the late 90's, the boxing in “The Fighter” looks and feels true.

Also feeling true in “The Fighter '' is the family of Micky Ward. David O. Russell could not have been more blessed with a cast. Oscar nominees Melissa Leo and Amy Adams, who plays Ward's tough as nails girlfriend Charlene, are an electronic duo who clash personalities like a car wreck on the Lowell Parkway. Melissa Leo is backed up by an army of unknown actresses who take on the roles of Micky and Dicky’s sisters and their authentic look, just slightly behind the times, and their raw trailer park energy make their scenes as lively as any in “The Fighter.”

Christian Bale is the stand out as Dicky, a flashy role that Bale nevertheless makes real with his mastery of the real Dicky Eklund a gregarious yet troubled soul who maintained a strong sense of humor and self even as he was in the grips of addiction. That is attested to in a 1994 documentary that aired on HBO about Dicky's addiction to crack. "High on Crack Street" played a big part in Bale's research of the role as did the presence of the real Dicky Eklund who Bale bonded with off-screen.

The underrated MVP of “The Fighter” is Mark Wahlberg not for his performance which is hampered somewhat by being the least colorful of a group of colorful characters but for the work he did in dedicating himself to telling this story. Wahlberg grew up not too far from where Micky Ward did and like Micky he found trouble early in his own life only to get things turned around in a big way.

Wahlberg had to tell this story and you can see his blood, sweat and tears determination to get Ward right in every frame of “The Fighter.”

If the film is ultimately a conventional sports movie so be it, “The Fighter” has the heart and energy of the best of the genre but with David O. Russell, Christian Bale and Mark Wahlberg breaking their backs to tell this story there is something more here, an intangible quality that sets “The Fighter” apart and lifts it well above just a sports movie.

Movie Review Max Payne

Max Payne (2008)

Directed by John Moore

Written by Beau Thorne

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Olga Kurylenko, Mila Kunis

Release Date October 17th, 2008

Published October 17th, 2008

Is it cynical to assume that studios only make movies out of video games because of the built in audience? No, nothing is too cynical when it comes to movie studios. The real question is: How do the studios get filmmakers to go along with a movie that is little more than a marketing ploy? You could ask director John Moore. He is the man behind the latest video game adaptation to hit video store shelves. Moore and writer Beau Thorne have taken the characters of the popular first person shooter game Max Payne and used the character names and changed just about everything else that fans of the game knew.

Moore and Thorne have made a movie with characters named Max Payne and Mona Sax but if they resemble anything from the videogame it is merely a coincidence. Since that is the case, then why waste money on the rights to the game. Was that just for the name Max Payne?

Mark Wahlberg plays the titular Max, a cop tortured by the murders of his wife and daughter. They were alleged to have died in a robbery but Max comes to suspect a more sinister motive.  He's become so consumed by the conspiracy that his career has stalled. He now works in the Cold Case department, a bad assignment we assume because his office is located in the basement of the precinct.

The story kicks in when Max gets a tip from an informant about some dopeheads. He finds them and they lead him to a party and to a girl with a tattoo that is a big clue. The girl (Olga Kurylenko) is linked to a major drug dealer (Amaury Nolasco) who may be the man who really killed Max's wife. Before Max can get anything from the girl she is murdered. Since she happened to have stolen Max's wallet and was carrying it when she was killed, he is the top suspect.

More bodies pile up, each with a link to Max. As he avoids the cops he befriends the dead girl's sister, Mona (Mila Kunis), a killer for hire. Together they hunt down the drug dealer and his supplier. The plot involves a corporate conspiracy, drugs, super soldiers and other such things, many of them actually taken from the video game. However, fans of Max Payne looking for anything to be what they remember of the game will be sorely disappointed.

The 'adaptation' was merely a ploy by 20th Century Fox to find a property with built in salability. It never really mattered that the writer and director were in no way bound to actually adapt a story people were already quite familiar with. What mattered was the name Max Payne.

Now, as someone who never played the game, I could not really care less. The efficacy of video games to movies will affect fans of the game. For me, the issues are different. Max Payne, to me is a dreary action spectacle of dull anarchic plotting and lame attempts to marry classic detective movie tropes to modern special effects driven madness.

I like Mark Wahlberg but with The Happening and now Max Payne, Wahlberg is devolving from promising star to victim of bad management and bad advice. His Max Payne is a slow witted, lumbering piece of meat with a gun in his hands. On top of that, he's also a major bummer.

That last thing isn't his fault, I might not be alot of fun if my wife were murdered by drug dealing corporate conspirators but you wouldn't want to watch a movie about me either. The script of Max Payne piles on the depressive Max by killing his family and friends and then director John Moore piles on an oppressive atmosphere of unending cold darkness.

There are allusions to Norse mythology, lifted from the videogame but also altered from what gamers remember. The allusions are supposed to give the movie (game) depth but they really just show how shallow the whole enterprise is. The depth is feigned to the point of apathy and you almost feel sorry for whoever thought such a gambit would work.

Really, I almost feel sorry for everyone involved in Max Payne. I'm not sure what they set out to accomplish but still their failure is evident. Max Payne is a dreary, ugly, dumb movie that exists because of it's built in marketability and loyal following. Whether satisfying that built in following ever mattered is a question for director John Moore or 20th Century Fox.

My guess is, Nah.

Movie Review: Four Brothers

Four Brothers (2005) 

Directed by John Singleton 

Written by David Elliott, Paul Lovett

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese, Andre Benjamin, Garrett Hedlund, Terrence Howard 

Release Date July 1st, 2005 

Published July 1st, 2005 

The amazing John Singleton has, according to some, never lived up to the potential shown in his debut feature Boyz N The Hood. This perception is not shared by this critic. I have enjoyed all of Mr. Singleton's films, save his Shaft remake out of fealty to the original as much as a negative opinion of the filmmaking. His Baby Boy and Rosewood are extraordinarily underrated and even his most commercial effort, the car porn 2 Fast 2 Furious was at the very least high camp popcorn entertainment.

Mr. Singleton's latest effort, the revenge drama Four Brothers, combines elements of Mr. Singleton's artistry and commercialism better than any of his previous films. This ostensible modern remake of the John Wayne western The Sons Of Katie Elder, is stylish in its homage to classic westerns and the ouvre of Charles Bronson and brilliant in its sense of compelling violence and family drama.

Mark Wahlberg stars as Bobby Mercer, the oldest of four troubled adopted sons of the saintly Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanigan). When Evelyn is killed in the midst of a convenience store robbery Bobby comes home to reunite with his brothers, Jeremiah (Andre 3000 of the rap duo, Outkast), Jack (Garrett Hedlund) and Angel (Tyrese Gibson). Soon after the reunion Bobby rallies his brothers to find the guys who killed their mother.

According to the cops, the friendly detective Green (Terrence Howard) and the shady detective Fowler (Josh Charles), Mrs. Mercer was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, soon after launching their far more extensive and violent investigation, the Mercer boys uncover a dangerous conspiracy that leads to the halls of Detroit's City Council and naturally to the city's top thug, Victor Sweet (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

Each of the four brothers is a fully fleshed character with backstories that include multiple stays in prison, the military and a litter of failed relationships. For Angel, returning to Detroit means rekindling a dangerous romance with Sofi (Sophia Vergara) that, while not the film's strongest plot, does provide much of the film's humor. Vergara is very sexy but underserved by a role that simply asks her to be needy and screechy when she is not needed to simply provide eye candy.

Hustle and Flow's Taraji P. Henson shows up in Four Brothers as Jerimiah's wife. Her role is limited to being constantly worried and put off by her husband's brothers and the trouble that seems to follow them, but Ms. Henson is a welcome presence for what little screen time she has.

Surprisingly there is no attempt to give Bobby a love interest, a choice that breaks the mold of typical screenwriting that always calls for the star to be paired with someone. That someone, more often than not in films so heavily infused with testosterone, is a functionary role, a mere plot point and not a character.  So it is a welcome relief that the filmmakers refrained from employing that tired device.

While some complain that a career as a genre filmmaker was not what they had hoped for in John Singleton, I think it suits him. Moreover it suits the genre film to have such a talented artist bringing such talent to bear on what is essentially B-movie material. It would be nice to see Singleton deliver another powerful drama like Boyz N The Hood or Rosewood, but I for one will follow Mr. Singleton's work wherever it takes him.

Movie Review Shooter

Shooter (2007) 

Directed by Antoine Fuqua 

Written by Jonathan Lemkin 

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Michael Pena, Danny Glover, Kate Mara, Rhona Mitra

Release Date March 23rd, 2007 

Published March 23rd, 2007 

Mark Wahlberg is on the verge of major superstardom. Coming off his Oscar nominated performance in The Departed, Wahlberg is one major starring role away from that rarefied air of a 20 million dollar man. Unfortunately, his latest starring role, Shooter, is not the career transforming movie he was looking for. An abysmal mess of action movie cliches, Shooter is a step backward, in fact, for Wahlberg who delivers one of the least appealing performances of his career.

Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg) is one of the best snipers in the world. As demonstrated early in the movie, he can take out a can of beef stew from a mile away. That is why security contractors led by Colonel Johnson (Danny Glover) turn to him to find out how an assassin might kill the President with a near impossible shot from more than a mile away.

Though not exactly keen on helping a President he has deep philosophical differences with, Bob casually reads the 9/11 report and talks of disdain for wars over oil; just to give you an idea of his political bent, Swagger agrees to help out. It turns out to be a fateful decision. The asassination happens despite Bob's help and in fact because of it, the men he is working for are the actual assassins and Bob it seems is their patsy.

Now he must team up with a rookie FBI agent, babyfaced Michael Pena, to take down the shady conspiracy. To do so, they will have to kill a whole heck of alot of people.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua, a master of style over substance filmmaking, Shooter has no real plot but rather plot hangers on which scenes of extreme violence are hung. On the bright side, much of that extreme violence is pretty cool looking. A siege on a farmhouse where Wahlberg and Pena kill some 20 or more nameless henchmen brings back fond goofball memories of Schwarzeneger's Commando and Stallone's Rambo.

Naturally, this being a throwback to action movies past there is eye candy in Shooter. Hot redhead Kate Mara, last seen in the underappreciated We Are Marshall, plays Wahlberg's love interest who by chance happens to spend much time in bondage wearing only a bra and jeans. And then there is smokin' babe Rhona Mitra, best known from TV's Nip/Tuck, who plays Pena's FBI partner who, though she keeps her clothes, models some lovely short skirts that I doubt are standard issue for an FBI agent.

Allegedly, when it comes to the action/thriller genre, we are supposed to accept plot holes and dumb luck that allow the lead character to escape certain capture or death. Shooter abuses the dumb luck in scenes so appallingly contrived that Jean Claude Van Damme would scoff. What luck that Swagger manages to steal a car that happens to have medical supplies in the truck right after he had been shot twice.

What luck that the one guy in the world without a television happens to be an expert in weapons who can help Swagger figure out who set him up. To ask for suspension of disbelief once or twice is cool, to keep asking over and over until all logic is abandoned in favor of utter contrivance is just too much.

Shooter compounds its goofball plot with a political perspective as ludicrous as any of the outsized action scenes in the film. Wahlberg's Bob Lee Swagger presents a pseudo-liberal political perspective that he defends with a gun. In a more self aware movie that could be played for ironic laughs, but Shooter is not a satire. The film wears a simplistic anti-war, anti-conservative perspective on its sleeve right down to showing Swagger casually reading the 9/11 report and chiding his enemies for their wars for oil.

Kudos to Mark Wahlberg and director Antoine Fuqua for wanting their film to be relevant but if they really want to get their point across; they need to do it in a smarter, more self aware movie. Shooter is a blood and guts, old school action picture. Attempting to shoehorn political commentary into the film only serves to make the politics seem as irrelevant as the film itself.

The most disappointing thing about Shooter is the thing that should have been its biggest strength. Star Mark Wahlberg. In one of the most unappealing performances of his career, Wahlberg mumbles his way through a charisma free performance. Handicapped by a script that gives him little more to do than shoot and grunt, Wahlberg brings very little life to this performance.

Mark Wahlberg is far too good an actor for such dopey material as Shooter. Brainless action crossed with mindless political cliche, Shooter feigns depth by appealing to a left wing mindset but insults that same left wing with its goofball liberalism defended with a big gun. It's true that Shooter has its heart in the right place; but when its purpose is so poorly expressed, the point is desperately missed.

Wahlberg will bounce back from this. Shooter may not launch him into the star territory of Tom Cruise, Will Smith or even Mel Gibson, but he's too talented not to make it there eventually. That is, if he can bypass idiot movies like Shooter.

Movie Review The Departed

The Departed (2006) 

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Written by William Monahan

Starring Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga, Alec Baldwin

Release Date October 6th, 2006

Published October 5th, 2006

I know that when you hear some critic say that such and such movie is the best movie of the year you must roll your eyes a little bit. Take it with a grain of salt and what not. But I am telling you honestly that thus far in 2006 I have yet to see a film as accomplished, entertaining, shocking and moving as The Departed, the latest from the brilliant mind of director Martin Scorsese.

A remake of the Hong Kong classic Infernal Affairs, The Departed is no simple retelling of someone else's story. Scorsese takes the sketch of Infernal Affairs and makes the story his own, shifting the action to South Boston -surprisingly not his home turf in New York City- and casting a large group of well respected actors, The Departed separates itself from its inspiration, and becomes pure Scorsese.

In a snaky two pronged plot Leonardo DiCaprio stars in The Departed as Billy Costigan a Boston native with ties to the tough crime ridden streets of south Boston and the upscale side of town as well. This dichotomy has led Billy to the state police academy where his background comes to the attention of the undercover unit headed up by Capt. Queenan (Martin Sheen) and his right hand man Sgt. Dignum (Mark Wahlberg).

Costigan is perfect for the undercover unit's needs because his father and uncle were well known in the south Boston neighborhood where mobster Frank Costello runs things. With his lineage people in the neighborhood would have an easy time believing him as a criminal freshly released from prison looking to find an in with Costello's crew. The assignment still however, requires Costigan to spend three months behind bars, deep undercover, in order to sell the story.

Costigan's job is to get in close with Costello, catch him with some big criminal enterprise and help put him away. Not an easy task however, given Costello's crafty paranoia and a mole in the police department that keeps Costello a step ahead of the cops. Luckily for Costigan, Queenan works apart from the rest of the department, thus his identity remains a mystery to the mole.

The corrupt cop inside the department is a fast rising, ambitious south Boston kid named Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). Colin was raised under the wing of Frank Costello and bred to become a cop specifically to help out Costello sometime in the future. When Costello suspects there is a cop in his crew he turns to Sullivan to find him.

Working from a very smart script by William Monahan, Martin Scorsese crafts a gut wrenchingly violent thriller that twists and turns in cat and mouse fashion and keeps audiences on the edge of their seat before devastating them with stunning violence. This is some of the smartest and most violent work of Scorsese's career and never before has he kept his audience more off their guard.

Leonardo DiCaprio keeps getting better and better as he grows further away from the teen idol persona that was thrust upon him even before Titanic. DiCaprio and Scorsese work so well together with Scorsese bringing out Dicaprio's masculinity and DiCaprio bringing vulnerability to Scorsese's tough guy world. It's a perfect match in The Departed where DiCaprio perfectly balances the conflicting bravado and fear of an undercover officer in the midst of a highly volatile situation.

Being a native of Boston Matt Damon brings an authentic accent to his role but it is his darting eyes and cutthroat wits that make Colin the complicated, cold blooded, center of The Departed. Damon is ice cold, reminiscent of his serial killer in The Talented Mr. Ripley. The characters are both ambitious and eager to please on the surface, hiding a dark side capable of just about anything.

For popcorn entertainment in The Departed it's all about Jack. Jack Nicholson's charismatic wacko mobster is outsized and yet believable. The ruthless, hard edge, nature of Frank Costello matched with the wildly charming Nicholson persona is both horrifying and fascinating. Combining elements of his own well crafted persona with elements of his wildly diverse characters of the past, Nicholson plays Costello as part Cuckoo's nest, part Shining and part L.A Lakers courtside peacock. It's a wonderful and terrifying performance.

The most entertaining thing about The Departed however, is watching Scorsese return to the genre that he made great, the gritty from the streets thriller. While I loved both Gangs of New York and The Aviator for their grand ambition and exulting scale, both are at times desperate and cloying. You can see where Scorsese got the reputation for courting the academy with these pictures. Having Bob and Harvey Weinstein produce both pictures only exacerbated the issue.

There is nothing desperate or cloying in The Departed. This is Scorsese telling a story with smarts and guts. Spilling blood, firing bullets and crafting tough guy characters that we haven't seen since the last time Scorsese hit the streets with his iconic gangster flick Goodfellas. If Scorsese never made another picture The Departed would be the perfect film to truly capture his legacy, a smart, tough, rough-hewn gangster epic.

The Departed is unquestionably the best film of 2006. Scorsese finally stepping out from under the influence of the awards greedy Weinstein clan, returns to his roots for a story he truly knows how to tell. A potboiler from the streets, with great dialogue and extraordinary violence. This is Scorsese's milieu, his home turf, and he takes full advantage in The Departed.

This is an absolute must see picture.

Movie Review Invincible

Invincible (2006)

Director Ericson Core 

Written by Brad Gann 

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Greg Kinnear, Elizabeth Banks, Kirk Acevedo

Release Date August 25th, 2006

Published August 24th, 2006

The Disney sports movie has become an annual experience. From Remember The Titans to The Rookie to Miracle to Glory Road, they aren't just reliably rousing sports adventures they are also consistent money makers. The latest in this long line of sports underdog stories is called Invincible and it stars Mark Wahlberg in the role of real life NFL walk-on Vince Papale, a teacher /bartender who rose from the streets of South Philly to the turf of old Veterans stadium.

In 1975 the Philadelphia Eagles were getting booed out of town by their own fans in venerable Veterans stadium. The team was a woeful 3 and 13 in 1975 which lead to the firing of their head coach and the hiring of UCLA wunderkind Dick Vermeil (Greg Kinnear). Moving from the cozy confines of college football to the NFL city where fans once booed Santa Claus off the field, is quite the culture shock for the new coach.

Desperate to spark fan interest in the new look Eagles, Vermeil launched a wild idea. In his first press conference, Vermeil offered open tryouts to anyone in Philly who felt they had the talent to become an Eagle. Of the hundreds who took the chance, only one man, Vince Papale, a teacher and part time bartender, had the guts and talent to be offered a shot at a training camp.

For Vince the opportunity could not come along at a better moment. His wife (Lola Glaudini) has left him. His part time teaching job has just eliminated the need for subs like him and his bartending gig is not paying the bills. He has been reduced to borrowing money from his father (Kevin Conway) who is facing the possibility of a lengthy strike at the plant where he works.

Even given his desperate circumstances Vince does not approach training camp with great optimism and it is in fact the surprisingly dark pessimism with which Mark Wahlberg plays Vince Papale that separates Invincible from typical Disney sports flicks. Wahlberg and director Ericson Core take risks in allowing Vince to be a real glass half empty type who is not concerned with being likable. Vince is a good guy, a nice guy but he does not have the typically lovable characteristics of your average feel good movie hero.

That is not to say that Invincible in any way breaks the mold of the typical Disney feel good sports movie. It lives comfortably within the genre's conventions. What director Ericson Core, writer Brad Gann and star Mark Wahlberg do is simply apply the formula better than other similar films like the saccharine Remember The Titans, the unfocused Glory Road or the simpleminded rah rah enthusiasm of Miracle.

The best thing about Invincible is Mark Wahlberg who continues to mature into a combination of character actor and superstar. Wahlberg has the star power to open a picture and the talent to make it memorable beyond that opening. Two years ago he dazzled as a thug hero in the highly underrated Four Brothers. Now in a 180 degree turn from that blood and guts actioner, Wahlberg courts family audiences, without simply pandering, in a piece of genre product. He brings more to the role of Vince Papale than most other actors would such an uncomplicated role.

The football scenes in Invincible are not groundbreaking but they more than pass as believable because star Mark Wahlberg actually performs his own football stunts.. Especially entertaining are Vince's games against his neighborhood pals in the rain on a sandlot lit by car headlights. These scenes have a music video quality to their rapid fire edits timed to the music of the scene whether its BTO or Grand Funk.

The music video feel also applies to the slick cinematography of director Ericson Core who slows the street ball scenes down, speeds them up and brightens the images just a little to make them stand out from the rest of the picture which has a sepia quality.

Invincible doesn't break the mold of the Disney sports movie. Rather, it just makes a more quality version of the product within that mold. This is not an entirely satisfying experience for a discerning audience. However, given the realities of modern studio filmmaking you have to grade on a curve. On that curve Invincible's ability to do what's been done before better than it's been done before is a welcome change of pace.

Movie Review: The Truth About Charlie

The Truth About Charlie (2002) 

Directed by Jonathan Demme

Written by Jonathan Demme

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Thandie Newton, Tim Robbins, Ted Levine

Release Date October 25th, 2002 

Published October 24th, 2002 

There are many signs of a troubled production. Media rumors of on set strife. Inflated egos inflating budgets. And the ever present internet reviews of scripts and rough cuts, either intentionally leaked or stolen. Maybe the most quiet but telling portent of trouble is the shift of release dates. In most cases once completed a film is immediately put on the schedule. However if the studio releasing the film see’s something they don’t like, they delay the release and do what they can to hide and fix the problems.

Such was the case with The Truth About Charlie. A search of Upcomingmovies.com reveals a number of release dates and that the film was completed over a year ago. What is unclear after viewing the film is what was so bad about it that the studio so unceremoniously dumped it into release with so little fan fare. It’s not that bad.

Charlie stars Thandie Newton as a newlywed of three months who returns from a vacation, taken without her new hubby, to find her apartment and bank accounts empty. Her character, Regina, is informed that her husband Charlie has been killed while on a train ride to, well, no one is quite sure where he was going. Regina had thought Charlie was an art dealer but after the cops show her a number of different passports all belonging to the man she assumed was just her husband she is forced to re-evaluate everything she thought she knew. 

In the meantime she finds herself pursued by people from Charlie’s past who are searching for 6 million dollars Charlie stole from them. Regina, however, has no idea where it is. Throw into the mix an American named Joshua Peters (Mark Wahlberg) who just keeps popping up whenever she’s in trouble. Also throw in an American spy played by Tim Robbins as yet another character with questionable motives.

Based on the 1963 Grant-Hepburn movie Charade, The Truth About Charlie is a classic superfluous spy movie. A love story adventure where characters change sides at a moments notice and motivations change just as quick. Director Jonathan Demme’s sure-handed direction steadies what could have been a confusing and tiresome story. The film clicks along at a quick pace knowing that if it slows down too much, it’s paper thin story will unravel.

The only problem I could sense about the film is Mark Wahlberg as Joshua. Wahlberg seems to be sleepwalking through the role and never generates any palpable chemistry with co-star Thandie Newton. Newton on the other hand is sensational. Though Wahlberg gets top billing for box office purposes, this is clearly Newton’s movie. Give her a co-star who could project the charm and danger projected by Cary Grant in the original version and you might have quite a good film.

In the end unfortunately,`1 The Truth About Charlie is a thin but watchable Saturday night rental. The kind of film you can watch and immediately forget. See it for Newton who get’s more beautiful everytime she’s onscreen.

Movie Review: Contraband

Contraband (2012) 

Directed by Baltasar Kormakur 

Written by Aaron Guzikowski

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale, Giovanni Ribisi, Caleb Landry Jones, J.K Simmons, Ben Foster 

Release Date January 12th, 2012 

Published January 11th, 2012 

Contraband is a mediocre action movie that rises above mediocre because Mark Wahlberg is so darn compelling. I've been a Mark Wahlberg fan for years; despite his having starred in such duds as The Happening, Maxx Payne, and Shooter. Wahlberg simply has that intangible star quality that makes you want to follow him on whatever film journey he's taking. Contraband could not survive with a lesser star.

Chris Farraday (Wahlberg) was once known as the Houdini of the smuggling world. With his sidekick Sebastian (Ben Foster), Farraday could smuggle anything without ever getting caught. Now, Farraday is a civilian, running his own security company, happily married to Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and raising two sons. He’s gone soft, he’s gone legit, and anyone who’s ever seen a movie about a bad guy gone good already knows where Contraband is headed. 

Yup, Farraday is dragged back into the smuggling underworld when his boneheaded brother in law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) pulls a drug smuggling job and ends up dumping the drugs in the river when Customs boards his boat. Not surprisingly, Andy's employer, Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi), is none too happy and he wants Chris to pay Andy's debt or else. Pulled back into the business, Farraday calls on Sebastian for one more run. 

There are no surprises in this set up; Contraband is not original or unexpected. What works in Contraband is the businesslike, conservative approach of director Baltasar Kormakur who gets down to the business of smuggling with only the most necessary bits of exposition. When Mark Wahlberg and his crew finally get on a ship ready to smuggle the pace is methodical and to the point.

Giovanni Ribisi is not exactly the most intimidating bad guy one could imagine and this does undermine a few scenes where he's supposed to be playing tough. One scene that will test an audience's ability to suspend belief finds the wiry Ribisi pushing around Kate Beckinsale. Anyone who's seen and enjoyed the Underworld movies knows Kate Beckinsale could snap Ribisi like a twig if she wanted.

(Yes, I'm aware that movie magic makes Beckinsale a badass vampire in "Underworld;" I was being cute.)

The key to raising Contraband above other, similar action thrillers is Mark Wahlberg. Since his bold and ballsy Oscar nominated work in The Departed Wahlberg has really come into his own as a movie star and that movie star quality is the one thing working in favor of Contraband. Without Mark Wahlberg, Contraband is an exceptionally average movie. See "Contraband" for Mark Wahlberg or maybe to chuckle at Giovanni Ribisi's tattooed tough guy; both are strong reasons to see "Contraband."

Movie Review Mile 22

Mile 22 (2018) 

Directed by Peter Berg 

Written by Lea Carpenter 

Starring Mark Wahlberg. Iko Uwais, Ronda Rousey, John Malkovich

Release Date August 17th, 2018 

Published August 16th, 2018 

Mile 22 is some hot, flaming, garbage as a movie. I’m shocked that such a mess could feature the talent of Peter Berg behind the camera and Mark Wahlberg in front of it. Not that they are no stranger to nonsense, they did make Lone Survivor together, a film that amounted to the Black Knight from Monty Python written as a soldier in Afghanistan, but that film is Die Hard compared to the ludicrous, chaotic, rubbish that is Mile 22.

Mark Wahlberg, sort of stars in Mile 22 as James Silva, a CIA operative. I say 'sort of' because the performance is so unhinged and disconnected that it is hard to say if he is fully aware of what is happening in the movie. Wahlberg seems far more invested in the idea that his character is a troubled super-genius than in the plot which has him leading a team that broke up a Russian spy ring in an American suburb and is now in some foreign locale following up on what they found.

The plot kicks in when Li Noor (Iko Uwais from The Raid franchise), drives right up to the American Embassy and presents evidence that could lead to the discovery of a cache of some deadly poison. However, he won’t give up the evidence, one of those Hollywood encrypted computer disks that even the world’s great hackers can’t hack, (Gah!), until Wahlberg agrees to take him to America and away from the people trying to kill him.

Uwais is a tremendous physical performer and he gets one truly spectacular fight scene that demonstrates that but his casting appears to be little more than a marketing attempt to evoke the worldwide success of The Raid and The Raid 2. Uwais is supposed to be desperate yet duplicitous and yet his blank-eyed stare only ever looks tired when he’s supposed to seem menacing or slightly untrustworthy. He’s checked out in only a slightly different way than Wahlberg it would appear.

Poor Ronda Rousey makes her film debut in Mile 22 and it’s rather embarrassing. Rousey plays Sam, one of Wahlberg’s lieutenants, and while she’s believably a badass, she is cringe inducing when attempting dialogue. Saddled with an expository scene with co-star Lauren Cohan, Rousey mumbles her way through a wince inducing exchange where she seemed about as natural as a mixed martial artist in a mud wrestling competition.

Mile 22 appears to have been edited with an eye toward satisfying absolutely no one. The film is hard to watch at times as Berg and his team slash cut from perspective shots to security camera footage in the most jarring fashion possible. Berg favors odd angles as well and thus the editing combined with the cantilevered angles and too loud soundtrack obscure the action and assault the senses all at once.

I have always disliked Berg’s fantasy approach to supposedly realistic action. His Lone Survivor with Wahlberg a few years ago had a real life story to tell but the violence was so cartoonish it obliterated the real life story. The stars of Lone Survivor may have been real life heroes but Berg’s cartoonish exploitation of their real life struggle rendered those men like animated caricatures, bulletproof and apparently made of rubber and steel rather than flesh and bone.

That same cartoonish violence and amping of the stakes beyond the point of believability is present in Mile 22 as well. Each character in Mile 22 suffers through a scene where they are injured to a degree that would be unsurvivable by an actual human being. And then, when they aren’t defying the ability of the human body, the odds are so heavily stacked against the survival  of our heroes that that we can’t help but laugh and wonder just how dumb or bad at their job the bad guys must be for the heroes to survive.

I don't understand how Mile 22 came to be. Mark Wahlberg and Peter Berg are a good team of director and actor. The last two Berg-Wahlberg movies, Patriot's Day and Deepwater Horizon, are legitimately good movies. Patriot's Day was one of the better movies of 2016, a legitimately emotionally involving action movie about the real life Boston Marathon bombing that felt visceral and alive. Here however, both director and leading man appear to be paycheck players who do not care a lick about the movie they're making or how remarkably bad that movie is. 

So, why is this movie called Mile 22? I am legitimately wondering why this movie is called Mile 22? I watched all of Mile 22, or what my mind could take before I had to look away to shake off the latest assault on my senses, and I still have no idea what the title is about. Perhaps it was a production title and they simply didn’t bother to change it? That would fit with how little anyone appears to care about the quality of Mile 22, one of the worst movies of 2018.

Movie Review The Happening

The Happening (2008) 

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Written by M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Zoey Deschanel, John Leguizamo

Release Date July 13th, 2008

Published July 12, 2008 

M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening is awful in the most unique and spectacular way. It leaves me with this strange excitement and curiosity, the kind usually inspired by a really good movie. For instance, when I saw I'm Not There, the Bob Dylan bio, I was so excited I wanted to know more about Dylan, read his books, interviews and especially, I wanted to hear his music.

With The Happening I feel quite similar. I am devouring interviews with Shyamalan and the opinions of fellow critics who seem thus far not to grasp the enormity of the spectacular awfulness of The Happening. I am desperately searching for a clue as to whether M. Night Shyamalan is an elaborate genius who has fooled us all with not a movie but a prank. Or is The Happening really intended as a supernatural horror film in the tradition of the B-Movie feature. Is this blinding mess of a movie a real attempt on his part or the most elaborate punking in history. Is M. Night Shyamalan the next Andy Kaufman or the next Coleman Francis?

The Happening would be the ultimate meta-parody if Shyamalan did indeed intend to make us laugh. However, I think he meant to do this. I think he intended to make this movie and believed it to be frightening, suspenseful and well acted. If that is the case. then what I witnessed is the ultimate career self immolation in history. The thing about self immolation for me. I don't get it. But I do admire the commitment it so obviously requires. The dedication to a cause so obviously lost is, at the very least, impressive.

By now I should have delved into the plot and given you some impression of what the movie is about, the action that is taking place. I can't bring myself to do that here because really there isn't a plot. There is some stuff that happens; but no real thesis statement or rallying cry. Those who choose the path of least resistance and take the film at face value will tell you it is an environmental fable. Trees release toxins causing humans to line up and kill themselves in grizzly fashion. That is an easy description but the truly keen observer will note that no one really knows what is happening in The Happening.

Those who choose the path of least resistance and take the film at face value will tell you it is an environmental fable. Trees release toxins causing humans to line up and kill themselves in grizzly fashion. That is an easy description but the truly keen observer will note that no one ever actually reasons what is happening in The Happening. So coy is Shyamalan about the hidden evil of his horror epic that you never really know what or if indeed anything is Happening? Trees or terrorists? The CIA? George freaking Bush? Who knows. Shyamalan, doesn't seem to know and from the lackadaisical approach to plot and character, he doesn't seem to really care.

Who does care? Mark Wahlberg seems to. The star of The Happening is committed to this mess and sacrifices dignity and career to satisfy whatever he thinks is Shyamalan's vision. It's an astonishing performance of earnest honesty and blind commitment. To what? He has no idea. Wahlberg I'm sure was hoping Shyamalan would bring it all together in the editing room. Remember, this guy survived the chaos of David O. Russell in I Heart Huckabees. He's used to weirdo directors and scripts that seem to have a mind of their own beyond his character.

Unfortunately for Wahlberg, where Russell did indeed have a point of view to satisfy with his chaotic approach, Shyamalan either betrayed him with this practical joke or had no such perspective at all. Poor Zooey Deschanel comes off even more dazed than Wahlberg. Not only is she lost and confused by the material, Deschanel brings a level of sitcom kitsch to her performance that leaves her looking as if she wandered into the wrong movie. Certain scenes, like avoiding the call of an unwanted admirer or her potential pregnancy seem like takes for her Dharma & Greg audition in some alternative universe.

John Leguizamo is at least left with his dignity as his character checks out early enough to avoid the stench, the same cannot be said for journeyman character actor Frank Collison whose tandem monologues about hot dogs and plants will have even diehard Mystery Science Theater fans hitting the eject button. So folks, there you have it. Is M. Night Shyamalan the living legacy of the great comic genius Andy Kaufman? Is The Happening his equivalent of Kaufman reading the Great Gatsby until the audience simply became irritated and walked out?

Or is Shyamalan really a modern day Coleman Francis who got lucky a couple times at the box office but in reality is a guy who should be making movies in his basement with friends and cronies from some small town movie fiefdom. Does he live in that Ed Wood like cocoon of sycophants and well wishers who allowed Wood to go on for years without acknowledging his utter ineptitude? Unfortunately dear reader, you will have to see The Happening in order to form an opinion on that. The simple answer is the cocoon of sycophants. The more intriguing and satisfying choice is the practical joke. I believe the first answer, I long for the second.

Movie Review: The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones (2009) 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Phillippa Boyens, Fran Walsh (Based on the novel by Alice Sebold)

Starring Saorise Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon 

Release Date December 11th, 2009 

Published December 8th, 2009 

I have a general detachment from emotion. It's a guard against a young child version of me who was too invested in his emotions and was known to burst into tears at unfortunate moments. Other kids' reactions to my outbursts drove me inward to the man I am today. I am not cold-hearted, just well controlled, guarded. Peter Jackson's “The Lovely Bones” is the rare film that broke through my guards and tapped the well of that emotional young man I was.

The story of Susie Salmon (Oscar nominee Saorise Ronan, “Atonement”) begins with her narration explaining that her name is Salmon, like the fish communicating her innocence and her eager to please nature answering a question no one asked. She then stops you in your tracks with a matter of fact statement: "I was 14 years old when I was murdered on December 6th 1973.

From that moment on “The Lovely Bones” unfolds a story of murder, sadness and heartbreaking purity. After revealing her murderer as a neighbor named George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) Susie narrates her story from a place called The In-Between, a place between heaven and earth constructed from Susie's imagination.

Peter Jackson animates Susie's heaven with artistry absent from even his “Lord of the Rings” movies. For the first time in his career Jackson makes use of film tech to deepen his subject, not merely to animate it. The stunning landscapes of Susie's In-Between are eye popping and reveal aspects of her nature, her innocence, her longings and unfulfilled desires. A crumbling gazebo holds a particular emotional attachment that I will leave you to discover.

From her In-Between Susie watches how her death impacts her family. Her father Jack becomes so consumed with catching her killer that he barely notices his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz) is drifting away. It's not until her cab leaves for the airport that Jack realizes she is gone. Susie also watches her killer, George Harvey. He has a past filled with other murders but for some reason Susie's murder has a particular hold on his conscience. He spends hours alone seeming to re-live each moment, moments thankfully unseen by us in the audience. The choice to leave the cruel details to our imagination is a controversial one; the book by Alice Sebold went into obsessive detail.

For me, leaving Susie's suffering to the imagination was the right call; I doubt that I could have endured watching the effervescent Ms. Ronan suffering as described in the book. We are given enough detail to construct the horror for ourselves and that is more than enough. Transformed by make-up Stanley Tucci crafts a killer of remarkable repugnance. Today, George Harvey would be the poster boy for creepy. He looks like the picture of someone who murders children. A mumbling, ill at-ease creep, George Harvey sets off alarm bells for his simple lack of social skills. In the 1973 of the film however, he's just a slightly off shut-in, on the surface.

Once he becomes suspect number one, for Jack and daughter Lindsey (Rose McIver), who joins her dad's obsessive crusade, the film takes on a pseudo murder mystery feel that enlivens the middle portion of the film. We know he did it, they think he did it and we become desperately involved in trying to will the characters to the clues we know are there. This clever bit of populist narrative is just one of Peter Jackson's wise choices. Jackson has made an art film, crossed it with a thriller and topped it all with a deeply emotional story of coming of age. It's almost too much for one film to hold, changing scenes as this does from Susie's gorgeous art-scape to George Harvey's dark chambers to the Salmon house consumed by grief and the urgent search for justice.

Only a director as bold and daring as Peter Jackson could pull off such a trick. His experience with the “Lord of the Rings” informs a good deal of “The Lovely Bones.” In LOTR Jackson used technology as a construction device. In “The Lovely Bones” that construction device becomes a painter's brush and the technology melts into the subconscious aiding as much in storytelling as in craftsmanship. Unlike George Lucas or James Cameron for whom CGI remains a carpenter’s tool, Jackson sees technology in “The Lovely Bones” as something to be woven into the fabric of storytelling. Susie's In-Between is never merely a place; it's the state of her soul where her imagination and desires take a physical hold.

Technology, story and character unite in “The Lovely Bones” to create a deeply emotional experience that transports you into the sadness of a little girl gone before her time. An examination of grief, unfulfilled desires, love and death, “The Lovely Bones” is one of the most daring and original works in years and one of the best films of the last year.

Movie Review The Italian Job

The Italian Job (2003) 

Directed by F Gary Gray 

Written by Donna Powers, Wayne Powers 

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Seth Green, Jason Statham, Donald Sutherland

Release Date May 30th, 2003 

Published May 29th, 2003 

What is it with Mark Wahlberg and remakes of classic movies? Last year it was the Cary Grant spy flick Charade “reimagined” as The Truth About Charlie. And of course, you remember him in that ape movie. Now it's a 1969 caper flick better known for its car chase then its caper plot. Wahlberg takes the role once inhabited by Sir Michael Caine as a master thief who is double crossed by his partner and wants payback in The Italian Job.

The title is a reference to the film’s opening caper set against the canals of Venice. Inside a beautiful villa, a group of thieves led by Charlie (Wahlberg) and his former mentor John Bridger (Donald Sutherland, inheriting the role from none other than Noel Coward). The rest of the crew includes Charlie's second in command Steve (Edward Norton), the weapons expert Left Ear (Mos Def), the computer expert Lyle (Seth Green) and the wheelman Handsome Rob (Jason Statham).

The so-called Italian job comes off perfectly, and the crew is set to walk away with 35 million in gold. That is until Steve double crosses the crew, steals the gold and shoots John. Charlie and the rest of the crew are nearly killed attempting to get away, setting in motion the film’s revenge plot. Cut to Philadelphia where John's daughter Stella (Charlize Theron) works as a security expert, cracking uncrackable safes for the police department, a skill she picked up from her dad. When Charlie tells her that they have found Steve and plan on getting the gold back, she is down for some payback.

So what makes The Italian Job any different from the numerous heist flicks that have dotted the film landscape in recent years? Pretty much nothing. Like most films of its genre, it has double-crosses, twists, and action. It has murders, a gangster subplot and, of course, a supremely contrived, overly complicated series of heist scenes that involve all sorts of techno-gadgetry and split second timing but always break down to guys with guns.

I realize that it's difficult to criticize a remake for being unoriginal but I must protest the number of unoriginal, uninspired clichés the film employs. Particularly annoying is the use of the age-old reveal scene. The one in which it seems a character is doing one thing but it turns out they are doing something entirely different. In this case, it's Theron cracking a safe, seeming to rob it but in reality, she's cracking it for the cops, as per her job as a security expert. Ugh.

Director F. Gary Gray's one weapon against the been-there-done-that story is his unique visual style and slickness. Gray has that music video honed talent for pacing. It comes from condensing songs to three or four minute visuals for MTV and it's a talent that will someday be recognized. That talent serves Gray well in keeping the audience from thinking too long about the film’s familiar story elements.

Gray is also blessed with an excellent cast headed up by Mark Wahlberg. I'm starting to notice Wahlberg's real knack for melting from topline star into ensemble player. He did it in The Truth About Charlie where he clearly gave the movie away to Thandie Newton. He also did it in Planet of The Apes where, though he was clearly the hero, he still allowed the ape suited Helena Bonham Carter every opportunity to stand in the spotlight. Here, teamed with a charismatic crew of Jason Statham, Mos Def and Seth Green, Wahlberg has an ensemble worthy of ceding the spotlight to. And though I loath to admit it, I actually enjoyed the work of Charlize Theron, who until this film had been to me like nails on a chalkboard.

The Italian Job is familiar and predictable but not dull. It's another Saturday night rental worthy of sitting next to Wahlberg's The Truth About Charlie and Statham's The Transporter and Gray's The Negotiator. Slight, witty action movies that may lack substance but never lacks entertainment value.

Movie Review: The Other Guys

The Other Guys (2010) 

Directed by Adam McKay 

Written by Adam McKay, Chris Henchy

Starring Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne The Rock Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton 

Release Date August 6th, 2010

Published August 5th, 2010 

The “Saturday Night Live” influence on modern movie comedy cannot be underestimated. Yes, the movies based on SNL characters are, more often than not, miserable failures but that is not where the influence lies. The specter of Lorne Michaels lingers in the careers of those comic actors he plucked from relative obscurity and trained into comic athletes who chase the biggest laughs the way linebackers chase down running backs.

Will Ferrell and writer-director Adam McKay were both borne of the laugh competition environment of SNL and their most successful work reflects the instincts honed in a high pressure, big gag business. In three successful comic pairings, and “Step Brothers,” Ferrell and McKay have perfected their own SNL off-shoot, the sketch movie. It has the same characters acting in a series of context provided big gags that forcefully coalesce to something of a story-line that can be called a movie.

The latest Ferrell-McKay brand sketch movie is “The Other Guys” and while some will call the whole thing a send up of buddy cop movies; its success lies in the strength of each individual sketch that, because they include the same characters throughout, can seem like a real movie. In “The Other guys” the sketch by sketch constants are played by Ferrell as a forensic accountant turned vice detective and Mark Wahlberg as a would be big time detective busted down to desk work after he shot Derek Jeter of the Yankees right before Game 7 of the World Series. 

That's the premise each proceeds from, what happens from there is a lot of improv, some vain attempts at creating a story that exists from sketch to sketch and the energy with which both actors pursue a laugh. Credit Mark Wahlberg for being able to keep up with the veteran Ferrell on his turf. Many other actors would be reduced to tears by Ferrell's astonishing ability to riff on the same sketch idea. Wahlberg succeeds by not caring about what Ferrell does, he finds a beat of his own for each sketch and plays that to its comic height.

The Supporting actors in “The Other Guys,” including Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, Eva Mendes and Michael Keaton are each given a single beat to play and each succeeds in finding their very particular kind of funny. Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson play the action hero cops whose glorious death scene is a wonderfully dark send up of buddy cops in movies.

Mendes’ joke, not surprising, proceeds from how gorgeous she is and how not gorgeous Ferrell as her husband is. Finally, Michael Keaton plays the oddest beat as Ferrell and Wahlberg’s boss. His joke is that he refers to songs by girl group TLC at random and claims not to know he’s doing it, and what’s great is; the joke works. I wanted to see Keaton from scene to scene just to hear how he would reference another song.

That is the whole of “The Other Guys” each actor taking their cue, finding their particular rhythm and if they happen upon something resembling a story drop it in so we can move somewhat seamlessly to the next sketch. The stuff about corporate espionage and bank bailouts that are jammed in at the edges of “The Other Guys,” that might in another movie make up the story of the ‘movie,’ are mere afterthoughts in “The Other Guys.”

”The Other Guys” like “Anchorman,” “Talledega Nights” and “Step Brothers” before it are movies about comedy. They are feature length attempts to find the most punchlines in the shortest amounts of time. They feature actors and writers whose main goals are cracking each other up and in the process cracking up the audience. Story is an afterthought; something to be picked up in reshoots.

This sounds awful and can be quite bad when not done right. Ferrell and McKay however are pros and they find so many laughs in this sketch movie formula that you can forgive the lack of movie-ness in their movies. “The Other Guys” earns so many big laughs that I forgot about whether there was a story progressing behind it all.

As a movie it's a bit of a disaster but as sketches riffing on the classic Hollywood buddy cop genre, “The Other Guys” is hilarious. Don't ask for anything more than the laughs and you will be just fine.