Salt

Director: Phillip Noyce
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, August Diehl, Daniel Olbrychski
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Watching Salt I couldn't help but be reminded of The American, also released this year. You know that near dialogue-free movie starring George Clooney as an assassin that everyone thought was too slow and boring, but I kind of appreciated for what it was. This, with its relentless, pulse-pounding action could easily be called The Anti-American (in more ways than one) so on the surface, it's an odd comparison. But their common link are movie stars unwilling to phone their lead performances for a paycheck even though they very easily could and no one would care. Without either star, the films wouldn't amount to much at all, but it's true to a greater extent here. The movie itself is just fine and has few noticeable problems other than a silly, familiar plot, but no one else could have brought what Angelina Jolie does to it. And no other actress is capable of carrying just one action movie, much less an entire action franchise. With all the outside attention she gets, it's easy to forget she's the most believable action star we have, male or female. Salt's essentially a standard actioner, but this finally settles it: Jolie is the best at what she does. And what she does is kick ass like it's nobody's business.

Jolie is CIA agent Evelyn Salt, who gets thrown for a major loop when when a Russian defector, Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski) shows up at headquarters and spins a pretty unbelievable tale about how English-speaking Russian super agents trained from birth have been plotting to destroy the United States from within for decades and had a hand in key historical events like the Kennedy assassination. He says their next assignment is to kill the visiting Russian President in New York City and announces the person who will do it: Evelyn Salt. Shocked at the accusation she's a KGB spy Salt goes on the run in an effort to protect her German arachnologist husband, Michael (August Diehl) while being hunted by her colleagues, current partner Ted Winter (Liev Schrieber) and special agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor). If she isn't a spy then why run? Unless, of course, she really is. The answer to that big question arrives sooner than you'd think but other more complicated issues arise as Salt fights for her survival.

In a role originally written for Tom Cruise, who dropped out fearing it would too closely resemble his Mission: Impossible character (he's right, it would), Jolie absolutely kills it. Salt's name was changed from Edwin to Evelyn and I'm guessing that's where most of the rewriting ended since everything she does in this movie we're accustomed to seeing from a male Bond-type character. Her physicality is indescribable and watching you can tell that she did most if not all of her own stunts, which is just sick when you consider they include leaping from high-rise buildings and diving onto speeding vehicles. The performance is not only fearless, but limitless in terms of its physicality, and after showing a strong penchant toward action-driven projects in the past (most recently Wanted), her game is upped to a whole new level this time. She's believable as an overly competent CIA agent, a woman who could be a Russian spy, an assassin taking out hundreds of men, a wife torn between her marriage and her job, and when a disguise calls for it, even as a man. And when the story makes a sudden dramatic shift midway through she doesn't miss a beat and impressively adjusts every detail in her performance. With Liev Schrieber they picked the perfect actor to support her, being that he's as cool and controlled as she is intense. 

The actual plot is ridiculous (though not entirely predictable), but give screenwriter Brian Helgeland credit for taking the script to the dark side and staying there right up until the end while director Phillip Noyce manages to keep things going at such a breakneck pace you hardly realize just how familiar the story and characters are. This may be action trash, but it's trash of the highest order and its lean, mean 100 minutes feel more like 10. Many have already complained about the abrupt cliffhanger ending clearly meant to set up a sequel but is anyone really watching a mindless action fest like this to see how it ends? Angelina's the only reason to watch and even just the tease she might reprise the role make the film's conclusion a success. I was initially a doubter but the hype is all true. She's that good. As an action thriller, Salt doesn't break any new ground, but there's no reason it should have to when Jolie can so effectively fool me into thinking it does.

Wanted

Director: Timur Bekmambetov Starring: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Common, Thomas Kretschmann, Terence Stamp
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

There are some actors who I love to see stretch and challenge themselves, taking a wide variety of roles that push them out of their comfort zone. Angelina Jolie is NOT one of them. We all know why she's here. There’s no sense hiding it. It wasn’t to save the world or adopt babies. It was for her to expertly handle a firearm as her tattooed body hangs out of a dangerously high speeding vehicle. We want her to kill people and look hot doing it. Lately, she’s done neither, opting instead to star in a string of boring, emotionally draining roles that would cure even the worst cases of insomnia.

There are so few believable female action stars out there today that the loss of Jolie to more serious projects was a major blow, at least from where I sat. That’s why, if nothing else, Wanted should be celebrated as a return to form for her as she once again slips into the kind of bad-ass part she was born to play. If every role she took from here on out was identical to this I wouldn’t complain. She has a gift and should never hesitate using it.
My enthusiasm for her return to the genre that made her is tempered slightly by the fact that her character is underwritten and the film containing her big comeback seems more interested in drowning itself out in a pool of Matrix-like effects. But unlike that overrated piece of ‘90’s cyber-junk this at least has the decency to not pass itself off as anything more than disposable mindless entertainment. If you view it on that level it’ll work, despite its many flaws. The first hour introduces us to easily the whiniest crybaby protagonist of the year but you can't tell me it isn't entertaining. The movie have missed its calling as a workplace comedy in the vain of Office Space because it’s been a while since I laughed as hard during an action film as I did in the opening minutes of this one. What comes after isn’t nearly as clever, recycling a tired plot from other films, but it doesn’t really make a difference because it’s executed fine. Wanted can be sometimes be more annoying than enthralling but the overall result is a satisfying adrenaline rush.

Imagine nearly every social encounter you have being accompanied by a cold sweat, a flushed face and the sound of your heart beating out of your chest at 140 beats per minute. That’s the cubicle dwelling life of anxiety ridden office drone Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) an accounts manager who’s life is so boring that when he "Googles" himself nothing comes up. When not being verbally abused by his tyrant boss (Lorna Scott) he’s arguing with his bitchy girlfriend (Kristen Hager) who’s cheating on him with his best friend Barry (Chris Pratt) during lunch hour. What’s the highlight of Wes' day? Buying Barry condoms.

Everything changes when he encounters the sexy and dangerous Fox (Jolie) who rescues him from a drug store attack from Cross (Thomas Kretschmann) a rogue assassin. He finds out from Fox that his father (David O’ Hara) was really “Mr. X,” a member of a thousand year old group of assassins known as The Fraternity and he was just murdered on a rooftop by Cross. Fox and the organization’s head honcho Sloan (Morgan Freeman) take Wes under their wing with the goal of molding him into a fully-Fraternized killing machine capable of exacting revenge on this traitor who murdered his father.
The first half hour of Wanted is executed just about as perfectly as you could hope for. Thats' due to the hilariously deadpan depiction of Wes' pathetic existence at work and the spot-on narration accompanying it. The tone is just right and that combined with some clever editing makes the character relatable. Sure, it’s a rip-off of Fight Club but if you’re going to crib from a movie you may as well make sure it’s great one, and you better do it well. Then there's up and comer McAvoy, in a role that’s a complete 180 from his work in last year’s Oscar contending period drama Atonement. He plays a wuss so well it’s almost scary and does it with an American accent that rarely falters. Pratt steals nearly every scene he’s in with his smug delivery as the disingenuous “best friend” Barry, a jerk I’m betting many will recognize immediately from their everyday lives. As they will Janice, Wesley’s boss from hell who has an unhealthy obsession with her stapler. These characters are played with such gusto you’d think the actors are having the time of their lives. If not, they sure fooled me.

After being treated to the most entertaining use of a computer keyboard I’ve ever seen the material moves into more problematic territory with the training of Wesley and mythology behind the Fraternity’s “kill one, save a thousand” philosophy ( I’m still not exactly sure how that philosophy comes into play when you’ve just killed a trainload of innocent people). The screenplay is loosely based on Mark Millar’s graphic novel series and just about any other action film you could think of. You don’t go into a movie like this expecting a riveting, complex character study, nor is it one, but I was surprised by a well-placed twist that not only made sense and took the story in a much more interesting direction. It definitely raised the stakes, convincing me that it had more on its mind than I originally thought. It’s still dumb, but definitely not lazy.

Wesley’s training sequences also heavily borrow (steal?) from Fight Club and Russian director Timur Bekmambetov (of Nightwatch and Daywatch fame) can’t seem to get enough of that Matrix “bullet time” technology and heavily relies on many fast forward and slow-motion sequences. It works for this kind of film and Bekmambetov really knows how to shoot exhilarating action scenes but there were times where it felt more annoying than exciting. How many times do we need to see curving bullets or the point of view from one as it finds its (human) target?

McAvoy and Jolie play off each other well and when Wes first meets Fox his dumb founded expressions and over-the-top theatrics sell the whole experience perfectly. Though it occurs seemingly overnight, his transition from pencil pusher to certifiable badass killing machine works, which says a lot about his range of skill as an actor.

As Fox, Jolie has a smaller role than you may expect but she makes the most of it. I wish they did more with her but in this kind of a role just her presence is enough. She looks great (even if she could use a cheeseburger or two) and despite her slight frame she’s STILL incredibly believable with a gun in her hand. At times she looks bored with it but the important thing is that we’re not, a claim that can’t be made about some of her other film work of late.

If you’re an actress with that much screen presence and natural charisma the last thing you want to do is take parts that suppress it, which is why this is exactly what she should be doing. Forget about being taken seriously as an actress. Why bother? She’ll always be known as a celebrity first and this is the kind of part, more than any other, where we can check that distracting information at the door and just have some fun. Morgan Freeman once again plays his old, wise authority figure role but I appreciated that he at least took a little bit of a detour with it this time around.
Make no mistake about it, this is a dumb movie with little to no nutritional value, but it’s also a thrill ride that never lets up. The soundtrack rocks and features an original song by Danny Elfman (“The Little Things”) that would deserve inclusion among this year’s Best Original Song nominees if there isn’t some ridiculous rule disqualifying it (and I'm sure there probably is).

While I watching this I wasn’t even sure what I thought but then after it sunk in I realized it accomplished exactly what it needed to with style and precision, despite the fact there isn’t an original idea to be found. It almost plays like a clumsier version of last year’s superior Shoot ‘Em Up but just seeing Jolie in a role like this again is reason enough to recommend it. Two sequels are planned if for no other than to make a quick buck because this story certainly can’t support them. The fun here was watching the wimpy protagonist indoctrinated into this crazy world so without that I don't know what's left. But in a summer full of big blockbuster disappointments for me Wanted at least manages to hold its ground.

Kung Fu Panda

Directors: Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Starring: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: PG

*** (out of ****)

Kung Fu Panda is a fun and reasonably entertaining family film that can’t help but suffer a little from Post-WALL-E syndrome. While this was released into theaters nearly a month before Pixar’s masterwork I’m just getting around to it now and that timing isn’t exactly beneficial. In telling a simple story in a simple way and not aspiring to do much more this could be considered the cinematic animated equivalent of a pleasant walk in the park. It’s unfair to hold Dreamworks to the same standard as Pixar but taken on its own terms this is still the kind of movie that would have you leaving the theater telling your friends how “cute” it was. And you’d be right. That’s pretty much what it is. But there’s still some honor in executing a tried and true formula efficiently and in such a way that audiences of all ages can enjoy it.

For older kids and adults it really won’t be anything they haven’t seen before but I'm guessing small children will absolutely love it and likely beg for multiple viewings. In fact, they’ll probably like it much more than WALL-E because it movies at a brisker pace, is easier to understand and doesn’t contain jokes that will fly over their heads. In other words, they won’t be bored. But the more important newsworthy item coming out of this is that it took an animated film to give us one of Jack Black’s more restrained, intelligent performances.

Po (voiced by Black) is a Panda who works as a waiter at his father’s (James Hong) noodle restaurant and daydreams of becoming a martial arts hero, despite being rather lazy and out of shape. The old, wise Yoda-like turtle Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) has a vision that the vicious snow leopard Tia Lung (Ian McShane) will escape from prison to gain vengeance on his former master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) and wreck havoc in the Valley of Peace. He must choose and anoint the Dragon Warrior to defeat him.
Despite having top candidates for the honor amongst the "Furious Five," comprised of Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (David Cross) and Crane (Lucy Liu), Oogway selects Po, the overweight Panda with no martial arts experience. The "Five" are none too happy about it, nor is Shifu who’s designated the thankless, near-impossible task of training him for his showdown with Tia Lung. At first all seems hopeless, but Shifu finds a way to unearth his true potential and prepare him for battle with the dangerous Tia Lung.

The film boats an impressive array of big-name actors providing voice over work, yet strangely it seems as if only a couple contribute anything of value. A big fuss was made about Angelina Jolie’s presence but it’s a completely useless part and hardly the co-headlining role commercials and print advertisements have made it out to be. The same could be said for the other four members of the "Furious Five" as well. With talent like Seth Rogen and David Cross on board you’d figure they’d be given much more to do. It doesn’t really hurt the film per se and the roles fill their necessary (if somewhat lackluster) function in the story but it’s obvious the studio was just seeing dollar signs and not thinking whether their vocal talent would add anything to the film. It’s the very definition of stunt casting.

Luckily, the two major roles of Po and his trainer Shifu are exceptionally cast with Black and Hoffman. Those worrying that the usually manic Jack Black providing a voice for an animated feature would conjure up images of nails on a chalkboard can rest easy. He invests Po with a low-key charm and easygoing nature making him impossible to not root for. Of course you could joke that all of Black’s roles are cartoonish in nature so this would seem right up his alley, but he’s surprisingly restrained in this and while his voice is recognizable, it’s never a distraction. Hoffman’s voice is a little less recognizable (I didn’t even know it was him until after checking the credits), but he brings an authoritative but ultimately very caring dimension to Shifu. McShane’s voice is appropriately menacing for Tia Lung, even if this is your typical animated villain interchangeable with virtually any Disney film from the past 30 years.

Kung Fu Panda’s greatest strength is the writing as screenwriters Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger know what boxes to check and do so in an effective, workmanlike fashion. You have an outcast with a dream who must dig down deep inside himself to overcome impossible odds and the mentoring figure who helps him do it. We know how it starts, how it develops and where it ends up, although at a very quick 90 minutes it seems to get there before you can blink. Honestly, this movie felt like it was no longer than five minutes, which is probably a compliment.

The animation is just fine. Nothing special, but it doesn’t need to be because the film’s bread is buttered with the story and likable protagonist. I can’t say I was at all emotionally involved in what happened to him since the set-up is so standard but I was smiling the entire way through. If there’s a weak link it’s the action scenes, which are so fast-paced it’s sometimes difficult to tell what’s going on. It’s also hard to be concerned about the safety of Po considering no one in the film seems capable of even being hurt.

Have I made the movie sound unexciting enough for you? It’s actually a lot fun but if you go into expecting anything more than that you’re in for a letdown. I wish I could tell you about all the groundbreaking revelations Kung Fu Panda provided but the truth is that it’s good in the most average, common way possible. It’s proof that sometimes a really good movie can be less interesting than a bad one when it follows a predictable pattern we’ve seen many times before. I’d much rather watch a movie with more ambition that tries something different and fails than this, but since it’s frequently entertaining and hardly missteps it earns a passing grade. The film will be Oscar nominated for Best Animated Feature not because it’s so great but because there are only three slots to fill in that inane category. It will also lose.
I’m not surprised the movie raked in as much money as it did because it caters to its target audience really well and packs enough extra in to satisfy everyone else. Yet when it ended I couldn’t help thinking it could have been much better. Or even more perplexingly, maybe it couldn’t have been. Maybe this really is as good as was possible and we’re just spoiled. If that’s the case then there’s cause for celebration. It means we’ve come so far in animated family entertainment that calling Kung Fu Panda merely “fun” could almost be considered a backhanded compliment.

Beowulf

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright Penn, Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Brendan Gleeson, Crispin Glover, Alison Lohman
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

I own a Playstation 2 but I hardly ever use it. Why? Well, for one I was never really that skilled at video games. Truthfully, I'm pretty awful. And second, I just don't like the way the images look. They're too crisp to really even be considered a video game, but look too fake to pass as the real thing. The movements are awkward and choppy and the designers' attempts to give the characters facial expressions are particularly pathetic. Hook me up with a good old school N.E.S. or a Nintendo 64 and I'm happy. So what does this have to do with Robert Zemeckis' motion capture adaptation of the Old English epic poem Beowulf? You see, this just may be the very first feature length Playstation 2 movie. And it also happens to be an unnecessary exercise in self-indulgence and silliness.

Zemeckis has always had a flirty relationship with groundbreaking technology in previous directorial efforts like Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest Gump and Contact. But they were used sparingly (and carefully) to great effect, enhancing already wonderful films with great stories. That's why it's difficult for me to rationalize that the same man who prided himself on putting great storytelling first is responsible for an ill-conceived mess like this. We got a taste of it in The Polar Express a few years ago, but at least he was able to fall back on the fact it was an enchanting children's story.

Here he takes a serious sword and sandals epic into George Lucas territory where technology is king and actors are disposable. I should have known I was in for it when everyone kept telling me upon the film's theatrical release that "YOU HAVE TO SEE IT ON THE BIG SCREEN…AND IN 3-D!" or you won't like it. What does that say? And to think that Beowuf has been labeled as "the future of filmmmaking." If that's true then I'm jumping ship. Supposedly Zemeckis wasn't a fan of the original poem. That makes two of us. But his view is ironic considering both the poem and the film share an important common thread: They're both pretty much boring as hell. But even as bad this is, it isn't without its occasional moments. Especially one.

It's sixth century Denmark and King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) presides over a celebration of drunken merriment in the newly constructed feasting hall with his warriors and his young queen Wealtheow (an airbrushed-looking Robin Wright Penn). Crashing the festivities is a REALLY ugly monster named Grendel (Crispin Glover) with serious mommy issues who, in the most graphic scene of this underratedly gruesome film, tears every partygoer limb from limb. Most of the battles in this film are so disgusting and graphic that the only possible explanation for it escaping an "R" rating is that the MPAA idiotically rationalized that everything was "fake" because of the motion capture technology.

Like 300 before it, this contains just as much blood and violence as some of the"torture porn" films the media has been whining about these past couple of years and even less of a plot. Seasoned warrior Beowulf (Ray Winstone) arrives by ship promising to slay Grendel and collect the hefty reward. He also has his sights set on the queen. The King's advisor Unferth (John Malkovich) is unimpressed by the arrogant warrior's boasts but he's soon proven wrong. However slaying Grendel is only the beginning of Beowulf's challenges, as he must contend with the monster's nude seductress of a mother (Angelina Jolie) who gives new meaning to the term "M.I.L.F." He's offered a deal that's very difficult to turn down even though he should.

With all this state of the art visual technology at his disposal how does Zemeckis choose to use it? By setting three quarters of the film in a dining hall. That's right, a dining hall! With all the beautiful landscape scenes this epic tale could potentially provide and with the technology at his hands to do it, Zemeckis wimps out. He instead assumes we'd be far more entertained watching a naked Beowulf run around the lunch room with his nether regions strategically covered as if he's auditioning for the next Austin Powers sequel. He does shift gears eventually, but it's to give us a final battle that drags on for eternity. Zemeckis seems to just be showing off the technology to either amuse himself or take us completely out of the story. Sometimes both like in a scene where he shows a gyrating woman's cleavage as she cleans a table. "Look, this technology is so awesome I can even make breasts LOOK REAL!" Congratulations Bob, your honorary technical Oscar is in the mail.

It is great to see Ray Winstone, a gifted supporting actor, finally get top billing, but forgive me if this isn't exactly what I envisioned for his first big starring role. He does commanding voice work, even if co-writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary give him clumsy dialogue worthy of a WWE Raw script and Beowulf is an egotistical jerk who's impossible to root for. Malkovich and especially Hopkins eerily resemble their real life counterparts to the point where it's downright creepy just looking at them. But Hopkins' King Hrothgar is by far the movie's most engaging, entertaining character and every time he's on screen it's a hoot.

Then there's Jolie. The motion capture version of her not only looks, but also acts better than the real thing and it's Zemeckis' most eye-pleasing visual achievement since Jessica Rabbit. It's the only moment of genius in the entire film and a glimmer of hope that maybe Jolie has finally given up in her ridiculous quest to be taken seriously as an actress and will go back to just entertaining us, which used to be her strong point. Sadly, this is her most exciting performance in years. And it's not even her…or at least not really.

I agree with Zemeckis that the original Beowulf story is dry and could use some freshening up but this isn't the kind of tale that benefits from this kind of technology. The story has potential and I couldn't help but think how much more interesting it would have been if the actual actors were in a live action adaptation of it. Something is lost here and the technology still isn't at the point where these avatars, with their dead eyes and lack of facial expressions, can duplicate a human performance and invest the story with that required emotion.

The original plan was for co-writer Roger Avary to direct a smaller-scale live action version from his own script but it got caught in production hell, freeing Avary up to direct The Rules of Attraction instead while Zemeckis took over the reins. No complaints there, but I do have the suspicion that whatever Avary had planned would have far surpassed this. I can see how some audiences would enjoy this, as it does have a kind of goofy tongue-in-cheek quality and sense of humor to it that 300 lacks. On all other fronts though, they're the same exact film. If you liked that, there's little doubt you'll enjoy Beowulf.

A Mighty Heart

Director: Michael Winterbottom
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Dan Futterman, Archie Panjabi, Irfan Khan, Denis O' Hare, Will Patton
Running Time: 108 min.
Rating: R

** (out of ****)

With all the media outlets we're exposed to today, the line between "celebrity" and "actor" can get kind of blurry. No one knows this better than Angelina Jolie, who attempts to shed her celebrity skin by disappearing into the role of Mariane Pearl, widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, in A Mighty Heart. She succeeds and delivers an Oscar-worthy performance. Unfortunately it's trapped in a movie that takes a deadly serious issue and tip toes around it, refusing to take sides or ask any important questions. All it does is spin in circles hitting the same note again and again before reaching its inevitable conclusion.

While many may appreciate and respect the film for what it's trying to do, only masochists would find any enjoyment in watching it. It's dreary and depressing and the only reason to see it would to witness a rare onscreen depiction of a woman who stays strong and doesn't blink in the face of an unimaginable crisis. There's little doubt Mariane Pearl's ordeal was done justice with a respectful and inspirational portrayal. If only the same thing could be said for Daniel's.

In 2002, on the heels of the September 11th attacks, journalist Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman) was researching and reporting a story on possible Al Qaeda links in Pakistan. He ended up being duped, kidnapped by terrorists and beheaded, the evidence of which was gruesomely documented on videotape. The story sparked controversy all over the world, shining the spotlight not only on America's war on terrorism in a post 9/11 world, but the role of our mass media. This film is based on Mariane's self-penned memoir and follows the Pakistani and American governments' attempts to find out who was behind this and retrieve Danny.

A U.S. security specialist (played by Will Patton) is brought in and at times there are clashes and conflicts of interest with the Pakistani authorities (led by Irfan Khan). Wall Street Journal editor Paul Bussey (Denis O'Hare) also flies in to follow leads as Mariane is comforted by her friend and fellow journalist Asra Nomani (Archie Panjabi) There's a lot of red tape and some red herrings but throughout this horrific ordeal Mariane bravely keeps it together, at least until she understandably loses it when the final, indisputable news comes.

You may have noticed I've mentioned very little about Daniel Pearl himself and for good reason. With the exception of a few flashbacks briefly touching on the hours leading up to the kidnapping, he's hardly in the film at all. Its focus is completely on Mariane and director Michael Winterbottom (Welcome To Sarajevo) shoots the entire film as if it were a documentary, very similar to the shaky cam style Paul Greengrass employed on United 93. That was the right approach directorially as it keeps everything as restrained and tasteful as possible.

Also, like United 93, we know how this story ends but this film fails to contain the slightest bit of that film's impending sense of dread or suspense. It's a fine, respectful adaptation of Mariane Pearl's memoir and Jolie's performance is authentic and worthy of high praise but that's where the compliments end. On every other level this film has to be seen as a failure that doesn't do the serious, controversial nature of the story justice.

It's a rare occasions that I'm actually angered watching a motion picture, but this is one of them. If you, like me, find it incomprehensible that this can happen to a newspaper columnist employed by one of our country's largest and most respected publications, you probably want some answers. Good luck. You won't be getting any from this film. There's a point in the movie when Mariane is grilling an alleged source and he questions whether what Danny was doing should even be the business of a journalist.

As quickly as that important question is brought up, it's ignored. I don't know about you but whenever I hear about a reporter risking (and in this case losing) their life I ask that same question myself along with many others. Is this really worth it? Shouldn't someone be held accountable? It's important we know what's going on in the world and the dangers we face daily, but is it fair to ask reporters to risk their lives so we can? I'm not trying to turn this into a political or philosophical debate, but the movie should have. Daniel Pearl's story cannot be told accurately without it, even if the goal was to tell hers. But it's impossible to tell Mariane's without approaching this situation from every angle, including Danny's. When the film ended I could tell you only two things about Daniel Pearl:

1) He seemed like a nice guy.
2) He wore glasses.

We're given nothing. How did he feel about the assignment he was given? What was his relationship like with his wife? What made him want to become a reporter? I wanted to know more about this brave man, so I could be personally invested in the story. If we don't know the slightest thing about him it's impossible to care what happens to him or his wife. Analyzing Dan Futterman's performance as Danny would be pointless considering he's probably onscreen for a total of no more than 10 minutes.

Forgive me for saying this but the movie could have actually benefited from showing the tortuous experience he went through, as difficult as it may have been to watch. By not showing anything, the movie comes off timidly, as if they're sweeping the whole ordeal under the rug. No one accused United 93 of being exploitive because they depicted the events in the gruesome, realistic way they unfolded and did so objectively.

Even Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, a film many believe took things too far dramatically, had the guts to show what happened. I understand the need for the filmmakers to stay faithful to Mariane Pearl's source material and her wishes for the project but she and Jolie are likely to be the only two satisfied with this account. For everyone else it's a police procedural. And a giant bore.

While Jolie's performance is brilliant technically it's comparable to the sound of one hand clapping or a tree falling in the forest. It isn't the slightest bit interesting or exciting to watch because it seems to exist in a vacuum. And it's definitely not a "risky role," at least in the way it's presented in this film. Usually I refrain from commenting on an actor or actress' personal life unless I feel it directly pertains to their film choices or work onscreen. It does here. Jolie may have never been one of our best actresses but there was a time when she was at least an interesting talent to watch. Now it seems her selection of on screen roles have become just as boring as her off screen persona.

Maybe she feels great going home to Brad Pitt (who produced this movie) and all her adopted children knowing she's "saving the world" by tackling important projects. Good for her, but I'd much rather see her make entertaining movies again. After this and her role in last year's The Good Sheperd, all she's really succeeded at is putting audiences to sleep. I never thought I'd long for the days when Jolie was wearing vials of Billy Bob Thornton's blood and making out with her brother but I'm all for it if it means she'll lighten up a little in her film choices.

Audiences stayed far away from this film and I can't say they missed much, if anything. A story this important deserves a film that doesn't cut corners, that names names and points fingers. Ironically, by trying so hard not to offend they made the most offensive film they could have by not discussing the issue or showing what happened. I don't know whether it was out of fear of possible litigation or they just chickened out, but when you commit to tackling an issue like this you dive in head first or not at all. A Mighty Heart is a well-made public service announcement that plays it safe. If you want the Daniel Pearl story, keep waiting.

The Good Shepherd

Director: Robert DeNiro
Starring: Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, William Hurt, Michael Gambon, Tammy Blanchard, John Turturro, Gabriel Macht, Timothy Hutton, Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Oleg Stefan, Keir Dullea
Running Time: 167 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

The Good Shepherd is an incredibly well made, ambitious and impeccably acted motion picture that will likely bore you to tears. History buffs will adore a movie like this as it really does an excellent job covering every facet of the birth of the Central Intelligence Agency and does manage to tell an engaging and intelligent story featuring interesting characters and situations. However, audiences just looking for some entertainment and escapism will have to search elsewhere.

After I was done watching all 2 hours and 45 minutes of it I tried to think of the right word to describe my experience. Then it hit me. Laborious. Watching this film was a laborious exercise. It felt like a chore. Almost like I was in history class with a professor who would tell the same story over and over, changing a couple of details along the way. I suppose here is where I make a crack about how DeNiro shouldn't quit his day job, but I'm not going to do that because this is a well directed film that, despite its gargantuan length, is never self-indulgent. You can tell it was made with great love for the story and DeNiro has clearly done his homework as it looks and feels like it's from the golden age of 70's cinema. As a director, he probably has a great work in him somewhere. This just wasn't it.

The movie opens in 1961 with the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro due to some kind of informer or leak. Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) is anonymously sent a photograph and a reel to reel to tape that could possibly be a clue to the identity of the informant. We then flash back to 1939 and Edward's college years at Yale which includes his membership into the infamous Skull and Bones Society and his romance with a deaf student (played very well by Tammy Blanchard). A standout poetry student, Edward forms a bond with his poetry professor Dr. Fredericks (Michael Gambon) until he's recruited by an F.B.I agent (Alec Baldwin) to spy on him, believing his Frederick's German cultural society is actually a Nazi front. Reluctantly he takes the assignment, impressing Bill Sullivan (DeNiro in a small role), who sends him to work overseas for the Office of Strategic Services, which would later become the C.I.A.

The deeper the disciplined and emotionless Edward gets into the organization the more he finds himself in conflict with his own personal beliefs. He cheats on the love of his life with a respected Senator's daughter named Clover (Angelina Jolie) and marries her only because she's carrying his son. He rationalizes that he's "doing what's right", but you see that's the catch. Do what Edward's been doing long enough and see if you can even tell what right is anymore, or whether it even matters. The secrets and lies rip him and his family apart. He's not the same man and soon must make a difficult, if not impossible, choice between his personal and professional life if he wants to rise through the ranks of the C.I.A.

The movie tells what's actually a simple story in a very convoluted way as it jumps back and between timelines constantly. At times I found great difficulty trying to figure out whether we were in 1939 or 1961 and it wasn't made any easier by the fact that Damon's character didn't appear to age one bit. That actually isn't a problem per se (the last thing we need is to be distracted by an unconvincing make-up job), but it sure had an impact in deciphering what year it was. Sometimes a subtitle would appear in the corner of the screen letting us know what time period we're in. Sometimes it wouldn't. We'd spend an hour in 1961 and then we're in 1939 for two minutes. Then vice versa. The film doesn't flow well and when it runs close to 3 hours that's the last thing that should happen.

The real meat and potatoes of the picture is during Edward's time at Yale when he's still an idealistic, disciplined student losing his innocence as his eyes are being opened to the covert operations of our government. Once the film exits that territory everything after it becomes redundant. It's like a history lesson. We know what the C.I.A. did, but in case you didn't it's reenacted for you in pain staking detail for nearly 2 hours. You can tell a lot of work went into this script (as it's based on the life of the C.I.A's founding father James A. Angleton), but I'm not sure to what end. At times it felt like DeNiro was adapting a novel, but refused to cut anything out and just handed the book to the actors as scripts. It's a very dry, sterile film. Not necessarily boring, just tedious.

Part of what makes this film so difficult to connect with is Damon's performance as Edward. While he gives a performance that's completely necessary and appropriate for the film, it's an uninvolving one for the audience. Given the nature of the character and the situation, Damon can never show his cards and must act with cold, deliberate precision as Edward. He does an excellent job, but since there's no glimmer of any personality or emotion it's hard to care about him. If we can't care about the protagonist it's obviously difficult to care about the story. As long as Edward keeps us at arm's length, so does DeNiro.

Rounding out the stellar cast is Billy Crudup, William Hurt, John Turturro, Gabriel Macht, Joe Pesci, Timothy Hutton and Keir Dullea. Given the topic and DeNiro's pedigree it's not hard to see how all these major talents signed on, but you might be surprised, through no fault of their own, how little they all contribute despite the lengthy running time. Blame Eric Roth's dense script for that. The movie delivers what it believes to be a major twist in the last half hour involving the Bay of Pigs leak and presents it as being Earth shattering. It isn't and by the time you get there you likely won't care because, like the story, you'll be out of gas. I know I was. I understand what the movie was trying to do, but it has a real struggle getting there. Everything seems harder and longer than it needs to be.

You can tell DeNiro was trying to make an epic about family loyalty in the United States in the vain of The Godfather, which makes sense since Francis Ford Coppola was a producer on this project and at one point was even attached to direct. It would have been interesting to see what Coppola would have done with it and certainly would have been a welcome return to form for him after popcorn drivel like Jack and The Rainmaker. As is though, DeNiro delivers basically a facsimile of what we would have seen had Coppola helmed it as it has a real throwback quality that I actually liked. It's beautifully shot, features great performances but is completely inaccessible. I'm looking forward to DeNiro's next film, hoping it's less bloated and more willing to let us in.