Crank

Directors: Mike Neveldine and Brian Taylor
Starring: Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Efren Ramirez, Jose Pablo Castillo, Dwight Yoakam, Carlos Sanz
Running Time: 86 min.
Rating: R

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

Crank fulfills its promise as an adrenaline thrill-ride that never slows down.  Literally an assault on the senses, it's an 87-minute video game on crack. The filmmaking style employed in this is frantic and definitely not for all tastes and to say it's for the music video generation is putting it lightly. That said, I loved every second of it. It takes an incredible premise and jams it down our throats, rarely giving us a second to think or breathe.

Watching this is like eating cinematic junk food. It gives you instant gratification but it's bad for you and you're craving for something more substantial an hour later. Upon reflection though, maybe not. It actually took a lot of talent and skill to put something like this together and it does stay with you because amidst all the chaos is a good story with interesting characters and clever ideas. I can't remember the last time I had this much fun watching an action movie. Plus, you have to respect any film that contains Napoleon Dynamite's Pedro as a cross-dresser, a roof party with girls in plastic bubbles, and a main character consuming copious amounts of nasal spray to stay alive.

Professional hitman Chev Chelios (The Transporter's Jason Statham) wakes up shaking and sweating in front of a flat screen TV with a DVD taped to it. When he pops it in he sees footage of himself a night earlier being injected with a "Bejing Cocktail" by his crime boss rival Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo). This poisonous substance will kill him once his heart rate drops and it settles in his bloodstream. The only way to delay the inevitable: don't stop moving and keep the adrenaline flowing. Fighting to stay alive and out for revenge against the man who poisoned him, Chev must turn to his physician, Doc Miles (a hilarious Dwight Yoakam) and his cross-dressing friend, Kaylo (Dynamite's Efren Ramirez) for answers, before it's too late. He must also come clean with his girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart), who thinks he works as a videogame designer.

The opening credit sequence cleverly employs 80's video game graphics and the film is so fast and the editing so slick that I imagined Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer watching on their couches in jealousy. This may be the first movie I've seen that could qualify as a live action video game. It's Grand Theft Auto come to life. This would problematic if not for the fact that it fits the story perfectly: If he can't stop moving, why should the movie? I'm not going to spoil all the clever ways the script has Chev keep his adrenaline levels up, but let's just say there's a scene in Chinatown that has to be seen to be believed. Before I saw this, somebody told me "Wait until you see the scene in Chinatown!"

What co-directors and writers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor pull off here is very tricky as it's incredibly difficult to make an action movie these days that isn't some kind of variation on an idea we've seen before. This is completely original and I have feeling it's likely destined to become a cult classic. I also think much of this film will be lost on older viewers who haven't been a part of the video game generation and likely wouldn't understand where this is coming from. That's okay though, because they're not the audience this is aimed at anyway.

I can't think of an actor more perfect for the role of Chev than Statham. Even with his eyes bugging out of his head and in full bad-ass mode you like the guy and you're rooting for him, which is of primary importance in an action movie. He brings an intensity to the screen that's unmatched by today's other action stars and I could eventually see him emerging as a strong dramatic actor if he ever chooses that direction. I like how when we meet his girlfriend, she's not at all who you'd expect this guy to be with, and Amy Smart is really endearing in the role. The casting of Ramirez and Yoakam also prove that while the the movie kicks ass and takes names, it's never taking itself too seriously and is often hilarious.

Best of all, I challenge anyone to be able to guess the ending of this film. You think you know where it's going, but by the last ten minutes you have no idea. Some will likely take exception with the final scene, calling it unrealistic, self congratulatory and bombastic but no one can claim it's not in line with the tone of the rest of the film. Plus, you have to give props to any directors with the guts to use Jefferson Starship song to close their film. It's easy to get so caught up in analyzing films and forget the main reason we watch movies is to have fun. The thrilling Crank is that reminder.

Employee of the Month

Director: Greg Coolidge

Starring: Dane Cook, Jessica Simpson, Dax Shepard, Efren Ramirez, Andy Dick, Tim Bagely, Brian George, Danny Woodburn
Running Time: 103 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

Jessica Simpson may look great but she can't act to save her life in Employee of the Month. I figured I would get this out of the way immediately since it's undoubtedly the part of the review everyone is most interested in, and likely not surprised at all to read. I'm not saying this to pick on her, as I'm sure she's probably a very nice person who tried her best with what she was given, which in her defense wasn't much. I'm saying this because much of whether we care about this movie hinges on her (in)ability to call upon a wide variety of emotions and make us care about her relationship with the main character.

Instead we're too distracted by her wooden, stilted performance that sucks all the life out of this movie like a leech. It's a shame too, because there are some good things about this film and it had a lot of potential. Instead it ends up being largely forgettable with a couple of decent laughs along the way. As a vehicle for comedian Dane Cook the movie mostly succeeds and he comes out of this unscathed. Simpson isn't so fortunate.

Cook plays Zach Bradley, a slacker "box boy" at Super Club, a Costco-like wholesale retail store. His arch-nemesis is head cashier Vince Downey (Dax Shepard) who has seventeen consecutive "Employee of the Month" titles under his belt and is going for a company record eighteenth. He also has the fastest register "ring time" in the Southwest region, which provides the film's funniest joke as we watch him juggle items and pass them to his "wing man" Jorge ( Napoleon Dynamite's Efren Ramirez) as hot women cheer him on, drooling over his impressive cashiering skills. This is so stupid it's actually funny and Shepard plays it just right. Zach has exactly zero "Employee of the Month" titles to his name, but hopes to change his slacking ways with the arrival of Amy (Simpson), a hot new cashier who's tranferred from another store and is rumored to only date employees of the month. A war begins as Zach attempts to become a model worker and thwart Vince's attempts to seduce Amy.

The fact that Zach lives with his grandmother and is slacking his life away is only vaguely referenced because actually exploring that avenue may give the film some insight and intelligence. Instead the filmmakers chose to have Amy stand there like a moron in tops that accentuate her breast size while Zach and Vince battle it out for her affection. I have to admit some of the stuff was funny such as Zach selling Vince's car to a customer and a timed cashiering face-off between the two at the film's end. Andy Dick and Harland Williams are on hand as the token goofy co-workers a movie like this is required to contain. That reminded me that usually when I see Andy Dick in a movie I laugh. Of course, I'm laughing at him but the point remains the same: I laugh. This time I didn't. As a nearly blind, bespeckled one-hour photo employee, he looks like he's auditioning for the sequel to Mr. Magoo.

The movie strives to create the workplace atmosphere of an Office Space or even an Empire Records, but not many of the supporting characters are funny. The movie works best when it's spoofing retail management and Tim Bagely gives a terrific performance as the clueless manager of the store. He does so good a job it's almost as if he walked onto the wrong set thinking he'd be involved in a smart, subversive comedy. His feud with his midget brother boss (well played by Danny Woodburn) is actually pretty funny and I wish more time were spent on it. How sad is that? I'm afraid to even mention this because it may have give the studio an idea for a sequel.

I couldn't help thinking of Clerks II when I watched this. That movie took place in a similar setting, but it cared about it's characters and bothered to surround them with a good story that had heart. It feels wrong to even mention that film in the same breath as this movie. Employee of the Month arrogantly expects us to care about Zach's quest to bed Amy when they do nothing to let us know or like his character and Simpson gives the performance of a wooden board. I noticed at the end of the film the producer credited with this mess is Joe Simpson, who's Machiavellian control over his daughters' careers has officially reached alarming levels and is now doing more harm to us than them.

America fell in love with Jessica when she starred in Newlyweds because of her great looks, quirky personality and charisma. MTV pulled off a great magic act because only one of those traits (actually two) is on display here with this role not playing to any of her strengths, if she had any. During the movie I started wondering how different (and better) the whole enterprise would have been had a different actress been cast in the Amy role. One who could, you know, act and show emotion. I've never seen Ashlee Simpson in a movie but I'm willing to bet even she'd do a better job than her sister here. She couldn't possibly be worse.

The good news is that Dane Cook does somewhat prove he has what it takes to be a leading man in a comedy as he's likable and funny, it just would be nice to see him star in a good one. He'll survive this. Dax Shepard does one better though as he actually seems like the only person in the cast who knows what kind of movie he's in and what he should do. He knows just how to walk the line between being an asshole and still getting the laughs. With the material he had to work with here, that's nothing short of a small miracle. Strangely though, the filmmakers seem to think their bread is buttered with the Cook and Simpson pairing despite the fact Cook would likely have better chemistry with a blow-up doll. Employee of the Month does have a couple of moments, but unfortunately the film, like it's characters, is just punching the clock.

Oscar Nod Reactions

Earlier this morning The Academy Award nominations were announced and yes there were some surprises. I'm going to take a look at each category and see how I fared with my picks.

Best Picture:
Babel
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen

Analysis: I really blew it with this one, although in my defense I don't think anyone predicted Dreamgirls would be shut out here. I didn't see the film, but must admit I'm kind of glad it isn't nominated for Best Picture because I like surprises and this race was, up until now, too predictable. This shakes things up. I didn't think The Queen had enough weight behind it to get a nod but it did. I'm thrilled Little Miss Sunshine got nominated. Well deserved. No United 93 but I kind of expected that.
(3 for 5)


Best Directing:
Babel
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
The Queen
United 93

Analysis: Well I was right that Paul Greengrass got his nomination. Again I underestimated The Queen as Stephen Frears got a nod. This is Scorsese's best chance this year. It always puzzled me that the Academy would deem the director worthy of a nomination, but not the picture or vice versa. After Dreamgirls didn't get the picture nod, Bill Condon's exclusion here isn't so shocking.
(4 for 5)


Best Actor:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond)
Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson)
Peter O' Toole (Venus)
Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness)
Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)

Analysis: I thought about putting Gosling on my list but figured he was too much of a dark horse. Other than the Dreamgirls snub, this was the biggest surprise. Good for him. I haven't seen his performance, but can't wait to.
(4 for 5)


Best Actress:
Penelope Cruz (Volver)
Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal)
Helen Mirren (The Queen)
Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada)
Kate Winslet (Little Children)

Analysis: If you think about it there was really no one else who could slip in. Mirren is going to win this handily.
(5 for 5)


Best Supporting Actor:
Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children)
Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond)
Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls)
Mark Wahlberg (The Departed)

Analysis: The big surprise was that Jack Nicholson wasn't nominated. Personally I thought Steve Carrel and Paul Dano were more deserving than Arkin for Little Miss Sunshine but I'm glad the film was recognized in this category. Brad Pitt was a longshot for Babel but I thought the support for the picture would carry him. My bad.
(3 for 5)


Best Supporting Actress
Adriana Barraza (Babel)
Cate Blanchett (Notes on a Scandal)
Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)
Rinko Kikuchi (Babel)

Analysis: No surprises here. This wasn't an incredible year for female performances. So happy that Breslin got nominated. She deserves it. A week ago I would have said Hudson's a lock to win this, but backlash looks to be starting for Dreamgirls and Blanchett's gaining steam.
(5 for 5)


Best Original Screenplay
Babel
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen

Analysis: Again, no surprises. The only dark horse that could have possibly snuck in here is Stranger Than Fiction but the hype sorrounding that died off months ago. It was a big year for adaptations, but not original screenplays.
(5 for 5)

Best Adapted Screenplay
Borat
Children of Men
The Departed
Little Children
Notes on a Scandal
Analysis: I stupidly thought Dreamgirls would get a screenplay nomination even though it's a musical. My reasoning was it would probably be nominated for everything else, so why not this? I was wrong and Borat got the nod. I should have seen that one coming.
(4 for 5)

Overall Score: 33 out of 40 nominations correct

Other Thoughts: Dreamgirls occupied 3 of the 5 slots for best original song, which makes that race pretty boring. Superman Returns and Poseidon got well-deserved nods for visual effects. I liked Poseidon, but hated Superman. Inexplicably Click is nominated for achievement in makeup alongside Pan's Labyrinth (which also earned a cinematography nomination). I've seen more believable makeup applied during Halloween than to Adam Sandler in that movie. I was pleased to see The Illusionist earn a cinematography nomination, as did the other magician film, The Prestige. I was very dissappointed V For Vendetta wasn't nominated for any technical awards as it definitely deserved an art direction nod in the very least.

And yes my wishes came true as Jessica Simpson (Employee of the Month), Lindsay Lohan (Just My Luck) and Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns) were all nominated for "Worst Actress" Razzie awards yesterday. Basic Instinct 2 led the pack with 7 nominations (including "Worst Screen Couple" for "Sharon Stone's lop-sided breasts"). The Wicker Man also racked up a lot of nominations, including "Worst Actor" for Nicolas Cage. To me, the funniest nomination was M. Night Shaymalan for "Worst Supporting Actor" in Lady in the Water, which was also unsurprisingly nominated for "Worst Picture." Shaymalan gave himself so much unnecessary screen time he probably could have qualified for the lead category. If you haven't seen any of these Razzie nominated films, I urge you to resist the temptation. If you have, my condolences.

Oscar Nod Predictions

It's that time of the year again when all the critics make their predictions who will be nominated for Academy Academy Awards when the nominations are announced bright and early Tuesday morning. This year it's pretty easy to speculate since there's really only a handful of films that are under consideration and most of them were released in the past two months alone, as usual. I've also included my "For Your Consideration" picks of nominations that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. This could be one or more picks per category I'd love to see but won't. My picks this year are really longshots that haven't generated any Oscar buzz at all. I think they're definitely deserving though.

However, the big news isn't the Oscar nominations, but the Golden Raspberry Award Nominations that will be announced tomorrow celebrating the worst in cinema for the year. I can't wait since 2006 was a banner year for awfulness. Such esteemed previous winners include Tom Green (Worst Actor for Freddy Got Fingered) and Halle Berry (Worst Actress for Catwoman). To their credit they are the only two winners to ever show up in person to accept their award. You have to respect that. At the end of this blog I've included who and what I'd like to see be nominated for Razzies this year. Feel free to let me know your picks.

So, here we go:

Best Picture:
Babel
The Departed
Dreamgirls
Letters From Iwo Jima
United 93
*For Your Consideration: Brick, Little Miss Sunshine

Best Director:
Bill Condon (Dreamgirls)
Clint Eastwood (Letters From Iwo Jima)
Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu (Babel)
Paul Greengrass (United 93)
Martin Scorsese (The Departed)
*For Your Consideration: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine), Rian Johnson (Brick)

Best Actor:
Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat)
Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed)
Peter O'Toole (Venus)
Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness)
Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland)
*For Your Consideration: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick)

Best Actress:
Peneope Cruz (Volver)
Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal)
Helen Mirren (The Queen)
Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada)
Kate Winslet (Little Children)
*For Your Consideration: Natalie Portman (V For Vendetta)

Best Supporting Actor:
Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children)
Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond)
Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls)
Jack Nicholson (The Departed)
Brad Pitt (Babel)
*For Your Consideration: Steve Carell (Little Miss Sunshine), Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine)

Best Supporting Actress:
Adriana Barazza (Babel)
Cate Blanchett (Notes on a Scandal)
Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)
Rinko Kikuchi (Babel)
*For Your Consideration: Rosario Dawson (Clerks II), Jacinda Barrett (The Last Kiss), Norah Zehetner (Brick)

Best Original Screenplay:
Guiellermo Arriaga (Babel)
Iris Yamashita (Letters From Iwo Jima)
Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine)
Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth)
Peter Morgan (The Queen)
*For Your Consideration: Rian Johnson (Brick)

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men)
William Monahan (The Departed)
Todd Field and Tom Perrotta (Little Children)
Patrick Marber (Notes on a Scandal)
Bill Condon (Dreamgirls)

Razzie Wishlist:
Worst Picture: The Lady in the Water, Superman Returns, Click, Miami Vice
Worst Actress: Lindsay Lohan (Just My Luck), Jessica Simpson (Employee of the Month), Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns),
Worst Actor: Brandon Routh (Superman Returns), Adam Sandler (Click)
Worst Supporting Actor: Ashton Kutcher (Bobby)
Worst Supporting Actress: Demi Moore (Bobby), Lindsay Lohan (Bobby)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Starring: Jordana Brewster, Taylor Handley, Diora Baird, Matt Bomer, R. Lee Ermey, Andrew Bryniarski
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: Unrated

*** (out of ****)

Warning: The Following Review Contains Spoilers

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is a sick, disgusting, graphic and gratuitously violent motion picture. However, I must admit I was entertained all the way through and as a prequel to the 2003 remake, the film works on every level and accomplishes what it sets out to do. In many ways, it represents what is best about the Chainsaw series and actually has a lot in common with the original films. It's grittier, rawer, more visceral and altogether as good or just maybe even a better film than the 2003 remake. It also doesn't follow the usual slasher formula of teenagers being picked off one by one and you'll be surprised just how long many of them last. The movie instead decides to torture them, and ultimately us, for most of it's running time.

I was never a huge fan of Tobe Hooper's 1974 Texas Chain Saw Massacre largely because I feel its praise primarily stems from its low budget feel and little else. I also didn't care for the characters and always thought Leatherface looked rather ridiculous, like your next door neighbor was dressing up for Halloween. In the newer films, he looks more powerful and intimidating without losing any of the human element that adds to the terror. While I may have found out more than I wanted to know about Leatherface and The Hewitt family in this film, there's no denying it will satisfy fans of the series, who won't be disappointed.

The movie starts with the graphic birth of Thomas Hewitt a.k.a. Leatherface (Andrew Bryniarski) in a meat packing plant in Texas. We find out he was pretty much born deformed and disturbed, so ends that debate minutes into the movie. Fast forward thirty years to Vietnam-era 1969 and the slaughterhouse is being shut down by the board of health, putting poor Tommy on the unemployment line and turning the place into a ghost town. Now just a pit stop for bikers and hippies, the Hewitt family are the last remaining residents of a bygone era. In this way, the film kind of resembles last year's The Hills Have Eyes remake.

Needless to say, Tommy doesn't take to losing his job very well and this leads to a gruesome scene early in the film that probably reenacts what a lot of people probably wish they could do to their bosses. This defining event becomes the catalyst for the birth of Leatherface. Meanwhile two brothers (Matthew Bomer and Taylor Handley) are driving through Texas with their girlfriends (Jordana Brewster and Diora Baird) before being shipped off to Vietnam, even though Dean, the younger, plans on burning his draft card and fleeing to Mexico. I really liked how this detail ends up playing a major role in deciding their fates later in the film.

After a car accident, they find themselves at the mercy of the demented "Sheriff" Hoyt and the Hewitt family, who are nurturing a killer in Leatherface and are just starting to get their groove on as maniacal cannibals. All I can say is if you enjoyed character actor R. Lee Ermey's over the top performance as Hoyt in the 2003 TCM film, there's much more of it to enjoy here. He's sick and evil, sometimes funny, but never lets his performance go into the realm of pure camp. It's a thin line to walk and Ermey does it well, to his credit. He's really the star of the show in this one. He has some great scenes with the brothers, including one where he forces Handley's character to do twenty push-ups, but with a twist. The movie isn't pointless as we find out some interesting details that enhance our appreciation of the series, such as how Hoyt became a "sheriff" and lost his teeth, how old Monty lost his legs (this is gruesome), and best of all, exactly how Leatherface got that mask of his. That scene may be the defining moment of the entire TCM series.

Even those who despise this movie can't claim it isn't well made and doesn't look great. Much like the 2003 film, the cinematography is fantastic and Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls) does a good job taking over the directing reigns from Nispel, adding his own touches like toning down the music video look of the earlier film and replacing it with a rawer, more documentary style feel. It kind of harkens back to the golden age of 1970's slasher films with the style it employs, which is a good thing in my book.

Although it's never really scary, just sick and disgusting, there is a great deal of suspense and I think they did a great job with the casting. On the whole, I liked the teenage characters in this better in this than in it's 2003 predecessor and thought the acting was far above average for this type of film and this likely contains the best performances in the TCM series. Jordana Brewster (who we don't see enough of these days) as Chrissie cannot be compared to Jessica Biel because they are playing two completely different parts. That's one of the things I liked. Rather than trying to recreate the kick ass heroin from that film they realized this is a prequel and casted someone who could play innocent and vulnerable (not a Biel strength), therefore heightening the terror. Another example of the filmmakers knowing their genre.

This is also evident in their casting of Baird as Bailey, who looks and acts like a scream queen out of a 70's slasher flick. Her carefree sex appeal and awesome scream were a definite highlight of the film and adds much more than you think in a movie like this. Bomer and Handley (who you may remember for his infamous O.C. role as Oliver) are also very strong and have a good chemistry together onscreen that actually made me believe they were brothers. This in spite of the fact they really didn't look or dress like they were teens of the 60's at all. Brewster and Baird fare much better in that department.

Even though I thought this movie did a better job making us feel like this was the 60's than the previous movie did with the 70's, this is the weak link with the newer Chainsaw movies. It seems sometimes the movies forget or don't care what era they're in, which is a shame because it presents intriguing possibilities for a horror film if the filmmaker chooses to take advantage of it. I also wonder if they made the right decision revealing so much about Leatherface and his past, leaving no room for any doubt or mystery as we move forward in the franchise, which you know we will.

This DVD is the unrated version of the film, which contains scenes that were cut in order for this to achieve an R rating. This kind of surprises me as the MPAA tends to only hand out the NC-17 rating to intelligent films featuring a lot of sex and nudity. By their logic slasher films are supposed to have gratuitous sex and violence, but don't dare sorround a serious drama that has something to say with it. That's not to say this isn't an intelligent movie. It kind of is...well, okay not really. I can't say I'm pleased with the horror genre's shift toward showing everything, but if you're going to do that this is how it should be done. This is probably the most screen time Leatherface has had in the series and you know the imposing Bryniarski must have loved that.

The movie ends as it should considering it's a prequel and we have the return of John Larroquette's famous voice over narration from the 1974 orginal and 2003 remake. Since this is the beginning of an era we don't expect the "final girl" to survive. She shouldn't. This is what I think is one of the major improvements recently in horror films, where we can no longer safely assume the girl will survive in the end. They may or they may not. There's finally an aura of suspense and mystery hinging on the fate of the final character. It's a welcome change that's been employed recently that I'm a huge fan of. If a horror film is to truly be dark and hopeless it must stay true to that bleak vision right up until the very end. If it doesn't, it's cheated the audience. That's not say everyone should be killed off or the movie fails but no one can go riding into the sunset smiling either. This movie understands that. It knows what it's doing and it knows it audience. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is a success and proves itself a worthy entrant in the TCM canon.

The Illusionist

Director: Neil Burger
Starring: Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, Paul Giamatti, Rufus Sewell
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

Some people don't like surprises. They don't like to be tricked and prefer everything laid out for them in a nice, logical, orderly fashion. If you think about it that makes perfect sense because when we're surprised we lose control. No one likes to lose control. This conceit is at the center of Neil Burger's The Illusionist, an often fascinating film based loosely on Steven Millhauser's short story "Eisenheim The Illusionist" about a magician in turn-of-the-century Vienna who finds himself the target of an evil Crown Prince and the city's corrupt Chief Inspector who are both eager to shut down his act, partly out of vengeance, but mostly out of jealousy and stupidity. The movie doesn't break any new ground and is actually pretty workmanlike in how it unfolds, but it does give you the chance to witness one of the best actors of our generation at the top of his game and marks the arrival of an actress who's now worth keeping an eye on for more than how she looks in tight jeans and a tank top.

Edward Norton plays Eisenheim, who as child falls in love with Sophie (Jessica Biel), a dutchess far above his social standing. When she's forbidden to see him, Eisenheim flees and travels the world perfecting his magic. He returns fifteen years later a magician and master illusionist, only to discover Sophie is now engaged to marry Crown Prince Leopold (a frightening Rufus Sewell). With Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti in a return to form after the disasterous Lady in the Water) on Lepold's payroll they soon discover the past relationship between Eisenheim and Sophie, threatening to end his magic for good by exposing his secrets.

Meanwhile, the former lovers pick up where they left off rekindling their relationship as Sophie plans to leave the diabolical Leopold. All these elements explode in a brutal crime that pushes the story forward with a few twists and turns, some expected, some not. The Illusionist often seems to be more than what it is and that's in no small part due to the performances and the conviction writer/director Neil Burger brings to the story. Having not read the short story from which this is based I'm guessing a lot was added by him. He also shoots the film in an interesting way, giving it a kind of washed-out old fashioned look that compliments the era and setting nicely.

This is Burger's second directorial feature after 2003's incredible fake documentary, Interview With The Assassin, which hypothesizes an interview with the second gunman in the Kennedy assassination. I urge anyone who hasn't seen that film to do so immediately as it's bold picture driven by a premise as innovative as any I've seen in any film in a long time. The Illusionist, like that film, has a twist at the end that I obviously won't give away, but I will say it's definitely not impossible to see coming if you remember what this movie, at its core, is actually about.

Lately magic has made excellent fodder for movie material and it's not hard to see why, as it definitely lends itself to twists, secrets and reveals that go hand in hand with experience we all want to have when we see a film. It presents the opportunity for the filmmaker to use his own sleight of hand to trick the audience and take them for a ride. Supposedly top illusionists were consulted for the film and all the tricks do look real and authentic, adding to the effectiveness of the story. They even revealed the secret to one very common magic trick, which makes us all feel like idiots for not knowing how it was done. For once during the film, I could empathize with the Crown Prince.

It's getting a bit redundant these days to praise Edward Norton as an actor, but I'd be remiss if I didn't do it again here. I don't think there's a role this man is not capable of playing and he may be the best working actor today without an Oscar on his mantle. While this isn't his best performance, it's a strong one as he effortlessly slides into this role making you care about Eisenheim and his fate. I really liked what Paul Giamatti does as Uhl because he gives you the impression that even though his mission is to destroy and discredit Eisenheim, he slowly develops a fascination and respect for the man as his investigation escalates. He's corrupt, but he's a good soul who knows what he's doing is wrong. The question becomes whether his ambition or conscience will win out.

It's a treat watching two pros like Norton and Giamatti go at it. The real surprise in this movie is Jessica Biel, who really does an excellent job in what is essentially a period love story, something I would have never imagined she'd excel at. She brings a grace and dignity to the role that was surprising and more than holds her own in every scene with Norton. That decision to pose for Gear magazine years ago to get out of her 7th Heaven contract in hindsight was a brilliant career move. She's really coming into her own as an actress and she gives the best performance of her young career here.

Of course comparisons are going to be made between this film and Christopher Nolan's The Prestige, which I haven't seen yet. I'll be reviewing that film next month and from what I heard it's a lot different than this, so it should be interesting to see how they stack up. The Illusionist is far from unforgettable, but it is well done and clever, cementing Neil Burger as a filmmaker to watch.

The Night Listener

Director: Patrick Stettner
Starring: Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Bobby Cannavale, Rory Culkin, Joe Morton, Sandra Oh
Running Time: 81 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

When taken as a mystery thriller, The Night Listener doesn't really work. As a human drama that makes you think and leaves you fascinated, it definitely hits the mark. It's a film about people with empty, depressing lives and the lengths they'll go to fill that void, even if that means believing in something, or in this case someone, that may not even exist. To them it doesn't matter. It's real, or at least if they believe hard enough it becomes so. It's also about a smart man who's one flaw is that he's too caring and a woman who may or may not be taking advantage of him.

This isn't a film that necessarily leaves you guessing nor is it "Hitchcockian" in it's execution, as the back cover of the DVD would lead you believe. All the answers are pretty obviously laid out early on, yet I'm recommending it because it's introspective and smart, making you wonder how you'd react in a similar situation. It also contains two incredibly strong dramatic performances from Robin Williams and Toni Collette. That it's based on a true story should come as no surprise to anyone. I actually remember hearing about it on the news and it wouldn't shock me if things like this really do happen every day. It gets you thinking.

Williams plays Gabriel Noone a gay New York City radio personailty who hosts the very popular show, "Noone At Night" where he shares stories with listeners. Lately though, he's been in a creative slump because his live-in boyfriend of eight years, Jess (Bobby Cannavale), has moved out. Depressed and lonely, he's handed an unpublished manuscript from a publisher friend (Joe Morton) who claims it was written by a 14 year-old boy named Pete Logand (Rory Culkin). To say this kid has had a rough life definitely wouldn't cover it. According to his memoirs, his mother prostituted him out to pedophiles in their basement, he contracted syphilis, and is now dying of AIDS. He was adopted by a social worker, Donna (Toni Collette) who thought it might be therapeutic for him to get his thoughts and feelings down on paper.

Emotionally moved by the manuscript, Gabriel begins phone correspondence with the boy and becomes sort of a father figure to him, sending him playboys and buying him an autographed Derek Jeter bat. He makes plans to go out to Wisconsin and visit, but something always seems to come up preventing it. After hearing a phone conversation with Gabriel and Donna, a skeptical Jess begins to notice how the voices of the Pete and his mother Donna are eerily similar, if not almost identical. This raises all sorts of questions about the validity of Pete's story, his medical condition and more importantly, his very existence. Initially this infuriates Gabriel, whose friendship with this boy has been the only glimmer of hope and happiness in his otherwise depressing life.

The only way for Gabriel to uncover the truth is to take a trip to rural Wisconsin to see Donna and find out if there really is a Pete or he's just being taken for a ride by a very disturbed woman. When he gets there the layers of this mystery begin to slowly unravel as he comes face to face with Donna and the strange townsfolk willing to protect the secret. Revealing any more than that may hurt your enjoyment of the film, but I will say when we meet Donna she's definitely not what we, or Gabriel, expect and Collette unsurprisingly hits one out of the park again in this complex role.

The screenplay of the Night Listener was co-written by author Armistead Maupin, who adapted this from his own book based on his true life experience. Watching the film I was reminded how compelling Robin Williams is in dramatic roles. He always manages to bring something interesting and surprising to the table as a dramatic actor with darker parts in overlooked films like One Hour Photo and Final Cut. His work here is no exception, fitting nicely into that same category. Even with dramatic turns that aren't quite as dark, like Good Will Hunting and What Dreams May Come, he excels, making me always look forward to his more serious work. Here,Williams does a great job playing a man who isn't stupid, just too optimistic to see what's right in front of his face. It's easy to get the impression we could have fallen into the same trap his character does.

This is somberly directed by Patrick Stettner, who previously guided Julia Stiles to one of her better performances in The Business of Strangers a few years ago. While he adds little flare, he keeps things going at a steady, involving pace making the film feel like an interesting short story. The collapsing relationship between Gabriel and Jess is well handled, counter balancing the story nicely, while not causing an unwelcome distraction like I've seen before in movies like this.

The film does have a big problem, which is that there was absolutely no doubt where it was going, yet it seemed to imply it had the biggest mystery on it's hands since The Da Vinci Code. Worse yet, the film doesn't fully commit to giving us that resolution we all expect and the picture kind of just fades away rather than concludes. The special features on the disc are rather scant with a short interview with screenwriters Maupin and Terry Anderson as well as the obligatory director's commentary. The big draw of this film isn't the mystery, but the underlying idea behind its premise. How trusting should we be? Can we accept anything at face value anymore? Something to think about in this digital age where we communicate with people daily, yet can never know for sure who they really are.

The Descent

Director: Neil Marshall

Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring, Nora Jane-Noone
Running Time: 99 min.
Rating: Unrated

*** (out of ****)

They don't make horror movies like they used to. Or at least so I thought until I saw this one. The Descent is far from a perfect film, but it accomplishes something no horror movie has managed to do in years: it actually scares you. Originally released in the U.K. to rave reviews and incredible box office in 2005, writer/director Neil Marshall's claustrophobic thriller hit the U.S. This past summer and was praised by audiences and critics alike as a horror masterpiece. While I wouldn't go that far, I will say this movie is extremely well made and demonstrates a kind of intelligence that's sorely lacking in most horror movies made today. In a way, the movie is almost a throw back to the horror films of the seventies, where the main objective was to torture you with suspense, then pick and choose your openings to deliver just the right amount of thrills and gore. It's not what you show, but what you don't and how. So then when you finally do show something, it makes an impact. Marshall understands this lost art and aspiring filmmakers could watch The Descent and take notes. For the most part, this is how it should be done. While the film starts very slow and unassuming, it just keeps building until the last 45 minutes to an hour terrifies the hell out of you. I just read that Stephen King put it on his list of the top ten films of 2006 and if it scares even him you must really be doing something right.

The film opens with a young woman, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) enduring a terrible tragedy as she's involved in a head-on car crash that instantly kills her husband and daughter. This crash was filmed from the driver's perspective, a small director's touch that adds a lot of terror and surprise to a scene like that. Flash forward one year later and she and her friend, Beth (Alex Reid) are invited by Juno (Natalie Mendoza) on a caving expedition to the Appalachian Mountains where they're later joined by Holly (Nora Jane-Noone), Sam (MyAnna Buring), and Sam's sister Rebecca (Saskia Mulder). We find out the entire expedition is Juno's idea as a way to help Sarah's healing and bring them all closer together. It may also be to ease her guilty conscience since she's harboring a huge secret I'm not going to give away in this review. However, I will say this secret is at the crux of the story and plays a major part in the relationship between two of the women later in the film. I liked how this secret was always implied, but never once stated during the movie.

Unfortunately, the all balls and no brains Juno brings them to a dangerous, unexplored caving system and a cave-in has blocked the way they came in and what appears to be their only way out. It's here where things begin to get interesting as we meet a herd of cave "crawlers" that look like some kind of bat-human hybrid. It's a long way into the picture before we finally see them, but when we do they look incredibly scary. Not disgusting looking in a movie kind of way, but actually scary looking. They kind of resemble "batboy" from that infamous World Weekly News photo and anyone who says that thing doesn't look scary is lying. When I saw the first one appear (seemingly out of nowhere) I embarrassingly jumped out of my couch and screamed. I've never done that before during any movie. Ever.

These creatures are top notch horror creations who happen to look very real and are hungry for some human flesh, in this case some young women. While the film does an excellent job building suspense, that's not to say it isn't graphic because it absolutely is. It's incredibly graphic and disgusting as we watch these bat creatures (complete with frightening primal yell when they're ready to attack) dine on their human prey. The difference with the gore in this film and other lesser horror outings (like last year's dreadful The Hills Have Eyes remake) is that this film earns it's gruesomeness by building a story with suspense and tension, while at the same time not overexposing the bat creatures. The movie builds logically to their arrival, then unleashes hell.

If the film has one flaw it's that it almost builds too logically and casually, waiting too long to get to the grit of the picture. Nearly the entire first hour is spent with these women talking before they descend into the cave. That would be fine if we were establishing characters or building tension, but they're just talking. Then talking some more. The beginning of the movie felt less like a horror film and more like The Sisterhood of The Traveling Pants. I also had great difficulty at times telling the women apart, especially when they eventually got into the cave. This may be one of those rare cases where the presence of one or two big name actresses (at least the right ones) would have helped. All of these women are nameless, faceless nobodies who, with the exception of two, have no distinctive personalities. I could recognize Juno because I knew she was the daredevil who enjoys killing these "crawlers" a little too much but I have to admit I barely recognized Sarah and she's supposed to be the main character. I know it's a horror movie, but I don't think it's asking too much that they have enough of a personality and look that we can tell them apart in a dark setting. If we don't know who they are, we can't care no matter what type of movie this happens to be. I will give the filmmakers credit though for resisting the temptation to cast teenage girls in the roles and instead picking adult women. I can't even remember the last time I've seen that. I'm sure they also figured by casting nobodies it would make the randomness of the event seem that much more terrifying, and in a way they were right. It's hard to criticize that decision.

There's been much debate about the ending of this film and the the one included on this unrated disc is the original U.K. ending, not the ending U.S. audiences were exposed to during it's theatrical release (although if you want that one it's still available on the bonus features). Without giving too much away, let's just say we can use this as another example of American studio bosses often having no clue what we want. Supposedly, the original U.K. ending "tested poorly" and was scrapped because it was too bleak and offered no hope. The result was the movie ending about a minute too soon, but luckily that minute has been restored on this DVD release. It makes a big difference and we can now enjoy an ending more in line with the overall tone of the film and what the director initially intended. The U.S. ending isn't that bad and is far from optimistic, but a horror film is not exactly supposed to leave us feeling hopeful and happy about the world. If you're going to go dark, you may as well go all the way. The unrated version of The Descent definitely does that, putting it a league above most gorefests released today that mistakenly market themselves as horror. This one is actually the real deal.

The Last Kiss

Director: Tony Goldwyn
Starring: Zach Braff, Jacinda Barrett, Rachel Bilson, Casey Affleck, Michael Weston, Eric Christian Olsen, Marley Shelton, Lauren Lee Smith, Blythe Dannner, Tom Wilkinson, Harold Ramis
Running Time: 115 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

There's an agonizing choice and a deep, morally ambiguous dilemma at the center of The Last Kiss. It's so deep I'm not too sure the filmmakers knew what they had. The movie is brutally honest and risks going places most films wouldn't even touch. All the ingredients were there for this to go the distance and stake its claim as one of the year's best and it came closer than you might think. Unfortunately, amateur mistakes are made, and by Oscar winning screenwriter Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash) of all people.

Just when the movie seems poised to let the emotionally moving story take center stage, it pulls back and instead push useless supporting characters we could care less about in our faces. It's a shame because there were actually times during this film where myself and the person I was watching it with actually paused the movie to discuss the moral implications of what the main character was doing. It's not as cut and dry as it first seems. On the surface it appears it's just about a guy cheating on his wife, but it cuts deeper than that. It isn't necessarily clear he's making a big mistake. It's complicated. With all it's flaws, the film is probably still smarter than 90 percent of the junk that's put out there today. It's just by the end I was banging my head against the wall wondering what could have been.

Zach Braff plays Michael, a Wisconsin architect who seemingly has it all as he approaches his 30th birthday. He's got a beautiful girlfriend, Jenna (Poseidon's Jacinda Barett in the film's toughest part) a great job, and good, loyal friends. However, his whole world turns upside down when faced with the news she's pregnant since this is a guy who can't even bring himself to discuss the "M word." He tells her "I'll marry you when you can name five marriages that have lasted more than five years." She can't. When they visit her parents, Stephen and Anna (played exceptionally well by Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner) to deliver the big announcement they naturally think they're getting married. When they get the real news dad is thrilled but it awakens all kinds of crazy feelings and behavior in Anna, as she begins to examine her own thirty year marriage, which from her standpoint has been a complete disaster.

You can feel a crisis brewing on the horizon and the wedding of Michael's friend proves to be the catalyst when Michael encounters cute, flirty college student Kim (The O.C.'s Rachel Bilson making her feature film debut). What's interesting about this is although Kim comes on pretty strong and makes her intentions very clear from the get go, she isn't just some homewrecking vixen trying to destroy his relationship, though she is slightly manipulative and knows her power over guys. She gives him plenty of room to say "no" if he wants to but knows he can't because she senses he isn't completely happy. We sense it too. Something's missing. "Everything feels pretty planned out. There's no more surprises," he confesses honestly. As he closes in on thirty quickly this could be his last shot. He's scared and he gives in to temptation. Is this wrong? Morally most definitely, But is he making the wrong decision? This would be much easier if his girlfriend was a hen pecking ball and chain but she's not. She's fantastic, if a little too predictable, so it's almost unbearable for the viewer to sit back and watch him do this to her. This is what I mean when I say Jacinda Barrett has the toughest role in the film as Jenna. That part, in the wrong hands and not played perfectly with subtle nuances, would have caused the film to collapse. Too likable and Michael looks like a complete dirt bag for cheating on her. Too clingy and we don't blame him for cheating. She finds just the right balance and her performance is easily the best in the film.

Making this even tougher is that we get the impression if the two women ever met they'd get along great because they're actually quite a bit alike. In the looks department they're almost dead even with Kim having only maybe a slight edge. This reminds me of the urban legend that guys almost always cheat with a woman who's similar to the one they're with. That just may be true. In Michael's defense, who wants their whole life planned out for them? No matter how great his girlfriend is he's going to have to grow up and become a husband and a father...for the rest of his life. If that's not enough to send any guy flying into another woman's bed I don't know what is. This may be a desperate attempt to recapture his youth (one scene with him sneaking behind the trees waiting for Kim on campus looks particularly pathetic), but it's coming from an honest place. There are no responsibilities or strings attached with Kim, which has to count for something.

In some really smart writing, Michael's best friend Chris (Casey Affleck) is put into the unenviable position of helping him cover up the affair, although by this point it couldn't technically be considered one yet. What he does I won't give away, but let's just say it raises all sorts of conversations when the film's over as to what a true friend really is and the real definition of loyalty. When Jenna does eventually uncover it, what results is the most emotionally powerful scene I can remember seeing in a feature film this year. Michael has other friends struggling with relationship issues too and that unfortunately ends up being a major problem for the movie and sends the smart writing down the toilet.

Chris' wife Lisa (Lauren Lee Smith) just had a baby, is emotionally unstable and blames Chris for all of life's problem's. He's contemplating leaving her. Another friend, Izzy (an over the top Michael Weston) wants to quit his family career in the cheese business and is pretty much stalking his high school sweetheart, Arianna (Marley Shelton). Then there's Kenny (Eric Christian Olsen), a care free soul who's spending most of his free time having sex in many different positions and locations with a girl he just met at the wedding. When she suggests he meet her parents he freaks and plans to take a road trip in a van to South America with the guys. How four guys can take a road trip in a van from Wisconsin to South America is a question left unanswered. All of these characters seem like they were just thrown in the screenplay by Haggis to reinforce the idea of commitment phobia. None of them are there long enough for us to care about them, yet they're in it just enough to take away from the intriguing story at the center and annoy the hell out of us.

At one point the movie cuts away from an emotionally resonant scene with Michael and Jenna to show Kenny and his new girlfriend from the wedding spread eagle and naked, having wild sex on the living room floor. What's the purpose of this? This isn't Wedding Crashers. It has nothing to do with anything. This movie was adapted from the 2001 Italian film L'ultimo bacio so I'm assuming all of these characters were in that film in some form or another. If they were, creative license should have invoked and they should have all been taken out for the American remake. If they really wanted this movie to be about a bunch of guys facing an existential crisis as they approach thirty then they should have gone all the way and made that movie, not just lightly sprinkled the screenplay with underdeveloped characters in at their convenience. If they wanted to make this completely about Michael's story, which they probably should have, then there's no place for all this other nonsense. They should have made a choice. The presence of all these minor characters struggling with their relationship problems makes this project feel like a made for TV movie at times.

Of all the supporting characters, only two strike a real cord and directly relate to the central storyline. Those are Jenna's parents and Wilkinson and Danner bring a quite dignity to the roles that just works outstandingly. Wilkinson is kind of playing a variation on his character from In the Bedroom in that on the surface he appears cold to his wife, sarcastic and uncaring while the circumstances of his life situation force something deeper to come to the surface. Danner as Anna, frustrated with the lack of communication in her marriage, forces that something to come out of him in a tour de force performance that never goes too far over the top. She must also come to grips with an affair she had with a college professor (the great Harold Ramis, brilliantly cast against type as a ladies man), which she flaunts in Stephen's face. This all provides a nice counter balance to Michael's dilemma. After all, if he stays with Jenna they could end up exactly like them. This is the only supporting story that not only works, but adds to the themes of the film.

Interestingly enough, director Tony Goldwyn, who's best known as an actor (he was the villain in Ghost and played the creepy college counselor who hit on Katie Holmes in Abandon) states on the DVD interview the importance of casting the roles of Michael's friends. Why? Izzy seems mentally unstable and obsessive, the character of Chris' wife is a complete bitch, and I won't even get into Kenny and his sexual gymnastics partner from the wedding. All of this would be forgivable if it it didn't happen at the expense of the powerful dilemma at the heart of the movie and the character of Rachel Bilson's Kim. Just when we want to learn more about her all these morons take center stage and the movie discards her like a piece of trash, even filming a scene that really makes her look immature, stupid and even stalkerish. In a way, the movie ends up treating her worse than Michael eventually does. It's too bad because Bilson's performance is actually spot on for a girl her age in that situation.

Goldwyn enlightens us on all the details of Kim's life on the DVD's special features, letting us know her likes, dislikes, dreams and aspirations. It would be nice if we found this out in the movie. The strong central conflict would have been even stronger and we would have viewed Michael's decision as being tougher. I couldn't figure out if they did this because they didn't have enough faith in Bilson as an actress to give her more important scenes or they overestimated her and thought she could just convey all these emotions through her natural charm and ability. This is particularly problematic when Michael and Kim first meet at the wedding. Rachel Bilson is beautiful and likable I have absolutely no problem believing any guy would fall instantly in love with her the second they see her, but it would have nice if they didn't have her just throw herself at him in two seconds. They aren't randomly introduced or slowly get to know each other through casual conversation, she just decides this average looking guy who's ten years older than her is the guy of her dreams. It kind of makes her look like a desperate seductress and I don't think that's what the movie was going for. The one conversation they have, in a tree house, is a good one and they should have had more of those. I will admit the fact that I ended up caring that much about the character proves the movie must have done something right with her.

Luckily toward the end of the film the focus shifts back to the conflict between Michael and Jenna and the revelation of what he's done. He commits himself to making a choice and what happens at the end of the film is so surprising and I thought so smart. When Jenna's parents find out what he's done to her their reaction to isn't what you'd expect and it leads to the most interesting conversation of the film between Michael and Tom Wilkinson's Stephen. You think you have a good idea how he'll treat this loser who just destroyed his daughter’s life, but what happens ends up being smarter and far more satisfying.

I always thought the key to a successful ending of a film is if I'm left wondering and caring what happens to the characters after the movie is over. I did here. There has to be some degree of closure, but not too much. Issues are messy and aren't patched up nicely in real life so why should they be in a movie? Especially one with an issue that cuts as deep as this. I'm sure they'll be many who will try to compare this film to Zach Braff's 2004 cult classic, Garden State. That's not fair since Braff wrote, acted and directed that film whereas he just acts in this one. He does a fine job here as he really does have sort of an everyman quality that's relatable to the viewer and works well for the part of Michael.

After the incredible success of the Garden State soundtrack, Braff was asked to compile the soundtrack to this film and it's quite good as well featuring music from Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Ray Lamontagne, Aimee Mann, Athlete, Fiona Apple, Amos Lee and others. Garden State was pretty much hailed as a masterpiece. I thought it was good, not great. This would fall into a similar category but it's worth mentioning that in his last two film outings Braff has come very close to being in a great movie. More notably, he starred in two films that have something important to say about life and leave you thinking and feeling for a while after it's over. Garden State knew what it was about though, and stuck with it the whole time without adding needless distractions. I'm starting to wonder if this film would have been better had Braff written and directed it himself. The Last Kiss may be messy, but at least it's never uninteresting.