Unhinged

Director: Derrick Borte
Starring: Russell Crowe, Caren Pistorius, Gabriel Bateman, Jimmi Simpson, Austin P. McKenzie, Juliene Joyner
Running Time: 93 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

If there's anything to be said about the very accurately titled road rage thriller Unhinged it's that you get exactly what's advertised. Approaching the film with hopes of gaining deep insight into the sociological implications of stress on the human psyche or underlying causes of vehicular assault in America would be a mistake. This is a B-level potboiler. Plain and simple. And when viewed through that lens, director Derrick Borte delivers a tight, suspenseful 90 minutes that doesn't reach too far or try to be something it isn't. Aiming higher would assuredly result in less, even as the story's basic premise calls to mind superior efforts like Steven Spielberg's Duel or Joel Schumacher's Falling Down. In terms of quality and content, it shares little with either, as much of the action doesn't take place on the road and it's not all that interested in providing social commentary or exploring the antagonist's state of mind. But in this case it's fine since that just isn't what we're here for. 

The events that occur may be wildly implausible, but they're not exactly silly. Okay, maybe they are, but it's good enough for viewers to resist mocking the entire scenario and at least respect that the movie never breaks from its reckless abandon to wink at us. Borte really plays it straight, relishing in this lack of humor as he escalates the violence to uncomfortable levels. On its surface, the plot's absurd, tracking a stone cold killer on his rampage to teach an unlucky mororist what a "bad day" really feels like. He also might also have the best luck of any murderer since Ted Bundy at evading law enforcement, disposing of victims left and right in broad, busy daylight while driving his easily identifiable vehicle through a crowded city. And yet, this somehow works, mainly because of Russell Crowe, who we just don't see in sadistic, villainous roles like this nearly enough. 

Mentally disturbed and existing on the fringes of life, Tom Cooper (Crowe) is in a precarious state. Laid off from his job and going through a divorce within the past year, he's about ready to snap. And he does, breaking into the home of his ex-wife and beating her boyfriend with a hammer before setting the residence ablaze, driving away into the night as it explodes. Meanwhile, newly divorced single mother Rachel Flynn (Caren Pistorius) has been struggling through some personal problems herself, battling her ex-husband over money while trying to take care of their teen son Kyle (Gabriel Bateman). Already under immense pressure and seeking advice from friend and divorce lawyer, Andy (Jimmi Simpson), she's dropping Kyle off at school and running late to work when she honks at a pickup truck stopped at a green light. 

The truck's driver is Tom, who catches up to Rachel, rolling down the window and demanding an apology for honking him, insisting he deserved a "courtesy tap" first. She refuses, leading to a tense exchange and him following her on the road and into a gas station, where she realizes he's just not going to let this go. So begins his murderous rampage, threatening everyone near and close to Rachel while collecting additional victims along the way. With cops on his trail, he has Rachel in his crosshairs, and she'll have to use all her strength and resourcefulness to escape him.     

Unlike Michael Douglas' D-Fens character in Falling Down, Tom starts the film as a complete psychopath and descends from there. Whatever events or circumstances led to his violent, agressive actions were well underway before he was introduced on screen so any hopes of humanizing the guy are pretty much dashed in the opening scene when he commits the first atrocious crime. The film proudly announces what it will be right off the bat and doesn't waver throughout, even while being careful enough not to go too far into the weeds regarding his mental stability, or lack thereof. 

While they show Tom popping prescription meds and he's referred to as "ill" in both the descriptions for the picture and in passing dialogue, you have to wonder the reasoning behind that disclosure. Since mental health is a sensitive topic, you'd figure the last thing filmmakers would want to imply is that just anyone with these issues could do this. What's likelier is that this is screenwriter Carl Ellsworth's sole attempt at giving the character some degree of nuance despite it not being particularly necessary. Regardless, his horrific actions speak loudest, as an almost unrecognizably heavier Crowe adopts a menacing southern drawl while pausing to fiercely lecture his intended victims about the unfair hand he's been dealt. 

Alternating between intensely calm soliloquies and explosive fits of rage, Crowe's best scene comes in a diner opposite the great Jimmi Simpson as Rachel's attorney. With Tom having already absconded with her cell phone and fully manipulating his way into her circle of friends and family, Simpson's lawyer knowing something's off with this guy, but not enough to call him out. Crowe perfects Tom's deflections and lies to a hilt so by the time Simpson's character realizes the extent of what's happened, it's too late.

It would be easy to pick every piece of this apart, especially the incredibly slow police response when it comes to tracking a pyromanical vehicular killer so visible that the "hiding" part of hiding in plain sight barely seems applicable. Then again, had the script involved too much law enforcement, it could easily lead to a Saw-like scenario where we're watching a crime procedural instead of the thriller it should be. So it's probably the right call keeping Crowe front and center, even if the audience has to kind of check their brain at the door regarding how far this goes.  

If Crowe steamrolling through everyone seems on brand for the film, its most believable aspect is South African actress Caren Pistorius' performance as Rachel, naturally and credibly reacting to this trauma as you'd envision a normal, overly stressed single mother would, conveying a fear and panic that lends even more tension to the proceedings. Doing far more than merely holding her own, Pistorius wrings genuine pathos out of the situation's most ludicrous developments, desperately conveying the conflicted fight or flight response you'd associate with someone experiencing this. 

Allowing a suspension of disbelief that may not have been possible with a more recognizable name in the role, casting the right protagonist opposite Crowe only enhances everything he does, making sure all the heat stays on him. And he brings plenty of it, taking us on a wild ride where we're fully invested in seeing this guy really get his in the end. When that moment comes, it's surprisingly cathartic, and maybe the surest sign that everyone involved with Unhinged fully understood the assignment. By knowing what had to be accomplished and achieving it, the film clears a low bar, executing an admittedly familar formula in skillful, exciting ways.          

The Nice Guys

Director: Shane Black
Starring: Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling, Angourie Rice, Matt Bomer, Margaret Qualley, Yaya DaCosta, Keith David, Beau Knapp, Kim Basinger, Jack Kilmer, Ty Simpkins
Running Time: 116 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's an early moment in Shane Black's buddy cop comedy, The Nice Guys, that immediately convinced  me I'd love it. It's when a bumbling private eye played by Ryan Gosling meticulously attempts to break into a nightclub. And just from our initial glimpses of the guy, we can tell this might be the first time he's ever arrived prepared for anything. He carefully wraps his fist and arm measures up the glass window before putting his fist through it. Within minutes, blood's shooting everywhere and the ambulance takes him away. It's the perfect introduction to this character and into the retro world of the movie, which is filled to the brim with subtle jokes that continually keep paying off as its delightfully absurd plot takes shape. Everything the movie does just feels effortless, cruising along for a two hour length that most other comedies would be struggling to fill.  It knows where it's going and all the detours it takes in getting there are actually welcome because they're hilarious and even at times unexpected.

Delivered in a style and tone more reminiscent great, unearthed 70's cop show that never quite made it to air, it's witty and sharp, mining its laughs from quirky characters traits and period nonsense instead of sight gags or toilet humor. And it may be time to start getting scared because if Gosling's capable of bringing this much to what on paper should have been your average mainstream American comedy, there's no telling what else he's capable of. Russell Crowe is superb as his straight man, and while no one could have predicted this pairing would yield such a result, it's Gosling who really surprises with comedic chops few guessed he had, even while generously taking into account his previous work in Crazy Stupid Love.

As if all this isn't enough, Black manages to accomplish the impossible in successfully incorporating a child into the narrative in a major role that feels completely essential. Far from being a third wheel of any sort, the actual performance and discovery of the actress giving it feels like a genuine eye-opener, as she goes much further than merely "holding her own" opposite experienced, powerhouse co-stars. Rarely did a scene pass in The Nice Guys when I wasn't either laughing or smiling, regardless of how little casual buzz it may have generated among moviegoers following its May release.

It's 1977 Los Angeles and frequently drunk private eye Holland March (Gosling) is hired by the aunt of recently deceased adult film star Misty Mountains to investigate the possibility she's still alive after supposedly spotting her following her death in a car crash. A highly skeptical March takes the job but gets a beat down from hired muscle Jackson Healey (Crowe), who warns him to stay away from his only lead in the case, a missing girl named Amelia Kutner (Margaret Qualley). But when Healey is targeted by a couple of thugs regarding Amelia, he teams up with March and his wise beyond her years 13-year-old daughter, Holly (Angourie Rice) to locate Amelia before those guys do. The disappearance of Amelia and how it relates to the LA pornography world and even reaches the highest level of federal government is something this crime solving odd couple will have to crack, with Healey and Holly attempting to protect March from his worst enemy: His drunken incompetence as a detective and frequent deficiencies as a parental figure.

At times feeling more 1970's than the 70's itself, the setting and period in which this takes place ends up being a huge selling point in writer/director Shane Black's capable hands. As he proved over a decade ago with his cult hit Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and even more recently with Iron Man 3, he knows how to write and direct comedy that's a cut or more above what we've come to typically expect from projects that could otherwise easily seem slight or unambitious without his touch. He's definitely not phoning it in here, rarely wasting an opportunity to poke fun of the absurdity of the porn industry setting and storyline, as well as the wacky characters inhabiting it. Everything from the production design to the costuming looks authentic to a degree you rarely find in comedies set in another decade.  And that's about half of what makes this all work. The plot may be played entirely for laughs, but it's played straight and taken deadly serious by these two characters, who could have just as easily slid into a sequel to Crowe's own L.A. Confidential.

The casting of Gosling and Crowe, two actors primarily associated with darker material, is a masterstroke in that we've never seem either apply their talents to something as comedic as this. It's a compliment to their talents how easily we could envision a dramatic inverse to this script with two rough and tumble bad-ass detectives trying to uncover a corruption ring in 1970's LA and it still working equally well. Crowe (who noticeably packed on the pounds for the role) actually plays it like this is that movie, even as ridiculous as everything around him gets. Most notably, Gosling's character. What's funny and to whom is such a subjective, acquired taste that it's all the more remarkable how frequently Gosling breaks those barriers with his performance as March, whether he's unintelligibly chatting up partygoers after having a few (or fifteen) too many or doing a spot-on Lou Costello impersonation sure to delight anyone who recognizes the tribute, and likely even those who don't.

Incorporating kids into adult comedies can be creatively troublesome as their characters tend to be annoyingly overwritten or cloying, quickly wearing out their welcome when placed in more sophisticated situations. Through little fault of their own, even the most skilled and mature of tween or teen actors can irritate if the material isn't there or the director has them precociously mug for the cameras since Hollywood's taught us that's what kids should do. Adopting a flawless American accent, Australian actress Angourie Rice doesn't only manage to not wear out her welcome as Holly March, she stands right alongside Gosling as the very best thing in the movie. It's a child star arrival and performance that's reminiscent of the talent Jodie Foster or Natalie Portman displayed right out of the gate when they first debuted. There's that much potential here.

As possibly the true parent in this father-daughter relationship, it's become Holly's job to keep her dad on the straight and narrow following the death of her mother. She seems up for everything, can read adults in an instant, but also has these scary moments in the midst of all the danger that jolt audiences into remembering just how young and impressionable she is. No kid, however street smart, could reasonably be asked to handle any of this and it's to Rice and the film's credit that this detail isn't forgotten. Nor is the fact that their relationship is so often built on the foundation that they have to take turns protecting each other. And Gosling provides these small moments where we realize that, for all of March's faults, he's both a better detective and parent than we initially suspected. Holly finds a worthy verbal sparring opponent in Healey and the friendship they form to keep her dad on track provides one of the more satisfying subplots.

Usually, when an R-rated action comedy enters its third act, the results are a mess as the narrative flies off the rails. This is one of those rare cases where everything only gets better as the plot becomes crazier, and the closing action sequence at the Los Angeles Auto Show squeezes the absolute most out of its setting and characters. Much of that can be attributed to an exciting cast of colorfully entertaining supporting villains played by Keith David, Beau Knapp and and an unrecognizably creepy Matt Bomer as hired assassin "John Boy." Kim Basinger also contributes as a chilly demeanored high-ranking government official whose interest in Amelia's disappearance is more personal given that she's her daughter.

Even with its unusual setting and offbeat sense of humor, it's still surprising The Nice Guys wasn't a bigger hit. While it's possible some of the really subtle, inside jokes flew over the heads of as many as it impressed upon its release, this is one of the few recent mainstream comedies that manages to not only tell a good story, but a few of them simultaneously. In a way, it would be kind of strangely disappointing if it was enormously successful, spawning a franchise of likely inferior sequels that would seem to violate the spirit with which this was made. This seems just fine where it is. A quirky, edgy cult comedy viewers will still slowly be discovering years from now.

Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As someone who's usually not a fan of musicals and was completely unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables on stage or screen, here presents that rare opportunity for me to go into a movie cold. Knowing so little about it, preconceived notions tend to disappear, or at least fade as far into the background as possible. But it still turned out to be a more fulfilling and entertaining experience than my few expectations had prepared me for. It's also a bizarre one, as certain creative and technical decisions are made by Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper that will likely raise the eyebrows of even those who care little about these sorts of things. Arguments could go on all day as to whether they enhance or detract from the material, but at the end it may not even matter. Since all fans will remember is whether it remains true to the source, Hooper's preaching to the choir here. Everyone else will likely be more divided, but it's pretty cut and dry what works and what doesn't, as one section of the story clearly surpasses the other. At the top of the list of successes is the inspired casting, followed closely by a sensational opening hour that sets in motion a chain events that spans nearly twenty years and claims more than a few victims. As the running time wears on and the characters start dropping like flies, it's almost too easy to revert to the joke that this should have been titled Les MISERABLE. Few will debate the film starts losing steam after the opening sixty minutes, but there's still a lot to recommend in a story so expansive that there's genuine doubt all the characters could die of old age before the final credits roll.

Opening in 1815, Les Misérables really tells two tales that eventually converge as one giant, sweeping one. The first involves convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who's released on parole by prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), but manages to escape and start a new life for himself, eight years later becoming a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer in France. When one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired and forced to sell her hair and turn to prostitution to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) Valjean steps in to become the girl's guardian. Now, years later and set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Valjean is still being trailed by police inspector Javert while an adult Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) becomes the object of Marius Pontmercy's (Eddie Redmayne) affections, much to the dismay of his good friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), who harbors a secret crush on him. As Javert draws closer to apprehending Valjean, the political turmoil escalates, putting all their lives in danger as a country's future hangs in the balance.          

The first hour of this film is so strong on every level possible that it was almost inevitable that the remainder of it wouldn't be able to keep pace. And Anne Hathaway's Oscar winning supporting performance as the dying Fantine is the major reason why. She has only maybe a little more than 10 minutes of screen time, but makes the most of each grueling moment, effectively selling her character's rapid descent into hopelessness.  Losing her hair and over twenty pounds, her gut-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is without question the defining scene of the movie and it's a magic that isn't quite recaptured once Hathaway makes her exit. Was the role predestined, if not calculated, to win her the Oscar? Maybe, but who cares when she's this good.

It's also the best work Jackman's done in a while as a man on the run, shamed by his secret past as a criminal and racked by his own guilt. The decade plus cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between him and Javert is the film's greatest narrative asset, even when being overshadowed by other goings on in the third act. Russell Crowe himself would probably readily admit his singing isn't exactly the most polished in the cast, at times coming across as a strange hybrid of William Shatner's spoken word albums from the '60's and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Crowe's not a singer, but because he's such a formidable actor he's able to pull off absolute lunacy with confidence and conviction. Whether it was for the right reasons or not, I looked forward to every appearance he made. As the swindling, manipulative Thénardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter feel as if they've just stepped off Tim Burton's set, embodying comedic goth creepiness as the innkeepers mistreating young Cosette and extorting her mother. Cohen is fantastic in the role, making "Master of the House," in which he sings about cheating the inn's patrons, the most raucous and purely enjoyable number in the film. If nothing else, the characters deserve credit for their surprising staying power, as few would guess these seemingly one-dimensional villains figure into the action as much and as long as they do.

Unfortunately, everything comes to a grinding halt once we get to the love triangle, which never seems to take off despite spirited efforts from all involved. Because the time jump is so sudden and jarring, it's difficult to immediately adjust to Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks as older versions of the child characters we got to know earlier. But they do well nonetheless. Seyfried, besides being a dead ringer to child counterpart Isabelle Allen in looks, is definitely the best singer in the cast, while Barks, who actually played Éponine on stage, sings and acts her heart out in a role that might not be quite as large as you expected. That her part almost went to Taylor Swift would be shocking if not for the fact that the content of this romantic sub-plot isn't entirely dissimilar to that of her hit songs. As for Redmayne, this marks the second time after My Week with Marilyn that he appears to be a spectator in his own movie as the young lovesick revolutionary. In some ways, Aaron Tveit, who plays his friend and charismatic leader of the movement, Enjolras, makes more of an impression. What saves this section is the music and the fact Hooper gets his act together in time for a strong, emotional finale focusing on the characters we want to see, even if most of them are dead by that point.

This isn't one of those movie musicals that directs itself or is in any way shot like a stage play directly transposed to the screen. Hooper's style is umistakenly "in your face" with weird dutch angles and extreme close-ups that could feel like an invasion of personal space for certain viewers. This is especially true of the Hathaway sequence, where the camera doesn't leave her face the entire time. At times it is too much and it's easy to see why many may not be on board with the approach or feel it's just a filmmaker showing off at the expense of the material. But for me, any bells and whistles were necessary since this was just never going to in my wheelhouse no matter what. The best that could be hoped for was to be sufficiently entertained and Les Mis did deliver that in spades It's never boring or uninteresting. Strangely, it sometimes suffers from the opposite problem, moving a mile a minute with hardly a moment to breathe and take it all in. But as far as problems go, that's a pretty good one to have.          

The Next Three Days

Director: Paul Haggis
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson, Brian Dennehy, Olivia Wilde, Jason Beghe
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)


The Next Three Days is a thriller almost too smart for its own good, but gets away with it by making sense. It's 90 minutes of set-up and 30 of payoff but the suspenseful final half hour makes it all worth it, with a script that succeeds in convincing us what we're watching is plausible, even if it probably isn't. It's refreshing to see smart law enforcement officers unable to catch the protagonist not because they're dumb, but because he's smart, did his research and considered the options. This isn't the "pulse-pounding" popcorn action movie it's been promoted as, but rather all about how a detailed plan materializes and its consequences. It's also about a conviction, but the issue of the guilt or innocence of the convict is mostly left unaddressed. "Restraint" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind when you see writer/director Paul Haggis' name attached to a project, considering he's responsible for 2005's controversial Best Picture winner Crash. Thankfully this film isn't political, isn't trying to take an obvious stand on any issues and has no real point-of-view. It's a simple story told well as a reminder that Russell Crowe is one of the best actors we have, seemingly incapable of giving anything but his all each time out. Add this to the already long list of quality films he's carried on his back.

The film opens with college professor John Brennan (Crowe) behind the wheel in a frantic race against time. We flash back to find out his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks) was arrested and eventually convicted of murdering her boss following an altercation one night at work. Facing life in prison with no possibility of parole or any kind of appeal Lara is visited frequently by John, along with their young son, who refuses to even acknowledge her existence. Fed up, John consults former convict turned best selling author Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson) for ideas on how to break her out and discovers that the actual prison escape is the easiest part. Damon would know, having done it seven times already before turning himself in. The biggest challenge is avoiding capture and making it out of Pittsburgh alive. He finds out time is his worst enemy and he'll only have a very limited amount of it before the call is made to lock-down all the city's exits, preventing any possible route of escape. Most of the film concerns John's preparations and planning, like obtaining fake passports, investigating glitches in prison security and choosing a destination, should they even make it that far. The entire plot is meticulously detailed and methodically paced so those expecting The Great Escape or The Fugitive might be surprised, at least until John finally pulls the trigger on his plan and the chase is underway. But the reason the chase contains all the suspense it does is because of all the effort put into building toward it.

If you actually examined the series of events and tried to hold them up to close scrutiny you'd probably find plot holes big enough to drive a truck through, but within the confines of a movie universe they work because the characters behave intelligently and know what they're doing. We're too absorbed in the details to care whether every piece holds up and Crowe's intense lead performance is why. He specializes at making every action seem purposeful and is one of the few actors capable of playing a normal, everyday schlub thrown into an extraordinary situation and an action hero, a quality that only bolsters the credibility of an already tight script. In a rare, heavily dramatic role for her, Elizabeth Banks has less to do as Lara, if only because she spends most of the film's running time behind bars. The only wrong note Haggis strikes with her is an opening restaurant scene so hilariously overwritten is almost actually does play like an outtake from Crash. Still, her transformation in looks and demeanor from a successful, high powered businesswoman into an defeated convict is noteworthy and she more than holds her own with Crowe when the action picks up later. Olivia Wilde has a small role as a neighborhood mother who befriends John and we're not sure whether she's being set up as a potential love interest, key player in the prison break or something else. The part doesn't really amount to much at all but it's a credit to the script that you're constantly on your toes suspecting it might.

For a change in this genre, there's real legitimate doubt how this whole ordeal will all end and whether or not they'll even survive. You'll also gain a new appreciation for the film's poster, which figures into the plot in a clever, unexpected way. You could equally envision logical, satisfying conclusions where they survive and make it out of the country and another where both are either killed or captured. That the film is uninterested in the relevancy of her guilt or innocence is its most fascinating component, almost undone by a ill-conceived flashback scene in the third act that gives us more info than we want. It's a minor misstep, but anyone interested in a story about someone wrongfully accused might as well just rent Conviction because this is at its best when focusing on the intense mission of a man determined to see his risky plan through to the end. The important thing is that he believes she's innocent, and even if he didn't, you still get the impression his intentions wouldn't change and the unusually logical plot found in The Next Three Days would unfold just the same.

Robin Hood

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Matthew Macfadyen, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Kevin Durand, Mark Addy, William Hurt, Danny Huston, Max Von Sydow, Scott Grimes
Running Time: 140 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Originally, Ridley Scott's Robin Hood was to be released under the title, Nottingham. That would have been a much better choice, one that at least doesn't conjure up early '90's images of Kevin Costner in the role and a certain Bryan Adams theme song. I wonder if they went for the safer, more obvious title because they feared audiences wouldn't know what it was. The only reason I'm mentioning this is because Scott is burdened with the incredibly thankless task of putting a fresh spin on a tale that's that's been told a hundred times over and can really only be told one way. At least a new title could have created the illusion that things might be different this time and a new approach would be taken. It would be something, because let's face it, any filmmaker will always be grasping at straws with a character as limited as Robin Hood. He isn't exactly deep or multi-dimensional, nor does his legend boast rich narrative possibilities that can go in a million different directions. Other than completely modernizing the story and setting it in the present day you're handcuffed with what you've got. Scott goes the only route he can, the safest and most predictable, and while this qualifies only as average entertainment at best, it's still better than it should be given the circumstances. While he falls short in his obvious attempt to duplicate adventure epics like Braveheart and his own Gladiator, I'll give him credit for perfect casting and some great battle scenes. It's mainly the overly familiar and somewhat uninvolving "untold" story that can't keep pace.

If forced to classify it, this version of Robin Hood could be considered a prequel of sorts, or more accurately, an origin story.  When King Richard (Danny Huston) is killed in a siege, his common archer, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) must return to London to inform the Royal Family of the king's death and witness the coronation of the deceased's younger brother, Prince John (Oscar Isaac). The evil, self-absorbed John wastes no time abusing the throne with unfair tax demands and appointment of Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) as the collector, though he's secretly an agent of the French King using his new position to stir up a Civil War in England.  Upon arriving in Nottingham, Robin assumes the identity of slain knight Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), a knight who's dying request was that he deliver a sword to his blind, aging father, Sir Walter (Max Von Sydow). Loxley's also left behind a widow, Marion (Cate Blanchett), who's slow to warm up to her husband's replacement, but of course we know those cold feelings toward Robin won't last long. In fact, we already know a lot of things and that's the problem. The few details we didn't know could have just assumed, not shown to us in a prequel. From a literal standpoint, this portion is "untold," but it's also unnecessary, doing little to add to the legend of Robin Hood or Nottingham, or cause us to re-think our previous perception of the character. We do get some mileage seeing familiar faces in a slightly different capacity like a pre-"Maid" ass-kicking Marion, the somewhat goofy Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) before he becomes a major villain, Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) as a beekeeper and Robin's "Merry Men," Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle). But most of the thrills come from the battle scenes which, aside from ripping off Braveheart, are exciting and well choreographed, and the noticeably authentic set, costume and art design. But that should almost be the minimum requirement for a period adventure like this anyway, particularly one helmed by a filmmaker as experienced as Scott.

With both actors pushing past the forty year mark I'm sure many will complain that Crowe and Blanchett are "too old" for these roles. That's nonsense and I commend Scott for going against the grain by casting mature, experienced performers instead of someone like a Robert Pattinson or a Kiera Knightley in a misguided attempt to go younger, which could have easily tarnished the entire film. I'd imagine the pressure from the studio to do that was strong considering this is supposed to be a prequel, but such an approach would have been inappropriate for the material, and this wasn't ever going to reel in the younger crowd anyway. Prequel or not, Robin and Marion should be a man and woman not a boy and a girl and the versions we get here actually come closer their authentic origins in how they look and behave. As played by Russell Crowe, Robin is more of an action hero than he was in the past which I don't take issue with since there aren't a whole lot of other things the character could be at this point that we haven't seen already. But what's most surprising is how likable, funny and relaxed Crowe seems a role that you'd expect to be a Maximus retread and regardless of the quality of the material, he's continues to be an actor who's never given less than a top tier performance in anything. A true highlight is his witty banter and chemistry with Blanchett, who's one of the few actresses (other than maybe Jolie) capable of bringing the necessary elegance and grace to Marion, while at the same time also being believable as a feisty, strong-willed warrior ready to suit up for battle (as she does in the climactic showdown). The long overdue modernization of a character depicted in previous incarnations as merely a damsel in distress is one of the smartest details in the script by Brian Helgeland, who interestingly enough previously wrote and directed A Knight's Tale. Also helping is the presence of not just one, but two formidable villains with Oscar Isaac making an especially slimy and detestable King John.

With barely a 15 minute difference between the theatrical and unrated cut, I viewed the theatrical one and it's hard to regret that decision since a running time of just over two hours feels right whereas two and a half would seem to be unnecessarily pushing it. While it's unlikely an extra scene or two would have made the story feel any fresher or more inspired, I'd almost be curious enough to find out. The film works best as a teaching tool for directors on how to cast properly since this could have easily turned into a total disaster without talents like Crowe and Blanchett carrying it. It was an honest attempt by Scott who's onto something here since there is a joy in watching an old fashioned adventure epic that relies on story and character rather than distracting computer generated effects. I just wish the story were better and I actually cared what happened to the characters. It's a closer call than I expected and judging by the conclusion a sequel almost seems inevitable, or would have been had this made more money and anyone liked it. Maybe they can call that Nottingham.

Body of Lies

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Golshifteh Farahani, Vince Colosimo, Mark Strong
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: R

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

The worst offense committed by the political espionage thriller Body of Lies is that it fails to bring anything new to an already tired and uninspired genre. In a first, I actually found myself somewhat disappointed that the film wasn't worse or it didn't fail in a more interesting way. Given that it's directed by Ridley Scott and co-stars thespian heavyweights Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio it shouldn't be a surprise that despite a thin story it still just barely misses the mark. What is kind of surprising is how run-of-the-mill it is. Although, given its uninspired Lifetime TV movie of the week title and embarrassing promotional artwork, that may not be surprising either. It's more likely to call to mind a Direct-To-DVD clunker from the '90's starring Sean Young or Richard Grieco than the latest effort from an Academy Award winning filmmaker.

Marketing notwithstanding, this was basically destined to be a technically proficient effort featuring a pair of good performances and nothing more. And that's exactly what it is. It won't be remembered as a career highlight for anyone involved, but thanks to some exciting action sequences and impressive location shooting it isn't a complete wash. Just thank Scott for at least not shoving a political agenda down our throats and just telling the story, as uninvolving as it may be.

The plot is somewhat complicated, though not really when you think about it...or don't. DiCaprio is cocky C.I.A. field agent Roger Ferris, sent to the Middle East to take out a deadly al-Queda like terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden wannabe Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). He's aided via headset and high tech survailence in this mission by his boss back in the states, Ed Hofffman (Crowe in gray-haired, paunchy Insider mode). He keeps track of him by satellite in between attending his children's soccer games. They make an uneasy bedfellow in the head of Jordan's Intelligence Agency, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) as Ferris's emerging romantic relationship with a pretty local nurse (Golshifteh Farahani) threatens the entire operation.

There's a lot of ideas and action jammed into writer William Monahan's (The Departed) script and surprisingly more than enough to justify the film's over 2 hour running time. It's never boring since Scott is the kind of director who knows how to make things crackle visually, but the problem is I just didn't care about anything that happened or who it happened to and every plot point seemed well mapped out in advance. There's some intrigue involving the motives of the Jordanian intelligence officer and some resonating cultural observations involving the nurse's relationship with Ferris, but other than that we're just waiting for the clock to run out.

Luckily, we're left waiting with DiCaprio and Crowe, actors incapable of giving bad performances in anything. That said, this won't go down as either's strongest work. Especially DiCaprio, who seems to be delivering a less potent version of his Oscar nominated role in Blood Diamond while distractingly slipping in and out of a southern drawl. Crowe fares better except the part seems underwritten and almost inconsequential at times. He's good, but it could have been played by just about anyone as effectively. The two don't share screen time for most of the first hour but when they do finally square off it can't help but feel like a letdown considering how pedestrian the rest of the picture is.

We're also in the hands of a director who knows how to keep it moving at a brisk pace and stage exciting action sequences. There's an authenticity to the film that wouldn't be there if a less talented lensman were at the helm. While sharing the same relentless style as Scott's Black Hawk Down it doesn't contain nearly as much substance, but at least he does a good enough job hiding it while Monahan's script is thankfully lacking in the preachy ulterior motives that sunk last year's embarrassing trifecta of Rendition, Stop-Loss and Lions for Lambs.

This doesn't pretend to be any more than what it is and as a result it isn't. Ridley Scott is too talented a director to be wasting his time on projects that should go to his brother Tony. This may as well be called Enemy of the State 2. Coming up for Scott is his cinematic interpretation of the board game Monopoly and it speaks pathetic volumes that during this my thoughts turned to it as the potentially more intriguing project. At least its different and if a crazy idea like that fails it'll at least do so memorably. It's disconcerting to consider that Hollywood has run dry of ideas but after watching something like Body of Lies I start to worry if it's a real possibility.

American Gangster

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Lymari Nadal, Ruby Dee, Carla Gugino, Clarence Williams III, Cuba Godding Jr., Armande Assante
Running Time: 157 min.
Rating: R

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

The gangster film genre has become so familiar in American cinema that it could very well be considered an institution, or a cliché. When the 80th Annual Academy Award nominations were announced earlier this year a lot of people who surprised that American Gangster only picked up two nominations (one for Best Supporting Actress and another for Best Art Direction), despite being universally praised by critics and audiences upon its release as one of the best films of the year. Under normal circumstances two nods would hardly be considered a disappointment, but it is when you have an epic crime drama directed by Ridley Scott starring two actors the caliber of Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington. It is "EPIC" in every sense of the word and exactly the kind of film that wins little gold men, which made it's exclusion at awards season that much more surprising.

In taking pages out of similar films like The Godfather, Goodfellas and Scarface by telling a very familiar, comfortable story, the film could have seemed like a pale imitation, but instead feels like the real thing because it presents the material in a fresh, interesting way and the trajectory of the story goes in a different direction. It's also breezier and more accessible than those other films, which many may view as a negative. I don't. Nor do I care that serious creative liberties were taken with the original story because I think this is one of those cases where a little embellishment adds more dimension and flavor to the characters, which deepens the film.

Anyone who lives for gangster and crime movies (I'm sorry to report I'm not among them) will absolutely love this, while everyone else will at least be entertained thoroughly for over two and a half hours with first class filmmaking. It's chief selling point is the prospect of seeing Crowe and Washington lock horns onscreen for the first time since 1995's forgettable Virtuosity. It doesn't disappoint at all on that end and delivers on many other fronts as well, especially in regards to Washington's performance, which is one of his most electric and powerful in years. I'm not sure if it's a movie we couldn't live without, but it will provide a lot of enjoyment for fans and non-fans of the genre.

Washington is Frank Lucas, the protégé and right-hand man of "Bumpy" Johnson (Clarence Williams III), a gangster who runs much of the drug trade in late 1960's Harlem. When he passes away from a heart attack, Frank takes over the reins, cornering the drug market and putting the competition out of business. The secret to his success is a new purer from of heroin coming out of Bangkok, of which he controversially smuggles out of Vietnam using U.S. troops and equipment. Frank's rule over the Harlem drug trade puts him at odds with the Italian mob, led by Dominic Cattano (Armand Assante) and a flashy, loudmouth dealer Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.) trying to pass his brand off as his own. But his biggest adversaries are the city's crooked cops trying to get a cut in the action, the worst of which is the creepy, intimidating Detective Trupo (Josh Brolin).

It seems the only cop in New York not on the take is Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) who actually turned down a $1 million payoff, which makes him a joke among his co-workers. He's also plagued with personal problems as his partner slides into drug addiction and his ex-wife (Carla Gugino) is suing him for custody of his son. Soon he's selected to head up a new narcotics squad and it isn't long before he has his sights set on Frank and his men. The movie tells juxtaposes the stories of these two men throughout and prepares us for the inevitable showdown in the third act. Scott knows what he has and milks it for everything he can, as Crowe and Washington don't share a single scene together until the last 10 minutes of the film. It's worth the wait though. And if you're expecting this film to end in a firestorm of bullets and taking bets on which man will survive you're approaching this story from the wrong angle, just as I was.

Frank Lucas is one of the most compelling characters you could hope to build a film around because he is, like this genre's best, complicated and full of contradictions. He wants to run the show but hates flashiness. He demonstrates cold-blooded ruthlessness when it comes to business but he's ultimately he's very fair and loyal . He endangers his wife (Lymari Nadal) and mother (Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee Ruby Dee), yet does everything he can to protect them. He cares for his brother (Chiwetel Ejiofor) but doesn't have time for his stupidity. Nothing is black and white with Frank, which is what makes the character so fascinating and engaging.

I've criticized Washington in the past for taking junk cop parts in films like Out of Time and Déjà Vu because we know he's always been capable of so much more. Here he shows us that and these are exactly the kinds of roles he should be taking. Of all the nominations this film was supposedly robbed of you could have made the strongest case for Washington for a Best Actor nod. At times you're mad at him for playing Frank so charismatically because he makes this drug dealer and murderer somewhat likable, which creates conflicting feelings as you watch.

The common thread he shares with Crowe's Richie is their belief in fairness and honesty even though they're operating on opposite sides of the law. They're practically cut from the same cloth, which makes their eventual encounter at the end of the film work so well and go in a different direction than anticipated. The sub-plot involving Richie's ex-wife and the custody battle is a screenwriting invention since the real Richie Roberts didn't have a child, but it does lead to an interesting courtroom scene where we're asked to question the motivations behind Richie's honesty and whether he really is as great of a guy as he makes himself out to be. Crowe turns in a good performance as well even if his story fails to pack the same emotional punch as Frank's. But it's not meant to, nor could it.

There's been a big question concerning whether Ruby Dee "deserved" a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her five minutes of screen time in this film. Whether she does or not depends largely on how you feel about the Academy's policy of rewarding an actor or actress for their life's work as opposed to the performance they happened to be nominated for. That's clearly what happened here, but I have a feeling the Academy unintentionally did her more harm than good by making her look like a charity case instead of an actress who gave a dynamic supporting performance worthy of award consideration. Anyone who's seen her work over the years knows she's no charity case. Having said that, she does give a reasonably strong performance in a woefully underwritten role.

If a supporting nomination should have gone to anyone it should have been Josh Brolin who plays what could have been a stereotyped crooked cop without pretension and gives a cold, calculated performance that cuts into the very heart of the picture. With a single icy stare he can imply things about this man that no line of dialogue is capable of. Between this, Planet Terror and No Country For Old Men (which I've yet to see) 2007 should be remembered as his breakout year. And to think just a couple of years ago the only project any of us would be interested in seeing him in would have been The Goonies 2.

It was a big shock when Cuba Gooding Jr, appeared onscreen because this must mark the first time in who knows how many years this guy has acted in a film of any value. It's sad but true. After the choices he's made since his 1997 Best Supporting Actor victory it's a miracle a director like Ridley Scott would even consider casting him in even a small role like this. No actor's stock has fallen further after an Oscar victory than his so hopefully this marks the beginning of a turnaround because he at least does a decent job with what he's given here. With all the big names in the cast this could have degenerated into a game of "spot the star" but it doesn't as all the supporting players slip into their roles seamlessly. But the most support comes from director of photography Harris Savides who can now say after this and Zodiac that he shot two of the best looking films of the past year. The costume design and a perfect late 60's soul soundtrack don't hurt the movie's cause either.

American Gangster continues an trend we've been seeing throughout 2007: The "throwback" film. Movies like Eastern Promises, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford and Michael Clayton are all movies that could have been playing at a theater near you during the 1970's. But rather than just simply ripping off films from that decade these seem genuinely inspired by them and play like respectful, authentic tributes (some more than others). It's a trend that I hope continues because if there's a decade in filmmaking you want to mimic it's that one. Scott clearly did his homework here and his use of a montage that juxtaposes drug overdoses with a Thanksgiving dinner he'd have to admit is right out of Coppola's playbook.

He's a director that can pretty much do anything, even if I'm more than a little worried how he'll pull off the proposed film adaptation of the board game Monopoly. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see him try it. As someone who isn't a fan of the crime or gangster genre it says a lot that I found myself captivated for two and a half hours by a film that didn't drag its feet at all and had more than enough story to justify its running time. American Gangster may not be a complete original, but they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That's especially true when it's done this well.

3:10 To Yuma

Director: James Mangold
Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Logan Lerman, Ben Foster, Dallas Roberts, Peter Fonda, Vinessa Shaw, Alan Tudyk, Gretchen Mol, Luke Wilson
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

Years from now movie buffs and film historians will look back on James Mangold's remake of the classic 1950's Western, 3:10 To Yuma as the rare opportunity to watch two acting legends square off. It'll rank alongside such memorable moments as the Pacino/DeNiro face off in Heat only this takes it a step further. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale don't just share one measely scene in this film.

We get everything we hoped for as two of our finest actors give each other and us everything they have for 2 straight hours and it's a testament to their performances that when it's over it's the story that's remembered most. You can add to that mix another actor who, if his work this year is any indication, may soon be joining their elite company, and we have one hell of a motion picture experience.

There are certain genres, like war and espionage films, I generally tend to stay away from because my interest in the subject matter is low. Westerns are a different story. I always had an interest in them but my exposure was limited and, with very few exceptions, they seemed to have gone out of style in the past two decades, making a bit of a comeback only recently. As I was watching this film it occurred to me just how much I missed them and how truly great and exhilarating they can be when executed well.

So for those tentative about going into Western, don't think of it as one. It could better be classified as The Departed, set in the West as it shares many of that film's qualities thematically. The best in the genre aren't about gunfights or cowboy hats, but are morality plays that explore the thin line between good and evil and the importance of standing up for what you believe is just. They're about honor. It seems simple and clichéd when I type it, but it actually isn't at all. There's nothing simple about this story or the characters in it, at least not in the way that this magnificent film grippingly presents it.

Dan Evans (Bale) is an impoverished rancher who lost his foot in the Civil War and is struggling to make ends meet for his wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) and two young sons. His situation worsens when his ranch is burnt to the ground by two henchmen of a man to whom Dan owes money. The next day while herding cattle Dan and his sons witness the violent robbery of a stagecoach by notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) and they discover the sole survivor of the ambush, seriously wounded bounty hunter Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda).

In desperate need of cash and about to lose his land to the railroad Dan agrees to join McElroy, Sheriff Butterfield (Dallas Roberts) and Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk) for a fee of $200 to accompany Wade to Contention where he'll be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison and await hanging. But Wade has other plans, as does his posse now led by his right-hand man, the psychotic Charlie Prince (an electrifying Ben Foster). Dan needs the money to keep his home and family together, but must also consider whether the reward is worth the price if his widow is left to care for their sons alone. Dan is just a crippled rancher, not law enforcement, and has no business being involved with someone as dangerous as Wade. The chances of him surviving this journey are slim to none.

Motivating Dan further, however, is the fact that his eldest son William (Logan Lerman) views his father as a weak coward incapable of standing up for himself. William is so disappointed and has such little faith in his father that the overambitious teen even continuously demands to come along for help despite his dad's adamant objections. Dan's involvement in escorting Wade to Contention with the rest of the men never goes where we think it will, nor does his complicated relationship with his son, or most importantly, his even more complicated relationship with the ruthless Wade. I can't say I was shocked how it all went down but I was shocked at how conflicted I became about the characters on the journey and how emotionally powerful the final minutes of this picture were.

Everything about this film is perfect and at its center is the relationship between Dan and Wade and how both actors choose to play it. They're not friends but they're not exactly enemies either and the casting of Crowe and Bale in these roles was brilliant and isn't done as a vanity project for the stars or a stab at stunt casting. It serves the material every step of the way. You can feel the tension as they're both on opposite sides of the law, but there's also strong mutual respect between two men who are really much more alike than different as far as their goals. How each go about reaching them is a different story. That mutual respect and tension changes in ways I won't reveal throughout the picture and the beauty of the casting choices is that you can't help but wonder if the complicated relationship between the two characters mirrored the one between Crowe and Bale on set (where supposedly they got along really well).

In one of the most memorable scenes the outlaw Wade joins the Evans family for dinner and Alice remarks that he Wade wasn't at all what she expected him to be. He's not what we expected either as Crowe manages to make this cold-blooded killer come off as polite, respectful, intelligent and even likable. Not too likable though and that's where it's to the film's benefit to have an actor like Crowe playing the role and knowing just how much is too much. Praising him is becoming old hat by now, but it's nice when a role like this comes along to remind us just how good he really is. He leaves it all right there on screen and this is one of his most subdued and nuanced performances.

It's also a rare treat to see Bale in a role we're not accustomed to: that of a weak, defeated man. He owns it and believably conveys his slow transformation throughout this journey. When this was over I had to wonder just how much longer Bale can continue giving performances like this (and the one in Rescue Dawn earlier in the year) without being recognized with an Academy Award nomination. There's no doubt he'll get one eventually and when the day comes it'll be that much more meaningful knowing he left behind a body of work that includes performances like this.

The relationship between Dan and his son is heartbreaking not only because of the boy's low opinion of his father but the prospect that this teen could one day turn into the man Wade has become. It's a very real and scary prospect that's alluded to many times throughout the film. Lerman plays William exceptionally, holding his own with the two best at the top of their games. It would be an intimidating situation for any young actor, but watching his work here you'd never know it.

As good as Crowe and Bale are though, they're both nearly upstaged by Ben Foster, whose threatening presence holds this movie captive. Every word he speaks and action he takes literally shakes you to the core. What's most amazing is his Charlie Prince doesn't even have all that much screen time over the course of the film but Foster makes every second of contained menace count. It's the quality, not quantity.

One of the great benefits of seeing so many movies is getting to follow the career trajectory of all these actors, some of whom really end up surprising you. I don't think anyone would have guessed that Foster, a graduate of such films as the forgettable teen comedy Get Over It, would morph himself into an actor of such force. When the Oscar nominations are announced on January 22nd one thing that would have me jumping out of my seat would be hearing his name announced as a nominee for Best Supporting Actor for his work here or his equally powerful turn in Alpha Dog early last year. Take your pick. Either performance is deserving.

Watching this film it occurred to me that James Mangold, dating all the way back to Cop Land over a decade ago, might be the only director who actually improves with each outing. Walk The Line may always remain my favorite film of his but there's little argument on my end that this is his personal best. Having not seen the original 1957 film (which itself was based on an Elmore Leonard short story) I've heard that this expands the scope of the tale, giving us more details and motivation. I believe it and if this wasn't such a crowded year, a film like this would usually be a lock for a Best Picture nod.

It's a throwback to a time in movies when the story, not computer generated special effects, were the reason audiences came to the theaters. It's all done right and feels authentic. Everything from Marco Beltrami's score to the gorgeous cinematography. There's even a Fonda in it for good measure. The return of the Western has to be one of the more positive developments to come out of Hollywood in recent years and I'm curious to see how the year's other big Western, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford fares against this. It definitely has its work cut out for it. So those thinking of staying away from 3:10 To Yuma and writing it off just merely an accurate recreation or faithful re-imagining of a genre left for dead years ago, think again. This is the real thing.