Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie questionably turns Arthur Conan Doyle's titular sleuth into an action hero in "Sherlock Holmes."

Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) must prevent the recently reincarnated Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from taking over the world with black magic, or something to that effect. Holmes’s love interest Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) gets tangled up with dubious motives.

Downey Jr.’s performance is strong and humorous, playing Holmes as a detached genius with poor social skills. He has great chemistry with McAdams as well as Law; the two playing Holmes and Watson like a bickering married couple is a pleasure to watch. This makes it unfortunate that Watson’s betrothed is needlessly introduced in this film, driving a wedge between the two heroes. It would have been nice to see more unadulterated antics between the two.

But despite the strong casting, the film suffers under the hand of Ritchie, a director mismatched for the material. He is more concerned with making Holmes a cool action hero than providing real mystery. Ridiculous action set-pieces and bad CGI seriously detract.

Also, an elaborate set up for the inevitable sequel is laid throughout the picture, which actually feels more like a preposterous cop-out than an ingenious story arc. With the last few minutes of the picture are uncomfortably dedicated to setting up Sherlock 2.

Here’s hoping there’s more mystery next time.

- Eschew It - Two Stars

The Fourth Kind

Sorely lacking scares and aliens, “The Fourth Kind,” directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi, drops the ball on an interesting premise. The title originates from UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek's classification of close encounters with aliens, in which the fourth kind signifies abduction.

Milla Jovovich plays Dr. Abigail Tyler, a psychologist researching supposed alien abduction cases in Nome, Alaska. Before the action begins, Jovovich eerily addresses the audience informing them that she is an actor portraying a real person.

After several patients experience identical sleeping problems, Tyler starts video taping their sessions and begins to suspect alien abduction. Tyler uses hypnosis on one patient with disastrous results, and from there she becomes more and more convinced.

Interviews with the “real” Dr. Tyler and sessions with her patients are intercut with dramatized footage of actual events. Therein lies the film’s biggest flaw – it tries so hard to sell itself as being based on “actual case studies” that one becomes even more suspicious of its legitimacy.

Gimmicky split screens simultaneously show sessions with real patients and dramatized patients. The idea that we’re watching real people is preposterously pounded into our heads again and again.

In the meantime, Tyler’s family continues to struggle with the loss of their husband and father. The unsolved murder adds some soapy family drama, with the daughter inexplicably losing her sight and the son blaming Tyler for his father’s death.

To be fair, there is more action in the movie than the trailer implies. A suicide and a possible alien visit add much needed variety to the scenes in Tyler’s office. But most of the scares are supposed to come from patents twitching around while under hypnosis. Yawn.

Recent horror hit “Paranormal Activity” uses the “found footage” concept well because it doesn’t try hard to pass itself off as real. “The Fourth Kind” never lets you forget, explicitly stating that it is “based on actual case studies” in its marketing campaign.

The film provides a couple of scares, but Osunsanmi is not competent enough to really terrify the audience. We never get to see anything which becomes very frustrating. “Paranormal Activity” is scary because it leaves most things to the imagination, but in this film it feels like a big cop out. I’d like to actually see some aliens.

Add to mix some unforgivably bad dialogue, continuity errors, and uneven acting, the scariest thing about “The Fourth Kind” is how bad it is.

- Eschew It - One and a Half Stars

Cold Souls

Plotted like a bad fusion of Charlie Kaufman films, such as “Being John Malkovich” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “Cold Souls,” from writer and director Sophie Barthes, does little with its intriguing premise.

Just like in “Malkovich,” actor Paul Giamatti literally plays himself, or at least a caricature of himself. And like in “Sunshine,” Giamatti goes through a high-concept surgery with unexpected side effects. Instead of erasing memories, Giamatti removes his soul.

Giamatti’s role in a production of Chekov’s “Uncle Vanya,” is causing him unbearable stress and anxiety. An advertisement in the New Yorker for a high-tech clinic that removes and stores souls sounds like a promising solution.

Apparently, souls are heavy, and having a twisted soul is worse than having no soul at all. At least that’s what Dr. Flintstein (David Strathairn) tells Giamatti on his first visit. He doesn’t go into more detail, which is one of the film’s problems.

Dialogue barely begins to scratch the surface. Extracting one’s soul hardly seems worth it, especially when the benefits are brushed over. Of course this is a high-concept comedy, but the film makes the idea unnecessarily hard to buy.

Giamatti loses all emotional and physical feeling and realizes he can’t act without a soul. Not wanting his own burdening soul, he fittingly chooses a Russian poet’s soul. His acting performance improves, but he desperately wants his own soul back. He discovers it was stolen by a soul-trafficking mule (Dina Korzun) and must go to Russia to retrieve it.

The film is more interested in its own ideas of soul trafficking and soul remnants left after an extraction than the true nature of the soul. In his first scene, Dr. Flintstein explains that they still don’t understand much about souls, let alone if they are immortal or not – yet souls are inexplicably physical objects. The film opts for the easier road and skimps on the more weighty philosophical and spiritual implications of removing souls.

Giamatti does provide some good laughs, but isn’t even as lovable as his usual sad-sack characters; he doesn’t punch up the endearing neuroses as much as usual. The film shows more restraint than most comedies.

When Giamatti receives the Russian soul, he thankfully doesn’t start speaking with a thick accent, a device that a lesser film would have used. This film is smart in its own right, but it still doesn’t dig deep enough into its story.

Much like Giamatti’s character’s soul, the film itself is quite cold. Director Sophie Barthes shoots the film so the viewer will feel detached, which makes it especially hard to sit through when the pace is so slow.

“Cold Souls” is funny, but could have been funnier. It’s smart, but could have been smarter. For a film about such a heavy topic, “Souls” comes off as a lightweight.

- Eschew It

Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino reigns himself in after “Grindhouse” and the “Kill Bill” movies to make a more ordered and even more entertaining World War II picture that audaciously rewrites history as it sees fit.

Brad Pitt is effective as Lt. Aldo Raine, leader of the Inglorious Basterds, an army outfit whose military connection seems fishy at best. The Jewish troupe is an entity of their own, the best of the best at killing Nazis. Pitt is quite matter-of-fact about each Basterd collecting 100 Nazi scalps.

This is a film lover’s film. From flammable nitrate film to the appearance of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, Tarantino tucks away delightful nuggets of film history for cineastes. A central plot point even revolves around a gorgeous cinema owned by a lovely Jewish girl, Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent).

Tarantino once again divides his film into scene/character-centric chapters, this time in a near linear fashion. For carrying the film’s namesake, the Basterds don’t own the screen time. Chapters also revolve around Shosanna’s struggle with a Nazi courter and the assimilation of her cinema, and the deliciously evil, self-centered Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). The Academy had better take note Waltz’s pompous, highly watchable performance.

Light on action, the film is almost entirely dialog driven. There’s a lot of talking going on. Tarantino has always been good with interesting yet meaningless dialog and he’s gotten a lot better. Not more than half of the film is spoken in English; the German and French exchanges have a flair of exoticism that are perhaps the most intriguing.

The film clocks in at 153 minutes and definitely feels it, though it’s the film’s only major caveat. Tarantino chocked this film full of scenes that crackle with his usual tension and humor, a great story and superb acting. As one of the characters says near the end of the film, Tarantino would be justified in saying “I think this might just be my masterpiece.”

- View It

It Might Get Loud

Jimmy Page. The Edge. Jack White.

Even reading those three names in a row makes me a little giddy. I almost got chills watching these guys play together.

Director Davis Guggenheim rounded up three generations of rock ‘n’ roll gods, guitarists from Led Zeppelin, U2 and The White Stripes in his documentary ode to the electric guitar, “It Might Get Loud.”

The triad met in January 2008 to chat about their six-string obsession but ended up jamming more than jabbering. Circular dolly shots take in the legends playing together. It’s exhilarating.

But the bulk of the film’s running time consists of fascinating individual artist portraits where the boys visit old stomping grounds, gush about musical inspiration and reveal techniques.

The Edge’s deconstruction of U2’s “Elevation,” with its embarrassingly simple two-chord pattern, is a testament to his mastery of pedals and effects. White’s raw, gritty blues flavored rock and anti-technology sentiment make for an interesting comparison.

The White Stripes frontman makes the most interesting subject, in part because his persona is the hardest to pin down. He wanders around conversing with a nine-year-old version of himself, lives in a rickety barn that looks like it’s about to collapse, and dispels “ease of use” – plus he makes an interesting opening hook for the movie, creating a makeshift guitar out of wire, nails and an empty Coke bottle.

Page’s screen time seems a little slighted, but he is also the most reserved of the three, making his segments less interesting.

Besides the one-on-ones with the artists, there is archival footage of a neon-clad, new wave playing U2, earnest-faced Jimmy Page in a British skiffle band and a Stripes concert where White still refers to Meg as his sister.

It’s a bit demystifying, though fun, to see where the greats found their own inspiration: Page from rock pioneer Link Wray, The Edge from punk outfits The Jam and The Clash, White from the rockabilly of Flat Duo Jets.

While the film itself is a bit helter-skelter, jumping from topic to topic haphazardly, it’s well-shot with numerous close-ups of guitar playing action, deifying the guitar players.

Differing musical styles aside, each of the men has a common yearning to play honest music. The spirit of rock ‘n’ roll lives on even though it is tragically drowned out on today’s airwaves.

The music geek’s ultimate documentary, “It Might Get Loud” will give hardcore fans hard-ons. Extensive knowledge of rock history or fingering frets is not even required. “Loud” simply lets three great musicians rock.

- View It

Afghan Star

As if getting on stage before millions and risking the insults of Simon Cowell weren’t bad enough, imagine if you had the Taliban sending you death threats just for appearing on “American Idol.”

“Afghan Star” is very much like its American counterpart, except for the shoestring budget. The titular documentary, playing for one week only at the Mary Riepma Ross Media Arts Center, chronicles the lives of four contestants vying for the cash prize, record deal, and title of “Afghan Star.”

The film opens with the sobering image of a blind little boy singing a pop tune. He says that music makes his sadness disappear. A boy next to him adds, “If there was no music the world would be silent.” Music is probably more special to them than most of us can appreciate – up until recently, being caught singing could result in death.

Since 1979 Afghanistan has suffered civil wars and has been oppressed under the Taliban rule. Music was considered disrespectful and sacrilegious, and from 1996, it was a crime to dance, listen to music, or watch television.

With the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in place, the country had elections in 2004, and music and dancing were okay once again. A huge boon of television stations appeared and one popular program to emerge was “Afghan Star.”

A program that passes for thoughtless entertainment in the U.S. is nothing short of revolutionary over there. Viewers can vote for their favorite contestants via text message, which the first time many Afghanis have experienced democracy.

The competition is open to anyone despite gender or age. Two women bravely participate on the program. After losing, one of them removes her veil and does a modest dance during her final performance – shocking actions that threaten her safety, bringing her several death threats.

Besides encouraging the democratic process, the show advances national unity. Tribal disputes are set aside when people of all sects vote for their favorite contestants. One fan is so loyal to his idol that he’s willing to sell his car so he can buy more SIM cards for his phone, which equals more texted votes.

The story of “Afghan Star” is fascinating for several reasons, but mostly because of the parallels with its American counterpart. Albeit the show’s popularity in the States, the program is devoid of meaning except for contestants’ hunger for their own 15 minutes. In Afghanistan, the show represents the reemergence of popular culture and anticipation of a unified nation.

It’s important to see what Afghanistan is like now and where it has been. I think that our perceptions of region are highly skewed, and this film shows just a peek of what life is like on the other side. “Afghan Star” is worth viewing for the much needed reminder that there are real human beings in the Middle East. The story about the actual “Afghan Star” show is just icing on the cake.

- View It

The Hurt Locker

Director Kathryn Bigelow crafts one superb study of the psychology of war in “The Hurt Locker,” one of the best war films to be released in recent memory.

A new sergeant, James (Jeremy Renner) takes over a highly trained bomb disposal team in Iraq. He surprises his subordinates, Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), by treating each fatal situation with reckless abandon and seeming indifference to death. The men, especially the by-the-book Sanborn, struggle to reign in their new leader as they work to disarm bombs in the heat of combat.

Acting from the whole cast is excellent, particularly Renner who plays the passionate James well. This guy eats danger for breakfast; approaching unknown bombs, taking off his bulky protective suit for comfort, outstaying his welcome among potentially unfriendly locals. James only makes the already tense situations worse for his comrades.

Though he often throws caution to the wind, he can show sensibility and compassion, coaching Eldridge when he starts to crack on the battlefield. Hopefully this movie is a launches a long career for the talented Renner.

The first half of the movie is nonstop nail biting action. Bigelow masterfully builds tension and shifts moods in part with the handheld camera work. A true sense of foreboding permeates the whole picture. Characters are killed lest you forget. The Iraqis watching the troops also add a very unsettling touch. Any one of them could have a detonator in hand.

A story arc that has been set up wonderfully in the first half of the film appears in the second, though it may catch you by surprise. Set ups and payoffs are marvelously orchestrated. Character development happens on the battlefield and off.

“The Hurt Locker” is tense, well-acted, riveting entertainment. A must see.

- View It

The Wrestler

Desperate to continue a career as a professional wrestler after his golden years pass him by, Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) works the amateur circuit. A heart attack forces him to trade in the tights for a normal life as he searches for relationships with stripper friend Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) and estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood).

The picture belongs to Rourke. His performance is sublime, physically and emotionally vulnerable, and painful to watch. Even with the brutal beatings and countless injuries suffered, wrestling has been far kinder to Randy than real life.

You can’t help but root for the guy, which makes his scenes of breathtaking self-destruction hard to swallow. The camera frequently follows Rourke creating a unique and especially personal aesthetic.

Even if wrestling is more of a spectacle than a sport, the pain is as real as it gets. Colliding with barbed wire, staple guns, and shattering glass are typical. Intricate details of the fights and performers talking shop backstage create a legitimate feeling world for the film.

The only false step in the entire film is Wood’s slightly undercooked role, and the fact that her acting prowess pales when next to Rourke. Stephanie has been understandably jaded by years of her father’s absence, but Wood’s performance isn’t much more than one-note callousness. A far more interesting relationship is played between Randy and Cassidy.

Both are aging performers far from their peak. Both have different names for on stage and off. Offstage, Cassidy prefers her real name, Pam. But Randy is Randy “The Ram” everywhere. He shudders to be summoned by birth name “Robin.” He’s only alive when performing; Cassidy performs because it’s a living.

On paper it may seem like a typical underdog story, but I never once felt the pang of cliché. Rourke is dazzling, the style gritty, the story compelling.

This is Darren Aronofsky’s most conventionally done picture yet – the frenetic visual style of earlier works is gone - but it just might be his best. He’s paid his dues; this should have been his shot at best picture and directing. Though the Academy unrighteously snubbed this outstanding film, “The Wrestler” deserves the highest accolades.

- View It

Three Monkeys

Turkish import “Three Monkeys” derives its title from the primate promoted proverb “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” The fourth monkey who advises to “do no evil” is missed, because there are plenty wrongdoings to go around.

Nearly asleep at the wheel, politician Servet (Ercan Kesal) kills a man on the road and escapes the scene. Afraid of losing an election, he bribes his driver Eyüp (Yavuz Bingo) to take the blame. The rest of the film chronicles what happens to Eyüp’s troubled son and adulterous wife while he’s in jail.

The concept of threes is there if you’re looking; three visits to father in prison, three family members, three sins committed. But does ignoring the truth make it go away? There’s pain that can’t be forgotten. Sweeping everything under the rug seemingly destines the family to misery.

Realism is splashed with creepy surrealism in the form of a ghostly figure that haunts the family, who I presume is the fourth monkey, but you should see the film to find out who that is.

The acting is nuanced and professional. The actors give us just enough clues but don’t tell us everything that’s going on in their heads. A minimalist approach with dialog leaves us with a very sparse film, save the rich visuals.

Superb cinematography abounds. Many scenes are shot in shadows, delivering a noir-like atmosphere and a very distinctive mood. Key scenes are shot with the camera pulled way back, leaving us cold and detached. Colors are mostly muted, with only ugly greens and yellows surviving. It’s equally unpleasant and gorgeous to look at.

While the pace is slow and deliberate, the film never gets boring. However, a little more tension would have helped propel things along. Also, the conclusion to the circular story arc feels like both too much and not enough. You’re not beaten over the head with the message, but you’re also left with not quite enough to chew on.

“Three Monkeys” almost gives us a hat trick with stellar imagery and strong acting, but the storytelling leaves something to be desired. Art house fans will be satisfied but not enthralled.

- View It

Brüno

Here you have it folks; 2009’s answer to “Milk.”

Maybe it’s not as much of a gay groundbreaker, but Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Brüno” is definitely gayer. This guy is all shades of gay. He’d make the “Queer Eye” guys look straight.

Brüno is the host of “Funkyzeit mit Brüno,” an Austrain fashion program. He is disgraced when he wears an all Velcro suit to Fashion Week and tumbles out on the runway stuck to everything near him. Being blacklisted in his home country, he flies to LA with his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten) to try to become the “biggest Austrian celebrity since Hitler.”

Just like in his 2006 hit “Borat,” Cohen puts his character into real situations. Sure, some bits are scripted and acted out, but most are the real thing.

If nothing else, this is the boldest comedy this year. Not for depth or ideas or anything like that, but the sheer ludicrousness of the feats Cohen tries to pull off.

Brüno interviews a real terrorist. Their chat is understandably short. There’s also a gay wrestling match before an angry crowd of good ol’ boys. One pelts a folding chair at Brüno.

The weaker moments are typically the scripted ones. The love story between Brüno and Lutz falls flat.

“Brüno” tries to expose homophobia in the United States, but does so with gay stereotypes. Many of Brüno’s antics are so wild that anyone would be taken aback. He’s much different than your average gay man who’s probably not going to force you to watch a video of his talking penis.

Therein lies the reason this film isn’t nearly as funny as “Borat:” the laughs here are really provoked. Borat let his victims hang themselves, but Brüno gives them little choice. Sure, it exposes gay prejudice, but it’s not saying a lot under such extreme conditions.

But that’s secondary to the jokes. This is a comedy after all. Preposterous hilarity abounds. The sex scene between the lead and his boyfriend is probably the most riotously vulgar sex scene since the puppet sex in “Team America: World Police.”

In places, the film succeeds with both social commentary and big laughs. Brüno interviews parents who try to get their babies hired for a film. They’d be willing to dress their kids as Nazis, strap them to a cross, or give them liposuction to become stars.

For the most part, Brüno is pretty funny. The tension builds between Brüno and his victims to staggering heights and is enthralling to watch. But if less of the material had been scripted, the film would have been much better off. Borat is also a more inherently likable character than Brüno.

While it’s not as strong as “Borat,” “Brüno” hits more than it misses. Prepare to laugh, be shocked, disgusted, and back again.

- View It

The Garden

It’s a classic David and Goliath story. Race, class, and politics flare up in this excellent documentary. “The Garden” was nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 2009 Academy Awards and finally gets a run in theaters.

A 13-acre plot of farm ground in downtown Los Angeles has been worked for over a decade by low income Latinos. Land is communal, open to anyone to farm. The location is a lone spot of nature in the otherwise developed cityscape.

The city bought the land from a private developer in the 80s, but recently sold it back to him in a backroom deal off the record. Now the city and developer want the immigrants out so a warehouse can be constructed.

The land has become much more than it seems for its workers; it has become their livelihood, their way of living.

Director Scott Hamilton Kennedy wisely lets the farmers tell the story instead of opting for a narrator to string things together. These real people carry the picture and let us get to know them. They simultaneously feel authentic and like characters in a work of fiction.

Lack of narration helps draw you in and forget you’re watching a documentary. Title screens are used to fill in bits of information not covered elsewhere.

Lawsuits and rallies abound to save the garden. Trouble doesn’t only brew between the city and the farmers though. A farmer is evicted after not complying with community established rules and attacks another with a machete.

Guess it’s not in the Garden of Eden.

It’s great to see that this movie contains an honest to goodness story, richer than many concocted by Hollywood writers. A few years worth of the power struggle for the garden are covered in the brisk, 80 minute running time.

The direction and editing are adept, working to clearly tell the story. The movie was obviously shot a low budget, but this gives it a homespun charm much like that of the garden itself. It feels like an indie picture produced lovingly by professionals.

The only thing that kept me from getting completely behind the cause was the likelihood that not all of the farmers were legal citizens; illegal immigrants shouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on. But it appeared that many of them were legitimate residents.

While the film obviously sides with the farmers, both sides are represented. The councilwoman and developer responsible for the illegal deal get to express their side, even though the latter refused to be interviewed. Kennedy went out of his way to make sure everyone was heard.

Go see “The Garden.” It’s an excellent slice of life picture with a real story to tell.

- View It

Whatever Works

Woody Allen is nothing if not prolific and is back with his yearly cinematic offering.

New Yorker Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) wouldn’t hesitate to impose his views on intellect, religion, and worthlessness of existence to anyone within earshot. He’s a crotchety, recently divorced old guy with little to live for. When Melodie (Evan Rachel Wood), a southern runaway, meets Boris and convinces him to let her stay in his apartment, she adds a little light to his otherwise dark existence.

Despite their 40+ year age gap, the two get married. They seem oddly content until Melodie’s parents show up and complicate things.

Larry David fits into the Woody Allen persona well, but isn’t as likeable as the characters Allen once played himself. Boris can be downright abhorrent. Wood is cute and likeable, but her southern shtick wears thin. And she’s given some really, really bad jokes.

Story structure is helter-skelter at best. The first half of the picture focuses on Boris and his ramblings, but the second half takes lengthy diversions with Melodie’s infidelity and her mother (Patricia Clarkson) discovering herself.

The conclusions come too quickly and neatly. Some jokes fall flat. And no one makes a better Woody Allen than Woody Allen.

This is disappointing because parts of the movie are charming and poignant. There are some good laughs too. The main point the protagonist is trying to make is that though life is miserable and worthless, you should hang on to whatever bit of happiness you can find. “Whatever works,” he says.

And while that’s a nice sentiment, I walked out of the theater thinking “whatever.”

- Eschew It

Public Enemies

Michael Mann is back after 2006’s god-awful “Miami Vice” with “Public Enemies,” which is thankfully an improvement. Johnny Depp stars as 30s gangster John Dillinger and Christian Bale as his FBI foil, Melvin Purvis.

Depp is pretty good as Dillinger. He’s indifferent yet cool as ice when he needs to be. It’s refreshing to see Depp play a human being again as opposed to all the cartoon like characters he’s been doing lately. He gets all the best lines too. Some of them are so good they seem to be from a different movie altogether.

That is perhaps what’s most frustrating about “Public Enemies.” It has flashes of a great, Oscar worthy picture, but they’re too few and far between. The last scene in particular has an aura of going for gold.

The movie prefers settling somewhere between good and not bad. The acting is solid but never enough to get you emotionally involved. The story is interesting, but lacks direction and strong conflict. I was looking for an electric match up between Depp and Bale, but the tension was only there in one instance.

Bale does nothing with his one note performance. Billy Crudup as the slightly imprudent J. Edgar Hoover is much more interesting. The subplot of the birth of the FBI was worthy of more screen time.

The project based on Bryan Burrough’s book, “Public Enemies,” was originally pitched to HBO as a miniseries. More time could have been given to Hoover, the FBI, and outlaws Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. This would have been nice here, but the picture belongs to Depp.

Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend Billie Frechette is one of “Public Enemies” greatest strengths. She adds a little weight and gives Dillinger a more human side to root for.

But in the end, I guess the lead and the viewer are both detatched; Dillinger from society, the audience from emotion. Despite the letdowns, “Public Enemies” is worth seeing. Who doesn’t want to see a gangster Johnny Depp run around robbing banks?

- View It

Food, Inc.

If you eat, this movie is a must see.

Director Robert Kenner works to unearth secrets about agribusiness monoliths that control virtually everything we eat. “Food, Inc.” is a humbling exposé that explores a range of facets of the modern food machine.

It explores consequences of patenting genetically engineered seeds - producers are eager to sue unconverted farmers into buying, keeping over 90% of soybeans planted in the country patented.

It examines the “veggie libel laws” that make it easier for the food industry to silence its critics - the examples seem downright unconstitutional.

It looks at how starchy snack foods are cheaper to buy than fruits and vegetables. And how all this unhealthy eating will lead to one in three children born after 2000 developing type two diabetes.

Apparently, nearly all the food sold in the United States is owned in some way by one of a few companies.

Even though cattle are meant to munch mostly grass, they are corn fed up to their eyeballs. Corn can harbor E. coli, be spread to the bovines, then to you.

What sounds like a better solution: feeding cattle grass to minimize bacteria, or sterilizing meat in ammonia baths?

The latter option is just one of many cringe inducting examples of the industry favoring cheap technological solutions over common sense.

“Food, Inc.” is well made, but not abounding with its own style. The focus is squarely on the content, which is where the heart of a good documentary should be.

It also takes its subject seriously but isn’t afraid to sprinkle in some humor. The facts were strong enough to speak for themselves, even though the film is somewhat of a muckraker. The food companies aren’t represented, but that’s their own fault; they refused to talk with Keener.

The film balances its factual horror with ways the average consumer can change their diets and change the industry.

I sat through the film contemplating the hamburger I ate beforehand, which may have contained meat from over 1,000 different cows, and concluded that I needed to make that change for myself.

“Food, Inc.” is the most important film of the year.

- View It

The Proposal

The Proposal looks like it’ll be the big romantic comedy of the summer. But it’s standard fare for the genre.

Domineering editor-in-chief Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock), forces her assistant Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her to keep her Visa status in the U.S. and avoid deportation to Canada.

Andrew only agrees under the condition that he is promoted to editor. When the government investigates the possibility of fraud, the two must spend a weekend at Andrew’s family’s home in Alaska to make their relationship appear legit.

Andrew has a couple subplots involving gaining his father’s approval and a missed opportunity with a sweet ex-girlfriend. These are nothing amazing but help to flesh out Reynold’s character and their world.

This film is full of familiar rom-com material. There’s a cute old lady. Ridiculous comedy set pieces. The inevitable third act break up. None of this stuff really worked for me. I’ll admit, what drew me in was Ryan Reynolds.

Reynolds brings his enjoyable smarmy humor to the role, and as usual, is a pleasure to watch. This has been a good year for him, first proving himself as a decent actor in Adventureland, getting a small part in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and now starring alongside Bullock.

On the outside, Bullock is a heartless shrew, but there is a reason for that. We do get to see her more human side as she warms up to Reynolds. But her character development is a bit of a mess. She goes from a soulless she-devil to an uninteresting goof and back. I bought her as the callous boss, but the rest didn’t feel as natural.

Their characters aren’t terribly deep or anything, but they’re more than one sided, cardboard cutout people up there on the screen. But Bullock’s transitions were still a bit iffy.

Rounding out the cast are Craig T. Nelson and the lovely Mary Steenburgen as Andrew’s parents and Betty White as grandma. The most enjoyable supporting role was by Oscar Nuñez of The Office as the town Jack-of-all-trades, whose duties include exotic dancer.

This movie isn’t going to stick with you. It’s one you enjoy, go home and forget about. It depends entirely on your tolerance for romantic comedies. If you like them, you’ll like this, if you hate them, you’ll hate this.

I’m kind of a sucker for them once in a while, but this one is nothing special. It wouldn’t kill you to see it with your girlfriend, but be prepared for yet another tragically flawed romantic comedy. Just make sure you know how you feel about your own proposal.

- Eschew It

Revolutionary Road

This is definitely not a date movie.

In an ingenious casting move, Titanic lovers Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are reunited, but this time they’re falling out of love. And it’s not a pretty spiral downward.

Frank and April Wheeler (DiCaprio and Winslet) move into a quaint house in a Connecticut suburb with their two children. They live among local suburbanites trapped by their own lives, but the Wheelers believe they won’t get stuck in the rut too. However, work and infidelity eat away at their marriage until the two realize they’ve become another victim of middle class melancholy. Realizing that they have to make a change, the couple plans to move to Paris not to escape their lives, but to start living them. But when April becomes pregnant and Frank is offered a promotion the two are forced to rethink things.

Revolutionary Road depicts what happens when people realize they’ve settled. The film makes it easy to see how this kind of marital misery could have been widespread in the 50s and today for that matter. The film has solid directing and a great script based on the book by Richard Yates. But the acting between the two leads is where the film really succeeds. The scenes where Frank and April argue are downright acidic. They feel true to life and are sometimes painful to watch.

The film works as more than a narrative about its leads and becomes a pessimistic tableau of marriage and modern life in America. If you’re ready to walk away thoroughly depressed, this is one road worth going down.

- View It

Up

“For every laugh, there should be a tear.”

The filmmakers behind Pixar’s newest film seemed to keep the words of the late Walt Disney in mind. Director Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc.) may have concocted some of the studio’s wilder story concepts, but his films have had the most emotional impact on me. I’ll admit that the first ten minutes or so of Up made me cry.

We meet Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) as a little boy who’s itching to go on an adventure. He idolizes Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), an Indiana Jones type hero who embarks on a trip to South America. Carl strikes up a friendship with Ellie, a boisterous young girl who shares his idol and passions.

The pair falls in love, gets married, and grows old together. The couple talks about going on an adventure like Muntz someday, but real life gets in the way. Their story felt true, their love story sweet. I grew to care a lot about them in a short time, which made it pretty tough when Ellie dies.

Carl now lives alone in a small house amidst towering buildings. A construction company tries to evict Carl from his home so they can bulldoze his home. After a few unfortunate events, Carl is deemed unfit to live alone and is going to be escorted to a retirement home.

He decides to escape, ties a ludicrous number of balloons to his house, and floats away to finally explore South America in honor of his late wife. However, Carl discovers a stowaway wilderness explorer, eight year old Russell (Jordan Nagai), on board. From there the unlikely pair find themselves in a series of unusual adventures in a foreign landscape.

Up is by far Pixar’s most cartoony effort, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of staples of the kid’s movie here, especially the goofy talking animals. However, I will say that those characters, Dug the dog (Bob Peterson, writer and co-director) in particular, are quite funny. While this is nothing new for the genre, it’s actually new for Pixar. Also, what gets the characters from point A to point B doesn’t come as organically as it has in past Pixar films.

But at its heart, Up is a very sweet, emotional film. The film vies to make you appreciate everyday moments, and basically to not put all your eggs in one basket. And most importantly, it makes you care about its characters. And seeing them come to the end of their journey is fun and fulfilling.

You’re guaranteed at least one great movie a year when there’s a Pixar release coming up.

- View It

Star Trek

I’m a casual Star Trek fan. I’m much more familiar with The Next Generation than The Original Series. But I still had high expectations for this film. This series has over 40 years of history behind it and a lot of detail oriented fans. It would have been easy to screw up this film. But J.J. Abrams’s version of Gene Roddenberry’s beloved series gets it just right. Star Trek should appeal to the Trekkies and win over new audiences.

The reboot does a good job of upholding the Star Trek canon. The events in this film take place in an alternate timeline to the one in TOS. And this is referenced subtly by Leonard Nimoy, the original Mr. Spock. Starting over in another timeline gives the writers room to play and respect the Trek history while not adhering to it.

Moments of nostalgia and nerd bliss abound. The red-suited guy in the away team bites the dust. The classic lines are there. “Live long and prosper.” “Damn it, Jim!” “I’m giving her all she’s got!” They all feel organic. Spock tells Sulu to turn off the inertial dampers. I’m geeking out.

Chris Pine is an excellent James T. Kirk. He doesn’t merely impersonate William Shatner, but he makes Kirk his own. Karl Urban absolutely nails Dr. McCoy. The attitude and expressions are all there. The only letdown is how Spock (Zachary Quinto) is handled, but that’s more at fault with the writers than the actor.

Without giving too much away, Spock’s arc in the film interestingly parallels the Spock from TOS. We’re set up for a different kind of Spock in the inevitable sequels, and I’m not sure I like it. And while it’s actually kind of clever, they’ve made Spock way too pouty. If he lived in our time he’d shop exclusively at Hot Topic.

New audiences are going to be lured in by all the badass action. Opening and closing spaceship battles bookend the film, and we’re treated with plenty of action set pieces strewn in-between. The most exciting scene is when Kirk and Sulu (John Cho) fight Romulans on a drill miles above the surface of Vulcan. It feels like they’re actually cheating death and not just playing around in front of a green screen.

Part of this danger is instilled by the ruthless villains, the Romulans. They cause irreconcilable, catastrophic damage that further drives this away from established Trek-lore. I was literally shocked in one instance, and had to take a minute to sort it all out. The scale of this film is massive, in story and visuals. This is the biggest budget ever for a Trek film and the images are incredible to look at.

Unfortunately, this reiteration of the sci-fi franchise skimps on Trek’s usual philosophy and ideals and throws in a couple clichéd, summer blockbuster-esq thoughts to nibble on instead. This was disappointing.

Nit picks aside, this film is a hell of a lot of fun. Abrams gives the Star Trek series a much-needed kick in the pants. Trek is fun again. Go see it right now. And if you’re not a Trekkie now, you just might become one.

- View It

Wendy and Lucy

If you’ve ever been homeless or have lost your dog, watching this movie might move you to tears. But I think it’s more likely that you’ll be bored to them.

Wendy (Michelle Williams) and her dog Lucy are traveling to Alaska in search of a new life, with little more than a car and a handful of possessions. The car breaks down in a small Oregonian town, which is the first event in a series of bad luck and worse decisions for Wendy. She ties up Lucy outside a supermarket then gets caught shoplifting inside. After being released from jail, to her horror she discovers that her dog is gone. The rest of the picture is a bleak affair, chronicling the search for Lucy and Wendy’s struggles to survive in a foreign place with no money.

This is a tough film to sit through. Wendy seemingly has no friends and has an estranged relationship with her sister. When Lucy disappears, she’s got nothing left. There’s very little in the way of plot, which wouldn’t matter so much if Wendy were more developed. Her daily actions of endurance are fascinating to watch, but it’s very difficult to care for the character. We never find out why she left home, why she has those mysterious bandages, or why she is so hard on her luck. We don’t learn anything about Wendy’s personally either; she’s broken to the point of being a void. Her back-story is left purposefully ambiguous, but that becomes a big hindrance for the audience’s emotional investment.

This feels like one of those films you’re almost required to like as a critic. It’s “arty,” and minimalistic, but it tries too hard. Or maybe it doesn’t try hard enough. Wendy isn’t enough of a character for the film to be much of a character study. And without giving anything away, the conclusion to the film left me underwhelmed and not emotionally attached at all. This film is meant to evoke empathy for homeless and others in tough financial times. But that’s a pretty hard task when you’ve got a ghost of protagonist.

- Eschew It

Observe and Report

Observe and Report is one part delicious farce, two parts vagrant confusion. And that's disappointing because this film showed a lot of potential.

Bi-polar mall security guard, Ronnie (Seth Rogen), must take action to catch a pervert who flashes several mall patrons. But Ronnie must compete with Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta) who is brought in to solve the case. He also tries to woo make-up counter girl, Brandi (Anna Faris), and become a real police officer. But neither of these subplots end up amounting to much of anything.

Observe and Report is a big, balls-out comedy. It is highly offensive and fearless which are great qualities to see in R-rated comedies. But unfortunately the humor is as uneven as Ronnie's moods. Moments like when Ronnie and a fellow security guard beat the living daylights out of skateboarders in the parking lot, or the unexpected twist in Ronnie and Brandi's sexual encounter had me breathless with laughter. The shocking parts were the best, especially the film's climax which is easily the most outrageous scene to taint the big screen in a long time. But for every comedic high, there is an equally unfunny low. The over reliance on profanity for laughs, and downright absurdity of the action are off-putting.

Besides the comedy, the plot also lacks cohesion. The script can't decide if it wants to focus on Ronnie's goal of joining the police academy or his mission to procure the pervert. There are also several loose threads in the plot that are unnecessary, such as turning one supporting character into a criminal, or having Brandi "cheat" on Ronnie. These elements do nothing for the overall story, but there isn't much of one to begin with. These issues wouldn't be as much of a problem if the comedy weren't so hit and miss, but that just isn't the case. It's a shame too, because Observe and Report had some moments of glorious comedic hysteria. But ultimately the lack of story and dry spells in humor make this film not worth observing.

- Eschew It

I Love You, Man

It can be really awkward meeting new people. It’s not something I’ve ever been good at, so I can relate to the main character’s plight in this film. But when the film itself becomes awkward to watch, this comedy is less than humorous.

Real estate agent Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) has always been a “girlfriend guy.” He puts so much effort into his relationships that he lets his male friends fall by the wayside. So when he proposes to his girlfriend, Zooey (Rashida Jones), and the two begin to make wedding plans, he realizes that he’s going to be all alone up at the altar. Peter goes on a series of “man-dates” to find a suitable best man. All hope seems lost until he meets Sydney (Jason Segel) at an open house. The two quickly become friends, but their friendship creates friction between Peter and Zooey.

I Love You, Man shows its strength with its realtionships. Peter and Zooey’s quarrels feel like things real couples could find relatable, like jealously over spending time with other friends. I also like the “bromance” concept, and the relationship between the two male leads is cute. But the movie’s biggest plus is Jason Segel, who is perfectly side-splitting playing the carefree loser, Sydney. And while this role isn’t complex, he shows that he can play different kinds of characters from his other work in How I Met Your Mother and Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

However, Paul Rudd is just tolerable. He’s likeable and relatable, but he just can’t get the laughs that Segel can. One particularly un-funny running gag involves Peter becoming tongue tied and making up awkward words and nicknames for Sydney. It was funny the first few times, but they really needed to know when to stop. In places it was almost painful to watch Rudd’s inexplicably nerdy behavior. Besides Rudd, the whole movie feels a little too awkward for comfort. And for an R rated comedy, the film plays it too safe. There is nothing incredibly surprising, and the third act falls into cliché. I Love You, Man is funny at times but struggles to consistently keep laughs coming.

- Eschew It

Let the Right One In

Elegant is not usually a word one uses to describe a horror film. Nor are words like serene, delicate, or ethereal. But those are perfectly fitting descriptions of the Swedish import, Let the Right One In. However one could also be equally right saying that it’s violent, bloody, and disturbing. The film veers to both extremes, much like its main characters Oskar and Eli. They’re like two sides of the same coin.

Oskar is a lonely middle school boy who is constantly and cruelly bullied by stronger kids in his class. From the beginning we can see a rage building within him, but he doesn’t have the courage to stand up for himself. Oskar finds a friend in Eli, an equally lonely girl who moves in next door. What Oskar later learns is that Eli is a vampire, which he accepts without batting an eye. The two realize they are kindred spirits and form a relationship.

Let the Right One In leaves in a lot of blanks to be filled in by the viewers. The biggest inquiries probably surround Eli’s relationship with the questionable middle-aged man, Håkan, that she lives with. He kills for her to support her blood drinking habit. But he’s getting sloppy with the murders. He nearly gets caught in his first kill of the film. Does he want to get caught? And why does he later go through great lengths to protect her? In the book that the film was based on, Håkan is a pedophile that is being used by Eli. This is barely hinted at in the film. Also handled abstractedly is the issue of Eli’s androgynous gender. The vagueness is a double-edged sword for the film. On one hand, it’s nice to not beaten over the head with some facts, but on the other some threads feel unfinished.

One thing I cannot go without mentioning is the cinematography. The numerous shots of snowy Sweden are lovely and calm. They still maintain that look in contrast to the carnage that fouls the landscape. The shots are also frequently wide and pulled back, distancing us from the violence. One of the best things about the film is that the violence isn’t glamorized or overdone. It is bloody, but it’s not played out like in other recent horror films.

Perhaps more discomforting than the blood sucking is the bullying that Oskar endures. But anyone who was bullied as a kid will be glad to know that the punks get their comeuppance. Oskar finds courage from Eli to fight back. I really liked their understated relationship, and the differences between them. He’s weak, she’s strong. He wants to kill, but she has to kill to live. The development of their relationship takes prevalence over a strong story, so thankfully it’s a pleasure to watch.

The film has a lot going for it but it isn’t perfect. I felt a little underwhelmed after watching it. Maybe it was because critics almost universally praised it that my expectations were too high. One thing that bothered me though was that I spotted the ending coming a mile away. Without giving too much away, I will say that the climax is done in a pretty spectacular way. It just wasn’t a surprise, but maybe it didn’t need to be. I hope that I don’t come across too harshly because this is a really good film. I just didn’t enjoy it as much as some other critics. But this is still one of the best horror films to come out in a long time.

- View It

Adventureland

Adventureland is a movie with great characters. The little moments between them feel organic. And it’s really hilarous, too. It’s 1987. James (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated from college and is looking forward to graduate school in New York City. But when his parents can’t fund his European trip nor his higher education, he realizes that for the first time in his life he has to get a summer job. The only thing he can find is a low-paying, degrading job at a local amusement park, Adventureland. There he meets co-worker Em (Kristen Stewart), and the two quickly form a sweet romance. In spite of James’s previous failures with girls and Em’s promiscuous past, this is their first love. And that’s what Adventureland is really about – falling in love for the first time. I don’t want to give away any more of the story because it’s best to walk into this film not knowing the subplot.

I was surprised at how easily Eisenberg carried the film. This guy’s acting skills are on par with – if not better than – look-alike Michael Cera. Usually the “angst-ridden female” character grates on me, but Stewart plays her well enough. Bill Hader is excellent as the park manager, playing the humor more low-key than he usually does. And then we have Ryan Reynolds, who sheds his usual wise-guy shtick and plays a genuinely creepy individual. The final scene with his character is done just right. The writers could have easily made Reynolds react one way to the preceding events, often the mistake of lesser films of the same genre, but they chose the more realistic option.

It’s little realistic moments that make Adventureland work. The way in which the characters relate and react to each other feels natural. And, most importantly, the relationship between James and Em works, so it’s hard not to root for them. Besides being about first loves, the film also explores dumb mistakes we make in those relationships. This is familiar stuff for almost anyone. Plus, this movie is also really, really funny, although the comedy pales in comparison to Superbad. Greg Mottola directed both, and this film is smarter and has more heart than its funnier counterpart. This film nails the romance and the characters, as well as the little interactions between them. Adventureland just works, and you’d be hard pressed to find a better comedy in theaters right now.

- View It

Top 10 - 2008

Howdy, and welcome to my blog. I'm Tom Helberg and I love movies. I'll try to update this blog as often as I can with film reviews for your edification. Hopefully, I can help you find something worth watching. Even though it's a bit late, I wanted my first post to be my Top 10 for 2008. Normally I would elabortate on my feelings on these films, but this list is late and you're probably burned out on reading these sorts of things. However, I will say that I'm still bitter that the Academy snubbed my top two films for Best Picture and Best Director nominations. Seriously, how did Frost/Nixon do it?

1. The Dark Knight
2. The Wrestler
3. Slumdog Millionaire
4. Doubt
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
6. Valkyrie
7. Iron Man
8. Burn After Reading
9. Wall-E
10. Synecdoche, New York

Favorite Performances:

1. Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
2. Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
3. Robert Downy, Jr. - Tropic Thunder
4. Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
5. Brad Pitt - Burn After Reading

Most Hated Film of the Year: Mamma Mia!