THE OTHER GUYS 2.0***
The previews for this one looked promising but unfortunately all the good stuff was in the previews. It turned out to be a disappointment even with Will Ferrell in it…and I’m a fan of his. Main problem is awful writing and a Director that should have stuck to the basics and just made a comedy rather than a comedy with a couple of unnecessary albatrosses elaborated on below that drag it down.
Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) is an accountant for the New York Police Department. His partner is detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who is being punished for a particularly embarrassing incident at Yankee Stadium. The stars of the department are Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson, but Walberg hopes that he and his passive partner will be able to step up and be the next stars. They begin to investigate a scaffling permit violation ( I know…Huh), committed by billionaire businessman David Ershon , who may be involved in a massive investment corruption scheme of untold Billions . Of course, the comic cops constantly bungle things and get themselves in trouble. For example, Allen loses his firearm and his Captain gives him a wooden "practice" gun instead; later, he has that taken away and is given a whistle.
There are lots of supporting roles and cameos, notably an excellent Michael Keaton as the police captain, who must work a second job at Bed, Bath & Beyond to make ends meet. Eva Mendes stars as Allen's wife, and the running joke is that Ferrell thinks she's "plain," while Walberg can't stop ogling her, and she is very ogable in her part
When the movie focuses on Terry and Allen and their banter, the movie is sorta funny but not laugh out loud. And unfortunately the movie is full of too many other characters, has an unnecessarily complicated plot and subplots, and strays away from the movie as a comedy and tries unsuccessfully to blend in a cop thriller AND political statements. Thus we end up with car chase sequences and shootouts that are just plain awful and way too much seriousness about America’s financial and political woes. We surely don’t need to go to the movies to be reminded about that with ticket prices now up in the $10 range.
Comedy filmmakers should learn that comedies are better when they are short and lean, with more emphasis on jokes and characters than on plot. No one laughs at a plot. Nonetheless, there's enough good Will Ferrell material here, nicely matched by Wahlberg theatrics, to make at least half of a good movie…. and, therefore, wait and rent it for a $1.00 at Red Box are $3.00 at Blockbuster…or even go to the $1.50 movie in Raleigh on Blue Ridge Road..

Clark

CHARLIE ST. CLOUD 2.5***
This is a good, heartwarming movie about the importance of family and especially brotherly love…the kind of bond between brothers that can even survive the most tragic of events. Here the older brother is willing to sacrifice a very promising college career and most everything else out of his deep love and commitment to his 11 year old brother.

The older brother is played by Zac Efron who is an international star/teen idol as a result of the huge success of the “High School Musical”’ TV and movie shows. He is one of THE current teenage heartthrobs and, in fact, when my wife, Sara, and I went to the afternoon matinee, it was the 2 of us and about 16 teenage girls who somehow seemed to sigh and swoon in unison whenever Efron batted those gorgeous blue eyes …of the Paul Newman variety. Actually, I could identify with the girls somewhat as I experience much the same reaction to seeing Scarlett Johansson in a movie.

Back to the movie . To be honest this is a small film of the “B” variety but with a BIG heart. Also, although the story is supposed to take place in Marblehead, Massachusetts, it was, instead for cost reasons, filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia…and that is a blessing for the viewers because the scenery is absolutely gorgeous… breathtaking is another word for it.. That awesome scenery… mountains and lakes and forest… is almost worth the price of admission.

Lastly, this is a movie that all ages can enjoy… especially kids from 6 to 18 who should see it so they can experience the love and the meaning of love portrayed in the film.

Clark

EAT PRAY LOVE 3.0***

Eat Pray Love is a movie aimed at and marketed towards women. So when I connected with it -- and enjoyed it -- it was somewhat of a surprise but then again, I often like chick flicks. It wasn’t so much the story either, which we’ve seen multiple times before (usually with a man in the lead), as it was the cast that made it work. Julia Roberts does a fine job and it was refreshing that she was such a good match for this part.

Based on the bestselling Oprah-approved memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, the story follows Gilbert (portrayed by Roberts) on her travels over the course of a year as she tries to reconnect with her true self after she splits from her marriage on an impulse one day, leaving her husband (Billy Crudup) in a state of shock and with a broken heart. Along the way she finds comfort with food and new friends in Italy, enlightenment at a temple in India, and searches for love and trust again in Bali.

As already mentioned, it’s the cast that really makes Eat Pray Love connect so well. Besides Roberts’ performance, the two parts that stand out most are Javier Bardem as her love interest, and Richard Jenkins as the man she meets in India, known only as “Richard from Texas”. Bardem delivers a very raw, human character and makes an impression that he is the real deal while Jenkins nearly ripped my heart out with a powerful and sincere scene.

Many people are going to be repelled by Eat Pray Love before they even see it (the same way the book had its detractors before people read it) because they feel what Gilbert did was selfish. Whether you agree with her or not doesn’t really matter because director and co-writer Ryan Murphy (creator of Glee and Nip/Tuck) has made a good movie that deserves a fair trial. I went in expecting a “chick flick” and ended up seeing a very human film.

Also, a lot of people, especially people that are happy and comfortable with traditional life and family will not understand a woman leaving a perfectly nice man that is in love with her to go on a journey and find herself. Many people will say that Liz is selfish and it's all about her. Yes. This movie (and the book) is all about her. It is a real story about a woman searching for something missing in her life. It was refreshing that someone could be honest about being unhappy and wanting a different life. Taking the difficult path, an unknown journey and risking everything is to be admired even if it’s not for some noble purpose.

Clark

“The Girl Who Played With Fire” continues the film adaptations of the late Stieg Larsson’s world-wide bestselling books, the “Millennium Trilogy” thrillers. Within a tension-filled plot, this second installment answers many questions about the background of that mysterious bad-ass young woman with the dragon tattoo down her back, Lisbeth Salander.
Opening where “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” left off, but a year later, this computer whiz/martial artist/avenging angel is on a quiet vacation by the ocean. Brief flashbacks of her nightmares may somewhat help newcomers get up-to-date about the violent sexual abuse she suffered in her youth and from her court-appointed legal guardian Nils Bjurman. ( If possible, I recommend renting and seeing "The Girl With Dragon Tattoo" before seeing this movie since the story line from the first book/movie is necessary to really understand the heroine, Lisbeth, and to understand the second and third movies… the third being “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” which is also opening soon). Lisbeth soon returns to Sweden and finds out she has been implicated in the murder of her arch enemy, Nils Bjurman, and two young reporters working with the redeemed journalist, Mikael Blomkvist, whom she teamed up with in the first movie.

Her finger prints are found on the gun that killed Bjurman whom she had recently visited and while there threatened him with the same gun. The police use this evidence to link her to the his murder and 2 other murders. This time Michael, must come to her rescue (last time she saved him). Because of Lisbeth's violent history including involuntary confinement in a mental institution, and other clues left to frame her, Michael is the only one who initially believes that she is innocent. One of the young reporters who was murdered was about to expose many high powered clients of young woman/girls who had been forced into prostitution through the human slave trade. This causes Michael believe that the murders are somehow linked to international vice or mobsters.
Played With Fire is similar in many respects to Dragon tattoo but different quite different others because it mostly involves Lisbeth and her flight from the police and the triple murder charge and her determined quest to find those who framed her.. A different outcome to be sure, but one that will still leave viewers with the same breathless feeling at the end as the first, and completely satisfied and eager for the 3rd installment…the Hornet’s Nest.
Overall , it is not quite as good as Dragon Tattoo but it comes close and that says a lot because Dragon Tattoo was excellent…one of the better pictures of the year, and this one is not far behind.
NOTE: It to is a Swedish film and has English subtitles and also has a “R” rating for the violence and sex.

Clark

COCO CHANEL and IGOR STRAVINSKY 3.0***

I saw this movie with some other movie enthusiast. When it was over we gathered in the lobby in puzzlement. Then we decided we were being too esoteric, too deep about the meaning of the film. Switching gears we decided that although it was untypical and highbrow, it was, nonetheless, still simply a love (?) story involving unfaithfulness and adultery between two brilliant avant-garde artists… Coco Chanel (fashion designer and perfume maker) and Igor Stravinsky( Russian music composer known for his discordant sounds).

Coco Chanel was a very independent woman for her time….this is the 1920s. After her lover called Boy was killed in a car accident, she decided to live alone in her huge mansion outside Paris whose interiors were designed by her in striking, never ending patterns of black and white. Coco is a fan of music and an admirer of everything brave. When she witnesses the almost riot that follows the "scandalous" premiere of Igor Stravinsky's “The Rite of Spring”, she wants to get to know the composer. Stravinsky lives with his wife who is suffering from tuberculosis and children in a small flat, penniless due to the Russian revolution, and Coco invites them all to live in her mansion - allowing Igor the possibility to more space for his musical creativity. Coco and Igor are soon drawn to each other and finally end up having an affair.

Igor is a vulnerable man, a man drawn in two directions –to the wealth and love of Coco and on the other hand to his wife and children. Also for a man and an artist it is difficult for him to accept the fact that Coco can also be an artist with her own will and self esteem….and wealth. In fact , this manifests itself in one scene where they are heatedly arguing and he tries to insult her by saying she is no more than a “shop keeper”.

This brilliantly filmed movie uses beautifully stunning visuals. Every single frame is like a work of art. However, the story is somewhat on the cold side as it lacks the passion that you would expect to be present between two such passionate artists. Coco even though very well presented as an independent woman seems calculating and cold without any emotions. Much the same is true of Igor who it seems is determined to never to smile.

I am still not quite settled on how I ultimately feel about this picture. However, perhaps the film’s messages are that creation is often born from misery, that pain accompanies genius more often than it does not, that lust and passion are not one in the same, and that sex doesn’t always lead to love. That’s some pretty heavy stuff, I know, but the kind of thing we movie critics must espouse at times.
Spoken in French & Russian with English subtitles, and a wee bit of English. Rated 'R' for some strong sexual content & nudity.
Clark

SALT 3.5****

To begin with , this isone kick-ass action movie with a great kickass performance by Angelina Jolie. The word is the movie was written for Tom Cruise who declined. So they refashioned it for Angelina who excels as an action star. She makes you think of what a female Jason Bourne would be like. And she does most of her own stunts. Wow… here we have one of the most beautiful movie stars around putting herself at risk with dangerous stunts in order to achieve realism and fulfill the role of her character. She deserves a lot of credit for this kind of dedication to her craft…she surely earns her millions.

The main character, Evelyn Salt (Jolie), is a CIA agent whom, during the questioning of a Russian spy in CIA headquarters, is accused of being a Russian "sleeper agent" or "mole." She goes on the run from the government while trying to clear her name as well as find her husband. That's the basic premise that we were given from the film's marketing campaign. The majority of the film is simply amazing because you never know what's going to happen. The parts about Evelyn Salt being framed as a Russian sleeper agent and trying to clear her name and find her husband are practically all thrown away after the first 20 to 30 minutes – they're no longer important. During the duration of the film, we continuously run into a multitude of plot twists, and each one leads the main character onto her next destination. All of these plot twists are amazing and shocking in the right way; they're not badly thought-out twists. Each twist makes us ask a new question..


Angelina Jolie has shown time and time again that she supersedes all of those preconceived ideas about glamorous Hollywood actresses. She's beautiful, yes, but she's also a very gifted actress and athlete. It's in full evidence here, as her Salt dons numerous disguises that really do a good job of hiding her amazing looks. Lesser actresses would wilt under the pressure of actually performing as opposed to being gawked at. But Jolie flourishes. And she has some serious action-movie chops and is simply electrifying. Also, as with the best actors, Jolie can do a lot with the slightest bit facial expressions and/or body language. She is mesmerizing and a captivating presence on the screen.

“Salt” s the second action film in a row I’ve seen this summer that I've loved. '”Inception” was the first and the better of the two. But “Salt” is quite good. It’s captivating. It's thrilling. It's a nail-biter. It has enough twists, turns, “what the heck”" moments, flashbacks, and so much more to keep you entertained throughout.



Clark