VALENTINE”S DAY 2.0 *** (but just barely)

Just check out the cast in the movie poster and as listed below. It gives the term 'star-studded' a new meaning. Imagine what kind of film you could make with all that talent. Well, Valentine's Day is not that film. Far from it in fact. Actually this “who's who” of a cast is a draw back in that it hampers any chance for real emotion or character development due to the need to share screen time among them all. When you start getting interested in a character you'll most likely not see him/her again for another 45 minutes, pretty annoying when there are so few likable characters in the first place.

What is perhaps the biggest disappointment is that despite a plethora (I like that word) of plots, subplots and sub-subplots – all intertwining somehow – there is very little originality and, even worse, it’s not very interesting or funny. Fluff and more fluff replace characterization and narrative development and the corny dialogue comes off as cutesy more than cute. It all goes back to the bloated cast: with over 20 stars that need their quota of jokes, sobs and happy endings filled, it's hugely difficult to find any real time to explore the unique intricacies of love and loss.


Very quickly, and don’t blink, here’s a rundown of the pairings with the main story being Jennifer Garner and Ashton Kutcher. A close second would be Anne Hathaway and Topher Grace. A slightly distant third is Jessica Biel and Jamie Foxx. Surrounding these is an assortment of minor stories, the more prominent of which comprises one senior couple (Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine) and two junior couples (Emma Roberts with Carter Jenkins; and Taylor Swift with heartthrob werewolf Taylor Lautner). There is also the kid with a mysterious crush ( Bryce Robinson) and a gay couple that has only one scene of about 5 seconds together (won’t give this one away). Julia Roberts, Eric Dane, George Lopez and Jessica Alba are a little more than cameos (though not much more) while Kathy Bates, Queen Latifah and Patrick Dempsey are just that.

This movie with the “star studded” cast is pure exploitation in an obvious attempt to snare a huge audience which it did; and I would wager that a lot of the folks who saw it, liked it. And that’s okay… I just didn’t have that experience. It is obvious in many ways that the filmmakers tried to outdo the terrific British film, “Love Actually” and, in my opinion came up woefully short. So, if you haven’t seen it yet, save your money and rent or watch the far superior movie, “Love Actually” which is at the very top of my all-time favorite “Feel-Good” movies.

Clark

CHLOE 3.0 (but barely) ****
What would you do if you were fairly sure your husband was having an affair …check his shirt collar and boxers for lipstick or perfume or sneak peeks at his iPhone or BlackBerry for hotmails…maybe. But no such mundane things in this movie… this wife may surprise you.
Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) is a fortyish, classy, professional gynecologist who loves her college professor husband, David (Liam Neeson). They live in a wonderful home just outside of New York. They have an ambitious and horney 15 year old son who has recently discovered the sexual pleasures of ready-and-willing teenage girls….and the horizontal part of these hook-ups occur in his parents’ home !! But the major problem for Catherine is that there is no longer is any intimacy or sex with her husband, David, and Catherine suspects that her handsome, professor husband is getting too close to and bedding down young college coeds. That’s when she decides arranges to meet Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a beautiful young call girl whose services she enlists to tempt her husband (as a young single hottie..not as a call girl) to see if he will take the bait and cheat on her. At first, all goes as she expected and Chloe reports back to her that her husband eagerly responded to her temptations and had sex with her. Catherine, out of a titillating curiosity, has Chloe continue the affair and requires Chloe to report back to her in detail what goes on..a “blow by blow” account, so to speak. It isn’t long before the relationship between Chloe and David — and for that matter, the relationship between Chloe and Catherine — spin out of control in ways that Catherine could never have imagined.
Moore and Neeson are such classy actors that they can’t help but elevate a somewhat weak story. And Amanda Seyfried is so well cast as the young sexy call girl…the alluring temptress… she’s sensuous and voluptuous, as in really “hot”. She does amazing things with a difficult, elusive–at-times character. Like the illicit liaisons shown in the movie, Chloe, both the character and the movie, are guilty pleasures.
At a running time of just over one and one-half hour, “Chloe” is a tightly wrapped seductive and intriguing erotic thriller that, unfortunately, loses some steam, but not necessarily its steaminess, towards the end as it goes for a surprise/Hitchcock type ending that doesn’t quite matchup with the earlier parts of the story. Fortunately, Amanda Seyfried’s sizzling scenes as Chloe along with Julianne Moore’s raw, brave and honest performance as Catherine help to maintain your interest and keep your eyes glued to the screen.

This has an “R” rating because of the heavy sexual content..not all that much nudity but very suggestive and steamy.

Clark

THE GHOST WRITER 2.5****
This is the latest film from Roman Polanski who is the renown director of such classics as “Rosemary’s Baby”, “Chinatown” and “The Piano”. The word is that this movie was finished while he was in prison/house-arrest awaiting extradition to the USA for long pending child rape charges. In any event, he still knows how to mask good movies although I’m not a big fan of his style..classic, traditional but slow, oh so slow in developing A lot of time is spent with the characters driving from one place to another, the characters walking from one place to another and the characters pondering who knows what. Maybe this is supposed to build tension, but for me it only built boredom. Granted Polanski’s movies are technically and artistically superb, but they leave me cold and unconnected. Nonetheless , the critics have embraced this movie but I can only give it a lukewarm pat on the back.
Ewan McGregor is a writer hired to ghost write the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister (Pierce Brosnan) after the previous collaborator commits suicide (maybe/maybe not). Almost immediately life begins to get complicated for McGregor (and muddled for me) as he is shuttled off to a fortress-like mansion on the New England Coast to work on the book and there encounters a trio of slightly-off kilter characters that Polanski is famous for. There's the puzzling, volatile Ex-Prime Minister himself; his caustic, mysterious wife (Olivia Williams); and his icy assistant/mistress (Kim Cattrall) and an assortment of strange and secretive supporting players who keep you guessing about what is going on right up to the Hitchcock-style shocking conclusion. As soon as the Ghost begins writing, controversy erupts around Former PM Lang who is accused of the kidnapping and torturing alleged terrorist ( yes, water boarding, etc..sound familiar). Lang ( who is a Tony Blair do-a-like) decides to stay put in the United States, where he is safe from International Laws . You can’t help but wonder how much Polanski identified with this as he has the same concern..At this point the Ghost becomes intrigued and sets out to find answers to what has become a baffling mystery.

As an aside, and believe it or not, but Kim Cantrall of “Sex and the City” and her many other steamy roles remains fully clothed throughout the movie..not even a quick cleavage shot ..this was remarkable and, for me somewhat disappointing. However, such puritanism did not apply to Ewan McGregor…or at least not altogether. He has a partially nude scene..no frontal..only from the back complete with a bun-shot..BUT in a rather mundane, ho-hum, sex scene. It was more like they were casually shaking limp hands than having sex.

A good film but not my cup of tea… I prefer something more robust.

Clark

SHE’S OUT OF MY LEAGUE 3.0 (nearly 3.5***)

Hot chicks be warned, and you know who you are.. the ”9s” and “10s”: Over the next few weeks, you may find yourselves sought after by overconfident nerds/geeks who now believe that they have a chance of going out with you. Don’t worry; you haven’t suddenly gotten fat or ugly—or whatever it would take to bring you down to their level which is usually at least a “5”and which is rarely even even close to your league. It’s just that they’ve seen “She’s Out of My League”, and been given hope… probably fools’ gold.

When geeky airport security guard, Kirk (Jay Baruchel),accidentally meets gorgeous party planner Molly (Alice Eve), he knows that she’s way out of his league. His friends know it. Her friends know it. Even strangers who see them on the street know it. But apparently she doesn’t know it—or at least she doesn’t care. She’s been hurt by macho handsome, successful guys before, and a lovable loser like Kirk is just what she needs, someone safe and comfortable
The movie succeeds by not making Kirk a raging nerd, but rather as an everyman kind of guy who is nice, amusing and honest… something that most other guys can relate to. Also, as most guys know, many of the nicer really attractive women are ones who just don’t know how really attractive they are. Molly was written to embody that, and both leads are very likeable. Adding to the fun and who nearly steal the movie are Kirk’s friends, especially “Stainer”, whose combinations of good and bad advice set up some hilarious sequences. The movie does a good job of blending raunchy guy humor( and at times its really raunchy) with romantic comedy. The supporting cast works well as an ensemble, but the pairing of Baruchel and Eve yields charm, sizzle and genuine belly laughs. Baruchel's performance as the quirky geek is right on target, and Alice Eve's portrayal of Molly is a winning, winsome performance that will bring her a lot of attention..a future star in the making. This is one of those hilarious raunchy love stories that will, in my opinion, be a sleeper hit. I laughed…even hooted at times… throughout the whole movie and left the in a happy, jolly mood .
Now be forewarned that “She's Out of My League” is right up there with “The 40 Year Old Virgin” as a vulgar comedy and deservedly has a “R” rating for crude language and general raunchiness. But if you can get pass that, it is actually a sweet story with lots of heart and a barrel of laughs.
)
Clark

BROOKLYN’S FINEST 1.5*** out of 4****

“Brooklyn's Finest” is really not a very good movie. The acting is passable but the writing is awful. The script reminds you of a want-a-be hip white guy trying to be black and, more so, sound like a rappy black, street-wise character. Nothing rings true and nothing is realistic… it shoots blanks. Also, I suppose in a post-apocalyptic New York City, people might commit crimes right in front of the police and then tell them to go blank themselves when, but I don't think so . And here we have Richard Gere playing a veteran cop with only seven days left to retirement who seems to be as meek as a lamb or as cowardly as a lion, who’s afraid to handle the ruffians on the street.. he just wants to go and hide until his time is up.. And Ethan Hawk, who plays a corrupt cop trying to steal as much drug money as possible, but being so obvious, in broad daylight and front of everyone, that only Brooklyn's Dumbest couldn't see it. And then we have Don Cheadle, the undercover cop torn between his loyalty to the department and his gangster friend while mouthing out hokey dialog until we can't help but laugh or cry.

The movie is filled with every cop-movie convention since the invention of gunpowder and curse words. It is three stories in one that converge at the end for a big climatic moment, as was done in the excellent film “Crash’ which, by the way, had the same director, Antoine Fuqua. Well, Fuqua , as they say, went to the same well one time too many because he’s really misses the mark here and this film ends up in a “crash “and burn. The three stories have been done before, many times; and the cops have been portrayed before, many times. Seen it. Seen it. And seen it.

Also this is a viciously brutal movie, well deserving of its “R” rating. And it’s too long…over two hours after which you feel like you need to go home and take a bath, send a thank-you note the men in blue and say your prayers. However, it occurred to me that because of the extent of the bad language in the film, it may have a unique future on cable or as a rental. It could be used as a drinking game for those who are really heavy hitter drinkers or think they are… sort of like beer pong. The challenge would be to see how long the drinkers could last if they had to take one big sip for each cuss word uttered… very few, if any, would make it to the end or even care whether they did or not.

Clark

GREEN ZONE 3.0*****

“Wherefore art thou Weapons of Mass Destruction”… that is the premise of this movie upon which a political thriller/action film was fused together by Director Paul Greengrass (famous as the director for “United 93” and the last 2 “Bourne” movies..all excellent films) He, as in the Bourne” movies, uses his signature technique of documentary- styled, shaky camera-work to elicit a sense of reality, and brings us back to the first four weeks of the 2003 Iraq War. The movie begins with the US army frantically searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to prove to a jittery world that the decision to invade was the right call. Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Miller, an honest soldier who soon realizes that after several dangerous but fruitless search missions, the search for WMD in Iraq is futile…the reason being that the intel ( intelligence info) is completely false and, therefore, there are none. When he challenges his commanding officer on the intel that they've been given, he is told to "button it up" in no uncertain terms.

But his integrity won't allow him to roll over and play dumb. He smells a rat and so he ends up playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Uncle Sam. This is very brave and maybe even somewhat stupid career-wise as Uncle Sam is represented by a stop-at-nothing powerful Bush Admin Aide, Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) who apparently has the full support of the Administration. So, the film pitches the two men against each other. One man, honest and wholesome, and the other, a politician with a self-glorifying mission….a David meets Goliath.. They are two sides of the same coin: sharp, tenacious and convinced they are doing the right thing - but with diametrically opposed beliefs… a classic good versus evil..

The credits tell us that the film is fictitious. But then again, maybe not altogether. It's now common knowledge that were no WMDs in Iraq when the West invaded so this film plays tribute to the real-life troops who risked and lost their lives there. All because, as it now seems, a misguided Bush Administration needed an excuse to invade Iraq and depose it’s dictator…at least, so it is said. It may be a difficult film to watch if you've been directly affected by the Iraqi war but it may also be a comfort that someone has bothered to present this side of it, albeit from a fictitious soldier's viewpoint.

The movie is a “Jason Bourne” meets “Black Hawk Down” (Ridley Scott’s brilliant 2001 war film) but here Bourne is now in army uniform, but still very much the maverick in that he is willing to defy authority in pursuit of the truth. He is still Bourne-like in being fleet of foot, brilliant of mind and almost a one-man army, but not altogether because here he does have some very loyal men in his Unit who have his back.


NOTE: There was, in fact, a “Green Zone” located within the city of Baghdad that was heavily guarded and inaccessible except to the only the highest ranking military and civilian personnel and special guests… along with a lot of pretty women…it was like a super resort area with Sadam’s palaces and fine hotels…even swimming pools and fine food, wine and beer. After all “to victors belong the spoils” !?!?


Clark`

ALICE IN WONDERLAND 3.5****
Wondering about “Alice in Wonderland”? Wonder no more, “Wonderland” is wonderful.

Also, you might assume that since Tim Burton is the Director, the movie will be too dark and dreary. Well you would be wrong..very wrong indeed.. Burton must have had some kind of epiphany and, as a result, discovered there are colors other than black and white because in this film he revels in the use of rich and startling colors which are deeply enhanced by the 3D process. As a result, this is one of the most beautiful and colorful movies I’ve seen in a while. And, while the story line is slightly dark, it is for the most part delightful and charming, and it’s FUN and. you don’t usually say that about a Burton film.

Then too it has Johnny Depp as the “madly fascinating” Mad Hatter. Burton’s joy in the use of colors is highlighted in Depp’s character, from the facial make-up, the eyes, the hair, the all of it which is so captivating and rich. Depp ceases to amaze me with the depth of his creativity and the fun and mischief he radiates when portraying an unusual character.. and what could be more unusual than a Mad Hatter. Many of the other characters are uniquely presented both physically and colorfully, especially the “mean” Red Queen ( Helena Bonham Carter) who, upon the slightest provocation, is quick with the command of “off with their heads”; Twiddledum and Twiddledee (Matt Lucas); and the nice White Queen (Anne Hathaway) who is SO nice, she is all white.

The story line is fairly simple in a delightfully complex way. Alice has grown up..she is now 19 but is still having recurring dreams of her first Wonderland experience and now believes it was only a dream. Well after just being proposed to by a dweeby, fanciful Mr. Hamish, she runs off into the forest chasing that infamous Hare and in the process falls down that same old rabbit hole and lands once again in Wonderland. It’s different, a shade older but still oh-so familiar and the inhabitants have all been waiting for Alice’s return. She too is older but wiser, more incredulous and independent. I won’t go on lest I say too much.

Alice is played by a new young actress, Mia Wasikowska, who is perfectly cast for the role of the older Alice. She plays her with pluckiness, charm, and beauty and shows that Alice definitely has not lost her “muchness”. Amazingly for a newbie, she handles herself quite well and hits it off from the start with Depp which is always a plus.

Tim Burton has given us a superb sequel to the classic story that puts most other sequels to shame. He's taken the story, lovingly molded it with state-of-the-art technology, and used his fascination with darkness as a way of creating contrast, helping us to see just how colorful and indelible Lewis Carroll's creations could be. He's preserved the original, but then made it even more revealing and magical.
So a big yes to recommending that you too be willing to slide down that old rabbit hole and experience for yourself the wonder of “Alice in Wonderland” !!!

NOTE: You absolutely MUST see this on the big screen in 3D…even better on IMAX 3D…too much of the stunning visuals will be lost on the small screen.

RATED: PG and is safe for kids 6 and over unless they are easily frightened .

Clark