THE TOURIST 3.0**** Barely
We're all used to seeing Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in dramatic/action roles and it's so easy to forget that they can be lighthearted and funny. But they can be and are in this film.. Johnny shines, as he always does. Angelina Jolie looks glorious, and when she smiles, the screen lights up and I melt down.. They don't have chemistry, some critics say. Oh yes, they do. More importantly, they seem to be enjoying themselves.

Johnny plays an American math teacher called Frank who, while on holiday in Europe, is approached on a train by a mysterious and beautiful woman called Elise (Angie ). Little does he know, however, that he's actually being used by her as a decoy to shift police attention from her lover - a financial 'whizz-kid' who ripped off a scummy criminal and now owes the British government over 700 million Euros in taxable funds. In a case of mistaken identity, the angry defrauded criminal assumes Frank is her thieving lover and Frank ends up being plunged into a whole web of intrigue, pursued by both the cops and the robbers. At the same time, he's trying to battle his own increasing infatuation with Elise.

This is a rather sophisticated and old-fashioned movie and its all the better for it. It would be easy to imagine this being made in 60s with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn starring in the lead roles. As Frank, Johnny Depp once again shows us why he's one of the best out there. It's easy to imagine George Clooney – surely the aforementioned Grant's heir - playing this role, but Depp is more effective and brings a more earthy quality, able to play both plain and debonair at the drop of a hat. Similarly, Angelina Jolie is convincing as the conflicted mystery woman Elise, and puts in a nice understated performance while at the same time never looking better. The chemistry between them starts slowly and builds as they interact. In fact the interplay between them for the first 40 minutes is absolutely brilliant.

A PG-13 rating means there is little violence or sex or naughty words.


Clark

BURLESQUE 3.0***


“Burlesque” is a dazzling movie musical.. a sensual delight.. not just because there are a bevy of beautiful women in very sexy costumes dancing and strutting their stuff… and there is a lot of fine stuff. But then, what else would you expect in a movie about burlesque. If you are offended or embarrassed by the beauty of the female body then go see “Toy Story 3” again.

The story is not unique and has been often used. Ali, a young talented, very attractive girl from Iowa (Christine Aguilera) decides to leave home and go to, where else, but Los Angeles and pursue a singing career She ends up at a burlesque theatre owned and operated by Tess (Cher). Tess initially flatly refuses to hire her but Ali ends up being a bar waitress and from there literally soaks up all she sees and hears on and off the stage. Backed by newfound friends amongst the theater's crew, she eventually manages to get on stage and dance and eventually sing. Things take a dramatic turn when Ali's big voice makes her become the main attraction of the burlesque revue.
The film has it’s good and bad points. First the Bad;
+ Historically and artistically the movie does not show TRUE burlesque which is usually a solo performance with a theme and with stripping although usually done with a lot of feathers and balloons or other obstructions. Instead this movie gives you Las Vegas style production numbers with lots of girls with burlesque as the ongoing theme. But the production numbers are terrific with a lot of energy, great music and sensational dancing…and of course gorgeous women.
+ Christina Aguilera is excellent in the movie but is overused ..too much singing from one performer, even a very good performer, become repetitious and tiresome. There should have been at least one more singer in addition to CA and Cher.
Now the Good;
+ It’s great to have Cher back in a role perfect for her. She does a great and shows that she can still belt out a tune like nobody’s business.
+Christine Aguilera, while overused for singing, is excellent and proves she can shake her stuff, i.e. “dance” with the best of them in addition to being a good actress. Of course, everyone knows or should know how well she sings.
+The film’s production, especially for the dance numbers, is sensational…on the same high scale as “Chicago” and “Nine”.
+It’s a lot of fun..it’s “feel good” and it’s sexy.. it doesn’t get much better than that.

Rated PG-13 for sexual content including several suggestive dance routines, partial nudity, and some language but overall it is relatively tame.


Clark

FAIR GAME 3.0*** (almost 3.5***)
This film, which is based upon actual events, sets out to accomplish two things—to expose the Bush Administration’s deliberate falsification and manipulation of info about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to purposely bring about the Iraq War and to watch a married couple under intense pressure, Valerie Plame ( played by Naomi Watts) and Joe Wilson (Played by Sean Penn), get swept up in the Iraq controversy. The first half follows Valerie Plame as she goes about her work as a CIA covert operative. But she cares about the promises she makes to "assets" (people who are working undercover for the CIA) and she is dedicated to her country. She soon finds out that those who run the countrydon’t give a darn about her. She is dumped, fast and hard, when her name is purposely revealed to and reported by the media through revelations from a high ranking source in Vice President Chaney’s Office. She is dumped as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson, having reported that the White House was lying about the WMDs. Friends and colleagues at work don't want anything else to do with her. They tell her to forget the promises she made to her “assets” whose lives depended on trusting her. But blustery Joe Wilson is fully prepared to fight back. It's his country, not Cheney's or Bush's, and he's going to stand up for the integrity of his name. As it turns out…Good Luck, Joe. When the White House is out to get you, consider yourself gotten. They'll use all their extensive powers to destroy you and your wife and children.

I have to confess that I am a harsh critic of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, so viewing this movie I got all riled up and spitting mad all over again. Especially the scene of the real State of the Union speech by Bush when he informs the Country of a secret transaction between Iraq and Niger involving aluminum tubes which he said were for purposes of making WMDs. He and his War Hawks knew full well that the intelligence was false, but used it anyway to promote a declaration of war. We were manipulated, tricked, deceived. If they had not used false intelligence, Bush would probably not have gotten support for the war. The consequences of that deception affect us to this very day. ( I somewhat apologize for the editorial remarks here which I always try to avoid in a review, but this is one time and probably the only time I feel so strongly about an issue that I had to speak my mind). By the way, when Plame’s identity was disclosed , a dozen clandestine operations that she was overseeing were jeopardized, and a number of assets, including Iraqi weapons scientists, were killed. This action was unique, because no White House in the history of the United States had ever divulged the identity of our spies for any purpose.
The story, which is based upon actual events, is realistic and quite suspenseful, the acting is excellent and the overall look and feel of the film is top notch.

Clark
Bottom of Form

MORNING GLORY 3.0****

M
Rachel McAdams leads the way in this surprisingly refreshing flick as the workaholic television morning show producer, Becky, who lands the job of reorganizing "the worst morning show ever". She only has a short time to save the show because of it’s plummeting ratings, and in doing so must battle with low worker morale, highly conceited anchors, and poor working conditions. Desperate for a change, she recruits the legendary newscaster Mike Pomeroy, played by Harrison Ford, who is not willing to cover any story he does not consider "worthy of his reputation".

The film brings not just a comic story of working with grumpy people, but the beautiful emotional tale of a girl who desperately hopes to realize her dream of being a television producer by somehow pulling everyone together against the odds and creating a team, almost a family, in the process. Although the story is not unique, the chemistry between the impressive cast is the movie's redeeming quality. Across the board, the acting is quite good, but in all honesty the movie owes its success to McAdams and Ford. Rachel McAdams should be commended for playing the frustrated role of the driven and often frustrated Becky, and proves that she has much more to offer than a just pretty face. Harrison Ford fully embraces the character of Pomeroy and does a wonderful job being grumpy, conceited, and an all-around jerk in one of his best roles as of late. Diane Keaton is amazing. Her Colleen could have been a shallow beauty queen washout. Keaton gives Colleen a self awareness and whimsy.

Morning Glory is a nice tale that will leave you with a sweet taste in your mouth. Combined with some real solid acting, this is a movie you'll be glad you checked out.

UNSTOPPABLE 3.5****

Loosely based on a true story from 2001, “Unstoppable” is a tension packed, heart-racing roller-coaster of a movie about an unmanned, runaway train carrying a payload of highly flammable fuel and toxic waste that is heading straight for the densely populated of Stanton, Pennsylvania at 70mph. Several human errors by an incompetent train driver and his colleagues allows the out of control train to leave the train yard unmanned without brakes or an automatic cut off system … and from then on, the race is on to try and stop this out of control half-mile long train from devastating a city.

The true star is the train, a runaway monster ("a missile the size of the Chrysler Building" as one protagonist puts it) accelerates quickly to 70 m.p.h. along southern Pennsylvania, first through rural areas then into densely populated towns and cities, towards Stanton, PA and a fateful curve in on an elevated section of the rail with huge oil tanks underneath . Not enough? The train is carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and eight cars filled with highly toxic and explosive chemicals.

The pace of the film starts relatively slow but then quickly ratchets up until it is utterly, utterly relentless - there's no time to breathe here, just one near disaster after another… one heroic effort after another … all done in reality ( there is almost no computer generated special effects)…with frantic conversations intermixed to quickly set up the next danger faced by our blue-collar heroes. These are real huge trains and real flesh and blood people with lots of collisions, twisted metal and explosions. The key thing for the movie to succeed is that there be heroes that the audience can root for, and in that regard, I cannot think of anyone better than Denzel Washington. Teaming with him, co-star Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk in the recent remake of “Star Trek”) comes through with an excellent performance. The pair play the familiar know-it-all young guy vs. the wise, experienced veteran who start out with animosity and finish as…. well you have to see the movie but you’re allowed to guess.. They each have their own "human story" – a not-really-so-old engineer forced into early retirement with half-pension and a greenhorn conductor eager to prove himself (while troubled and distracted by marital problems). These background stories are necessary to lift the characters out of a single-dimension existence, but the focus is aptly placed on their exciting and heroic efforts to stop the runaway train.

Ably directed by Tony Scott (who has something of a history with trains and Denzel Washington – “Taking of Pelham 123”, “Man on Fire”), “Unstoppable” features some really good camera work, low ground shots, blur in movement, close-up action … and a very imaginative use of sound and music …all the things that really emphasize the feeling of locomotive power, speed and imminent destruction. Scott continues to be an in-demand action film director, and this film contributes to that winning streak. He applied that age old rule for success: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

Clark


________________________________________

THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET”S NEST 3.0***




Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) is back in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third and final installment of the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The first two were the "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and "The Girl Who Played With Fire". But don't worry too much if you didn't see the first two films. There is a quick intro at the beginning that helps… but admittedly it is much better if you seen or read the first two.

The movie starts with Lisbeth is in the hospital, in critical condition. But there is little doubt for those who have come to know her fascinating character that nothing short of death itself can stop our tiny, but powerful, typhoon of a woman. Not only is she battling for her life from severe gunshot wounds, including one to her head, but also even if she recovers, she is going to trial for the attempted murder of her horribly abusive father. Once again, her only ally is journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). But we've seen them team up twice before, and despite some hefty obstacles, they stand a good chance against bad odds.

Aside from the recovery time in the hospital, much of the film focuses on the ins and outs of the law and we’re talking about “Swedish” law which is much different from American law. The rest and best part of the film tales place in the court room and manages to not only keep your interest, but also be incredibly engaging. Maybe it's because everything comes together from the first two films This is not to say that “Hornet’s Nest” is as good as the first of the series..”The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” .” There’s nothing like novelty to evoke special interest. Once you’ve marveled at the punk-Mohawk-haired-biker-clothed character of the lead girl, Lisbeth Salander, and her unbelievable physical and mental skills, you know you’ve seen something/someone completely new and original on the screen. But after those initial marvelous moments of discovery, and with time, the novelty wears off and you become somewhat accustomed to even this very unique character.

All in all, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest” is both a fitting end to and a last hurrah for a brilliant trilogy of first the 3 books and then the 3 Swedish films.

Clark

HEREAFTER 2.0**
What is this movie about. Is it about the supernatural. Well only if you do not believe in an afterlife or the hereafter in which case you’d have to rely upon the idea of the supernatural to consider the concept. I think the subject of afterlife must have been on Director, Clint Eastwood’s mind. After all, he is rapidly approaching 80 years old and his own mortality. His last film, “Gran Torino” had so much story and feeling. So, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was… partly because it is way too long by at least 30 minutes. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young French woman briefly has what has become referred to as a near death experience (“NDE”). But the movie, unfortunately fails to capture this eventful moment. It's almost as if Eastwood has never read the numerous accounts of those who experienced near death. With all the new computer generation/special effects available, he could have done so much better…at a minimum, there should have been a glorious 'tunnel of light'… but all we get is out-of-focus silhouettes.

This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become connected in an unforeseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also the French woman who had the tsunami NDE and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of his twin brother. The NDE was so life-altering to the young French lady that she leaves her primary job as a political reporter and writes a book about her NDE experience and how the media trivializes the phenomena. Her book references her research and discusses all the expert testimony that supports the persuasive facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing. It simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research. The question to me, and the main problem I had with the movie is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small hint of the answers? From the testimonials/research of those who have experienced an NDE there is far more involved than just a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more. But, all we are left with in this movie is the frustration of why not tell us more.

My reaction to this movie is in the minority compared with most of the critics who are giving the movie high praise. Well, it just didn’t move me. It was slow and it missed the chance to explore a fascinating subject. Instead, it only hinted at the “hereafter” and those who have possibly glanced at it in some fashion.

Clark