Director: Joe Carnahan

Cast: Liam Neeson, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Dallas Roberts, Joe Anderson, Nonso Anozie, James Badge Dale

Photo courtesy of Open Road Films

“The Grey” is a dark, grim tale of survival in the Alaskan wilderness. It is a surprisingly subdued outing from director Joe Carnahan, the same man who brought audiences films such as “Smokin’ Aces” and “The A-Team.” It also reteams Carnahan with “A-Team” actor Liam Neeson who adds another powerful performance to his already glowing resume.

The movie begins with Ottway (Neeson) explaining that he works for an oil drilling company in Alaska. The troubled character goes on to explain that this is a place at the end of the world for men who have nothing left to offer. This includes former criminal Diaz (Frank Grillo), distant father Talget (Dermot Mulroney) and Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), possibly the most normal person of the bunch.

Soon, these men find themselves flying out of Alaska when they hit strong turbulence and end up crashing violently in the snowy wilderness. The men take all of the usual steps to survive. They get materials to build fires and take whatever possessions they may find useful. Then, they discover that they are being hunted by a pack of dangerous, bloodthirsty wolves.

Ottway explains that the reason the animals are taunting them could be because they are close to the wolves’ den. This means that the wild animals will not stop until the men are out of a thirty mile radius of the den. The fight to truly survive has now begun.

There have been several survival movies including the memorable 1996 and 1997 movies, “The Ghost and the Darkness” and “The Edge.” Unlike previous movies, though, “The Grey” chooses to look more at the philosophical nature of survival. There are meaningful exchanges, mostly from Ottway, about fear and bravery. Then there is the religious discussion. Did the men survive the crash for a reason much bigger than themselves are was it just dumb luck?

Despite the chilling tone of the film and always knowing that the wolves are lurking somewhere in the distance, the philosophical approach is what truly makes the film work. It also helps save the film from some of its admittedly major pitfalls. This includes some bad CGI work on the wolves and action sequences that are not all that intriguing.

The biggest problem with the action is the execution. Having seen some impressive sequences in Carnahan’s “Smokin’ Aces,” it was disappointing seeing quick take, close-up struggles. It gets so bad at times that the audience sometimes cannot tell whether they are looking at the man or the wolf.

It could have been that Carnahan did not want the audience to focus too much on the action, but instead the more down to earth discussions. That would be okay, but there should have been a little bit more entertainment value since the film’s story does contain a man vs. beast element. The action sequences are not a complete failure, but they are one of the film’s weakest moments.

As stated before, Neeson is the actor that truly drives the movie. Ironically, Ottway is a suicidal and tragic character who becomes the group’s ultimate tool for survival. Neeson helps make Ottway a surprisingly complex character in this dark story.

This is not to take away from the rest of the cast. Each one of them also does a good job at creating characters that the audience actually cares about. The two most memorable supporting performances come from Grillo as the hot headed Diaz and Mulroney as the faithful Talget. Each one plays two sides of the coin when discussing the bigger themes of the movie.

While the film is not perfect, “The Grey” contains an interesting study of the nature of survival. It contains powerful moments and truly good performances from its cast. Also, any film that is destined to piss off PETA can’t be too bad.

PROS:

• A wonderful examination about the nature of survival.
• Memorable discussions of faith and dumb luck help propel the movie.
• Liam Neeson and his fellow cast members give memorable performances and make their characters surprisingly complex.

CONS:

• The CGI work on the wolves could have been better.
• The action sequences are not all that memorable even though the film boasts a strong man vs. beast theme.

GRADE: B

Director: Stephen Daldry

Cast: Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Max von Sydow, Zoe Caldwell, Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright, John Goodman

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.

“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” is a film that is referred to often as Oscar bait. Unfortunately, the film’s few positive notes will probably be overlooked due to the more negative aspects of the movie. Granted, Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock do their usual best with performances that they can pull off in their sleep. The problem comes with the story itself and the performance by the young Thomas Horn as the 10-year-old Oskar Schell.

Oskar is a kid that used to go on imaginary treasure hunts set up by his dad, Thomas (Hanks), in a game called Reconnaissance Mission. Then came what Oskar refers to as the Worst Day. That day was 9/11 and Thomas was unfortunately in the World Trade Center for a meeting. A year later, Oskar finds a key in Thomas’ closet and decides to set out on a mission to discover the key’s origin.

The kid has nothing to go on except the name Black. Oskar sees it as an opportunity to remain close to his deceased father even though it seems to drive an even bigger wedge between Oskar and his grieving mother, Linda (Bullock). Along the way, Oskar will meet several people and even has help from a man known only as the Renter (Max von Sydow) while trying to make sense of the Worst Day and why his father was taken away from him.

Again, there are fantastic performances from both Hanks and Bullock. Hanks has already been established as the Jimmy Stewart of his generation and the father figure role fits him like a glove. Bullock also hits all of her emotional high points as the troubled mother, but she is barely touched upon and it is almost a wasted performance from a talented actress.

The true performance of the film actually comes from Sydow as the Renter. Due to a past tragedy, the Renter has chosen not to speak and therefore speaks to Oskar through his notepad and “Yes” and “No” markings on his hands. Sydow therefore has to do the difficult task of acting strictly through facial expressions and body language. He does this flawlessly and should the Academy be paying attention, Sydow is the one who should be acknowledged.

The worst performance unfortunately comes from Horn as Oskar. He does not have enough power to keep the audience interested. Also, the character himself is not all that desirable to watch. Oskar is a foul-mouthed kid who is scared of everything. He also talks so fast that the audience ends up with a headache rather than feeling the pain that Oskar is suffering.

Also, while the film successfully sets up the fact that Oskar is going to meet several different people through his mission, the audience never really gets to sit down and know any of them. They leave as about as quickly as they appear. The movie would have benefitted more by observing an interesting cast of characters rather than focusing on the terribly uninteresting Oskar.

Finally, the film is also a commentary of the tragedy that happened on September 11, 2011. The film will surely not be the last to comment on that tragic day when the towers fell, but it definitely does not provide a sense of understanding for those who remember the day the towers fell. In the film’s defense, though, there probably never will be a movie that can truly express what it was like on that day.

The movie runs at a brisk two hours, but the audience is so bored that it ends up feeling more like a three hour flick. Despite an attempt to give decent performances and an honest critique of 9/11, the film’s sub-standard story and an uninteresting lead make this a movie that can be missed.

PROS:

• Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock turn in good performances as always.
• Max von Sydow gives a powerful performance that should not be ignored by the Academy.

CONS:

• The film tries to provide a cathartic response to 9/11 but it ultimately fails.
• There is not enough time spent on what could have been an interesting cast of supporting characters.
• The running time of the film is only two hours, but the boring story makes it seem more like three hours.
• Thomas Horn is just not all that interesting as the young Oskar.

GRADE: D

Director: Anthony Hemingway

Cast: Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Elijah Kelley, Ne-Yo, Tristan Wilds, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Terrence Howard, Bryan Cranston

Photo courtesy of 20th Century Fox

Filmmaker George Lucas first thought of “Red Tails” as a movie back in 1988. After his semi-retirement in order to take care of his kids, the film sat in limbo for several years. Once Lucas completed his “Star Wars” prequels and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” Lucas decided it was finally time to tell the story of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of African American pilots during World War II.

The story is an ensemble piece. There are the pilots who have been wasted on missions such as patrols where there are no enemies and taking out the occasional German truck. This has led the people in Washington to believe that the Tuskegee program is a failure. With the help of Colonel A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) though, they will soon get their chance to show off just how talented they really are.

The pilots themselves are the usual archetypes seen in several of the WWII films from the ‘50s that helped inspire the film. There is the doubtful leader, Martin “Easy” Julian (Nate Parker), the crazy and out-of-control Joe “Lightning” Little (David Oyelowo) who is best friends with Easy. Then there are the usual supporting characters such as the comic relief Samuel “Joker” George (Elijah Kelley), the young rookie Ray “Ray Gun” Gannon (Tristan Wilds) and the no nonsense leader Major Emanuel Stance (Cuba Gooding, Jr.).

This is where the script suffers most of its problems. Some of the actors are not all that engaging and the actors who are decent cannot help improve the scripts horrible dialogue, a problem that constantly plagues a Lucas production. Also, the script is filled with the same WWII glory found in older films where the Americans are the selfless heroes and all of the Germans are horrible people who deserve what’s coming to ‘em.

Audiences know today that there were decent German soldiers fighting for their country and that not every American soldier was perfect, so the mock patriotism comes off as cheesy and not at all convincing. Even with all of these problems, though, there are characters that the audience cannot help but care about, primarily Easy and Lightening. In the end, these two characters are just enough to save the film from complete failure.

Then there’s the action. It has been stated (though not confirmed) that while director Anthony Hemingway mainly directed the actors on the ground, the action sequences were directed by Lucas himself. This definitely seems possible when comparing the impressive fighter sequences with those found in “Star Wars.” The sequences may not be incredibly true to how the actual aircrafts functioned, but no one can deny the excitement that is felt while watching the action.

As mentioned earlier, the filmmakers also wanted to make a film that captured the same excitement as older WWII films. The only problem here is that the film is trying so hard to be one of those films that it never quite captures the epic feeling found with classics such as “Battle of Britain” or “The Great Escape.” One can see the tribute that Lucas wanted to give the underappreciated airmen, but it can never fully hit the emotional strings.

While there have been several superior World War II films, “Red Tails” does not belong with the worst of them, either. Again, the dialogue is cliché and the characters are dangerously close to two-dimensional cutouts. In the end, it is the impressive action sequences and a straightforward narrative that helps keep the audience entertained.

PROS:

• The film is filled with several great action sequences and great CGI work from ILM.
• While the characters are extremely close to cardboard cutouts, the audience cannot help but root for them.

CONS:

• Horribly cliché and cheesy dialogue.
• The film fails to grasp the epic nature of the WWII films that inspired its direction.

GRADE: C

Director: Mans Marlind, Bjorn Stein

Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Theo James, Michael Ealy, India Eisley, Stephen Rea, Kris Holden-Ried

Photo courtesy of Screen Gems

The “Underworld” series is not exactly the best action series to ever come around. The first movie was okay while the second film did improve on some of the original film’s problems. Then came “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,” the absolutely abysmal prequel that just decided to retread over story elements that the audience already knew about.

Now, original star Kate Beckinsale returns as the sexy Death Dealer Selene in a fourth movie that decides to take the series in a more action-driven direction. Believe it or not, it actually works better than expected. It still has problems, but it is pure escapist fun.

This time out, the humans have discovered the existence of the vampires and the lycans. Selene and a noticeably absent Michael (except for a stand-in during one scene) try to escape and go into hiding. Unfortunately, they are stopped and Selene is frozen in time by Dr. Jacob Lane (Stephen Rea), a human who lost his son and is the lead crusader against the vampires and lycans.

Twelve years later, Selene is thawed out by a mysterious prisoner with whom she can share visions with. She then discovers that the person she is psychically connected to is Eve, a hybrid girl who was also being held prisoner by Jacob. Selene makes a promise to protect Eve no matter the cost.

It goes without saying that this film is already an improvement over the third film simply due to the fact that Beckinsale is back as Selene. No matter how average the “Underworld” movies can be, this is one actress who can kick a lot of butt and always helps elevate the status of the series. Here, the action is better than ever and Beckinsale is definitely up to the task.

One of the biggest problems with the first film of the series was some rather anti-climatic action sequences. Here, there are full-blown battles. First, it’s between mostly vampires and humans. Of course, no one can keep a good lycan down and there are some impressive battles between the immortal enemies as well that far surpass anything done in the previous films.

Still, it would not be an “Underworld” film if it did not have some problems to go along with the positive notes. One of the bigger problems here is that the film was shot and promoted as a 3D film. That means there is plenty of crap arbitrarily thrown towards the audience. It once again shows that most filmmakers do not know how to appropriately use the technology.

Then, there is another problem that has plagued the series since the first movie. That, of course, is very shoddy CGI work. If someone was looking for “Avatar” level effects, then he/she will be sorely disappointed. This is mostly aimed towards the effects used to create the lycans. They just are not real enough to be all that convincing except in a few shots.

Finally, the story feels incomplete. This goes back to Scott Speedman’s absence from the film as Michael. It is a loose end that is never truly wrapped up and it blatantly leaves the series open for another entry. It also does not feel complete due to a rather rushed running time of only 88 minutes.

Still, the film should be enjoyed for pure action entertainment and the successful return of Beckinsale as one of her signature characters. While the film does not aim too high, Beckinsale once again makes it better than it ought to be. The average audience member may not want to spend their hard earned money at the local theater, but it would definitely be worth it once it gets out on Red Box or Netflix.

PROS:

• Kate Beckinsale still looks good, kicks a lot of butt and looks good kicking a lot of butt.
• There are several great action films that really help the film’s light plot.
• The rest of the cast also turn in decent performances.

CONS:

• Those horrible shots that were obviously made for the 3D market.
• The shoddy CGI work (especially on the lycans) is back again.
• The story feels incomplete and simply sets up the series for another entry.

GRADE: C

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Cast: Gina Carano, Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Channing Tatum, Bill Paxton, Michael Angarano

Photo courtesy of Relativity Media

Director Steven Soderbergh has done a wide range of films over his long career. He has made serious efforts with films such as “Traffic,” “Contagion” and “Erin Brockovich.” Soderbergh has also had a bit of fun with the hit remake “Ocean’s Eleven” and the quirky black comedy “The Informant.” So, it really comes as no shock that he would attempt to tackle a spy thriller.

That film is “Haywire” and like other Soderbergh films, it is a movie filled with several mega stars including Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas. The true star of the film is MMA fighter Gina Carano as the lead character who could easily go toe-to-toe with other heroes such as Jason Bourne. Unfortunately, the film’s light story ultimately wastes the talented ensemble.

“Haywire” starts off simple enough with Mallory Kane (Carano) sitting in a diner. It is obvious that she is hiding from someone and the light bruises hint that things have not gone exactly as planned. Soon after sitting down in a booth, she is visited by Aaron (Channing Tatum) and the two begin to share a coffee while Aaron complains about Mallory refusing to leave with him.

Then, in one of the many outbursts contained within the movie, Aaron and Mallory begin to beat the living crap out of each other. Mallory escapes with a young man named Scott (Michael Angarano) and she begins to tell the story to her bewildered car passenger.

Mallory worked for a freelance covert company headed by her handler and former lover, Kenneth (Ewan McGregor) who sends her on various missions. On one of those missions, she is betrayed and must now find out what she can about all of the key players that now want her dead. The story of betrayal and revenge is nothing new and despite Soderbergh’s best efforts, the movie bores its audience to death.

This is not the only area where the film loses points. The biggest problem comes from Soderbergh’s attempts at making this movie something more than it actually is. This includes odd angles such as a car chase that almost takes place solely in the backseat of Scott’s car and the editing of the movie suggests that Soderbergh had rather wished he was the one who had filmed “Pulp Fiction.”

The timeline jumps all over the place and despite it being a simple story, the movie feels confusing and convoluted. “Haywire” would have actually benefitted from a more linear direction. Had the film started with Mallory’s betrayal and progressed in a normal fashion, then the movie would have actually been slightly better.

Now, there is one more decent aspect of the movie that should be discussed and that is the action. There is plenty of it and at first, it is awesome to see Mallory kicking butt and taking names. But then, as the film moves on and there is one fight after another, even the well choreographed fights come off as tedious and boring.

The flick’s running time is rather short at a little over 90 minutes. Even with the cut time, the film feels like it is just dragging on and on. Then, one realizes that there is no character development whatsoever. There is a vague back story such as Mallory being a former Marine, but no one really gets to know the character and ultimately does not care about what she is doing.

Granted, no one knew who Jason Bourne was in the amazing “Bourne” series, but since that character was an amnesiac, the audience felt like they were discovering things along with Bourne. Here, there is no such luck. Despite a strong cast and a good performance from Carano, this is one spy movie that audiences can skip.

PROS:

• Carano plays a strong female lead and gives a decent performance.
• There is a strong cast with heavy hitters such as Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas.
• The fights are very well choreographed and at first, they are quite engaging to watch.

CONS:

• But, there are also too many fights and eventually they just get downright boring.
• The simple narrative is jumbled around and therefore made way more complicated than it actually should be.
• The great cast and lead character are ultimately wasted with a story that does not seem to care when it comes to character development.
• Oh, and Channing Tatum is in it. He still sucks.

GRADE: D

Directors: Chris Hegedus, D.A. Pennebaker

Featured: James Carville, George Stephanopoulos, Mary Matalin, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush

Since 2012 is a new election year, I’ve decided to go back twenty years and look at an Academy Award nominated documentary that takes a candid look at Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Photos courtesy of Actual Reality Pictures

In 1992, future-President Bill Clinton beat then-President George H.W. Bush in an electoral landside with 370 votes from the Electoral College. But how did a governor from Arkansas do it? Sure, Clinton was a charismatic and young (in political years) speaker and had a failing economy on his side to use against his opponent, but no one does it alone.

This is where “The War Room” comes in. At the beginning of the ’92 Democratic primaries, documentary director D.A. Pennebaker suggested to the Clinton Campaign an idea to chronicle their entire strategy for beating Bush. The campaign agreed and Pennebaker’s crew was allowed to follow them on the campaign trail.

Mostly, the film focuses on Communications Director George Stephanopoulos and lead strategist James Carville. This is a smart move due to the fact that they represent two of the major ideas of the campaign. Stephanopoulos represents the youthful charm of the Clinton team and Carville represents the ideas that they are going after. It’s the economy, stupid.

Watching the film today, it feels like watching a real-life episode of “The West Wing.” It makes it so easy to see where “West Wing” creator Aaron Sorkin got his ideas for several of the characters that appear on that show. It is also a surprisingly candid film that covers the Gennifer Flowers scandal that plagued Gov. Clinton’s bid in the early days through his surprise showing in New Hampshire during the primaries all the way through to election night.

Stephanopoulos and Carville are like two characters in a television show with great chemistry. Carville is the fast speaking ragin’ Cajun vigorously attacking Bush on the economy and running from room to room trying to rally the troops. Beside him is the calm, collected Stephanopoulos who casually smiles at Carville’s unabashed energy while trying to set the messages straight for the media. They are two real-life characters who make the film work and the endless energy of the campaign through these two bleeds through the screen.

James Carville and George Stephanopoulos make this movie work!

One of the greatest aspects of the film though, is how Pennebaker lets the footage tell the story. There are no common documentary devices such as interviews or a narrator to try and explain what is being said or why something was said in the first place. The footage truly tells the story and Pennebaker is confident enough to know that is all the audience needs.

The only problem is that the story is told from the Clinton side of the election. Therefore, Clinton’s fellow Democratic challengers and President Bush are almost naturally painted in a negative light. The only upside to this is that it shows the audience exactly how Carville and the rest of the campaign team felt. They wanted Bush out for very legitimate reasons and they wanted their guy in no matter the cost.

On the day before the ’92 election, Carville breaks down into tears and tells his staff how proud he is of all their hard work. When watching this, the audience might forget that they are watching a real man speak from the heart. Maybe they are not used to seeing this naked portrait of politics. In the media today, it is all about the issues and political agendas. That is how it should be most of the time.

But this film reminds the audience that there are real people out there in the political world that want to see genuine change. While it may be too much to ask for, they want politicians that will hopefully work for the American people instead of their next election or bid for higher power. In the end, that is what “The War Room” offers and that is its greatest achievement.

PROS:

• While candidates might not being the people that they promise to be, this documentary is about real people who want real change.
• Despite being one-sided, it still manages to be an honest look at how campaigns are done.

CONS:

• Since it follows the Clinton campaign, the opponents of the Arkansas governor are almost naturally cast in a negative light.

GRADE: A

Director: Terence Young

Cast: Sean Connery, Robert Shaw, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Lotte Lenya, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Desmond Llewelyn

Photos courtesy of EON Productions

After the modest success of “Dr. No” in 1962, producers Albert “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman immediately began work on the next James Bond adventure. They more than doubled the budget and decided that “From Russia with Love” was the appropriate film to continue the saga after learning that the Ian Fleming novel was one of President John F. Kennedy’s favorite books.

The film, like the previous movie, helped develop many of the conventions found in later films. One example includes a cold opening, or pre-credits sequence. From this film on, all Bond films would have a pre-credits sequence in one form or another.

Also worth noting is that EA games adapted both the film and novel into a video game in 2005. It not only featured the likeness of Sean Connery, it also featured Connery voicing the character for the game. This would be the first time Connery assumed the role in 22 years since ‘83’s “Never Say Never Again.”

This time, the story takes Bond (Connery) to Istanbul after learning that Tatiana Romanova (Daniela Bianchi), a cipher clerk for the Soviet Union, wants to defect. This would be no big deal except for the fact that she also wants to give the British the Soviet decoder known as the Lektor, a device that the British have been trying to get their hands on for years.

Unknown to either Bond or Romanova, this is all an elaborate plan by SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) in order to pit the Russians and the British against one another while obtaining the Lektor for themselves. Also, they know that MI6 will inevitably assign Bond to the case which will give them a chance at revenge for Bond killing one of their operatives, Dr. No.

The movie is considered by many, including Connery himself, as one of the best Bond films in the series. One of the reasons for this is that Connery is on top of his game as Bond. While he did a great job in “Dr. No,” here he seems more at ease in the role. All of the charm and lethality of the character is present and accounted for.

However, Connery is not the only reason this film is one of the more popular movies. There is a wide array of characters that come along either to assist Bond or attempt to kill him.

One of those characters is Ali Kerim Bey (Pedro Armendariz). The character proves to be a powerful ally for Bond and is played with absolute perfection by Armendariz. The most interesting yet tragic story of the film is that Armendariz was declared terminally ill with cancer during filming. He struggled to finish the role in order to give his family some financial security.

A month after filming all of his scenes, his illness progressed into the advanced stages and Armendariz committed suicide in a hospital in Los Angeles. Before he left the world, however, he left audiences with one more film performance that fans have enjoyed for decades.

The film also offers two of the best villains in the series. First, there is Rosa Klebb, played by Tony award winning actress Lotte Lenya. One can tell that Lenya is having a great time playing this absolutely vile woman and one of her best scenes is when she tries to kill Bond with a poisoned-tipped dagger on the bottom of her shoe.

Then there is Robert Shaw as Red Grant. Throughout most of the film, Red is stalking Bond throughout his journey and does not even say a word until he reveals himself to Bond later in the movie. Shaw’s Grant is another one of those villains that future Bond villains would try to imitate in later films.

Finally, this film also features the first appearance of Desmond Llewelyn as Q, referred to in this film as Major Boothroyd. In the story, he gives Bond one of the first gadgets to ever appear in a Bond film: an attaché case which features a smoke grenade and fifty gold sovereigns along with a hidden knife. Llewelyn would continue in the role of Q for the next 36 years until his last appearance in 1999’s “The World is Not Enough.”

The only real problem with this film is that of Tatiana Romanova. There is not anything wrong with actress Daniela Bianchi’s performance of the character, there is just not much there. In the end, the character is more boring than Ursula Andress’ Honey Ryder from “Dr. No.”

Beyond that small criticism, however, “From Russia with Love” contains a better story with better action and, for the most part, better characters than those found in “Dr. No.” Audiences of any type should definitely give this one a go.

PRO:

• There is better action and a better story than “Dr. No.”
• Sean Connery is better than ever in the role of 007.
• Robert Shaw is great as Red Grant and his fight with 007 on the Orient Express is one of the bigger highlights.
• Lotte Lenya and Pedro Armendariz are especially noticeable at Rosa Klebb and Ali Kerim Bey, respectively.

CONS:

• While there is nothing wrong with Daniela Bianchi’s performance, her character is just not as effective as Ursula Andress’ Honey Ryder from “Dr. No.”

GRADE: A

Director: Baltasar Kormákur

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale, Ben Foster, Giovanni Ribisi, Caleb Landry Jones, J.K. Simmons

Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures

As far as action films released in January, “Contraband” could have been a lot worse. Unfortunately, it never does anything particularly special with the heist formula that it desperately clings to. The movie has a couple of interesting moments and a good cast for the most part, but ultimately it just bores the audience into a coma.

The story is nothing new. Mark Wahlberg plays Christ Farraday, a former smuggler and thief who has given up his life of crime. Unsurprisingly, this is due to the fact that he has a beautiful wife named Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and two wonderful kids. So, where is the idiot family member that will screw up Chris’ retirement?

That would be Andy (Caleb Landry Jones), Kate’s idiot brother who gets into trouble with drug pusher Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi). The trouble comes after Andy dumps a sizable amount of cocaine when the ship he is on gets boarded. Like several reformed film criminals before him, Chris tries to settle things honestly with Tim, but that would not be much of a movie if Tim accepted and everybody lived happily ever after.

Tim suggests that if Chris cannot settle things before a certain amount of time, Tim will kill Andy and pass along the debt to Chris and his family. Of course, this leaves Chris with no choice but to work with his lifelong friend Sebastian (Ben Foster) and put together another smuggling mission in order to save everybody.

First, the film has some big star power. Wahlberg has proven time after time that he is made for the sensitive tough guy roles in films such as “Four Brothers” and “The Italian Job.” With this film, it is business as usual, but Wahlberg’s appeal is not enough to save this formulaic film.

The true performance of this film comes from Foster as Chris’ best friend Sebastian. Foster is an underrated actor who is often overlooked in films by his more famous costars. Sebastian is a true friend, but is a recovering alcoholic and Foster’s character actually turns out to be the most well developed character featured.

There is only one performance that falls flat and this Ribisi as Tim. The villain is poorly written and there is nothing interesting or threatening about this common idiot. Ribisi should never have taken this roll and no amount of tattoos or slicked black hair will make the character any more chilling.

Earlier, it was mentioned that the film follows the standard heist formula. There is actually nothing wrong with following a formula.  “The Italian Job” also followed the standard procedure of a heist movie, but it was a hell of a lot more entertaining.

Beyond the substandard heist plot, there is also a secondary storyline which involves Kate trying to survive several attempts by Tim to keep reminding Chris just what is at stake. With Chris trying to finish his job, Sebastian is the one who remains to try and protect Kate and the kids. This part of the movie is where the film tries to throw in a few twists that the audience can see coming from a mile away.

The movie does have a handful of exciting moments. One of these moments includes a shootout between criminals that knock over an armored truck and the cops that arrive at the scene. What is weird is how out of place this scene is in a film that doesn’t need something ripped out of superior films such as “Heat.”

While there are strong performances and a few strong action moments, “Contraband” is not a strong start for 2012.

PROS:

• There are a handful of action sequences even though they also rip off other crime dramas such as “Heat.”
• Even though most of them are wasted, there is a healthy amount of star power found in the movie including Ben Foster.

CONS:

• Giovanni Ribisi is the weakest part of the film playing the two-dimensional villain.
• There is nothing new or excited added to the heist formula.
• This movie is so boring, there should be a warning that the movie will put some audience members into a coma.

GRADE: D

A new year is upon us. While 2012 may herald the end of the world, those pesky predictions haven’t stopped the movie studios from getting ready for a big year at the movies. As usual, there are sequels and remakes galore, but there are also some original films that are going to try to appeal to your wallets and hopefully bring some entertainment value with them.

So, now it’s time for me to take a look at some of the films that are looking to take up my time and some space on my site. Below, I have compiled my own personal Top 10 Films to See In 2012. Beyond this list are films that could end up being contenders for Best Film of the year. Right now, though, these are the big ones that I’m looking forward to and I hope you share your thoughts on what will be big in 2012.

1. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

I don’t know a single soul who isn’t looking forward to the follow-up to the “Citizen Kane” of superhero films, “The Dark Knight.” There have been a lot of leaked photos and behind-the-scenes footage over the past year that added to the already insane hype. There are also two trailers that give a sense of finality to director Christopher Nolan’s epic trilogy. This time, Batman must take on the brutal Bane played by Tom Hardy and the sinfully beautiful Catwoman played by Anne Hathaway.

2. PROMETHEUS

A prequel to “Alien” with Ridley Scott returning to the series he helped create? I’m so there. Not only is Scott returning, the film also boast an excellent cast including Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron. Apparently, the film is set in the same universe as “Alien,” but will focus on a completely different aspect that is still connected to the original film. The first trailer was recently released and all systems are go for this sci-fi epic in the making.

3. SKYFALL

This is the 23^rd James Bond film and it’s being released on the 50^th Anniversary of the film franchise. Not much is known about the story, but what is known is that Daniel Craig is returning for his third outing as Agent 007. It will also see the return of Dame Judi Dench as M and Javier Bardem is set to play the main villain this time around. Since production on this film was delayed for an additional year due to MGM’s financial difficulties, I’m looking forward to this film more than ever.

4. THE AVENGERS

Every since 2008’s “Iron Man,” every Marvel film has been one set-up after another for this ultimate superhero team up. Almost every actor is back (Edward Norton will no longer be playing the Hulk) and this time, it looks like “Thor’s” enemy, Loki, is up to no good. The film also comes from writer/director Joss Whedon who has proven that not only is he good with the action, he also knows how to handle an ensemble.

5. THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

This film was another victim to MGM’s financial woes as well as several other production issues. Now, it’s back on track and even though the original director, Guillermo del Toro, eventually stepped down, original “The Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson has taken over and the first trailer looks extremely promising. The only concern I have is how in the hell are they going to split this story up into two full-length feature films? In December, we’ll just have to find out.

6. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Director Sam Raimi made two great “Spider-Man” films, but the third film is one of the worst superhero films ever made. While it may be a little too soon, Columbia Pictures has decided to reboot the series with new director Marc Webb. Andrew Garfield steps into the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and the first trailer seems to show a darker tone than Raimi’s trilogy. Just as long as Peter Parker doesn’t do any Jazz dancing, this should be good.

7. SAFE HOUSE

There are two reasons I want to see this movie: Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Washington and Reynolds are good in their own right and to see them act together for the first time is something to look forward to alone. It also helps that the film appears to be a tight, action-packed espionage thriller about a young agent who watches over a safe house for the C.I.A. When they bring a rogue agent (Washington), the house is hit and the two must work together to figure out who wants the former agent dead.

8. THE GREY

In recent years, Liam Neeson has turned into quite the action badass. This includes the awesome film “Taken.” Beyond that, it’s been hit-and-miss. “The A-Team” was not really a hit, but with “The Grey,” Neeson and “A-Team” director Joe Carnahan hope to make up with the audience about a group of men who are stranded after a plane crash. Not only do they have to survive the elements, they also have to survive a pack of wolves. The trailer got me hooked and I hope the final result is as entertaining as the preview.

9. THE WOMAN IN BLACK

This is a supernatural horror/thriller starring Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe. Admittedly, part of the reason I want to see this film is to get a look at what Radcliffe can do outside of the wizarding world. The other reason I want to see it is that the trailers look good and it could be the horror/thriller I’ve been waiting for to bring the genre out of the land of remakes… though I highly doubt that Hollywood will give up remakes anytime soon.

10. MEN IN BLACK 3

What can I say? I can’t wait to see the latest addition to the MiB franchise. Not only are Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones returning, Josh Brolin joins the action as a younger version of Agent K. Apparently, an alien threat has gone back in time to take out K and Agent J must go back in time to the 1960s in order to save his partner. The second film was not as good as the original, but it was still entertaining. Let us hope that the third outing proves to be another good addition to the series.

Director: Terence Young

Cast: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman, Jack Lord, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell

Photo courtesy of EON Productions

Throughout the ‘50s, author Ian Fleming released a series of novels featuring superspy James Bond. There were many attempts to get a film off the ground, but the rights were always unavailable. Eventually, producer Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli decides to secure the rights.

Broccoli discovered that the rights were held by another producer named Harry Saltzman. After a scheduled meeting in which Broccoli thought he was going to be able to buy the rights, a partnership was formed between the two in order to produce a movie. The two then moved forward with United Artist and made the first James Bond film, “Dr. No,” on a mere budget of one million dollars. Little did they know they were starting a franchise that has lasted for half a century and one that still continues today.

The story for the first film is simple enough. After a British agent goes missing in Jamaica, MI6 sends in agent 007, James Bond (Sean Connery) to investigate the disappearance. When he arrives, Bond is soon attacked by various henchmen that are somehow tied to Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman).

Eventually, Bond finds his way to a secret island that is owned by the evil doctor. After Meeting Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress), 007 must fight his way through the island in order to prevent Dr. No from carrying out his insidious plot.

This film is a classic example of an action thriller in the 1960s. It contains plenty of the elements that would define the series. It has the gun barrel sequence that has been in every Bond film in one way or another. Andress is the first of many women that would be seduced by Bond. It also contains the immortal words that Bond has uttered in almost every film in the series: “Bond, James Bond.”

This of course, is the first Bond film in which audiences got to see Connery as agent 007. With this film and the other five movies that he made afterwards, Connery wrote the rules which all other Bond actors have tried to adhere to. Even Daniel Craig, an actor who has brought more emotional weight back to the character, has admitted that it is Connery’s films that inspire his performance.

One of the reasons that Connery was perfect for the role was the fact that Connery always played Bond as a man who could either charm someone or kill them. This is something that the other actors in the role could never seem to achieve until Craig took over the role in 2006’s “Casino Royale.”

The movie also contains the first in a long line of villains that would try to stop Bond and take over the world. In this case, that villain is the title character of Dr. No. Wiseman plays the iconic villain as a man who is angry at the East and West and has decided to do everything in his power to topple the world’s leading governments.

Like Connery with the role of Bond, Wiseman’s Dr. No set the bar that all other villains have tried to emulate.

Another thing that audiences could never forget was Ursula Andress as the first main Bond girl, Honey Ryder. They especially could not forget her when Bond first meets her coming out of the water with her two piece bikini and knife strapped to the side. Once again, like Connery and Wiseman, she set a standard that all other Bond girls would have to live up to.

Having said all of that, the biggest problem with this film is that one can tell that it was shot on a small budget. Director Terence Young did his best and would later go on to direct two of Connery’s best Bond films, “From Russia with Love” and “Thunderball.” However, here, his resources were limited and it has not aged as well as the others.

Still, the story and Connery’s performance make this a worthy addition to anyone’s Bond collection.

PROS:

• Sean Connery, Joseph Wiseman and Ursula Andress all set the standard for future Bond films to come with their great performances.
• The film set some of the traditions that continue to this day such as the gun barrel sequence an imaginative credit sequences started by Maurice Binder.
• The action, while not as good due to the film’s low budget, is still pretty thrilling.

CONS:

• The film was obviously shot on a budget and despite all of the films aging to some degree, this movie seems to have suffered the most.
• Being the first Bond film, “Dr. No” is rather tame when compared to later entries.

GRADE: B