THE NOVEMBER MAN

Reviewed by Patrick Gibbs


GRADE: C
Pierce Brosnan, Luke Bracey, Olga Kurylenko,
Bill Smitrovich, Eliza Taylor, Will Patton, Mediha Musliovic
Based on the novel "There Are No Spies" by Bill Grainger
Screenplay by Michael Finch and Karl Gajdusek
Directed by Roger Donaldson
Rated R (Violence, sex, a scene of rape and profanity)

I grew up a fan of Pierce Brosnan, having a mother and aunt who were devout Remington Steele fans who let us stay up after The A-Team and watch the show with them. As such, Brosnan was my Bond long before he actually played the role, and though GoldenEye is the only one of his Bond films that realy delivered the goods, I'll always have a strong attachment to the Brosnan era (even if they are not in the same league as what we are seeing in best of the Daniel Craig era.).

But, aside from his stint as Bond, Brosnan has never really found his niche on the big screen. High points include acclaimed box office disappointments like Seraphim Falls, and low points include the colossal embarrassment of Mama Mia, where his singing was so infamously weak as to make Russell Crowe and Gerard Butler look mildly successful at the musical genre. His only genuine, unqualified success outisde of the franchise (not counting his suporting role in Mrs. Doubfire) was The Thomas Crown Affair, where he played Steve McQueen by way of Cary Grant (in other words, James Bond.). It is very clear that audiences see Brosnan as one thing and one thing only, and to that end he returns to the big screen as both producer and star of an attempt at new spy franchise, based on the November Man novels by Bil Grainger.

Peter Devereaux (Brosnan) is a lethal and highly trained C.I.A. agent nicknamed The November Man because "nothing is left alive after he passes through." as the film opens, Deveraux retires after a botched operation wherein a young boy was killed and a permanent wedge is driven between Devereaux and his protégé, David Mason (Luke Bracey.). 

When Devereaux is lured out of retirement for one last mission by an old friend, Hanley (Bill Smitrovich.). The op is strictly off the books, and it involves contacting an old flame, Natalia, who has information regarding Arkady Federov, an ex-Russian General who is runnig for President of his country. But no sooner does Devereaux meet up with Natalia than it becomes clear they are being followed. Natalia is killed, but not before telling Deveraux that he must find Mira Fillipova, a Russian refugee who is connected somehow to Federov. Devereaux realizes that it is the C.I.A. that is following him when he comes face to face with his former pupil in a standoff, though neither man can bring himself to pull the trigger. Deveraux goes on the run, the C.I.A.goes after the seemingly rogue former agent, and the chase is on.

Deveraux discovers a possible lead into finding out who set him up. Enter Alice Fournier, played by Olga Kurylenko, who made her big debut as a Bond girl in Quantum of Solace (which makes me wonder if she is working her way backwards and she will be starring in a film with Timothy Dalton soon.) Alice is connected to a Russian refugee named Mira, and just may not be exactly what she seems. Meanwhile back at the farm, Hanley is taken into custody by the agency, but he refuses to give up his friend. Deveraux must find Mira before Mason finds him, and along the way the body count just keeps piling up.

Though well paced, the film is at once wildly convoluted and incredibly routine: what we can understand is thoroughly predictable. None of the characters are likable enough to make the face off between master and student terribly interesting, and the movie fares best when it is relying on pure action, which is for the most part gritty, well staged, and very bloody, as long time Hollywood workhorse director director Roger Donaldson (The Bounty, Species, 13 Days, The Recruit, The World's Fastest Indian) goes for a less frantic version of the Bournographic style (shooting everything in close up and utilizing zooms, though he wisely resists the urge to emulate Paul Greengrass' signature shaky cam style, which only seems to work when it is actually done by Greengrass himself.). Much of the action is entertaining, but Donaldson makes a very odd choice by completely switching styles for one scene late in the film, going with something more reminiscent of John Woo (minus the doves, thank goodness.) and it clashes badly with the rest of the action.

Brosnan gives a solid performance that shows he's not dead yet, and Luke Bracey (a last minute replacement for Dominic Cooper, who dropped out at the last minute to star in the cinematic triumph that was Need For Speed) establishes himself as a capable, generic hot young leading man type, with genuine breakout potential. and the movie feautures three very memorable scenes built around around the relationship between them, but despite their best eeforts we simply never become invested in the characters. The beautiful and intriguing Kurylenko seems to draw problematic characters like flies, and once again she does the best she can with what she has to work with, while venerable character actor Bill Smitrovich is clearly relishing the opportunity to chew the scenery as the old C.I.A. man who can't be interrogated because he wrote the protocol on the subject.

Brosnan and Donaldson have both scene better days, though it is important to note that The November Man fares far better than their previous collaboration, the wretched volcano destroys a small town disaster flick Dante's Peak (if you haven't seen it, you can simulate the experience by emptying your vacuum cleaner onto your model train layout.). In the end, it's just not a very good script, or a very good story, and it is unlikely to stick with you.

The November Man is rated R for quite a bit of violence, profanity, and sex (including a disturbing rape scene that is arguably vital to the story but something I could have really done without.). If you really go for the esponiage genre and are in the mood for something with a hard edge, this is probably worth a night out at the dollar theater.

THE GIVER

Reviewed by Patrick Gibbs

 

GRADE: B -
Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Odeya Rush, Katie Holmes, Alexander Skarsgard and Taylor Swift
Based on the novel by Lois Lowry
Screenplay by Micahel Mitnick and Robert B. Weide
Directed by Phillip Noyce
Rated PG-13 (for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence)

In reviewing The Giver, I feel the need to make a few qualifying statments that may not endear me to anyone

1. I really liked the book, but I was not blown away by it
As opposed to many of my close friends, I didn't read it when I was in the 10-12 age range. When the book was released in 1993 I was 18 years old and I was reading Schindler's List and trying not to give up on Tom Clancy as he became more overblown and self indulgent. I wasn't reading young adult fiction, I thought I was too old for it. Now, more years later than I care to admit, I have developed a major fondness for literature for younger readers that started with the Harry Potter series. Three Christmases ago I was given a copy of this book, and I finally read it about two months ago. I found Lois Lowry's acclaimed novel utterly captivating and thought provoking, but also a little heavy handed, cheesy, predictable and maybe even just a tiny bit pedantic at times in its allegorical elements (much like one feels if they read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe for the first time when they are older.). I do think it's a genuinely great book for young adults, it just didn't rock my world the way it seems to have for so many.

2. I don't love Meryl Streep
I know, I know. Disturbance in the force. Millions of flamboyantly gay voices just cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Don't misunderstand: of course I think she is a good actress, but she is far from without peer, and in truth I believe part of the reason she gets so much attention is because she has a tendency to go mostly for attention getting roles rather than great stories. I think she's in it for the glory and acclaim.

3.  I think the idea that "the book is always better than the movie is the worst kind of rubbish
This popular form of attempted snobbery is actually extreme ignorance. It comes from the fact that books require a certain level of thinking to get into, while most people make the mistake of watching movies with their brain turned off (unless it is a book adaptation, in which case their brain is entirely devoted to "this character had red hair in the book" and other such distractions, some of which are very relevant, some of which really are not.). In addition, everyone who reads puts something of themselves into a book. When you read a book, you are the director, and you get to decide which elements are the most important. The idea that putting something of yourself into the way you view a film is decidedly foreign to mass audiences, but it's something that those of us who truly love the medium as a art form do all the time, and I believe it is something everyone does on occasion, but usually unconsciously.

Sorry to shock anyone, but there you go. I had to say it. Now for the movie, which, is unfortunately, just the sort of book to film adaptation that makes sure the stereotype stays alive.

Jonas (Brenton Twaites) lives in "The Community," along with his "family unit." Father (Alexander Skarsgard) Mother (Katie Holmes) and sister Lily (Emily Tremblay.) Jonas is apprehensive about the upcoming graduation, where he will be assigned his job or his "assignment in the community." His best friends, Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush) are graduating as well. When it comes time for the ceremony, Fiona is assigned as a nurturer (taking care of infants in the community until they are ready to be assigned to a family unit) and Asher is made a pilot. But Jonas is skipped over, until the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) reveals that he has been saved for a very special assignment: Jonas is to be the new   Receiver of Memories, a job he is told will be filled with pain and the training for which will isolate him from his family and friends forever.

Yet, under the guidance of the present Receiver (Jeff Bridges), a surprisingly kind man who has the same rare, pale eyes as Jonas, the boy absorbs memories that induce for the first time feelings of true happiness and love. Since Jonas is now The Receiver, the older man suggest that Jonas call him "The Giver," as he is passing on the memories to his new pupil. Also, for the first time, Jonas knows what it is to see a rainbow, and to experience snow and the thrill of riding a sled down a hill. But then he is given the painful memories: war, pain, death, and starvation. These are memories of the Community's deep past. Jonas learns that the Community engineered a society of "sameness" to protect its people against this past, yet he begins to understand the tremendous loss he and his people have endured by giving their memories away, embracing "sameness", and using "climate control".

Walden Media, the same company that leaped on the chance to capitalize on the success of The Lords of the Rings by bringing The Chronicles of Narnia to the big screen is trying to do the same thing here by getting in on the current popularity of young adult distopian future fiction. But with Narnia, what they had was really a kiddie Lord of the Rings. This is decidedly not The Hunger Games. The two biggest mistakes made in adapting the book to film are: 1. greatly upping the government paranoia thriller aspect in order to provide more action and suspense, to make Meryl Streep a lead and to give the story a more literal villain, and 2. adding a full fledged romantic subplot. Both of these elements are done to sell this as the next Divergent, which is a more than unfortunate choice. In the book, Jonas has a fondness and a strong attraction to his friend Fiona, but it never materializes into a genuine romance (in the book they were only 11 years old, after all.). This change doesn't serve the story well and leads to at least to the film's single worst moment as Fiona is placed in grave danger. And while Fiona becomes more of a focal point in the film, she is a much more interesting presence in her small role in the book. They also make the mistake of chickening out on the overtly sexual element to his attraction to Fiona, which is played very tastefully in the book as Jonas has a dream about Fiona and discovers longings he has never felt, and is told he is experiencing "the stirrings," which his mother explains happens to most people, and he is given medication to correct the "problem." While there is a throwaway reference made to this incident, the movie plays "the stirrings" more as feelings of romantic attachment than as puberty and the beginings of sexual desire (likely because they are afraid it would be too suggestive on film) but it undercuts the story of Jonas' development into an adult, looses an important element of honesty that made and the book so relateable to its readers, and clumsily alters the nature of the control the community has taken over everyone.

The over emphasis on the "thriller" elements make the community more sinister but less disturbing, and add too much of a blatant Hollywood touch. In addition, a seemingly sensible simplification of events makes the ending feel silly and far too literal. In truth, if this movie had dared to play itself as a full blown art film and dropped the clunky voice over narration and mainstream pandering, it actually had to the potential to be even better than the book, and a true science fiction classic. But it was made for mass audiences, and you can't really blame the filmmakers for that, it's the nature of the industry.  But it's still a crying shame.

The performances are capable, especially from Bridges, but largely forgettable. Streep is good as always, but her character is instrusive and one dimensional. I have to admit that I have never been a Katie Holmes fan: I find her bland and lacking in maturity as an actress. Still, I wanted to give her a chance in this movie because I think it would be nice if she got past the whole distraction of her personal life, but she just can't. Her ex-husband may be the crazy one who caused the baggage in the first place, but he's such a talented actor that I don't think about that stuff when I'm watching his films. When I watch her in a film I am constantly coming up with Mystery Science Theater 3000 style jokes, especially when the movie is about a strict society that controls everyone's lives. Fears that Taylor Swift would be an annoying distraction are, thankfully, not nescesary. I actually forgot that she was in the film and had to check the credits to see who she played. Unfortunately, that does have something to do with the facts that she makes no lasting impression for bad or good in terms of acting, and that this rather small but pivotal role is handled very poorly by the screenwriters.

In its final third, The Giver becomes far too much of an action suspense movie as Jonas's escape from the community is turned into a manhunt. For a society where no one breaks the rules or questions autority, this community suddenly has an extensive police force. Director Phillip Noyce has proven very adept at action in the past, but it's so forced here that it feels like he can't get up much enthusiasm.

The cinematography is a real strength, and the sequences where The Giver shares his memories with Jonas are when the movie works best. The choice to put Jonas inside these memories (wearing a helmet and carrying a rifle in Vietnam, for example) is a very effective way to create the feeling that he's not just seeing these things, he's experiencing them. Ironically, at the time this book was first getting its  following, Noyce was  directing the Harrison Ford Jack Ryan movies and I was watching them and obsessing over every little change for better or worse. It took me a while to judge to figure out what to think of the version of Patriot Games he directed as opposed to the one I had, and his Clear and Present Danger is arguably a great example of movie that is better than the book upon which it was based. This only added to my sincere desire to let this film prove to me it could be as good as the book and me giving it every chance to do so, but sadly, this was not to be, and the film is a big disappointment.

 

RIP MENAHEM GOLAN

Written by Paul Gibbs and Patrick Gibbs

It's the mid to late 1980s. Possibly the early 90s. You've gone to the neighborhood video store, the one before Blockbuster where instead of 87 copies of every new release they had an astonishing number of obscure and shlocky low budget films.  They don't have that copy of Three Men and a Baby you were looking for (years from now it will be hard to remember why you wanted it so badly). So instead you pick up something off of the shelf that catches your eye. You haven't seen it. You haven't even heard of it. And when you go home and watch it, you realize why. And chances are, it was produced by the Cannon Group, under the leadership of Menahem Golan and his cousin Yoram Globus.

Golan and Globus introduced us to the idea of "so bad it's good", and for that they will always have a place in our hearts. In fairness to them it needs to be noted that they very definitely also had a more artistic side, which manifested in adaptations of King Lear and Otello, as well dramatic films like Barfly. But We'll always remember Golan as the 80s answer to Roger Corman. Here are a few of the films we most associate with his name:


SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987)

We have to admit we'll always have a nostalgic bond with this movie, and wish we still had the cardboard stand up of that poster you see. Superman III was Paul's  first major disappointment movie, and he actually cried himself to sleep that night over that idea of it being as bad as it was, while Patrick simply refused to accept that it was terrible because that would mean that life had no meaning. Why on Earth would you turn a Superman movie into a unfunny slapstick mess which gave more screen time to Richard Pryor than the Man of Steel? Why? So, when a new sequel came along that put the emphasis back where it belonged and brought back Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, this was cause for celebration. He even got to fight a super-powered villain again. Yes, we could tell that the effects weren't what it used to be and it just felt smaller, but we tried so hard to like that we did. And darn it, it's a Christopher Reeve Superman movie. Christopher Reeve's Superman was practically a religious figure in our family.

But it's really, really not good. Let's start with the horrible production values inherent from having a budget that barely exceeded what they paid Marlon Brando for the first film. These days an above average intenet fan film wouldn't settle for effects of this quality, and the U.N. building looks more like a City Library. From there we go some atrocious acting from most of the cast (Mariel Hemingway as the daughter of the Daily Planet's new honor comes to mind), choppy editing, ridiculous lapses in logic (why does a nuclear-powered clone of Superman look nothing like Reeve and have Hackman's voice?) and Superman's lamest power ever (rebuild-the-Great-Wall-of-China-vision), and you have an embarrasment for producer Reeve, who was lured back by Cannon's willingess to make the film about nuclear disarament. The idea of Superman interfering in the arms race might have had potential for intriguing film, but Cannon's choice to hire hack director Sidney J. Furie and refusal to give their crown jewel aquisition any more consideration than their latest Chuck Norris debacle lead to a film that Reeve had to warn co-star Jon Cryer (Lex Luthor's nephew Lenny) not to get excited about. And yet, so help us, we want to watch it right now.


GOING BANANAS (1987)
Our Dad brought this home from the video store to cheer the rest of us up one night when we were all feeling seriously under the weather. Bless him for doing that. And in  a way it worked, just not the way he intended.

Dom Deluise, a young child and Jimmie "Dyn-O-Mite" Walker (managing to somehow do a terrible impersonation of Djimon Hounsou 10 years before anyone knew who that was) have an adventure in a fictional African nation called Tangola, where the befriend the least convinsing chimpanzee in movie history and teach him to talk (because they only talk because nobody has said "Bonzo, say banana" before). Soon they're mixed up with a circus and a corrupt police cheif (Herbert Lom), and the audience is laughing at all the wrong things.

 Freakin' Jimmie Walker.




KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1985)

H. Rider Haggard's novel was written to win a bet that he could write an adventure story as popular as Treasure Island, and this movie was apparently made so Golan and Globus could win a bet that they could make the most shameless Indiana Jones rip-off ever without getting sued.

Richard Chamberlain, as iconi adventurer Allan Quatermain  is costumed to look like Indy but he plays him more like Steve Guttenberg's Officer Mahoney from Police Academy. And there is no chemistry whatsoever between him and Sharon Stone's spoiled rich girl Jesse Huston. Vilains John Rhys-Davies and Herbert Lom (notice a pattern here?) chew the scenery relentlessly, and, as always, the effects are abysmal. Director J. Lee Thompson (The Guns of Navarone) saw much better days. Lucky he didn't stick around for  . . .



ALLAN QUATERMAIN AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (1986)

This sequel was shot back-to-back with King Solomon's Mines, but is oddly different in tone, trying to play the material much straighter. It doesn't help, though James Earl Jones as Quatermain's African sidekick does a better accent than Jimmie Walker.

Chamberlain finds the romantic chemistry he was missing with Sharon Stone . Unfortunately, it's with Martin Rabbett, the actor playing his brother (Rabbett was Chamberlain's real-life romantic partner at the time). But Stone does her best to get his attention, setting the tone for the rest of her career in a scene where she inexplicably stands up in a moving car and throws off her dress with wild abandon.

These films were the low point for adaptations of Haggard's novel until 2008, when the straight-to-video Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls took the title. But these are far more fun to give you own MST3K commentary.


THE DELTA FORCE (1986)


To be perfectly honest, we only really remember 3 things about this film:

1. Chuck Norris was terrible in it.

2. The musical score seemed to be an endless repeat of one theme played on an Atari computer.

2. At one point during a subtitled sequence, one of the terrorists says "All right" in English, and it's subtitled as "Okay".







HERCULES (1983)

Lou Ferrigno tosses around meteorites and lions, and pretends to keep a straight face while playing off of Sybil Danning in what may be the hokiest Hercules movie ever made, and that includes the two released this year.










OVER THE TOP (1987)
Sylverster Stallone plays Lincoln Hawk, a struggling trucker who arm wrestles on the side to make extra cash while trying to rebuild his life. Hawk's estranged wife Christina, who is very ill, asks that Hawk pick up their son Michael from mililtary school so that the two of them can get to know each other; Hawk had left them 10 years earlier. Michael's controlling grandfather Jason Cutler, a wealthy man who hates Hawk and disapproved of his daughter's relationship with him, believes that Hawk has no right to be in his grandson's life, hires his goons to follow the father and son team.

The strangest thing about this movie is that it actually works when focusing on the father son relationship, but is laughably bad when focusing on the A-Team villain of a grandfather and the arm wrestling championship. While no one openly acknowledges it, this movie was basically  remade as Real Steel starring Hugh Jackman, with robot boxing instead of arm wrestling.



While Menahem Golan is gone, the memories remain. His goofy schlock can be criticized for many things, but you can't say his movies just blended in or weren't memorable. He was certainly a unique and prolific filmmaker with a long and varied career.

INTO THE STORM

Reviewed by Patrick Gibbs

GRADE: F
Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies, Matt Walsh, Max Deacon, Jeremy Sumpter, Alycia Debnam Carey, Nathan Kress
Written by John Swetnam
Directed by Stephen Quale
Rated PG-13

1996's Michael Crichton blockbuster Twister is a dumb movie trying to convince you it is a smart one. But its one of my all time great guilty pleasures, with a strong cast including Helen Hunt and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, fast pacing and some very amusing dialogue (thanks to an uncredited rewrite by Joss Whedon.). And while Twister may try to pretend it's smart, it never loses sight of the fact that it's main goal is to entertain, and it doesn't take itself too seriously. In 1999, a very different film called The Blair Witch Project made a big impact by creating the "found footage" genre. This movie was a polar opposite to Twister: made on almost no budget, with no effects or stars, what made The Blair Witch Project work is that it took itself deadly seriously in terms of tone, so much so that early audiences thought they were seeing a real documentary. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Blair Witch. I saw it far too late, after all the hype, and I was really underwhelmed. But I do have a respect for what the filmmakers achieved given their resources, and the fact that they created an artificial reality and narrative device and stuck firmly to it, never wavering and really selling us on the narrative device.

Into The Storm (which is not to be confused with the acclaimed HBO movie starring Brendan Gleeson as Winston Churchill) seems to be the result of someone's drunken idea that it would be a good idea to combine Twister and The Blair Witch Project, in the most literal possible sense. This movie tries to combine the found footage genre with the blockbuster disaster movie as sloppily as possible. It wants to put us into the action in the style of both films, never mind that the two styles couldn't clash more. Cloverfield did found footage while using a Hollywood budget and spectacular effects, but Into The Storm goes so far as to have a full orchestral score! We are left with the inescapable conclusion that writer John Sweetnam, who wrote and sold a spec script, and Director Stephen Quale (in his first turn at bat after serving as an Assistant Director on films such as Titanic and Avatar) wanted to make entirely different films, and neither one of them was experienced enough at telling a story to have a clue what they were doing.

The "plot," as it were, centers around the town of Silverton, Oklahoma. Teenage brothers Donnie and Trey (Max Deacon and Nathan Kress, respectively) are video junkies who are shooting everything because they are making a "video time capsule," which consists mostly of people recording messages to themselves 25 years in the future, and telling their future selves about what life was like for them back now (because it would be impossible for anyone to know their own thoughts if they did not express them aloud to themselves on camera.). Donnie and Trey live with father, Gary (Richard Armitage, best known as Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit.). Gary is the Vice Principal of the local High School, and his relationship with his sons has been strained since the death of his wife. Meanwhile, a group of stormchasers and documentary filmmakers head to Silverton in search of tornadoes. They are lead by Pete (Matt Walsh), a man obsessed with making the ultimate documentary about tornadoes and actually getting footage from the eye of the storm, and Allison (Sarah Wayne Collins), a young meteorologist who wants to make a difference but does not want to put anyone in harm's way. And, just to make sure we fully cover our bases and make sure there are enough people shooting video to make the movie work, we have the two local jackasses (Kyle Dais and Jon Reep) who shoot stupid human tricks for their YoutTube channel. These two are meant to be the film's comic relief, which is ironic because they were just about the only thing at the press screening that never got a single laugh.

Silverton is, of course, ravaged by a record number of tornadoes in one day, and all of the cookie cutter characters are spread throughout the town, with the goals of A. getting everything on video, and B. surviving if possible. Eventually, they all come together and their plots intertwine and the storm forces them to band together and yadda yadda yadda if this sounds boring in print, imagine having to watch it.

I went into this movie expecting it to be a 3D effects film, but as it turns out it's not in 3D, which, combined with hearing that there was a found footage element, lead me to expect a lot of  nausea inducing shaky cam shots. The good news is that those are minimal. The bad news is, it makes no sense that they are. Whenever we see shots from the point of view of Trey's rinky dink little hand held camera that looks like it was made in the '90's, the image is not only pristine, but it is clearly on a steadicam to keep the movement smooth and slick. And despite the fact that not a one of these people has anything beyond a built in camera mic, the sound recording is perfect, filtering out only the dialogue we need to hear and never getting drowned out by background noise, even when there is a tornado (and most of the time, of course, there is one.). To say that the "found footage element" strains credibility is a gigantic understatement: there are shots in this movie that you couldn't get in a documentary if you strapped a Go Pro to God's forehead, and we are forced to assume that there is an an additional crew film everyone else film each other. (I cannot wait for the behind the scenes feature on the Blu Ray where we get to watch video coverage of people shooting people pretending to shoot video of other people pretending to shoot video while the whole thing is caught on video.).

The nicest thing that can be said about the performances is that they are so bland that at a number of times I actually wanted someone to sprinkle some salt, or even Cayenne Pepper, on Richard Armitage. Armitage's bad American accent and aloof manner made this the second bad movie this year to make me sit through the whole thing wishing that Gerard Butler was starring in it (the other one being 300: Rise Of An Empire), and if you read my ten worst list last year, you know what a big deal that is. In fairness to Armitage, who has been so memorable (if rather stoic) as the leader of the company of dwarves, is woefully miscast in this role, but he gives one of the dullest performances ever captured on film/digital video/more digital video/and even more digital video/High School security cameras (why we bother cutting away to these for two shots is a complete mystery.).  Walsh is at least memorably silly as the one track minded Pete, who will stop at nothing to get the shot he wants, but as a whole the cast is at best forgettable, and the father/son trio of Armitage, Deacon and Kress manage to go throughout the film without any defining personality traits.

And then there's the science: whether it is scientist Allison explaining to Gary that "if these patterns continue the tornadoes could start spreading."

"Spreading? To where?"

"Places tornadoes have never been. California, Ohio . . . " (Disneyland? The Moon, etc.)

 or  camera operator moving in to get a closer shot of (I am not making this up) a tornado that has caught on fire, or the moment when Pete, in his tornado proof tank, actually is sucked up into an F5 and until he flies to the top and for a moment rises ABOVE THE TORNADO and sees the majesty of the heavens (the entire audience erupted into howls of laughter at this moment), it all makes Twister look like solid scientific fact.

Into The Storm is so bad and provoked so much hostility from the viewing press at this screening that when my brother and co-host Paul Gibbs was asked to give feebdback to a studio rep and he replied with "I thought it was a cancerous polyp on the anus of cinema, and I'm only saying that because I'm trying to be kind" the fellow taking the feedback not only didn't bat an eye, he wrote this sentence down verbatim.

Into The Storm is rated PG-13 for action peril, profanity and mild vulgarity.

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES

Reviewed by Paul Gibbs

GRADE: B
Starring Megan Fox,  Will Arnett, Johnny Knoxville, William Fichtner, Tony Shalhoub
Directed by Jonathan Liebsman
Rated PG-13 (violence, mild profanity)




The 1990s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies and cartoons are a perfect example of how nostalgia can rose-color perceptions. The acting and writing in the movies was frequently terrible. But I'll freely admit that I have a fondness for the turtles which goes back to the original comic book and the role-playing game which sprung from it, and taking my little sister to see those first two movies is a great memory. I still revisit them from time to time and, while sometimes I groan, I also have quite a bit of fun. And I still think the 2007 animated film TMNT is underrated.

> For those of us with a fondness for the franchise, it's good news that the Michael Bay produced reboot of  isn't anywhere near the disaster it was anticipated to be (no, they aren't aliens, and no, the evil Ninja Shredder has not been turned into a caucasian American.). In fact it's hard to remember a movie getting more mileage out of simply not being terrible. That's not to say director Jonathan Liebsman's film is a complete success. There are plenty of things to criticize. But fears of it bearing no resemblence to the source material have not been realized, and it's a lot less shrill, chaotic and just plain irritating than Bay's Transformers movies have been. Taken as what it is, it's an enjoyable enough nostalgia trio for fans.

> The basic set-up is the same as always: intrepid reporter April O'Neil (played this time by Megan Fox) investigates the proliferation of a Ninja-based criminal organization called the Foot clan, and ends up encountering four pizza loving teenaged turtles who have been trained in the ways of martial arts by a rat named Splinter. They are named Leonardo, Donatello, Michaelangelo and Raphael after the famed renaissance artists.
>

> The turtles' backstory has been considerably reworked to include April and  a scientist named Eric Sacks (William Fichtner), in what will likely be the biggest sore point among fans. But it's worth noting that the popular cartoon series which introduced most fans to the property also played fast and loose with the origion story. I personally didn't mind the alteration to make April a part of their past and giver her a more personal stake in the story, but I didn't see the point in how watered down the Japanese/Martial arts aspect of their past was, especially considering Splinter's obvious Japanese apperance and the fact that the villainous Shredder was still part of the equation (though his overly elaborate gadget armor makes him feel less like a ninja and more like a Transformer).

 

> The humans are actually, as a general rule, less grating than they often were in the 1990s films or the cartoon. I've never been a Megan Fox fan, but she's just fine as the film's nominal protagonist, and it's nice to see April a lot less sexed up and objectified than her Transformers character was. Will Arnett is likable as April's co-worker Vernon Fenwick. In many ways it's a shame that the gifted comic is never given anything all that funny to do, but it's actually quite enjoyable to see him play the shy guy for a change. Fichtner is far less over the top than he was in The Lone Ranger, and neither particularly distinguishes or embarasses himself.
>
> Of course, it all really comes down to the turtles. I don't agree with the common geek perception
that these incarnations look "creepy" (one of the most annoying ubiquitous and lazy geek geek words for something that doesn't look the way they think it should) , but I conceed that they are overly buffed up and less overtly endearing than other versions have been. But they're still the turtles that fans know and love, with their personalities more or less intact and a strong bond between them. After a point I more or less forgot about how different they looked and just embraced them. But it's a shame to see their characters and group dynamic underdeveloped, especially considering that the movie is a good 25 minutes longer than it really needs to be at 101 minutes. We could have used fewer scenes of April arguing with her boss (a sleepwalking Whoopi Goldberg) and more which developed the tension between Leonardo and Raphael. Their best moments come toward the end when we get to see their brotherly bond in the face of danger. Overall, I liked the turtles, and that's what made the film as enjoyable as it was.
>

> Director Liebsman and his writers have developed an overall fairly flat tone and a plot which is once flimsy and over complicated. But a few enjoyable actions.sequences (especially a chase down a snowy mountain) help. Liebsman tends to shoot some of the scenes too chaotically, but not as much so as producer Bay likes to do when he's directing.
>
> Ultimately this is neither the best nor the worst Ninja Turtles movie. It's esentially a guilty pleasure, but with Bay involved that feels like a small miracle, and anybody who whines about how it murdered their childhood is an even bigger ass than is usual in these situations. Take an 8 to 10 year old kid with you (I had two of nephews with me at the screening and that enhanced the experience a lot), keep your expectations low, and just go with it, and it'll bring back fond memories. If you don't have fond memories of the franchise and you're over 15, this movie isn't really for you.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is rated PG-13 for violence, mild profanity, one or two mildly vulgar gags and a shot of Megan Fox's butt in tight jeans. In most cases I'd say it's okay for kids 8 and up with an adult with them, or for kids 13 and up.

THE HUNDRED FOOT JOURNEY

Reviewed by Patrick Gibbs

GRADE: A
Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayall, Charlotte Le Bon, Farzana Dua Elahe, Amit Shah, Michel Blanc
Based on the novel by Richard C. Morais
Screenplay by Steven Knight
Directed by Lasse Hallstrom
Rated PG

Lasse Halstrom, once a perennial nominee who specialized in maufactured Oscar bait for Miramax, has kind of been pushed into the background and is not generally viewed as a relevant director these days. But with the right material and cast, Hallstrom's penchant for light, charming character based stories may be exactly what this summer needed, and together with producers Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey, he serves up a delicious new dish that is just the antidote for all of the mayhem and and explosions going on in the auditorium next door.

Displaced from their native India, the Kadam family, led by Papa (Om Puri) wanders throughout Europe looking for the right place to settle. Papa's second son, Hassan (Manish Dayal) is an amazing cook, and the Papa is looking to get back into the restuarant business. After leaving England (where the vegetables "have no soul") they set up a new home in the village of Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val in the South of France, and Papa determines that this is the perfect place to set up an authentic Indian Restaurant. The rest of the family argues that the French have their own food and their own restaurants, but Papa's believes that when the people get a taste of Indian food, they'll discover what they have been missing all this time, and the family opens up the Maison Mumbai.

But Papa's plans are quickly complicated when Madame Mallory (Academy Award Winner Helen Mirren) the proprietress of Le Saule Pleureur, a Michelin starred, classical French Restaurant that happens to be right across the street, takes objection to the presence of her new neighbors. Meanwhile, Hassan develops an interest in French cuisine, not to mention Madame Mallory's enchnating young sous chef, Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon.). After a few chance meetings between Papa and Madame Mallory, it isn't long before a full scale culinary war breaks out.

The Hundred Foot Journey is not just a story about culture clashes, it's about reconiling the Chocolat, the Best Picture nominated film that is either considred to be the Academy Award nominated highlight of Hallstrom's career or the hammy, heavy handed and overplayed personification of Miramax's "let's buy another Oscar" period.). Helen Mirren is wonderful as the pompous Madame Mallory, who (big surprise) has a much warmer side than we initially suspect. Mirren turns what could have easily been a by the numbers character into an understated and endearing performance that deserves to be remembered at Oscar time, and Om Puri as Papa is genuinely terrific and completely lovable. It is very nice to see this film side step the obvious cliches of the domineering, oppressive patriarch and subjugated women one expects in a depiction on Indian culture. Early on, when a customs agent questions daughter Mahira (the dazzling Farzana Dua Elahe) as to whether she is travelling to France for an arranged marriage, she replies "Please. NOTHING in this family is arranged." Dayall is quite likeable as Hassan, the rising star of the family, and the chemistry between Dayall and LeBon is almost as good as that between Mirren and Puri.
unreconcilable. Family duty versus ambition, tradition versus innovation,  and curry versus wine. Director Hallstrom is in top form with this delightful tale, and his cast all works will each other, never against each other (as was the case in

The Hundred Foot Journey is certainly not on anyone's blockbuster must see list for the summer, and it's also unlikely to be a major awards contender. But if you want to sit back and enjoy a sincere and enjoyable film that will make walk out feeling happy, this is easily your best bet for the season.

The Hundred Foot Journey is Rated PG for thematic elements, some violence, language and brief sensuality  (kissing.).

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

Reviewed by Patrick Gibbs

GRADE: A 

Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Michael Rooker, Lee Pace, Karen Gillan, Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel
Based on the comic book by Dan Abnet and Andy Lanning

Screenplay by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman

Directed by James Gunn

I tend to enter every MARVEL Studios movie a bit skeptical. They come so frequently that it is hard not to feel that they are beating it into the ground, and each time I wonder if I'm going to be seeing the one that finally falls flat on its face. That being said, the only one of their films I have truly disliked is The Incredible Hulk, and I have not been disappointed by one of their films since Iron Man 2, which had too many characters and was more concerned with setting up The Avengers than telling a cohesive story. But since then, each movie has decidedly delivered as a top notch piece of popular entertainment, if not always a truly great film. I even stuck with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. while others wrote it off, and was very much rewarded for Imy loyalty. Still, when you put a new superhero movie at least once a year, it seems like it's got to wear out its welcome at some point.

But with Guardians of The Galaxy, Marvel seems to have taken its cue from PIXAR, which smartly chose to shake of the formula a bit with The Incredibles, even though the formula was still working at the time. Guardians really isn't a superhero movie, and though certain plot elements were teased in both The Avengers and especially Thor: The Dark World, you really don't have to have seen any of the other previous MARVEL movies to have a  blast with this silly, over the top and thoroughly enjoyable space opera. 

In 1988, following his mother's death, a young  boy named Peter Quill is abducted from Earth by the Ravagers, space-pirates led by Yondu (Michael Rooker), who eventually adopts him. 26 years later, Quill (now played by Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation) steals a sphere-artifact only to be intercepted by the Kree, servants to the fanatical Ronan The Accuser (Lee Pace), servant to Thanos (the villain teased at the end of The Avengers, voiced here by Josh Brolin.)  Although Quill escapes with the artifact, Yondu discovers he has stolen the Ravager's prize, and issues a bounty for his capture, while Ronan sends the assassin Gamora (Saldana) after the sphere.

When Quill attempts to sell the sphere on the Nova Corps homeworld of Xandar, Gamora ambushes him and steals it. A fight ensues, drawing in two bounty hunters, the genetically-engineered raccoon, Rocket (Cooper) and the humanoid tree, Groot (Diesel.).The Nova Corps arrive and arrest the group, imprisoning them in the Kiln. The powerful inmate, Drax (pro wrestler Dave Bautista), attempts to kill Gamora for his family's murder by Ronan, who has led a slaughter of worlds in pursuit of Kree purity, but Quill convinces Drax that Gamora can bring him to Ronan. Gamora reveals that she has betrayed Ronan, and that he intends to use the sphere's power to destroy entire planets, starting with Xandar. Learning that Gamora has a buyer for the sphere, Rocket, Quill, Groot, and Gamora work together to escape the Kiln.

It goes without saying that this band of misfits become a reluctant team, and eventually, heroes.  This much is hardly a surprise. What is a surprise is just how well the film works, and how much fun it is. This is easily the cheesiest and more ridiculous major space adventure in many years, but it is so comfortable in its own skin that not only does in not matter, its actually a major part of the film's considerable appeal. The visual effects are a mixture of breathtaking and deliberately hokey, but in a way that really works (as I watched the film, more than once I found myself thinking "Ahhh, so this is what The Fifth Element played like to people who actually enjoyed it."). It's definitely the best use MARVEL has made of 3D since The Avengers.

Pratt proves to be a capable, if still highly comedic, leading man, and Saldana reminds us that despite a string of flops, she's no fluke: she's really a terrific actress with incredible star quality. But the real standouts, despite being only voices, are Cooper and Diesel as Rocket and Groot. Cooper, who never ceases to impress, is clearly having a ball stepping so far out of type, and  gives a thoroughly hilarious yet touching performance, and Diesel gets so much emotion of his line reads (despite the fact that they consists only of the words "I am Groot" that we are reminded of his early work in Saving Private Ryan and The Iron Giant, and left to wonder what he could be if he was routinely in a higher quality of film. Bautista is very effective as Drax, and Karen Gillan (Amy Pond on the BBC's Doctor Who) gives  a  memorable  turn in a role that could not be more different from the girl who waited; Michael Rooker gives a peformance that would come across as scenery chewing if it were any other actor, but works very smoothly,  and while Benicio Del Toro, Glenn Close and John C. Reilly only appear in small roles, they add a lot to the film, especially Reilly. Unfortunately, the great Djimon Hounsou (Amistad, Gladiator, Blood Diamond) is wasted in a thankless and superfluous role, and while Lee Pace (Lincoln, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and TV's Pushing Daisies) makes an adequate villain, it's a very one note villain, and one note performance. Most of this should be attributed to a script and director that never try to make him more, but so far Pace's film performances seem to denote a fairly one note actor, and this is just the latest example of the highly theatrical style that has me on the fence as to whether I find him entertaining or incredibly annoying (ultimately a bit of both, I suppose.).

Writer/Director James Gunn is at the top of his game here, which may not sound like much from a guy who's past writing credits include both Scooby Doo films and one of the worst segments of Movie 43, but it's really amazing what a genuine love of your material can do. Gunn seems to have been born to make this film, and he certainly gets the most out of it. And the soundtrack of '70's pop songs, which is a huge part of Peter Quill's character,  is surprisingly wonderful, each song feeling carefully chosen and motivated apart from being extremely catchy (the best being Hooked On A Feeling and Ain't No Mountain High Enough.). You don't have to be a big fan of this kind of music to appreciate its use in the film, because Quill's love it is so infectious, And while the movie's opening sequence, involving the tragic death of Quill's mother to cancer during his childhood, seems far too heavy for such a lightweight film, it ends up being quite effective as we realize that this is really a deeper movie about love, loss, adversity, and the inner strength one has to find to go on.


By far my biggest complaint with the film is that after seeing it twice, I still really don't have much stronger an idea of who or what Thanos is (I was among the large percentage of the audience left scratching their heads at the stinger in The Avengers.). I get that he's powerful and evil, but who IS he? What is he? Why is he?  Hopefully Avengers: Age Of Ultron (a movie that seems in desperate need of "the: somewhere in its title) will finally shed a little light on the character, though it is so packed with characters that I don't hold out too much hope. He means something to devoted comic book readers and the rest of us are supposed to just accept that.

All in all, this is a rollicking good time, and very welcome change of pace. This is a movie you will likely find yourself seeing more than once.

Guardians Of The Galaxy is Rated PG-13 for violence, profanity and vulgarity.