White House Down

Directed by Roland Emmerich.

2013. Rated R, 131 minutes.

Cast:

Channing Tatum

Jamie Foxx

Maggie Gyllenhaal

Richard Jenkins

James Woods

Jason Clarke

Joey King

Nicolas Wright

Michael Murphy

Rachelle Lefevre

Agent John Cale (Tatum) works on the security detail for Speaker of the House Eli Raphelson (Jenkins). Through some favors, he got that job and finagles his way into an interview for a position in the Secret Service at the White House, because that's really how you get a job guarding the most powerful men in the free world. It so happens that the person interviewing him, Agent Finnerty (Gyllenhaal), is an ex-girlfriend from college. Given that, and a spotty work history, he doesn't get hired. Since his daughter is a political buff and absolutely adores Pres. James W. Sawyer (Foxx), he brought her along and she gets separated from him because she has to make a trip to the restroom. Wouldn't ya know it? This is precisely when all hell breaks loose as terrorists storm the property, guns blazing. Pretty soon, Cale realizes he's the only one who can save both his daughter and the Chief Executive.

To my surprise, White House Down takes a little longer to kick into high gear than expected. This is actually a good thing. These early scenes establish our characters nicely and are fairly funny. The mood is kept light and wee see the bad guys moving into position. During this time, star Channing Tatum exudes the easy charm, and yes ladies, the movie star looks that have made him famous. Co-star Jamie Foxx isn't bad, but seems to be caught in a bit of a conundrum. It appears he is unsure how much Pres. Obama should be in his character. He vacillates between impersonation and doing his own thing. Like Tatum, though, he has a natural charm that pulls him through without being too big a detriment.

Once the fireworks start, this is solid turn-your-brain-off fare that never threatens to get too heavy. It doesn't attempt to brow-beat you into a flag waving frenzy, either. That last thing is a huge problem with this movie's barely older twin sister, Olympus Has Fallen. I am an American, proud to be one. Still, movies that are relentlessly heavy-handed tend to leave me cold, regardless of how great its message. Thankfully, that isn't the case with WHD. Sure, there is some overt patriotism going on, but it feels organic to the plot, not the product of overbearing propagandists. It just follows two guys, one of whom happens to be the President of the United States, as they try to maneuver their way out of the White House even though bad guys control the premises. They have a nice chemistry which certainly helps. And yup, not only does everything go boom all around them, they make plenty of things go boom themselves.

The villain does the usual ranting and raving, plus their is plenty of in-fighting with his team. Meanwhile, the secondary characters on the good side do the prerequisite hand wringing. It's all pretty much par for the course. The only standout being the overall quality of the cast. Even though it is just a big, dumb action flick, they bring the goods.

Where the movie strains just a bit is when it over-twists itself. It spends lots of time building up one character as our bad guy, giving him a detailed backstory and the whatnot. Eventually, as must always be the case, we switch gears and find out there's someone else involved. Normally, this would be fine. Here, it occurs so late in the proceedings we get almost nothing about him that matters. It's not quite a deal breaker, but it does take some air out of the balloon.

Plot malfunctions aside, we still have a fun ride on our hands. It's got loads of action, it's goofy at times, and genuinely humorous at others. Our two leads work together very easily. I wouldn't mind seem them together again. Maybe they can do a buddy-cop movie or something, not a sequel. We don't need a part two. However, I did have a good t ime watching this. Without the Kong-like chest-thumping of Olympus Has Fallen, I felt free to just enjoy it, not be brow-beaten by it. I understand lots of people didn't like WHD. After all, it is loud and stupid. You know what, though? It works for me.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Turbo

Directed by David Soren.

2013. Rated PG, 96 minutes.

Cast:

Ryan Reynolds

Paul Giamatti

Samuel L. Jackson

Michael Peña

Snoop Dogg

Maya Rudolph

Michelle Rodriguez

Luis Guzman

Bill Hader

Richard Jenkins

Ken Jeong

Mario Andretti

Ironically, Turbo (Reynolds) is a snail. He loves Formula One racing, especially his hero Guy Gagné (Hader) and wants nothing more than to go really fast. As you might imagine, being a snail makes this rather difficult. Still, a boy can dream. Unfortunately, that dreaming makes it hard for him to perform the mundane tasks of daily life. This includes doing his job for which he is under the supervision of his much more cautious brother Chet (Giamatti). Frustrated with life, Turbo finds himself looking over the freeway. Somehow he finds himself on it, barely surviving the harrowing ordeal. When he comes to, he discovers that his shell is suddenly a high-powered engine that enables him to travel at ridiculous speeds. One thing leads to another and Turbo and Chet wind up in the care of Tito (Peña), a taco salesman/snail racer with big ideas. Trying to get Turbo into the Indy 500 ensues.

Following Turbo on his quest is a fun adventure that is well paced and breezes by easily. The racing scenes are all exciting and should bring the youngsters to the edge of their seats as a decent amount of tension is created by them. The story between them holds together pretty well, also. As nonsensical as it sounds, we buy into it. We get caught up in whether or not this little snail can do the impossible.

Helping to sell all of this to us is a remarkable cast. To me, this begins with two wonderful actors doing superb voice work, Paul Giamatti and the incomparable Samuel L. Jackson. Both are just plain amazing. Giamatti provides a persistent naysayer who makes his opinions clearly known. Jackson brings his familiar persona to the role and somehow makes it all the way through the film without dropping F-bombs. Between the two of them, they get most of the movie’s best lines. However, they are not alone. Michael Peña, Bill Hader, Snoop, and Ken Jeong are all excellent, as well. Luis Guzman shines in the very nearly thankless role of Tito’s big brother Angelo, but not given nearly as much to do. All of them overshadow leading snail Ryan Reynolds. It’s not that he is bad, it’s that they are so good.

By the end, we have an easily graspable film about chasing your dreams and never giving up. This message is telegraphed pretty far in advance so that might lessen some of its potency, but it still works. Best of all, it’s not something we have to dwell on. Things are kept lighthearted enough so the kids don’t feel brow-beaten when it’s over. It stands a bit ahead of most animated kiddie fare, but is not quite special.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Jack Reacher

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie.

2012. Rated PG-13, 130 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Cruise

Rosamund Pike

Richard Jenkins

David Oyelowo

Robert Duvall

Werner Herzog

Alexia Fast

Josh Helman

Dylan Kussman

Joseph Sikora

Our movie begins with a seemingly random shooting spree. From a parking deck across the street, sniper James Barr (Sikora) picks off five people, gets back into his van and speeds away. Through some crack police work, Det. Emerson (Oyelowo) figures out who the bad guy is, takes the SWAT team over to the guy’s house and arrests him. While awaiting trial in prison, some fellow inmates lay a beat-down on Barr. Before falling into a coma, he requests that Emerson, and District Attorney Rodin (Jenkins) get Jack Reacher (Cruise). They have no idea how to get a hold of Mr. Reacher since he’s been missing for the last few years. Luckily for them, Reacher catches wind of the shooting on the news and just strolls into the police station on his own. In a strange move for both parties considering Reacher’s feelings on the matter, he winds up working for Helen (Pike), Barr’s defense attorney, who also happens to be the daughter of the DA. Reacher investigating the crime ensues.

If you’re a Tom Cruise hater, there is no reason for you to watch this movie or read beyond this point. You've already decided not to see this movie. And yes, he more or less plays Tom Cruise. This character feels no different than Ethan Hawke from the Mission: Impossible flicks, or from his character in Knight and Day, or any number of films where he’s tasked with saving the day. On the other hand, if the mere mention of his name does not make you physically ill, then stick it out. By this point, he seems to have become a one trick pony. Thankfully, it is not a terrible trick.

Fortunately, our supporting cast is solid. Pike does fine work as Barr’s lawyer. She’s delightfully defiant in her willingness to defend an apparently guilty man. The drawback is that her chemistry with Cruise is a bit off. This is, at least partly, due to the script. It can’t figure out if it wants there to be sexual tension between them or not. Things initially head down that path, but the trip is abandoned. Richard Jenkins is great, as always, albeit in brief bursts of screen time. During the movie’s latter parts it is completely stolen by Robert Duvall and, surprisingly, famed director Werner Herzog. The two find themselves on opposing sides, but neither is any less enjoyable than the other. We just enjoy them differently. Duvall brings us comic relief while Herzog creeps us out.

Since we follow him around much of the time, we must get back to our hero. Reacher goes all over town chasing down leads and, as expected, this gets him into the occasional scrape. We focus more on the following of the clues than the violence. The movie is successful with this as what’s going on becomes increasingly interesting. There are just enough twists within the narrative to keep us paying attention to what’s between action scenes. This is very important because there really is not that much action. That fact, plus our expectations, for those of us who have seen the trailer, help create an identity crisis for our feature. It never seems sure if it’s a procedural or an action flick. As the former, things tend to come a little too easily for our hero. As the latter, as I've mentioned, there’s not quite enough of it. Of course, our finale is one where bullets and fists fly. While that’s not terribly original, it is entertaining. For some, however, it may be too little too late.

Overall, Jack Reacher is a fun movie. It’s a popcorn flick with ever-so-slightly more on its mind than the usual. We get an intriguing tale with some enjoyable performances. It’s not a bad way to pass two hours. That said, you must understand that if you’re looking for a non-stop action shoot ‘em up, this is not it.

Killing Them Softly

Directed by Andrew Dominik.

2012. Rated R, 97 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Richard Jenkins

Ray Liotta

James Gandolfini

Scoot McNairy

Sam Shepard

Ben Mendelsohn

Slaine

Vincent Curatola

Max Casella

Trevor Long

Linara Washington

When a mob run card game gets robbed, the local economy is severely affected. It pretty much comes to a halt and won’t get going again until the people responsible are dealt with. And I don’t mean by the police, either. This is where enforcer Jackie Cogan (Pitt) comes in. He promptly gets to work figuring out the issues. Of course, his taking any action requires permission he has to work through his unnamed liaison (Jenkins) to get. Meanwhile, we also watch the schmucks who did it assess the situation from their point of view.

Brad Pitt is excellent in the lead. He hits every note perfectly. His cold-blooded arrogance is difficult to look away from. The supporting cast, mostly of sporadic screen-time is wonderful, as well. Each one makes us feel what’s at stake for them more than just by the words they speak. Of course, two characters never fully understand the potential consequences, but we feel that too. There is one performance that stands head and shoulders above the rest, though. James Gandolfini as overly seasoned vet hit-man Mickey is absolutely fantastic. He’s a very bad guy with a bad attitude and some serious personal problems. Somehow, the actor crafts him into someone we feel sorry for in spite of who and what he is. He commands your attention whenever he’s on screen, even away from Pitt.

This is not a movie heavy on action. However, what is there is visually arresting. Unfortunately for him, Markie (Liotta) is on the receiving end of two of these scenes. One is spectacularly brutal and the other is an amazing slo-mo sequence. Other than that latter scene, all of the action has an real feel to it. I’ll admit to flinching once or twice.

As great as the performances and  the visuals are, the hardly concealed subtext has to be addressed. The movie is set during the financial crisis that marred the final days of George W. Bush’s presidency and set the table for Barack Obama’s. Just so you don’t forget this, political news is constantly used as background noise, either on television or radio. From time to time, the focus even shifts directly to it. It comes across as totally cynical and, perhaps, a way right leaning view on America. It’s possible I could be misreading the latter, but not the former. It’s fairly clear that everything happening on the screen is a metaphor for what went on in late 2008. In case somehow, after an hour and a half, you’re not so sure this movie isn't too excited about the country’s future, it’s last spoken line will confirm it for you. For some, it might decide whether or not you like the film.

For me, the last line doesn't dictate either as I figured out that was the movie’s outlook early on. Regardless of whether I agree or not, Killing Them Softly is a fascinating experience with a different take on the mafia and how it operates, presenting them more symbollically than anything else. I rather enjoyed it. Sadly, I was disappointed that despite the movie’s title, we never get to hear Roberta Flack’s nor The Fugees’, or anyone’s rendition of the classic song from which it is derived. Hmph.

(Note: I’m generally a little slow getting reviews up. Depending on what’s going on in real life, it usually takes me three or four days to write a review and get it posted, but it can be over a week. This is my hobby, not my job. Yet. I only mention this because I actually watched this and had the review hand-written a few days before the passing of one of this movie’s stars, James Gandolfini. He was an amazing talent that I’ve praised in other reviews and, of course, he IS Tony Soprano. That said, I really do think his performance in this movie is amazing and I’m not just saying nice things because he’s recently deceased.)

MY SCORE: 8/10   

The Rum Diary

Directed by Bruce Robinson.

2011. Rated R, 120 minutes.

Cast:

Johnny Depp

Aaron Eckhart

Michael Rispoli

Amber Heard

Richard Jenkins

Giovanni Ribisi

Amaury Nolasco

Marshall Bell

Bill Smitrovich

Puerto Rico in 1960 might not be the best place for a guy trying to quit drinking, or at least cut back enough to focus on his new job. After all, rum appears to be the most plentiful beverage on the island. The guy is Paul Kemp (Depp) and his job is reporting for a barely surviving American newspaper on the island. After cleaning out the mini-bar a few times in the hotel room the paper is paying for, his new boss Lotterman (Jenkins) moves him into a ratty apartment with two other more seasoned but cynical reporters. Shortly, Paul makes friends with some low people in high places and gets involved in a real estate scam. And yes, there’s a girl. Lots of drinking and run-ins with the locals ensue.

The real estate scam gives our hero an ethical dilemma which dominates much of the movie. Though interesting, it’s rather tame as diabolical movie plans go. It’s only a diversion, anyway. Our real focus is on whether or not Paul will be able to steal the gangster’s moll, a young pretty blonde, as cinematic rules dictate she must be. Her name is Chenault (Heard), a free spirit who takes a liking to Paul but, as indicated, belongs to Sanderson (Eckhart) who is running this get-rich-quick scheme.

As proof that the whole real estate issue is just a front for the love story, it abruptly disappears before there’s a resolution. Instead, we suddenly shift the narrative back to the failing newspaper. It’s almost as if someone realized mid-stream, there is an untapped, potentially interesting story that needs more attention and abandoned the one they were telling in its favor. This makes The Rum Diary a bit of a mess, narratively. On top of that, the ending is weak and rushed. It just kind of stops playing and gives us some subtitles that complete the tale.

Fortunately, there are several saving graces. First, as disjointed as our saga is, it bounces along in an enjoyable manner. It’s most fun when Paul and fellow reporter/roommate Bob Sala (Rispoli) are palling around, getting into one precarious situation after another. The funniest of these being how they decide to drive Bob’s car after its front seat has been ripped out by some angry locals. There’s also third roomy Moberg (Ribisi) who is only occasionally in the apartment, only shows up to work to pick up his paycheck (we find out he can’t be fired) and is always drunk. Second, the three men in these roles are marvelous. Ribisi is particularly good and leaves us wishing he had more screen time. That said, Johnny Depp is the draw. Sans his now trademark goofy wigs and cartoonish makeup he is still a joy to watch.

The work turned in by Depp and his cast mates, including the always underappreciated Richard Jenkins, means the narrative issues can be pushed to the margins as we follow their misadventures. They can’t be ignored completely since the switch in focus is jarring and unfulfilling. However, it still makes for a good time. What it lacks in storytelling acumen is made up for by giving us characters that are ultimately smart, but in a very dumb way.

The Cabin in the Woods

Friends with Benefits

Directed by Will Gluck.

2011. Rated R, 109 minutes.

Cast:

Mila Kunis

Justin Timberlake

Patricia Clarkson

Woody Harrelson

Jenna Elfman

Bryan Greenberg

Richard Jenkins

Shaun White

Andy Samberg

Boy meets girl. Again. This time, both have just been dumped by other people. Boy is hotshot art director Dylan Harper (Timberlake). He’s just been hired to fulfill that role for GQ magazine. He got the job because he was recruited away from his own highly successful blog by Girl, Jamie Rellis (Kunis). Boy moves from LA to NY for his new gig and becomes platonic besties with Girl. The two confide in each other that they miss sex, but not relationships. Of course, they do the only rational thing and hop into bed together after laying a few ground rules. Pardon the pun. As you might expect, feelings neither wanted ensues.

Surprisingly to me, the first half of Friends with Benefits is a joy to watch. This is due, in large part, to the fact it looks like our two leads are having so much fun they can barely contain themselves. After all, they’re two attractive people who get to do a lot of rolling around naked together. It also helps that this portion of the picture is dedicated to ridiculing all we know romantic comedies to be. Our two lovebirds in denial say all the things we say about such movies. This gives it a wonderfully self-aware vibe.

The second half undermines the first by becoming precisely what the earlier parts rail against. It tries to maintain its edge by blatantly acknowledging that it has devolved into the same grandiose moments of romantic gesture as just about every other flick in the genre. Despite its embracing of its own descent into mediocrity, it still feels like a letdown since up to about the midway point it seems like a well done spoof that’s going to introduce a twist on the norm. Instead, the overall effect is that the movie says “Other movies do ‘this’ so we will, too.”

As rom-coms go, this is a little above average. The expected story arcs are fully intact. Before any of it actually happens, we know where jealousy, misunderstanding, break up and make up are all going to come in. For good measure, there’s Richard Jenkins in the ‘wise crazy person who let his true love get away’ role to impart sage advice at the pivotal moment. He has some interesting moments and is typically excellent but pales in comparison to the hysterical performance by Woody Harrelson as Tommy, Dylan’s too openly gay buddy. You’ll just have to see it to understand what I mean by “too openly”. Even though the only real reason for his character’s existence is that he owns a boat, many of the movie’s funniest moments are his. He, and the thing we come to realize as the film progresses elevates it above its contemporaries: at least this one knows it’s lame.

Hall Pass

Let Me In

Directed by Matt Reeves.
2010. Rated R, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Chloë Grace Moretz
Kodi Smit-McPhee
Richard Jenkins
Cara Buono
Elias Koteas
Sasha Barrese
Dylan Kenin
Richie Coster
Dylan Minnette

Owen (Smit-McPhee) is twelve years old and has no friends. Even worse, he’s the class punching bag. Things are so bad, he hangs out alone at night, in the courtyard of his apartment complex and fantasizes about getting revenge. If that weren’t enough, he lives with his mom who’s in the process of divorcing his dad and is an emotional wreck. One night, he notices a girl his age moving into the apartment next door to his with her father. Eventually, we find out her name is Abby (Moretz). As it turns out, she’s also a loner who seeks solitude in the courtyard most nights. Even though, it’s the dead of winter she doesn’t wear shoes. Owen notices this and also finds out rather quickly that she leads some sort of tortured existence, as well. The two seemingly kindred spirits strike up a friendship. However, Owen doesn’t realize something we already know. Abby is a vampire.

To remain as conspicuous as possible, Abby’s “father” (Jenkins) supplies her with blood by killing random people, draining the blood from them and carrying it back to her. Whenever he fails at this task, or hunger overwhelms her, she has to hunt for her own meals. Let’s just say her table manners are less than desirable.

The movie’s pace is deliberately slow but it doesn’t drag. It draws us in through the growing relationship between Owen and Abby. It also never forgets that there are murders being committed so the police are working feverishly to find out who’s responsible. All along, we wonder what will happen when things get figured out? What will happen when Owen comes to understand what Abby really is? What happens when the police figure it out?

Of course, the vampire craze of the last few years can be traced back to the Twilight series. Everything in that critic-proof juggernaut is dolled up to appeal to young girls and teach them about the virtues of abstinence. While that’s a fine message it’s done in a manner that makes the idea of vampires even less tangible than it already is. It’s not just fantasy. It’s impossibly sanitized so that any thoughts deemed to be impure are like the greatest evils know to mankind. On the other hand, any good things are romanticized to the nth degree. In short, the Twilight films alternately panders to and preaches to its audience on a continuous basis.

In Let Me In, the characters are not in some totally foreign dimension where everything is glossy and nice where vampires can go out in the daytime and wean themselves from human blood. Instead, the vampire is dropped into our reality. This offers insight into what it might be like if there really were such a creature in our midst. To understand the difference between this world and the Twilight world think about the Batman movies. Specifically, think of how Gotham City is portrayed in the recent Christopher Nolan movies and in the franchise-killing Joel Schumacher flicks. LMI would be the Nolan films, not quite fully realistic but enough to seem a lot more plausible.

For those of us lucky enough to have seen it, there is yet another elephant in the room. That one is the Swedish original, less than two years old when its American remake hit theaters. Technically, like its predecessor, LMI claims to be based on the novel Let the Right One In. The Swedish film keeps the full title while this one truncates it. Otherwise, there’s not enough of a difference for me to say it isn’t a remake. There are some changes here and there. Most notably, there is one glaring omission and one event moved to the beginning of the film. The omission is the now infamous crotch shot of our vampire. The event involves the father and is key to the movie so I won’t spoil that.

The fact that this is largely the same movie is not a knock on the American flick. It wisely follows the template already created. Aside from the omission I mentioned, it doesn’t water things down, at all. Unlike most remakes, the additions don’t become subtractions. There are no overly big showy moments for no reason other than injecting some perceived excitement. To its credit, the one recognizably American thing it did actually works. It adds a little more gore. However, it does so for good reason and not at the cost of character development as is often the case. It is rare that a remake can stand up to the original, particularly when the remake is American and the original is not. This one does. What I’m going to say next may seem even stranger than that. When the subtitleophobes tell you this one is better, ignore that they’re probably basing their opinion solely on the fact it’s in English. They might actually be right, this time.

The Tale of Despereaux

The Tale of Despereaux

2008. Rated G, 94 minutes.

Directors: Sam Fell, Rob Stevenhagen. Starring Matthew Broderick, Robbie Coltrane, Tracy Ullman, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Frank Langella, Richard Jenkins, Christopher Lloyd.

Plot: Despereaux (Broderick) is an outcast among other mice since he doesn't cower, scurry or show any fear at all. For this, he is banished from "Mouse World" into the sewers below. From there, he embarks on the adventure of a lifetime in hopes of saving a princess and perhaps an entire kingdom.

The Good: It trusts it's audience will stay with it when it lets up off the accelerator. So while there are scenes of silliness and action sprinkled throughout, there's ample time devoted to character development and plot building. The viewer is not rushed from one action scene to the next and we actually get to know a number of these characters. Visually, it's a wonderful piece of work. Like a lot of animated fare, it blends photo-realism with it's more cartoonish elements but it does so seemlessly.

The Bad: The tone might be a tad too serious. Young viewers weened on the all-out goofiness of many animated movies might be put off a bit. Also, If there's one character who was underdeveloped, it's the king. Having him more involved would've added another dimension, particularly if more attention were given his relationship with his daughter, Princess Pea (Emma Watson). As is, he sort of punctuates the movie. He occasionally shows up briefly to remind us he's there. Finally, I would love to have seen just how the rats got their two prisoners, especially the cat.

The Ugly: What happens to the queen.

Recommendation: It might move a bit slow for really young kids or those with short attention spans. Use Ratatouille or maybe even Wall-E as a guide. How you or your kids reacted to the non-action parts of those may provide insight into how they'll respond to Despereaux. For the rest of us, it's a pleasure to take in but admittedly not as good as the two movies I just mentioned. It's a movie in which we can actually relate to the characters having the adventure, even if they are mostly mice and rats.

The Opposite View: Avi Offer, NYC Movie Guru

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (4/15/09), 55% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10