Captain America: Civil War

Mr. Brooks

Directed by Bruce A. Evans.

2007. Rated R, 120 minutes.

Kevin Costner 

Demi Moore

William Hurt

Rene Russo 

Danielle Panabaker

Dane Cook

Marg Helgenberger

Ruben Santiago-Hudson

Aisha Hinds

Serial killer Earl Brooks (Costner) gets the urge to kill again after two years of inactivity. He follows the urge, tries to maintain his successful business and his family but things aren't quite working the way he wants.

In a welcome change, this movie foregoes any notion of it being a 'whodunit' right away. Its not interested in discovering who the killer is, that's established fairly early. It's more interested in how Mr. Brooks copes with all that's going on in his life. Often, it involves talking things over with Marshall, the walking talking persona of his conscioence played by William Hurt. Admittedly, its a gimmick but these two actors make it work extremely well showing off a mutual morbid sense of humor. As the police officer trying to capture "The Thumbprint Killer," Demi Moore goes into tough-chick mode and delivers as well. The writers did well to give her three story-lines of her own that all work even if they're a bit over the top. Even Dane Cook is adequate in his role.

Story-wise, twists in the plot are presented more as complications Brooks has to deal with and you become interested in how he's going to take care of the various problems that arise. Between he and Marshall they come up with some pretty good stuff. Though there are a good number of tense and even a few gory moments, this is more of a psychological thriller than a true horror film, but one that takes the odd approach of presenting the killer not as a raving lunatic but as a normal guy with an unusual addiction.

With the number of story-lines going on, at least six off the top of my head, some things just fall by the wayside. Namely, how Mr. Brooks came to be a serial killer is ignored. Though, the suggestion is there that homicidal urges are hereditary. Also Brooks' wife (Russo) is also ignored. She's pretty much there just for reaction shots. She could've been developed a lot more. Through her action scenes we discover that Demi Moore's character is a superhero or at least related to John McLane from the Die Hard series. This character made her G.I. Jane look like her character from Ghost.

Mr. Brooks is for fans of movies like Silence of the Lambs and Seven. It's not quite in their league but I think it is terribly underrated. Far better with far less hype than 2007's other big thriller, Perfect Stranger. It was fun to see Costner playing way against type and like I said earlier it was fun watching the back and forth between he and William Hurt. Stay away if you think there have to be likeable characters in a movie. I honestly don't think there are any.

MY SCORE: 8/10

Robin Hood (2010)

Directed by Ridley Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Oscar Isaac
Max von Sydow
Mark Strong
William Hurt
Danny Huston
Mark Addy
Kevin Durand
Léa Seydoux

The legend of Robin Hood, here played by Russell Crowe, has survive for ages by keeping him fairly simple. He and his band of merrymen, plus Lady Marion (Blanchett), roam Sherwood Forest and steal from the rich only so that they can give to the poor. Have you ever wondered how he wound up there? Me neither. However, in Ridley Scott’s sparkingly grimy update on the character that’s precisely what we find out. Oh, if you’re vexing over the oxy-moronic “sparkingly grimy” you have to see it to understand. Dirty people have seldom looked better.

Not content to merely be about our favorite archer, we’re treated to several other storylines to fret over. Most notable is one that emphasizes the difference between King Richard the Lionheart (Huston) and his brother and eventual successor John (Isaac). This supplies us with our hero’s reason to be heroic. Of course, there is also the love story and a couple other things going on. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds. Most of them breathe well enough on their own and come together nicely.

In the lead role, Russell Crowe does what Russell Crowe does. It’s not up there with his best, but it’s solid work, nonetheless. He’s actually outdone by Cate Blanchett as his love interest. Overall, the acting is very good. You should expect no less from the excellently assembled cast. The action scenes are solid, but not spectacular and evoke memories of Braveheart. However, they don’t quite measure up.

Evoking memories is a bit of a problem for this movie. It seems to blend the aforementioned Braveheart with another Scott/Crowe collaboration: Gladiator. The main problem is there seems to be little difference between our newly crowned King John and Gladiator’s Commodus, save for that whole incest thing. Instead of becoming something grand, it turns into a rather bland epic. It’s not bad, but it isn’t likely to stick in your psyche for very long.

Despite the best efforts of Kevin Cosner and Mel Brooks, the image most of us have of Robin Hood is one of Errol Flynn practically dancing up the stairs while sword fighting with multiple henchmen. Maybe we think of Flynn swing from the chandelier or from some other moment culled from all the fantastic cheese that movie provides. All the while, he’s wearing the unmistakable bright green tight and funny mustache. Hmmm…I’d dismissed all charges of homoeroticism against the classic until I wrote this paragraph. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just had a revelatory moment, that’s all. Anyhoo, the 21st century version is a solid, but flawed effort not likely to change the reality of our perception of what Robin Hood should be.

A. I.

Directed by Steven Spielberg.
2001. Rated PG-13, 145 minutes.
Cast:
Haley Joel Osment
Jude Law
Frances O’Connor
William Hurt

Sometime in the future, a robotics company creates a robot, or a mecha in the movie’s lingo, that can be programmed to love unconditionally. They make it in the form of a child (Osment), and test it on a couple who’s son is in a coma with little chance of regaining consciousness. The questions the movie wants you to ponder are posed at the top of the movie: If you could program a robot to genuinely love people, would people love them back? Should people love them back? What would be the consequences of such a relationship? To complicate matters, these machines are extremely life-like. They feel and look like humans. They also “think” and have “feelings.” Think the machines of [i]I, Robot[/i] taken through their logical and technological evolution. Instead of simply answering the questions, the movie takes us on an adventure. It’s really an updated version of [i]Pinocchio[/i]. The movie itself acknowledges this by explicitly referencing the famous fairy-tale while simultaneously using its story-line. Doing this gives us easy-to-follow themes while reminding us that the questions posed have not only been around since man first made any inanimate object in his own image but if technology continues to advance at a dizzying pace will have to be dealt with in full on a world-wide scale. Visually, it’s still stunning. Even though cgi has advanced in the years since this film was made, it has seldom been done better than here. There are a few instances where you can see that a computer did the work but far more times where you know a computer did the work but it sure looks real. It does drag in spots and seems to go on too long. I personally would’ve cut out everything dealing with aliens. That said, it’s still an excellent movie.

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Good Shepherd

Directed by Robert De Niro.
2006. Rated R, 167 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Damon
Angelina Jolie
Alec Baldwin
Tammy Blanchard
Billy Crudup
Robert De Niro
Michael Gambon
William Hurt
Timothy Hutton

The Good Shepherd is a dramatization of the events that led to the creation of the CIA. It also dramatizes the agency’s earliest days, specifically it’s involvement in the Bay of Pigs. We see things through the eyes of Edward Wilson (Damon). He’s a fictional character, but like almost everyone else in the movie, he’s based on a real-life person.

The film plays like Edward’s rise through the ranks to become the CIA director and the problems his unwavering dedication to country has caused in his marriage. However, from within the twists and turns of a spy movie emerges a film much more about father-son relationships. The absence of Wilson’s dad, who committed suicide when Edward was just a young boy, hangs over the movie. Then there are the various men who assume mentorship of Edward and the problems of trust bound to arise from associating only with people engaged in espionage. Finally, there’s Edward’s relationship with his own son that we don’t realize is important until the final act.

For enthusiasts of the genre, there are plenty of spy games played. These have the added advantage of being based on true events without stylizing them. Still, it’s not an easy movie to watch. It’s a largely monotone affair in which dialogue is almost always spoken calmly and often whispered. Matt Damon’s performance perfectly embodies all the movie wants to be. Some will be turned off by his emotionless portrayal but that’s precisely what his character is supposed to be. He handles the role well.

It is also a dialogue heavy movie that asks you to pay close attention. What happens between sentences and offscreen drive the movie. Offscreen is where most of what would be action scenes in another movie takes place. Because of this, many would consider it boring, and may have trouble following. It can indeed be difficult to delineate what exactly the point of all this is since it purposely builds slowly towards it. If you’re looking for an adrenaline rush, steer clear. If you want intrigue and don’t mind it in hushed tones, have at it.

MY SCORE: 8/10