Like any twentieth-century decade worth its muster, the eighties carved out an oversized niche for itself in American popular culture. The ubiquity of neon and the advent of portable music ushered into Americana a near constant stream of things we’d rather forget, like Men at Work and Gremlins, and a few we wish had stayed around for a while longer, like American Gladiators and Baywatch. This film chronicles the decade that created the current twenty-somethings, though its appeal is to a slightly older age group, the thirty-somethings, the people with families and steady jobs as MBA’s and veterinarians. But, just 20 or so years ago, they were rockin’ it hardcore in hot tubs. Or something similar, anyway.

John Cusack, Craig Robinson, and Rob Corddry relive the eighties. Quite literally. Having traveled back to a long-lost haunt, they proceed to waste no time in traveling back in time. They find themselves in their older bodies and spirit, but with an apparently new lease on the past, their own past. They find themselves in the midst of making new decisions in old situations, questioning fate itself in an attempt to ‘get it right this time.’ Facing their old demons, these three (and Clark Duke) begin again, recreating his own story with the knowledge of what the potential future holds.

Self-aware and tongue-in-cheek, this film is one constant throwback, a somewhat new look at the vintage icons of the 1980’s. Crude yet sincere, the story of these three men is oddly compelling. We are always making decisions, for better or worse, and we find, time and again, that, had we known better, we would have acted differently. Or so we say. Just what and how we might act in accordance with particular knowledge of future events is a philosophical quandary of which this film makes light at every turn, but not without a healthy dose of that philosophical temper any intoxicated individual might experience attempting to solve all the riddles of time and physics in a single night.

Producing enough laughs to be called a comedy, Hot Tub Time Machine is an enjoyable film. With less heart than crudity, however, it fails to stimulate in any meaningful way. The gags have mostly been done before, and Chevy Chase just looks old, a has-been with little left to offer. To those in the requisite age group, this movie may find more enjoyment, if not more appreciation. At the end of the day, though, movies ought to inspire and/or entertain, and this one doesn’t have enough of either to be worth anything more than a rental at the local RedBox.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Despite the misnomer of a title and at least one misleading trailer, this film is not a pleasant, idyllic look at a significant man’s relationship with his daughter. It is, in fact, a full-fledged biopic, at times a compelling and disheartening tale of an individual whose life’s work would indefinitely change the fields of science. That man, of course, is Charles Darwin. At times quasi-expressionistic and even borderline documentary, Creation attempts to pull back the veil on a man whose whose surname has taken on epic manifestations. Yet his name is known far better than he is, and this film tries (key word) to disabuse us of any misconceptions we may have, but, more so, to humanize this now deified figure of human history.

Darwin’s life seems to have been spent in pursuit of the truth, whatever that may be, following wherever it led, regardless of the repercussions. After decades of research, he discovered what he perceived to be the truth – common descent through variation by natural selection – what we call today “evolution”. He was certainly not alone. Alfred Russell Wallace  came to the same conclusion on his own, much like Leibniz and Newton each discovered calculus, with no ostensible help from the other – this seems to recur throughout history: individuals, working on their own, uncovering the same principle or idea at the same time. It seems that some ideas’ have waited for too long – their time has come. Regardless of its veracity, the idea of evolution seems to be no different. Having realized the import of his finding, Darwin struggled psychologically and emotionally for, it seems, quite a long time. His wife and community apparently considered him a heathen, and they clearly said so in no uncertain terms. Alone and delusional, Darwin set out to write his treatise, his magnum opus.

Played expertly – under the circumstances – by Paul Bettany, Darwin becomes a man. In Creation, he is a man plagued by all the uncertainty and existential angst of a Hamlet. In a lab coat. His burden was a heavy one, and he shouldered it as best he could, swimming through years of psychological torment and hallucinations of his deceased daughter (though I can’t find any corroboration on this). Unfortunately, the film plods on and on and hits the same note over and over, somewhat like Aviator did with Leo several years ago. Brooding and malaise fill the screen time and again, but a certain sense may pervade audiences that this dead horse has perhaps been beaten enough. The supporting cast is fitting, including a momentarily compelling performance from Jennifer Connelly as Emma, Darwin’s wife.

Throughout it all, one can’t help but be thankful that a film has finally humanized Darwin, to some extent, anyway. Bettany’s Darwin does struggle, and he learns that he must follow the truth wherever it leads. But, his Herculean montaged triumph near the end is a bit overwrought and sentimental. Kitsch aside, the film isn’t bad. Jon Amiel (The Tudors, Entrapment) unfortunately allows (if not welcomes) the comparison to Hamlet, and it simply doesn’t work. Darwin certainly grappled with the truth and with his understanding of it as it related to the religious tones of his day (Huxley tells Darwin, “You have killed God.”), but he was no Prince of Denmark. Had it been more straight-laced and less ruminative, it would have improved drastically, and, concomitantly, found itself to be more compelling. A strong effort that ultimately comes up a bit short, Creation is a peculiar biopic that is worth seeing – but, as a caveat: don’t take all of it at face value.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Based on the television series of the same name, Edge of Darkness is a return to the screen both of this particular story, and of a particularly reclusive actor as of late, Mel Gibson. Mel’s return is also Martin Campbell’s return to the story, as he also directed the TV series back in the 1980’s. Reminiscent of Taken, Edge of Darkness delivers on its promises: action, suspense, an entertaining and involving story, and, most importantly, Mel’s return to this side of the camera.

A Boston cop, Thomas Craven (Mel), is enjoying having his daughter home, whom he hasn’t spent much time with since she left for MIT. When she begins to show volatile signs of sickness, they head to the car. But their trip is cut short. Craven is forced to deal with the gruesome loss of his daughter while seeking out the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. His hunt quickly leads him down an unforeseen trail, developing into an altogether different mystery than he had ever imagined. An untold number of bodies, slippery government officials, and one man with nothing to lose.

This film is fairly riveting from start to finish. Campbell (Casino Royale) knows how build suspense and intrigue, and, wielding a story he knows inside and out, deftly creates a very entertaining movie. Gibson brings himself to the film, and we soon find out that that’s more than enough. He’s a capable actor with years of experience, and this film allows him to return to the screen with everything we’ve come to love about him, a strong voice, an evasive charm, and a powerful, reckoning presence.

Gibson is by far the most enjoyable performance, but the supporting cast also do quite well: Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Jay Sanders, Denis O’Hare. Possibly unfamiliar names, but faces we certainly recognize, these actors do a more than adequate job. Winstone, in particular, plays an unequivocally equivocal character, Jedburgh, a man whose life has been spent not only riding the fence, but serving both sides equally, a middle man and a mole simultaneously, and he plays him deftly. All the characters lead duplicitous lives, which eventually unravel into an “unsurvivable” nightmare, and Craven is there to make sure it stays that way.

Edge of Darkness doesn’t try to be this year’s Taken, and it doesn’t need to. This film is a competent suspense film, with a capable cast, a confident director, and a leading man who is more than comfortable getting back in the saddle. Suspenseful films don’t need to be perfect to be entertaining, and this one is certainly a case in point. It’s often messy, the characters seem a bit two-dimensional, the writing is laughably overwrought at times, and there are loose ends that dangle even as the credits roll, but, despite all this, it succeeds. If you’re looking for an engaging suspense film, this one is almost certain to satisfy.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Phantasmagoria is defined as “a sequence of real or imaginary images like that seen in a dream.”  Or, simply a copy of the poster from this film would suffice.  Terry Gilliam, of Monty Python fame, puts together a notable cast (for an unfortunate reason, namely Heath Ledger’s passing) and an intriguing story.  These alone, however, do not a good movie make (not to mention the graphics aren’t very good – possibly intentional).  And that’s what we get.  More or less.

What makes this film so difficult to put a finger on is its wildly absurd and expressionistic(?!) imagery that fills the screen with something like an admixture of Candyland and Dante’s Inferno.  Smoking a joint.  In the back of a large caravan.  Hauling (and housing) an eccentric traveling theatre troupe. Some of this we actually get.  Some of it is implied.  And the rest is simply at the volition of the viewer.  (Though it probably would’t hurt.)

The plot is fairly straightforward: Doctor Parnassus made a somewhat Mephistophelean wager with the Devil thousands of years ago, and the negative end of the bargain is finally coming to fruition.  He must relinquish any female progeny to the Devil when they reach 16, the age of consent (how kind of the Devil).  Parnassus leads a traveling group of performers around England, barely scraping enough money out of people to make ends meet.  On the caravan is Parnassus’s mirror, which, when stepped through, transports the individual into a land of their imagination.  Hence, the name: imaginarium.  Tony stumbles into their lives, and the rest is (really colorful) history.

This is Ledger’s final performance, though his final complete performance remains The Dark Knight. Due to Ledger’s untimely passing, Gilliam was forced to rewrite the character of Tony a bit.  When he is in the imaginarium, his face alters its appearance, first to Johnny Depp, then to Jude Law, and, finally, to Colin Farrrell.  The acting is good on all counts (Lily Cole is a fitting Valentina, Christopher Plummer a fine Parnassus – whatever that means – and Tom Waits is a convincing Devil) and since there is already so much going on in the imaginarium (and the film), this particular rewrite makes little overall difference to the “plot,” which essentially amounts to a hodgepodge of fandango and a dash of tomfoolery.  Little more. Yet, again, little less, either.

In the scheme of things, this film will be quickly forgotten, which is fortunate for Gilliam, because it isn’t very good.  But, on the other hand, it isn’t very bad either.  It’s trying to say something (I think).   The imagination, story telling, etc., are capable of transforming ourselves and others, no doubt a worthwhile theme.  However, the particular route Gilliam chooses to traverse to tell this wacky story seems to be a conglomeration of several streams-of-consciousness placed end on end until the roll of the credits.  As a thought experiment, it has some value, and there is certainly some merit even in its message.  Ultimately, however, the film fails due to its inability to say much of anything by trying to do too much of everything.  More or less.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Having not seen the original, I can’t and won’t try to compare.  Or contrast for that matter.  But I will give this one what it gave me: a run for the money.  Expecting a weak script, an over-the-top performance from Travolta, and a conventional, stock story-line, I was, you may have guessed, very pleasantly surprised.  It’s certainly a summer movie, more entertaining than enlightening, but it’s very enjoyable and may even have a kind of moral to it too.

The plot is ostensibly a fairly simple heist story, but there’s clearly more to this than meets the eye.  Ryder (Travolta) and his posse (including Luis Guzman) hijack a subway train in New York City.  A man named Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is the man who must deal with him.  Garber is an ordinary guy, paying the mortgage, feeding his family.  But there seems more to him than we see on the surface as well.  As the story progresses, and it does progress, we learn that these people, and this situation, have more on the line, and that more will be revealed in the process, than we had anticipated.  It is this, and another great performance from Washington, that really make this movie tick.

Tony Scott loves Denzel like Scorsese loves Leo.  Well, maybe not quite that much.  Though they appear to work well together over and over again, making compelling films that are certain to entertain.  Man on Fire is another notable film that the two collaborated on.  And like Man on Fire and Domino (which lacks Denzel), Taking of Pelham has many of the same idiosyncratic elements which mark a film as one of Tony Scott’s: jerky camera movements, rock-infused underscoring, a kind of hardcore flair for the melodramatic gesture without making a purely melodramatic film.  I truly enjoy these auteur elements, and to me, they add to the kinds of stories that Scott likes to tell.  And Denzel does what Samuel L. Jackson tries to do: command the screen.  The two together, the director’s auteur flair and the actor’s command of the screen work hand in hand to tell exciting, emotional stories with characters we wish we could be.  Walter Garber is an Everyman.  But he possesses a subtle strength that is consistent across many of Denzel’s characters, from the aforementioned Man on Fire to John Q to even a more overtly powerful character like Frank Lucas in American Gangster.  It is expected of Denzel Washington, and he always delivers.  This one isn’t any different.

I’ve spoken a lot of Denzel, while leaving out the other headliner: John Travolta.  Having not played a male, human character since Wild Dogs, and before that the sometimes hilarious Be Cool, Travolta definitely appeared to enjoy this role.  He was stuck in the same setting for over an hour of the film, and he was able to keep it compelling.  His character is nothing dramatically different from any other Heist Leader, but there is one thing gives him a slightly disturbing edge, which I won’t mention here for the sake of not spoiling the movie.  The supporting roles were all pretty good, including John Turturro and Luis Guzman, among others, and the writing, while nothing substantially new, held my attention for the whole film.

It isn’t a great movie, but it is surprisingly good.  It is very entertaining, and the theme that does eventually shine through is a double-edged sword.  If you’re trying to decide whether to get a ticket or wait to rent, this one can wait.  But if you need a good summer movie and don’t want to see Megan Fox again for some reason, then this isn’t a bad choice.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Having attempted to read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons and not succeeding, I had little hope for this film.  Or rather, I had little hope the story would be compelling or interesting.  It has also been said by some that Tom Hanks phoned in his performance for the former as Professor Langdon, so I wasn’t too excited about the acting either, though Hanks reputation is, The Da Vinci Code notwithstanding, quite stellar.  What I actually got was a very enjoyable movie with good acting.  Which was a nice surprise.

Professor Langdon (Hanks), a symbologist, is summoned by the Vatican when a symbol from a secret church group, the Illuminati, shows up following the death of His Holiness, the Pope, and just as the CERN in Europe discovers “anti-matter,” which some have associated with the term “God-particle,” worrying some Catholic leaders for obvious reasons.  The plot develops as we discover that some group or individual has kidnapped four cardinals and is planning on killing them all in various ways, and finally destroying a very important place for Catholics everywhere, the Vatican, using this “anti-matter” to do so.

The localization of the story in Vatican City and Rome allows it to avoid being too melodramatic, in the sense of “world-ending catastrophe,” which keeps the focus on the people involved and by extension all Catholics rather than just another save-the-world-from-imminent-destruction movie.  It also brings the focus onto the Catholic faith, Christianity as a whole, and the ongoing religion v. science debate which resonates so strongly with audiences today.  Given that Professor Langdon is, as he says, “an academic,” one supposes that he is not religious and by association of ideas, an atheist.  But he helps the Vatican anyway.  Following this line of thought, he has a conversation with Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor):

Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: . Do you believe in God, sir?
Robert Langdon: Father, I simply believe that religion…
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: I did not ask if you believe what man says about God. I asked if you believe in God.
Robert Langdon: I’m an academic. My mind tells me I will never understand God.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: And your heart?
Robert Langdon: Tells me I’m not meant to. Faith is a gift that I have yet to receive.

It is well written, tactful, and shows a generosity of spirit that the world would do well to learn from.  Ron Howard does a good job of telling this story, and we are drawn in and want to know how the Illuminati will strike next, and he does a pretty good job of delivering the theme which encompasses it all, which is the effect of power on the human spirit, the struggle to understand each other in the face of drastically different personal paradigms, and the ability to help in spite of these differences.

It is, indeed, a summer movie, but not one for the whole family, unless the whole family can deal with the mutilation of the human body in varying forms and degrees.  It’s fairly conventional, and some of the writing is definitely subpar, especially concerning Langdon’s discovery of clues to the Illuminati mystery.  Finally, speaking from experience, even if you haven’t read the books, it is easy to understand and easy to enjoy.  It’s less controversial than The Da Vinci Code, and it might even spark a conversation or two.  Nice bonus, if you ask me.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Unconventional in its structure, but conventional in its laughs, The Hangover is a movie that succeeds in a handful of ways: the cast is pitch-perfect.  But it leaves something wanting in others: the plot is wildly preposterous.  The entire movie hinges on these two things: its pitch-perfect cast and its wildly preposterous plot.  The problem is this: you need more than these two things to have a great movie in the end.

Todd Phillips, who directed Old School and Starsky and Hutch, knows what he’s doing when it comes to slapstick comedy.  He picks the right people who do the right things, like starting fraternities or stealing tigers (and babies), and in the end it all works out.  Again, though, many times the point of a story is not what happens in the end, but how we get to that end.  With that premise, this movie does work.  We know where it’s going to end up, we just don’t know how exactly.  We see hilariously hungover men trying to piece together what happened the night before in order to find their missing friend, who, appropriately enough, is the groom, and he’s getting married the next day.

Stringing together absurd plot points with the conventions of slapstick, Phillips pulls it all together to make a coherent movie in most respects.  Bradley Cooper (Yes Man, He’s Just Not That Into You), Ed Helms (The Office), and Zach Galifianakis (comedian and ‘that guy from Out Cold‘) have great comedic chemistry and play very well together.  The supporters are good, too, and all around the acting doesn’t leave too much to be desired.  It is, after all, slapstick comedy.  If a handful of actors will commit to it, you’ll probably end up with a pretty enjoyable film.

That being said, this film is enjoyable.  I had a good number of laugh-out-loud moments.  But it isn’t consistently hilarious, a problem of writing, I think, not of acting, in this case.  If you’re aching for a laugh, then this movie is probably for you.  You won’t laugh all the way through, but you’ll enjoy it.  And with the comedy selection in theaters right now, I think this is your best bet.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

Liam Neeson has become the voice of a lion, taught Batman the secrets of martial arts, and now he’s getting his kidnapped daughter back and all the while kicking butt and taking names.  It’s a simply structured thriller, about as simple as they come, in which one man, our protagonist, seeks his daughter’s assailants.  And we’re all along for the ride.

Bryan Mills (Neeson) used to work in the government as a (in his words) “preventer,” with a “very particular set of skills” that make him the perfect guy for the job at hand, single-handedly dismantling a sector of the Albanian sex-trafficking ring in France.  His daughter is taken from the apartment of a friend in Paris, and the story that follows is exactly what you’d expect.  There a few twists and turns and an overwhelming body count, but Neeson shows everyone who’s boss, while showing a startlingly little amount of mercy.  No one in his path is spared.  In fact, many times he seems to be acting almost amorally, a trait usually attributed to the mentally insane or the antagonist, such as Hannibal Lecter.  Here, it’s almost applied to protagonist Mills, but it works, and it makes the film even more fun somehow.

This movie is, like Wanted, about as much fun as can be had at the movies without much thought.  In fact, there’s very little there to think about, just a lot of fight-eye-candy.  But that’s what you go to this movie to watch, the fighting, the cathartic expression of physical angst that lives somewhere in the male psyche.  Neeson shows he is definitely still at the top of his game physically, and the acting is as good as it can be in a movie of this caliber and variety.  The writing is, of course, very simplistic, but it lends itself to that effect with what it wants to achieve, which is an exciting, testosterone charged thriller.  It definitely succeeds, while also adding a subplot with his daughter’s desire to become a singer.  It doesn’t add much to the film, but it’s a nice touch.

This is a really fun movie; furthermore (though somewhat unrelated), I think that this may be nominated for Best Editing in 2010.  The fight sequences are fantastic and nearly seamless, reminiscent of the Bourne trilogy, with its choreography and camera work fine-tuned and integrated to work with one another.  Go see this one.  You won’t have too many epiphanies, but you will sit at the edge of your seat, cheering Neeson on the whole time.  And you’ll have a lot of fun.  Take my word for it.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

In an orgy of gunfire, shootouts, explosions, car chases, and cryptic language, Wanted tells a story that has as much fun as it has loopholes.  Though it’s little more than a 90-minute montage of the aforementioned items, with a few plot pieces thrown in for good measure, this movie is about as much fun as you can have at the movies.  And it doesn’t have Paul Walker.  Which is always a plus.

James McAvoy plays Wesley Gibson, a 9-5 cubicle guy who can’t care about anything – except caring about the fact that he can’t care about anything.  That’s almost verbatim.  He thinks he has panic attacks arising from an axiety disorder which accompanies a rapid heartbeat (and nearly always slow-motion).  What he really has is the ability to do things normal people can’t.  He thinks he’s a normal person.  Herein lies the meager substance this movie offers.  But man does not live on substantial plotting alone.  Man also lives on action sequences.  And this movie has action sequences the size of Angelina Jolie’s lips.  She leans out of the windows of cars shooting people.  ”I’ve seen that,” you say.  But she leans out, or rather through, the front window, like the one over the hood.  Not only is it entirely improbable, it’s also incredibly fun to watch.

The whole movie is full of these types of chases and shootouts, and it would never, ever work without the cast it has at its disposal.  If this were a bunch of no-names, or even the tag-team triumvirate of Paul Walker and Ben Affleck and Vin Diesel, it would cease to exist.  The glib lines (and storyline) would fall apart from the very beginning, and no one would care.  Instead, director Timur Bekmambetov, a Russian/Kazakh guy known for directing vampire films, has the above-mentioed McAvoy and Jolie, Terrence Stamp, and none other than Morgan “I Make Anything Sound Good” Freeman.  Without this cast of well-known, seasoned veterans, the film never makes it off the loom.

The graphics and sound are all very well done, and the actors have nearly as much fun as the audience does with this one.  The body count begins to pile up and reaches a space-bending climax near the end, but you will have been ready for it, guessed it even, and it doesn’t make any difference.  You will probably have enjoyed it enough not to care.  You may even want to watch it again.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

I expected this movie to fairly superficial, both in its humor and its take on relationships.  I also expected it to appeal mostly to single people.  And thirdly, I expected it to be mildly entertaining.  The first hour: I was right.  The next hour, though, is a different story, one which the first hour does nothing to help, considering I found it  bland, poorly written, and extremely…unfunny.  As if on cue, though, the writers decided to show up for the Second Act, because the laughs became more frequent and the story’s characters far more believable, with lives and problems and uncertainty.

You’ve probably never heard of the director, Ken Kwapis,  unless you pay attention to the credits to The Office (US), for which he directed 11 episodes, or Freaks and Geeks, or even The Bernie Mac Show.  The guy knows humor. For some reason, though, that first sixty minutes was like watching grass grow or paint dry or Fidel Castro get out of bed.  Mind-numbingly boring.  With a cast that includes Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Connelly, Jennifer Anniston, Justin Long, and Bradley Cooper, he doesn’t have a lot of excuses either.  (And Ben Affleck’s in it, too.)  The performances are mostly pretty good; Connelly (Janine) is great; and Ginnifer Goodwin (Gigi) was wonderful to watch, both charming and subtle.

The film follows the lives and relationships of a handful of people whose lives all weave together unknowingly, reminiscent of Woody Allen.  Each character is in search of love, of romance, of the “spark,” but none of them seem to be able to find it.  To make matters worse, they don’t know how. The movie follows them not only searching for love itself then, but also searching for how love is defined in a post-modern, tech-savvy world.  Each of them seeks it in similar fashion, and most of them are rejected likewise.

What makes the movie worth watching is that it finds a way to explore the new truths of romance, which, of course, are the same truths they’ve always been, only they’ve been repackaged, and in some instances, are very difficult to distinguish as love at all.  What allows one to keep watching the film is its ability to remind, to gently nudge, to cajole one into thinking that love may be something worth finding after all, no matter how difficult.

That’s the somewhat kitschy part.  The other part is less sappy.  The movie has a few surprises, where we learn that love may not find everyone; that what we think is love sometimes isn’t; and that love may take a very long time to find, if we ever find it.  In other words, not surprises at all, but truths that we are afraid of, and for that reason this movie escapes a few cliches and Hugh Grant-isms that make most modern romantic comedies almost unbearable.  Okay, fine, unbearable.

With its laughs and its emotional truths, the movie turns out to actually be pretty good.  I didn’t love it.  But I came away with a sense that I had witnessed an exploration, at least, of something we all wish to explore.  The world of romance and love is difficult to navigate, and, though it is flawed, this movie (half of it, anyway) finds a way of portraying that, and of allowing us to enjoy the ride, too (okay, half of it).

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars