The Wrath of Godzilla

There's probably no better example of dumb Hollywood trend-following than the 1998 Roland Emmerich blockbuster Godzilla, an American adaptation of the popular Japanese monster movie series of the same name. While it was successful, Emmerich's re-imagining wasn't remembered fondly by those who sat through it. Newcomers were turned off by a stupid plot, annoying characters, and special effects that look dated compared to movies ten years older than itself. Established Godzilla fans were spurned by drastic redesigns of the creature itself, which ended up looking like a cheap knockoff of the T-Rex from Jurassic Park. In the end, it was a movie that pleased absolutely no-one, and it would be sixteen years before the famous city-destroying lizard would ever get back to the big screen, this time with Monsters director Gareth Edwards at the helm.

That's no reef.

This new Godzilla is a very human-centric story as the world is suddenly and disastrously reintroduced to city-sized monsters with our smaller, slightly crunchy heroes left to scurry around avoiding being stepped on. As an American soldier traveling to Japan to bail his estranged father (Bryan Cranston) out of jail, Aaron Taylor-Johnson just wants to get things taken care of and return to his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son at his California home. Unfortunately, this trip coincides with the re-emergence of an ancient monster that starts destroying cities and absorbing nuclear power sources all over the Pacific. Soon both soldiers and monster are converging on San Francisco, as the military struggles to contain the destruction and save the lives of all of the world's citizens in the process.

Duct tape is all the rage with crazy people in Japan.

Oh, the problems Godzilla has. The biggest is the fact that the title character has little screen time to speak of. While we get glimpses of the monster throughout the film - and his origins are merely glossed over, by the way - we never really get a good, long look at him until the end of the final act. It's not as though Godzilla doesn't have the opportunity to wreak havoc, as he appears numerous times in scenes setting up grand spectacles, only for the scenes to abruptly cut to either insignificant conversations between insignificant characters about what to do OR to the same scene but immediately after the off-screen carnage that Godzilla fans paid money to see in action. Obviously this was due to one of two things; either it was a budget decision, because that CGI LOOKS extremely expensive to produce (even if 3D added little); or it was a conscious decision to focus more attention on the human characters witnessing this crisis.

Right... what was your purpose here, again?

And we know that's a story angle that Edwards can do; his Monsters was very character-focused, even while the audience seemed to waiting on the edge of their seat for a GLIMPSE of anything alien. There are two reasons why - despite it being a brave idea - Edwards' effort doesn't work here. One is that the movie is called Godzilla, and people did not pay $8 (or more) for their tickets to watch a bunch of humans talking about all the action - and far more engaging action, mind you - taking place off-screen. Second, the characters here are one-note cliches from the annals of monster movies past. Cranston - while amazing - is your standard man driven into obsession by tragedy only to be proven right about the existence of giant monsters in our world. Olsen - while amazing - is your standard wife/mother/love interest whose existence in the film is purely to be an object for our hero to return to. Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins - while amazing - are figureheads of a secret society who unsuccessfully tried to keep these giant creatures a secret, and take on a John Hammond-esque desire to not interfere and let nature take its course. David Strathairn - while amazing - is a typical military leader who doesn't hesitate to abdicate nuclear force against what he sees as a threat. And Taylor-Johnson - while struggling to wipe clean his British accent - is the MacGuffin, an American soldier with an unbelievably convenient skill set who gets caught up in trying to take down the monster before it can destroy his home. He also happens to be the luckiest man alive, as proven by the impossibility of the situations he survives. Though the acting is solid, there's not enough development here to make up for the lack of dedicated monster action we get.

Ooh, do we see him now? Wait, wait... no...

So after all that, my opinion on Godzilla must be clear... It's absolutely awesome.

Don't get me wrong, this is a movie with some clear, easily recognizable flaws. Edwards and his filmmakers take WAY too long focusing on things other than the film's main character, and the script - credited to newcomer Max Borenstein but with contributions from mediocre established writers David Callaham (Doom), David Goyer (Blade: Trinity), Drew Pearce (Iron Man 3) and Frank Darabont (okay, he's actually quite good) - just doesn't do this story justice. The actions of the humans are inconsequential (or just stupid), their motivations forced and derivative, and the characters themselves mere caricatures of established cliches.

Amazingly, you can understand almost everything Watanabe says this time around.

But while the film struggles narratively, it still has excellent action, amazing special effects, and it uses its title monster effectively when we finally DO see him let loose. Whether or not you're a fan of the classic Japanese movie creature, seeing him smash buildings or fight other giant MUTOs (yes, they look like derivatives of the Cloverfield monster, but that design was awesome so I'll forgive it) gives a definite feeling of awe and excitement, much like last Summer's similar epic Pacific Rim. Better, Edwards knows to treat Godzilla as a heroic figure, as opposed to Emmerich's more neutral stance in 1998. Sure, he directly causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (off-screen, naturally), but at the end of the day this is a monster you're still rooting for, if only because Hollywood got him right. Simply put, the best parts of Godzilla give you instant happiness, despite whatever else it does wrong. You might mentally tick off all the issues that this film has as you watch it on the big screen, but as the closing credits roll you'll find yourself putting down your 3D glasses, glancing at the screen, and uttering:

"Please, sir, I want some more."

Open Letters Monthly: Argo

Ben Affleck has become a renowned Hollywood director thanks to contributions from his hometown, specifically the Boston-based crime dramas Gone Baby Gone and The Town. But while Boston has done a lot for Affleck, he needed to take a step away from the overly familiar backdrop and tackle something completely out of his comfort zone.

Enter Argo, a very real Hollywood film about a very fake Hollywood sci-fi flick that entered production as a CIA cover story. At the height of the Iran hostage crisis, six American diplomats manage to escape the hostile takeover of the American embassy and find shelter at the home of Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor. While they are temporarily safe, there seems to be no way to smuggle them out out of the country to safety, and the Iranian students are quickly becoming aware that they have not captured every diplomat in the country. It's up to one CIA specialist to convince an entire country that the six people are a Canadian film crew, and get them on a plane out of there.

Argo is directed by Ben Affleck and stars Affleck, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, Kyle Chandler, Chris Messina, Victor Garber, Clea DuVall, Tate Donovan and Scoot McNairy.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Euro Trip

No matter how many many new animation studios pop up, and no matter how many 3D animated films are released each year, there are still only two studios that REALLY matter: Pixar and Dreamworks. Of the two, Pixar has had the most success and the higher quality of films, from their breakthrough Toy Story to an almost-yearly excellent releases like The Incredibles, Up and Wall-E. Dreamworks has had fewer successes. but successes they HAVE been. While Pixar probably rules the quality side, Dreamworks generally works on quantity, and with hits such as the Shrek series, Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon popping up regularly, Dreamworks has made a name for itself as a conveyor of consistent - if second-tier - animation. That has been enough for audiences, families who keep turning out to see these motion pictures. This summer, Pixar and Dreamworks meet yet again with conflicting June releases. But while we will be waiting until the end of the month to take in Pixar's Brave, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted made its way to screens this past weekend. After a successful debut (beating the highly-touted Prometheus at the box office), it's focusing on cashing in before Brave can inevitably ruin the party.

"Okay, yes, Meet the Fockers was a bad movie! Can you ever forgive me?"

Not that there's much reason to compare Madagascar to Brave in any capacity other than the fact that they're both children's animated films. While Brave looks like a clever, lore-filled tale with a strong message and unique characters, Madagascar is just silly, full of slapstick and wisecracks. continuing the story from its predecessors, Madagascar 3 sees Alex the lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the hippopotamus (Jada Pinkett Smith) trying to escape their temporary African residence to return home to the Central Park Zoo in New York City. As they will need the help of the Penguins (who have absconded with the airship to Monte Carlo), the four find themselves trekking across Europe, joining the circus, and attempting to elude the pursuit of Monacan Animal Control Captain Chantel Dubois (Frances McDormand), who is looking to add the head of a certain lion to her wall of trophies.

Huh, apparently zebras do just fine without opposible thumbs.

It's the circus angle that actually makes this film as enjoyable as it is. Sure, you might like the main cast of Stiller and crew, but they really don't do anything that different from other films. Even the Penguins, who are the main reason to watch ANY Madagascar offerings, aren't major factors in the movie as a whole. Instead it's the circus and the theme and characters that go along with it that provide the greatest source of entertainment the film can muster, and a great change of pace from the city/wild dynamic that had been the basis of the first two films. The vocal talent brought in to play the new characters were also amazing, with Bryan Cranston and Jessica Chastain (Seriously, how long is she going to be able to keep this pace?) performing wonderfully as a circus tiger and jaguar, respectively, and even Martin Short provides a good amount of levity as Stefano, a sea lion. Their work, plus the story of Alex and crew reinvigorating a failing circus, really raises the film above the dime store plot it would have enjoyed otherwise. While the addition of McDormand as an evil Animal Control specialist is admirable, it doesn't quite work as much more than a mix of Louis Tully from Ghostbusters and a Great White Hunter. And no, that's not really a compliment.While the movie does its best to make her a dire threat, I couldn't help but simply be annoyed by her presence, as she lacked anything other than cartoon villainy.

The Penguins: were you REALLY thinking of anything else when you bought your ticket?

Still, the film does at least bring the funny on a regular basis. Despite it being odd to see THREE directors in charge of making any title, even an animated movie, there don't appear to be any jumbled messages or misguided side-stories resulting from such a combination that would screw with the pace of the movie. I do wonder why Conrad Vernon (Shrek 2, Monsters Vs. Aliens) was asked to join the proven duo of Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, who had paired on the two previous Madagascar films, but in the end it's not important. While conflict is minimal and usually involves a single conversation to set things right, it's easy to criticize this when the subject I'm talking about is a movie geared towards children. It's not supposed to be complicated, and it never has to be, for that reason alone.

"It's just a model!"

In all, Madagascar 3 was a decent time spent at the theaters. Like last year's Kung Fu Panda 2, it's a fun diversion without much in the way of deep plot or complicated storytelling. Still, it's actually funnier than both of Dreamworks' titles from last year (the other being Puss in Boots), especially for the children who make up the vast majority of the audience. Even with the addition of Chris Rock's quickly-annoying "Afro Circus" song, this is still a fine movie for the kids, and one even adults can get into once the circus story hits. Still, you might want to save your money for Brave, which promises to be the better of the two, and comes out in just a couple of weeks. But if you have money to burn and need to beat the heat, you can certainly do a lot worse than this fun ride. It's no How to Train Your Dragon, but it's firmly on the right side of Dreamworks' quality average, and that's certainly not a bad thing.

Way Over the Rainbow

It's not often that a film gets blasted before a single soul ever sees it. Normally, a well-known piece of American literature (in this case Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars") would be at least respected by potential audiences and reviewers months in advance. And yet, thanks to what has been called a "lackluster" marketing drive by Disney and a $250 million budget routinely criticized by movie "experts", there is a good chance that you will not see John Carter on the big screen in the coming days. That would be a mistake, as no matter how much Disney might not know how to advertise a movie geared towards boys (after all, their entire business used to be solely appealing to girls) it doesn't change the fact that I had a ton of fun watching it this past weekend. Todd and I had a choice between this and Silent House (which I'll be reviewing next week), and we decided that we were more in the mood for a light-hearted adventure tale than a spooky horror flick. Sure, 3D hasn't always been kind to me. Sure, it's being released in March, and there's not much released during this particular month that is usually any good. But dammit, we wanted a mindless sci-fi action film, and we didn't care from where we got it.

Soon, he'll be adding Best Picture nominee Battleship to his resume.

When Confederate Civil War hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) finds himself mystically transported to Mars (known to the locals as Barsoom), he finds himself squarely in the middle of an inter-species conflict, as war rages between the cities of Zodanga, a warrior nation intent on destruction, and the peaceful, scientifically superior city of Helium. Somehow Zodanga's leader Sab Than (Dominic West) has gotten his hands on a weapon superior to anything Helium has been able to produce. Dominating his enemies, Sab Than is intent on conquering Helium, and taking the genius Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) as his bride. Asked to help, John Carter is searching for meaning in his life but nevertheless intent on returning to his little bit of nowhere in the American West and a substantial deposit of gold that awaits his return. In his way is the war, a tribe of green skinned aliens known as Tharks, and a mysterious sect known as the Holy Therns, who have their own plans for cities and people of Barsoom.

Yeah, yeah, she's hot... but can she ACT?

John Carter might not seem it at first, but sitting through it makes you appreciate the work of Burroughs, essentially one of the great-grandfathers of modern science fiction. First published in 1912, Carter's adventures have always enjoyed a pulpy feel to their telling, a method that translates to the big screen easily, even if this is the first time the tale has been told in such a visually spectacular way. Director Andrew Stanton, whose resume has mostly consisted of animated films Finding Nemo and Wall-E, does an excellent job in his live action debut, though perhaps not as well as his Pixar compatriot Brad Bird did with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. He's helped by the fact that most of the film is animated to begin with, with almost all the backgrounds, effects and most of the leading roles created in post-production. The design of the alien Tharks is especially realistic, helping John Carter sport the best visual effects since Avatar. Stanton also perfectly captures the intended fictional vision of Mars, a wasteland that despite looking completely barren manages to support life on a grand scale. Top it off with excellent 3D and a musical score by Michael Giacchino, and you've got a perfectly realized Barsoom, easily the most realistic-looking setting for a sci-fi film I've witnessed in a long time.

It's an early twentieth-century sci-fi story... of COURSE there's a dog!

Sadly, the story doesn't quite live up to the standards set by the special effects. Though I haven't read any of the original novels, I'm willing to bet that the quality of the story can partly be attributed to the fact that the tale itself turns one hundred this year, and certainly not everything could be included for fear of simply not getting better with age. Thankfully, this is all but solved with liberal doses of humor that are scattered evenly throughout the film. Unlike last week's Ghost Rider, the humor here is 100% intentional, so there's never that moment where you're laughing at what a farce the show has become. Sure, sometimes the humor goes a little over the top or takes the obvious route to a laugh for the expressed purpose of ending a scene, but no matter what the reason for use, John Carter never fails to be funny when called upon to do so.

"Okay, yeah... I can take them!"

Really, the only disappointing aspect of John Carter is in the acting. It's not the supporting cast that fails us, however. Drawing upon substantial talent like Dominic West, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds (who seems to appear in everything these days), James Purefoy and Bryan Cranston in live action roles, the people on the screen would appear to be as mighty as any seen in the past few years. Add in the vocal talents of Academy Award nominees Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton, and you really do have a cast to be reckoned with. Sadly, it doesn't matter how many excellent supporting actors you've collected when your leads are a pair of noodles just taken out of the water. Taylor Kitsch is at least decent, though I don't see anything beyond his rugged good looks that certify him as a star in the making. Sure, he COULD be the next Hugh Jackman, but Jackman was a theatrically-trained actor who can also sing and dance, regularly showcasing abilities surpassing his presence among the top action stars in Hollywood today. If Kitsch wants to make a name for himself, he'll have to take on a role (and soon) which requires more from him than a guttural regurgitation of simplistic dialogue. The worst however is Lynn Collins, who can at least state that her performance is better than the one she put forth in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. No, that's really not saying much. Perhaps it's partially the character's fault, as Dejah Thoris pretends to be a strong female role while being simultaneously disallowed the opportunity to explore that idea. I felt that the dog had better character development, not a good sign for this pretty but not talent-endowed actress.

Awww, he just wants a hug... of DEATH!

As I've said, the film has flaws. I would have loved to look more into the background of the Therns, a mystical race much like Star Trek's Q species, omnipotent space-faring people that manipulate world event not for evil, but because they can. Perhaps that can be explored in the future, as John Carter was always meant to be the beginning of a film franchise. Whether that happens or not will be decided by how much business it builds in the next few weeks, but in the meantime I seriously enjoyed this film, to the tune of #4 for 2012. Rarely last year did I witness an action film that was the match of what John Carter put before me (the only one surpassing it would have been Hanna, and that title wasn't blessed with the same level of amazing effects), and between this, Underworld: Awakening, The Hunger Games and The Avengers in the year's first half, it's turning into a good year for genre films. I for one was more than pleased to discover that catching this particular title on the big screen was indeed no mistake.

Driving Force

What a mess last weekend was, huh? With three brand new cinema releases vying to make a big payday, none of the big three managed to take the crown. In fact, the film that ended up at number one in the country wasn't even a film initially released THIS YEAR. With the 3D release of popular Disney film The Lion King cleaning house and flexing it's still-potent drawing power, it cut a swath through the latest pretenders, including a remake of an obscure Dustin Hoffman film and a stunted attempt to reignite Sarah Jessica Parker's acting career. But the biggest tragedy of that September weekend is that Drive, a special highlight of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, suffered somewhat at the hands of an elderly animated carnivore. Granted, Drive and Lion King have different audiences. But for a movie that has so far garnered much praise from critics and screening audiences to finish second at the box office to a title that was first released in June of 1994 is never a good thing, and already interest in this Internet-hyped title has begun to dwindle. This is yet another speed bump in the recent push of actor Ryan Gosling's career, following an Academy Award snub for his lower-class romantic in Blue Valentine (granted, it was a packed field, but I would have at least nominated him). Put together by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive only recently appeared on my radar, but quickly became one of my more anticipated September releases thanks to its amazing visuals, unique and talented cast, and its not-so-subtle portrayal of Gosling as the nouveau Steve McQueen.

At least he's not driving angry...

Based on the 2005 James Sallis novel, Drive centers around an unnamed protagonist (Gosling) who works as a mechanic and Hollywood stunt driver by day and moonlights as a freelance getaway driver after the sun goes down. His boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) wants to expand into stock car racing, and approaches underworld Don Bernie Ross (Albert Brooks) for an investment, convincing him that he has the best driver available. Meanwhile, the driver's potential romance with neighbor and single mother Irene (Carey Mulligan) is cut short when Standard (Oscar Isaac), her husband and the father of her child, returns home from prison. Agreeing to help Standard settle prison debts, our hero is the victim of a deal gone bad, and a life of relative anonymity collapses as he finds himself with many enemies and precious few friends while he tries to right the wrongs that have been committed.

Let's see: guy with the shotgun vs. the big name actor? As if there's any doubt

While the story itself isn't much to speak of, the way it is told is almost masterful. You likely haven't heard of Refn, whose films haven't made much of a name for themselves on this side of the Atlantic. Arguably his biggest film, Bronson, isn't much known outside of breaking in future Hollywood "It" performer Tom Hardy, and that made more impact on DVD than it had in the theater. It must have caught the eye of Gosling however, who was given the chance to name Drive's director when he joined the film. Even early on, you can tell that Refn is a visually-talented director, with many of his camera shots eloquent and beautiful in their execution. He makes every shot perfect, whether framing wide to see an entire scene play out, or closing in on someone's face at the PERFECT angle, not unlike the 2010 Anton Corbijn film The American. While he does some very close shots during car chase scenes, it never serves to confuse the audience as to what is happening on screen, and that is important because I've never seen a director who take that level of responsibility and handle it so smoothly.

Okay, she even LOOKS a little like Michelle Williams...

Refn's talent is such that when he suddenly turns into something of a European Robert Rodriguez, it is so surprising. With a first half of a film that is almost violence free, you don't expect it when the whole thing turns unabashedly bloody. All of the sudden we're subjected to shotgun blasts, exploding heads, stabbings, drownings, crushed skulls, sliced wrists, and just about anything remotely uncomfortable to watch in one setting. I mean, I knew there had to be a reason for the film's R rating, but for the film to take such a turn was so completely unpredictable and speaks to the director's tact and balance. That Refn even makes the violence watchable (albeit through the gaps in your fingers) is stellar, as it is not detracting at all from his amazing camerawork.

Despite his preparation, he never saw Simba coming.

Once again we have another stellar lead role for Gosling, who is destined to become the next big thing in Hollywood, even if audiences aren't completely behind him. Definitely composing an old-school vibe that's  reminiscent of McQueen while still very much being his own artist, Gosling is a force from beginning to end, as he threads those narrow routes from icy emotionless driver to reluctantly warm human being and back again. He is the best part of Drive by a good margin, and continues to be a joy to watch in any medium. It can't be long before he becomes the favorite in a Best Actor race, and who knows, he might just win. Sadly, Carey Mulligan is a mere victim/love interest, although she is at least believable as such. While it may not be as dull as he role in the Wall Street sequel, she's still a far way away from showing the initiative that made her breakout role in 2009's An Education such a novelty. There are some brave casting choices here, but picking Albert Brooks as the film's heavy was one of pure genius. More known for his comedies, Brooks manages to actually steal some of Gosling's limelight (not too much, mind you) with his smarmy crime lord. Bryan Cranston continues to do great work in small roles, a nice side gig to his successful television career. There are some very good smaller parts on the menu, with talented actors taking their share. Between Ron Perlman's menacing gangster and Christina Hendricks as an icy stick-up artist Refn seems to choose the perfect embodiment of his characters. And that doesn't even account for Oscar Isaac, who we should hate because he was in prison and rivals the Driver for Irene's affections but is really a pretty good guy. Most of the film roles aren't cliches, and even those that are get some extra credit from the viability of those playing them, a rare sight indeed.

He's just about ready for his Oscar, America

In this age of 3D shark-jumping, plot-less scripts, and billion dollar motion pictures, a beautifully-shot and remarkably intelligent film is difficult enough to immediately find, let alone one that is successful. While the film sometimes slows down to a point where you could call it more patient than its audience, Drive overcomes this by making even these slow moments worth watching with enough eye-candy to make it one of the most visually appealing movies of the year. Opulence alone would be enough to place it among the year's best, but the excellent direction and amazing acting propel it to the top of my Top 10 list, square at #1. When you put this much talent together, good things can happen. And when that talent successfully puts something together with out-of-the-box thinking, it can only get better.

Sick Day

Trusty film sidekick Anne and I have had a running joke in recent weeks. On the days or nights when we would go to the theater, we would inevitably see a trailer for the new Steven Soderbergh thriller Contagion. No matter how many times we came across it, our thoughts were the same: "It's the film that stars EVERYONE!" This isn't a generalization on our parts, either; besides the big-name stars like Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard and Laurence Fishburne, the trailer alone was full of recognizable actors from Just Shoot Me's Enrico Colantoni to Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston to Winter's Bone's Acadamy Award nominee John Hawkes. Despite the topical deadly virus story being sold, it was obvious in just under three minutes what the problem with Contagion would be, as the only reason so many big names actors would be rolled out was to camouflage a story that itself was not worth the paper on which it was written. Still, it had an enormously successful opening weekend, and you just can't ignore a film with such a huge pedigree behind it. While Anne hung back in the Reel Cave with a plate of fruit and a looping BSG marathon running, I braved the crowds and elements to find out whether Contagion was SARS come to invade our cinema or a mere throat bug.

Rule #1 of surviving a virus outbreak: avoid hospitals

While returning home from a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes down with what she and everyone else assumes is jet lag. The next day, when she collapses at home, a visit to the hospital eventually confirms that it is not jet lag, but an advanced variation on bird flu that has contaminated her body. Highly infectious, this soon becomes a global epidemic, with cities all over the world suffering the deadly effects of this new disease. The Center for Disease Control, led by Dr. Ellis Cheever (Fishburne), attempt to isolate, contain and cure the outbreak, and the Department of Homeland Security is worried that the virus is the product of a terrorist attack. The race is on to save humanity as a whole, but the question is not whether the mysteries of the virus will be solved, but how much politics and red tape will prevent that from happening.

The least-sexy plastic suit of all time

This is definitely as talented a group of actors as you can expect to find attached to any movie title. With legitimate stars like Damon, Kate Winslet et al, you expect that they'll be at the top of their game. This is true in almost every instance, but the problem with Contagion is that the characters these big stars are hired to play are barely people at all, only suits and skirts designed to fulfill narrative obligations. Each person barely display more than one motivation, and often if they change their minds it is in the most inane way possible. For all the hard work Damon and Fishburne pour into their performances, their characters are remarkably one-noted and interesting only in their intensity. Jude Law taps into his asshole quotient nicely, though his independent reporter making a name (and more than a few bucks) on the back of this epidemic is not a stretch from his usual boring roles. I've only ever liked Law in Sherlock Holmes, and I think he needs to work across from superior actors to force him to raise his game to their level. That isn't present here, and he never really shares the screen with the more talented members of the cast. Paltrow and Winslet are completely wasted in bit parts with no lasting impact on the main story, and I was speaking of Cotillard's character when I was complaining of inane character choices. Some of the smaller roles actually work out well, as Colantoni, Cranston, Hawkes and Elliott Gould do some good in a small amount of time. While there are several talented actors in this film, the best character belonged to somebody you may not recognize, as Jennifer Ehle runs away from the pack as a risk-taking lab doctor who kicks ass in just about every imaginable way.

As if things weren't bad enough, Winslet just learned about the Netflix price restructuring

Of course, Soderbergh only intended one character to be multifaceted, and that was the virus itself. Learning, mutating, growing; this virus did more than any single character in the entire film could claim to have accomplished. In reality, Soderbergh's story can be simply described as dropping the virus in amongst a group and studying what happened. In this you can see the best of his work, as its obvious he left no stone unturned in determining what would happen if person A became sick but did this, this and this before meeting person B. It's almost like looking back at Soderbergh's earlier career when similar films Traffic and Erin Brockovich were mega-hits following other topical situations, garnering critical acclaim and box office records in the process. Since that time Soderbergh hasn't exactly had a lot of success getting either of those, with only the Oceans 11 remake and its subsequent sequels being the obvious exceptions. If Contagion is successful, that might be more remembered than any actual detail of the story herein.

At the Apocalypse, don't worry! Cell reception will be as strong as ever

That's because unfortunately the story tends to get as flat as its characters. For the entirety of the film we're being told that this is a bad thing, and to make sure you are careful with what you interact, otherwise there could be deadly consequences. Reasonable enough, but that this message goes on uninterrupted for just under two hours gets quite a bit boring, and since the film portrays an extreme case situation this message probably won't be heeded by most viewers anyway. Sure there's a little bit in there about the evils and flaws of man in a time of crisis, but that is almost glossed over under the seemingly mistaken impression that these are not problems we can fix. On top of that, after going the entire film without having it revealed what caused the virus in the first place, the finale features Soderbergh going right back to day one to spell out exactly how it happened, making borderline racist commentary in the process. It was a completely unnecessary gesture, one which was probably suggested by brain dead test audiences or confused studio executives rather than anything resembling a logical process.

Well, what can I say? Jude Law isn't a great actor

In the end, I managed to make it through almost the entire screening without being too bothered by the flaws, which was far better than I had expected. Only the ending and the poor character design were serious bummers, though the story as a whole wasn't helped much otherwise. A merely okay film, this is hardly the stellar Soderbergh many people seem to think it is. Instead of a riveting biological drama, it's a political and societal statement, one barely interesting or even intellectually argued. I'm not sure I can recommend Contagion to anyone to see in the theater, though it certainly deserves more attention than the latest entries in the Scream, Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers franchises, all of which I enjoyed to some degree. Contagion carries itself firmly to the middle of the pack as far as 2011 goes, another forgettable film in a year of epically forgettable films.

Crowned

Lately I feel like I've been watching more and more romantic comedies than usual, whether released in 2011 or not. It wasn't until this year, with my increased focus on the blog, that seeking more varied styles of film has been among my goals, especially when it comes to my charts for worst films of the year and Hello Mr. Anderson's inaugural Awards post, which will be held at the end of every year that this blog remains active. I'm still fine-tuning the details, but I should have plenty of time to work those out by the time it rolls around. Stepping back to the topic of romantic comedies, however; much of the time I'm not seeing such a film because I want to, but because it exists. I was completely unaware of When Harry Met Sally's awesomeness until The Opinioness brought it to my attention. You've Got Mail and A Good Year were recently introduced to me (and subsequently enjoyed) by my friend Anne. I even saw this years' No Strings Attached and will see Friends with Benefits and Crazy Stupid Love, films I might have skipped in years past, and I've rarely looked forward to these or ANY RomCom in the past. That's what makes Larry Crowne so different. When trailers first appeared for the latest film starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, a strange thing occurred; I began to look forward to it. Despite my assertions that films of the like are often derivative, fantastical and illogical, in the end that doesn't necessarily make for a bad film, especially when the main goal of the theater is to transport the viewer to somewhere they've never before been. The trailers for Larry Crowne didn't convey any sense of a different direction, but a sincere charm is what roped me in, guaranteeing that it would be part of my viewing schedule this summer.

Hello, my name is Tom, and I'm addicted to being in romantic comedies

Larry Crowne (Hanks) is a veteran retail store employee who we meet the day he is fired from his job at the big-box store U-Mart ("Shop Smart. Shop U-Mart"). U-Mart has released the former Navy cook because of a lack of formal college education, which comes at a terrible time as Larry is still recovering from his failed marriage and was already struggling to repay the mortgage on his house. Assisted by his friends and neighbors, Larry enrolls in college attempting to get himself back on track. Meanwhile, Mercedes Tainot (Roberts) is a college professor with an emotionally-absent husband (Bryan Cranston) and uncertainty that she makes any difference in the lives of the students who attend her classes. More and more she goes into work with a sense of dread, and doesn't look forward to a single one of her classes. As the two struggle to redefine themselves, a chance student-teacher relationship begins to assist both of their tribulations, and lead them to happiness.

Where Hanks would be if he wasn't the least bit charming

Once again, we have a situation in which Hanks stars in a film that is almost indistinct from his prior work. One of the few differences is that Hanks also expands his workload, not only completing his second feature film as a director (the first being 1996's That Thing You Do), but also co-writing the screenplay with Nia Vlardos (whose Big Fat Greek Wedding was perhaps overrated but still a lot of fun). As Hanks has the experience in romantic comedies to know exactly how to create standard fare, it's perhaps surprising that the final product exceeds any of my early expectations. As a storyteller, he shows us that he knows how to properly pace his tale, not rushing a single thing in order to give the audience instant gratification. The eventual connection of Larry and Mercedes is slow and not always moving forward, and never does the budding romance feel stiff or unlikely. Sometimes it even moves BACKWARD, seriously forcing the audience to consider that perhaps things will not turn out the way they had expected.

About as miserable a look as Roberts is likely to pull off

Once again, this RomCom is an actor's film, its actual quality paling in comparison to the level of charm the characters manage to exude. Hanks of course is king of the hill when it comes to this quality, especially important as he enters his elder years. Proving that talent is indeed worth more than good looks, Hanks succeeds in a film genre where younger, more chiseled actors are more valued in this day and age. Crowne is an immediately likable, socially-awkward man, with his only criticism being how Mercedes can so slowly become infatuated with him. This might have been Tom Hanks underestimating Tom Hanks, but since it works for the story this is hardly major folly. Roberts is an actress who has perhaps coasted on the success of her hits. Certainly not without talent, Julia Roberts has had some monumental roles in her career (Erin Brockovich, Closer), but she uses the rest of her time to make forgettable films such as last year's Eat Pray Love. The role of Mercedes Tainot is much closer to the latter than the former, but - like Hanks - she has the experience to pull it off with charm and grace. Secondary characters are once again not as original as they could be, but for the most part they do manage to flesh out the story outside of the main character plot-line. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is the best of the bunch as Talia, a young college student who befriends Larry and helps him become more "cool", by helping him connect with others, redecorating his house and essentially giving him a complete makeover. She, more than perhaps Mercedes, is the reason for Larry's transformation over the course of the film, and while her character is never fully realized, that's more fault of the script than the performance.Other good performances include Cedric the Entertainer as Larry's wealthy self-employed neighbor Lamar,  and Wilmer Valderrama as Dell, Talia's protective boyfriend. The cast isn't universally well-used, however, as talented actors Bryan Cranston and Taraji P. Henson do their best but are ultimately undervalued in the film. This is made up to a degree by Larry's fellow classmates, who are personalized and adorable that you can't help but like them, and George Takei, who succeeds in being for film in 2011 what Betty White was in 2010.

Somehow not UFC's next championship match

Larry Crowne touches on several topics relevant to today's world, including unemployment, financial difficulties and the importance of obtaining a higher education. These are very important and help move the story forward, but unfortunately they don't have as much impact as Hanks might have intended. Sure, we see Larry scrounging, selling off his possessions and even investing in a motor scooter to save on gas money, but the negative aspects of becoming suddenly jobless feel less tragic than they should here. This topic was much better realized in the George Clooney vehicle Up in the Air, and every film aiming for that message essentially feels redundant of that under-appreciated title. How long will it be before Hollywood abandons these motivations is unknown, though it will likely be this way until an end to the current economic recession has been confirmed.

How these two could muster a mere $13 million opening weekend?

The best thing about this particular romantic comedy is that the actual romance takes a back seat to the surprisingly strong character development. The plot isn't solely about getting these two characters together, though that is part of it. The point of the story is for these two characters to get to a place where they are as happy with their lives. Even if they don't end up together (though really, is there any doubt?), that isn't the important part. That's what Larry Crowne does so well, making the characters' fates and happiness  more important than their Facebook relationship status. It does fall into some serious romantic comedy cliches, but Larry Crowne is far better than most reviewers would have you believe, and that negative publicity has already made for a poor box office opening for either of its major stars. Maybe people are waiting for this one to come out on DVD, and maybe you should do that too. I however loved the film from beginning to end, and wouldn't suggest for a second that it was not worth watching if you're even remotely into the entire romantic comedy experience.

Raising the Bar

How long has it been since Matthew McConaughey has been known for anything besides his good looks? Sure, he's had his share of hit films over course of his career, with romantic comedies like Fool's Gold and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, dramas like We Are Marshall, even the psychological thriller Frailty. But McConaughey's resume isn't what has been getting him the most attention of late. Appearing on several "sexiest man" magazine covers, it's easy to forget that once upon a time he was one of the more respected and renowned actors in Hollywood. Often picking film that are more "fun" than critically acclaimed, he's all but secured a second or third tier celebrity status, well below the likes of George Clooney or Javier Bardem, but still above say, Michael Douglass. With the trailers to The Lincoln Lawyer, however, McConaughey seems to be refuting that status. Reminding so many people of his captivating performance in 1996's A Time To Kill, the box office winner looked to be as charming as ever in this adaptation of the novel my Michael Connolly, perhaps finally choosing a role that put his full talents on display. It certainly looked good enough to draw me out to the theater this past Sunday, hoping that the trailers did more than highlight the film's best moments.

A very special episode of Law & Order: Celebrity Victims Unit

McConaughey plays small-time defense attorney Mickey Haller, a smart and charming smooth-talker who, despite a career of defending lowlifes and scumbags and holding a not small amount of disdain for overzealous cops and prosecutors, is actually the hero of this story. Out of the blue, Haller is brought in on a high-profile case: a wealthy Beverly Hills playboy named Louis Roullet (Ryan Phillippe) is being accused of beating and threatening to kill a young woman he had met one evening. Naturally, he claims that he's being set up, and there is certainly enough doubt accredited to the woman's story to make such a statement feasible. As more and more facts become known however, what began as a straightforward case becomes a twisted cat-and-mouse game in which Mickey's not sure who to trust, or what he can do to make things right.

Macy channeling his Boogie Nights persona

The strength of the story lies in its straightforwardness and honesty. Told exclusively from the perspective of Haller, the film's tale is learned by the audience at the same time our hero becomes privy to it. In this way, we're never under the impression that the characters know much more than we do, and this helps draw in the audience to the point where stepping away before conclusions are drawn is nearly impossible. You're invested in nearly every second of the film's run time, and the time spent never feels empty, as every moment bristles with the tension of wondering what new ground-breaking piece of information we'll learn next from the film's assorted cadre of characters.

I just wanted to plug in a photo of Marisa Tomei... for all the obvious reasons

The film's biggest draw is that of its cast. Director Brad Furman did a wonderful job filling in all the roles, even if most of them pale in comparison to McConaughey. The film is told from Haller's singular point of view, and it's fortunate that an actor of McConaughey's charm is in charge here. A perfect blend of charisma, humor and brains, Haller is practically written for McConaughey to melt into. The film suffers slightly for never straying from his side (it's probably the closest I've seen to a one-man show with an ensemble cast), but not so much that it permanently damages the relationship with the audience. I'll see Marisa Tomei in just about anything, so varied are her exceptional performances. She's just as good here, though her role as Haller's District Attorney ex-wife isn't the kind of award bait that her aging exotic dancer in The Wrestler was. Still, she does a great job and some of the film's best scenes are where we see both the good and bad in the relationship between the former flames. Sweet yet strained, it was a fully realistic pseudo-romance, enhanced by the stars' chemistry. That Tomei also played a smart, sophisticated woman as well is almost a bonus. William H. Macy is also good in a small role as Haller's private investigator friend, and solid performances abound from such varied talents as John Leguizamo, Josh Lucas, Frances Fisher, Bryan Cranston, Michaela Conlin, Margarita Levieva and Laurence Mason. Michael Pena as well is simply amazing, and while he is relegated to only two short scenes, his character proves to be so engaging and important that you really care what happens to him despite his brief appearance. The only real disappointment among this crowd is Phillippe, who has never been one of my (or many people's) favorites. The only film I've liked him in was last year's MacGruber, and then only because he was able to drop that uber-serious attitude he usually brings to roles not unlike this one. When all is said and done, he's given far too good a role to know what to do with, and doesn't pull it off convincingly. Still, with McConaughey in charge of just about every scene even this small annoyance barely makes a real fuss.

Get over it Matthew; Cranston has won more awards than you

If there's anything lacking here, it's the result of a rather lackluster ending that tries a little too hard to tie up all the loose threads. Compared to the rest of the film, it lacks the composure to be attractive to the audience and results in a bit of disappointment in comparison. Still, The Lincoln Lawyer is good enough to recommend to anyone looking for a fun movie, even if the subject matter is a bit more mature than Haller's one-liners. An ideal platform for Matthew McConaughey to dispel any thoughts that he can't do more serious fare, The Lincoln Lawyer tops out at #4 on the 2011 Top Films list. A lot of fun and a good old fashioned legal thriller, I think just about anyone can go into this film and more or less enjoy it.