Kill Me Now

So I'm wondering what the difference is between 2011 releases Killer Elite and The Mechanic. Both are simple action films starring English superstar Jason Statham. Both feature mercenaries, lots of gunfire, explosions and almost criminal amounts of bloodletting. But there is one major difference between the January-released The Mechanic and the more recent Killer Elite, and that is the fact that the newer release brings in primo acting talent to pad it's roster. Okay, that's something of an over-simplification. Sure, the earlier film paired Statham with legitamite talents in Ben Foster and Donald Sutherland, but neither man is a real headliner; Foster has never really been the front man of a hit film, and Sutherland will appear pretty much wherever he's told these days. So it's supposedly a big step forward when Clive Owen and Robert De Niro reveal themselves as the action hero's new castmates, and are the biggest reason people were given to see this in the theaters over a number of other uninspiring fall releases. Sure, Owen hasn't really been a big deal since 2004's Closer, but nobody who has ever seen him perform can deny his talents. And De Niro is always a draw, even though he hasn't had to really "act" in decades. Now we damand an answer to the question of which is better: the under-the-radar The Mechanic, or Killer Elite, with much more expected in turn?

Don't worry about acting; just do your usual thing

Based on the 1991 novel The Feather Men by adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Killer Elite takes us to 1980 and introduces us to retired mercenary Danny Bryce (Statham). After a Mexican operation gone bad, Danny steps away from the business, returning to his native Australia and into a romantic relationship with childhood friend Anne Frazier (Yvonne Strahovski). One year later he is dragged back into the business when his former colleague, an American named Hunter (De Niro), fails to perform a $6 million job for an exiled Sheik and is henceforth captured. Holding Hunter as ransom, the Sheik and his agent force Danny to take the job Hunter defaulted on, the assassination of three British Special Air Service agents responsible for the murders of the Sheik's sons during conflict in Oman. Danny reluctantly agrees, but killing the agents gains the attention of a shadow group of former SAS known as Feather Men and their ruthless field agent Spike Logan (Owen). Soon Logan is hunting down Danny and his band of fellow assassins, and soon it is killer versus killer as Danny fights to free his friend while Logan fights to put Danny six feet under.

Not your average attractive one-noted female character

For an action film, Killer Elite doesn't do too poorly in that department when it comes to the visual splendor. While many of the fight scenes are shot up close to obscure the action (and Clive Owens' stunt doubles, surely), it's thankfully not done to the point where you can't follow what is happening on the screen. Statham is as fun to watch as a physical performer now as when he broke out in the action scene in 2002's The Transporter, and dominates every action scene presented. There are a few non-Statham action scenes that are poorer by comparison, but still manage to convey the excitement intended. While there are a few scenes that are completely unrealistic even for the genre (such as Hunter taking down an enemy at a distance with a silenced pistol), most of the film at least maintains a good sense of realism, which is important when you're claiming to be based on a true story.

In the 80's, shitty mustaches were far more forgiven

Acting-wise, this is no great collection of personalities, despite the addition of big-name performers Owen and De Niro. Statham is... well... Statham. He fights, growls his dialogue in a menacing fashion ninety percent of the time, and is charming enough to guarantee more of these roles in the future. Anyone expecting the action star to be different from any of his dozens of previous characters would be sorely disappointed, but Statham is comforting to his fans in that he's always a reliable presence. Owen is also sold, though this role might be more remembered more (if at all) for his terrible mustache and "blinded" eye than his actual acting ability. Let's face it, Owen's Hollywood career has never been great, though he has held some solid supporting roles alongside much more established stars. This is another example of that. At least this is more than Robert De Niro brings to the table. De Niro's Hunter is a hitman from Brooklyn (or the Bronx, whatever), which would be fine if it didn't seem like every film in the past decade not co-starring Ben Stiller has had him in that role. De Niro at one point in his career was considered an exciting, strong personality, but his inability to stretch himself in any capacity is the most epic form of laziness, and here he does little more than deliver throwaway dialogue to garner some chuckles from the audience. Better is Yvonne Strahovsky as Danny's love interest. For a nice change, the female role in a Jason Statham film is no one-dimensional hanger-on or degrading lady of the night. Strahovsky plays the normal girl next door, and while she doesn't steal the film by any means, the interactions between her and Statham (and in one case, her and De Niro) are a nice change from the rest of the story. If anything, her effective use adds a layer of humanity to the film that it would not possess otherwise.

Of course you know Statham will get the better of this situation

Unfortunately, there are only a few truly memorable moments (such as Statham defeating two enemies while strapped to a chair) throughout the course of the film. Most of Killer Elite is what you'd expect, not straining from the conditions of the action genre in any fashion. So which 2011 Statham film is better? Well, Killer Elite might feature Owen and Strahovsky in solid supporting roles, but that is offset by the generic story and Robert De Niro in general. The Mechanic had a weaker cast, but Ben Foster is a talented performer, if a somewhat ignored one. It also made for no less a ridiculous yarn, but at least did not try to proclaim that it was based on a true story, making it better than it's September predecessor. While occasionally entertaining, there's nothing new or interesting about Killer Elite, a film that you should only see if you're desperate for an action film and have already scavenged the Action section of your local rental place.

Stolen Time

Is it wrong that I actually wanted to see Abduction?

Don't get me wrong; I could care less that this film is the first project to be headlined by Twilight star Taylor Lautner as a leading man, as the pug-faced bodybuilder has done nothing to convince me that he's earned the shot. Being in a successful series of films based on an even more successful series of teen supernatural novels is NOT a recipe for standalone success; Kristen Stewart has had no tangible success outside of the Twilight movies and Robert Pattinson had to adapt another popular novel (in the great Water for Elephants) to star in another hit. No, Lautner was nowhere near the top of the list of reasons I had for wanting to see this film; it was instead his director and co-stars who baited me into the theater like a mouse to cheese. I've never seen a John Singleton film, but even a middle-class white boy can understand the impact he has had with the urban titles Poetic Justice and the Oscar-nominated Boyz n tha Hood. And the talent piled around Lautner? Sigourney Weaver, Alfred Molina, Jason Isaacs, Maria Bello and Michael Nyqvist are all top-notch performers whose presence spoke to me and guaranteed that I would be seeing this film as soon as I could fit it into my schedule.

Movie appealing to teens? Guaranteed liberal cell phone usage

Nathan Harper (Lautner) is a normal suburban teenager. He's on the wrestling team in high school, crushes on his classmate/neighbor Karen (Lily Collins) and lives with his parents Kevin (Isaacs) and Mara (Bello). His is a fairly normal life, but he is also troubled in that he suffers from insomnia and rage issues brought on by dreams he has of witnessing a woman he vaguely recognizes being murdered. As a result Nathan doesn't always feel like he belongs in the life he leads, all more complicated by the discovery of his childhood photo on a missing person's website. Soon after learning that the people in his house are not his parents, Nathan and Karen find themselves on the run from a CIA group led by Frank Burton (Molina) and a Russian terrorist group under the leadership of Viktor Koslow (Nyqvist). If they are to have any chance, Nathan must learn about his real father and the reasons his life up to this point has been a lie.

Because every teenager need a motorcycle for... stuff

Unfortunately, there's very little good to say about Abduction. While the premise has some potential, it is utterly wasted thanks to a terrible screenplay by Stellastarr frontman Shawn Christensen. This man needs to stick to his musical career, as the film's horrid dialogue and pacing fail on every level. Almost is bad is Singleton's work as director. As far from the subjects of his earlier work as humanly possible, Abduction simply didn't have the right man in charge, as Singleton can't do for upper-class white kids what he did for lower-class urban black youths in the nineties. The whole teen angst movement that has become so popular in recent years seems over his head and one can't help but wonder what would happen if someone more in tune like Catherine Hardwicke had been in charge (of course she made the atrocious Red Riding Hood so she might not be the best example). Maybe it's time Singleton go back to writing his own screenplays, as he really doesn't seem to do well when it comes to other people's stories.

Sweaty Taylor Lautner is not a pretty thing

And yet this might have been slightly redeemable if Lautner had been a more polished lead actor; sadly, this was a bad first pick for a shot at a post-Twilight career. It's not the Lautner is a BAD actor, it's just that he can't overcome the trite material he's given to work with at this stage. Looking like a poor-man's Tom Cruise is not a good thing if you can't capture that early Tom Cruise charm, something he will desperately need if he wants success in the future. Lily Collins is no better, having not lived up to her billing as an actress to watch out for. As she was in this year's other snore-fest action film Priest, Collins is a goal and something to protect, but never breaks out of that shell and becomes her own character. She does get one moment to shine, but the scene is so overlooked by the filmmakers that it barely warrants a mention. Together, the pair make for an uninteresting set of leads, complete with an entirely implausible romance.

Trying to be slick. Failing.

And so it falls to the support cast to keep this film completely out of the gutter. However, despite the amazing amount of talent present even this group can't save this mess. Sigourney Weaver, Alfred Molina and Jason Isaacs are all high-impact talents who usually raise the quality of a film just by their mere presence. Look at Weaver in Paul; the perfect example of a perfectly-cast small role. And Molina was easily the best part of Prince of Persia, one of 2010's worst titles. Both are completely wasted here, with Molina not quite ringing true as a CIA operative who may or may not be trustworthy, and Weaver shockingly bland as one of Nathan's true allies. Isaacs has been good in just about every genre of film you can imagine, from the women's drama Nine Lives to the action thriller Green Zone to the sci-fi horror Event Horizon. He's always been amongst the best performers that nobody in the community recognizes, and part of the reason for that is his inability to pick the great, popular movies. In that way, he's kind of a male, English Robin Wright. Here, he's the best part of the film, only to be killed off early, along with the equally-talented Maria Bello. The biggest hope I had for this film was for Michael Nyqvist to make an impact on Hollywood. Nyqvist, best known for his leading role of Mikael Blomkvist in the Swedish adaptation of Stieg Larssen's Millennium trilogy, had an opportunity to become a known quantity to an American audience. Unfortunately, he suffers the same fate as Weaver, as what talent he brings to the table is countered by cliche characterization and the lousy script. He'll have another chance with the latest Mission Impossible film when it releases later this year, but it's still a major disappointment to see him wasted in this film.

Sadly, Excitement missed the last train to the filming of Abduction

Let's get this straight: Abduction is not a good film. It's not even a mediocre film. A cheap knockoff of the Jason Bourne series, this is a bad film that takes the talents present and cuts it all out until you cannot tell that it was ever there. One of the year's worst, it has the wrong director, a misused cast, and lead actor who can't yet cut it as a lead actor. Unlike the much more polished Pattinson, Lautner hasn't proven that he can yet carry a film with any degree of authority. Until he can, and until he starts to pick better material, I think I can safely avoid his theatrical releases for now and the immediate future.

Home Run

I don't know how long my father has been a fan of the great sport of baseball, but I do know that it has been a long, LONG time. Particularly interested in the numbers game baseball has become in recent years, he early on bought the annually-released books by statistical pioneer Bill James, the Baseball Abstract. James would tackle the subject of baseball in a way unlike any who had come before or who have since, but fans like my father would snatch up all this unconventional wisdom that would allow them to look at something they loved in a brand new light. James' invention, a statistical analysis of baseball that he called sabermetrics, could analyze a player's skill and could even help plot trends in their baseball careers. Today he is considered one of the most influential people in the world, but only a decade ago he was all but ignored by those who ran the sport, because he often went against their more traditional (and ancient) ways of thinking. Eventually his ideas reached the ears of a man with an open mind, Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane. In the 2003 book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, author Michael Lewis talked about how Beane used sabermetrics to turn his underfunded baseball team into a juggernaut by focusing attention on players that were dismissed by advocates of traditional scouting due to intangibles or downright incorrect preconceptions. The excellence of the book, not to mention the legacy that James and Beane have introduced to the sport, is the main reason I had been looking forward to the film adaptation of Moneyball. While I may be on the fence at times with Brad Pitt, I can't deny how far he has come in recent years after being little more than a pretty face during much of his early Hollywood career.

Two of the more unexpected faces to see in a Baseball movie

After his 2001 Oakland Athletics suffer heartbreaking loss against the New York Yankees during the first round of the playoffs (winning the first two games before falling in three straight), Billy Beane (Pitt) has an uphill struggle in front of him. Due to the financial constraints of being a small-market baseball team, Oakland is losing its three best players, and a low budget means there is no way they can afford appropriate replacements. Despite this imbalanced system which rewards rich teams while treating poor ones like minor league affiliates, Beane is frustrated that his scouting department refuses to look at the situation differently from their more affluent competition. This is especially personal for him because it was sweet-talking scouts that had convinced Beane that he was a top-notch talent when he chose his own baseball career over going to college twenty years prior. Still not fully trusting scouts, Beane turns to student of sabermetrics Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), to help build a team from players that most won't touch for various reasons. Though the team has some early struggles, Beane and Brand slowly see this team defy the odds and become a championship-caliber ball club, culminating in the longest winning streak in the history of professional baseball.

Rating his performance in The Tree of Life

The superb casting is what gives Moneyball so much of its flavor. While Pitt and Hill are not stretched very far in what they are given to do on screen, it is their character's friendship and professionalism together that really elevate this film over the bargain basement buddy formula it could have become. Of the two, Hill is somewhat more outside his comfort zone as a young comedy actor; however there are plenty of quips, jibes and smirks delivered deftly, and in that regard Hill might appear to most as performing far superior in comparing this to his earlier efforts. He IS better, no doubt, but don't get your hopes thinking this is going to turn Hill into a perennial awards contender. He and the understated Pitt work well together, and for now that's all we need. The two do have some strong support, most notably Philip Seymour Hoffman as Athletics Manager Art Howe, perpetually grumpy at managing under a one-year contract (which as he points out means that the people in charge have no confidence in him). It's not a big part but Hoffman is perfectly cast and of course does a great job when put on the spot. Several of the baseball players also stand out, especially Stephen Bishop as declining veteran outfielder David Justice and Parks and Recreations star Chris Pratt as converted first baseman (he was originally a catcher before a career-derailing injury) Scott Hatteberg, both of whom proved important to Oakland's playoff run. Less impressive are the actors playing parts in Beane's home life, especially the perennially-underutilized Robin Wright as his unremarkable ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey as his supportive but "why is she there?" daughter. Because the film focuses more on the balance between Beane's baseball and home lives, it doesn't move far to either extreme, meaning any lasting impression those characters might have added were reduced to minimal at best.

Now, don't all stand up at once

Aaron Sorkin was brought in to write Moneyball's script, and while his tendency to ramble on for minutes at a time explaining specifics might have gotten a little old in last year's The Social Network (best screenplay my ASS), here it actually works in the film's favor. After all, what baseball junkie have you met who DOESN'T ramble for seemingly ever about minor details? As my father and I and countless others would agree, endless minutiae is what makes baseball such a fascinating topic in the first place. Sorkin and director Bennett Miller capture this by default in tackling the story introduced by Lewis, but focus on the major league club exclusively, where the book also dedicated part of the tale to the A's minor league efforts. Bennett, whose last directorial effort was the overrated but still classic Capote, injects much needed humor into the tale, which helps expand Moneyball's interest to a wider audience than it would normally appeal.

A baseball movie that focuses on the old guys

Of course, this popularization of the film doesn't let a little thing like factual information get in the way. While the basic idea behind sabermetrics and how it helped the 2002 Oakland A's is fairly intact, some nagging inconsistencies do pop up. While Scott Hatteberg did indeed struggle defensively upon moving to first base, his main competition for the role, Carlos Pena, was not the "All-Star" the film would have you believe. Pena spent more of the season at Triple A Sacramento than he did in Oakland and didn't hit particularly well in the majors before being traded to the Detroit Tigers. And while I won't go into a complete rant about it, it was odd for the filmmakers to create a composite of Beane's aides (most notably Assistant GM Paul DePodesta) in the fictional Peter Brand. Also Beane's daughter sings and plays a song about midway through the film that wasn't even in existence until six years after the film takes place (Lenka's 2008 single The Show). These wouldn't be major issues if Moneyball didn't excel in the research aspects of the film, as in the few actual baseball scenes you can see that they have accurate rosters in place for the times of the games, with the correct names stenciled on the back of jerseys. That the film takes pains in some places to appear authentic while simultaneously taking liberties with historical fact is not a bit distressing, as choosing pure entertainment every time is one of Sorkin's bad habits as a screenwriter. As a final note, the film points out that Beane still hasn't won a World Series using his system, but mentions that the Boston Red Sox won just two years later after adopting Beane's philosophies. This is what makes the story behind Moneyball so tragic; Beane changed the game with his methods, but once the big market clubs started looking at baseball stats in the same way he was, his small budget once again had him at a disadvantage. The film naturally glosses this over, failing to mention that Beane's club has not had a winning record since 2006.

Oakland sees a record crowd

These demerits are the only things that prevent me from genuinely placing Moneyball #1 on my Top 10 list for the year. While the narration does get slightly jumbled about the midway point (normal for a sports film compacting dozens of games into five minutes of time), Moneyball excels in telling a story that is smart enough for Bill James enthusiasts while appealing to a wide audience that doesn't need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo to get by. One of 2011's best, Moneyball is worth the price of a ticket as the #2 movie of the year. My father and any other baseball fan would approve.

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.

Fighting Chance

There are some things that no matter how you suggest, advertise or promote, many people simply won't or can't change their mindset about. Professional wrestling will always be called a "fake" sport with soap opera dramatics. NASCAR will always be seen as entertainment for rednecks and a tactic to keep the South from rising again. Video games rot your brains. Baseball is slow and boring. The Twilight series is poorly written (or poorly put on the screen, take your pick). It doesn't matter how you argue against these statements, there are some people who simply will not be swayed no matter no intelligent or passionate your stance. Mixed Martial Arts is another in that long line, a sport that can trace its roots back to the ancient Olympic sport of pankration, in which men would fight one another using several methods to strike down their opponent or grapple him into submission. Criticized for being brutal and ultra-violent, MMA has gained a bad rap with many people, despite being much more civilized than Professional Boxing was in its heyday. As a relatively new sport, it's still fighting for recognition and respect from potential audiences. That's part of the reason Warrior, the MMA-inspired drama by Miracle director Gavin O'Connor, faltered severely when it went head to head with Contagion last weekend. The film seemed to have a strong stance going into the weekend, with many trailers and previews making it look like a blend of Rocky, The Fighter, and Miracle. It also headlined up-and-coming performers Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton, not to mention the the comeback of former Academy Award nominee Nick Nolte. In the end however, it was the MMA tag that likely drove most of the prospective audience members away, as too many people who would have enjoyed this title were apathetic about giving this young sport any more attention than they thought it deserved.

Stop calling him Rocky!

When war hero Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy) returns to his hometown of Pittsburgh, it is surprising that his first stop is the home of his father Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte), who was a drunk and abusive husband and father when Tommy was young. Despite Paddy having been sober for almost a thousand days, Tommy isn't home to build bridges and catch up. Paddy was a skilled fight coach, and Tommy wants his father to help him train for an upcoming MMA tournament featuring the top sixteen middleweights in the world, with a five million dollar prize the largest purse the sport has ever seen. Meanwhile, Tommy's estranged brother Brendan Conlon (Joel Edgerton) is trying to raise a family on a meager teacher's salary that he has had to supplement by fighting competitively at bars, much to the chagrin of his wife Tess (Jennifer Morrison). Having been a former MMA fighter, Brendan has little problem handling small-timers with no experience, but he needs a ton of money to keep his house from being foreclosed, and therefore needs to improve his skills in the cage. With a lot of hard work (and a little luck) he manages to find himself in the same exclusive tournament. Eventually it comes down to brother vs. brother, and Tommy and Brendan must solve their differences both physically and emotionally before they can accept one another again.

"Warrior is a knockout!" Anybody use that tag line yet?

Ignore for a second the fact that this film is entirely predictable and smarmy to almost a fault. The story of a fractured family and a sport of violence somehow bringing it back together is so expertly told that  even though you know what is coming, the tale is rarely boring and never frustrates you with its overly convenient plot turns. With the exception of a brief midway collage of imagery of the two brothers training, the precision of the narrative is razor sharp, and the focus on each character is starkly different so as to make each feel remarkably unique. You want to root for Brendan because he's a dedicated family man and you think hard work should pay off in the end, but Emo Tommy is so full of ANGER that you just want to give him a hug and make his pain go away, before he puts the pain on someone else. That both heroes are likable for completely different reasons is a genuine feat, one that makes the finale that much more difficult to anticipate. That's right, you don't know who will come out on top in the end, but you DO know that you don't want either of them to lose.

The obligatory late night scene

This is in large thanks to the superlative cast that was put on full display. Hardy and Edgerton are two future superstars, and both are at the beginning of major career pushes that should see them become household names not too far in the future. Hardy is especially effective here as the soft-spoken but clearly enraged Tommy, looking for any outlet for his aggression and a cause to call his own. He steadily controls almost every scene, and one look at his body speaks epics about his commitment to the project. It's almost unfair to compare Edgerton to his cinematic brother, but the Australian actor does prove himself a top tier talent, successfully balancing between determined combatant and loving family man with ease. He also works well with Morrison, who gets a few chances to make herself known in the obligatory "suffering wife" role. It's Nolte though who will be absorbing the affection of voters come this award season. Playing a recovering alcoholic, Nolte is strong in his nuanced performance, which features him barely raising his voice but still being able to wring just about every emotion out of his wheezes. Even though he is rudely ousted by the film's end, if there's anybody here courting awards, it's Nolte; only the film's poor box office performance could deter that.

"Just don't maim too many people today, honey"

If there's one thing truly wrong with Warrior, it's the film packing so much into one standalone story. There is a TON of setup throughout the film in preparation for the finale, and even with the truncated training compendium I mentioned earlier this title still comes in at 140 minutes, almost a quarter of which is the climactic tournament. Fortunately much of the time goes smoothly and this extended playtime passes without any real issues. The narrative paces itself nicely, and the story is like a well-cultivated meal for the senses in the way it is told. It helps that there are the strong characters on which the tale can fall back, and that helps the time pass without any dull stretches. There are also a few cliches that could have been bypassed, such as a pointless secondary feud between Tommy and another fighter (Strikeforce star Erik Apple), or the unbeatable Russian (a call back to Miracle) fighter Koba, played by American former gold medalist Kurt Angle. These minor problems are made up for by the footage of the tournament, which plays out like a Greek tragedy on steroids. Even non-fans should be able to get into the struggle of each fight leading to the brothers' final encounter.

It's Cain and Abel with brass knuckles

For a moment I want you to put your MMA biases aside. Can you do that? Thank you. Warrior is so far the most ignored great movie of 2011. If you look at it objectively, you can see why I have it set at #6 for 2011. Excellent direction? Check. Great characters that draw you into the story? Check. Emotional baggage that ties it all together in a convincing manner? SUPER check. Even if the film's irregular vehicle of Mixed Martial Arts isn't your cup of tea, that shouldn't deter you from catching this film in theaters, where it is struggling without your help. Just because you're like me and not a fan of the sport doesn't mean you should allow yourself to miss out. Do yourself a favor and see it while it's still there.

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.

Space, the Final Frontier

I'm not afraid to admit that there was a time at which I was excited to see Apollo 18. Back in February, when the film was scheduled to be released only a month later, I remember seeing a poster for it hanging in my local multiplex and wondering what the heck this movie studio wanted to tell us was the reason we never went back to the Moon. I didn't see any trailers for a while afterward, as the film's release date was constantly pushed back from March 4'th to July 8'th to to next January 13'th and BACK again to September 2'nd. In the meantime my friend Brian posted the official trailer online, followed by actual cinemas following suit. This is how I discovered that Apollo 18 was a "found footage" horror film, the space variant of a genre that has seen regular admittance to movie theaters since 1999's The Blair Witch Project. After some initial excitement, I began to get worried. Constant delays in the release aside, it has long been a horror film staple that a franchise only goes to outer space when it's on its last legs. Critters 4. Jason X. Hellraiser: Bloodline. Leprechaun 4. Outer space is where horror series go to die, and while Apollo 18 is not part of a dedicated franchise, its voyage outside the limits of our gravity well indicates some thought on the whole found footage genre, that it's only one poorly-attended Paranormal Activity sequel away from oblivion or worse, direct-to-DVD relegation.

The film quality is only underdone by the story quality

Anyone with access to Wikipedia knows that Apollo 17 was the last official manned mission to the Moon, launched and successfully completed back in 1972. Due to budgetary issues, there would be no more Apollo missions, a constant struggle that this year ended NASA's shuttle program. But back in the 70's, Apollo 18 would have you believe that there was a top-secret reactivation and launch of one last Moon mission. Funded by the Department of Defense, the crew was to not only follow the normal Moon landing requirements (picking up rocks, driving the Lunar Lander, etc) but also to set up motion trackers as a warning to the US of possible Communist attack. Despite these wonderfully eyebrow-raising mission parameters, the three crew members are happy just with the prospect of going to the Moon, a place they thought they'd never get to see in person. Unfortunately things go wrong, as they do in films like this, and the footage we see has been somehow recently discovered and edited into a 90-minute motion picture.

You should see the other guy

Of course, if you're Bob Weinstein claiming that this is footage is completely found and not shot in Vancouver with real actors, you should actually get people who aren't immediately recognizable to dedicated film and TV audiences. British actor Lloyd Owen at least has been obscured by a largely theatrical background, but even he might be remembered as Indy's father in the TV show The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Warren Christie however is already becoming a household name thanks to the Syfy original show Alphas and fans of Battlestar Galactica will recognize both him and final star Ryan Robbins from their expansive cast of performers. At least these are quality actors, especially Owen, who is utterly convincing (SPOILER) as both a committed mission commander and an alien-infected madman. (END SPOILER) Christie holds the position of the film's lead and is fairly strong in the right places. He's the one through whose eyes we're seeing the events unfold, and as the film trudges along its nonsensical plot, we can at least appreciate the trials of the men before us. Tacked on, scenes following Robbins as the pilot of the Command Module orbiting the Moon are little more than cuts between short distances of time on the Moon itself.

He's made a SPECIAL friend... inside his helmet...

Another good idea is to remember that you're supposedly dealing with 1970's film footage and to remember the limitations of that. At times the film quality feels too current, spoiling the experience with film that looks too smooth and detailed to be anything resembling old-school technology. While the few special effects do a good job of incorporating themselves into the live action, there are more than a few scenes where director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego tries to express that things are going wrong by subtly shifting debris in the background of shots. He then realizes this is TOO subtle for most audiences an intentionally brightens small areas to draw our eyes so that we can be surprised by this small movement. It would be clever if it weren't so damned ineffective; the result is neither chilling nor even remotely suspenseful as the smarter people in the audience (what audience there is) quickly grow bored of being told where to look.

Dude, maybe you should get that looked at...

Still, the story behind Apollo 18 isn't horrible, only terribly mediocre. Very slow pacing means that a film that clocks in at only an hour and a half feels twice as long, and most of that time spent (especially the first hour) is aimless and wandering to the point of boring. It's the film's last act that does eventually redeem the film, but by then too much time has passed to really care about it. Despite a solid acting core, there's simply no good reason to pay money and see Apollo 18 in theater, especially since even a mediocre box office has already turned it into a financial success. The worst thing I can say about this title is that Apollo 18 didn't need to be a found footage film. While several titles get good mileage from the medium (including 2010's The Last Exorcism), this is a film that does not gain any benefits and even suffers a few setbacks because of how it is shot. The story only superficially uses the material involved, and there's no reason the filmmakers could not have made a straight sci-fi horror film on a small budget and been as successful. Destined to be forgotten, Apollo 18 might be worth stopping to watch it on television or renting on DVD, but only because you won't have recalled how poor it actually is.