Depp ‘amazing’ as Dillinger (3.5/5)

Public Enemies

Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard
Directed by: Michael Mann
Rating: R for gangster violence and some language.
Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

“The only thing that’s important is where somebody’s going.”
“Where are you going?”
“Anywhere I want.”

In times of hardship and struggle, for some, it’s a time of infinite possibilities.

Director Michael Mann reminds us of this in “Public Enemies,” a gangster movie focusing on the life of the infamous John Dillinger.

Mann tosses you in headfirst to the gangster lifestyle of the 1930s, complete with the high (and low) society, routine heists and extraordinary getaways. “Public Enemies” makes you yearn for the days of fedoras, snazzy nicknames and gangster suits.

Johnny Depp stars as Dillinger, and, as expected, does an amazing job. Cavalier and unfettered, Dillinger does what he wants when he wants. Sick of jail? No problem, we’ll just leave.

Just as Dillinger was sensationalized while alive, he may be even more so now decades later, taking on a modern Robin Hood characterization. Mann and Depp capitalize on Dillinger’s charisma, portraying him as an inviting protagonist and not necessarily a dangerous criminal.

The movie picks up in the beginning of the end for Dillinger and pals, including “Pretty Boy” Floyd and “Baby Face” Nelson.

Tired of his hands being tied by state jurisdictions, Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) instructs Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to use whatever means necessary to take down the gangsters and end their reign.

A main focus of “Enemies” is the love affair between Dillinger and “common girl” Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). While their initial reactions are engaging, the swiftness of their relationship caught me off guard. Although Billie is a common piece of furniture in the film, you never really get a sense of who she is and how she feels being a girlfriend to one of the most recognizable and wanted men in America.

There are many, many gangster cronies to keep track of. But, for the most part, if you can familiarize yourself with Dillinger and Nelson and perhaps one or two others, don’t spend the movie wondering who that guy with the pistol is. If they don’t make it clear, you probably don’t need to know on a first watch.

It’s interesting getting a look at the infant FBI, and Bale pulls off a spectacular performance as the agent who hunted down many of the notorious gangsters.

But, for all that it is, “Public Enemies” makes the mistake of changing history to ease storytelling. A tweak here and there could be considered “creative license,” but in reality, many of the notable deaths that the movie portrays did not happen until long after Dillinger’s death. This lack of accuracy in a movie made specifically about a certain real person in a certain real time definitely drops the film down a few points.

“Public Enemies” is about more than just Dillinger and Purvis, however. It’s about the changing landscape of American history and the desire to shed daily responsibilities for a life of drive and impulse.

An interesting aspect of these gangsters that Mann failed to pursue was their youthful ages: At their times of death, Dillinger was 31, Floyd was 30 and Nelson was 25. They lived hard and fast; as Depp’s Dillinger notes, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.”

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Surrogates’ a fill-in for sci-fi (2.5/5)

Surrogates

Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike
Directed by: Jonathan Mostow
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene.
Running time: 1 hours, 31 minutes.

If you’re looking for a run-of-the-mill action movie to kick back and chow popcorn to, then “Surrogates” should fit in nicely.

A surrogate is, by definition, a substitute. And in this case, “Surrogates” is a wanna-be substitute for just about any other movie that touches on robots or cloning. This Bruce Willis flick is a kind of watered-down version of “The Island,” missing the kind of morality questions that made the clone film transcend a typical movie.

The plot is more of an excuse for spotlighting the futuristic world, which is often the case in movies like this. It has a very interesting premise but fails to capitalize on it.

“Surrogates” takes virtual reality to a whole new level. People live their lives through robots, controlling them with their mind by hooking up to a chair. They’re able to stay home, safe from the world, while they (via their surrogates) go to work, go shopping, go clubbing and, in general, interact with the outside world.

Bruce plays Tom Greer, an FBI agent who is investigating the first murder to occur in a very, very long time. Someone has found a way to kill people via their surrogate, something that, as a legal representative for VSI (the “surrogate makers,” if you will) noted, “would entirely defeat the purpose of surrogacy.”

But there are too many questions in a movie like this that need to be answered well in order for the audience to believe it. And “Surrogates” just never manages to push itself into the realm of reality.
The movie includes little nods to our current state of being with the surrogate “salons” where the machines can get new looks as well as the rental surrogates that resemble the crash test dummies or Star Wars’ C-3PO.

And there are acute moments of revelation where an attractive, young woman surrogate is actually an overweight, middle-aged man. But that sort of interference with reality is something that should have been expanded upon but wasn’t, used merely as a punchline instead of a plot device.

As the introduction with Agent Stone shows us (“Sorry, I was in the can”), the surrogates are not a replacement for the human body. But again, the movie picks on these similarities to our current interactions through computers, but doesn’t pursue them, as it should.

As my boyfriend will tell you, I’m not a big Bruce Willis fan. I often forget which movie of his I’m watching because he is ever Bruce Willis and not the character he is trying to portray. But I can’t really blame him. The action genre has a real difficult time in characterization for whatever reason.
Willis tries here, but the quick pace of the movie holds him back from really connecting with the audience. You won’t care about the characters or what happens to them, you’ll only want to know who’s behind the murders and why.

Not surprisingly, “Surrogates” was directed by Jonathan Mostow, man- behind-the-camera on the embarassingly terrible “Terminator 3,” so why anyone would give him a second chance at a sci-fi movie is beyond me.

This could have been a very good, philosophical film. Instead, “Surrogates” is entertaining and will interest you while you’re watching it, but it won’t have any lasting impression. If you’re interested in this type of plot but crave more depth, pick up a copy of Neal Stephenson’s book “Snow Crash.”

2 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Rome’: Not unbearable (3/5)

When in Rome

Starring: Kristen Bell, Josh Duhamel, Anjelica Huston
Directed by: Mark Steven Johnson
Rating: PG-13 for some suggestive content.
Running time: 1 hours, 31 minutes.

Let’s get this straight — “When in Rome” will not move you. It won’t inspire you to great things. You might not even remember it much the next day.

It’s got more corn than a farmer’s field and is, in every way possible, a rom-com. And not necessarily a good one — “Love Actually” set the bar very high and, as far as I’m concerned, is as accessible by both genders as a rom-com could be.

But for all those guys out there getting dragged to a movie this weekend for Valentine’s Day, this one may be tolerable.

“When in Rome” follows Beth (Kirsten Bell), a curator at the Guggenheim museum in New York City, whose method of knowing if a guy is right for her is whether or not she loves him more than she loves her job. And she loves her job.

So when Beth’s younger sister Joan (Alexis Dziena) shows up at her doorstep with an engagement ring — and a story of how she met her fiance two weeks ago on an airplane (oh boy I hope this doesn’t give anyone any ideas...) — Beth is understandably frustrated with Joan’s rush. Top off the speedy engagement with a wedding that is a mere few days away, and you’ve got one annoyed sister.

At Joan’s Rome wedding, Beth is nearly swept away by groomsman Nick (Josh Duhamel), only to find him outside kissing another woman.

Well, what else is a girl to do but get drunk and prance about in the Fountain of Love?

In an effort to save some poor saps who tossed coins into the fountain, wishing for love, Beth removes five coins from the waters and takes them back with her to New York.

Beth attempts to get back to her day-to-day life, but the charming Nick (who just happens to live in the city as well) pursues her.

And he’s not the only one. Beth finds herself the object of desire from a handful of poorly adjusted and generally oddball gentlemen.

Enter the true stars of the film: Will Arnett as the tortured artist Antonio, Jon Heder (yes, Napoleon Dynamite himself) as the street magician Lance, Dax Shepard as the male model Gale, and Danny Devito as the sausage packer Al. This group will keep you laughing as they each try to get Beth’s attention.

And right when she thought she could really like Nick, Beth discovers that these men are under a spell from the fountain coins that she took.

So the plot may not be the most engaging. But it’s fun, and some of the scenes, such as the restaurant where people eat with no lights on but the servers have night-vision goggles, are hilarious.

And look for Napoleon Dynamite’s buddy Pedro.

The characterization is poor. The premise is silly. But have heart, men in the four-county area: It’s enjoyable enough and there are worse ways to spend an hour and a half (if you were forced to watch “Titanic” instead, you’d only be half-way through!). Don’t expect much, but don’t hate it walking in.

3 of 5 stars

Nothing glorious about ‘Basterds’ (.5/5)

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
Running time: 2 hours, 23 minutes.

I’m usually known for liking more movies than any one person should.

I try to stay positive and watch movies with an angle of wanting to enjoy it, not wanting to criticize it.

But, I’ll tell you, “Inglourious Basterds” is a horrible, horrible movie.

I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan. I loathed “Kill Bill.” But I am a believer in second chances.

Maybe I shouldn’t be.

I went into “Inglourious Basterds” already a little miffed about the spelling (don’t even get me started on people who encourage bad grammar for no reason ...) but intrigued by what I thought was going to be the premise.

If you’re like me, you might have thought the movie was about a team of Jewish soldiers (the titled Basterds) attempting to kill Hitler.

Well, you’d be half right.

But as for the other half? It drags the interesting part about these soldiers so far down into a muddy hole that they would never be able to climb out.

Most of the torturous 2-and-a-half-hour runtime is spent with people sitting at tables and talking.

And talking.

And talking.

And then you find out that none of their talking really mattered anyway.

In between these excessively pointless and overstretched periods of conversation are sporadic gunfights, scalpings and even more talking.

Amazing, though, that with all this talking, you won’t remember any of the Basterds. You might remember a few key things after thinking about it, but they never get a chance to distinguish themselves. In 2 and a half hours. The only one you’re sure to remember is Brad Pitt as their leader, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, and that’s only because he’s Brad Pitt. Otherwise you would only remember him as that guy with the twang.

Raine and his crew of vengeful Jews seem more like footnotes than the main cast.

The other storyline? Barely worth mentioning even though it takes over half the film to unfold. The only good thing about that part is there are fewer characters to talk.

But the true main character of the movie is Tarantino himself. Rather than letting the movie grow and change organically, he forces it into the dreadfully prolonged exchanges that are there to make you think this paper-thin plot has any real depth.

It doesn’t.

From a director whose last decent work was in 1994 (“Pulp Fiction”), you’d think Tarantino would actually start to care about what he does.

But the fact that a majority of the characters were created for no other reason than to insert Tarantino’s pals makes me think that he doesn’t really care about the end result, he’s just having fun.
And that’s all well and good, but don’t subject us to it.

I am absolutely befuddled as to the high critical ratings. I don’t know what movie they were watching, but don’t be fooled, it wasn’t the same one I saw.

The ONLY reason to watch “Inglourious Basterds” is for the rare appearance of Brad Pitt, and, for fans of “The Office,” B.J. Novak. Otherwise, take this film off your Netflix list while you still have a chance.

.5 of 5 stars

‘Eli’ suffers from identity crisis (2/5)

Book of Eli

Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis
Directed by: Albert and Allen Hughes
Rating: R for some brutal violence and language.
Running time: 1 hour, 58 minutes.

Wow. What an awful way to kick off the 2010 film season.

I’ll admit, I’m a bit of a sci-fi geek at heart. Post-apocalyptic worlds, mythological beings and a darn good, complex story line just call out to me.

So where “Book of Eli” went so horribly, tragically wrong was when it decided to masquerade as an action flick. If it had learned to accept itself as a drama, this could have been a tolerable film. Instead, they try to mask the lack of any real depth with a lot of bullets.

The real shocker is how this superficial of a movie drew in A-listers like Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon.

Maybe they’re short for cash like the rest of us.

Washington stars as Eli, a dude who sure likes walking. Well, he’d better like it, because he’s been walking for 30 years, since the end of the ever-hinted-at war.

He’s headed West across a dreary desert landscape to deliver a book.

He travels alone and doesn’t let much get in his way of trudging along. He survives on whatever animal meat he can find (including the wandering cat) and the rare find of drinkable water.

Eli eventually finds his way to a small town along his route. He stops, hoping to repair some of his electronic accoutrements and barter for water. But after a fight scene with a biker gang and their leader (who reminded me oh-so-much of the Geico caveman), Eli draws the attention of Carnegie (Gary Oldman), an intelligent, older gentlemen who runs the joint.

Carnegie has a crew of illiterate flunkies who are on the constant task of finding “the book.”

It’s soon revealed that “the book” is in fact the Bible (the last Bible), and Carnegie plans to control the world with it (because, why not?).

And, lo and behold, Eli’s book is suspiciously similar to the sought-after tome ...

Bringing up the supporting cast is Mila Kunis as Solara, Carnegie’s stepdaughter, and Ray Stevenson as Redridge, Carnegie’s right-hand man.

I love them both, but not in this.

Mila Kunis, I can never take you seriously. You’re Jackie from “That ’70s Show” and I’m afraid it will stay that way for a very long time.

And Ray Stevenson, what happened? You were my idol as Titus Pullo in the TV series “Rome,” and now this?

The only reason to watch this film is for the actors and one admittedly awesome gunfight sequence. But what made that one scene so exhilarating was the fact that it didn’t allow Eli to simply flick the assailants away like flies. However, these are simply not enough cause to watch the movie.

The weak plot lends itself to many questions. Like where on Earth was Eli walking from that it took him 30 years to get to the California area?

And how did Carnegie know there was a Bible left?

And why is this guy in charge, anyway? Because he can read? Because he’s old? He doesn’t seem very intimidating to me (sorry, Gary), and if I were one of his lackeys I don’t see much stopping me from shooting him and taking over myself.

I don’t think I will ever accept a fight sequence where one guy takes on a large group and prevails without a scratch. Especially when chainsaws and guns are involved. So rather than trying to make the audience believe what’s happening, the Hughes Brothers decide to go for the sheer entertainment value.

Problem is, it’s only mildly entertaining.

But who cares about all of these loose ends, right? It’s an action flick, after all.

Had the Hughes Brothers taken “Book of Eli” on a different path, it could have been an extraordinary success. But concentrating on fight sequences over actual storyline won’t win over many fans.

Interesting that a film devoted to the Bible lacks any real soul.

2 of 5 stars

‘Locker’ focuses on people (4/5)

The Hurt Locker

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Rating: R for war violence and language.
Running time: 2 hours, 11 minutes.

One of the wonderful things about “The Hurt Locker” is that it isn’t used as an opportunity to spout politics. It’s about the people there who are trying to do their job and not get killed doing it. It’s about the people learning to get along with one another in an unbelievably intense, alienating world. It’s about the people finding out who they truly are. It’s about the people.

You might not expect such an acute war film from a woman director, but Kathryn Bigelow pulled it off spectacularly (as evidenced by all of the “potential Best Picture of 2009” chatter).

What took this movie from great to superb, however, was the camera work. The documentary-style feel that was injected into the film by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd will really throw you into the movie and put you at the edge of your seat (or hiding in it, if you’re anything like me).

The main focus of “The Hurt Locker” is Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), who is the team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit in the U.S. Army’s Bravo Company in Iraq around 2004.

James is assisted by the protective Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the unnerved Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).

With the aid of a special bomb suit (which doesn’t seem to protect nearly as much as I would want it to), it is James’ responsibility to disarm the deadly, often hidden bombs that pepper the streets of Iraq.
As Sanborn and Eldridge quickly find out, their new team leader isn’t as scared of the bombs as he maybe should be, instead approaching them with confidence and zeal. This drive for adrenaline quickly puts James at odds with his team.

Renner shines as the rebel-without-a-cause James, striking the perfect balance between the morally ambiguous hero and the courageous but troubled regular guy.

While Renner is the obvious star of the film (and I hope he gets nominated for best actor for his role), I really loved Eldridge. His unsettled feelings and talks with the base psychologist truly connect the audience with the squad. I only wish that the filmmakers had spent more time on him, being the youngest and most impressionable and therefore being the one with the most innocence to lose.

“The Hurt Locker” was written by freelance journalist Mark Boal, who spent time traveling with an American bomb squad in Iraq. Boal compiled his experiences and observations into a screenplay, hoping to give a soldier’s perspective on the war.

The movie does a wonderful job of showing Iraq as not only a war zone, but also a place where many civilians live. The soldiers’ stress, frustration and fear are palpable during their interactions with the Iraqis in their attempt to sort out the civilians and the insurgents.

Sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they’re not.

While I can’t vouch for how realistic the film is (having never been in the Army or been to Iraq myself) I can tell you this: It sure feels real. Some critics have complained about the movie’s “lack of plot,” but how much of a plot is there in your life? Sure there are bits you can thread together, but isn’t life more of a moment-to-moment experience?

That’s how you’ll feel when you watch “The Hurt Locker.” And I hope you do.

4 of 5 stars

Happy to be ‘Up in the Air’ with Clooney (3.5/5)

Up in the Air

Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick
Directed by: Jason Reitman
Rating: R for language and some sexual content.
Running time: 1 hours, 49 minutes.

“Up in the Air” fits into one of my favorite movie niches — idealistic with an important sense of realism. It’s as much about tossing a life into the wind and seeing where the pieces land as it is about George Clooney’s debonair smile.

Clooney plays Ryan Bingham who is, in essence, a fire-for-hire. He is employed by a company that sells its services as “career transition counselors” — basically, they travel around the world to let people go. But the job serves as a convenient backdrop for the real destination of the movie — the discovery of Ryan Bingham.

Ryan is a man with no ties and no meaningful connections in his life. His Nebraskan “apartment” is bare save for the most absolute, primitive essentials, and his relationship with his sisters is strained at best and nonexistent in actuality. Ryan’s wallet is a testament to his true nature — stuffed full of prestigious and rare membership cards to hotels and airlines. His home lies in travel.

While on his firing sprees, Ryan also picks up “motivational” speaking engagements, encouraging attendees to erase from their lives all of the baggage that keeps them tied down — knick-knacks, furniture, entire homes and, at life’s heaviest, other people.

Ryan’s solitary philosophies are questioned by two women who crash land into his life, challenging his autopilot existence. One threatens his way of work (intelligent, upstart Cornell grad Natalie Keener, played by Anna Kendrick, who has found a way to fire people over the Internet, thus making Ryan’s traveling outdated and expensive); the other, his way of detachment (Vera Farmiga as fellow air nomad Alex Goran, who is looking for a casual, fun relationship and doesn’t anticipate the blossoming feelings within Ryan).

Although about half of the movie is dedicated to the Ryan-Alex “relationship,” I was much more intrigued by his interactions with young Natalie. By use of video conferencing, Natalie has removed the last human element in their career. In her eyes, the process of firing a person can be neatly diagrammed out in a flowchart. Ryan, panicked at the thought of being “grounded” in Omaha, is told to take Natalie on one of his final trips by his boss, Craig Gregory (a smug Jason Bateman).

Though Ryan’s motives seem honorable in wanting to make personal contact with those being fired in order to ease their pain, he never seems to truly believe that himself. His only goal in life is to collect 10 million miles on American Airlines and he uses his job as the perfect opportunity to work on his collection. Ryan is ever detached while Natalie is ever more drawn into the emotions of the people she is firing.

The movie strikes close to home with unemployment rates soaring across the country. And if the scenes with newly laid-off employees seem quite realistic, that’s because, apart from some noticeable famous actors, many of the onscreen former workers are real people who were recently let go from their jobs.

Clooney is at his prime — he makes a dreaded “career transition counselor” appear charming and engaging and a life as a vagabond seem oddly attractive as only he can. The movie wouldn’t have survived a trip with any other leading man.

As with any flight, the real star is the pilot — in this case, director Jason Reitman, mind behind the offbeat comedies “Juno” and “Thank You for Smoking.” Reitman’s adaptation of Walter Kirn’s novel proved interesting and captivating. “Up in the Air” is a great film to end the old decade and welcome in the new.

3.5 of 5 stars