A really great film is like a poem.  It is beautiful yet mysterious.  It causes us to stop and reflect on life in ways we’ve never considered.  While we may not understand everything it is saying, something in us responds strongly to its language.  Wings of Desire is a poem.

Directed by the German auteur Wim Wenders, Wings is a moving story of angels among us.  While we see many angels in the film, this story focuses on Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otta Sander).  We follow the two angels as they move through Berlin observing its inhabitants and ruminating (via voice-over) on their lives, time, history, evil, creation, and the nature of God.

This 1987  film is hypnotic in its use of black and white, gorgeous cinematography (Some scenes at a circus reminded me of Fellini’s 8 1/2), affecting score, and its slow pace.  There are long scenes with no dialogue.  But, it is never boring.  You hear so many films described as being about “the human condition” that it has become a cliché.  But, I can’t think of many other films that actually do examine the human condition more effectively than Wings.  We pass through streets, libraries, subways,and rooftops with Damiel and Cassiel as they listen to the heartbroken, lost, despairing, tormented, and injured.  A touch on the shoulder from either one of them causes the person they are observing to redirect their thoughts towards hope.  In some instances, they are too late as when Cassiel is unable to dissuade a man from jumping to his death.  In one particularly moving scene, Damiel comes across a motorcyclist who has been in an accident and is dying.  We hear his thoughts:  “You never saw anyone die? I stink of gasoline. I saw it all clearly - the Mercedes, the pool of oil. Karin, I should have told you. It can’t be that simple. I’ve still so much to do.”

At times, children can spot the angels but never adults.  That is, except for Peter Falk who plays himself.  He is in Berlin for a movie shoot and can sense when an angel is near him.  Damiel and Cassiel are intrigued by this as Falk talks to them out loud much to the confusion of people nearby.

Damiel has the face of an angel.  He exudes compassion and mercy.  That is terrific acting.  Acting is not always about voice.  As soon as you see Bruno Ganz on screen, you buy him as this benevolent being who has existed since creation.  Yet, I also appreciated the humanity that the film brings in little touches such as when Cassiel laughs when he sees a Jew taking a smoke break with some Nazis on a movie set.

While observing the young trapeze artist Marion (Solveig Dommartin), Damiel begins to fall in love.  He hears her thoughts:  “Longing. Longing for a wave of love that would stir in me. That’s what makes me clumsy. The absence of pleasure. Desire for love. Desire to love.”  His desire for love leads to his desire to become human.  If this is sounding familiar, it’s because this film was remade as the far inferior American product City of Angels with Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan.  That film’s focus was the love story.  Wings of Desire is about so much more; in fact, the love story doesn’t really develop until the final third of the film and doesn’t follow the same plot at all of the American film.

Wings of Desire is a film that deserves to be not so much seen as experienced.  You probably won’t get it all in its first viewing.  I didn’t.  But, it is one of the most mesmerizing, haunting, and splendid pieces of art I’ve seen.  If you take film seriously, this is a must-see poem.

Neil Marshall is no stranger to gore.  His first film, 2002’s Dog Soldiers, was a take on the werewolf genre that was actually pretty effective for a low budget film.  2005 put him on the map with The Descent, easily one of the best horror movies of the past 20 years.  He followed that up with 2008’s deliriously bloodied John Carpenter homage Doomsday.  Now he has rolled out Centurion, a blood-soaked Gladiator-ish epic featuring lots of swords, Romans, wolves, and his interpretation of what happened to the Ninth Legion.

The time is 117 A.D.  Rome is invading Britain and pushing northward.  Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender - last seen in Inglourious Basterds), a centurion in the Roman army, is one of the few survivors of an attack at his garrison in Scottish Highland by Picts, a confederation of Celtic tribes who are fighting to push Rome out of their country.  He is taken prisoner, escapes, and meets up with the Ninth Legion led by General Titus Virilus (Dominic West of “The Wire”).  Virilus is beloved by his men, not a common characteristic of a Roman general.  When the Ninth Legion is the victim of a particularly savage ambush by Picts, a large majority of their force is killed and General Virilus is taken hostage.  Dias and six other men set out to rescue him.  Saving General Virilus if you will.

After that rescue attempt, the remaining men flee for their lives while being pursued by a band of Picts led by the tenacious Etain (Olga Kurylenko) who is mute and appears to have the soul of a rabid wolf.  All she lives for is spilling Roman blood.  In fact, 90% of Centurion is a chase movie.  And, on that level, it is pretty entertaining to watch these men sprint across beautiful landscapes (great helicopter cinematography from Sam McCurdy) while dodging the Picts, cliffs, and animals.

What bothers me about Centurion is that there is really nothing new here.  We’ve seen similar sword violence in Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and countless other blood-soaked films.  We’ve seen similar pursuits in better films such as Apocalypto.  One element I do admire that is different here is who the protagonists are.  Here is the gigantic land-swallowing empire of Rome whose occupation force are the protagonists, and the home team are the villains.  I like how Dias begins to realize the folly of what his homeland is doing.  Marshall seems to be making some obvious correlations to the occupation of Iraq by America and his home country of England.

We also don’t get a real sense of these characters.  For a movie of this style to be truly effective, you need to feel a strong camaraderie between the protagonists.  It just isn’t here.

Another big gripe is the use of CGI blood.  I refuse to budge on this point about modern cinema.  If you can’t do CGI blood and make it look real, then stick to squibs.  CGI blood is killing action movies.  It works in something like 300 because that film was stylized and over the top intentionally.  But with something like Centurion, all the effects do is take me out of the moment and piss me off.

So, Centurion might be a decent rental.  Aside from the ridiculous blood effects, there is some serious carnage going on here that will give you action seekers a smile.

Bow Wow and Ice Cube continue to bring the suck. Watching the trailer for this is like getting kicked in the crotch.

In a recent online interview promoting The Expendables, Sylvester Stallone said the following about the genre that has been his bread and butter for most of his career:

“Action films; past, present and future are really a device for maintaining modern mythology. In reality, evil quite often triumphs over good and its effects have devastating longevity. So I believe the action film supplies an outlet for optimism and the unwavering belief that heroes, under great physical threat, rise and vanquish the oppressors. I believe it’s a necessity that these sorts of modern day street fables continue to provide an example that perseverance and bravery prevail. Now, in THE EXPENDABLES, we tried to show, without being overbearing, that these men are misfits in society, yet still hunger to be useful, to triumph overwhelming odds, not for money, but to keep them feeling compassionate and alive. Because when one is a mercenary in any facet of life, because you do not have to be a mercenary with a gun, you could be a mercenary in any occupation, at the end of your life, you’re nothing but a hollow drum that no one wants to hear played. What’s important to me is if you can slip in a bit of spiritual taxonomy, spiritual signifiers that somehow touch a deeper cord than just violence, for example: sacrificing your life for the life of an innocent stranger, thus proving human dignity must prevail at all costs.”

It’s hard to argue against the notion that action films represent “an outlet for optimism and the unwavering belief that heroes, under great physical threat, rise and vanquish the oppressors”.  Think about some of the most popular action films that came out soon after 9/11 - Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, The Bourne Identity.  There were some other action movies soon after that weren’t that good but still attracted crowds such as Schwarzenegger’s Collateral Damage.  With all of these films, I remember the evil that 9/11 represented being in my mind.  Watching those films…seeing these various evils vanquished (okay okay I’m not going to get political about it) was cathartic to me.

There is definitely an intrinsic desire in us to root and laugh during action films as we see evil get obliterated.  When our hopes sometime sag under the weight of reality, action films are a great outlet.  So why didn’t I feel this way during The Expendables?

After all, Stallone has assembled an impressive cast of former icons of 1980s brawn and the current stars of muscle cinema.  There is no shortage of testosterone or hubris here.  All of these guys are highly skilled at kicking ass.  Unfortunately, they are saddled with terrible dialogue and poorly directed action sequences.

In the above quote, Stallone says that they’ve tried to show that these men are “misfits in society”.  Fail.  For one thing, we never know very much about where these guys have come from or what they have done.  We get little glimpses through stories they tell, many of them cheesy and formulaic, but I never really a strong cohesion between them because I didn’t know who the hell they were.

The dialogue is bad.  I mean really bad.  Like forget-it-as-soon-as-you-hear-it bad.  At least give us those cheesy but awesome lines the heroes of the 80s used to utter before shooting a guy in the throat.  I can’t think of one quotable line from this movie.

The action in the film is seriously inconsistent.  Some scenes are well executed (especially when Stallone and Statham take to the skies and rain fire down on the evil island people) but many of them - particularly the closer hand to hand fighting and gun battles - are so disjointed and chaotic that they are hard to follow.  The action scenes play out as if the editor finally just gave up.  And with a high budget action movie, shouldn’t the special effects be better?  Several moments are so poorly green-screened that they took me out of the action.

Maybe the biggest problem is that there are no real stakes.  For a truly effective action movie, the stakes have to be  high.  Think of Die Hard.  Cop goes to a business party to reconnect with his estranged wife.  Terrorists take over the building.  His wife is taken as a hostage.  Add to that John McClane’s exasperation with local law enforcement and his glee with taking out the terrorists, and you have a character that the audience can bond with.

In The Expendables, Barney Ross (Stallone) and gang are tasked by a mystery man (Willis in a brief cameo) to take down a Central American dictator (David Zayas) on a fictional island that produces cocaine for a ruthless drug lord (Eric Roberts).  Barney’s competitor (an even briefer cameo by Arnold) passes on the job.  When things go south, and the general’s daughter becomes a hostage, Barney sees this as an opportunity.  An opportunity to, as Stallone puts it, “sacrifice your life for the life of an innocent stranger, thus proving human dignity must prevail at all costs”.  Okay that’s noble and all but really…those are the only stakes?  I think maybe with a better script and more fleshed out characters, this could actually be  an effective theme for an action film.  But, here it just kind of limps along.  There is no gravitas whatsoever.

And that title.  Why not look more deeply at why these guys call themselves expendable for crying out loud?  Outside of a couple of poorly delivered pieces of dialogue, I have no clue why these guys are such outsiders wanting redemption.  This leads to another big gripe of mine that I can’t get into without spoiling the film.

The film isn’t all bad.  If you want your bloody violence, you will get it.  The opening scene is one of the best as Barney and crew take on a group of Somali pirates.  Let’s just say that the pirates will not be joining us for the rest of their lives. While the action is poorly directed, there are some pretty funny moments of bad guys in red hats getting dispatched.  Ex-NFL player Terry Crews and his shotgun provide some of the most memorable scenes. But when you convene a group of action icons like this, you have got to bring your A game and deliver more.

10.  It didn’t live up to the hype.  So what?  Screw hype.  You have to be able to just take a movie on its own terms.  This culture is so obsessed with knowing as much as they can about a movie before seeing it to get their excitement up.  So they watch clips, trailers, behind the scenes interviews, etc to tweak their enthusiasm levels or just out of curiosity.  But all of these things - especially trailers - are designed to make something look better than it is.  You have to understand that.  So, if you really want to experience a film as it is intended to be viewed, you have to go in with a clear mind.

9.  The book was better.  See my blog entry about this topic.

8.   It wasn’t bad/terrible.  Huh?  This is the kind of response you hear from people who a) Don’t really care for movies anyway; b) Didn’t care to see that particular movie to begin with; c) Are very very cynical people overall.  Either way, never trust this “review” from anyone’s lips.

7.  It was different/strange.  So what?  Were you hoping it was going to be a formulaic?  Was it strange because it didn’t end with an explosion thus fueling your Cro Magnon urges?  Ending a conversation with “Ehh…it was different” is about as exciting as answering a question about your job with “Oh…been keeping busy.  Pass the Cheez Whiz.”

6. It was interesting.  This is closely related to 7.  You have to support your searing insight somehow.  How was it interesting?  Were you moved by an actor’s performance?  Did the plot resonate with you?  Or was it just interesting because you somehow managed to struggle and stay awake through most of it?

5.  It was entertaining.  Hmmm.  Well movies are supposed to be entertaining, but they should do more than that.  If you’re only goal is to be entertained, then go sit in your bathtub with the shower running and pretend you’re in a sinking submarine.  It’s much cheaper and doesn’t require clothes.

4.  I hated it because I don’t like [insert actor or actress name].  This can be a tough one.  We all have certain actors that just make our skin crawl or that we just don’t like for reasons we aren’t sure of.  That’s natural.  But, if you look beyond this bias, I think you’ll be surprised at some truly great movies you’re overlooking.  I used to hate Richard Gere.  Maybe it was because I didn’t agree with his politics.  But one day many years ago, I decided to give him a shot.  As a result, I ended up really liking Primal Fear, Chicago, and The Hoax (to name a few).  If you are a true lover of film, you have to be able to separate the artist from the art.  If you can’t do it, then you probably shouldn’t watch movies.

3. I wouldn’t see it again.  OK.  This falls under the category of More Info Needed.  Is that because you don’t see movies twice or because you didn’t like it?  Eh never mind.  I won’t ask for your opinion again.

2. It was too depressing/scary/sad/cheerful.  Well, film is supposed to elicit an emotional response.  And it won’t always be happiness.  Life isn’t like that either.  If you only want to watch movies with happy endings, you are severely limiting your experience and approaching film with blinders on.  Sometimes, evil will get away (Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men) but you have to look at what the film is saying overall.  On the other hand, I don’t have a lot of respect for cynical people who disown a movie for being too happy or joyous.  Again, that may be the intent of the movie.  Just remember that film is subjective.  What is depressing to you may instead be poignant and moving to me.  But don’t dismiss a film just because it’s emotional impact isn’t what you wanted.  Find the truth in the art for yourself.

1. It’s not perfect.  I have news for you.  Most movies aren’t.  I’ve even admitted that the Golden Gun rating on this site isn’t for what I necessarily consider to be “perfect” movies.  A film can win an Oscar and still not be a perfect movie.  I don’t go to movies to see a perfect film.  I am going because I love the medium and because I want to have a great experience with it.  A movie should move you in some way.  You should have some kind of relationship with it, and some of those relationships can be intense.  But they can still have some minor flaws.  Stop saying something isn’t perfect.  Just talk about your encounter with it was.

What other ones annoy you?

“Once upon a time, I woke up. I took a shower with soap.” - Chris Pratt

The Lookout is a smart and thrilling movie.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise since the film is the directorial debut of screenwriter Scott Frank.  Frank penned Out of Sight, Get Shorty, and Minority Report.  It opened to huge critical acclaim and won the award for Best First Feature at the 2008 Independent Spirit Awards.

Yes, this is a heist movie but instead of being told from the viewpoint of the thieves, the film follows a damaged and innocent young man who gets caught up with the wrong crowd and doesn’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late.

The innocent man at the heart of the story is Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  As a thrill seeking teenager, he sped  down a Kansas highway one night with 3 friends and turned the headlights off.  An aftermath of that dangerous stunt was that two of his friends are killed.  Pratt and his girlfriend Kelly survived.  Both of them paid a dear price however.  Pratt suffered severe head trauma in the accident that has left him with short-term memory loss which is similar to anterograde amnesia which Guy Pearce’s character suffered from in Christopher Nolan’s Memento.  Pratt’s condition isn’t quite as severe but he has trouble sequencing memories.  As a result, he has to make To Do lists for things as simple as washing his hair in the shower.  He also has problems with rage.

Because of Pratt’s mental condition, he has to take a simple janitorial job at a small town bank.  He performs the same duties night after night,  aided by a list he makes.  His employers pity him.  One night, Pratt meets a man named Gary (Matthew Goode) in a bar.  Gary claims to have dated Pratt’s sister.  The two strike up a conversation which leads to a friendship.  Pratt likes Gary because he doesn’t look down on him in pity.  Gary also hooks up Pratt with an ex-stripper named Luvlee Lemons (Isla Fisher) whom he falls in love with.  What Pratt doesn’t realize is Gary and his friends are planning to rob the bank that Pratt works at.

The Lookout is a slow burn.  It takes the time to get to know its characters as it is more interested in them than the bank robbery.  Pratt is a sad, broken young man.  Once a hot hockey player with the world at his fingertips, he now lives with a daily reminder of the pain he has brought upon himself and others.  His blind friend Lewis (Jeff Daniels) is a fun loving guy with a big dream of owning a restaurant.  But Lewis is a very wise man, his perception of people seemingly heightened by his loss of sight.  In one memorable scene, he sits down with Luvlee and essentially tells her to tread carefully because he knows she’s up to no good with Pratt.  Because we get to know and like these characters so much, the payoff is significant at the end when the heist takes place.  This is a deliciously tense film.

You saw Joseph Gordon-Levitt this summer in Inception.  Now is the time to check out one of his early roles that really put him on the map.

A truly great movie can sometimes feels like Haley’s Comet.  In the universe of film, you see it so rarely that you begin to think you never will.  When it arrives, you are awestruck with its power.  This is especially true with action films since they tend to burn brightly and fade into mediocrity quickly.

But is it fair to classify Inception as an action film?  It is so much more.  Christopher Nolan has crafted a film so bold, so daring, and so unique that it doesn’t just transcend but obliterates the boring genre of “summer blockbuster”.

The less you know about Inception going in, the better chance you have of a truly unique film experience.  With that in mind, I am going to reveal very little about the plot except to say that Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt play agents of corporate espionage whose job it is to extract ideas from people’s minds.  Literally.  In their world, it is scientifically possible to enter someone’s mind via dreams.  But now, their client (Ken Watanabe) hires them for a different job…he needs them to plant an idea in someone’s mind.  That’s your action movie.  And that’s as far as I’ll talk about the plot.

Before you science fiction haters begin to flee, you must know…this is not a typical sci-fi film.  In fact, “typical” is a useless adjective for discussing this film.  Like The Matrix, it takes philosophical ideas about the essence of the mind and infuses them with jaw-dropping action and visual effects.  In fact, it surpasses The Matrix in that marriage of intelligence and violence.

The cast is outstanding.  Nolan really knows how to bring the best out of his actors (and obviously has some favorites such as Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, and Ken Watanabe).  Leonardo DiCaprio is at the top of his game as he always seem to be.  Together, he and Joseph Gordon-Levitt redefine cool.  Ellen Page was an odd choice for this film but even she works.  I also admire  how Nolan doesn’t use supporting characters for throwaway roles. In the “actors you may not know but by name but would probably recognize” department, Tom Hardy (Bronson; RocknRolla) and Dileep Rao (Drag Me to Hell; Avatar) play characters that you root for and sympathize with.  Hell, even Tom Berenger shows up in a small but pivotal role.  And finally, Marion Cotillard continues her US invasion with a heart-breaking performance that fuels the emotional core of the film.

Christopher Nolan is truly a spectacular director.  Not only does he have a firm command of the camera (and refuses to do 3D because it limits what you can do with the camera), but he understands action.  He is not an “action director”, but there may not be anyone working today who can direct action better.  Yes, I’m looking at you, Michael Bay.  The action scenes in this film are unlike most things you have seen.  At more than one point, I caught myself literally holding my breath and palms sweating.  This is reach-in-through-your-nose-and-squeeze-your-hips suspense.

A true mind-bender of a movie, Inception may take more than one viewing to completely grasp all of its elements, but it’s not so over the top that it completely loses its audience.  The parameters and rules of the universe the characters inhabit are fully and adequately explained.  As the plot gets deeper and deeper, I was amazed at how effectively it pulls the audience down into the rabbit hole.

In this age of banal, forgetful, and dreary filmmaking, Inception is an oasis in the desert.  It is the bastion of quality, the antithesis of formula, and the epitome of originality.

Our sun is dying. Mankind faces extinction. Seven years ago the Icarus project sent a mission to restart the sun but that mission was lost before it reached the star. Sixteen months ago, I, Robert Capa, and a crew of seven left earth frozen in a solar winter. Our payload a stellar bomb with a mass equivalent to Manhattan Island. Our purpose to create a star within a star. Eight astronauts strapped to the back of a bomb. My bomb. Welcome to the Icarus Two.

These are the first words we hear immediately at the beginning of Sunshine, the 2007 sci-fi film from director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire).  Simple and to the point, this narration is spoken by Capa (Cilian Murphy), the physicist aboard Icarus Two who has designed the bomb on their ship that will reignite the sun.  Yes, this is one of those movies where a crew is sent to save humanity from a threat, but Sunshine treads into very unique territory.

First of all, what other movies can you think of whose entire central premise revolves around a mission to the sun?  Any?  I like that Boyle’s first foray into outer space is tackling probably the biggest problem that could affect Earth…the death of our sun.  Granted, in reality, the sun won’t die out for billions of years, but this is still a great premise if you will suspend reality a bit.  How can you possibly get that close to the sun?  What physical and psychological effects would it have on you?  Would it even be possible to get there and back with future technology?  The amazing thing about Sunshine is that it answers all of these questions and more with answers that may not be scientifically accurate but certainly seem plausible in the universe Boyle has created.  If you’re a physicist, I guess the film may frustrate you (tho an additional commentary track on the film is from Dr. Brian Cox who served as the scientific advisor).   But if you just accept the facts and enjoy the story, you’re in for a hell of a ride.

Sunshine is one of the most ambitious yet overlooked films of the past decade.  How did a science fiction film, complete with action and special effects, about a mission to restart the sun go almost unnoticed at the box office in July?  Domestically, the film grossed just over 3 million dollars.  Worldwide, it made much more (28 million) probably because of its largely international cast.  I don’t know what happened to the marketing of this film, but it was virtually non-existent.  I don’t even remember seeing a trailer on TV, any stars interviewed on late night shows, etc.  The movie opened up against The Simpson Movie plus Transformers was already in the theater, so maybe it never stood a chance?  Too bad since this film is infinitely better than Transformers.  Yes, I said it, nerds!

In the DVD commentary for the film, Boyle talks about how great sci-fi films are built around 3 things - the ship, the crew, and “the signal”.  As the Icarus Two is en-route, they receive a distress signal from the Icarus One which launched 7 years prior.  Once they decide to alter their course for it, they embark on a journey which has psychological elements of 2001 and Solaris as well as some pulse-pounding action and horror.  Notice how some characters are obsessed with the sun (as entire civilizations and religions have been).  Even the name of the ship is a nod towards the humility that man was shown in heliocentric ideals.

The special effects in the film are top-notch.  The ship modeling is flawless, the computers aboard the ship are believable, and most shockingly, the scenes of the sun - even up close - are realistic and terrifying.

Danny Boyle has a terrific directing style.  While this is his first foray into space (and probably last - he says that most directors only go to space once), I like how he masterfully creates a sense of location and perception at all times.  You are always aware of where a character is at inside or outside of the ship and the dangers that are inherent.  I like some of his personal touches such as when the crew of Icarus Two boards a desolate Icarus One, and we get split second glimpses of the crew that are so brief, they shouldn’t be able to be caught by the naked eye.  Yet, the backdrop they are against is so stark that you can see them in vivid detail.  It’s fun to hear Boyle talk about this scene on the commentary as well.

The casting is excellent.  Many people you will recognize but not necessarily know their name such as Rose Byrne (from FX’s “Damages”) and Cliff Curtis (primarily smaller roles in a very wide range of films including the gang member Smiley from Training Day).  One of the surprises for me was Chris Evans.  The only thing I’d seen him in prior was as the annoying Human Torch in the dreadful Fantastic Four, so I’d written him off.  But this guy can act and is seriously convincing as a man who is solely mission-focused and willing to sacrifice anyone or anything for the sake of that mission.

To round things off, I have to talk about the music of the film.  John Murphy’s score here is simply one of the best I’ve heard in a while.  It is beautiful and moving in how it communicates duty, sacrifice, struggle, and redemption. It creates a tone in the film that is mesmerizing, heroic, and haunting,

Sunshine is not a perfect film.  I can’t really get into what doesn’t quite work for me without giving spoilers.  But, I still see this as a Hidden Gem because I’m surprised at the number of people I talk to who have never heard of it.  This is a marvelous spectacle that you really need to see whether you are a sci-fi fan or not.  It’s a great story about man’s  ultimate struggle for survival.  It is also proof that a summer blockbuster can have a brain and still be thrilling.

P.S. - The music from the trailer is not the John Murphy score and is not even used in the film.  Below, I have the trailer for the film and below that, the main John Murphy score.