Throughout the 90’s I kept hearing about a series of books that revolved around a young boy learning to be a wizard at some mysterious school.  I instantly became curious.  Then, I found out that they were children’s books, and immediately lost interest, even though it seemed that adults were enjoying them.

I then heard that these books were being developed into films.  I had no interest.  They would feature almost every well known actor from the U.K., including Sir Richard Harris.  I had no interest.  The first six films came and went.  I had no interest.

That was my ignorant opinion of Harry Potter.  

In the last year, I undertook the endeavor of watching each and every film.  I enjoyed the first six, and they were certainly well made.  But, I have issues with films that have “easy outs”.  By that, I mean stories where the characters are dealing with a bit of trouble, and seem to be doomed.  Suddenly, out of nowhere, as if someone waved a magic wand, they miraculously overcome their impending doom.  In Harry Potter, that goes with the territory, because they actually use magic wands!!!

I also can not stand the fact that Hermione has a bag that she can virtually store anything inside of, and seems to have done so.  Example, Harry: “Oh we need a tent.”  Hermione: “No problem, got one here in the bag.”  Harry: “Oh we need clothes.”  Hermione “No worries. Got some here in the bag.”  Really?

That being said, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is excellent!  I loved it!  It closed the entire franchise perfectly.  Some franchise directors/producers could learn from the makers of this series… ehhhh-hemmm GEORGE LUCAS ehhhh-hemmm.

The acting was impeccable by the entire cast.  It was nice to see more of Ralph Fiennes in his role as the dreaded Lord Voldemort, and Alan Rickman was just as good as always as Professor Severus Snape.

Although Harry Potter is meant to be a family film, it is a bit violent, and some beloved characters die.  In fact, it seemed all my favorite characters died!!

I do wish there was time to flesh out a bit more about Harry’s rival, Draco Malfoy.  But, there is only so much time, and the filmmakers were able to wrap his character up as well.

The dialogue was always to the point and forwarded the story, unlike a few other Potter films.  Further, the dialogue was clever.  One line that stands above all others for me, delivered by Dumbledore to Harry “Words are our greatest magic.  Put them together properly and they can wound, or even mend.” (Paraphrase)

I look forward to a box set being released one day.  I will surely be in line.

It is very difficult to find a film that can be high energy, humorous, and touching.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 pulls it off nicely.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 gets 8.5 points out of 10.

In 2007, “Transformers” was a pleasant surprise.  By no means a great film, but a very entertaining Sci-Fi action film that portrayed several of the classic cartoon’s iconic characters excellently.  This was especially so in regard to Optimus Prime.  By far, the coolest robot character ever conceived.  He embodies all of humanities virtues with little to none of the vices.  Oh yeah, and he’s a B.M.F. 

In 2009, “Transformers: Rise of the Fallen” was a horrible, nearly unwatchable sequel.  Aside from a horrible story, the aforementioned Optimus Prime was barely in it.

In 2011, we have “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”.  This film lands somewhere between the prior two films.  It is not a good film, but it is not a horrible one either.  

The first half of the film feels like watching an hour long montage of images.  No story whatsoever.  Shia Lebouf running and screaming, fancy cars coming and going, beautiful woman traipsing about as if the entire world were one great big modeling agency, up close shots of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley’s collagen stuffed lips.  I just summarized the entire first hour of the film.  Feel free to show up late.

The action sequences were superb and fun to watch.  But in this day and age, action sequences are a dime a dozen.  Thanks mostly to C.G.I.  There was a time when an action sequence was something to marvel at.  In those times, it was all about timing, and perfect choreography.  Now, it’s just a bunch of computer geeks punching buttons at their computers… Bravo.

Not only is the story of this film a complete mess, but there are glaring plot holes that can not be reconciled.  For example, hundreds of Decepticons are buried on the moon, waiting for some transporting device to be constructed so that they may be brought down to Earth.  Keep in mind that these Decepticons have been buried for centuries, and that we have witnessed Decepticons travel through space on several occasions.  So, why do they need to wait for some transporting device to be built when they already can travel from the moon to the Earth?!?!

I could go on about what a horrible script this film had and what a horrible director Michael Bay is, but the fact of the matter is we all watch his films.  The numbers do not lie.  His films are staggering successes.  “Transformers 3” is no exception.  It is now expected to gross $165 million domestically and well over $300 million internationally… in its first week!  

So, as much as people like me enjoy lifting our snooty little noses to Michael Bay and his low brow, even bigoted and sexist romps, YOU (the public) can not get enough of him.

“Transformers 3” gets 5 out of 10 points

Terrence Malick has been responsible for/involved in some of the most memorable films of the modern era.  Including “Dirty Harry”, “The Thin Red Line”, “Good Will Hunting”, “Gone Baby Gone”, and several others.  “The Tree of Life”, in my opinion, is his masterpiece.

This film, in its nearly silent two plus hours, is able to communicate an intricate story revolving around a Waco, Texas family through the use of several images from the lives of the family members and the universe.

Brad Pitt plays an old fashioned father that insists on raising his sons to be willful, tough, men.  In his efforts, he alienates his eldest son, leading to a rash of misbehaviors by the boy in order to rebel against his father and/or discover his own path.  

The film features what is undoubtedly the finest editing I have ever seen.  A constant current of images fly at the audience without fumbling the story.  There are few filmmakers that can use images from pre-historic Earth, mix them with images of family life in 1960’s Texas and deliver a coherent story.  Yet Malick pulls it off at a level of perfection that is not only comparable to, but reminiscent of Kubrik’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

“The Tree of Life” is a film that is difficult to critique, due to the fact that it appears to accomplish its goals on every level.  However, this film is not for everyone.  Upon ordering a ticket, I was warned that no refunds would be given.  The ticket-taker informed me that several customers did not expect such a cerebral film, and demanded their money back.  This should be no surprise due to the fact that most of history’s finest artists were not appreciated during their time on this planet.

If you are in the mood for a film that will challenge you to look at yourself and the decisions you have made throughout your life, then you must see “The Tree of Life”.  If not… well, “Transformers 3” is out also.

“Tree of Life” gets 9 out of 10 points.

Warning: I once stated that I would not draft a review of “Green Lantern” due to my own personal bias.  But I found myself compelled to do so.

Thursday, June 16, 2011:  I spent over twelve hours pacing throughout Disneyland in the warm “Summer” sun, chasing a near two year old while said near two year old chased what he believed to be a giant friendly mouse.

The only thing that kept me sane was the ticket in my pocket for a midnight showing of “Green Lantern”, my favorite super-hero of all time, and a film that I have been anticipating for over two years.  Then, my one and only respite was seemingly destroyed by the critical reviews that people kept texting me and sending me over Facebook and Twitter.  Enraged, I continued my march through the happiest place on earth, grunting at every brightly colored, smiling animal and slapping away every churro put before me.

Friday, June 17, 2011, 12:01A.M.:  Exhausted, suffering from dehydration, possible sun-stroke, one too many churros, having read several bad reviews, I sat awaiting my disappointment in “Green Lantern”, practically taking notes so that I could chuck my anger at the writers and producers that dare attend comic-con this year.

The movie began, the movie ended and I was upset.  Mad that the film did not show enough of Oa, the majestic home world of the Green Lantern Corps, nor were there enough ring battles A.K.A. “ring-sling’n”.  Too much emphasis on Hal Jordan’s (Ryan Reynolds) love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) and not enough on his relationship with Lanterns Sinestro (Marc Strong), Kilowog (Michael Clark Duncan), Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush), Bzzt (that’s not a typo), Stel, or any of the other 3600 Lanterns that make up the Corps.

Saturday, June 18, 2011:  I was reminded by relatives that I promised to watch “Green Lantern” with them.  So I did.  But for some reason, perhaps because I was rested, not suffering from the heat, nor the years of hype… my experience was vastly different.  I truly, and without a doubt enjoyed “Green Lantern”.  I even plan to watch it a third time.

I made the ultimate error that any reviewer, or fan, could make.  I allowed the hype surrounding the film and opinions of others to skew my own opinion.  

“Green Lantern” is by no means perfect, nor was it as good as it should have been.  But it certainly was not as bad as some critics have made it out to be.  Reynolds portrays Hal Jordan perfectly.  From his cocky pilot strut, to his smart-aleck comments, Reynolds seems to understand who Hal is and why fans love him more than any other Lantern character.  I, myself, was a doubter of Reynolds and the other two actors considered for the role (Justin Timberlake and Bradley Cooper).  I was wrong about Reynolds… but I am right about Timberlake.

What was lacking was Hal’s interaction with other Lanterns.  The advertisements and previews for this film suggested that the audience would be treated to an intergalactic peace keeping force of a variety of aliens that rivaled the creativity of the Star Wars’ cantina scene.  We were given that, but only in appetizer size when we see a gathering of all 3600 Lanterns chanting “We are Oa!! We are the Corps!!”.  By far the best scene of the film which left me wishing for more of the Lanterns.  This was especially so in regard to Sinestro, admirably played by Marc Strong.

However, Sinestro was not the only Lantern that could have offered more entertainment for the audience.  For example, Tomar-Re could have been further embraced by audiences if they were somehow made aware of his failed efforts to save Krypton, Superman’s home planet.  Or that Kilowog hails from a planet that is communal.  But alas, the film is only one hour and forty-five minutes long, and every character could not be explored so deeply.  Perhaps a television series could?  I hear the CW is looking for a new “Smallville”… *HINT, HINT*

Apart from Reynolds’ and Strong’s performances, Peter Sarsgaard’s portrayal of the pitiful villain Hector Hammond managed to be both funny and endearing.  Today’s audiences beg for realism in their comic book films.  Due in part to Christopher “The Godfather” Nolan’s accomplishments with “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” and the audience’s subconscious need for well grounded, 1970’s style dramas that simply do not exist in today’s market.  With a character like Hector Hammond, it is just not possible.  The man has an oversized head.  You can’t make it look real.  He is a classic from the silver age of comics.  So get over it.

Hal’s ultimate battle with Parallax, A.K.A. The Fear Entity.  Parallax is the combined yellow energy of all fear in the universe.  The near equal of the Green Lantern Corps’ green energy of will.  Hal’s battle with Parallax is spectacular.  From conjuring up constructs of two F-38 fighter jets, to a World War 2 anti-aircraft artillery gun, the filmmakers were able to portray this battle as if it were straight from the pages of the comic.

Not only did the filmmakers utilize constructs that are familiar to fans of the comic, but the use of Earth’s sun in the final battle was also reminiscent of the mid-1980’s comic titled “Emerald Twilight”.

“Green Lantern” is not as good as the Nolan Batmans, or the first X-Men (2000).  But it is entertaining and it will make you want to see more Lantern action in the future.

Lastly, this character offers more well grounded inspiration to its audience than any other of its genre.  No, we can not create constructs from a power ring.  But the ideal that will, or courage, is a greater motivator than fear, and that same will can overcome fear is a message we can all relate to, and draw from in order to overcome our own fears.  Whether giving a closing argument in defense of someone unable to defend themselves, or running into a burning building to help a stranger, or a high school teacher before an unruly class of teenagers, or a first grader standing at the plate of his/her first little league at bat… we can all benefit from a little lesson in the power of will.

Due to my personal bias, as a fan of the comic, I will not provide a number score for this film.  Only a recommendation to see it.

A “pitch” is the generic term for the presenting of an idea for a film to a producer/producers.  In most instances the pitch begins with the following… “What if…”

Here is what  J.J. Abrams’ pitch for “Super 8” to Steven Spielberg probably sounded like;

J.J.: “What if E.T. was a really pissed off alien that wanted to go home, but was going to kill/eat a lot of people in the process?… Oh yeah, and instead of being cute, he’s like a twenty foot spider-thing on steroids.”

Spielberg: “Smells like box office gold, J.J.  Run with it!!”

“Super 8” is a film that can not decide whether to be a monster film, or a family drama about loss, discovery, and ultimately acceptance.  The film’s first twenty to thirty minutes are excellent.  The characters are presented in a neat and concise manner.  The characters are very likable and the child actors are excellent.  This is especially so in regard to the female lead of “Alice”, played by Elle Fanning

At the onset I believed I was about to watch a true homage to the Spielberg classics such as “The Goonies” or “E.T.”  But, I was wrong.  

Instead, the next sixty minutes dragged for what seemed an eternity, and the child actors began delivering dialogue more suitable for adult characters.  For example, while the lead character, “Joe”, is explaining his relationship to his dearly departed mother to “Alice”, he tells her: “… when she would look at me… it made me feel like I exist.”  He’s twelve!  Twelve year olds do not relate to the world in such a manner. This is how a twelve year speaks: “When she looked at me… it made me feel important.”  Is it as artsy?  Not at all.  But this is by no means an artsy film, so Abrams may as well have gone for some semblance of realism.

The fun in a mystery is that we get an opportunity to guess what is going to happen.  During this sixty minutes, the audience is not given any clues to what is going on or what this monster is.  Instead, we get characters that reveal nothing to us.  If a character does not provide information relevant to the story or does not forward the story in any manner… that character should not exist.

Rather than allowing the story to unfold through subtext or dialogue that reveals the true plot to the audience, Abrams leads us on a dull one hour and thirty five minute train ride to a scene where the children find a film reel that explains the entire plot to us.  This is called “exposition”.  It is a weak, amateur style of writing that should be beneath someone as highly vaunted as J.J. Abrams.  But, I guess not.

The most interesting aspects of the story are the shattered familial bonds between Joe and his father, as well as Alice and her father.  I found myself wanting to know more about them.  To understand why the two fathers had despised one another since they were teens.  To figure out why Joe’s father was so distant and why he could not reach out to his son.  Then a monster showed up and blew the whole damn story to hell!

This unnamed alien monster, that is capable of communicating telepathically when coming into physical contact with another being, was incoherent in its actions.  It understandably had a grudge against military personnel for using it as a giant lab rat.  But chose not to discriminate in which humans it would kill and devoir, military or not, even though it could differentiate between the two.  Not exactly a sympathetic figure.

Further, there were moments of illogical occurrences that could not be forgiven, as much as I tried.  For example, early in the film we see the most amazing train derailment, which leads to explosions, flying train cars, and the destruction of a small train station.  But, the children’s car did not have a single scratch and was left a perfect lane to drive away through the scattered train rubble.

I once read a quote from a writer that I believed was a joke about J.J. Abrams.  Said writer stated that all J.J. Abrams’ stories end unresolved.  I now know that this was not a joke.  It was criticism.  There is no ending to this film.  It just stops, leaving us to wonder, “If the alien gets away, is he going to go home and get all his alien homies to come back and eat all of us?”

Besides this film’s convenient plot holes, and failed effort to communicate the plot effectively.  Its biggest flaw is that it is dull.  Two years ago, during the Superbowl, we were treated to a very mysterious teaser trailer for “Super 8”.  That one minute trailer was far more compelling than this film.

“Super 8” gets 5 not so super points out of 10.

I heard an advertisement on the radio just yesterday claiming that X-Men: First Class is going to give the Dark Knight a run for its money for the title of best superhero film ever.  Let’s get something out of the way right now… NO IT DOES NOT.  It isn’t even in the top five.

But, X-Men is an entertaining movie.  Granted there are plot holes the size of the grand canyon, inexplicable choices that certain characters make, but nonetheless enjoyable.

The main reasons to watch this film are Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender).  Better known as Professor X & Magneto.  In prior X-men films we learn of the previous friendship these two nemesis once had.  In this film we have an opportunity to witness the birth of that friendship and its inevitable demise.

Unfortunately, the film was in a hurry.  Rather than building up the friendship in this film, and perhaps leading to another film where we see said friendship deteriorate, we see it all happen within a couple weeks of the two characters meeting each other.  Not exactly enough time to build a life long bond that leads to a tragic schism.

As for the other characters in the film, I found most to be somewhat useless.  I could not help but believe that Charles and Erik could have solved all of their problems without the help of any of the other X-Men.  In fact, it seemed as though each of the X-Men were only present to counter one specific ally of the main villain, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon).

Shaw as a villain worked nicely in some ways.  Kevin Bacon’s performance was apt, and who couldn’t root against a mad scientist nazi?  Problem; his motivation is alien to us as people.  He sought to start a nuclear war between Russia and the United States in order to rise from the radio active rubble as the ruler of what’s left of the world… … … Really?

That’s the best that all six writers could come up with?  You heard/read me right.  SIX.  Six people received credit as writers, and that was the problem with this film.  It could not decide if it was a campy romp, or a serious comic film with political/social parallels to our world, unlike the first X-Men movie.  This was a classic “too many chefs in the kitchen” problem.

I must also fault the director and writers for underestimating the intelligence of its audience.  There were unforgivable scenes that did not make any sense at all.  Example, we see Erik use his ability to control metal when he lifts a submarine out of the sea, and drop it on a beach.  We then see the submarine tumble end over about four to five times.  We then see the interior of the submarine where Kevin Bacon is standing as if it’s been smooth sailing all along.  This was a moment during editing where the director spotted this inconsistency and said “Eh, we’re not going for oscars here.  Our audience is stupid anyway.”

With all that being said, as I initially stated, X-Men is an entertaining film.  But don’t expect to be excited about the sequel… if there will be one.

X-Men: First Class gets 6.5 out of 10 points.

I had been awaiting the release of the newest Pirates movie.  I actually noted its release date on my calendar.  But, while standing in line for my ticket, I thought to myself “A million different people will review this film.  Good or bad, it will still gross an insane amount of money.”  So what’s the point?

Therefore, I opted to watch “The Beaver”, starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, and Jennifer Lawrence (Nominated for Best Actress, “Winter’s Bone”).  ”The Beaver” is the story of Walter Black (Gibson), a depressed businessman, that is thrown out by his fed up wife (Foster), and is progressively alienated from his sons, especially his eldest son (Yelchin).

After attempting several methods of mental health care, and failing, Walter takes on the personae of a talking beaver, by way of a hand-puppet he finds in a dumpster.  He ultimately lies to his family and employees about the puppet being a part of a therapy program prescribed by a doctor.  As part of his “therapy”, Walter’s family and his employees can only communicate with Walter by talking to the beaver.

We see Walter’s life turn for the better as his new personae/helper has seemingly cured him of his depression.  Until it becomes more and more difficult to separate the puppet from the master.

Anton Yelchin portrays Porter Black, the troubled teenage son of Walter.  Yelchin was able to convince the audience, or at least me, that his resentment for Walter was real.  At times, I found myself disliking him for being so insensitive to his father’s plight, while at other times I found myself sympathizing with him for all he has to put up with, and his fear of becoming just like Walter.

Jodie Foster not only takes on the role of Meredith Black, Walter’s wife, but also directed the film.  Foster is no stranger to the directors chair, and was clearly more than capable of handling a cast of well honed actors.

Finally, the performance of Mel Gibson as Walter Black and the beaver.  Nothing short of excellence.  Whatever you can say about Gibson’s personal life, which should be allowed to remain personal, nobody can take away or deny his talent.  This role is a first for Gibson.  It is the first time we see him as a frail, and damaged individual that is unable to help himself, let alone take up his duties as a father.

Unlike Martin Riggs, or William Wallace, we do not see Gibson ride in to save the day from the evil mental illness.  Instead, we see a desperate man trying not only to save himself, but his family from himself.

In an era where dramas are an endangered species in the popular cinema, films such as “The Beaver”, “The Reader”, and “An Education” are signs of life.  Fans of dramas can also take solace in knowing that “The Beaver” is the first feature film written by screenwriter Kyle Killen, and hopefully not the last.

“The Beaver” gets 7.5 pirate flags out of 10.

Thor, The God of Thunder… sort of.

When I first learned that Chris Hemsworth was selected to play Thor, I cringed.  Too clean cut, too slim, too young, too unknown.  I can honestly say that I was wrong.  

Chris Hemsworth performed excellently as Thor.  He carried himself, and delivered his lines with an heir of nobility that would rival any royal.  I look forward to seeing his performance in “Avengers”.

Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Odin, Thor’s father, was perfect.  Playing the role of the wise, old king, Hopkins appeared to truly embody all that Odin has been written to be.  Ethical, noble, calculating, and distrustful of his own children.

Natalie Portman’s, Stellan Skarsgard’s, and Kat Denning’s performances as Thor’s human friends were fine, but almost unnecessary to the overall story.  Portman’s character especially seemed to be forced into the script in order to meet the “love interest” requirement.

The makers of this film took a risk by casting certain characters, most notably Heimdall the Gatekeeper, with actors of a different ethnicity than the comic book versions of said characters.  However, Idris Elba’s performance as Heimdall was spot on.  Elba was able to bring the same sort of intensity to this character that he did when he starred in the HBO series “The Wire”.  This left the entire audience waiting for the moment he was going to explode or do something spectacular.

However, I must admit that my favorite member of the cast had to be Tom Hiddleston in his portrayal of Loki, the God of Mischief, Thor’s brother, and ultimately his greatest nemesis.  The key to any film where good faces evil is to make the villain’s motivation reasonable, and ultimately portray said character in a sympathetic light.

Using a villain that wants to destroy the world just doesn’t make sense.  This is because we, as an audience, can not relate to it.  Instead, we have Loki.  The son that wants to prove to his father, the king, that he is just as capable of being the heir to the throne as his brother.  He wishes to have equality.  Who can blame him?

The film is fun, has several exciting moments, and includes an excellent cameo.  Although I generally despise 3D, I would recommend to anyone that wishes to see “Thor” to pay the extra two dollars for the 3D version.  I base this recommendation on one, and only one, event during the entire film. The closing credits.  During these credits we see a stunningly beautiful image of the galaxy that looks absolutely superb in 3D, and is a must see.

The visuals of this film, especially those of Asguard, the home world of Thor, were stunning.  My only criticism in regard to the visuals is that at times, the battle scenes were shot so close up, and so fast that it was difficult to figure out what was going on.

Additionally, the portrayal of Asguard did not seem true to the source material.  Asguard, has always been portrayed as somewhat of a Viking otherworld, or quasi Valhalla, featuring gruff looking men sitting at old wooden tables, drinking barrels of mead while eating mounds of meat with their bare hands.  Instead, we were given a futuristic utopia with a whole bunch of really good looking people using fine silverware.

Although the cast and visuals were excellent, the overall story of “Thor” did have several dull moments.  Each of these moments, by no coincidence, included the human characters and a powerless Thor trying to get his hammer, and power back.

The story felt like it was nothing more than an introduction of Thor to the world, in order to ready everyone for the upcoming “Avengers” film.  In fact, the film, at times, felt a bit rushed.  Almost as if Kenneth Branagh was trying to stuff as much of the history of the Thor character into the two hours he had to work with.

Further, the writer and director made what I would describe as an unforgivable error in judgment.  They chose to rationally explain Thor’s powers from a scientific prospective.  This is a trend we see in many comic book adaptations in this day and age.  This trend began with Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins”.  Where we see the origin of Batman, along with several villains in a more “realistic” fashion.  This worked well with Batman, but does a disservice to Thor.  The reason being that Batman is and always has been a mortal human.  Thor is a god.  Specifically the God of Thunder, from the old nordic religions. 

Instead of staying true to the source material, Branagh, presented Thor as an alien with advanced technology that appears to be magic to the primitive eye.  By doing this, Branagh ripped away all the mysticism surrounding the character.

Not every character needs to be rationalized.  There is nothing wrong with allowing mysticism to exist when dealing with an inherently mystical character.  To quote Frank Miller, “We don’t want to see sweat stains under Superman’s arms.  We just want to see him fly.”

“Thor” gets 7 Hammers out of 10.  

Suspension of disbelief is a crucial element of enjoying any work of fiction.  Suspension of disbelief is our ability to allow ourselves to believe that a benevolent alien, super-charged by our yellow sun, can fly.  Or that a group of misfits con-men can pull off a heist in a Las Vegas casino.

Before watching any film, I always remind myself to suspend my rational self and understand that what I am about to watch is not happening in the real world.  I went through this exercise before watching “Hanna”… it did not help.

“Hanna” is the story of a young girl that has been trained her entire life, by her father, to be a killing machine.  Her father, Erik (Eric Bana), is motivated to train Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) to be a killer so that they can one day kill Marissa Wiggler (Kate Blanchette), a CIA higher up that was once Erik’s boss/commander.

The previews for this film suggest that Erik and Hanna are out to kill Marissa, because she is actively seeking Hanna.  However, it seems that is not the case at all.  As a matter of fact, Marissa seems to not be actively seeking anyone when we are first introduced to her.  Whether the writer and director are aware of it or not, they have created and presented a story where Erik uses the girl he raised as an instrument of death against Marissa, which he has a grudge against.

Before any of this is obvious to the audience, we are treated to twenty minutes of near silent scenes mixed with scenes where Erik speaks to Hanna in vague terms about why they are living in an isolated, snowy, forest.  It was during these first twenty minutes where I found myself thinking the dreaded first sign of a bad film; “Maybe this will get better.”

In regard to suspending disbelief, one must take a further step and suspend all rational thought in order to enjoy this film.  At times, Hanna takes actions that do not make sense, that are contradictory to her “abilities”, and can not be performed by anyone.  

For instance, we see Hanna easily escape from a high security, underground military installation in the Moroccan desert.  She accomplishes this task by shooting everyone she comes into contact, and squeezing through the many convenient cracks and spaces between the walls of said military installation.

We then see Hanna move from a hole in the desert ground and latch herself to the bottom of a Hummer as it passes over her at high speed.  After she was dragged by the Hummer over the dusty, dirty, grainy desert ground, I could not help but wonder why she was not dirty or scraped up at all.  Then I realized why… bad film-making.

The most far fetched aspect of this story occurs when we see Hanna come across a family of free-spirited travelers in the middle of the Moroccan desert that accept her as a friend.  At one moment the father asks Hanna “Where is your father?”  Hana does not answer, and nobody ever asks her again.  The mother of this family proclaims “He’s teaching her independence.”  By leaving her in the middle of the desert… without food… without water… without clothing… or without money.  I can at least say that this scene gave me a whole new appreciation for my parents.

As we follow Hanna through Northern Africa and Spain, it becomes apparent that her father, which initially appears to be a brilliant assassin that leaves no stone unturned, has neglected to teach Hanna anything but how to kill.  We learn this when Hanna finds herself in a motel room where she can not seem to figure out how to flip a light switch or answer a phone and eventually becomes severely overwhelmed.  A scene that particularly nauseating.

All of this can be forgiven if a film is well made, or entertaining.  But, the biggest problem with “Hanna” is that it is extremely boring.  Bore your audience, and you lose your audience.

It seemed as though the writer was attempting to draw similarities between the film’s story and those of Grim’s Fables.  This was apparent due to the “on the nose” references by the characters to Grim’s Fairytales.  If the writer and director were attempting to create a modern and dark version of a Grim Fairytale, their efforts were superficial at best, and added nothing to the overall experience.

The film did have some funny moments, and the action sequences were above average.  However, there was an action sequence where Erik was attacked by four agents that did not sit well with me, nor was it impressive in its choreography.  This is because of a clear error by a stunt man that fell without being hit.  It was as if he simply ran at Erik, then decided to take a dive.  This is a sign of lazy directing.  Rather than choosing to shoot another take, the director probably decided it was good enough.  I disagree.

Cate Blanchette and Eric Bana delivered solid performances, as they usually do.  But there was nothing special about their characters that made me want to root for or against either of them.  Saoirse Ronan was lifeless and seemed to not be engaged in her role.  Clearly her character was meant to be a trained assassin, or more appropriately a sociopath, but we have seen several actors over the years bring more to the table than just a quiet creepiness.  See Anthony Hopkins in his portrayal of Hannibal Lecture, or Robert DeNiro in “Cape Fear”, or even Ton Hanks in “Road to Perdition”.  Each of these actors played sociopathic characters that had no issue with committing murder.  However, unlike Ronan, their characters were memorable.

At one point, as the film was ending, I thought perhaps I am being too harsh with this film.  Until I heard the annoyed and even angry grumbling of the audience as they exited the theater.  I believe their anger and disappointment was the result of the same perception I was under.  We were told in previews and by the production company that “Hanna” was an intelligent thriller that featured excellent actors.  What was delivered was a generic and dull action film.  In fact, it was my dedication to this blog that kept me from leaving this film early.

The film was produced by Focus Features, which has taken up the mantle of making art-house films featuring Hollywood A-listers which was abandoned by the recently defunct/renamed Miramax (now The Weinstein Group).  I have enjoyed each film that Focus has produced and I hope that “Hanna” is not the first sign of many bad projects to come.

“Hanna” gets 4 out of 10 points.

In an effort to not spoil any surprises in this film’s story, my review is somewhat limited in scope and depth as opposed to previous reviews…. You’re welcome.

I first heard word of Duncan Jones’ film “Source Code” several months ago.  It was described to me as the film Groundhog Day but “science fictiony”.  After watching “Source Code”, I believe it to be more than just that.

“Source Code” is the story of Army Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhal) having been recruited to take part in an experimental method of solving crimes, specifically terrorist bombings.  The name of said experimental method is, Source Code.  Here’s how it works; a person is sent to an “alternate reality” where he/she takes possession of another person’s body and has 8 minutes to interact with the environment.

The film kicks off with Colter waking on a train, in front of a young woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan) that is speaking to him with familiarity.  He, of course, has no idea who she is, where he is, or what’s going on.  After 8 minutes, the train explodes and Colter finds himself in a capsule, again unaware of where he is or why he is there.  It is at this moment where Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), by way of video transmission, explains to Colter that it is his mission to continually be “transported” back to the same moment in time over and over again until he solves the mystery of where the bomb on the train is, and which of the dozens of passengers planted it.  If he does not find out who was behind the bombing, another bomb will go off but this time in downtown Chicago, killing two million people.

Why does he only have 8 minutes?  Why can’t others go back with him? Quickly explained by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), when he tells us that quantum physics/mechanics are involved and not to worry our pretty little heads about it.  Worked for me, and worked for the pacing of the story.

From the moment Colter realizes his role and motivation to solve the mystery, the audience is in for one quick paced scene after another.  We continually watch Colterinteract with a variety of characters that he suspects to be the bomber.  Some of the interactions are intense, some are funny, and some of them make us feel embarrassedfor poor Colter.

It is during these exploits where Colter begins to form a relationship with Christina, and Goodwin.  But it is his relationship with Christina that drives him to make every effort to save the people on the train.  Unfortunately, due to the way Source Code works, he can only learn who is responsible, not alter the past.  As it is explained by Dr. Rutledge, “Source Code creates an alternate reality, it’s not time travel.”  But that does not stop our head-strong hero from trying… over and over again.

In my opinion, Gyllenhaal was very convincing as a frustrated man forced to go through the process of being blown up again and again.  In fact, I have yet to see a film in which Gyllenhaal does not deliver a good to excellent performance.  His performance in “Source Code” is no different.

Vera Farmiga’s performance as Captain Goodwin was on point.  She portrayed her character as being both professional and compassionate while also being likable.  I would presume the writer to be very happy with her performance.

Michelle Monaghan’s character was limited, due to the repetition of her lines, and inability to assist Colter in any meaningful way.  The actress did all one could do with such a character, but served as nothing more than part of Colter’s motivation to succeed.  This is in no way a knock on Monaghan.

Duncan Jones, the director, is clearly making an effort to be a cerebral science fiction filmmaker.  His first film, “Moon” (starring Sam Rockwell) was intelligent, dark, and thought provoking.  ”Source Code” is similar, but in many ways predictable.  In fact the predictability was one of only two significant strikes against this film.  There are twists and surprises that come up throughout the story, but unfortunately I felt/saw them coming.  Making each of them not much of a surprise.  I believe this could have been corrected with on the fly script changes, or not placing so much emphasis on “things the audience needs to hear”.  I believe audiences are more intelligent than hollywood gives them credit for and they do not need to be hit with heavy emphasis in order to make sure they are following along.

The ending was satisfying, no more.  Which is the second strike.  Had Jones decided to end the film four to five minutes earlier, the film could have ended with a beautiful moment that I believe people would have talked about.  Instead, he opted for a hollywood ending that leaves a door open for sequels.

Regardless, I enjoyed “Source Code” and look forward to Duncan Jones’ next effort… … … Duncan Jones is rock icon David Bowie’s son.  I had to put that in there!

“Source Code” gets 7 points out of 10.