Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Will Ferrell is the funniest actor working today.

Period.

He even made me laugh in that horrible bomb Bewitched.

So it wasn't a question of whether or not I'd eventually watch this movie......only when.

The truth is that I usually wait for DVD to catch his films.

Not because I don't feel he's worthy of my movie money, but because I'm lazy and cheap, so when I go to the movie theatre it's usually for an event film, or a big action blockbuster.

I usually don't catch silly comedies on the big screen.

But because this film was made by the same writer and producer who made the hilarious Anchorman: The legend of Ron Burgandy I made the exception, and headed out to the movies to catch this flick. More specifically, the Drive-In theatre.

That's right the Drive-In theatre.

It's the first movie that I was able to watch with my wife, and baby cub in attendance.

And I wasn't disappointed.

Talladega Nights tells the tale of one Ricky Bobby. A boy who grew up always wanting to go fast. So what better profession to pursue then becoming a professional Nascar driver. With the help of his teammate Cal Naughton Jr (John C. Reily), he quickly reaches the top of the circuit. But trouble arrives when a mysterious rival Jean Girrard (Sascha Baron Cohen) threatens his supremacy on the Nascar tour.

First off, the movie is pretty freaking hilarious. There are genuine laugh out loud moments, spread throughout the film, and the cast, which includes Michael Clarke Duncan, Gary Cole and Jane Lynch are all affable, charming and enjoyable to watch. There's no doubt that they all probably had as much fun making the movie, then it is for the viewer to watch.

In the typical Judd Apatow style, the film doesn't take itself seriously at all. It's not afraid to turn absurd, and inappropriate at the drop of the hat.

But, I have to admit the movie was different than what I expected it to be.

For one, this is no small budget comedy. There are some huge set pieces, and action sequences in the film.

I'm talking big, expensive crashes, and expertly choreographed action.

Seriously, some of the scenes would give Tony Scott's movie Days of Thunder a run for the money as far as action.

Which I'm not sure was really necessary.

When I'm usually watching a comedy like this I don't really need too much action. Personally I like small, silly, off the wall type stuff.

When I think of a big budget action-comedy. I think of Bad Boys.

Not a good thing.

I almost think it's to a comedic film's advantage to have less money and resources, because it forces the artists to use creativity, talent, and wit to compensate.

I think a lot of the problem with Adam Sandler films nowadays is that he is depending way too much on special effects and big action sequences.

That's not what we go to an Adam Sandler, or for that matter a Will Ferrell film for.

That being said the movie is still pretty funny. I'm going to say not as funny as Anchorman.

But almost.

A particular treat is seeing John C. Reily in pure silly mode. It's always interesting to watch his work. He's a fascinating actor who constantly makes interesting choices, and to see him working with a comedian like Ferrell is just comic heaven.

Also getting plenty of laughs is Sascha Baron Cohen's strange homosexual character Jean Girrard. It's a scene stealing performance that almost has me wishing he'd get a film of his own.

I can't WAIT for his next movie Borat.

Some comic highlights include Ricky Bobby running around the race track in his underwear, Ricky Bobby learning to conquer his fear by driving with a cougar, and John C. Reily and Michael Clarke Duncan trying to remove a knife that was plunged into Ricky Bobby's leg.....by Ricky Bobby.

The movie is not perfect though....obviously.

Besides the unnecessary action. A lot of the great laughs in the film were seen in the trailer. The movie also features a little too much story for my taste.

I know that's a little odd to hear. But when I watch movies like this I don't really care about story arcs, and character development.

I want situational comedy.

I want Ron Burgandy in a Gladiator fight.

But, like I said earlier the movie is still pretty funny. I don't want to give the impression that I didn't enjoy myself.

Actually I'm still giggling thinking about moments in the film. Which makes me think the movie will get better with repeat viewing.

Also before I forget, I have to remind the viewer to stick around for the end credits, which feature bloopers and deleted scenes.

It's easily the funniest stuff in the movie.....maybe even the funniest material of the year.

Clerks 2

I'm a Kevin Smith fan.

I own all his movies on DVD.....except for Jersey Girl. Which gets a bad rap for being worse than it really is....maybe.

I'm sure I'm not in the minority when I say that the first Clerks movie had a profound effect on me both personally, and in my opinion about the possibilities of film as an art form.

Here was a movie that didn't look or sound like the typical Hollywood film of the day, and it was made by a man who truly represented the independent spirit.

A film school drop out, average joe, with limited resources, no studio contacts, and using a no name cast, who utilized his one strong skill as a comedic writer in order to make his dream project by maxing out his credit cards.

The general consensus was that the movie featured brilliant, outstanding dialogue, which overshadowed the thin story, mediocre to poor performances, and admittedly undisciplined, unpolished direction.

But what it had going for it was that there was a palpable energy, affection, and desperation in the film that reflected the passions of the director.

Something all of us undiscovered artists shared in our own lives and ambitions.

When the film became a huge hit, suddenly all the artistic aspirations of the working class became tantalizingly reachable.

Which was obviously just an illusion. But fun to daydream about anyways.

Simply put, the making and the success of the film was the underdog story of the decade.

Six movies, a failed animated T.V. show, countless appearances, numerous writing and acting gigs later Kevin Smith returns to where it all began.

Or has he ever left?

The truth is, for the exception of Jersey Girl, all his following movies have been sort of sequels to the first film. The movies, affectionately called the Jersey chronicles, feature the characters of Jay and Silent Bob, that live in the same world as the Clerks themselves, Dante and Randal.

This time around Dante and Randal take center stage.... again.

When the film begins we see that seemingly not much has changed in their world. Dante dutifully reports to work at the Quick Stop only to find that an accident by Randal has caused the beloved/cursed stores to burn to the ground. With no options they are forced to take jobs at the fast food joint Mooby burgers.

Jump forward and Dante is engaged to be married and this is his last day at work, before he leaves Jersey and moves to Florida, to live the first day of the rest of his life.

But can he easily move knowing that he'll leave behind his best friend, a potential soul mate in Becky, played by Rosario Dawson, and the city, and the View Askew universe that the audience has grown to love?

Before I begin my actual review of the film, I'd like to point out that during the first 15 minutes of the film, I had the unfortunate opportunity to sit right next to someone who had obviously seen the film....many times.

In fact he had actually memorized long speeches from the film, and was reciting them along with, sometimes seconds before the actual scene would appear on film

After several of my fellow patrons had threatened bodily harm to him, he stopped.....finally.

But one can imagine this left a sour taste in my mouth for the rest of the film, when several times during the 15 minutes I was tempted to either move seats, get up and report the idiot, or even contemplated smacking the idiot in the brain with my fists, forearm and knees.

Indeed if he was not accompanied by a lady friend I most certainly would have, and I might not be here writing this post, but instead in a jail cell considering a different kind of blog post about the dangers of losing one's temper.

In any case,I admit there's a possibility that my review might be slightly tainted. However I firmly believe I don't feel it has affected my disposition to the point of not writing a fair and accurate review of the film.

In any case here it goes.

The film for me was a case of two extremes.

I hated it, and liked it.

Specifically I hated the first half of the film, and enjoyed the second half of the film...almost to the point where I might recommend it.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The first act of the film which includes the exposition, and the introduction of new characters didn't work for me.... at all.

In fact throughout several points in the beginning I contemplated walking out of the film.

Seriously.

Not for the same reason that Joel Siegel did however, and not because of the ignorant jerk next to me.

But because I did not care or feel for any of the characters involved....at all.

While watching the first 30 minutes I kept considering how in the press after Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back, Kevin Smith had remarked how he out grew the characters in the View Askew universe. That he felt it was time for him to move on from the characters and explore new territory.

The characters of Dante and Randal, to me in the beginning, just seemed like bitter, unpleasant, immature people that I had no interest in getting to know all over again.

Which may have been some of the point.

Except that none of the comedy seemed to work for me in the beginning. The interesting, humorous mean spirited banter of the original film, had turned annoying, uninspired, boring, and tired.

When Randal torments a strange annoying co-worker named Elias, it seems desperate and excessive, a plea for laughs.

Something that was below everyone involved.

Why feel the need to comically point out what is abundantly clear.?

The guy is weird. Unrealistically character actor weird. We get it.

Rather than just let the character exist. Kevin Smith's writing feels the need for Randal to comment and remark on those peculiar traits over and over and over again....just in case we missed it.

The same can be said about the character of Emma Bunting.

Awkwardly played by Smith's real life wife Jennifer.

Along with excessive writing pointing out her weird traits, Emma Bunting's character has the unfortunate circumstance of not given good dialogue to work with as well as a weak performance. Couple that with the idea that a lady like her would even be interested in someone like Dante, and it's a mess waiting to happen.

Although his films are not renown for their acting prowess Mrs. Smith's performance is unusually stilted. Which is unfortunate since I found her enjoyable in Jay and Silent Bob and humorous in her bit part in Jersey Girl.

To be fair, looking over her IMDB page, unless she has theatre training I'm unaware of, it's obvious that she is just starting out in the business.

It's possible that the idea of playing love interest, and performing a make out scene while his husband the director was watching, proved to be too awkward for her. In any case it's obvious she is not comfortable here, and is hard to watch without being pulled out of the movie's story.

There are however some comic highlights in the first half that I won't reveal, not surprisingly involving Jay and Silent Bob.

But for me the laughs were very few and far between.

The banter and observations in this film seemed to lack the timely and cultural relevance that the first film did.

It just felt forced.

It had me questioning whether all the material with these two characters had been exhasted in the first film, the animated series, and the cameos in the other films.

When things start to turn around for the film is with the arrival of Becky played by Rosario Dawson. Although she too suffers with awkward exposition, and unnecessary scenes of character revealing quirks, at least her character has an energy and a personality that is affable.

Although it's even harder for us still to imagine her character would feel romantically for Dante.

No matter how much they try to tone down her appearance.

Strangely enough it's when the comic hi-jinks start to mellow down, that the film starts to begin to work.

After an effective encounter with a high school nemesis, played by Jason Lee. We start to get into the real heart of the movie.

How the friendships that we keep help sustain us through the mediocrities of life.

The second half plays with a sensibility which is perhaps closer to where Kevin Smith's head is at nowadays.

More mature, heartfelt, and sincere.

The second half of this film is what Jersey Girl wanted to be.

Sure some of the situations are formulaic. But much like the first film, there is an energy and spirit in the second half of this movie which reflects and represents the director's life view.

I'm sure Kevin Smith is well aware how lucky he has been in life.

Whereas the first film reflected the anger, frustration and absurdity, which he felt at that period in his life. The second half of this movie reflects his ideas of taking life more slowly, observing the positives in one's life, and the joys possible when listening to one's own heart when making life choices.

The second half of the film is also a lot more fun. The humor also hits it's stride in the second half, it's a nice blend of heartfelt sincerity, and absurd comedic over-the-top-shocking humor.

It's an interesting contrast.

It's almost as if he wrote the first half of the movie to please his hardcore fan-boys, and the second half to please general moviegoers.

It's quite dramatic to witness actually, two drastically different tones, and sensibilities in the same film.

In retrospect, I guess, when considering the two halves of this film one can argue that the film represents a synopsis of Kevin Smith's own life. An angry, bitter, frustrated, confused, first half, followed by a mature, grateful, life affirming, second half. Was this done on purpose? I don't doubt it. He is a talented writer.

But is it a good film?

Although it's obviously subjective, there was a significant portion in my audience who enjoyed the first half of the film, as well as the second. There were also however several walk outs in my screening, and as I stated earlier a temptation by myself to follow suit.

Although I enjoyed the second half of the film, the reality is I could not reconcile my dislike for the first half.

The writing, acting and story just seemed awkward, tedious, and uninspired. Although the film redeems itself in the second half, it's too much to overcome....at least for me.

A telling question which I posed to myself was whether I felt the film was up to the standards of the first 5 films in the View Askew universe.

The answer is no.

But perhaps most telling is that I don't intend to add it to my DVD collection.

I do hope to catch the movie again perhaps on Cable or maybe on DVD.... as a rental, just to see it with a clearer head without the annoying mimicking parrot movie patron in my ear.

But I don't think it'll change my perception. The reality is I just think that it's now become abundantly obvious that Kevin Smith has moved on from this type of material, and he doesn't seem to have the same passion and enthusiasim for the View Askew universe like he once did.

He is ready for a new chapter in his artistic life.

I look forward to seeing it.

Inside Man

While watching Spike Lee's Inside Man, the first thing one notices is the definite change of tone of the film compared to his previous work.

The movie just feels lighter.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Spike is undoubtedly a very talented director, who has always had strong political statements weaved into his films. He's a director who often provokes his audiences.... to the point of feeling uncomfortable, and often times angry.

But I often wondered to myself, what kind of movie would Spike Lee make if he was just having fun.....in a sense a commercial film designed to entertain and please the most people possible.

The answer is the enjoyable, and amusing Inside Man.

On a seemingly normal day, several bank robbers take over an exclusive corporate bank. The ring leader is the charismatic and intelligent Dalton Russell, played by Clive Owen. The detectives in charge of the case played by Denzel Washington and Chiwetel Ejifor, arrive on the scene and shortly discover that this is no ordinary bank take over. When a mysterious bank official played by Jodie Foster arrives, things take an even more complicated turn. Can the detectives avoid the seemingly inevitable bloody conclusion, like most bank robberies, or can they uncover the real motives for this unusual bank take-over?

What makes this movie refreshing is the unusual twists and turns the film takes with the genre.

It's obvious that the writer Russel Gerwitz, and Spike Lee are well aware of the different expectations in this type of movie, and they use those expectations to their advantage as they create mystery, and tension in the movie while twisting and tweaking those expectations.

The film is suspenseful, and exciting, while delivering plenty of thrills.

But the film also features surprising oddly placed humor throughout the film to disarm and amuse us.

It's the first clue that Spike Lee is having fun with the viewer, and is obviously making a conscious effort to make this an audience friendly affair.

The movie also benefits from strong acting from the entire cast.

Denzel Washington and Clive Owen do an excellent job of anchoring the film.

But it's especially refreshing to see an engaging performance from Jodie Foster.

For some time now, we've seen her play mediocre heroine-type caricatures, in films like Flightplan and Contact. It's nice to see her stretch her legs a bit, and play a grounded, complex, character with morally ambiguous motivations.

Christopher Plummer, Wilem Dafoe and Chiwetel Ejifor round out the excellent cast, with solid enjoyable performances.

But ultimately the movie's success has to be credited to Spike Lee.

Sure the movie is not as provocative, and demanding...... or even as important as a lot of his earlier work. But it's good to see that Spike Lee acknowledge his abilities to deliver a well- executed standard mystery/suspense film, that one can enjoy with some popcorn and candy.

Although it's often commendable that artists try to provoke audiences to think politically, and challenge people into discussion.

It's also important to sometimes take a step back, and accept that ultimately an artist's job is to entertain.

And that's one thing that I can guarantee about Inside Man.......that it's entertaining.

Check it out now on DVD.

The Lost City

I loved Godfather part 3.

I know I'm in the minority.

But I think that movie is really ambitious, and the ideas, and themes were very effective.

I loved how Coppola explored the idea of the higher the Corleone Family went into supposedly legitimate, and respected society, the more corrupt the world revealed itself to be.

Even the church, and religion weren't beyond corruption.

It also explored how the sins of the father would come back to haunt the family.

Generations of violence catching up to deal it's most tragic blow.

All in the package of a Godfather movie.

Yeah, some of the execution was off, and losing Robert Duvall was a huge blow to the story. But I still liked the movie for what it was.

Although there was mixed opinions about the actual movie. Everyone was in agreement that Andy Garcia was fantastic in the film. He received an academy award nomination for Best supporting actor, and everyone saw him as the next great leading man in the same mold of Al Pacino, and Robert DeNiro.

When Francis Ford Coppola was asked why he cast Andy Garcia in the film, his response was "He looked, and acted like a Corleone."

It doesn't get any better than that.

So.....what the hell happened?

A few flops like Steal Big, Steal Little, Desperate Measures and Gangster, and suddenly Andy Garcia is playing bitch to George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

The Lost City was a movie that I've heard about for many years.

It's been well known that it was a dream project for Andy Garcia.

His life work, and ambition.

I remember reading an article about how disappointed he was in the movie version of the Mambo Kings. He felt that the movie failed to capture the authenticity of Cuban heritage, and the community.

He basically felt it was Cuba, the cliff notes version.

So for years I looked out for The Lost City. I wanted to see what kind of movie Andy Garcia can make, how he would share the Cuban experience on film.

The results are disappointing.

The Lost City tells the tale of a Cuban family caught up in the chaos of Cuba's transition from the corrupt, oppressive government of Batista to Fidel Castro's communist dictatorship.

The main problem with the film is that it's obviously working with a limited budget.

It's also much too ambitious for a first time director. There's too much in the film going on, too many plot lines, too many characters, and not a strong effective through-line for the film.

It's like Andy Garcia wanted to put everything he loved about Cuba, and movies in one film.

EVERYTHING.

There's plenty of Cuban music and dance, Garcia's character owns a nightclub.

The story, also features his two brothers, who take two drastically opposing viewpoints to bring democracy to Cuba.

It's also about a family dealing with the chaotic times.

There's also a love story between Andy Garcia and his brother's widow.

There's Andy Garcia's friendship with a noble police officer.

There's Castro's army looming in the mountains.

There's Batista's corrupt Government.

There's the workings of the Cuban nightclub, which includes a friendship with a nameless comic, played by Bill Murray.

Finally when things go bad we ALSO see how the family is destroyed, and how Andy Garcia is forced to leave the country he loves, to go to America.

Oh yeah, there's also Meyer Lansky, played by Dustin Hoffman, hovering about.

So a lot of stuff.

What we get is a bunch of storylines, ideas, and characters mixed up in this confusing, and ineffective history lesson.

It's just too much content, and not enough story or character development.

The audience is not given enough time to really become attached or sympathize with any of the characters.

We're too busy trying to absorb what's going on in the film.

All the characters ends up feeling so distant.

It honestly feels like it wants to be an 8 hour mini-series.

But what we get is a chopped up version of that script.

There's some interesting stuff in the movie. Garcia's performance is engaging, although he's obviously spreading himself too thin.

Bill Murray is effortlessly doing excellent work in the film.

But he's not in it nearly enough, and his character isn't important enough to really contribute to the main story. He just goes around ironically commenting on the proceedings.

Some of the scenes, and imagery are well executed. Shots, and locales are interesting. Performances are adequate and serviceable.

But in all honesty, the whole thing ends up being just mediocre, and forgettable.

Make no mistake the movie is ambitious, and it's heart is in the right place.

But it's simply too much movie.

For everyone involved.

I get the sense that if Andy Garcia had just pulled back. Maybe just choosing one aspect, or storyline to film, the results would have been much more positive.

Instead we get a mess.

Yeah it's sometimes interesting, even at points effective........ but ultimately a flawed mess.

Unfortunately.

It's available now on DVD.

Brick

Being a classically trained actor I've participated in many high concept Shakespearean works.

Off the top of my head I remember being involved in a production of 12th Night where the world of the play was set in Alice in Wonderland. I also did a production of the Scottish Tragedy, that was set in an apocalyptic military future.

I even remember watching a musical version of Much ado about Nothing, where they inserted musical numbers using Motown classics.

Yeah, seriously.

When it comes to Shakespeare.....everybody wants to be original.

When watching these productions I always try to ask myself how do these high concepts enhance the story, and themes of the play? And how does putting these concepts into the production illuminate the author's original intent?

Most of the time it doesn't do anything to the play.

Usually it just ends up looking cool, and audiences walk away thinking to themselves....."that was original."

Which is not a good thing.

When considering a movie like Brick. I ended up asking myself similar questions when watching the film.

Why is the film noir genre, being put in this world of high school?

How does this enhance the themes of the story?

What, if anything are the story tellers trying to say about the genre by putting it in this world?

Sadly, the answer is....it does nothing.

When it comes to Brick, the movie is unfortunately all style......And no substance.

Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a young high school outsider, who is trying to figure out why his ex-girlfriend was killed, and who was involved. The usual suspects include the big boss-the Pin (Lukas Haas), the thug-Tugger (Noah Fleiss), the dame-Laura (Nora Zhetner), and the loose cannon-Dode, (Noah Segan).

It's obvious writer/director Rian Johnson is talented.

He has a good ear for dialogue, and he knows how to structure a story well.

He also has an interesting eye as a director, and really has a talent for clever transitions.

As a showcase for his skills Brick is a success.

But in terms of a well told story, and overall film, ultimately the movie really doesn't contribute anything, not to mention does nothing for the genre.

By putting it in the high school world, the whole exercise feels just shallow.

Like kids messing around.

The stakes are never high enough, to really take anything seriously.

The dialogue, situations and circumstances just don't fit, and doesn't ring true. Not to mention that technically the actors simply don't have the life experience, and world weariness to truly inhabit the film noir stereotypes.

What were left with is a parody with no comedy.

The movie is not a complete failure however. I find it admirable that the actors, and crew felt so strongly about the project. They approach the material with a sincerity, and seriousness that is commendable.

In terms of a film noir, the story is, at times, interesting stuff.

But by putting it in the high school world however, we are constantly reminded that we are watching a stylistic film. Situations seem familiar. But the story tellers are trying to awkwardly fit it into this absurd world. What's worse is that when we want them to explain how the genre fits in the world. The film makers gloss over the particulars hoping we won't notice. For example, there seems to be no parental figures in the film for the main characters. The one time there is a parent, it's done as a comic bit.

Authority figures are few, and far between.

The one scene where there is an authority figure, in this case an assistant vice principal, (obviously subbing for an assistant D.A.), the whole situation and scene feels fabricated and insincere. Like it was put in just for the sake of having an noirish assistant D.A. type scene with the protagonist.

After awhile the whole movie feels that way, scenes are presented just to accommodate the needs of the genre, instead of the needs of the actual story.

After awhile the thing just starts to get really annoying.

Like a bad production of Lord of the Flies.

A bunch of brats running around acting like they are adults, who think they've earned the right to behave the way they do.

I kept hoping that an authority figure would show up, and start slapping these little brats around.

That a real drug lord would show up and start beating the shit out of these punk kids who are playing like they are hardened criminals.

I'd like to see Tug try to kick the shit out of a Sam Jackson type. Or the Pin trying to boss around a Ving Rhames type.

It's just absurd.

Why should anyone take these kids seriously?

I know that the film makers tried not to make this a Bugsy Malone type affair. But that's exactly what they've created.

Who knows maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the point is that we aren't suppossed to take these kids seriously. That the movie is meant to illustrate the folly and recklessness of youth.

But I honestly don't get that impression.

I really believe that we're suppossed to take these characters seriously, that we are suppossed to respect these characters as big players in the world. That the world is growing fast, and it's a youth oriented, and controlled society.

Which is a interesting and noble point.

But the truth is the movie's world doesn't honor or embrace the fact that these teenagers are ultimately just youths, who must answer.... eventually..... at some point to older authority types.

The story tellers eliminate the adults entirely. The teenagers ARE the adults in this world.

Which ultimately doesn't ring true on any level.

Who knows it could be that it's just a generational thing.

Maybe the movie isn't supposed to speak to me. Maybe I'm too old for this movie.

Wow, let me just say that reeeeaaaalllllly sounds strange to me.

However, I recognize I am older, and if that's the case,the movie is really just a marketing exercise to please, and entertain teenagers.

In any case, I can't say I enjoyed myself watching this film. Truthfully, I just kept getting annoyed by the whole exercise.

But like I said, it's not a total waste of time.

I guess if one is looking for something stylish, yet not very substantial. I guess this is the movie to watch.

But truthfully, there are plenty of other film noirs that will entertain one, no matter what the age. Like the Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Chinatown. If one is looking for a modern noir check out Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang or The Big Lebowski.

I'd definitely recommend catching one of those great films, before throwing this mediocre movie on.

Miami Vice (2006)

If there was ever a television show that deserved a big screen adaptation it's Miami Vice.

In the 80's the show was the essence of cool.

Fast cars, cool clothes, attractive women, and the exciting, action packed lifestyle of undercover officers entertained TV viewers for years.

With the recent popularity of bringing old TV shows to the big screen, it was only a matter of time before someone would have the bright idea of dusting off the 80's neon t-shirts and white blazers.

There were rumors that film makers would play up the 80's vibe. Maybe even make the movie a straight parody, much like they did with the 70's show Starsky and Hutch.

Thankfully former executive producer Michael Mann had other ideas for the franchise.

Apparently Michael Mann was well aware of the popularity, and modern day potential for the franchise. While I was viewing an HBO behind the scenes special, in one of the segments, Michael Mann remarks how many actors had often brought up the idea of him bringing Tubbs and Crockett to the big screen.

With his success with the genre in movies like Heat, Manhunter and Collateral. I can see why many actors would like to revisit the franchise with Mann at the helm.

But I can understand why Mann wouldn't want to revisit Miami Vice.

Why revisit the past? When he has such a bright future.

It's almost a no-win situation to go back.

Luckily for us he decided to take the risk.

Although far from his best work, with pacing issues and an uneven story, the movie is still able to deliver the modern day Michael Mann thrills, while incorporating the trademark Miami Vice cool.

The movie features speedboats, jet planes, attractive women, exotic locales and plenty of action.

What more does one need in a summer movie?

I noticed that in articles about the film, reviewers have noted that the movie bears little resemblance to the original t.v. show.

My response would be....... What exactly are they watching?

The movie feels exactly like Miami Vice.

The camera angles, the action, the camaraderie, the unusual supporting characters, the back room deals, and the vicious heartless drug lords.

There's late night meetings on roof tops. Important phone conversations. Shady characters in Miami night clubs. Plenty of eye candy, with sexual tension with the opposite sex. Crockett and Tubbs in a Ferrarri.

My thinking is that maybe people have just forgotten what the original show was like.

Thankfully Michael Mann updates the franchise by putting it in modern day. Sure it's less flashy then the 80's, but the stakes are now higher and darker.

When talking about the movie it's impossible not to comment on the amazing sound design.

When a character fires a gun. The audience feels it.

Literally.

In so many movies nowadays the sound of a gun firing is almost as familiar as street noise, and traffic in a film.

Not in this movie.

When a gun is fired it almost jolts the viewer out of their seat.

We are instantly aware of the potential damage that a gun can cause in this film. It's loud, violent, and lingers in our ears, while jolting us with it's bass.

And believe me there is plenty of gun fire in this film.

The film features excellent action sequences. As well as painfully mounting suspense. The movie really accomplishes showing the viewer the tone of this lifestyle, and the toll it takes on an undercover officer.

The film isn't perfect however.

The film suffers slight mis-steps in it's pacing.

A subplot with Farrell and Gong Li going to Cuba, feels a little long.

Also some of the performances are uneven.

Particularly Gong Li, who obviously struggles with the English language throughout the film. Although it gives the movie a more worldly feel to have Gong Li in the film. Because of her difficulty with the language, it almost feels a little like stunt casting.

Colin Farrell also struggles a little bit with finding the right balance of world weariness, and street wise cool. Although I will say, I find this to be one of his better performances.

Jamie Foxx probably shines the most here. He's affable and amusing, while carrying a slightly intimidating presence. It's a nice follow up to his Collateral performance.

Overall, I'd be tempted to say this is the best movie of the summer.

Although for some reason, I don't feel completely comfortable with that statement.

Maybe it's because this summer has been so mediocre.

I almost expect something else to be better.

But the truth is....... There isn't anything.

So I'll go ahead and say it.

Miami Vice is the real deal, and better than all the movies out there right now.

Be sure to check it out.

V for Vendetta

Here we are, already in August and there hasn't been one movie that I can confidently say will be on my top ten list.

The wait is over.

V for Vendetta is beyond a doubt one of the most interesting, thrilling, and most moving movies that will come out this year.

There's a lot to like about this movie. It has a great story, thrilling suspense, exceptional performances, quotable dialogue, and exciting action pieces.

Quite simply, it's the best movie I've seen this year.

A mysterious lone figure known simply as V, (Hugo Weaving) uses his considerable abilities, which includes martial arts, to cause havoc, and protest the totalitarian society and corrupt leadership of future England.

His complex and detailed plan to bring down the government, is side tracked by the presence of a young woman named Evey Hammond, (played by Natalie Portman).

Can Evey put aside her fear and listen to her heart in order to help the heroic V? Or will the relentless Inspector Eric Finch ,played by the excellent Stephen Rea, stop V from fulfilling his plan to change the world.

When considering the film it's impossible not to notice the political statement the film is making.

The movie is making a rather obvious comment about the current political climate, there are inferences, and analogies throughout the film which echo the current affairs of the world.

There's issues dealing with the corruption of the media, the way politicians use tragedies to solidify power, and the government's use of ignorance and fear to pacify the masses.

It's really controversial, and subversive stuff being discussed in the film.

But those issues are packaged in a great, action and suspense filled film.

At times the movie is even quite romantic, and moving.

It really is the essence of what great art is all about.

It holds up a mirror to society, demanding audiences to consider important issues, all the while entertaining, and thrilling people looking for some harmless fun.

I really don't want to get into specifics and plot lines, I believe the movie should be watched with a fresh perspective.

But the film really features some impressive performances.

Especially from it's three leads.

Stephen Rea in particular really shines in the role of the tortured Inspector Finch who is trying to uncover the plot. There are scenes of great revelation and emotion that really showcase his abilities. I'm hoping that when awards season comes along that his performance is not forgotten.

Hugo Weaving does a fantastic job in the lead role. It's especially impressive considering that his performance is mostly done vocally. Since for the most part, he spends the film hidden behind a mask. I believe that even some of the physical work of the character, was played by someone else. Since Hugo Weaving took over the role from James Purefoy shortly after filming started.

It's a fantastic performance that really carries the film. He creates a haunting and memorable character that stays with the audience long after the film ends.

Natalie Portman shines in the role of Evey. It's a challenging role that has her exploring different extreme aspects of the human condition. It's nice to see her return to the more demanding character work that was such a trademark of her excellent early work. It's obvious that she is making strong and interesting choices in her career. It's nice to see her recognize outstanding material, and taking risks that might intimidate some of her fellow peers.

It's unfortunate that the film received notoriety about the hero of the film using terrorists tactics.

The film really isn't about that.

Ultimately the film is about hope.

It's about how humanity, and the people as a whole have the ability to achieve it's greatest potential.

How the masses can positively affect the state of affairs by understanding the greater good of all, not just the few, or the people who have power.

It's about standing up, and taking a strong position against ignorance and fear.

It's about how the government should serve the people......not the other way around.

Overall, it's just an outstanding film, and a movie that I heartily recommend.

I have no doubt that the film will land on my top ten list.....Maybe even on top.

The DVD is available now.

Run and buy it.