The Electric State

Directors: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Starring: Millie Bobby Brown, Chris Pratt, Ke Huy Quan, Stanley Tucci, Woody Norman, Giancarlo Esposito, Jason Alexander, Holly Hunter, Anthony Mackie, Woody Harrelson, Jenny Slate, Alan Tudyk, Brian Cox, Hank Azaria, Colman Domingo, Billy Gardell
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★½ (out of ★★★★) 

It's hard to pretend critics' knives weren't already sharpened for the Russo brothers' latest big budget action spectacle, The Electric State, before it was seen. Chalk that up to the "Netflix Effect," where the streamer's fondness for pumping out easily disposable popcorn fare gets blamed for all of entertainment's ills, specifically the sharp decline in theatrical releases. But wishing a film you detest had a wider reach is wild, especially when these titles seem ideal for Netflix's fast food menu style of streaming. You can either take it or leave it, which is the whole point of having options. 

Based on Simon Stålenhag's 2018 illustrated novel, its most glaring flaw is a concept that would have probably worked better as the series many assumed it was after seeing those trailers and commercials. Not as unwatchable as you've heard, it plays like a rushed, far inferior counterpart to Amazon's recent Fallout adaptation, which possessed a gripping human element sorely lacking here. But all the complaints about this being one of the most expensive movies ever made is silly once you realize that statistic will inevitably be topped by something worse in a matter of months.

It's 1994 and the war raging between humans and robots for the past four years has ended, leaving society a post-apocalyptic wasteland where semi-comatose humans are entirely reliant on the Neurocaster virtual reality headsets that helped win the battle. Successfully used for combat drones, the technology stuck around and caught on with the public, allowing them to physically check out while these electronic surrogates live their lives. 

With robots now outlawed and banished to the forbidden "Exclusion Zone," teenager Michelle Greene (Millie Bobby Brown) is visited by a big headed yellow bot named Cosmo (voiced by Alan Tudyk), who's based on a popular cartoon character. But she'll soon discover that inside this steel can is the uploaded consciousness of her gifted younger brother Christopher (Woody Norman), presumed dead in a car accident. 

Escaping her abusive father Ted (Jason Alexander), Michelle and Cosmo join up with military vet turned smuggler Keats (Chris Pratt) and his wisecracking robot Herm (voiced by Anthony Mackie) to find Christopher. Hunted by mercenary Marshall Bradbury (Giancarlo Esposito) as they head toward the Exclusion Zone for clues, Michelle hopes to reunite with her brother. But Neurocaster creator and evil tech mogul Ethan Skate (Stanley Tucci) needs him for more nefarious purposes that could jeopardize humanity's future. 

For better or worse, the Russo's Marvel offerings proved their penchant for efficiently delivering huge, effects laden extravaganzas even when the script's an overstuffed mess. This is one of those, but at least you wouldn't know it from the opening, which details the circumstances and background of this post-war society through documentary style newsreel footage. In fact, most of the world building in its first hour is done well, promising potential we keep waiting to arrive. 

The story dips when flashbacks meant to establish the close bond between Michelle and Christopher feel squeezed in and strangely executed, as their affectionate displays seem laid on unnaturally thick for teen siblings. Whether these scenes are Michelle's rose colored recollections of Christopher or intended to suggest knowledge of his impending doom, they're bizarre, much like Jason Alexander's character, who hovers between being an actual threat and a dimwitted comedic foil.

While Pratt will undoubtedly be accused of playing a variation on his Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy (with some Han Solo thrown in), business does pick up once he's introduced, though not necessarily because he and Brown share such great chemistry. It has more to do with robots Cosmo and Herm, who make a more entertainingly worthwhile pair. 

The group's arrival at the Exclusion Zone represents the film's creative peak, with all the banished bots congregating in a run down mall they've converted into a semi-functional society comprised of colorful characters like Brian Cox's Popfly (a takeoff on the Cincinnati Reds' Mr. Redlegs mascot) and Jenny Slate's Penny Pal letter carrier. But the real star is bespeckled, top hat wearing Mr. Peanut, who Woody Harrelson voices as the wise, soft spoken war vet who signed a peace treaty with President Clinton in an unintentionally hilarious Gump-like scene. He's the bots' leader and may be called to action again, whether he wants it or not.  

MCU writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely sprinkle in politically relevant themes involving the dangers of technology and government overreach, but those familiar messages get muddled amid the bombastic adventure. Much of the last act is driven by the big reveal involving Tucci's evil CEO, and though his intended use of Michelle's brother is obvious even by wacky sci-fi standards, he and Esposito do give the film's two strongest human performances, adding needed dimension to their sneering villains. Key Huy Quan also briefly shows up in a fun role as a doctor who allegedly holds all the answers Michelle's seeking.

Despite creating a retro futuristic alternate 90's world brimming with possibility, The Electric State can't help but feel like a giant AV project assembled from parts of movies that cover similar terrain. Allusions to Edge of Tomorrow, Ready Player One, Five Nights at Freddy's, and even Stranger Things are all noticeable in a picture that isn't the total abomination you've heard, but problematic in important spots. Even with a packed cast of surprisingly huge names in unexpected roles and impressive effects, we're still only left with a mildly painless watch that's biggest offense is its unoriginality.                                                           

The Woman in the Window

Director: Joe Wright
Starring: Amy Adams, Gary Oldman, Anthony Mackie, Fred Hechinger, Wyatt Russell, Brian Tyree Henry, Julianne Moore, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tracy Letts
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R 

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)  

The most surprising aspect of Joe Wright's long gestating The Woman in the Window is how underwhelming the results are given the staggering amount of talent involved. Of course, this happens, as movies collecting dust in post-production are frequently dumped onto streaming services with little to no fanfare. But in this instance, Netflix actually went to some lengths to promote it, perhaps hoping the cast's pedigree would overcome its creative flaws, which keep piling up as its story becomes more involved and convoluted. It starts with rather transparent aspirations of honoring Hitchcock or De Palma before devolving into an inferior Scream sequel in its second half, complete with a clumsy reveal. And that's a shame since you can kind of see the skeletal framework of a film that may have really worked under different circumstances, as a few stronger performances seem in search of the better material these actors mistakenly thought they signed onto.

Based on a 2018 bestseller by A.J. Finn, that this script was adapted by Tony-winning playwright (and gifted character actor) Tracy Letts leads you to believe something got lost on its journey from his pen to the screen. That it was supposed to be released in late 2019 confirms as much, as viewers will be jumping through hoops to deal with some of the arbitrary contrivances before reaching an ending that lands with a thud. While there are laughs to be had, it mostly takes itself too seriously for that, especially when information comes to light that would have ended the film ten minutes after it started. Knowing this, it's unlikely many would have stuck around for the over-the-top third act that wraps up what's been a strange and wildly inconsistent mystery.

Depressed, agoraphobic child psychologist Anna Fox (Amy Adams) lives alone in her Manhattan brownstone apartment after separating from her husband Edward (Anthony Mackie), who currently has custody of their daughter, Olivia (Mariah Bozeman). Mixing drinks and medications on a daily basis, Anna's psychiatrist Dr. Landy (Letts) becomes concerned with her obsession of watching all the neighbors from a second floor window, while also acknowledging that interest could be a subtle sign of progress in her therapy. But when spouses Alistair (Gary Oldman) and Jane (Julianne Moore) Russell move in across the street with their teen son, Ethan (Fred Hechinger), Anna's takes her spying to another level.

After two separate encounters with a clearly dispondant Ethan and a flighty Jane, Anna begins suspecting the mother and son are trapped in an abusive household. When she believes she sees Jane get stabbed to death by husband Alistair through her zoom lens, his furious denials and attempts to discredit Anna to Detective Little (Brian Tyree Henry) begin. Anna's basement tenant, singer-songwriter David (Wyatt Russell), provides little help in corroborating her story while possibly hiding some secrets of his own. With her mental state deteriorating and everyone gaslighting her into doubting what she saw, Anna works overtime to put together clues that prove this horrific crime was really committed and not merely a construct of her fragile psyche.

While the film is all over the map in terms of plot, the amount of time it spent on the shelf probably helped it in some ways, at least as far as its themes of isolation seeming timelier than they otherwise would. And for about half the film, the script does seem very seriously interested in taking us into the fractured headspace of this woman who obviously experienced a severe trauma we only later discover the details of. 

Losing herself in classic movies and TV, Anna's exiled herself inside this apartment with her cat, and the remainder of her entertainment is provided by spying on this wealthy, dysfunctional family across the street. Other than  sporadic phone conversations with her estranged husband and the weekly psychiatric counseling, she's in her own world, reality hanging by a thread after an adjustment to her meds. 

Adams is really strong in these opening scenes and her interactions with Hechinger, as this desperately off, needy teen, are unnerving and affecting. But it's the entrance of an entertainingly loopy Julianne Moore as "Jane Russell" that sends everything into a tailspin, but not an altogether welcome one, through no fault of Moore's performance, which is probably better than the story deserves. 

After Anna witnesses Jane's murder the entire scenario goes down this rabbit hole where everyone starts questioning her sanity and the mystery unfolds as to whether everything's playing out in her head. The more information that's revealed the sillier it gets, more closely resembling one of those 90's direct-to-video thrillers than the Hitchcockian whodunnit it initially purported itself as being. 

Most of the film's charms are found in these supporting turns, with the possible exceptions of Gary Oldman's relegation to stock villainy and Jennifer Jason Leigh being given the least to do of anyone as the supposed "real" Jane Russell, an eleventh hour wrench thrown into the plot. While the characters are comparable to pieces on a game board, both Hechinger and Wyatt Russell make the most of what they're given, with the latter proving more than capable of handling darker material you'll wish was better after seeing his performance. And despite fairly limited screen time, Moore makes the biggest impact in her extended scenes opposite Adams, teasing the potential for a gripping mystery that just never quite gets off the ground.

This is one of those projects where the harder the script works, the returns only seem to keep diminishing. It's not a chore to sit through and Adams has a great grasp on her character, but whatever subtly the story had at its start literally goes, if you'll forgive the pun, out the window with a fascinating mess of a finale. Featuring a gotcha revelation that's partially confusing and not as surprising as you'd think, it really does channel one of those cheap slasher endings in all the wrong ways. 

Since Adams basically headlines every other film released these days, this feels like a bigger departure for Wright, who's a long way off from Atonement and Hanna, dipping his feet into the waters of a bargain basement thriller he tries his best to elevate. We'll never know the exact circumstances surrounding how The Woman in the Window turned out like it did, making it almost uncomfortable to assign blame. But even those able to have fun with this would have a tough time claiming it reaches its full potential, whatever that was intended to be.       

Pain and Gain

Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Tony Shaloub, Ed Harris, Rob Corddrey, Rebel Wilson, Ken Jeong, Bar Paly, Michael Rispoli
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The commercials, trailers and ads for Pain and Gain would lead you to believe it's a certain type of movie aimed at a very specific audience. So naturally, it's easy to be unsure as to whether you'll be on board when Michael Bay's name appears over the opening credits as director. But you know what? It's actually pretty good. While declaring it his most interesting film runs the risk of damning with faint praise, no one has ever disputed the guy has talent and knows what he's doing. The problem has always been harnessing it. This is the closest a project has come to doing that thus far and it's easy to see why. It's over-the-top, outrageously dumb and in-your-face, while still carrying some of what you'd expect from a Bay movie. Except this one has characters worth watching in a story that's just crazy enough to be true because it actually is. It's certainly no masterpiece and, at almost two and half hours, probably could have been trimmed, but it does earn its running time if just the sheer scope and audacity of it all. Consider this his testosterone-fueled epic, albeit on a smaller budgeted, more intimate scale than we're used to getting from him. Featuring two performers who couldn't have possibly been a better fit for their roles, it's both darkly comical and pathetically tragic in all the right ways, resulting in a surprisingly fun time.

Based on 1999 series of true crime articles published in the Miami New Times, the film tells the story of dim-witted musclehead Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) who upon being hired by Sun Gym, nearly triples their membership almost overnight. But despite already rolling in the cash, he wants more. Inspired by motivational speaker Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong) to become a "doer" and take what he wants in life, Danny yearns to live the American dream and amass the vast wealth achieved by Victor Kershaw (Tony Shaloub), an arrogant, sleazy client he's been training. With the help of friend and workout partner Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and cocaine-addicted convict Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson), Danny sets in motion a  clumsy plan to kidnap and extort Kershaw for all he's worth. Needless to say, this doesn't exactly work out, or rather it does, just not at all in the way you'd expect. They've left a giant mess, and with a retired private eye (Ed Harris) hot on their trail, these bumbling criminals have somewhat unintentionally added torture and murder to their rap sheets.

Despite having little idea how much of the "real-life" story was retained in the screenplay and what was embellished to make a more exciting impression on screen, it's tough to criticize the direction Bay took with the material. It's too ridiculous and unbelievable to be played straight as a crime drama, yet contains enough darker elements that it wouldn't be fair to classify it entirely as an action-comedy either. More often than not it fits into the latter category, but what's most surprising is how well, and for how long, Bay straddles that line without slipping up. It's the kind of story that's the perfect fit for a big screen treatment because it contains characters who are blissfully unaware of just how delusional they are. To say that Danny has a warped perception of the "American Dream" would be an understatement, but Wahlberg makes his cluelessness likable to the point that even when he's doing the most heinous things, we're still kind of rooting for him and his pals to get away with it. Part of it could be that their target is such a jerk, but it does almost seem almost unfair that a character so stupid could even be held responsible for his own actions. At points it seems as if he doesn't even know what actions are, or at least that they carry consequences.

Unsurprisingly, the real standout is Johnson, who's given a break from headlining pure action franchises to prove again just how strong he can be when asked to turn in meaningful supporting work with a comic bent. Of course, it just so happens to be a performance that's arguably still in a pure action movie of a different sort, but it's easily his most interesting role since, yes, Southland Tales. As a born-again bible thumper seeking to avoid confrontation at any cost, Paul is the worst choice of partner imaginable to successfully help execute a kidnapping and extortion plot, providing the film with its funniest moments. The most hilarious of which comes when all three together can't successfully commit a necessary murder no matter how hard they try, resulting in the fallout that follows them for the rest of the picture. Of the three leads, Mackie has the least to do and his sub-plot involving his impotence from steroid use and a relationship with a sex-crazed nurse (Rebel Wilson) is probably (along with a third-act development better suited to a Saw film) the weakest story thread, but even that plays better than it has a right to. Shaloub is perfectly detestable as the villain while Ed Harris seems to be playing a spoof of serious Ed Harris roles as the retired investigator. He clearly knows what movie he's in and has fun with it.

While the story takes place in 1995 and strangely feels every bit like it really does, it's easy to envision it happening today. Not so much in terms of the events that go down, but the behaviors and attitudes of the three main characters, which could easily be summised by any reality show on TV right now. Watching this it's impossible no to wonder if Bay understands this or he just thought that what these guys did was really cool. Going against popular opinion, I'd wager on the former (okay, maybe a little of the latter) because it's all just too cleverly made to assume anything else. Technically, it's his best effort just in terms of the visuals and music working together to tell an actual story.

Besides the movie just flat-out looking great and featuring some really memorable shots, Steve Jablonsky's moody, electronic tinged score is one of the year's best, not garnering nearly enough attention for how well it fits the material and setting. And how can you knock any movie with a montage proudly set to Bon Jovi's "Blaze of Glory?" What Pain and Gain is, and ultimately what gives it away as a Michael Bay movie, is that it's a guy's movie through and through. Explosions, violence, women, money, working out, drugs. What sets it apart is that he actually seems to be aware of it this time and has some fun with an actual story he can turn and twist to fit his every whim. When we find out what happened to the characters' real-life counterparts at the end, there isn't much doubt what we watched, true or not, was the best possible representation of how exciting it could have been.   
      

The Adjustment Bureau

Director: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, Anthony Ruivivar, Michael Kelly, Terence Stamp
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: PG-13


★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Remember that sequence in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button when a series of events line up in such a way that causes Daisy to be hit by a taxi and break her leg? Almost as if it were fate or destiny because if it wasn't then she simply wouldn't have been out on the street at that time for it to happen. Every decision causes a ripple effect. The Adjustment Bureau is that sequence explored and stretched out over an entire film, which isn't such a bad thing since the idea that every action can have life-altering consequences is a popular one in science fiction, specifically in time travel films such as The Butterfly Effect, The Sound of Thunder and Back To The Future. Despite being adapted from Philip K. Dick's short story "Adjustment Team," the film's biggest strength is that it doesn't feel like straight sci-fi through a good portion of its running time. Then when it absolutely needs to, it doesn't, and in the final minutes has problems sticking the landing, favoring a more conventional resolution that undercuts what preceded it. Still, it's a fascinating idea that an adjustment team oversees our destinies, giving us a nudge every once in a while to stay on course, and first-time writer/director George Nolfi (in a really impressive debut) deserves credit for not squandering it, getting this about 80 percent right. Meticulously put together much of the way through and carried by two talented leads, greatness was within this film's reach, but slips away due to a third act that could have benefited from a little adjustment itself.

Bad boy New York Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) finds himself at the losing end of a Senatorial bid amidst another scandal when he meets the enigmatic Elise (Emily Blunt) while practicing his concession speech in the bathroom. After delivering a dynamic, off-the-cuff speech he meets up with her again on a city bus after a mysterious man named Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie) falls asleep on a park bench, failing to spill coffee on him at exactly 7:05 AM. It turns out he's a caseworker for The Adjustment Bureau given orders by his boss, Richardson (Mad Men's John Slattery) to prevent their reunion because it deviates from the "plan," This "plan" is a predetermined chain of events overseen by the "Chairman" who helps steer the course of individuals' lives for the supposed betterment of humanity. Elise wasn't supposed to be part of David's but Harry's screw-up changed that and despite successfully separating them for three years and being threatened with a "re-set" (essentially a lobotomy), David still won't give up on being with her. When all else fails, The Bureau brings in Thompson (Terence Stamp), known as "The Hammer," to take care of business and make sure David's relationship with Elise is terminated by any means necessary.

The first hour of the film is electric, cleverly disguising itself as a political thriller and revealing just enough information at just the right pace to build up a considerable amount of suspense and intrigue. When it revealed why these mysterious men in suits and bowler hats are trailing David and what they want from him, the story gains rather than loses traction as details about the Bureau and their purpose and history spill out.  The most intriguing thing about them is how normal and businesslike they are about altering lives, as if it were just simply a 9 to 5 job. With each caseworker armed with a notebook full of moving coordinates, they make an impact not by reading people's minds but by literally stopping them without their knowledge. Whether it's cutting phone lines, creating an external distraction, or even going as far as to cause a car accident to change the course, they use doors as a portal to travel between locations as quickly as possible. They clearly have supernatural powers but the film is very proficient at making their work look threatening while still being grounded on some level of reality, much like 1998's great Dark City, which shared a similar concept, but an entirely different tone. Only that film had the guts to see its vision to the bitter end without compromise.

It helps to have two characters worth caring about as Matt Damon is completely credible as an up-and-coming politician with a chip on his shoulder, but a strong idealistic desire to do right. At this point, it's tough to imagine Damon not completely nailing any role and this is just the latest in a long line. You'd understand why the Bureau would care about every decision David makes and Emily Blunt makes it easy to understand why he won't let anything stand in the way of him being with Elise. Blunt's an interesting presence as an actress. While not necessarily fitting everyone's textbook definition of beautiful, she has this strangely intriguing look to her and carries herself with a class and grace onscreen that demands full attention whenever she does or says anything, and that quality has never served her better than here. Damon and Blunt are so good together on screen and share such strong chemistry that the film's biggest weakness turns out to be getting carried away with their romance and letting it overcome the more intriguing sci-fi elements in the story. That's difficult to admit, considering how flawlessly everything flows in the early going. By overplaying his hand in the romance department in third act, Nolfi ironically loses grip on the doomed circumstances that made their relationship so riveting.

After cleverly being left in the dark for much of the picture as to why David shouldn't be with Elise (and even doubting whether the Bureau knows themselves) there's a great scene in a parking garage with David and Terence Stamp's villainous Thompson where we get some insight into why it might not be such a great idea for the two of them to be together and paints this organization in a different light. This leads to bigger questions, then even bigger ones, before settling into an unbearably suspenseful, expertly choreographed action finale. It's just too bad the revelations that come in the closing minutes are a letdown. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to say that that it unintentionally makes the finished product feel more like a "date movie" than a mysterious sci-fi action thriller. It's still good, just not great, and certainly not nearly as impactful as it should be considering the circumstances. If ever a story called for a tragic finale it's this. Unfortunately, you're instead left wondering whether this story was really as smart as it seemed to be from the beginning and if concessions were made post-production so it could make more bank at the box office.

There's nothing wrong with aiming to make a crowd pleaser, even if I'm disappointed it didn't reach for a level higher rather than fall back on the more conventional romance aspect. Still, this is one of the better films from the first half of 2011, with a first time director blending two entirely different genres successfully at least three quarters of the way through. Whether it was studio interference due to poor test screenings or an eleventh hour re-write, the last few crucial minutes (and boy are they crucial) don't work, which is a shame considering just how much else does, especially the fleshing out of a gripping premise and the two great performances carrying it. I guess you can blame me for grading on my level of expectation rather than enjoyment, since anyone looking for a well-made romantic adventure could certainly do a lot worse than The Adjustment Bureau. 

The Hurt Locker

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly, David Morse
Running Time: 131 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

From the moment The Hurt Locker was released to universal critical acclaim it was practically a foregone conclusion that the war drama would be included among the newly expanded field of ten Best Picture nominees. I rolled my eyes at the mere suggestion, thinking they'd be rewarding a topic rather than a film. Now after seeing it I'm forced to begrudgingly concede this is one of the best war films in years (as faint as that praise may seem). My trepidation and bias would be understandable to anyone who had the misfortune to view any of the embarrassing political war propaganda studios have inflicted on us in the past couple of years. This includes but isn't limited to preachy one-sided liberal sermons like Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition and Stop-Loss. For a while there was a genuine fear that no intelligent movie could made about the Iraq War.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has taken a different approach by just showing us. It's that simple, yet no other filmmaker was smart enough to do it. She succeeds where everyone else failed by resisting the temptation to get up on a soapbox, instead just letting us draw our own conclusions based on what we see. And by doing doing that she may have ironically crafted the ultimate anti-war (or maybe anti-addiction) film, even though any agenda of the sort of refreshingly absent. What appears in its opening minutes to be merely a workmanlike procedural evolves into something far more affecting as we connect with the three lead characters in such a way that they almost feel like family by the end of the picture. I feared for their safety and worried during every scene if each would make it home in one piece.

You wouldn't figure something as visceral and exciting as this would be considered an "actor's movie" but in many ways it is with an electrifying lead performance belonging to an unknown who probably won't be unknown for much longer. This isn't my kind of film and couldn't imagine watching it again but I'm forced to eat crow and admit Bigelow has directed a nearly perfect picture. The praise it's gotten is exaggerated, but not by much.

It's 2004 during the early stages of the Iraq War when the leader of the Bravo Company's EOD unit, Staff Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce) is killed by a remote IED (improvised explosive device) in Bagdad, leaving Sergeant J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) without a first in command. Enter Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), an egotistical hotshot who makes reckless, split-second decisions that frequently put the lives of himself and his team members in danger. A title card appears on screen letting us know how many days remain in the company's rotation as we follow the soldiers on their missions. Sanborn and Eldridge attempt to communicate via radio with James in his protective bomb suit which proves to be difficult when he constantly ignores every word they say.

The film unfolds as almost a series of episodic vignettes as we watch James disarming bombs in a variety of suspenseful situations, including one where the team is pinned down by snipers and the most memorable involving a civilian with explosives strapped to his chest. Through all of it tensions continue to mount between the three men as a result of James' controversial, self-serving leadership style. He frequently seems more interested in playing hero than saving lives. Or so it seems.

Bigelow and screenwriter/freelance journalist Mark Boal made a wise decision in narrowing the focus to just a bomb tech team and letting the rest of the details of the war exist on the periphery. This isn't so much about war as it is about their jobs and how they handle them. Through that we get to know each of these men and what makes them tick under the most dangerous of circumstances. We care about this war not because the filmmakers told us we should but because we're absorbed in the psyches of these characters fighting it. It becomes a personal story instead of a political one, and as a result, we're left to draw our own conclusions as to the effects this ordeal.

With no standard plot to speak of, the events are filmed in a documentary style not unlike United 93, but more action-oriented. This gives the picture an even greater sense of objectivity in just showing what's happening and that's it (although that's admittedly a lot under Bigelow's direction). This could be disappointing to those who hoped the movie would take some grand stand one way or another either against or in support of the war, though I can't see why anyone would want that given how clumsily the topic has been explored in other films. As suspenseful as they are, it is draining watching these missions for 130 minutes straight and it isn't an experience I'd feel like repeating anytime soon. Of course, it's not supposed to be.

The film belongs entirely to the three actors who infuse life into soldiers who could have easily been played as stereotypes. Resembling a cross between Russell Crowe and Benjamin Mackenzie, Jeremy Renner doesn't make a huge impression initially as Sgt. James and it's far from obvious he's going to be the main character. "Who's this nobody?" could describe my initial reaction. But Renner puts all those doubts to rest quickly and as each scene wears on it becomes increasingly apparent that this is no poor man's Russell Crowe. He has the charisma to hold the screen like nobody's business, revealing James to be a whole lot more than the arrogant hotshot with a hero complex we had him pegged as. What's so brilliant about the Oscar-worthy performance is how while the character's actions suggest he doesn't care and is operating out of pure selfishness, Renner suggests the exact opposite in the film's quieter moments. James' real problem actually isn't that he doesn't care, but that he cares TOO MUCH.

"The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug."

That's the quote from New York Times journalist Chris Hedges that opens the movie and can very well sum up not only the character of James but the story itself. His most memorable scene comes not in Iraq but at home, when a trip to the supermarket with his family is more foreign to him than anything in Iraq. He doesn't just want to go back there. He NEEDS to because he forgot how to survive in the "real world."

Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are slightly more recognizable as actors but casting relative unknowns in the three main roles was a masterstroke in that you're given the sinking feeling any one of them can go at any minute. Mackie (almost equally as impressive as Renner) plays Sanborn as the hothead who won't stand for what he perceives to be James' grandstanding while Geraghty's green, naive and petrified Eldridge represents the audience's entry way into the movie, questioning why they're even there.

Bigger name actors appear in much smaller roles. In addition to the aforementioned Pearce, David Morse has a bizarre scene that's wide open for interpretation while Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly (as James' wife) both enter and exit the film fairly quickly. Of those, I thought only Lilly's needlessly called attention to itself and caused a distraction, which could be chalked up to me just being so familiar with her from Lost. The second she appeared I was taken right out the movie, wondering how Kate got off the island again. Granted not everyone watches that show, but if the role is just a cameo wouldn't it make more sense to cast an unknown?

This isn't the small, art house drama it's been toted as. It's exciting, suspenseful and obviously represents a big comeback for the director best known for more fun, but no less accomplished efforts like the Patrick Swayze/Keanu Reeves not-so-guilty pleasure Point Break and 1995's underrated cyberpunk thriller Strange Days. Still, I don't concur with those who feel it's everyone's moral obligation to see this film because of the subject matter and can understand why audiences have stayed far away. I mean, can you really blame them? This topic has been embarrassingly (dare I even say offensively) mishandled so many times that I'm sure no one felt like getting burned again by the type of movie that wouldn't have them giddily skipping to theaters even under the best of circumstances. I'd also much rather have a risky out of left field choice that really needs the attention occupying one of the expanded Best Picture slots rather than something that would have been an easy contender anyway if there were five nominees.

That I'm not as over-the-moon about the movie as everyone else is more a reflection of my long-standing bias against the genre than its actual merit. It'll be interesting to see if I can temporarily put that bias aside long enough to include it on my list of the year's best, as it's definitely worthy of consideration. This film is playing in challenging territory where it's close to impossible to bring anything innovative to the table or say something that hasn't already been said. Ironically, The Hurt Locker ends up working so well because it bravely chooses to say nothing at all.

Half Nelson

Director: Ryan Fleck
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Shareeka Epps, Anthony Mackie, Monique Curnen, Tina Holmes
Running Time: 107 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

Anyone going into Half Nelson worried it will glorify drug use or make it seem exciting should have no worries. This film makes nothing seem exciting or the least bit interesting outside of Ryan Gosling's performance, where he jumps through rings of fire to deliver a brave performance in a movie completely undeserving of it. It takes a promising story and puts the blueprints on screen without fully developing it. Is it an insprirational tale of a teacher inspiring his students in the vain of Freedom Writers or Stand and Deliver? No, not really. Well then it must be a story of a good man descending into substance abuse who's redeemed by the love and care of another human being, like in Leaving Las Vegas. No, that's not really it either. I'm not sure what it was and I don't think the filmmakers knew either. All I knew was that by the time it was over I felt like I was stuck in a half nelson and was ready to submit. Out of boredom.

Ryan Gosling is Dan Dunne, an inner city junior high school teacher and sometimes basketball coach who's bright, articulate and actually really good at what he does. The scenes in the classroom are fantastic. He has an unorthodox but interesting teaching approach that involves arm wrestling his students and talking about dialectics (the tensions between two opposing forces) that he believes is the basis for understanding both our history and our present. He also has a serious drug habit. This is discovered by one of his students, Drey (Shareeka Epps), who catches him smoking crack in the bathroom one day after school.

13 year-old Drey also has some problems of her own as her father is absent, she's cared for by her overworked mother and now she's somehow fallen in with the local drug dealer, Frank (a very good Anthony Mackie). It's bizarre how the movie handles Drey's discovery about Dan's drug habit and how their relationship develops. I say bizarre because it doesn't do anything with it and their relationship really doesn't develop at all. The drug use is just there. That's it. It doesn't do anything to create any change in the relationship or conflict and drama at all. Writer/director Ryan Fleck seems to tap dance around the issue for the entire length of the film. I think he was coming from the school that less is more and that if he showed a harrowing portrait of drug use that's all he would need for his film to work. You need more.

The only attempt at creating any kind of conflict was with Frank the drug dealer, except there's a major problem with that. Frank actually seems like a really great guy. I'm not saying he should be sitting in the car twirling his evil mustache and smoking crack, but he at least has to appear to be some kind of negative influence on the child. So when Dan confronts the guy (in the film's only scene of real drama), he looks like a moron and so do we for being asked to root for him. We feel bad for Dan because he's a good person and a passionate teacher, but let's be honest: Would you want this guy around your kids? I wouldn't mind him teaching them, but hanging out with them after school? When Frank tells Drey her relationship with Dan is inappropriate you kind of think he has a point. Especially since Fleck failed to show how Dan's positive influence as a teacher has in any way translated into these students' personal lives.

If it seems like I'm being too hard on the movie, it's only because I expected so much more from it. The film takes a serious issue and just lets it hang there while the film meanders and limps to its finale. I shouldn't even call it a finale. It's just a stop. We end the film with no sense this guy's condition will improve or Drey's life was significantly altered for the better by having this teacher in her life. None of the problems in this film stem from Gosling's performance as it's literally the only reason to see this film. It's one of the best depictions of drug abuse I've seen in movies in recent years and he infuses the character with all these different shades and complications that are no where to be found in the script at all.

He shows us someone who's throwing his life way, can't hold a steady relationship and knows what he's doing is completely wrong, but just can't stop. It's a brilliant portrayal of addiction, but I really wish it was in a better movie. Shareeka Epps does a good job looking angry for two hours. I can't figure out for the life of me why that performance is being widely praised. Some emotion would have been nice and maybe would have taken the film out of the slow gear it was in its entire 107 minutes.

There's a tendency these days to praise any low budget indie that tackles a serious issue as being brilliant. Some are. Some aren't. This isn't. It's also pretty boring to look at as it was directed with absolutely no style at all with the camera static the entire time like we were watching someone's home movie. I respected its attempt as subtlety, but it just doesn't work for a story that could contain so much more emotional impact. The film had so much visual and dramatic potential, it was a shame to see it go to waste like this. That it's gritty and realistic becomes, in the end, it's biggest problem.

The good news to come out of this, is that Ryan Gosling is gaining notice as one of our most promising actors and this should lead to even more interesting roles for him, hopefully in better films. His Academy Award nomination here is well deserved. It's kind of ironic that before Half Nelson he was best known for the tearjerker The Notebook. On the surface the latter would seem to be the fluffier of the two, but there was probably more heart and passion in one scene of that film than in all of Half Nelson. It was formula but so what? At least it was entertaining and knew what it was. I doubt many people will go back and revisit this. All the pieces were in place for Half Nelson to be one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, those pieces didn't connect.