Frequently Asked Movie Reviewing Questions

I'm approaching my fourth year reviewing, which is, well, kind of weird, and I'm still not quite sure what to even think about that. But I do know I have my readers to thank for hanging with me for so long. In honor of that I've decided to do something a little different and pull back the curtain. With the decade in movies coming to a close this seemed as good a time as any to take a breather and talk about my approach and feelings on reviewing. I tried to answer the following questions as honestly as I could, which wasn't too hard since I came up with all of them myself, but hopefully you'll be surprised by at least some of the answers.

When and why did you start reviewing movies?
I always loved writing and enjoyed watching movies but it never really occurred to me to combine the two. While on vacation in '06 I was stuck in a hotel room with a cold and while watching a couple of movies got the idea to just scribble down a couple of reviews on a piece of paper out of pure boredom. Then I started posting online. What's so funny is I never had any intention or desire to write reviews. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened and part of me thinks I'm doing it just because I'm addicted. But there's that other part that thinks I'm lucky to have a hobby I actually enjoy.

Ever think about stopping?
I always think every review is my last, and treat it like it is. And after 2008 I really thought I was done because that was just a miserable year for movies that sucked nearly everything out of me. But the great thing is whenever I seem to lose interest some movie always seems to comes along or I read something on movies that completely reignites my passion for doing it.

How do you choose which movies to review?
More selectively than I did in the past that's for sure. Before, I tried to review as much as I could regardless of whether I wanted to see it or not. That was problematic for a number of reasons, chief of which it drained my enthusiasm. Now I realize quality is more important than quantity and I review movies I want to see or I think will make an interesting review. As you can tell though, I try to hit all the major releases releases and stay clear of movies no one's ever heard of (with a few exceptions). I do this primarily for me, but make no mistake about it, I care a lot about whether people and read and enjoy the reviews. If I didn't, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Does reviewing the movies sometimes hurt your enjoyment as a fan?
Absolutely it can, but that really depends on the film. I like to think there's a "Critic" mode and a "Fan" mode and I can shut either on or off at will, but the reality is they often uncomfortably overlap.

Are you against reading other reviews before you watch or review a film?
No, not at all. The only reason I'd ever stay clear from a review before I see a film is if it gives away key plot details I don't want to know about or for some reason I want to go in fresh. Most of the time though I find it just further informs my review to read others' takes on it and think it's a joke that anyone would think I'm just reacting to others' reactions of the movie.

I think the public's response to a movie is INCREDIBLY RELEVANT, especially if it forces you to look closer at certain aspects of the film. How could I possibly talk about Juno without bringing up the backlash against it? Or review Knowing without analyzing how Roger Ebert could have given it four stars? I could, but there would be a giant pink elephant in the room and the reviews wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I'm of the belief that reading and considering other viewpoints, whether to agree or shoot them down, can only make the piece more interesting.

Which critics (if any) do you read?
Roger Ebert is a big one and while many have accused him of slipping in recent years I still think his passion and insight is unmatched. Kim Morgan, who's actually more of an essayist, which isn't to say she's not an awesome critic and probably one of the most knowledgeable and passionate writers out there. I also read James Berardinelli, whose opinions I almost always disagree with and name I always misspell, but I appreciate his no-nonsense, analytical approach. I read too many bloggers to name without forgetting anyone, many of whom are better than the "professionals." Those are my favorites but usually I try to read as many reviews on a film as I can if I'm interested in it.

How do you feel about print criticism being essentially left for dead?
I feel bad for people who work at magazines and newspapers losing their jobs. The bottom line is that times have changed and film criticism in general just isn't as relevant to the public as it once was, which is a shame. Anyone can go online and write something, which sucks for people who made their living doing that. Then again, on the bright side...anyone can go online and write something.

How do you feel about Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?
I started reviewing movies on MySpace in 2006 and then when all the action moved to Facebook I followed it because it was the smart thing to do. It's still growing on me but I'm at least grateful it's brought (slightly) more traffic to the site. I actually like the concept of Twitter much more because it enables you to follow things, people and topics that interest you at a relatively quick pace.

What are your favorite movie genres?
Longtime readers and probably even more newer ones already know the answer to this one. My favorites are sci-fi, coming-of-age films, mystery/suspense, bio-pics, romantic comedies (surprisingly) and even though it's more of a sub-genre, dysfunctional suburban dramas (like The Ice Storm or American Beauty) People tend to think I'm a huge fan of horror but that's not completely true as I can usually only take it in small doses and find that the genre is full of too much junk to be ranked as a favorite of mine. I probably like analyzing those films more than actually watching them, which could be said of the superhero genre as well. That said, both have really grown on me since I've started doing this.

Least Favorite Genres?
Genres I'm less inclined to like are mob/gangster pictures, war/espionage films, musicals, fantasy films (with wizards, goblins, elves and such) and sports movies. That's not saying it's impossible for me to like any of those films or I intentionally avoid them, just that they have a much rougher road to travel to gain my favor. I find when reviewing it's better to honestly embrace my predisposed bias or personal preference and just work with it. We all have them. I like to think that I'm very fair and if a movie's good enough it should have no problem overcoming the odds. Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Karate Kid and more recently, but to lesser extent, The Hurt Locker, We Are Marshall and Across The Universe were all able to. I couldn't have been any less interested in seeing Atonement but was surprised just how much I liked it.

Which movie(s) did you most enjoy reviewing?
Southland Tales would really have to be up there. A perfect storm converged with that one. My favorite genre, a dream cast and an opportunity to passionately defend a movie I thought was unfairly maligned. It's rare when the experience of watching a film and reviewing it become one in the same but that's what happened there. I also enjoyed reviewing The Dark Knight probably more than I enjoyed watching it. I'm Not There was a blast to write on as well since it was a biopic (if you could even call it that) on a subject I was actually deeply interested in. Not to mention it was completely insane so it was even more up my alley. And even though it's a TV series, I loved writing about Veronica Mars. It's unusual that I dip into TV for a review so that I did for that (and all three seasons to boot) should give you an idea how much I enjoyed it. I'd put it up there in quality with the best in any medium, be it film or television. With all of these I felt as if the review was finished in my mind before I even touched the keyboard.

Which movie(s) did you hate reviewing?
The Good Shepherd While I did find it a chore to sit through, I didn't despise the movie and even gave it a near-miss score of two and a half stars. The real torture was when I had to sit down and write a review of a three hour movie I had nothing to say about. I stared at a blank screen for so long I thought my eyes would start bleeding.

Which movie disappointed you most?
As strange as this sounds, probably The Dark Knight. I do think it's more a testament to all the hype than the movie's actual quality, but the fact remains that it fell short of expectations, as out of control as they may have been. And it was still the best film of '08 and maybe one of the best of the decade so it's frightening to think how good it COULD HAVE BEEN.

How do you feel about star ratings?
I hate them. I wish I were confident enough in my own writing to abandon it and believe people would still read the reviews but I'm not. My concern is always that the number of stars will inform the review when it should always be the other way around. But as someone who reads a lot of reviews I have to admit most of the time I like seeing some kind of a quantitative assessment attached. But many reviewers don't use it, nor do they need them. It really all depends on personal preference I guess. There was only one case where I refused to assign one. The whole idea of it is damaging, but I can never bring myself to abandon it.

In retrospect, ever feel like you've given any movies the wrong star ratings?
When haven't I? Not to keep beating the same drum on 2008, but I felt I gave many, many movies released that year the wrong star rating. When this happens I usually have to force myself not to adjust it later by remembering:

a) The star rating MEANS nothing in the broad scheme of things.
b) It reflected my thoughts AT THE TIME.
c) It's the actual review that counts
d) It takes two viewings to really SEE a movie.

Usually when I do my year-end list all my thoughts get ironed out and the problem takes care of itself. The good news is that I never felt I gave something the WRONG REVIEW entirely. I can barely recall more than three instances I underrated a movie but can name dozens of times where I felt I overpraised one. I like to think the star rating problem keeps lessens over time because the more movies I watch the more sure I seem to become of my opinions.

How much does a theater experience effect your opinion of the film?
Greatly, as The Dark Knight proved. That was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had where an unpleasant environment magnified that movie's weaknesses while hiding its strengths. Repeated DVD viewings have been much, much kinder to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Australia was really a complete mess of a movie but the theater experience was so memorably bizarre and the crowd so insane that it probably made the movie play better than it actually was. It was fun watching their energy level slowly drain as the movie just kept going...and going...and going. I'm convinced those people are still in there right now watching it. I know I'm committing a film critic sin by saying this but I actually far prefer watching movies on DVD at home than in a theater. It's cheaper, more comfortable, I can go to the bathroom or get a snack without missing anything. There are just less distractions.

How long does a review take?
I've never actually timed it but I can tell you I never do it in one sit-in. I'm the kind of person who always has to be moving around and have difficulties staying in front of the computer too long. So I might write part of it and then go back to it later or the next day depending on my mood. Unfortunately most of it is written really late at night though so sleep is lost and I sometimes wake up the next morning having not recognized what I wrote (which might be a good thing).

What's your least favorite part of writing a review?
Recapping the plot...by far. It's a pain. I wish I could just skip it and get right to what I liked and didn't.

How much do you weigh blogs views in choosing what films or topics you choose to write about?
I look at them that's for sure. I do primarily write for me but if I come up with a piece that's just not connecting with readers at all and I put a lot into it I can pretty much guarantee you won't see anything like it again. The best (worst) example of this was when I did the "Fantasy Casting" pieces. I thought it was a great idea and loved doing it. But it was like a tree falling in the forest as far as its reception and blog views. One of the worst ever. So I can't justify doing it again.The same thing tends to happen when I review older films. Those do very poorly, but when they're are incorporated into a list of some sort it always does well. I tend not to solicit too much feedback on this issue because I find people to be understandably reluctant to tell me that an idea sucks. Blog views can't lie.

Which review of yours got the harshest response?
I remember everyone unanimously, and rather passionately, disagreed with my take on Death Sentence. I couldn't believe how worked up everyone got over it and was so thrilled that no one held back in letting me know it. Sometimes it can be boring when everyone agrees with you all the time. That's a movie that will have strong reactions either way but I just thought it was two hours of gratuitous violence masquerading as grief exploration with Kevin Bacon killing everyone in sight. And this coming from someone whose all-time favorite films include A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Any movie(s) you think you may have gone too hard on?
Miami Vice, Superman Returns and Birth. Especially that last one. This rarely happens so it's a big compliment to those three that, despite what I considered to be their failings, they still stuck with me enough that I'd be open to going back and giving them another look.

Do you have a review or reviews you're most proud of?
This is going to sound awful but it would be tough to name something specifically. I might have a fleeting moment where I'm really proud of something I've written but then I'm quickly brought back down to Earth after I go to reread it and find about 50 things I didn't like about it. Then I might go and read other reviews and that just about kills it for me right there. Plus I'm usually so focused on the next review that I don't like to look back. But the best answer to this question is to look above at the ones I enjoyed reviewing the most. Those are the ones I feel best about.

What bad reviewing habits do you think you have or try to avoid?
Trying to say more in fewer words than with many. Whenever I edit a review it's always to take things out and never add, which is a good sign I guess. The key to good editing is to change enough so it's more readable but not so much that it changes the message. I try to stay away from using the same adjectives or phrases over and over again, not only in a single review, but throughout all of them. I also try to steer clear of comparing the movie I'm reviewing to other other ones unless it's completely relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Ever get writer's bl0ck?
No, never. Kidding. All the time. What I usually do is just leave the computer. If I'm not feeling it, I'm not feeling it. There's no sense just sitting there frustrated when most writing is done in your head when you're away from the keyboard anyway. When I'm stuck I do find it helpful to remind myself of Ebert's advice:

"Did you like the movie? Why or why not?"

It sounds so dumb and simple but you'd be surprised how well it works. Most of the time writers block stems from just thinking too hard or over-analyzing. I find that question helps with the problem.

Ever think of doing more with the site or more to get your reviews out there?
I have but I'm not exactly the most web savvy person in the world and am far more consumed with focusing on the actual work. Believe me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a needle in a haystack online. That said, I should be doing much more in that area and plan to. Of course, I've said that before and haven't done anything.

How many movies do you see a week?
Usually only one or two. No more than your average, everyday moviegoer with the difference being I've written reviews on them. I think the max I've ever seen in a week was three or four, but that rarely happens. I only REALLY started getting into movies when I started doing this and am willing to bet a lot of my readers probably have me beat on classic film knowledge still feel like I'm learning as I go along.

What's your DVD collection look like?
Embarrassingly small. I never counted but it's barely two shelves worth. I think that's a testament to just how few movies hold up on repeated viewings or are worth owning for me. Most of the movies I have bought have been used and a lot of the time I resell or exchange them. As far as what I review, aside from theatrical releases, this whole time I've basically just been renting them for a dollar from a Redbox or DVD Xpress kiosk system in the supermarket. The amount of money I've saved on buying DVDs in the past few years is probably more than five times the salary of any paid reviewer.

Do you use NetFlix?
Not right now. About a year ago I tried it briefly and didn't like it. I found the wait for new releases to be unbearably long and by the time it came I practically lost interest in watching them. I also found updating and keeping track of movies in the queue to be a thankless task. I'm giving it another chance soon (probably by the time you read this) since the titles in the dollar machines are now pretty much exclusively Direct-to-DVD junk due to legal trouble with the studios who are losing money on it. There also tons of of older movie titles I want to see as well as seasons of TV series' I can't get because I lost HBO and Showtime. There's really no choice at this point.

Have a Blu-Ray Player?
Nope. I realize I must be coming off as the cheapest movie critic on Earth right now but I just don't see the point in investing in something that could disappear in a couple of years. I learned my lesson with laserdisc years ago and considering I don't purchase many DVDs it just isn't worth it for me when my player suits me just fine for my purposes. The only thing that really bothers me is that the Blu-Ray discs contain special features the regular DVDs don't. Knowing me I'll probably cave eventually but for right now I'm fine.

How long do you let a movie sit in your head before reviewing it?
It depends on the film. Obviously some require more time for thought and reflection than others. I usually write the first couple of paragraphs right after though, while it's still fresh in my mind. The other details take a little longer to come into focus and with some it can really take a while. You don't want to jump the gun, yet you can't wait so long that you don't care anymore.

What do you think it takes to review movies?
1. A genuine passion for movies
2. The ability to express that in writing
3. Being sure of your opinion, but admitting when you're not.
4. Having a knowledge of a wide variety of topics and reading and keeping up with what's going on in the world so you can incorporate that insight into the reviews (my weakest area but I'm improving).

Have any desire to write or direct?
I know no one's gonna believe me when I say this, but no. I did take a screenwriting course years ago and found I was more interested in analyzing the study films and talking about what goes into writing a good screenplay than actually writing one. When it came to sit down at the keyboard, I discovered I had no ear when it came to dialogue. I didn't enjoy the experience and wanted to just keep analyzing the study films instead. As far as directing, no way. The technical aspects that go into making a film doesn't play to my strengths and there are too many elements that could spiral out of control. And I can't stand not being in control. It looks like a big headache that could potentially kill me from stress. Of course this should be taken with a grain of salt since I've never tried it, but I can't envision that I ever would.

While I feel writing and directing are out of my grasp, I do think I'd make a better producer, casting director or agent than many of these studio executives being paid to tell us what we want. You may have noticed during my reviews I often pause and examine how a movie was (mis) marketed or what steps could have been taken in the production stages to make it better. But I'm certainly not "paying my dues" in an industry where I feel most of the decision makers are clueless or hold views that clash entirely with mine. I love movies and want to keep it that way.

How much does personal experience effect how you view a movie?
It's everything. I think we all see a different movie because of the experiences we bring into it. I recently re-watched a film for consideration on my decade-end list and it personally spoke to me like it never did before. It couldn't have carried the impact it did now even just a few years ago just because of where I was at in my life. Sounds silly, but it's totally true.

Would you ever judge someone by which movies they like or don't like (be honest)?
No. They're still just movies. Having said that, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think a person's list of their all-time favorite films told me at least something about them. And if it didn't, it's likely not a list I'd be interested in reading.

Greatest director of all-time?
Kubrick. There's no other name I would mention as even coming close even though I know some would say Hitchcock, but he only worked in one genre. I don't think for a second he could do what Kubrick did whereas I have no doubt that Kubrick could not only step in and direct one of Hitch's films, but probably make it even more interesting. Spielberg is great, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion.

Favorite Director(s) working now?
No surprises here. My three favorites are David Fincher, Richard Kelly and Paul Thomas Anderson. Right now, they're making the types of movies I enjoy watching most.

Most overrated director?
Spike Lee. Never got with him at all.

Favorite Actors/Actresses
Too many to list but here are the big ones. As far as actors I'm a fan of Michael Douglas, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Foster, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Bill Murray, Jeff Bridges, Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Josh Brolin and Patrick Wilson. Surprisingly, also Tom Cruise, who I think has always been underrated as an acting talent. As far as actresses, you can sign me up anytime Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman (possibly my favorite), Naomi Watts, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kristen Bell or Zooey Deschanel are in anything. Clooney and Jolie are two actors I was previously never a fan of but lately they've really been earning their stripes and I've come around.

Least Favorite Actors/Actresses?
Almost Famous notwithstanding, Kate Hudson has given one awful performance after another in some dreadful films. But I only complain about her so much because I know she's capable of better. Don't care for Dane Cooke or Jessica Alba as actors, but that almost seems too easy. I've completely given up on Kate Beckinsale who would be the blandest, most wooden actress working today if Jennifer Aniston weren't around. Everyone else would just fit into the "overrated" category for me. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson have surprisingly little to show for themselves despite being surrounded by a ton of hype and I never understood all the praise for Johnny Depp, who hasn't proven to me yet he can effectively play anything other than misfits and freaks.

Actors/Actresses you're most disappointed in?
Hudson obviously tops the list, followed closely by Nicolas Cage. I'd say Sandra Bullock also but after The Blind Side I guess the joke's on me. She's probably busy rolling around in a giant pile of cash right now.

What famous classic or famous movies would people be surprised you haven't seen?
I still haven't made it all the way through Gone With the Wind (not a knock on the film, just time constraints always got in the way). Haven't seen the Godfather Parts II and III, although I hear I'm not missing much with that last one. Never saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day either, or the Harry Potter films and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, both of which I have very little interest in (see "least favorite genres"). I've also never seen any of the Bourne films.

Any movies you refuse to see?
The Blind Side. Just kidding (kind of). "Refuse" is a little strong but...the Twilight "saga." This is actually a much bigger insult than it seems because, despite preferring certain types of movies, I'm usually willing to see ANYTHING.

What trends in the movie industry today do you hate?
Every movie released these days being aimed at the tween demographic (see above). Inflated ticket prices. Double and triple dipping on DVD releases. Movies being advertised as something they're not [i.e. Slumdog Millionaire as a Bollywood Musical, (500) Days of Summer as a whimsical "date movie"]. Certain films being shoved down my throat by the media. Movies with political agendas. Only movies released in the last month of the year getting Academy Award consideration. That last one pisses me off the most. Besides being criminally unfair, I actually think that's the major reason no one bothers watching the Oscars.

Worst Oscar snub in history?
It's impossible to pick just one and this will seem completely random but for some reason two that really stick out for me are A Christmas Story (1984) and Back to the Future (1985) being overlooked for Best Picture nominations. If I could give any two "correction" Oscars out it would be to those two films which, over time, have proven just how worthy they are. There just so few pictures released that families can enjoy together through the decades regardless of age and also be effective as perfect mainstream entertainment. When I think of the template for the perfect nominee or winner I immediately get an image of those two movies in my head. The Academy has gotten it wrong many times, but that they snubbed those two make me sick to my stomach.

Do you read the novel before seeing the film?
No. Never. Shamefully, I don't read as much as I'd like in general. I really do feel guilty about that because I know it would make me a better writer but between watching and reviewing movies and other stuff I just don't have the time. But I don't like to read a novel before watching the movie it's based on (especially if it's something I know I'll be reviewing) because I find it taints the experience and don't want to turn into one of those people whining about how "the book was better." And usually, if I've seen the movie first and like it enough to read the novel, I tend not to because I felt the movie got the job done for me.

The Brave One

Director: Neil Jordan Starring: Jodie Foster, Terrence Howard, Naveen Andrews, Mary Steenburgen, Nicky Katt, Jane Adams
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R

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

When The Brave One was released into theaters this past September you may remember it was surrounded by a little bit of controversy. This controversy didn't involve the story, which tells of a woman who resorts to vigilantism when her fiancée is brutally murdered, but rather the movie going public's indifference to it. Citing the film's box office failure, studios started releasing statements that they'd no longer produce projects with female leads.

So that's what it was. Thinking back through all the awful movies I saw in 2007 I should have realized they all had one thing in common: a woman starring or co-starring in them. They also had actors, writers and directors but forget about that. I don't even know why these women are acting to begin with. Especially that Jodie Foster lady. Didn't she win an Academy Award or something like a hundred years ago? I don't even remember. And she must be getting up there in age too. It's no wonder this movie flopped. It couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the screenplay, which has gaping holes big enough to steer an ocean liner through or that everyone is burned out on these silly revenge films. No it's because the main character was a woman. That's Hollywood for you.

Had the narrow-minded studio execs looked closer they would have found many reasons why this film wasn't successful, the least of which is Foster's performance. I took some heat for bashing another revenge film from 2007, the much beloved Death Sentence, complaining it didn't have the conviction to explore the psychological implications of the violence it gruesomely depicted. The Brave One doesn't have that problem and is the slightly superior of the two as the script does actually contain some ideas rather than just depict a senseless murder rampage as fun.

Unfortunately though, while it gets the big details right and the lead performance from Foster is serviceable, it relies too much on contrived circumstances to prove its point. It also has an ending that unintentionally sends a strange message and will leave you scratching your head. It's an interestingly flawed film that tries to fuse art house sensibilities and psychological drama with an eye-for-an-eye thriller. The results are occasionally compelling, but mostly idiotic.

Foster is New York City radio host Erica Bain who, if the scenes here are any indication, bores listeners to death daily with her modulated voice on an NPR-style program centering around everyday life in The Big Apple. Everything in her life seems to be coming up roses until a nighttime dog walk in the park with her devoted fiancée David (Lost's Naveen Andrews) turns deadly when they're savagely beaten by three thugs. David loses his life while the severely injured Erica survives after spending weeks in a coma. Upon regaining consciousness she finds herself unable to cope with the psychological trauma the assault has caused and loses faith in law enforcement to bring the perpetrators to justice. Without a license to carry a firearm she obtains one illegally for her own protection. The longer she carries it the more the term "for her own protection" becomes open for interpretation.

A feeling of empowerment and vengeance overcomes Erica when she's in possession of the gun and it's something the movie and Foster depict very well. What the movie doesn't depict as well is Erica accidentally stumbling into one criminal situation after another and is put into a position where she can kill people without anyone noticing. I know New York isn't exactly the safest city in the world but it is a bit of a stretch to believe it's so bad that every time she walks out the door she just happens to be thrown into a situation involving rape, mugging, robbery or murder. It seems at every other street corner is an opportunity for Erica to brush up on target practice with her new firearm. I criticized Death Sentence for a lot of things but at least Kevin Bacon's character had a goal and purpose that moved the story forward. Here the entire film is composed mainly of coincidences and accidents manufactured by the script to hammer home the point that something "just isn't right" with Erica. And just in case we still didn't get the message, Foster's sleep inducing voice-over narration helps further clarify it for us.

The biggest contrivance of all may be the character of Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) with whom Erica strikes up a close friendship when they run into each other at a crime scene and she interviews him for her show. You'd figure this Mercer guy, who at first seems pretty bright, would be immediately suspicious that this woman he knows is an angry victim of a brutal crime is stuttering and sweating with nervousness in his presence and spends her free time hanging around vigilante crime scenes. I can get past the fact Erica isn't acting rationally, but I can't get over that this guy could be that much of a dummy. It seems to take him forever (or at least way too close to the end of the film) before he becomes even slightly suspicious of her insane behavior. And of course he's your typical movie cop with a chip on his shoulder going through a rough divorce, making us feel as if the character is a stereotype and we've seen this film a million times before.

To his credit, Howard leaps over these hurdles to deliver a very strong performance that distracts us from that. But even he has a tough time overcoming the stupidity of the screenplay. The movie takes a redeeming turn in the third act as the relationship between Erica and Mercer deepens and he's put in the position of choosing between the duty to uphold his badge and his loyalty to a friend. Without giving anything away I'll say that the ending comes completely out of left field and doesn't play by typical Hollywood rules. It's also borderline insane, making you re-think what the true message behind this entire movie really was to begin with. I'm not sure it completely works but I'll at least give it credit for being surprising and different.

The film was directed by Neil Jordan, who made the preposterously overrated The Crying Game in 1992, a film more remembered for its laughable "big twist" than anything else. He takes a similar artsy fartsy approach to this revenge tale, which causes problems. The movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to be as it teeters between action thriller and a more low-key exploration of the human psyche. There's a strange, disturbing montage at the beginning of the film with David and Erica that would have been more suited for a soft-core pornographic video release than this film. There's also a scene where Erica rambles on insanely on the air during her radio show and no one, including her boss played by Mary Steenburgen, feels the need to do anything about it. The scene goes on. And on. And on. How any respectable radio station in America would let this woman on the air in her mental state is beyond me. Too often Jordan and the script just strike the wrong notes for the material.

This won't rank among Foster's best performances but she does a good job depicting the mental anguish of this woman and no other actress would have been able to do it better. I appreciated that the film was actually interested in exploring the motivations and consequences behind vigilante violence but was confused by the title. I read an interview with Foster where she said essentially the same thing. Who, exactly, in this movie is "BRAVE?" And therein lies the contradiction that underscores the problem with the entire film. And if Erica really wanted to punish people a far more effective way would be to force them to listen to her radio show.

Death Sentence

Director: James Wan
Starring: Kevin Bacon, Kelly Preston, Garrett Hedlund, Matt O' Leary, Aisha Tyler, John Goodman
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

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

If Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs were updated but lobotomized, we'd be left with something similar to Death Sentence, the latest film to put audiences in the uncomfortable position of cheering revenge killings. It takes a serious issue and exploits it for thrills and violence. Some of you may even be tricked into thinking you're watching something of value because of Kevin Bacon's phenomenal performance and your own perspective on the deep issues NOT being tackled by this film.

At times the movie is shameless and deplorable almost to the point where I had difficulty just getting through it. It's an unpleasant experience, but maybe that's how it was supposed to be. But as much as it pains me I have to say the film's almost recommendable because of that aforementioned lead performance and the fact it's well-made and frequently very exciting. But if anyone thinks they can convince me it contains an anti-violence message or is making any kind of social commentary I'm not biting. This movie is against violence about much as Scarface is a "Just Say No To Drugs" Public Service Announcement.

I, like many other film fans, try as often as possible to defend filmmakers against attacks from crazed watchdog groups looking to censor violence in cinema. It's times like this though when I feel let down and they make me look like a fool for doing it. Despite Bacon's best efforts to convey more this movie has only a single message and it's a scary one I can only hope audiences choose not to take home with them: When in pain and confronted with a problem, just pick up a gun and start firing. The message isn't intentional, but it's delivered nonetheless.

It's not that the movie doesn't acknowledge that the behavior is wrong. Of course it is. That's understood. The problem is in the way it's presented and glorified throughout the course of the picture while conveniently skimming past the real psychological ramifications of the situation. That it comes from the same director of Saw ends ups up being of little surprise because James Wan shoots this in a similar tone and style to that horror film. Except this time the story hits way too close to home to do that.

Nick Hume (Bacon) is a risk assessment executive with two sons and a beautiful wife (Kelly Preston) whose life is turned upside down when he and his eldest son, Brendan (Garrett Hedlund) stop at a gas station at the wrong end of town following a hockey game. While Nick fills the tank, Brendan runs in to get a drink and is brutally murdered by a street gang staging a hold up. If you've seen any of the trailers or commercials for this movie you know what comes next and it happens pretty much exactly how you'd expect it to. Other than Nick's testimony there isn't enough evidence to convict Brendan's assailant, much less even go to trial so he walks and Nick takes the law into his own hands, becoming a one-man vigilante killing machine hell-bent on revenge. At first he seems surprised at his own actions and in disbelief at what he's gotten himself tangled in with this vicious gang. But his feelings quickly wear off and we're treated to some spectacular shoot-outs and chase scenes, particularly a heart-pounding one through a parking garage that left me on the edge of my seat.

The movie is exciting and I really do see what it was trying do but unfortunately there's a feeling that there's a real disconnect between the intentions of Ian Jeffers screenplay (which is loosely based on Death Wish author Brian Garfield's 1975 novel) and what Wan shows on screen. They introduce a gut-wrenching scenario early on and make a promise of an involving drama, even book ending the film with home movie footage of Nick and his family. As each scene progresses though the movie turns uglier and moves further away from the thought provoking issue we began with and reveals itself to be more of an action vehicle along the lines of Crank or Shoot 'Em Up, except meaner in tone. There's a big twist about three quarters of the way through the film that caught me off guard but it exists only as an excuse to take the violence to even greater heights.

Part of the problem with this film is that there's no one worth rooting for. Our sympathy for Bacon's character dwindles by each passing second as he selfishly puts his family in danger and we certainly can't empathize with the gang members who murdered his son. The reaction to Nick's behavior from the other characters is strange. First of all, no one at work even seems to notice or care that Nick is walking around bruised and battered all the time for some strange reason. Even when a gang member shows up at work everyone seems to shrug it off as it being "just another day at the office." Does this guy have any friends? Shouldn't they be concerned he's involved in something deep and dangerous here? He also finds a way to murder gang members in broad daylight in a big city without anyone noticing or thinking to call the police.

Although I don't think I'd call the police either if I knew they'd be as laid-back as Aisha Tyler's Detective Wallis. She knows exactly what's going on yet only sporadically appears to give Nick a slap on the wrist and a stern warning. Um…he's murdering people. Shouldn't she arrest him? It's no wonder crime in this city is so bad. But the filmmakers can't be bothered with these little details because that would interrupt all the killings which have been so much fun to watch. There's another supporting character, a sick, depraved gun seller played by John Goodman who fits into this movie like a glove. He has a bizarre exchange with Nick that's actually the closest the film comes to exploring the issues that are simmering just below the surface.

I had mentioned Straw Dogs, the 1971 film starring Dustin Hoffman as a American mathematician traveling abroad whose wife is raped and terrorized by a gang of low lifes. I hesitate even invoking the name of that masterpiece in a review for this film but a comparison is valid. That movie explored the psychological impact of the event on its main character and we slowly saw the pain eat away at him until he couldn't take it anymore and slowly became what he hated most. Perhaps if Nick's character underwent a slower, subtler transformation like that the story would have had more of an impact. Instead he just starts killing people senselessly.

Bacon does his best with the role but if you want to see an intelligent Kevin Bacon film that deals with an important social issue seriously, rent The Woodsman instead. This isn't a meditation on revenge and I think it's fooled people into thinking otherwise because it's a controversial topic that inspires people to bring their own strong beliefs into the film with them. Any intelligence in the film is provided by those watching it and Bacon's dedication, not in the script or in Wan's over-the-top handling of it.

As frustrated as I am with the film it did provoke a very strong reaction in me which is never, under any circumstances, a bad thing. I'd much rather walk away from a film angry than feel nothing at all, which was the case with too many other movies this past year. It pushed my buttons so I have to give it credit for that.

I also have to credit to James Wan for not just falling back on the success of the Saw franchise and getting out after the first film to try other projects. It would have been easy for him to just sit back and coast on the success of that for the rest of his career. He's already proven he has one great film in him, but unfortunately this wasn't his second. Many critics unfairly and short-sightedly labeled Saw as "torture porn" but ironically that label may be better suited to this film. If you think about it, Saw actually had more to say about the value of human life than Death Sentence, which dishes out a different kind of emotional torture to its audience.

The Best Movie Posters of 2007

Well, it's that time of the year again when I visit the Internet Movie Poster Awards site and comb through all the movie posters for films released during the calendar year and honor what I feel is the best. I've been mocked frequently for my movie poster obsession but hey I don't care. This is art. So is film and that's criticized so this can be too. Unlike previous years where there seemed to be some kind of correlation between the quality of the posters and the quality of the film some of the year's worst reviewed films had the best posters. That's kind of depressing when you think about it. It at least proves there was a germ of a good idea behind some of these projects that were marketed well but turned out to be disasters.

They're not ranked or anything but I have saved the big winner for last. I should mention this was not a good year for posters (or really movies for that matter) but the choices here I still believe are top notch and I'd gladly have any of them on my wall (if I had any space left). Three qualities make a great movie poster in my eyes: 1) It's different and interesting 2) It grabs your attention visually 3) It sells the movie effectively and makes you want to see it. Remember I'm judging the poster, NOT THE FILM. If you think I overlooked a really good one feel free to post it or let me know.


Black Snake Moan- It's a good thing I'm not judging the film because I really didn't care for it at all. This comic book style poster on the other hand is awesome and contains an image that not only looks cool, but is unsettling and impossible to shake. I've noticed spoofs of this poster popping up all over the place, which is a sure sign they must have done something right. One of the most memorable of this year.


Good Luck Chuck-You can say what you want about how bad the movie is (I can't because I haven't seen it yet) but you can't tell me this poster doesn't do an effective job selling it. This is a classic example of really knowing your audience and catering to them in the best way possible. Everyone was perplexed how this movie took in so much money but I wasn't. The reason is pictured below and I'm not even that big of an Alba fan. Imagine if she ever radiated just half the sexiness onscreen that she does on this poster. We can dream can't we? The other one-sheets for this comedy (including one of Alba and Dane Cook tastelessly spoofing John Lennon and Yoko Ono) are as bad as the film supposedly was. Accept no imitations. This one's the real deal.


The Number 23-Yeah Jim Carrey as a tattooed serial killer doesn't exactly grab me either but this image does. You have no choice but to look at it. If you don't Jim Carrey will find you and kill you. I love how you can barely read that Joel Schumacher directed the film. Probably a wise move. After all, you do want at least a few people to go see the movie.


Invasion-Talk about old school. Could there possibly be a poster that better fits only the ten millionth take on Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It has a real retro Twilight Zone feel and if I didn't know any better I'd think this came right out of the '60's. It's genuinely scary and makes great use of color. Well done.


Death Sentence-If this poster looks a little familiar it's probably because it so closely resembles the series of posters used for American Gangster that featured Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. While those looked good visually I thought they were just too boring to make the cut. This isn't. The dripping bat. Bacon's look of remorseful resignation. The bright red lettering against the black background. Good stuff.


Captivity-Everybody needs their Elisha Cuthbert fix and here she is getting her Han Solo on in this disturbing, unforgettable poster. I can't say it's the most original poster this year but it is by far the coolest. And this wasn't even the Captivity poster that caused all that controversy over the summer. That one was too tame. This is a foreign one that wasn't even released in the United States. I have no idea why everyone got so worked up over the marketing for this film. If it's a thriller about being held captive what did they expect? This is really clever and I'd imagine it would look even better framed and on someone's wall. Supposedly the movie sucked, but the studio can take solace in the fact that they really did their best in the marketing department.


Premonition-Sandra Bullock may have not made a good movie in years but at least she can claim she starred in the best movie poster of 2007. Don't ruin the perfect image this poster conveyed for you by actually viewing the film. That would be a huge mistake. If you did already, my condolences. Don't worry though we can always just stare at this brilliant poster that offers up the promise of what this psychological thriller could have been.

It isn't too early to start looking ahead. These 2008 posters are better than anything I listed above.

The Dark Knight (Teaser 1)


The Dark Knight (Teaser 2)


Rambo


Funny Games