44 Days of Paranoia #37: The Day of the Jackal (dir by Fred Zinnemann)

Posted on January 5, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at the 1973 British thriller, The Day of the Jackal.

For our previous entry, I reviewed The Fugitive, a film that is often described as a classic but which, in my opinion, has failed to survive the test of time. Therefore, it’s appropriate that this entry is the exact opposite: a film that lives up to its reputation.

Taking place in the early 1960s, The Day of the Jackal tells the story of a nameless assassin (played by Edward Fox) who is hired by a group of terrorists to assassinate French President Charles De Gualle. Accepting the job, the assassin tells his employers to call him “The Jackal.”

We follow the Jackal as he prepares for the assassination. He meets with a gunsmith (Cyril Cusack) and has a special rifle designed. A forger gets him some fake ID papers but makes the mistake of trying to blackmail him. After disposing of the forger, the Jackal makes his way to Paris. Determined to protect his identity, the Jackal seduces both men and women so that he’ll be able to avoid having to check into a hotel. Whenever it appears that someone might be a security risk, the Jackal calmly kills them. It’s all strictly business.

However, the French do know that the Jackal is in Paris and that he’s planning to kill the President. In a plot twist that continues to be significant today, one of the terrorists has been captures and, after being brutally tortured, has revealed the plot. Inspector Lebel (Michael Lonsdale) is tasked with tracking down the Jackal and preventing the assassination.

When I talk about how much I love old movies, I’m talking about films like The Day of the Jackal, an unpretentious movie that achieve success not through flashy visual effects or overwhelmingly loud action scenes but instead by simply being a well-made film. For the most part, director Fred Zinnemann takes a low-key, almost documentary approach to the film’s material. Zinnemann establishes a pace that is deliberate but never boring.

The film also features two excellent lead performances. With his coldly aristocratic features, Edward Fox is perfectly cast as the nameless assassin. You not only believe that he could kill someone but you also believe that he could get away with it. He’s a thoroughly believable killer and it’s hard not to be impressed by just how good he is at being the bad guy. The Jackal’s sleek professionalism and charisma is contrasted with the gray and rather shabby middle-aged men who are trying to stop him. As played by Michael Lonsdale, Inspector Lebel is initially a rather underwhelming figure but, as the film progresses, his own strength is gradually revealed until he becomes a worthy adversary of the Jackal.

Finally, I should mention that the film ends with a little coda that is pure perfection. I’m not going to ruin it by revealing it here but it’s worth watching the entire film just for that final line.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #36: The Fugitive (dir by Andrew Davis)

Posted on January 3, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, let’s take a look at the 1993 best picture nominee, The Fugitive.

We’re all familiar with the saying, “You just had to be there.” We usually hear it as an excuse that’s uttered when a storyteller realizes that his audience isn’t as fascinated by his tale as he is. It’s a way of assuring us that we would also be fascinated if only we had been present when the story actually took place.

I think the same holds true of a lot of movies. You simply had to be there when the film was originally released to theaters, before it’s impact could be diluted by repetition and imitation, to understand why that movie was successful or why certain critics continue to speak so fondly of it.

Case in point: The Fugitive.

Based on an old television series, The Fugitive was a huge hit when it was first released in 1993. It was critically acclaimed, it featured an Oscar-winning supporting performance from Tommy Lee Jones, and the film itself was even nominated for best picture of the year. The Fugitive is still regularly cited as being one of the best action movies ever made.

And yet, last month, when I watched The Fugitive for the first time, I was left distinctly underwhelmed.

The film opens with Chicago surgeon Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) arriving home and discovers that his wife has been murdered by a one-armed man (Andreas Katsulas). Kimble struggles with the assailant but the man still manages to escape into the night. The police don’t believe Kimble’s story and he ends up being arrested and subsequently convicted of his wife’s murder. It was at this point that I shouted out, “What about DNA!?” but then I remembered that this film was probably made before DNA became a regular part of the criminal justice system. You just had to be there…

While Kimble is being transported to death row, a fight breaks out that causes the prison bus to crash and gives Kimble a chance to escape. Kimble is now a fugitive, trying to track down the one-armed man and clear his name. Pursuing him is the charismatic and rather manic U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones).

Every review that I’ve ever read about The Fugitive always praises two scenes. One is the bus crash that gives Kimble his opportunity to escape. The other is the scene where Gerard first catches up to Kimble. Standing at the edge of a storm drain, Kimble says that he’s innocent. Gerard calmly replies, “I don’t care.” Kimble then proceeds to jump over the edge and into the raging waters below. Realistically, the fall really should have killed him but, if it had, there would be no movie.

Those two scenes are genuinely exciting and well-done. Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t quite as memorable. Kimble spends the rest of the movie running around Chicago while Gerard chases after him. It’s all shot well enough and Tommy Lee Jones is a lot of fun to watch (the film comes to life in the scenes where Gerard interacts with the other members of his team) but, at the same time, it all feels rather predictable. For all the scenes of Ford looking intense and running through the city, I was more excited about the chance to say, “Hey, isn’t that Julianne Moore!?” when she showed up as a sympathetic doctor.

Worst of all, the solution to the film’s mystery literally comes out of nowhere. However, that solution does feature a Big Evil Corporation which, if nothing else, qualifies The Fugitive for inclusion in the 44 Days of Paranoia.

Watching The Fugitive, I could see how the film had influenced other action films and I think that was a large reason why the film didn’t work for me. What was once undoubtedly seen as being thrilling and surprising now seemed rather mundane and predictable.

That’s why I imagine that, in the case of The Fugitive, you just had to be there.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

Film Review: Love and Honor (dir by Danny Mooney)

Posted on January 1, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Love and Honor tells a simple but effective story.

Taking place in 1969 and opening with footage of the launch of Apollo 11, Love and Honor tells the story of two soldiers, Wright (Liam Hemsworth) and Joyner (Austin Stowell). Wright and Joyner are serving in Viet Nam together and, even as the war grows more and more unpopular in the U.S., both of them remain true believers.

Shortly before they’re scheduled to take a week of R&R in Hong Kong, Joyner receives a break-up letter from his girlfriend, Jane (Aimee Teargarden). Joyner decided to use his R&R time to fly back to the U.S. and ask Jane to marry him. As Joyner explains it, as long as he returns to his unit at the end of the week, he won’t be charged with going AWOL. Wright impulsively decides to accompany him.

What happens next shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever seen a film set in the 60s. Wright and Joyner returns to the U.S. and discover that Jane has fallen in with a bunch of activists — led by the smug Peter (Chris Lowell) — who spend all of their time organizing rallies and publishing an underground newspaper. While Joyner pursues Jane, Wright falls in love with Candace (Teresa Palmer). In order to impress Candace, Wright claims that he and Joyner are actually deserters as opposed to just being two soldiers on R&R. While Wright’s lie impresses Jane’s new friends, it also proves to be a lot of trouble once Peter starts to get jealous.

Love and Honor, which came and went without much notice last March, is a surprisingly sweet and likable film. Liam Hemsworth and Teresa Palmer have a lot of chemistry and Austin Stowell is so likable as Joyner that it’s easy to overlook the fact that his character’s story arc doesn’t really make much sense. Finally, Chris Lowell is properly hissable as the film’s self-righteous villain.

I imagine that some politically minded viewers might be a bit annoyed with the fact that all of the film’s political activists are portrayed as being shallow, flaky, and hypocritical. (Then again, some would argue that this was the most realistic part of the entire film…) Love and Honor uses the politics of the 60s as a plot device but it never explores any of those issues in any sort of depth. But, to be honest, who cares? Sometimes, a romance is just a romance and we, as viewers, are all the better for it.

44 Days of Paranoia #35: A Dark Truth (dir by Damian Lee)

Posted on January 1, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For the latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at one of the more obscure films of 2013. A Dark Truth was briefly released last January and it didn’t get much attention. Having recently watched the film, I can understand why.

A Dark Truth (subtle name, no?) opens with a lengthy and disturbing scene of men, women, and children being chased through the jungle by machine gun-wielding soldiers. As we eventually learn, the people fleeing are the citizens of a village in Ecuador and the soldiers are there on a mission to kill every single one of them. It’s such a disturbing and well-shot sequence that I watched it with a sinking feeling because I knew that there was no way the rest of the film would be able to live up to it.

And it turns out I was right. Director Damian Lee seemed to realize this as well because he revisits the footage every time his film starts to drag. Unfortunately, the more we see these violent images, the less powerful they become. By the end of the film, that whole opening sequence has lost whatever power it had simply because we’ve seen it one too many times.

It turns out that the soldiers were working for a — wait for it! — Big Evil Corporation. It seems that this Canadian water purification company accidentally poisoned the village’s water and this led to several villagers getting sick. An executive, who is so villainous that he’s played by Kim Coates, ordered that all the villagers be executed. Among the few that escaped was a veteran political activist (Forest Whitaker) and his wife (Eva Longoria).

Meanwhile, in Canada, corporate executive Deborah Kara Unger finds out what the company did in Ecuador. Wracked with guilt, she hires former CIA Agent-turned-talk radio host Andy Garcia to go down to Ecuador and rescue Whitaker.

A Dark Truth, which obviously aspires to be something more than just a conventional action thriller, is a film that starts with an exciting bang but then ends with a whimper that, even if you have managed to stay awake while watching it, you’ll barely hear. This is one of the slowest films ever made (it certainly feels longer than 105 minutes) and the excessively stylized direction can’t make up for the fact that the film’s plot and dialogue are both painfully predictable. About the only thing that The Dark Truth has going for it is that, while Longoria is painfully miscast, the film does feature good performances from Garcia, Whitaker, and Coates. Best of all is Kevin Durand, who plays a hired assassin here. Durand doesn’t get to say much but he’s such an intimidating physical presence that he doesn’t need to say much.

Seriously, somebody needs to give Kevin Durand his own action franchise.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #34: Saboteur (dir by Alfred Hitchcock)

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at the 1942 Alfred Hitchcock film, Saboteur.

Saboteur opens at an aircraft factory in Glenda, California. Co-workers Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) and Ken Mason (Virgil Summers) notice a stand-offish new guy named Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd, who appropriately looks something like a rodent). When a fire breaks out at the factory, Fry hands Barry a fire extinguisher which Barry then hands off to Ken. The extinguisher, however, is full of gasoline, both causing the fire to turn into an inferno and killing Ken.

When questioned by the FBI, Barry explains that Fry handed him the extinguisher, just to then be informed that no one named Fry worked at the plant and that no one saw Fry — or anyone else — hand Barry the extinguisher. Realizing that Fry has framed him and also remembering the address on an envelope that Fry was carrying, Barry runs. With the FBI and police pursuing him, Barry tries to track down the real saboteur. Along the way, he discovers a friendly rancher (Otto Kruger) who is actually a Nazi agent and gets some help from a group of circus freaks, a blind man, and the blind man’s model daughter (Peggy Cummings). He also discovers that the U.S. is crawling with Nazi double agents who hide behind a veil of respectability and are plotting to destroy historic landmarks across the country. It all eventually leads to a genuinely exciting climax atop the Statue of Liberty.

Saboteur doesn’t get as much attention as some of the other films that Hitchcock directed in the 40s and perhaps that’s not surprising. It’s not as technically audacious as Notorious nor is it as thought-provoking as Shadow of the Doubt or as flamboyant as Spellbound. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane make for perfectly likable leads, they certainly don’t generate the chemistry of Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. When one looks at the masterpieces that Hitchcock directed in the 40s, it’s easy to dismiss Saboteur as being a well-made B-movie.

And yet, I love Saboteur. The film is pure non-stop melodrama and, over 70 years since it was first made, it remains an exciting and entertaining film. Despite the fact that some critics may not hold Saboteur in as high regard as some of Hitchcock’s other films, Saboteur is full of moments of the director’s trademark ambiguity and irony. This is one of Hitchcock’s wrong man films, where innocent men are chased across a shadowy landscape by the forces of law and order who, in many ways, are portrayed as being just as menacing as the film’s nominal villains. Meanwhile, the Nazi agents hide behind warm smiles and friendly words, their evil only apparent when it’s too late to stop them. Despite his rather fearsome reputation, Hitchcock’s sympathies always lay with the powerless and the wrongly accused.

It’s those sympathies that make Saboteur into far more than just another B-movie.

Instead, it’s one of Hitchcock’s best.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #33: The Stepford Wives (dir by Bryan Forbes)

Posted on December 29, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, let’s take a look at the sci-fi social satire, The Stepford Wives.

Now, don’t panic. I’m not talking about that terrible Nicole Kidman comedy that came out in 2004. No, I’m talking about the original Stepford Wives. This film originally came out in 1975. I recently saw it on TCM and I was shocked to discover that, despite the fact that the film is undeniably dated in that fascinatingly weird way that most films from the 70s are, The Stepford Wives holds up rather well.

Joanna (Katharine Ross) and her husband, Walter (Peter Masteron) leave dangerous New York City and move to the idyllic suburb of Stepford, Connecticut. Walter is immediately invited to join the exclusive Stepford Men’s Association but Joanna finds it far more difficult to fit in with the citizens of Stepford. As Joanna discovers, all of the women of Stepford are oddly submissive and obsessively domestic. When Joanna and her friend Bobbie (Paula Prentiss) attempt to hold a consciousness raising meeting, they quickly discover that the other women of Stepford would rather talk about cleaning products than women’s lib.

The more that Joanna investigates the social structure of Stepford, the more convinced she becomes that something sinister is being done to keep the Stepford Wives from desiring a life outside of pleasing their husbands. The more disturbed Joanna is by Stepford, the more Walter loves it…

One of the many reasons why I love my boyfriend is because he knows that I’m not perfect. He knows that I’m often a neurotic mess. He knows that I’m just as obsessively insecure about my big nose as I’m obsessively vain about my red hair. He knows that I tend to take on too much and that I get defensive whenever I’m told that I need to slow down. He knows that I can be emotional and silly. He also knows how much I value my independence. He’s knows that I need to have a life of my own and, instead of being threatened, he has always been there to encourage me, to cheer for me when things go right and to hold me when things go wrong and, most importantly, to never judge me regardless of whether I succeed or fail. He knows that I’m not perfect and that I’ll never be perfect and he loves me anyway.

That hasn’t always been the case with some of the guys that I’ve gone out with in the past. For the longest time, I always thought I was the only girl who had a hundred men trying to change her but I’ve discovered that my experiences were hardly unique. All of my friends have stories about men who have tried to change them. There seems to be something inherent in the mentality of many men that leads them to assume that they can make any woman into a robot.

Perhaps that’s why The Stepford Wives resonated with me. Most husbands may not be able to literally turn their wives into robots but it’s certainly not for lack of trying. The Stepford Wives is a flawed film — the pace often drags and the performances are uneven — but it’s one that rings true for many women.

(And don’t worry, boys! The men in this film are such pigs that there’s no way you won’t look better by comparison.)

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #32: The Purge (dir by James DeMonaco)

Posted on December 27, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at one of the more unexpected box office successes of 2013, The Purge.

The Purge takes place in the year 2022. In some ways, America is much the same as it is today but in other ways, it is significantly different. Unemployment is down to 1% and crime rates have plunged. Before you can say, “So, this is what we have to look forward to once Obama is no longer President,” we are told that America is now being led by the “New Founding Fathers.”

We also learn that every year, for one 12-hour period, all crime is legal. The Purge is designed to act as a catharsis, a time for the American people to release all of their pent-up frustrations and act on all the desires that the government has since forbidden. As the film opens, we listen to people discussing how they’re going to celebrate 2022’s Purge. Some say that they’re going to stay inside and keep their doors locked. Another brags about how he’s planning to take the opportunity to murder his boss.

The Purge has also created an entirely new economy that is completely centered around preparing for the Purge. As a result, men like James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) have become millionaires by selling home security systems. The Purge opens with James pulling up in front his gigantic mansion, going inside, and getting his family prepared for that night’s Purge.

When the Purge begins, James, his wife (Lena Headey), and his family believe themselves to be safe inside their mansion. However, things don’t go quite as planned. For one thing, daughter Zooey’s (Adelaide Kane) older boyfriend Henry (Tony Oller) is hiding out in the house. Henry knows that James doesn’t approve of him but is convinced that he can either change James’s mind or, failing that, simply kill him while it’s perfectly legal to do so.

An even bigger complication arises when a bloody stranger (Edwin Hodge) approaches the house and begs to be let in. When James’s son opens the door to the man, the house is suddenly surrounded by a group of masked purgers who demand that the stranger be sent back out. When the purgers start to attack, the Sandins’s jealous neighbors suddenly see a chance to take out their own resentments on James and his family…

The Purge got terrible reviews but, judging from its box office success, it obviously struck a nerve with audiences. And why not? Like many so-called exploitation films, The Purge may not be subtle but it does manage to perfectly capture the fears and prejudices that everyone in the audience has. I saw The Purge when it was first released and then I recently rewatched it on DVD and I have to say that I was a little surprised to discover just how well The Purge holds up to repeat viewings. The Purge is effective because, as over-the-top as it may seem, it’s still a disturbingly plausible portrait of the type of society that our “leaders” seem to be so eager to create.

https://twitter.com/ItsHoodTV/status/356241203588640771

If Zimmerman get found innocent they gon have a purge in Florida

— CBandz (@MrTurnUpHimself) July 12, 2013

As a side note, shortly after the film completed its initial run, George Zimmerman was acquitted in the Trayvon Martin case and I can still remember seeing hundreds of people on twitter saying that it was time to have a real-life Purge in Florida, which indicates how much of a part of the popular culture this film became. It’s not surprising that a sequel is going to be released in 2014.

I thought The Purge was totally unrealistic.. until the Zimmerman verdict

— dave lane (@oldwaver) July 14, 2013

Wtf zimmerman gets off? I guess it was the purge on thatday smdh

— La Jinn The Tweet Genie (@FreakyMikeyD) July 14, 2013

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #31: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (dir by Francis Lawrence)

Posted on December 26, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at a film that might, at first, seem out-of-place in this series — The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

Why is Catching Fire included in a series of films about conspiracy and paranoia? Because, even more than the first film, Catching Fire is a film with a political subtext. Beneath its franchise surface, Catching Fire is about how the government and media establishment manipulates its citizens and how, occasionally, the citizens are smart enough to manipulate them.

When reviewing Catching Fire, probably the first and most important question is how it compares to The Hunger Games. Is it that film’s equal, is it better, or is it worst? That’s not necessarily an easy question to answer because Catching Fire is a very different film from The Hunger Games.

One of the main reasons that I loved The Hunger Games is because, after a countless number of Twilight-style films that all featured teenage girls willingly sacrificing their independence for a boyfriend, The Hunger Games finally gave us a female protagonist who kicked ass and made no apologies for doing so. Katniss Everdeen was defined by her mind and her soul and not her relationship status. I loved The Hunger Games because, like Brave, it celebrated female strength and independence. While I have always been willing to defend the Twilight films for what they are, I would not want my niece or my future daughter to grow up to be Bella Swan. Katniss Everdeen, however, is a role model for both our times and our future. The Hunger Games was all about celebrating girl power and, for that reason, I loved it.

Katniss Everdeen is still a worthy and independent role model in Catching Fire but the film itself is far more political than The Hunger Games. Whereas The Hunger Games was all about establishing Katniss as a strong woman, Catching Fire is about how that strength can be used to challenge the status quo.

As the film opens, Katniss (played, of course, by Jennifer Lawrence, who I have such a girl crush on) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) have returned to District 12 after having “won” the 74th Hunger Games. Realizing that their act of defiance could lead to a full-scale revolution, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) attempts to co-opt their rebel image. He orders that Katniss and Peeta continue to pretend to be in love so that, during their Victory Tour, the citizens of the other districts will be convinced that Katniss’s actions were the result of love and not of defiance.

This is actually a very interesting premise and definitely that shows a lot more sophistication than what we, as filmgoers, have been conditioned to expect from a movie based on YA fiction. While thousands of films have depicted love as a form of political rebellion, Catching Fire is unique in suggesting that love (or the appearance of love) can also be used to maintain political suppression.

During the Victory Tour, both Katniss and Peeta balk at having to play the roles that Snow has assigned them. While at District 11, Katniss pays tribute to Rue and then watches in horror as Snow’s “peacekeepers” executes a man who dared to hold up the three-finger salute. Trying to avoid further violence, Katniss agrees to become engaged to Peeta.

Snow, however, realizes that, as long as Katniss is alive, she’ll be a threat to him. He announces a special all-star edition of The Hunger Games, in which all the tributes will be past winners. Since Katniss is the only female tribute from District 12 to have ever survived the Hunger Games, she knows that she’s going to have to compete for a second time. When Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is selected to be the male tribue, Peeta immediately volunteers to go in his place.

The first hour of Catching Fire, which deals with the media and political manipulation surrounding the Victory Tour, is brilliant. The second half, which features Katniss and Peeta competing in their second Hunger Games, feels a bit familiar and rushed. It’s not that the second half of the film isn’t good. It’s just far more predictable.

But here’s what’s important — everything that worked about The Hunger Games works for Catching Fire. Josh Hutcherson seems a lot more confident here than he did in the first film, Donald Sutherland makes for a great villain, Stanly Tucci is a lot of fun as Caesar Flickerman (what a great name!), and the film is a visual feast. Among the new cast members, Jena Malone is perfectly cast as tribune Johanna Mason while Philip Seymour Hoffman is properly Philip Seymour Hoffmanish as the new director of the Hunger Games.

However, the film belongs to and works because of Jennifer Lawrence. Whether she’s playing Katniss or Mystique or Ree Dolly or Tiffany Maxwell or Rosalyn Rosenfeld, Jennifer Lawrence kicks ass.

Yes, that is my official review as a film critic.

Jennifer Lawrence kicks ass.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

Ghosts of Christmas Past #25: The Twilight Zone 3.37 “The Changing of the Guard”

Posted on December 25, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Seeing as how one of the first ghosts of Christmas Past was an episode of the Twilight Zone, it seems only appropriate that the same should be true of the 2013’s final Christmas ghost.

It’s debatable whether “The Changing of the Guard” is truly a Christmas episode. However, it does take place during the holiday season and it’s such a wonderful and sweet 23 minutes of television that it simply has to be shared and enjoyed.

The Changing of the Guard, which features a poignant lead performance from Donald Pleasance, originally aired on June 1st, 1962.

All of us here at the Shattered Lens hope that you have had and will continue to have a wonderful holiday season! Please enjoy The Changing of the Guard.

6 Reviews of 6 More Films That Were Released in 2013: The Company You Keep, Dracula 3D, Getaway, Identity Thief, Pawn, Welcome to the Punch

Posted on December 25, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In part of my continuing effort to get caught up on my 2013 film reviews, here are 6 more reviews of 6 more films.

The Company You Keep (dir by Robert Redford)

Shia LeBeouf is a journalist who discovers that attorney Bill Grant (Robert Redford) is actually a former 60s radical who is still wanted by the FBI for taking part in a bank robbery in which a security guard was killed. In one of those coincidences that can be filed directly under “Because it was convenient for the plot,” LeBeouf’s girlfriend (Anna Kendrick) works for the FBI. Anyway, all of this leads to Grant going on the run and meeting up with a lot of his former radical colleagues (all of whom are played by familiar character actors like Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte, Richard Jenkins, and Julie Christie). Ben pursues him and discovers that Grant could very well be innocent and … oh, who cares? The Company You Keep is a big smug mess of a film. It’s full of talented actors — like Stanley Tucci, Brendan Gleeson, and Brit Marling (who, talented as she may be, is actually kinda terrible in this film) — but so what? I lost interest in the film after the first 20 minutes, which was a problem since I still had 101 more minutes left to go.

Has there ever been a movie that’s actually been improved by the presence of Shia LeBeouf?

Dracula 3D (dir by Dario Argento)

Dario Argento’s version of the classic Dracula tale got terrible reviews when it was briefly released here in the States but I happen to think that it was rather underrated. No, the film can not compares to classic Argento films like Deep Red, Suspiria, and Tenebre. However, the film itself is so shamelessly excessive that it’s impossible not to enjoy on some level. The film’s moody sets harken back to the classic gothic villages of the old Hammer films, Thomas Kretschman turns Dracula into the type of decadent European aristocrat who you would expect to find doing cocaine in 1970s New York, and Rutger Hauer is wonderfully over-the-top as Van Helsing. Yes, Dracula does turn into a giant preying mantis at one point but if you can’t enjoy that then you’re obviously taking life (and movies) too seriously.

Getaway (dir by Courtney Solomon)

I saw Getaway during my summer vacation and the main thing I remember about the experience is that I saw it in Charleston, West Virginia. Have I mentioned how in love I am with Charleston? Seriously, I love that city!

As for the movie, it was 90 minutes of nonstop car chases and crashes and yet it somehow still managed to be one of the dullest films that I’ve ever seen. Ethan Hawke’s wife is kidnapped by Jon Voight and Hawke is forced to steal a car and drive around the city, doing random things. Along the way, he picks up a sidekick played by Selena Gomez. Hawke and Voight are two of my favorite actors and, on the basis of Spring Breakers, I think that Gomez is a lot more talented than she’s given credit for. But all of that talent didn’t stop Getaway from being forgettable. It’s often asked how much action is too much action and it appears that Getaway was specifically made to answer that question.

Identity Thief (dir by Seth Gordon)

My best friend Evelyn and I attempted to watch this “comedy” on Saturday night and we could only get through the first hour before we turned it off. Jason Bateman’s a great actor but, between Identity Thief and Disconnect, this just wasn’t his year. In this film, Bateman is a guy named Sandy (Are you laughing yet? Because the movie really thinks this is hilarious) whose identity is stolen by Melissa McCarthy. In order to restore both his credit and his good name, Bateman goes down to Florida and attempts to convince McCarthy to return to Colorado with him. The film’s “humor” comes from the fact that McCarthy is sociopath while Bateman is … not.

It’s just as funny as it sounds.

Pawn (dir by David Armstrong)

An all-night diner is robbed by three thieves led by Michael Chiklis and, perhaps not surprisingly, things do not go as expected. It turns out that not only does Chilklis have a secret agenda of his own but so does nearly everyone else in the diner. Pawn is a gritty little action thriller that’s full of twists and turns. Chiklis gives a great performance and Ray Liotta has a surprisingly effective cameo.

Welcome to the Punch (dir by Eran Creevy)

In this British crime drama, gangster Jacob (Mark Strong) comes out of hiding and returns to London in order to get his son out of prison. Waiting for Jacob is an obsessive police detective (James McAvoy) who is determined to finally capture Jacob.

In many ways, Welcome To The Punch reminded me a lot of Trance and n0t just because both films feature James McAvoy playing a morally ambiguous hero. Like Trance, Welcome to the Punch is something of a shallow film but Eran Creevy’s direction is so stylish and Mark Strong and James McAvoy both give such effective performances that you find yourself entertained even if the film itself leaves you feeling somewhat detached.