Knight and Day

Okay, major stretch and it was Cruise who made this a chance to take.  There is so much cash behind his flicks that it is pretty tough to have his machine put out a bad one.  However, that evil thing called "doubt" had to be overcome and that doubt was due to Cameron Diaz.  Ever since her roles in the 2000 on Charlie's Angels offerings did I swear her off.  She was cool up until then (The Mask and There's Something About Mary) but the "Man, I am so cute and funny and quirky and still DEADLY" kinda shtick that she pooped out caused me to shut that cheese down within 25 minutes into the first one and never want to see anything she was in afterward.  Glad I did.  This was okay and she was okay.  Cruise is pretty good and he and Diaz do a good deal on two story formulas:

1.  Dude seems really weird and off to all who are around him, but one person believes in him and sure enough, all those who thought he was off base realize that only he had the true vision!

2.  Guy/girl gets guy/girl, then guy/girl loses guy/girl and finally guy/girl gets guy/girl back.

So, Cruise is an agent who is pursued by the agency and along the way goofs into Cameron Diaz who gets played but, alas, love blooms and yadda, yadda, yadda there.  Great bits of action and tons of exotic locations which, as if either actor could not afford to go their own their own, afford both actors to visit those locations and write them off as travel expenses because of the movie...savvy!  It all turns out well and is crazy reminiscent of 1994's True Lies and 2007's Mr. and Mrs. Smith.  This film, and how it ends, screams sequel possibilities.

Directing is good, acting is...not so bad that it messes up the movie, script was actually pretty good, and cinematography is great: there are no too dark scenes or too light scenes.  So, this would not be a must see, but it is not a bad film at all.  I actually was able to remember what film I was in the middle of during my days at work.

Robin Hood

One thing you can surely give Russell Crowe is that he will take the clean and pouffy romance out of period movies (mostly of the 30's-50's) and just drag them in the mud.  For example, this sure ain't your 1938 Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn.  I am cool with it for I am sure that Crowe's stuff like Gladiator and this movie are more realistic to what things were really like.  In anycase, I also came away from this movie with the realization that actors hang around in packs and where one actor crops up, the others will as well...kinda like a Ron Howard movie always has his brother in it.  Okay, here you have two gangs: William Hurt's and Russell Crowe's.  Case in point: in 2009 Hurt was in Endgame and it was there that I first encountered Mark Strong and they both appear here.  Further, 1999's Myster Alaska (okay, I watched this chick flick, but I watched it FOR THE HOCKEY ONLY!) starred Crowe and with him were Kevin Durand and Scott Grimes: both in this film.  Maybe just a coincidence, but are there really such things as coincidences?

Okay, to the movie.  I liked it!  The whole deal of Robin being asked to just hang out and live the part of a murdered son and husband and get to enjoy all the trappings that come with it is far fetched, but heck, if it were not far fetched and/or extraordinary, you wouldn't watch it?  Seriously, would you pay $20 to watch a day in the life of the guy who sits in the cubicle next to you at work?  No, you wouldn't.

Okay, so Robin comes back from the Crusades, King Richard gets an arrow in the neck and dies, and on the way back to England, the carrier of Richard's crown also takes one for the team.  Booya!  Robin gets the crown, impersonates the dude who took one for the team and so it goes.  Now, Robin helps knock the invading French back in the Channel and tells those freakin' frogs to get the heck off English soil and never come back until they have a decent dental plan to offer...I guess they haven't been back.  Okay, so things seem to be on the righteous path between Prince/King John and the barons but no!!!  King John decides that he is going to be King Bastard and goes on to tax the crap outta the British peeps in a way that would make the US Government envious.  Game on for Robin Hood!  The movie ends here but it is RIPE, I say RIPE for a sequel and I hope it comes!

The acting is good.  Crowe, Hurt, and their gangs are awesome and Cate Blanchett is good as usual.  The cinematography is good, the script is cool and the directing is just dandy.  I liked it and recommend this one!

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

PaLease!  I forgot this was an Oliver Stone directed dealio and got hammered with yet another "Wall Street is bad, green energy is good but it won't have a chance because greed and not overall good will triumph, and all capitalists are bad," movie.  Geez.  I am somewhat tired of these things.  Someone please get me a movie that shows capitalism and business in a good light.

Okay, beyond the political undertones and all, this was an okay movie.  I love those red envelope suppliers for I did not spend the $40 to go see this in a theater.  It took several nights to finish because there was nothing really drawing me to watch a little more or to stop watching what I was watching:  remember, it was 'Money Never Sleeps' and not 'Ron Never Sleeps.' In each session, sleep won over watching further easily.

Michael Douglas gets out of jail and goes to back to what made him millions in the first movie; trading.  In the process, he screws over the relationship his daughter has with her boyfriend (Shia LaBeouf) but then a microbe of decency in his heart helps get them back together.  This little dance completes the boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back routine.

Script is fine, acting by Shia is great and supported well by the acting of others, directing is okay, and the cinematography is fine.  Josh Brolin did seem a bit miscast, but the real question is where did he come from?  "No Country for Old Men" is the first A class big screen I remember seeing him in, but wow, he seems to be all over now.

In any case, I would use time on another movie.

Extraordinary Measures

Harken back to Nick Nolte's performance in a MOVIE called "Lorenzo's Oil" in 1992.  Same deal here as the characters of Brendan Fraser and Nick Nolte are fathers with child(ren) afflicted with rare and horrid diseases...then again, any disease that gets kids is horrid.  Against amazing odds, each father finds a cure for his kid(s) just in time.

I capitalize MOVIE as Lorenzo's was a movie for theaters (aka big screens) whereas "Extraordinary Measures" could not quite escape the TV movie feel.  Keri Russell (Fraser's movie wife) is on the up escalator from TV to movies here, and as she rides up, she seems to pass Fraser and Harrison Ford who are on the down escalator from Moives to TV.  All in all, it is a feel good movie and you feel good as Fraser and Ford triumph!  However, this has TV within 4 months written all over it, so if you can wait that long, do so.

Other than Harrison Ford's overplaying the cantankerous but brilliant scientist, the acting is good.  The script, directing, and cinematography are good as well.  The only beef I have is that I could not place the Seattle location of the Zymogenetics' Lab.   I think it was Nike's Beaverton, OR headquarters...that bugged me.

Appaloosa

Okay, I was never really into westerns as a kid and the closest I got was with "The Wild Wild West" tv show.  There were a few John Wayne movies I dug, but it wasn't until the Clint Eastwood brand of movies (spaghetti westerns becuase of the Italian hand in them) that I really got into them and into only that brand.  In the last 15 years, there has been a resurgence with "The Mask of Zorro, The Wild Wild West" with Will Smith and few others...not to mention the sequels to those and I have gotten into them. 

"Appaloosa" follows these with 21st century speak in 19th century settings.  Don't get it.  Ed Harris did just about everything in this from writing, starring, and directing it all.  There is nothing at all wrong or really horrible about the film, but there is nothing really noteworthy either.  The acting is good, the directing and cinematography are good and the script is good, but that is it.  There is nothing great...except for the interaction between the characters of Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris.  Aside from the interaction of their characters, there is nothing that is really going to make you feel that the time watching this could not have been better spent doing something else.

The American

Mix between the original "The Mechanic" (1972), a bit of MacGyver, and "Pretty Woman."  Clooney is a hitman and fabricator extraordinaire of firearms for other hitmen.  He meets a woman he digs and thinks he can start a legal life with, but the tone and mood of the movie say otherwise.  You know it will end badly and the only suspense is "how?"

Clooney is good and in a role that shows that, "yeah, this dude can act."  He is surrounded by others who carry their own as well.  So, the acting, the cinematography, directing, and script are all good.  It is a good film.  It was not action packed, it was suspensful and would get a high recommendation.

Devil

Wow!  This is my type of horror film.  It calls back to the Hitchcock style in which you are given just enough to then let your mind run wild and no knows better than you what scares you.  You never see the actual killing or maiming stuff, instead, you just see about 1 second of the aftermath.  Knarly.  I have never been into the gore for gore's sake and so I was not bummed or disappointed with this. 

Had I investigated this film more, regarding writing and directing, I would have passed on it becuase of the story having been conjured up by M. Night Shyamalan: The Sixth Sense was great, but man, stuff has not been so good from him.  Stepping way back from previous roles he has had in films to the point of just writing the play and then letting others move the ball over the goal line worked, and it may be the beginning of his return to 1st string QB.

5 strangers get stuck in an elevator and we soon discover they all have dark poop in their pasts.  Nice; perfect stew for the Devil to cruise in and then kill them one at a time with the intention of speeding up the time it takes to get their souls down below... he is an impatient Devil this guy!  Spooky, erie, and good!  Acting is good by, uh, I don't know and, uh, I don't know, and, oh yeah, another person I don't know.  Nice.  The minor leagues are about to send some talen to the bigs!

Script, cinematography, directing, and acting are all good.  Good film...yeah, a good horror film with so much more on the suspense and not the gore.

Dinner for Schmucks

This one was a tough one.  I was not really into it as I recognized 2 classic overplayed story lines (I guess admirable was combining 2 into a single movie):

1.  Out of mainstream, somewhat off dude has the clarity of vision to do the right thing and get those around him to see that he may not really be an idiot but a savant.

2.  Boy has girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back.

Well gee Uncle Ron, what was tough about that. 

Well Johnny, here is what was tough.  I wanted to put my mirrored disc back in its envelope and send it home as soon as I smelled above points 1 and 2.  However, Steve Carell was good in his role and Paul Rudd did a good job of being the straight man.  That was all that kept me into it.  What was nasty tough to deal with as well were the standard/cliche bashes on both succesful businessmen and the rich.

Case 1: Bruce Greenwood's Character: The men who build great companies and fortunes are really cruel abusive men who feed on the rest of us.

Case 2: David Walliams' Character: The rich, if they didn't earn their money exploiting the less fortunate or those they swindled, they inherited it and are incredibly shallow.

I am tired of that. 

The directing was fine, the script was okay, the acting was good, and the cinematography was fine.  However, there is quite a bit to see out there and this is something that, though not horrid, could be passed up many times for a better movie.