THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Ben Stiller
Year: 2013
Cast: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig
Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG

I’ve endured years of watching Ben Stiller on the big screen. I’ve chuckled at his decent romantic comedies, I’ve enjoyed his voice work in animated films, and I’ve winced at the ones that needed work, but The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is his first movie that blew me out of my seat. To people who haven’t seen this motion picture, it is, understandably, nearly impossible to fathom the beauty of what inhabits the silver screen. Stiller made a movie that is utterly genuine. As an audience member, I haven’t been moved by the honesty of people and their actions as greatly as I was here since I saw Silver Linings Playbook. 

In The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Walter is a humbled Life Magazine worker that faces a generational difficulty when a young hotshot comes in, takes control, and transforms the company into an online program. This results in the firing of many devoted, “old-fashioned” employees. Walter’s job, for the last print issue of Life, is to find a missing negative (photo) that would prevail as the cover photo. He embarks upon a journey, a real one, that allows him to break free of his obsessive daydreams (to which he has fallen subject to over the course of his life). 

Along with a simple, yet intricate screenplay and astounding visuals, Ben Stiller is what makes this film so candid. His character is so believable because it feels like he’s effortlessly playing himself on screen. In short, he comes off as a veteran actor here, capable of encasing any role and making it as personable as possible. As a director, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is, for the most part, a job well done. Though there is a sense of unsteadiness in the mood of the film as it progresses, and it feels like he hasn’t quite identified what makes his style of shooting his own. In a 114 minute vehicle, there is a large amount of visionary techniques that aren’t exercised to their fullest potential.


       Moreover, despite this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty clocks in as the third best movie of the year for me. Taking in all of what it has to offer: mesmerizing cinematography, an incredible story of self-discovery and real-world encounters, exceptional performances, and an overall highly thought-provoking film, it’s fair to say that this exquisite, brilliant piece of art is the strongest chapter in Stiller’s book thus far.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

AMERICAN HUSTLE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: David O. Russell
Year: 2013
Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner
Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        Long before the widely praised American Hustle came out, I, as an unconditional lover of film, was infatuated with Christian Bale’s purported charisma in the sneak peeks (trailers) that detailed very little of the movie itself. And, long after seeing the movie, his performance had the same effect. Coherently, this is another one of David O. Russell’s crisp, accurate films that was anticipated before its arrival, and greatly commended afterwards. In short, American Hustle gave film lovers something to look forward to, and it didn’t let us down.

        Within seconds of the opening shot, awe plastered itself upon the width of my face. “Who starts a movie off with some guy fixing his fake combover?”. The quiet brilliance was nearly too much to handle, so when very next shot displayed a trio of some of the finest living actors throwing around potent lines of dialogue, I knew I was going to love it; I don’t stand corrected.

        Often times, people use the phrase “before its time” as a complement, and understandably so. For film, when a large quantity of it (stylistically speaking) has gone downhill since the 90’s, it would be more than appropriate to say that American Hustle is after its time. Truly, that’s what I enjoyed so much about it. I’m not sure if it was his intention, but David O. Russell modeled his newest film’s structure after that of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (though it was far from derivative), opening with a shot in need of explanation from a linear structure, starting from the beginning. Then it took us back through that scene again, and continued the story. It was, quite honestly, the best way this movie could have been written, and it was presented very well.

        But it did feel like I was sitting in the theater for a long time. Admittedly, it’s not as engaging as his other works (specifically Silver Linings Playbook), a result of the inability to identify a protagonist or main conflict in the story until about an hour or so into the picture. However, it kept me entertained (for the most part), and it was so well made that whatever lags that may have occurred in the development of the plot can and should be dismissed.

        Of course, it’s not just the steady, evocative direction that makes it among the best films of the year, though. Probably the two most evident aspects of this motion picture that qualifies it as such are the powerful performances and the artistic costume design. Not a scene went by when I wasn’t in awe at the beauty of the wardrobes and the craft of the hair styles, or, on another note, swept away by the accuracy of the time period captured.

        So, will it win Best Picture? To answer with words said by the movie’s own (Bale), “people believe what they want to believe, but the guy who made this, was so good...” that it sure has a solid chance.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Lawrence

Year: 2013

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence

Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

       Before teen dystopian novels became dull and redundant (yes, I’m talking about Divergent), there came a trilogy of teen novels called The Hunger Games. As they caught publicity and the eye of certain filmmakers, it seized its opportunity upon the silver screen. For a follow up to a good film (The Hunger Games, 2007), Catching Fire isn’t bad. It showcases a lot of the same stylistics used in it’s predecessor, and offers new insight, too. What’s more, it’s also very entertaining.

        To begin, after a performance beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in the 2012 masterpiece, Silver Linings Playbook, everything Jennifer Lawrence stars in is worth seeing. Her talent continues to be displayed as she sustains the character of Katniss Everdeen, “Girl on Fire”, who, here, is re-entered into the Hunger Games, a 75th anniversary that supposedly would solve all of the governments revolutionary problems. But things are not what it seems, and Katniss, yet again, is put against the odds.

        But it is a sequel, so it can’t just get off scott-free (haha). While this element was more evident in the first film of the series, it still irked viewers including myself here, that being the lack of adult material. Of course, it was put out to attract a teen audience (job well done), but the way it avoids the intimacy and violence is a clear indication that reigns were applied. However, it is important for there to be some films that earn that PG-13 rating, but it is one thing that held Catching Fire, and The Hunger Games for that matter, back from being better.

        As I sat with my class of students on a field trip we attended to see this movie, I heard whoops and cheers all the way throughout the duration of the movie. Some of those whoops and cheers came from kids who had seen the film multiple times before. It is a movie that is, by no means, a masterpiece. For example, it’s structured rather awkwardly in some portions of the film. Nonetheless, it’s a successful chapter in the creation of Suzanne Collin’s dystopia. To conclude, I would say that it caught fire with the fans, and spread like mad.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

DRACULA (1931)

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Tod Browning, Karl Freund

Year: 1931

Cast: Beri Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Approved

Tod Browning’s vision of Dracula is a landmark in filmmaking. It’s not only a breakthrough in horror pictures of its time, but also an excellent showcase for the wildly talented Beri Lugosi. While it is unfaithful to the details of Bram Stoker’s masterful novel, it still delivers the story of the Transylvanian nightmare, the vampire who could control minds, possibly the most popular antagonistic fictional character of all time, Dracula.

The events of this film are as follows (however, they differentiate from what takes place in the novel), Renfield, a real estate agent (of the time), goes on a journey to Transylvania, where he attempts to make a sale in London to Count Dracula. Little does he know that The Count is not what he appears, and before long, he is taken under his influence and thrust into the living nightmare that is victimization. When he returns to London, along with The Count, Dracula has his motives aimed at a family who administer mental care to patient Renfield. Eventually, when worse comes to worse, one Dr. Van Helsing is sought out to protect the family from the vicious beast.

What’s amazing is that Lugosi wasn’t even supposed to be in the film at first, and after a rather haunting viewing of this motion picture, it’s hard to believe that it would be the same without him. The power behind his lack of dialogue is shockingly immense. Instead of caressing “Madam Mina” with his words, as it is displayed that he does in other adaptions, he instills fear into her and her protectors silently; his performance is brilliant, to say the least.

It’s easy to point out the cheapness, unbelievability, or cheesiness of some set designs in earlier films, but not here. From scene one, it purports a grainy, old-fashioned feel that never quite fades. What’s more, as a result, the viewer’s expectations for production design are considerably low, so when the journey to The Count’s lair takes place, and the eery, well done sets are shown off, viewers are catapulted into palpable fear.

Dracula (1931) is among Roger Ebert’s list of “Great Movies”, and that’s quite understandable. No other adaptions are quite as mesmerizing as such, and with the mark this film left, it’s hard to say that it shall be beaten in years to come. Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula may surpass it in production quality and faithfulness to the novel, but Tod Browning’s imagining is engrossing and far more well made, a film for the ages. To that, I saw bravo.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ABOUT TIME

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Richard Curtis

Year: 2013

Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: R

        Time travel flicks sometimes give me a headache. They are interesting and involving, but they also make you think too much. When About Time (the film I'm reviewing) ended, I was satisfied with it. At the same time though, I was mulling over many of the scenes in my mind. What began as a love story between two people eventually turned into one man's journey through adult life. As I viewed this London-based product from the director of the publicly treasured Love Actually, I couldn't help but over analyze the concept of the main character going back into the past and even in the smallest moments, changing things when vaulting back into present day. Trust me, when you see this thing it will drive you nuts because it never quite gets that part right. Therefore, in order to enjoy what's on screen, you have to not look too deep into the whole time travel concept. You basically have to enrapture yourself in the heartwarming vibes from the characters in it as well as the fact that it didn't deserve an R rating (a couple of cuss words shouldn't keep this from being a family film). You also have to believe that time travel isn't totally necessary when it comes to living a full and happy life. Those are my rules when taking in what I believe to be one of the best films of 2013.

        Resembling a sort of toned-down version (sans violence and escapist entertainment) of time travel oddities like The Butterfly Effect, Back to the Future, and, to an extent, Groundhog Day, About Time chronicles a young man's adult endeavors through the art of human transportation. The lead character being Tim Lake (played by a future Hugh Grant in Domhnall Gleeson, son of acclaimed actor Brendan Gleeson), is told on his 21st birthday that all the men in his family can travel back in time (it isn't explained why this is possible but there might as well have some mystery involved). Bill Nighy, perfect in his role as Lake's father, explains to him that all he has to do is venture into a dark space, squeeze his hands, and boom, he goes to the exact moment that he imagined in his mind. For me, the centralized and loving relationship between Tim and his father puts this thing over the top (in a good way). It sells the whole exercise formidably. Added to that, 75% of About Time, has a forwarding narration by said lead. It initially feels out of place only to emerge as a touching follicle toward wrapping things up.

        Now to be frank, I was initially put off by the fact that Tim wanted to do this to, you know, just get a girl to go out with him. But as the movie unfurled, he helps people on the side (friends and his sister to name a few) and builds a sort of solid foundation for a family dynamic. Let me put it this way, this movie is only a little over two hours long. However, there is an epicness that inhabits the proceedings and you get more than what you bargained for. I felt like I had been in the theater for over three hours, but believe me, I wasn't bored. Of note, though, you might have to ignore the fact that no one ages a lick in this exercise (it spans somewhere between 7-10 years I'm thinking). It's a minor oversight and shouldn't keep you from enjoying it.

        Also of note is the gist of Tim's time traveling plights becoming a little muddled when it comes to the workings of the plot. Thankfully, this is masked by a cast that delivers acting in the first class department. This is especially evident in Rachel McAdams as Mary, the object of Tim's affections. As expected, McAdams is effortlessly charming and fancy free. Two words describe her: glowing, radiant, eye twinkling (that's three words, oops). Along with the previously mentioned Billy Nighy, she adds leverage to the extreme likability factor embedded in About Time's character makeup.

        When you put it all together, About Time is a great holiday film, a serviceable date movie, and even possibly something you can take the whole family to (ignore the R rating, trust me). It's breeziness is accompanied by the affable people in it. In scene after scene you sense that they deserve the utmost level of happiness. And that for me, is the reason why I recommend this motion picture so highly. If you cry easily during romantic comedies (this one is more like a dramedy) then bring a slew of handkerchiefs. To put it mildly, there is no doubt that About Time is a keeper. If you haven't seen it, it's "about time" you get to the multiplex!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

LAST VEGAS

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Jon Turteltaub

Year: 2013

Cast: Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        About a week before viewing this uneven flick concerning the exploitation of senior citizens hosting a bachelor party (in Las Vegas, where else), I saw its four stars (check that, four Oscar winners) promoting their film on a high end news station (The TODAY Show I believe). They looked grumpy and didn't really want to be there. But I thought to myself, maybe these guys aren't too confident about the product they are selling and they're just you know, going through the motions. I don't blame them. Besides the fact that this exercise becomes a tad darker and deeper emotionally toward its conclusion (the trailer is misleading), it's still disposable and somewhat hard to sit through. Last Vegas (the film I'm reviewing and talking about) brings together actors Robert De Niro, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Douglas. These guys are all screen legends and there are two reasons why they might have decided to appear in this individualistic cringe fest. One reason could be that they had never been on screen before and the opportunity although mediocre, presented itself. Another reason could be that they got paid handsomely. Anyway you slice it, they dent their reputations as actors ever so slightly. In the end, I think that, considering each of their track records, it's commonplace that they'll probably recover. I did, as a critic, but only after "Vegas" was almost saved by a solemn, feasible second half. There is some moral cleansing between a father and son along with a believable love triangle that lends itself to a 58 year friendship. Yes, this movie boasts itself as a comedy. However, it fails as one with jokes that are bland, lightweight, and familiar. And the overall theme got annoying as well (they're old, we get it). The fact that Last Vegas changes gears (by becoming mildly dramatic) almost makes it recommendable. I heavily stress the "almost" part.

        Containing a scene which almost caused me to walk out of the multiplex (the four 70+ plus year olds judge a bikini contest poolside) and directed by a guy who furthered Nicolas Cage's action star career with the National Treasure movies, Last Vegas examines four best friends (since childhood) who have somewhat grown apart and live in different parts of the country. When Malibu hotshot Billy (played by slickster Michael Douglas who in almost everything he's in, has to get with a woman half his age) decides to get engaged, he calls his buddies to get together in Las Vegas for the typical male debauchery. Paddy (played by Robert De Niro who is in just about every movie out in 2013) is a widower who lives alone in New Jersey. Then there's Morgan Freeman's character Archie, who had a mild stroke and is being taken care of by his overbearing son. Finally, we have Florida resident Sam. He's played by Kevin Kline who with shades of his comedic brilliance in the past, gives the flick's strongest performance. Kline's character has been given the OK to cheat on his wife (by his wife) so he enthusiastically tags along.

  

        Last Vegas, despite what you might have heard from other critics, didn't remind me of The Hangover (not in the slightest expect for the whole location aspect). That film was outrageously funny and edgy. Plus, there isn't much of a sense of danger going on here like there was with the characters in The Hangover. "Vegas," with its automated sense of situational comedy, made me chuckle a couple of times here and there. But in a way, it wasn't that amusing because the jokes were constantly aimed at the adage of old age. The filmmakers seemed to want to shovel this notion down my throat. After a while, I was a little put off and felt internally bloated (no pun intended).

  

        Honestly, I can name a ton of films that are worse than Last Vegas. But there's gotta be something more challenging or more rewarding than this considering the talent involved. Its strong points: the title (Last Vegas just roles off the tongue, why not), the cast, and the somewhat interesting premise taken to task. Its weak points: the way this vehicle stereotypes people of a certain age, the jokes that fall flat more than 50% of the time, and the fact that all the funny parts happen to be in the trailer (I'm sure it was a blatant marketing tool to get people into the theater). So to end this review, I'll leave you, the moviegoer, with this piece of sage advice: if you choose to attend a showing of Last Vegas, make sure that it's not the "last" time you'll hit the theater in 2013 (that's a nice way of saying that there are other, better films out there).

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Tobe Hooper
Year: 1974
Cast: Marylin Burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        When I discovered that my friend held, in his possession, a copy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) I avidly begged him to borrow it. This is understandable, considering how the multiple media stores I visited over the Halloween month failed to provide a copy of the seemingly rare DVD. But alas, my friend came through (I lent him The Color of Money, we’ll chalk it up as a fair trade), and I got my hands on the classic horror film that “Did for meat-eating what Psycho did for shower taking”(Marylin Beck, Hollywood). 

When several young adults travel down south in a van to a destination that is apparently murky to them, they come across real trouble in an act of desperation: a family bound by incestuous and reasonably sick morals. One or two of them go missing in a hunt for gasoline, and, from then on, it becomes a helpless situation that feels palpably real.

To be sure, this film is terrifying. The situation that the protagonists are in is concocted so brilliantly that it, automatically, gets my recommendation. Concerning the plot, what anchors it down is the harshly unnecessary dark comedic element that left me with a bad aftertaste.

Beyond that, the structure of this 83 minute movie really perplexed me. Director Tobe Hooper filmed this motion picture rather subtly, dragging the viewer along for the first (dare I say) rather dull 30 or so minutes, which he spent setting up the inevitable. As for the climax, it’s absolutely effective. It’s horrifying and totally involving, but then, Hooper doesn’t wrap it up well either. It’s as if he didn’t want to do the film total justice. That’s what’s so confusing about “The Massacre”.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was remade in 2003, and I can’t tell you how happy I am about it. The original is no masterpiece, to put it lightly. It’s structured awkwardly, and doesn’t boast itself as much as it needed to. But the remake does. It’s directed steadily, it’s longer, more protracted, more real-life, more serious, and more detailed. Ultimately, it’s a better film. For the first time in horror history, I discovered why exactly horror flicks are remade. They’re (or at least this one’s) purpose is to expand, correct, and update. While I believe that the original is definitely a landmark in horror filmmaking, I think that it is faulted, and it was remade for good reason. To that, I say job well done, horror enthusiasts (this time).

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts:  Brilliantly horrific, imitated but never duplicated, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre represents the purest form of terror known to any cinema buff. Thousands of countless ripoffs and average remakes have tried to capitalize on its success, but with minimal gore and a grainy, sadistic edge, the original 1974 "Chainsaw" is untouchable. The fact that an unknown director (Tobe Hooper), a cast of nobodies, and a shooting schedule in 100+ degree Texas heat could produce a horror flick light years ahead of its time is a miracle in itself. Give credit to actress Marilyn Burns who coined the term "scream queen" before Jamie Lee Curtis could even get her hands on it. Let me just put it right out there, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the greatest films of all time. It will haunt you for days after you view it. Guaranteed.  

THE COUNSELOR

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2013
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Every aspect of the 2013 release The Counselor (minus the philosophically damned script), tells you that this is a Ridley Scott film. If you enjoy the way he carefully directs by bringing scenes to a slow creep and then having things interrupted with an act or two of brutal violence, then this will satisfy you, the fan of said director. I have to say that, initially, I had become bored with the first 30 minutes or so of this slick, trashy (might as well throw in stylized) sort of two hour resembling of a cable TV drama (rated for mature audiences of course). It started off as pretentious and self indulgent. You have actors constantly engaging in conversations with each other that go on longer than needed. And the dialogue is all about the meaning of life and such. Therefore, I kept thinking to myself, why does everyone in this vehicle have to be so smart? Although the performances were substantial (with the exception of the continuously miscast Cameron Diaz), it seemed as though the script required almost all the cast members to be Socrates (the supposed founder of Western philosophy).

        Brought to life by rookie screenwriter Cormac McCarthy (his novices shows in his screenwriting even though he's a well accomplished novelist) and dedicated to Ridley Scott's brother (famed director Tony Scott) who committed suicide during filming, The Counselor examines a lawyer who, on the side, gets involved in drug dealings with the Mexican cartel. Hoping to get a huge return back and taking different angles of advice from a drug kingpin named Reiner (played with a goofy stature and an even goofier haircut, by Javier Bardem), "Counselor" (he has no name, this is what everybody calls him) eventually gets in way over his head. He is warned by a middleman named Westray (played by Scott veteran Brad Pitt) that such a deal might be the wrong path to be taken. Furthermore, it doesn't help that he puts his, I guess, pregnant wife (Laura played by Penelope Cruz) in harm's way throughout. Let me put it this way, I found myself more embroiled with "Counselor's" fate as every other character began to die off. I read a separate review that said this motion picture was sort of a dark neo-noir. By definition, neo-noir films deal with social ramifications so I guess that critic pretty much got it right.

        Anyway, if you can get past the gnawing characteristic of the aforementioned tainted screenplay, then you'll find that this movie barrels along by becoming more intriguing and more involving. You realize that Scott knows that there is a problem with the script (he didn't write it), but he decides to be in complete control of the camera anyway. He directs with confidence and funnels little nuggets here and there from his other movies, plastering them into this one. His cast is vast and diligent (a couple of cameos by some notable screen talents). He films sequences either from a long distance away or close up with two actors trading words in a small, claustrophobic space. Last but certainly not least, he puts a relatively unknown yet well seasoned Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Known in this flick as simply "The Counselor," he is able to carry the whole two hour running time quite well. He's in almost every frame (Fassbender looks a little like a young Jeremy Irons and has Ewan McGregor's manneristic smirk) and goes toe to toe with some big name actors (Brad Pitt) that seem to fade in and out of the proceedings. In the end, you don't quite know what the future has in store for him. But you get a sense that his character is the type of person who falls prey to the notion of bad things happening to not so bad people.

        All and all, The Counselor, as a movie, likes to leave little tracings of symbolism here and there (especially in the opening scene). Its intentions are to let you know that it has deeper interludes that extend far beyond the simple art of a drug deal. Yes, there are little flaws that are evident (some of the dialogue is borderline laughable and cringe worthy) but in the end, it still comes off as weirdly sophisticated. It's for the moviegoer who can hold his or her attention span and not harbor to all the disposable drivel that's thrown in year after year (stuff like remakes of classics which I've been ripping on since March). To be honest, I don't know if I would put this thing on my top ten list of 2013. However, it resonates with you minutes after you see it. And that's something I look for when I want to garner a recommendation. It also has the type of ending shot that I like where the camera focuses on a main character's face and goes suddenly to blackout (without any type of fading). With The Counselor, you get a mostly trademark Ridley Scott film and heck, usually he's incapable of making anything mediocre. Halfway into the second act when things get dangerous, Brad Pitt's character states, "I'd say it's pretty bad, then multiply it by ten." Yeah, I'd say this flick is not so bad, so I'll just give it three stars.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE PURGE

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Director: James DeMonaco
Year: 2013
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder
Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Considering that it is compiled by a series of hopeful themes concerning humanity, concepts of futuristic violence, and Ethan Hawke, you'd think that my "two words to describe this movie" (the movie being The Purge) would be something other than laughably bad. However, thanks to the totally inept way in which the director and screenplay writers brought this movie to life, those two self-explanatory words, yet again, don't stand corrected. Translation: it was a total botch-job. With every predictable plot turn this thing took, the ninety minutes in which its encased in grew even longer. As the movie progressed, and more characters were introduced, I seriously considered the fact that it may be a really dark comedy. However, when the closing credits rolled around, I realized the job of making The Purge was simply put in the wrong peoples' hands, and was just presented at the wrong time (I think most Americans are smarter than what this movie makes us out to be at this stage in the game, though I could be wrong).
 
        Annually, there is one night devoted to a nationwide "Purge", meaning all crime is legal, because apparently this launched the United States almost totally out of all poverty, job issues, and crime in the near future. For Hawke's family, there should be no trouble making it through the night considering that his wealth is a result of him creating the ultimate safety home system for this particular reason. However, when the odds are put against his family, and their lives are questioned, what measures will they go to to survive?

        The truth is, I really did the movie justice with that plot description. It's so predictable that it's not thrilling at all, and the fact that the movie even takes its own plot seriously made me go numb. What's disappointing about The Purge is the opportunity that it beheld. As opposed to exercising a well done story to a satisfactory extent, it comes off as a big tease. Whether I say that it's silly or a misfire, bad or awful, self realizing or oblivious, it doesn't really matter. The quality of the movie is dependant upon how closely the viewer examines it as a cinematic exercise. My advice is this: if you are looking to enjoy it, don't pull out your magnifying glass because you'll realize that you just wasted an hour and a half.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

GHOSTS OF MARS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: John Carpenter
Year: 2001
Cast: Ice Cube, Natasha Henstridge, Ice Cube, Pam Grier
Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        Between early 2000 and late summer 2001, three movies about the planet Mars opened in theaters nationwide. Ghosts of Mars (the film I'm reviewing) happened to be the last one to come out (the other two were Mission to Mars and Red Planet, both being box office duds). Normally, this would be a disadvantage, but to put it mildly, this 17th feature by one of my favorite directors of all time (John Carpenter), happens to be a complete misfire entirely on its own. There isn't a whole lot that can save this movie. It copies a little off of Carpenter's own, much better work (the fight scenes are solid but they seem straight out of Big Trouble in Little China and the plot elements echo a little from the critically acclaimed Assault on Precinct 13) and, in general, it feels like a rushed production complete with a bland opening credits font. Now granted, what Carpenter did with his earlier films is justifiably good. They had a low budget look to them like this one, but they also had an admirable story, solid direction, reputable acting, and above all, a good script. Ghosts of Mars doesn't really have any of these things and, if it did, I was totally unaware after a mid-day viewing. I'm sad to say that this is a clear hack job from someone who I will always think of as a master of fear and thrill. Since "Mars," he has only made one more feature film in the past twelve years (The Ward). I genuinely hope that this misstep didn't shake his confidence, but I could be wrong.

        Projecting itself as an exercise with many unhinged flashbacks (heck, the whole hour and a half running time is told in one large flashback) and exhibiting a rushed sort of unpolished opening credits sequence (not to mention showing a rather cheap looking set design right off the bat), Ghosts of Mars tells the story of how the red planet is a colony and almost all of it is a liveable type of atmosphere for humans. A team of police officers led by Commander Helena Braddock (a wooden Pam Grier) venture to Mars and must take on a prisoner transfer (James Williams played by Ice Cube). While there, they discover that the planet is overrun by possessed humans (of an extreme violent nature) who sort of look like a cross between Linda Blair (The Exorcist) and zombies with lots of make-up. Like I said earlier, this flick is told in the form of flashbacks upon flashbacks with Carpenter using a lot of dissolves (fade ins and fade outs) that just add to the cheese factor. I know he's a better director than this, and I've seen what he's capable of. Maybe he didn't have total creative control. That, I guess, remains to be seen.

        With all the nonsense going on in "Mars," the one true bright spot might be the inflicted martial arts-inspired action sequences set to Carpenter's rather subdued heavy metal soundtrack. In terms of casting, I think Ice Cube (James 'Desolation' Williams) gave pretty much the best performance. Listen, the guy is no Laurence Olivier, but he fit his role like a glove and had a lot of fun with it. In the lead role, Natasha Henstridge (Lt. Ballard who is second in command) was okay despite coming off as a little arrogant and smug. As for the rest of the cast, well they pretty much phone their performances in. In a way, it seems kind of fitting for a movie this lazy and, well, this contrived.

        In retrospect, I can't, for the life of me, fathom why this motion picture took place on or had anything to do with Mars (I meant a really fake looking sound stage made to look like Mars). I mean, the whole premise was the defeating of and escape from crazily possessed, demonic entities. The red planet seemed like just a last minute background story to go along with the couple of other bad movies that it inspired. As for the plot letting us know that Mars is an okay location for human beings to survive on without proper space suits or helmets, all I gotta say is gimme a break! Having the cast walk around the planet this way just makes their surroundings seem much more fake. In general, Ghosts of Mars takes itself way too seriously to begin with. It's the type of disposable fluff that has "straight to DVD" written all over it. As for Carpenter, I don't know him personally, but I'm sure he recovered from this debacle. Basically, Ghosts of Mars didn't have a "ghost" of a chance at fulfilling his full potential as a renowned filmmaker.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Dwight H. Little
Year: 1988
Cast: Donald Pleasence, Ellie Cornell, Danielle Harris

Genre: Horror/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        As October 31st is steadily approaching, I have been quietly revisiting some of the random slasher flicks from the very popular series being the Halloween sequels and prequels. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, is a sequel that sort of stays faithful to the original, groundbreaking horror film from 1978. Although not as voyeuristic and shockingly effective as John Carpenter's low budget scream fest, "Return" has a similar look, similar feel, and garners the same production values also. It also has familiar types of set ups for the killer's dispatching of victims, and a cast of actors/actresses who are more charismatic (less paper thin) than in many other horror film knockoffs. Halloween 4 gets the job done and will satisfy a majority of the fans of this distance running series. It's a small hour and a half film with a B movie feel, but it doesn't try too hard to outdo anything that came before it. Honestly, this will never register as groundbreaking stuff. However, in its day, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers was a financial success and staked its claim as the last recommendable horror sequel in my most humbled opinion. The best reasons to see this 1988 release on video: freshness in the way the script by Alan B. McElroy allows the film to make a smooth transaction from the previous installments, a plot that can hold the audience's attention without being too outlandish, and an ending that's surprising and ultimately terrifying. For my money, it has the same feeling of dread as the conclusion of Carpenter's pragmatic vision. The shame in all of the Halloween movies is that after the fourth entry, the series went steadily, or should I say freakishly, downhill. Rob Zombie tried to re-introduce everything with his startling new vision (Halloween in 2007 and H2: Halloween 2 in 2009) but then, for me, it was too little too late.

        Beginning with a quietly haunting opening credits sequence and appearing more as the first actual sequel as opposed to the 3rd one (Halloween II in 1981 took place in a hospital the whole time while Halloween III: Season of the Witch in 1983, had nothing to do with the Michael Myers character), "Return" eliminates the presence of heroine Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis as an actress, became a big star and didn't want to have anything to do with the series, though in the film, they state that her character died in a car accident) and concentrates heavily on masked killer Myers as he mysteriously comes out of a decade long coma (as in the original, Myers again escapes from a hospital and takes a long slog of a trip to get back to Haddonfield). When he decides to venture back to the small, defenseless Illinois town (after a long hiatus), chaos ensures and the corpses pile up. His main target is Strode's daughter, being the shy, fragile Jamie Lloyd (played by then newcomer, Danielle Harris). Thankfully, there is doctor Samuel Loomis (the always reliable and likable Donald Pleasence who looks badly burned from the conclusion of the 1981 nightmare) and a hard nosed Sheriff (Sheriff Meeker played by Beau Starr) who join forces to try and eliminate the out-of-control sicko. Oh and I almost forgot, the addition of the townspeople comprising a lynch mob to stop Myers again adds a certain level of perkiness to the proceedings. And as I mentioned earlier, the characters are likable in "Return" and they have a tongue and cheek way about them (Sasha Jenson as the high school jock and selfish ladies man is a nonchalant hoot).

        All in all, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is admittedly not the most innovative horror film around. However, its almost similar second cousin feel to the original Halloween means that it has just enough spunk to deliver what the most ardent fans of the series want. I just think of this flick as a horror exercise equivalent to a James Bond movie (all the Bond films seem similar in structure, but just think the comparison of the superior Dr. No to the serviceable Live and Let Die). Now that everyone's favorite holiday (who doesn't like Halloween?) is almost here, grab some candy corn, cut up your favorite jack o' lantern, and throw in a DVD copy (if you can find one) of this harmless bit of mild gore and rollicking suspense. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is no masterpiece, but it's a welcome "return" to horror sequel escapism.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CARRIE (2013)

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Kimberly Peirce
Year: 2013
Cast: Julianne Moore, Judi Greer, Chloe Grace Moretz
Genre: Drama/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        Thus far, 2013 is proof that the concept of remaking classic films is probably the wrong thing to do. First, we got to witness a rather bland reboot of The Evil Dead. Now, we get another bland, lifeless, and unnecessary retelling of Brian De Palma's audacious and powerfully mesmerizing Carrie. I get it. I know why films are redone, the reason being to make money and to let a newer generation get to experience something similar to what went down over 30 years ago (blah, blah, blah). Listen, if these films didn't have an original copy that came before them, then maybe they'd be okay on their own. But the fact remains that The Evil Dead (1981) and Carrie (1976) already claimed their stake and to give them a second interpretation, to me, is just sacrilege.

        Coming off as a shot-for-shot newbie and having the majority of the actors actually looking age appropriate, Carrie examines a shy, telekinetic girl (Carrie White played by Chloe Grace Moretz who in every scene, seems to have her mouth gaping wide open) who is picked on by her classmates at school, has a religiously defiant mother (Julianne Moore as Margaret White), and out of sheer kindness (and realized guilt), gets invited to the prom (by the most popular boy in high school). As the film progresses, we don't quite no why, but Miss White has inherent powers by which she can move objects with her hands (the hand motions by Moretz aren't quite believable, sorry). When she realizes she can't take the bullying from her fellow classmates and the bible thumping crassness of her mother, Carrie goes a little bonkers (if you seen the original you know the story) and well, you get the drift. What hurts this movie and may have dented the original (what was the only fault of the 1976 version) is the way Carrie is treated from beginning to end. You feel sorry for her as a character and there is never any resolve when the flick comes to fruition. There is never a happy ending for her and you never get to empathize with her plight. Like I said earlier, I dig the original. But I disregard this buried (no pun intended) aspect of it.

        All explanations aside, with this current 2013 release, we get performances that are second rate (with the exception of Julianne Moore who plays Carrie's mom and Alex Russell who plays a slightly different version of John Travolta's character who is Billy Nolan), direction that lacks the swooping camerawork of Brian De Palma (even though it was helmed by the critically acclaimed Kimberly Peirce), and a lack of plodding creepiness that made the original such a 70's relic. Even the musical score has been modernized and filtered through an MTV type vibe. Yes, this version is much more violent and its lead does some pretty demonic things, but there's no sense of awe or dreamlike intensity that made the first one so mystifying (the opening scene in the original, within seconds, trumps the new version). Also, the aspect of 70's culture feels more tailored to this type of flick than having it take place in present day (the new Carrie has the ever popular iPhone/YouTube phase going on which I know is keeping with the times, but seems overly emphasized). In hindsight, this is a faithful yet laughably unfaithful rendition of Carrie and it's far from memorable or compelling. It hinders itself disposable and has the quintessential feel of every reboot you've ever witnessed (this is not a good thing). With good remakes (which are few and far between), the director adds a new twist or something more than an almost shot for shot retelling (sadly, this one comes pretty close to that). This new Carrie is on line with the type of modern horror films in which sterile, stylized blood and gore drips all over the screen while barely scarring the audience. Maybe it's me but I miss 70's and 80's horror films. They're grittier, eerier, and because of the time passed, grainier. Unless someone figures out how to reinvent the horror genre, we're gonna get scary movies that come off the world's biggest artificial assembly line. But hey, they're probably gonna keep making money because people wanna jump out of their seat (or think they're actually achieving that reaction).

        In retrospect, Carrie didn't need to be re-imagined (even though it kind of wasn't). It comes from the mind of someone who is too good for this type of stylized hack job. It's as if Kimberly Peirce (director of the powerful Boys Don't Cry) was so frightened that she wouldn't get another directing opportunity and had to settle for this one. I'm hoping that she gets back to what she does best which is making hard hitting dramas based on fascinating true stories. She does get the set design right, though, because the White family home in the original Carrie seems like a dead-on replica of this one. And Julianne Moore does harness the same psychotic intensity brought on by Piper Laurie in 76'. But alas, there's a moral to all this. Don't remake a great film when you know it's better to remake a bad one. To end this review, I'll leave you with the famous line from both Carries which is, "they're all gonna laugh at you!" Yeah, they're all gonna laugh at you, the viewer, if you think this is a serviceable motion picture.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

THE COLOR OF MONEY

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1986
Cast: Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio
Genre: Drama/Sport
MPAA Rating: R

        To my mind, there's only a few things that can happen when veteran actors Tom Cruise and Paul Newman team up with the wildly talented director Martin Scorsese and Richard Price, the screenplay writer of Clockers, to shoot a film about pool hustling. Considering all possible outcomes, and what any given critic may say, I'm going to plant both feet firmly on the ground and say that The Color of Money is one of the greatest motion pictures of all time. It is, in every respect, a four star film. Why it doesn't resonate this way with most viewers is beyond me, but considering that I am an avid fan of the director, and the fact that I've seen nearly every one of his films, I'd say that my expectations for the quality of his movies are greater than others. It would be an understatement to say that I was impressed with his 1986 feature film, The Color of Money.

         Considering that it purports itself to be the sequel of The Hustler, a pool hall film from the 60's that starred no other than Paul Newman himself, I'd say that The Color of Money doesn't feel like a second entry in the slightest bit. In fact, I'd hardly say that stands behind Goodfellas in Scorsese's directorial fame (though the fact remains that it does). By making this movie, he dug into a dirty, dingy, depressed atmosphere of reality that he hasn't explored in his other films such as Casino, After Hours, Bringing Out the Dead, Mean Streets, or Who's That Knocking at My Door. However, his directorial bravado, superb camerawork, and masterful handle of the material scene by scene clearly show that he isn't lost without a map from his last visit.

        Before even watching this movie, the pure description of what goes on in it is enough to make any film buff salivate. "Fast" Eddie Felson (Newman) "returns" as a liquor store/poolhall owner whose eye is caught by Vincent Lauria (Cruise), a cocky, sharp shooting pool player, whom Eddie uses to feel rejuvenated in the world of pool. In translation, Eddie takes Vincent under his wing, training and preparing him for a big, upcoming pool tournament, only to discover the intuitions of the sport resurfacing inside of him.

        The brilliance of this film concerns more than just the captivating storyline, to be sure. The script contains several fascinating layers of character and character relationship development. An example of this is evident in the unique and thought-provoking sexual tension between the character of Vincent's girlfriend and Eddie (this is just one good example). While the movie didn't necessarily require this aspect, it packs that in to increase the amount of mental and emotional impact on the viewers; it's not just about pool. It's an intense, involving character study that intrigues on multiple levels.

        Capping the film off with a musical score that money just can't buy (no reference there) and camerawork trademarks of his own, director Martin Scorsese has managed to do it yet again. He illustrates these characters and the events that they live through in such detail that I, as the audience member, am effected every time. The scenes of definition and significance are so potent that I feel the emotions that they both emit and subside. I'm constantly involved with what they are doing, and what they are feeling, and there's no one else to thank than the man behind the camera. The Color of Money is a film of infinite quality, intrigue, and mastery. Aside from other of the beyond talented director's masterful works, there's nothing quite like it.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The Color of Money is Scorsese personified. It was the first time he ever worked with Tom Cruise and Paul Newman (heck, it was the first time Cruise and Newman worked together). As a sort of sequel to The Hustler, "Money" fashions a bleak, dirty fascination with pool halls and hustling. The plot is a little thin, but again, this is a Scorsese movie. It's about the exuberant scenes of freewheeling direction complete with Cruise's Vincent Lauria coming off as a pool shark's version of a Samurai warrior. This is probably my second or third favorite flick by Marty. The only thing that bugged me was the abrupt and sort of not thought through ending. I wanted more but alas, two hours of poignancy and ironic bliss is substantially good enough. The Color of Money essentially has two Hollywood screen legends and who I like to call "the master" behind the camera. It's a set of matches made in movie heaven.