Reviews by lotr23

Forget the recent Indiana Jones film. If you want an action movie that won't falter in keeping the adrenaline on the highest possible level, stop right here. Sure, the recent Indy flick had some cool stunts, and it wasn't necessarily a bad movie, but it just became shockingly underwhelming in its last half hour after a series of great action-packed sequences, and with movies like these, one of the main purposes should be to give audiences a kickass ending. Indy 4 didn't give us that, but Wanted most definitely does. It (literally) goes out with a bang, even making the gutsy move of kicking audience members in the balls with the bold question it asks them right before credits roll.

Last year, James McAvoy gave a decent performance in Starter For 10 (an okay movie, but nothing special at all) and an incredible one in the masterful Atonement, but neither of those two performances would've given you a glimpse at how badass he could be. I guess that's also because of the boyish Scottish charm he has to him, but all that is deceptive as hell, because he is incredibly badass here, and yes, "badass" is the most appropriate word I can come up with to describe what he does with Wesley in Wanted. It's not just that he's awesome in the action sequences; it's also the wisecracking slyness we get from him in Wesley's voiceovers and in the dialogue-oriented scenes, which, believe it or not, there are several of those (I was worried when some critics were saying that the movie was fully action-based and never let up, and while that is largely true, there's a decent amount of dialogue-based moments that provide necessary respite). If anything, his only occasional failing is his American accent, and this problem usually comes across only in his voice-overs. But to be honest, if you compare his American accent to that of Jim Sturgess in the recent 21, McAvoy's accent seems near-perfect.

Though both him and Angelina Jolie are getting billing as lead actors, hers is more of a supporting role, so he's the one who has to carry this film and he's amazing in doing so. To make things even better, there is a scene around the second half of the film in which he is wearing jeans and no shirt, and looks steaming hot. I may have gasped louder during that scene than in any of the action sequences. And guys need not worry, because Jolie does show her bare rear end at one point. So, there's something for everyone. :)

I had no doubt that Jolie was gonna pull this one off easily. She's basically played this character before, as both Jane Smith and Lara Croft. Much like her Jane in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, her character in Wanted (named Fox, aptly I suppose) is a reticent femme fatale who means business and smiles smugly once she's achieved an objective. Contrary to what many people might say, she's a stupendous actress, and I don't mean to suggest that this is the only type of role she can pull off well, because that wouldn't be fair at all (just watch Girl, Interrupted or last year's A Mighty Heart). The backstory we get on Fox at one point during the film is particularly helpful in clarifying certain things that have happened and that will happen later in the movie. For those who claim that this movie is all action and no plot, they may be partly right, but Wanted has a thousand times more plot than most movies of this genre, and that's saying a lot.

One of the problems I did have with the film has to do with the scenes that depict Wesley's "training" process (featuring numerous instances of him getting beaten in several ways and tons of blood spilling all over the place). These scenes are not only far less effective than the film's action stunts, but they go on for too long; I felt like part of that running time should've been allotted to either extend certain action scenes (such as the train sequence, which could've benefited from some polishing in the editing room) or to further the plot with more dialogue-oriented moments. Also, the twist at the end is all too convenient, though I suppose it was necessary to have the climax work the way the filmmakers intended it to. Speaking of that, during the final showdown a speech is given by Sloan (Morgan Freeman) at one point, and were it not for the fact that Freeman was cast for this role, the speech might've felt sort of corny and lame. Thank God that there are actors like Freeman who can make so-so or bad material believable, and this is certainly not the only instance in which he's had to do this in a movie (in fact, to be fair, he's had to deal with A LOT worse).

Aside from being a heck of a thrill ride, Wanted uses what is admittedly a ludicrous plot to encourage people to get up off their asses and do something exciting with their life ("choose your destiny," as the cliched tagline exhorts). If anything, that encouragement, along with the sympathy we feel for Wesley, whom we initially meet as an average Joe who goes through life not doing much and has a boring job (like most people), is even more helpful in motivating the audience. Wesley isn't this invincible action hero (like, say, Bruce Willis' character in the Die Hard movies). He starts out as a regular guy, just like us, and he eventually turns, well, badass, thus making it far easier for us to become invested in the whole thing. Wanted is anything but boring, and very much worth checking out.

I feel bad whenever I have no choice but to give a negative rating to a movie that so obviously has good intentions, but there's no avoiding the truth: The Spiderwick Chronicles is inferior to most children adventure stories. The idea behind the story lacks creativity, the suspense in the action-based scenes is lightweight, and a lot of the answers/solutions to things are irrefutably lame. When the family of four (minus dad) moves into the mysterious house, the movie even rushes straight into the fantasy-oriented plot rather than giving us much of a preface to anything concerning these people we just met. The way this is done is quite jarring, to say the least, and though there are some things that happen throughout the film that attempt to rectify this, they never amount to much.

The only elements that at least make this an adequate movie (at best) are the film's earnest performances (particularly that of Freddie Highmore playing twin brothers Jared and Simon), a few scattered funny moments, and the GLIMMER of a subplot involving the protagonist's father that might get us to care about Jared if it occupied, say, 15% of the movie's plot as opposed to 5% of it.

If there weren't so many children adventure stories (like last year's Bridge to Terabithia) that were so much more entertaining and inventive than this, then I'd be able to say that The Spiderwick Chronicles is good, but it's impossible to say that when not only is there a lot that is better out there, but also, these filmmakers could've done a heck of a lot better. I mean, tomato sauce? Come on.

For the most part, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is hugely entertaining. It features a ton of cool stunts, most of which we've seen before, but none of which will fail to keep the audience engaged with the film. It's very easy to accept the movie's simplistic, often loopy, approach to things because we realize that it's an Indiana Jones movie and that something would actually be wrong if the whole affair felt even slightly more complex or serious.

When there's about an hour left on the film, things seem to be on their way to making this turn out to be a really solid piece of fun summer movie fare. There are a lot of pretty intense stunts (particularly a very good one involving a motor vehicle chase through the jungle) that all seem to be leading up to a high-energy climax. Instead, all of a sudden, these seemingly conclusive stunts which pit the good guys against the bad guys end, and we're left with our group of heroes faced with the task of returning the crystal skull, and it is here, when there are still about 30 minutes left (in what is definitely an overlong movie) that the flame goes out, thus leaving us with a shockingly underwhelming conclusion. Even when the lead villain (played by Cate Blanchett) re-emerges when there are about 10 minutes left, she doesn't show up to do much, and hence we don't get a satisfying payoff at the end at all.

The large amount of entertaining action sequences during the movie's first three quarters, coupled with the fact that Shia Labeouf looks incredibly hot in the outfit he wears throughout the film, make this a pretty worthy film that ultimately loses steam at the end. If I'd been on the editing crew, I would've definitely chopped off a lot of the stuff in the last half hour, so as to ensure that the movie ended leaving its viewers with an adrenaline high rather than in a state of restlessness.

Trade is a total train wreck of a movie. I say "train wreck" because it's a very helpful way of describing it. It starts out stumbling, yet you feel like it still has hope to get back on track... but no. It keeps falling off its rails, and just when you don't think it can get more disastrous, it ends so catastrophically that you almost wonder how the filmmakers didn't get a slight urge to even TRY to somehow curb the chaos that permeates this crapfest.

A lot of people are convinced that the mere fact that a movie deals with an important or controversial issue or explores a troubling subject that has caused tragedy for many people in the real world automatically makes it a good piece of cinema. If its intentions are good, then it must be good, right? Well, I'm not even positive that this occasionally exploitative film has good intentions, but more on that later. The point is, the fact that the filmmakers choose to make a movie about a socially-relevant or complex issue that we should be aware of is NOT, in itself, justification to immediately give credit to a film. It's all in the execution, and the sad thing is that this seems like an obvious fact, but a lot of people are clearly unaware of this.

Heck, I could choose to sit down right now and write a script for a film that depicts the issue of starvation in, say, an African country. It's a pressing issue, something we should all do something about, people are suffering and dying because of it, and it sure sounds like I have good intentions in having decided to write a script for a movie about that... but that means nothing. In order to be considered great, the film I've written must rattle the viewer emotionally or get to him/her in a way that most films don't. It must feature 100% believable characters (carried by actors and actresses who give deft performances), and it must be free of contrivances. In order to be considered just good, the film should have all these elements, but to a lesser degree, perhaps a few contrivances or plot holes or lackings in performances, but nothing that insults the viewer's intelligence. In order to be considered so-so, the movie would succeed at some of these things, yet not fare as well in other areas. And finally, to be considered bad (yet not bottom-of-the-barrel bad), the film must fail on the majority of these things, yet still feature a few moments that at least make it okay for you to sit through it and not feel the need to stop watching it... or to destroy the DVD for that matter.

Trade doesn't fall under any of the above categories in terms of its level of quality. It is manipulative as hell, unbearably simple-minded and stereotypical in its depiction of more than one group of people. The only fun thing about it is that you could rent it and then play a drinking game in which you take a shot every time something contrived happens. In fact, it's a good idea because it means you'll probably pass out or be busy throwing up way before the last third and won't have to endure the climax of the film which manages to suck all the possible tension out of a potentially suspenseful conclusion, and instead is nothing but laughably ridiculous. For those who haven't seen this movie, it may sound cruel for me to suggest playing a drinking game with a film about a subject like this one, but when you see the outrageously insulting treatment that the filmmakers give the subject, you might change your mind about who the cruel party is.

People talk a lot about how characters in bad horror movies are often really dumb because they run up the stairs instead of out the front door when a killer is chasing them or they don't just call the police when they should, etc. Well, I'll tell you right now that the average dimwitted character in horror movies is 50 times smarter than every character in this film, particularly the two kidnapped girls that the film focuses on. I'm trying not to spoil anything (even though you seriously shouldn't see this movie), but there is a moment in which they actually manage to escape from their captors, and the circumstances in which they get caught again is an insult to the intelligence of any viewer. If an 8-year-old watches this movie, even he/she will be severely confused as to why the girls don't run towards the large crowd of people when the approaching van is still so far away. It's ludicrous, and you have to see it to believe it (but, like I said, you shouldn't).

It makes me sick trying to even think of ways to describe how terrible the final 20 minutes of this film are. First of all, there's the online bidding scene, which somehow manages to be completely lacking in tension. I still have no idea how they pulled that off. Oh, that reminds me, a sidenote: the trailer for this film is deceptive, but in a way that is worse than most deceptive trailers. The trailer features the online bidding scene and then immediately ends with a shot of one of the girls saying "You pay for this", which, of course, seems like a spoiler because it looks like they're telling you that they succeeded in buying her and thus were able to save her. But the thing is that that line ("You pay for this") is not only uttered by a girl who is NOT the one they're trying to save in the online auction, it is also taken completely out of context, from an earlier scene (which, by the way, is yet another in the long list of ludicrous moments in the film). What's funny is that this spoils the ending, yet it doesn't even do it with a clip that is relevant to the ending, but it STILL spoils it (though, to be fair, by the time you get to the ending if you're unfortunate enough to do so, you'll already see it coming 100 miles away).

Then we come to the "showdown" in the New Jersey house of the woman in charge of the operation. You'll have a really hard time keeping yourself from laughing when you hear what the woman wants Kevin Kline's character to do right before he leaves the house with the girl and the way that he wants him to prove that he did it. Finally, the very last scene of the film is jarring in an awkward way, ambiguous in the message (if any) that it wishes to convey, and once again, contrived to an unbearable point, going way beyond merely insulting our intelligence. There's a limit to how much even the dumbest viewer can take and this movie shamelessly sprints through that line and goes way beyond it. In addition to all the lackings in the execution, the worthless script and the half-assed performances, the worst sin committed by this self-righteous film is that it thinks it deserves accolades simply because it has chosen an issue that is both pressing and tragic as the center of this heinous stinker of a story.

Here's the perfect opportunity for you to watch a downward spiral literally take place before your eyes as you watch a movie. During its first third, The Strangers starts out as a disturbingly creepy thriller that effectively keeps you on the edge of your seat and wisely realizes that a simple white mask on a human figure can be far more horrifying than the supernatural beings that often terrorize characters in horror films. These are all things that you can notice in the trailer of The Strangers, which is why I was very excited about this movie. I'm still waiting for the day when we'll get a truly haunting horror film that gets under my skin and keeps me from getting sleep at night. The only "recent" film that has come very close to that is The Blair Witch Project... but that was almost ten years ago.

So, The Strangers starts out with a great deal of potential to become that horror film I've been waiting for for so long. Unfortunately, something happens somewhere in the middle (before the middle, really) of this film that throws all that potential out the window. The Strangers becomes boring. The knocks on the doors become repetitive. Watching Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman run around scared and confused gets old. We're given nothing to separate what happens here from material we've seen in other films of the genre. When a third person (a friend to the characters played by Tyler and Speedman) arrives at the house, you'll probably be aware of his fate the very second he shows up on screen. Eventually, there comes a point that Speedman's character leaves the stage for a while, leaving Tyler's character to run around alone, trying to make radio contact with the police and hiding in the bushes from the villains who are haunting her... this is all fine and well, except that it is SUCH an extended sequence. It makes you want to say "Okay, will she stop playing around with the radio already? Is her boyfriend gonna show up anytime soon or did he just vanish into thin air?" The only good thing about this unnecessarily long sequence is that it ends with a very tense moment involving a closet, but it's unfortunate that they didn't do a very good job in the editing room with what comes before that moment.

What is most unforgivable about The Strangers, though, is the end. I don't have a problem with the fact that it doesn't have a happy ending. And that's not a spoiler because there's several things that point to the fact that the couple isn't gonna make it through the night. But that's not what's bad about it. What's bad about the ending is the incredibly lame way the filmmakers go about it. This is a film that apparently wanted to focus on the mounting tension and on highlighting suspense over gore, and all of a sudden, we are cheated at the end, by losing any and all tension and going strictly for conventional, distasteful gore. Nothing new or that you haven't seen before here. To make matters even worse, the very final shot of the movie involves one of those typical instances in which a character all of a sudden wakes up from the dead and lunges, for a final lame attempt at a "boo!" moment.

In a lot of ways, this film echoes last year's Vacancy; it starts out with a couple that is already dealing with some sort of emotional tension and negativity (which is a nice way to set up a film of this nature), and then proceeds to focus on the added tension that enters their lives once they start being haunted. The difference is that Vacancy, despite its lack of many surprises, keeps the rate of suspense up right until the ending, which needless to say is far better than that of The Strangers. Vacancy ends on an uncertain note, with the tension still high, whereas The Strangers unfolds kind of a like a deflating balloon. Tyler and Speedman do nothing to differentiate themselves from the dimwitted characters who usually populate horror films. I don't know if that is due to a lack of talent or to the fact that the script doesn't give them much to work with, but their lack of effectiveness certainly doesn't help this initially creepy, but ultimately unimpressive entry into the horror genre.

I'm convinced that the Harold & Kumar films are the only comedies that I'm able to forgive for their occasional tendency to overdo the toilet humor. Normally, that's a complete turn-off because it feels like a cheap, easy resort to get laughs out of the audience. Although this happens in Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, I'm sort of able to let it slide, just like I did with the original, because they make up for that weakness with the often pointed comedic insights that are aimed mostly at issues of racial bias.

There's an especially funny scene that is also the kind of scene that we shouldn't laugh at, but we do anyway, in which two Jewish guys are "tempted" by emptying a bag of coins right in front of them. It's humor in the Borat fashion, because we know how WRONG it is to find it funny, but it's tough not to laugh. Speaking of that, I suppose Borat is yet another example of a movie that at times veers in the toilet humor direction, yet makes up for it with comedic insight in other scenes.

In addition to the focus on racial issues throughout most of the film's gags, there's another element that the filmmakers aim their arrows at, and that is the question of how fair/effective the U.S. government is. From the trailer, it should be pretty easy for you to guess what the film's position is, seeing as the title characters are sent to the prison in Guantanamo Bay for bringing a bong on an airplane, and are immediately identified as "North Korea and Al Qaeda working together" because of their ethnicities (even though Kumar is Indian, not Middle Eastern, but they're obviously addressing the fact that many people can't tell the difference). The film depicts Ron Fox (Rob Corddry) as an asshole who immediately concludes that this means that North Korea and Al Qaeda are working together, and who "tempts" the Jewish guys with a bag of coins, and who even wipes his rear end with the Bill of Rights to show just how much he gives a shit (no pun intended) about the Fifth Amendment.

Obviously, this reflects that the filmmakers view the U.S. government as being monstrously close-minded and not really as committed to the values of democracy as it claims to be, which is why I was surprised by the interesting helping of irony we get once George W. Bush (played here by James Adomian) makes his appearance. Shock of all shocks, he's portrayed in a pretty positive light. Sure, he gets high with Harold and Kumar, but his character ends up making some pretty insightful remarks about how the President would LIKE to do things such as legalizing drugs, but he can't because he's constrained by certain things and people (one suspects the real George W. Bush would never be able to speak so insightfully). This leads to a very funny moment in which Bush, Jr. calls his father to tell him he's not gonna let him boss him around anymore. I just find it incredible that, considering how much of a consensus there is in terms of the negative view of the current U.S. President, the film actually pulls off putting the guy on a positive light here, even getting you to sympathize with the character. Heck, at the end of the sequence, Harold and Kumar say "Mr. President, you're awesome!" If President Bush wants an accolade like that, this film may be the only place in which he'll ever hear it.

But seriously, it takes balls to make a comedy that features an old lady who pictures a guy dressed up as a Muslim joking about the plane crashing by making a "falling plane" hand movement. I suspect this wouldn't have been kosher 5 or 6 years ago when 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds... yes, people do move on and stop thinking about even monumental tragedies like 9/11, as much as they say they never will. If they didn't move on, then you wouldn't be able to have a scene like this in a movie and have at least some people find it funny. I'll admit that I laughed at it, but that doesn't mean that I don't think 9/11 is a serious matter (it'd obviously be ridiculous to think otherwise). It also takes balls to make a comedy that ends up putting someone like Bush on a positive light; they could've easily resorted to a full-on negative parody, like plenty other movies and comedy shows have done, so they certainly get points for originality there.

I feel like my review has been way too serious for a film like this one, but don't let that fool you because Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay is indeed a funny movie. A few botched jokes and the continuing tendency to overdo the toilet humor keep it from greatness and from stealing Forgetting Sarah Marshall's spot as the best comedy currently in theaters, but if you're looking for a "dumb" comedy that still delivers smarts in all its silliness, then this should work just fine.

So, Jason Segel is brilliant. After watching Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I can't help looking forward to future comedic projects that he writes and acts in, because we're definitely in for some great stuff, if this film is a good indicator of that. The star of Freaks & Geeks (a much underrated TV show that should've definitely lasted much more than just one season) has used conventional material to craft a hilarious film. It falls just a little short of being as brilliant as Knocked Up, but it's still certainly an above-average comedy.

One of the most interesting things is that some of the main members of the Judd Apatow clan, like Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd, take the backseat in this film to play smaller, supporting roles, but that doesn't take away from the film's success at all. If we were left wanting them to be on-screen more because we already know how funny they are, that would mean that Segel and the two female leads were not doing an effective job in their roles, but this isn't the case. We do certainly get uproariously funny moments when Hill and Rudd are on-screen, but the three protagonists definitely hold their own.

However, I personally thought that the funniest moments in the film came from the supporting roles played by Bill Hader and the brilliantly hilarious British actor Russell Brand. The two scenes in which Peter (Segel) has webcam conversations with his stepbrother, Brian (Hader) are pretty simple, yet they are comedic genius. And Russell Brand as the absent-minded Aldous Snow, who thinks the world revolves around him, delivers the big majority of the film's hilarious moments, in my opinion... especially whenever he tries to give people advice.

Some of the film's weaker moments come with the aspects related to Peter's Dracula musical; I understand the WAY in which this is meant to be funny, but it didn't work for me as it probably will for other people. Also, there are times in which Segel tries a little too hard to get us to think his character is this mopey guy we should care about a lot; when it comes to comedies like this, we certainly need to care about the protagonist, but we don't necessarily need to ooze sympathy... we just need to laugh. Segel's probably a better writer than he is an actor (though that's not to say that he gives a bad performance here). In addition, some parts of the climax are a little too conventional. Thankfully, none of these things are big enough concerns because Forgetting Sarah Marshall is still yet another really good piece of sweet/raunchy comedy from the Apatow clan. This makes me look forward to Pineapple Express even more.

Stop-Loss is an odd mixture of authentic and implausible moments. It is because of the fact that the movie does have authentic moments that I feel bad in giving it the thumbs-down, but unfortunately, they're not enough to earn it a solid recommendation.

I'm still waiting for the day when we'll get a truly great film that focuses on the military conflict that the U.S. currently faces and its consequences, but perhaps we'll just have to wait till the war ends and several years pass for a great film to be made about it, much like it's been the case with other wars that have been portrayed on film. Last year, we had The Kingdom and In The Valley of Elah. Since the former was a more mainstream film that had a wide release, it was inevitably dumbed-down, which decreased its effectiveness by a lot, despite a nice helping of ironic insight in its final scene. Meanwhile, In The Valley of Elah had a much more limited release, and although it was anchored by a great lead performance, it was contrived, it often felt like a CSI episode, and worst of all, it tried waaaay too hard to jam its ideas down the viewers' throats. Though both films lacked in different departments, I'd say both were equal in quality (I gave a 5 to both). Stop-Loss ranks pretty much on the same level. At this point, I would still have to say that Jarhead is the best recent film to tackle this subject matter (and it's already been almost 3 years since that came out).

Ryan Philippe and Abbie Cornish give subtle, affecting performances, and I like the fact that the film focuses mainly on the road trip these two take yet never veers into the territory of romance. The incredibly hot Channing Tatum spends a few minutes during the first half of the film in briefs, and that's a VERY welcome sight, but unfortunately, the caliber of his acting isn't on par with that of his body. It's hard to cringe as you watch him struggle in all of the scenes in which he's supposed to display emotion. This is a problem particularly when his character, Steve, goes to see his buddy Brandon (Philippe) and his girlfriend Michelle (Cornish), who are in a motel room, and confronts both of them, asking Brandon to return to duty and his girlfriend to come back home. This scene requires a lot of him, as he has a lot of dialogue, and this is meant to be the point at which we start to notice the ideological differences between Brandon and Steve, so it is a very important moment, and it sucks that Tatum doesn't give us what we need. Props to Philippe for holding his own, though, because the scene certainly requires a lot from him, too. And actually, it's not as if Tatum can't act and/or display emotion - just watch A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. So, there's really no excuse for his less-than-stellar performance here.

It's hard to know what to say about Stop-Loss because it's inconsistent in its attempts to make this feel like a real, tangible story. Sometimes it comes across, and sometimes it doesn't. A drastic, unexpected turn of events takes place at the very end of Stop-Loss, and when this happened, I thought "Oh, cool, here we might have something that'll make this a good, insightful movie". What was the problem? This final moment in the film is overblown so much, with unnecessary long shots on people's faces to scan their reactions, and with a musical score that bleeds self-importance, that it takes away from the effectiveness of what would've worked better as a more subtle conclusion.

Much to my suprise, this sequel is more than just a step up from its predecessor. The original Step Up was an abominably bad film (the fact that not even Channing Tatum's amazing hotness was able to make it into a slightly enjoyable film really says everything you need to know about it). It lacked in its plot-related and dramatic aspects, perhaps a minor sin in a movie like this, BUT it also committed the horrible sin of featuring incredibly boring and uninteresting dance sequences. It was one of the worst films I saw in 2006.

This is not the case with Step Up 2 The Streets. When I saw that a sequel to Step Up was coming out, I was horrified, going by the general assumption that sequels are inevitably worse (usually much worse with films like Step Up). But miracle of miracles, this sequel actually makes up for much of what the original lacked, by actually giving us enjoyable dance numbers. Honestly, if the dance sequences are all you're interested in, then this film will serve as a fun diversion (unlike the original one, which actually NEEDED more dancing in it).

That said, though, the plot is still too generic and most of the characters are too thin for me to be able to call this a good movie. It's just a relief that it is soooo much better than the first one (which I awarded a 1 out of 10, and even THAT was being too nice). Briana Evigan gives us a protagonist that we definitely care about, and she's much better at displaying emotion than Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan combined. We root for Andie, and we feel for her on multiple occasions. The only other character I got invested in was Moose (Adam Sevani), who is interesting mostly because of the charm and goofiness he exhibits in most of his scenes. All of the other supporting characters are virtually bland and monotonous, and a particularly horrible performance is given by Will Kemp as school director Blake Collins. His smile at the end of the final dance sequence (when he finally "understands" everything) is cheesy and conventional beyond belief.

Considering the quality of most recent dance movies, this might easily be one of the best ones, though, and that's very surprising. Perhaps we'll eventually have a great dance film if they keep making Step Up sequels and they keep getting better and better, contrary to what normally happens.

It's always very disappointing when a film that has potential for greatness throws all that potential out the window, and that is precisely what happens in 21, a film that could've been nail-biting and intense, perhaps even a successful coming-of-age tale, and ends up not working as any of those things. You want a good movie that deals with this topic, features interesting characters, and actually EXPLOITS card games/gambling to create tension? Look no further than Rounders, if you haven't seen it yet. In 21, we're not really worried for a single second that our lead character won't be able to get the money he needs to get into med school. We don't care. In Rounders, you're literally on the edge of your seat whenever you think the protagonist (played by Matt Damon) is in danger of losing his money, or has lost it. I suppose it also helps that Rounders doesn't have a sophomoric script, which 21 most definitely does.

Speaking of Rounders, let me add that Matt Damon is a thousand times a better actor than Jim Sturgess, who plays our "hero" of sorts in 21. Let me tell you all the ways in which Sturgess fails, as Ben. First of all, he tries and tries and tries, but man, he cannot pull off the American accent. There are numerous occasions in which his true accent comes out. There's a moment in which he says "Oh God", and you can hear the longer "o" sound so clearly, that I thought I wasn't hearing right, but apparently I was. Secondly, he fails completely at being believable as the genius geek he's supposed to be. As a geek, I'll admit that he's more believable than, say, Ryan Philippe in Antitrust, but that's not saying much. Now, these two failings would be okay if they were the only issues, but Sturgess also doesn't succeed at coming across as a real character at all. Were he playing Ben with his native accent and as a non-geek, he would still feel like a piece of cardboard rather than a solid individual.

I saw Sturgess just recently in a supporting role in The Other Boleyn Girl, as the brother of the two female protagonists, George (the Boleyn boy, heh), and he was certainly better than he is here, ESPECIALLY during his last scenes in the film, in which he conveys a thousand times more emotion than anything he ever conveys in 21. He was also one of the stronger points of the otherwise overrated Across the Universe, as the lead of that film. I've wondered what it is that's so charming about him, because he's not really particularly attractive or anything, and then I realized that it has something to do with his smile and certain other facial expressions, I suppose. Ironically, the film actually ends with a shot of him smiling (aww, don't tell me you think I spoiled the movie for you... did you really think it was gonna end tragically? lol). But even THAT doesn't save the movie.

The other performances? Both Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne are initially believable, yet that wears off towards the end. To their credit, though, that might simply be because of how silly and contrived everything becomes during that segment of the film. Kate Bosworth is as ineffective as she's always been (Jill is another case of someone that isn't believable for even a second as the "rocket scientist" we're told she is). What's worse, seeing Bosworth on-screen with Spacey brought back memories of Superman Returns... gag... one good thing I'll say about 21 is that both actors at least give better performances here than they did in Superman Returns, so, well, I guess that's comforting. As Kianna, Liza Lapira gives one of the better performances in the film; her facial expressions often add much-needed tension to the otherwise lackluster montage scenes in which the students are playing Blackjack, so thank God they cast her. As Choi, Aaron Yoo keeps typecasting himself into the silly kid role that he also played in Disturbia, and because of that, there's not much space for him to show any concrete acting range.

Among the very few good things I can point out about the movie, there is a scene in which Ben and Jill are on the train (or the T, as they call it in Boston), and Ben tries to kiss her and Jill doesn't let him. This scene could've taken the predictable, contrived path of having Jill get pissed off and leave, and then later having us endure a scene in which Ben apologizes, etc, but instead, the scene unfolds pretty realistically (quite a departure from what the rest of the film feels like). Jill tells him that they can't do that because they're on the team together, but that he doesn't need to worry about it, and reassures him a lot, and it helps that this is all happening in a rushed and awkward manner, as the train is at the stop Jill gets off at. I don't know, but this scene just reminded me a lot of the way things actually happen in circumstances like that, and it's a shame that the same approach wasn't taken towards the rest of the movie. Another positive I'll point out is that I didn't necessarily see the "twist" at the end coming... I say "twist" in quotation marks, though, because as much as I didn't see it coming, it wasn't a particularly inventive shocker either. It's something you've seen happen in movies a dozen times before. The only other thing I enjoyed about 21 was watching the scenes that featured the campus of the college I attended and graduated from recently, Boston University (yes, the scenes are set in MIT, but they were actually shot at BU). Other than all of that, there's nothing interesting to be found here. One of the worst sins you can commit is take what was apparently a nail-biting real-life story and turn it into an implausible (yes, it's based on a true story, but the way events unfold on-screen is indeed implausible, thanks to the approach taken by the cast and crew) and monotonous piece of filmmaking.