Underworld - Rise of the Lycans

J: Ok, Rant Alert! This is the first time that my PIC and I have gone to see a movie like “Underworld – Rise of the Lycans” together, even though we both seem to agree this is a favorite genre – that being variously known as sci-fi, fantasy, and/or horror. Now, here comes the rant. I have always felt this genre should never be reviewed by mainstream critics. With the exception of the rare acknowledged blockbusters such as “Iron Man” or “The Dark Knight”, if you are going to see a movie like this expecting an Academy Award winning performance with deep meaning and pathos, GO SEE ANOTHER MOVIE! I have read so many reviews containing words like “gratuitous violence” and “graphic gore” followed by an admonition to avoid said film for those reasons, and to those people I say “What do you blockheads think we go to these movies to see?” So please, I beg you, go see whatever movie Meryl Streep is currently starring in AND LEAVE US ALONE!

Well, I feel better – how about you? As a fan of the “Underworld” franchise I was eager to see the back-story for some of these characters, even though flashbacks in the previous movies gave a hint about how the war between the Lycans and Vampires began. It was nice to see it fleshed (oh yeah, pun intended) out a bit more. And I think it speaks volumes about this maligned genre that well respected actors like Bill Nighy (Viktor) and Michael Sheen (Lucian) take parts in movies like this and enjoy the experience. Who wouldn’t? It gives the actor a chance to really let go and be a little over the top. I was also impressed with the effort that director Patrick Tatopoulos put into the character development, of course that was the point but it could have been easily lost in gore, which can often be the case. It was fun to see how some of the secondary characters, particularly Kevin Grevioux as the warrior Lycan, Raze, came to the story. However, it is here that I have my one minor complaint – if memory serves, Viktor exiled Tanis (Steven Mackintosh), at least according to the second installment, “Underworld Evolution” but I was left with a conflict here that I would like to see addressed – sorry, saying more than that would be a spoiler and in this case I won’t do that to my fellow fans. That, of course, will entail an additional prequel, which is ok by me because I’m pretty tired of Selene. More chain-mail and less Pleather, please.

Once again, I enjoyed seeing Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen work their magic. I always had a problem with Elrond the Elf also being Agent Smith, but somehow I have no problem with David Frost as a werewolf – something about the 70’s maybe? Also, one universal criticism I have of this genre is that sometimes the cinematography can be too dark but not in this case. The sets and the CGI blended seamlessly and were extremely well done. Will I see this movie again? You bet! Vampires, werewolves and the sexiest Lycan on the face of the planet? Are you kidding? SIGN ME UP!

K: Underworld 3 rocked! Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy are such incredible actors that they elevate this good action/sci-fi movie up to just plain old good movie period. I was a little concerned that this, being a prequel with the basic story already explained in the first movie, would be a little boring. I was so wrong. Where the first two movies focus more on action and plot, this one focused on the characters, which is why these excellent British actors absolutely shine in this movie. Fans of the first two movies will enjoy this one as it nicely fills out the overall mythology while following the characters through their story of love, power and betrayal.

My dad gave me flack about seeing this movie. J and I were originally going to see The Wrestler with Oscar nominated Micky Rourke but opted for this one instead and he couldn't understand why. But last night I was vindicated when I forced him to watch the first Underworld movie, and now I have created another convert to the series (so there). Also, this was the second time I watched it and I enjoyed it much more this time around than the first. I was able to pick up so many subtleties and details that I missed during the first viewing, which just further proves what an awesome movie it was to begin with. If you haven't seen any of the Underworld movies I highly suggest that you run right out to your neighborhood movie rental store and pick up the first one. You will next in my line of U converts... *heh heh heh*

Frost/Nixon

J: It was a very strange experience to watch a movie based on an event and time in history that I actually lived through. It was something akin to having a really bad acid flashback – or so I’ve been (ahem) told. But leave it to Ron Howard, truly one of the most gifted directors when it comes to this genre, to take “Frost/Nixon” in a direction that was unexpected.

I have always been a firm believer in using the same actors for their parts when a play is turned into a film, even though the wisdom of the Hollywood Machine is to put, often miscast, big box office stars in a play-to-film effort to boost the take. Case in point (this is an oldie but one of my Top 10 gripes), who in the world got the bright idea that Marlon Brando could sing the part of Sky Masterson in “Guys and Dolls”! Fortunately, Ron Howard has enough power, and talent, behind him to get the original primary cast members of “Frost/Nixon” to reprise their roles in this extremely well done adaptation. Frank Langella embodies Richard M. Nixon in a way that is close to frightening. He is, by turns, affable, scary, self-loathing, arrogant, and extremely confused – exactly the Nixon I remember. Not to mention he looks just like him….sorry, just had to suppress a chill! And, frankly (no pun intended), I think David Frost ought to get up every day and utter a sincere “thank you” to Michael Sheen because the David Frost I remember NEVER looked that hot! And Michael wears the 1970’s very well, both in his “period costumes” if you will, but also inhabiting the wild, anything goes attitude of the era. Hard to believe he is a werewolf on his days off! But, appearances aside, each actor personifies each person right down to their mannerisms and quirks.

The supporting cast does a wonderful job and all stay true to the time period. By the way, Clint Howard better hope his brother NEVER stops making movies! But then again, we should all hope the same. Beginning the movie with each of the characters in an interview format was a neat treat and what I mean by an unexpected direction. It took a minute to figure out that I was watching the characters and not the actors portraying them. All worked very hard to breathe life into what could have been a deadly boring story line.

In addition to the awesome acting and directing, I couldn’t help notice how the lighting was made to play around Frank Langella as Nixon. He was always moving from light into shadow, a wonderful metaphor for this particular president. Far from being a dry retelling of history, this film holds the viewer with all the emotions and machinations that went with this strange period in our history. Yes, you know the plot but you don’t know the back-story and for that reason alone I would recommend this movie. Loved the movie but I have to say, I’m certainly tired of living through rotten presidents!

K: I had put off seeing this movie because I thought I wouldn't be able to follow all the political intricacies of the period since I was a toddler when all of this happened in real life. But I was thrilled that this movie wasn't like that at all. I could just relax and let myself get sucked into the story (the best quality of a good movie, imho).

I would say that the best part of the movie was that Nixon wasn't painted in the flat and predictable colors I was expecting. The depth of his character was fabulously acted by Frank Langella, who really brought to life the insecurities that seem to have been the driving force behind all the mistakes Nixon made.

Obviously, Michael Sheen is an excellent actor and Ron Howard certainly knows how to make a great movie. Everyone should spend two hours to watch this one. It's definitely worth the time.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

J: Heavy Sigh! Once again, after eagerly awaiting a movie, I have to confess a bit of disappointment with “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. While my issues with this remake of not only one of my favorite sci-fi movies but also one of the first of that genre I remember seeing as a kid are small, they are significant.

This movie is about 15 minutes short of being brilliant. I have no problem with the necessary change of plot focus in this version. The original version was made during a time when most “flying saucer” movies were thinly disguised treatises about the paranoia surrounding creeping Communism and fear of the atom bomb. Since that’s somewhat passé I agree a different focus was necessary and the one chosen was ultimately the right one. More about that in a minute because it is at the crux of my biggest issue with the movie.

Keanu Reeves is the perfect Klaatu. He has the textbook deadpan delivery for someone tasked with Klaatu’s mission, as well as being alien to both his human body and the emotions that come with it. This ability has usually been the critics’ target for his past performances, however, in just the same way a director would want Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to chew through his scenery, Keanu’s gift for understatement serves most of his characters extremely well.

Naturally, this movie just begged for the kind of outstanding special effects and computer enhancement the original missed; no surprise there. And may I say Gort was awesome! Totally high-tech and very scary. In fact, one particular scene has the robot clearly staring at its protagonist – without the benefit of an obvious eye. You know how creepy it is to be in a room with a picture whose eyes seem to follow you? Same effect! And leave it to the military, in its usual Evil Empire-esque supporting role, to turn the robot’s name into an acronym. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much interaction between Gort and Klaatu, which created a kind of disconnect because Gort was there to do Klaatu’s bidding. This movie definitely needed more Gort!

Another nice touch was the introduction of a character ostensibly from Klaatu’s planet who had already been on Earth for some time and had become somewhat attached to us pathetic Earth creatures. This interaction was a step in the direction that I wanted to see the movie take. However, it was only a baby step.

Jennifer Connelly as Helen Benson was compelling enough in the part but the real standout in this pairing was Jaden Smith, of the Will and Jada lineage. He added a nice dimension as Helen Benson’s son with a great twist on the original family dynamic. Kathy Bates, as the President’s stand-in (he was in a “secure location” – does Cheney know this Pres was in his secret digs?), was not given much to work with in her scenes but did a good job with what she had.

All things taken into account, I wasn’t terribly disappointed and certainly don’t feel cheated out of a couple hours time. That said, here is my big issue and why I say this movie was 15 minutes too short. The plot of this movie is based on the fact that humans have failed in their stewardship of the planet; certainly the right tone to take. However, Klaatu only shared that fact with Helen Benson and Dr. Barnhardt (a very restrained John Cleese). In order to properly bring this film to a close, Klaatu needed to share that message with the entire planet, as he did just prior to departure in the original. Without that definitive punctuation mark, the entire point of the movie fell flat. I certainly wasn’t looking for a lecture here or anyone on their soapbox but if you’re an alien who has travelled through that much space and time to make a point, you need to make it to more than two people.

Oh yeah, one more thing and one that really cheesed me off. No, please don’t regurgitate as many catch phrases as possible when doing a remake but, for Heaven’s Sake, if there is an iconic statement such as “Klaatu Verrada Nicto” in an original movie then you damn well better put it in the remake! At least Keanu Reeves didn’t have to say “Whoa” in this flick – bet he enjoyed that.

K: I mostly agree with my PIC's review above. However, I think I was slightly more disappointed than she was. I still enjoyed the movie, but the plot seemed to lack some cohesion. If Klaatu gave his big speech at the end (as he did in the original) I would have felt that the movie was complete. I think this is the 15 minutes to which my PIC was referring. Short of doing that, they maybe could have put in more Gort doing kickass Gort things. Gort totally rocked! Gort! Gort! Gort! Overall, it's a decent movie worth watching if you're a sci-fi fan. If you're not a sci-fi fan this might be too risky for you.

Twilight

K: I was impressed by the Twilight movie. It stayed true to the book and successfully carried the characters we all know and love onto the silver screen. Before the movie I wasn't sure if I liked Kristen Stewart as Bella; Kristen seems so aloof in interviews it didn't seem like she had enough energy to put into a major movie role. But soon after the movie started I knew the casting crew got the absolute perfect actress. She got Bella's disaffectedness as well as her desperate need to break through it.

I was also afraid that Robert Pattinson was just a pretty face and didn't have the acting chops to pull off the depths of Edward's character. I'm so pleased to have been so wrong! Robert got all the little nuances of Edward and made it fun to watch his character's transformation. Also, a nod to Robert for writing that nifty piece of piano music for the movie. I will be looking on line for the sheet music in the very near future.

Much of the book, especially the first half if I remember correctly, takes place in Bella's thoughts. The movie makers didn't seem to have any difficulty in getting everything across to the viewing audience. I like the first scene in biology class where we see wings behind Edward from a stuffed bird, which was a nod to Bella's description of Edward in the books as an angel. The choice to cast all unknown actors made it easier to slip into the world of Forks, Washington and the secret subculture that lurks beneath the surface. And, of course, I love all the Cullens - even snotty Rosalie. They made me want to be a Cullen vegetarian vampire too! Ok, I wanted to be one since way back when I was reading the books, but now I want to be one even more!

It's a good movie. If you have any interest at all, and can maybe stand a few giggles and gasps from fan girls during the movie, I recommend you see this one.

J: First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I am a “Twilight Virgin”! These books have been floating around just off my radar while every tween-age and young teenage niece I have has spent the summer with them tucked securely under their arms. Very possibly because I am now old and cynical and haven’t believed in young love since, well I guess since I was young enough to think about it but not yet old enough to know it doesn’t really exist! While I was growing up, little girls were still told that Prince Charming would come riding up on his white steed and whisk them away. How fascinating that the 21st Century’s Prince Charming is a vampire! But I guess in a way it fits perfectly. Who better to appeal to a generation of alienated young people than a vampire! How dark and wonderfully Goth. After all, isn’t Dracula the original Goth?

I have always been a horror fan – both book and movie genres work for me. So I’m not unfamiliar with all the vampire lore; historical, literature, and cinematic. And I think for me that was the most entertaining part of the movie. I liked the spin Stephenie Meyer put on the vampire mythology. The consideration that vampires could live along side humans somewhat peacefully is fascinating. Yes, there would be “bad” vampires just like there are toughs and hoodlums in bad neighborhoods. But I thought the Cullen family was charming and very pretty; albeit a bit pale!

What I found most pleasing was the way she chose to explain why they wouldn’t go out in the sunlight. Because these vampires can go out in the day, no coffins in the basement of the beautiful Cullen home. I won’t say more than that because if there happens to be another poor human out there for whom this is a first taste of “Twilight” then I won’t spoil the moment. I also loved the baseball thing – it’s nice to know vampires think about something other than sucking blood.

The only downside of this movie would be the overly long longing glances between Edward Cullen and Bella Swan, which amounted to the cinematic version of overwrought prose. I had to keep reminding myself this book and movie was definitely meant for a more giggly type of movie-goer and when I forgot, there were plenty of giggly tweens in the audience to remind me.

What interested me, however, was the number of women around my age that were doing a good deal of giggling and sighing – and they weren’t in the theater enduring the movie for their daughters. Maybe, secretly, they wish that pesky Prince had been a bit darker too. I can make no pronouncements about faithful storytelling or taking scenes from other books to bulk up the action – virgin, remember? But I can say that I did enjoy this movie for what it was. And if I wake up in the middle of the night and briefly think that Edward Cullen is watching me sleep, well all the better for me. By the way, Edward, do feel free to stay!

K: I would like to disagree with my PIC about her so-called downside of "overly long longing glances." This is a very passionate relationship that's fairly puritan in nature. They barely touch and there's only one brief kissing scene - forget about anything even loosely related to sex! This is due to Edward's extreme attraction to Bella's blood and his willpower to control himself. She is his exact brand of heroin after all, and how many of us could resist our own exact brand of heroin? There really isn't any other way to portray this kind of intense love (not lust) on the screen except through the longing glances. So there.

Quantum of Solace

J: Ok, I’m a believer! Yes, I’m one of those really stubborn and obnoxious movie fans that says, “There is only one James Bond and that’s Sean Connery!” Yes they were sexist – what would you expect from an Alpha Male like 007. But they were also witty and inventive, something that has gotten difficult in this high-tech world of special effects. So I was curious but ultimately never saw “Casino Royale”. I now deeply regret that mistake because watching Daniel Craig fill those tricky shoes as 007 is a pure joy. He is as close to the type of uber-male destined to be MI6’s top operative as there has been in 20 years. I always found Roger Moore to be far too giddy a spy. And I felt Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were too slickly packaged. Daniel Craig returns us to the dangerous 007 and it is a joy to watch.

"Quantum of Solace" very literally takes your breath away. There were several times during the chase scenes when I had to remind myself to breathe! Everyone stand up here and say it with me….”Welcome back Aston Martin!” Of course, during the initial chase scene, which rivals some of the best I’ve seen, it’s a bit tricky to keep your eye on the cars because they quickly become jump-cut blurs. But Daniel Craig’s Bond remains steely-eyed and determined. In fact, if I had to boil his characterization down to one word it would definitely be “determined”. His gaze never waivers and Oh Mama, those blue eyes! Paul Newman’s successor is here (but don’t tell my mom I said that!).

This movie could have quickly devolved into a dueling bad accents mess but the plot is pretty straight forward, with a nice twist, and very Bond-like so if you’re a fan you won’t be disappointed. The only thing I lost by not seeing “Casino Royale” is the back-story for Giancarlo Giannini’s character who Bond turns to for help. I was never clear about whether he was a good guy or a bad guy and I have a feeling that was important. I was also glad to see a Felix Leiter back for this movie. This Felix Leiter, played by Jeffrey Wright, clearly is not happy with his government or his boss and he shows it. Everything else could well be inferred so I was never really lost. My Movie Mate K, however, didn’t get to enjoy some of the homage’s to original Bond films such as the reference to “Goldfinger” so she was in for a few eye-roles from Yours Truly but I did ultimately share. There is nothing I like more than a little wink shared between fans of established franchise films. It makes you feel like you’re in a special club – No Boys Allowed!

I have heard some criticism that this Bond strays a bit too far from the expected Bond conventions, which I didn’t find. But in one place, I would have liked the old stand-by, “shaken, not stirred”. Instead of that particular Bond-ism a carefully calculated, overly complicated drink order was substituted and it really stuck out. Please, some things are definitely better left alone. One change I did think was welcome, though, was that this Bond was far more bent on getting the job done than he was in bedding every Bond Girl that came within three feet of him. Even the relationship he has with this movie’s Bond Girl, Olga Kurylenko, was more of a partnership than dragging a fawning female along for the ride. And speaking of Bond Girls, Kudos to the newest one, Dame Judi Dench as the new “M” was fabulous and her relationship with Daniel Craig’s Bond was interesting and a fresh take on that part.

Of course there is the globe-trotting that you would expect from a Bond film; check in that box. But, oh my, the gadgets! The new Bond is definitely a 21st Century Bond, complete with touch-screen computer terminals and PDAs. Bond is never far from the Mother Ship but always seems to know exactly how to disconnect and get lost in the crowd. In all, this is a very satisfying new chapter in the venerable Bond franchise and Mr. Craig has sealed the deal as the New Bond! Looks like “Casino Royale” is now on the J list of movies to catch up on!

K: Unlike my PIC, I am not a fan of the Bond movies. They were always all flash and no substance until these recent two with Daniel Craig, who is an phenomenal actor. It seems like they revamped the franchise and actually put a little thought into the scripts and the casting. I'm totally digging the new Bond. You owe it to yourself to check this one out.

Body of Lies

J: “Body of Lies” is a courageous film and one that should be required viewing for everyone who thinks they know what is going on in the Middle East. Ridley Scott, admittedly one of my favorite directors, has perfectly presented all the reasons why the U.S. will never make any headway in that devastated area using the tactics currently employed.

Do not walk into this movie expecting to see a Tom Clancy-esque action spy thriller; this movie is very straight forward in presentation. I typically go into movies like this looking for, and fully expecting, the twist. About half way through this film I realized that wasn’t going to happen and completely accepted the reason why. Ridley Scott employees his characters as metaphors for both failed and successful approaches to stabilizing the Middle East; please note, I said stabilize because I do not believe, nor do I think Mr. Scott believes, that peace will ever be possible. Yes, there are lies, but upon reflection the lies are the ones we continually hear about winning hearts and minds, and winning this war. Make no mistake, this movie shows exactly why “winning” this war is impossible.

Russell Crowe has taken the “I’ll do anything to further a character” crown from Robert DeNiro. He again puts on substantial poundage in his role as the CIA bureau head, Ed Hoffman, who spends more time behind a desk, and in front of his refrigerator, than out in the field. He is, however, never unhooked from his cell phone – not even while attending his daughter’s soccer game. He is the mover of pawns. His Southern drawl, stomach paunch and rumpled clothing scream Ugly American. When he makes the bold move of crawling out from behind the comfortable and relatively safe walls of the government buildings he frequents, he attempts to get what he wants with bullying and threats. He represents all of the swagger and “Bring ‘em on” blowhardedness of the administration that got us into this mess in the first place – he truly thinks his is the biggest stick in the world. Take that whatever way you would like. He relies on high tech to watch what is going on from afar, thereby keeping his hands from getting dirty. Meanwhile, the terrorists’ have realized that going low tech, staying off cell phones for the most part and handing off instructions face to face, will keep them off the radar. A perfect example of how they can quickly adapt while the US struggles to keep up with them and continues to fight an unconventional war with conventional means; to their detriment.

His Jordanian counterpart, Hani, is as different as he could possibly be. Mark Strong channels Andy Garcia’s Terry Benedict from “Ocean’s Eleven” as the good looking, very well dressed and extremely well spoken but definitely scary guy who only thinly veils his menace. When he looks into Leonardo DiCaprio’s eyes and says “Never lie to me”, there is no mistaking this guy is all business. He demands respect and most definitely gets it – or else. By the way, the “else” isn’t very appealing or attractive. The difference between the two ideologies is as stark in the movie as they are in real life. One could make the argument that Hani is able to employ far more brutal tactics than the Americans do in order to get the information he needs – to that argument I have two words: rendition and Gitmo. However, the most valuable human resource Hani gains in his quest to stop the top terrorist in this movie, an Osama bin Laden look alike named Al-Saleem, is acquired with a skilled combination of terror and kindness. Funny thing about that tactic; it seemed to be far more effective than blazing guns and water-boarding. In fact, early on Hani makes the comment that torture does not work because “anyone will say anything to get the pain to stop” and then he goes on to prove just that.

In the middle of these two power brokers is Leonardo DiCaprio’s CIA operative Roger Ferris. He is the pawn, but he is a very smart one that refuses to be treated like one. And he knows the people of the Middle East, good and bad, far better than Russell Crowe’s character ever will. This is the ultimate metaphor for the US presence in the Middle East. Until the government of the US begins to understand the culture in that area, such as the importance of respect, loyalty and honor, all the Arabic translators in the universe won’t help this country in this war. Roger Ferris does understand the importance of those things, in addition to just understanding the language. He is deferent to Hani, the Jordanian; he knows the right words to say and how to say them. You get the sense early on he likes the Middle East but doesn’t necessarily like what is going on there, on either side. However, he does learn that Hani is serious about lying to him. Ultimately, Roger Ferris attempts to do the right thing but is often thwarted by the very people for whom he is working.

The stark contrast between the power brokers and the “soldiers” on the ground, on both sides mind you, is really wonderful. The power brokers, including the terrorist Al-Saleem, all dress extremely well, live and work in very comfortable surroundings, and drive around in big black luxury SUVs (nice product placement for Lincoln Navigator – wonder if they really got the context of the whole placement) while the soldiers on the ground, including DiCaprio, dress in rags, live in hovels, and face torture and death every day. I wondered as I watched the film if one of the elite would be able to actually endure what their minions did – possibly Hani but definitely not Ed Hoffman! The only thing out of place here was DiCaprio visiting his potential Jordanian love interest in his Navigator. I don’t believe that fit well with his character. The only other problem I had with this film was the relatively simple ending. Without giving anything away, let me say that everyone “road off into the sunset” a little too cleanly. Otherwise, this is an important and extremely well done film that sets out to make a point and makes it clearly and well. Hat’s off to Mr. Scott and his fantastic cast.

K: I think my Partner in Crime said it all (and very well, I might add). It's a fantastic movie. Other critics have beat this up a little and I'm not sure why. I would guess it's because this isn't full of crazy double crossings where you can't figure out who's really pulling the strings only to find out in the big twist at the end that the butler did it. I would argue that anyone with half a brain would appreciate the intelligence of this movie and the lack of flashy, predictable gimmicks. This movie is definitely worth your time.

Appaloosa

J: I tried very hard to like “Appaloosa” – VERY hard. It seemed to have everything going for it, from a well-respected actor/director in Ed Harris to my personal favorite actor – Viggo Mortensen. Thank God for the eye candy factor because that, as well as the overall authentic look, ended up being the only redeeming qualities for this picture.

I am a fan of westerns and believe that little beats the sight of John Wayne loping down a dusty street or a steely-eyed Gary Cooper staring down a bad guy. Heck, I don’t even mind that “Eldorado” and “Rio Bravo” are essentially the same movie because both deliver exactly what the viewer expects. Unfortunately, “Appaloosa” gets lost somewhere between “The Searchers” and “Unforgiven”. I had read some comparisons between “Unforgiven” and “Appaloosa” prior to seeing the later, so I was expecting something really special. But I soon realized the only comparison one could make might be along the lines of the understated type of acting and directing that Clint Eastwood is known for. Sadly, Mr. Harris is no Clint Eastwood and managed only boredom instead of understated drama. Watching tumble weeds would provide more drama than this movie. There were a couple of hints at something interesting, notably a scene where Viggo’s character had to restrain Ed Harris’ marshal as he brutally beat a stranger while bordering on madness, but they lead nowhere. Why did he get so wild-eyed? What happened that would precipitate that kind of reaction? Surely there must have been something in his past to explain this, but it just died with the end of the scene. I would love to know why. There were also hints at the kind of humor the two characters, who were presented as having ridden together for MANY years, could have shared with each other and, by extension, us. But the effort to remain stoically underplayed killed anything that would tell us of the true nature of this friendship.

Enter Renee Zelleweger, who both K and I agree is a less than satisfying actor. She might have been just the right face for her character but nothing lurked beneath that would hint at why she was capable of her actions in the movie. And that speaks to the real issue with this movie; ultimately there is nothing in any of these characters that makes us care about them. There is precious little to suggest any kind of background for these characters, we literally have to take them at face value and so feel nothing for them as they go through the motions. The only legitimately interesting character is the villain, Jeremy Irons. He has a nice twist in the end that could have really rounded out the movie and provide an opportunity to make a point but, again, it was squandered. I felt as though I was just plopped down into a two dimensional picture of flat characters – a very pretty picture but not terribly interesting.

A lot of work obviously went into this movie. Someone actually took the trouble to make the glass in the buildings the way it must have been done in that time period. The costumes were also very authentic looking. But if a director takes the time and trouble to film on location, why not use some of the breathtaking and spectacular western landscapes I’ve seen in the past? The land around the town of Appaloosa was often as flat as the people that inhabited it. Perhaps some of that authenticity could have been channeled into the development of the characters.

But it wasn’t a total loss – I got to spend some quality time with Viggo! I will have to do a make-up movie trip for K, though. Tumblin’ along with the tumblin’ tumble weeds wasn’t exactly her thing! If it isn’t yours either, you should definitely skip this movie.

K: I was really bored. I started thinking about that Oregon Trail computer game from way back in the early '80s. I think my main problem was that this was more of a character study than a plot-driven movie. I kind of like plots in my movies, unless it's absolutely spectacular like Let There Be Blood with Daniel Day Lewis. And I'm not big on westerns or Renee Zelleweger, who I didn't realize was in this movie until her round, scrunched up face popped up on the screen. I recommend you skip this and play Oregon Trail instead.