Surrogates **1/2 (rant)

Surrogates, the latest Bruce Willis film, was not what I had hoped it would be. (And I didn't have the highest of hopes in the first place). But what surprised me about this sci-fi /thriller directed by Jonathan Mostow is it fell short in a way I wasn't expecting...

This film is of course set in the future. And in this particular future the majority of citizens in the world have opted to have robots live their lives for them. Average citizens, from the comfort of their own home, plug into a neural contraption that allows them to control the 'better looking' robot versions of themselves out in the real world. Everything seems safe and perfect until the murder of one of these surrogates actually causes the death of the human puppeteer. Willis, playing Special Agent Greer and partner Peters, (played by Radha Mitchell) desperately try to solve this homicide case before any other human life is at risk (Even though every human now lies around at home in their bathrobe looking like complete crap -for the preservation of humankind, I'm assuming- it's still important to the FBI to save them).

Being a fan of Bruce Willis I wanted to see this film on the big screen because I hoped that even if the story line was weak I would enjoy Willis' performance. And I expected to be entertained and impressed by some of the special effects. Turns out the opposite was true. Although Willis didn't let me down (except for the really bad toupee), the story line did entail some interesting concepts and it kept the twists and turns of the 'whodunnit' investigation suspenseful. But surprisingly it was the special effects of the movie that really disappointed me. Certain scenes had great potential but everything looked fake and none of the action scenes had a 'wow' factor that CGI technology is more than capable of producing nowadays.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't find the script to be particularly great or original. Actually, the premise reminded me of I Robot, starring Will Smith (robots made to improve human's quality of life but then suddenly turn dangerous). This association was clinched for me when I saw James Cromwell from I Robot once again playing the mastermind behind the future technology. (It seems Cromwell has been type-casted as a really smart futuristic guy). But the Surrogates script did have some uniqueness to it. While the FBI investigates who would prosper from either the robot technology or the demise of it, the movie shows the possible effects advanced technology could have on the military, powerful corporations and rebellious citizens. And it did a good job at showing how scary some of these effects could be.

Overall, I didn't hate this movie but I still can't decide if it's worth seeing on the big screen. One thing I can say for certain however, is Bruce Willis' latest movie is no "Yippee Kaye Mother F******"

The Time Traveler's Wife * (rant)

I really don't know why this movie was made. And I really can't believe it's still playing in the theaters. The Time Traveler's Wife, which is based on Audrey Niffenegger's best-seller, did not succeed as a romance film nor did it succeed as a sci/fi film. Maybe if it hadn't tried to be both, it would've succeeded at one...Maybe.

The story revolves around Clare (played by Rachel McAdams) and Henry (played by Eric Bana). Henry is a time traveler (due to some kind of genetic anomaly) and Clare, who first met Henry when she was a child, falls in love with him despite his condition and eventually marries him. The movie spans over many years of their lives together and as the plot unfolds we, the audience, are shown clips of the past (in the hopes I'm assuming that we'll piece together why the two fell in love in the first place) and are shown the struggles the two face in their present life together. -Struggles which include: will Henry be present for the marriage ceremony? (seeing as he has no control over when he leaves or where he evaporates to). Will he be around for Christmas this year? How does Clare cope with waiting for his return? And whether or not the two of them can produce a 'time travelling love-child'.

This movie was so wrong on so many levels. First, I still don't know why Clare fell in love with a man who's never around when she didn't strike me as the 'independent woman' sort. Aside from getting to see Eric Bana naked a lot (he always loses his clothes when he travels) he was a very serious and somber man. Clare is in love with him the first time we meet her and it seems only she knows why. Granted, I guess time travel can be a very serious business. But it's a business the movie never explains. There's a geneticist (played by Stephen Tobolowsky ) who apparently is there to help Henry and find out some answers. But after the doctor conducts one test, we never find out any real results nor is it ever discussed again. Instead, we watch as various Henrys from various times pop in and out of Clare's life. She never seems to know when he'll leave or appear again and yet she still manages to have clothes waiting for him in various locations. Lucky for him, I guess.

The love story wasn't convincing and the time travel parts weren't nearly as confusing as they should be. Not once did the film address whether or not Henry affects the present by revisiting the past. We are told that even though he can revisit certain places time and time again (I can't help the pun) he can't change the course of bad events that have happened. Apparently, he's unable to get there just in the 'nick of time'. Even Jean Claude Van-Dame's movie Time Cop addressed the possible confusing affects of time travel. The fact that this one just decided to ignore it was more than disappointing. (The fact that I've had to mention a Jean Claude Van-Dame movie as a means of comparison of something that is better is embarrassing).

I have not read Audrey Niffenegger's book but after seeing the movie version, I can only hope that many more questions are answered. For instance; how did time traveling affect Henry's childhood? Why is he always getting shot at or beat up when he travels? What does Clare really do for a living? Do Henry and Clare have any real friends? And I sincerely hope one important question is answered ...when Clare claims she had no free-will in deciding whether or not to spend her life with Henry, what the heck is she talking about?

Inglourious Basterds **1/2 (rant)

Although I'm a fan of Quentin Tarantino's, I'm sad to say I did not enjoy this film. With a running time of over two hours, the film felt long and dragged out to me. This movie is no where near as entertaining as Tarantino's previous work. And although there were a couple of exceptional scenes, I was left missing the extraordinary screenwriting skills I associate with his other movies.

Inglourious Basterds takes place in German-occupied France in the early 1940's. The film follows two stories: The escape of a Jewish woman Shosanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent) from the hands of a Nazi Colonel, Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) and her eventual plans of retribution. And the Jewish-American soldiers, called "The Basterds" who hunt down and kill any Nazi they find (with the goal of scalping one hundred Nazis each). The Basterds are led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt) and once enlisted in "Operation Keno", their mission of destruction eventually coincides with Shosanna's.

This movie started out strong. The opening scene which introduces the Nazi Colonel was tense and I was transfixed by the dialogue. I don't believe any other present-day screenwriter can write dialogue as well as Quentin Tarantino. (The fact that he could make a movie about a diamond store robbery that you never see so absolutely riveting still blows me away. If you haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, you don't know what you're missing!) But in this film, once he introduced "The Basterds" I was disinterested in the story. Brad Pitt, as the only real "star" in the film, stuck out like a sore thumb to me. And I couldn't decide if I just didn't like his silly Tennessee character or if it was the way he was playing him that I found silly. I didn't care about any of "The Basterds" and I found it difficult to view them as "the good guys". - Which is strange considering they were a huge part in the plan to take down Hitler. I'm not sure if I was suppose to cheer when one of them beat a Nazi to death with a baseball bat, but I didn't. And I found the drawn out lead up to that scene - the clanging noise of the bat hitting the inside of a tunnel- not at all suspenseful. (I guess the close-up of Pitt making yet another stupid facial expression didn't help).

I did enjoy the story that revolved about Shosanna's plight, however. Laurent's acting was solid. And Waltz, as the maniacal "Jew hunter", kept me in a constant state of unease. Although there's a great scene in a basement club in the film, there were too many other elements of the movie that I didn't enjoy for this one scene to redeem the whole film for me.

After seeing Inglourious Basterds, I'm inspired to watch Pulp Fiction again. I haven't seen it in years and I still consider this to be Tarantino's best film to date. Although I can't rave about Inglourious Basterds, I am still a fan of Quentin Tarantino's and I will always look forward to seeing what he does next. I just hope Brad Pitt's not in it.