Inside Job - B+

Rated PG-13 for some drug and sex-related material, 105 minutes

"Inside Job" is a compelling, timely expose

You will leave the new documentary "Inside Job" angry, and rightfully so. An expose that details the global financial meltdown of 2008, this tells how how your investments, retirement funds and tax dollars were lossed and spent but it could've been avoided. More entertaining than you might think, documentarian Charles Ferguson ("No End In Sight") manages to make a dry topic engaging, gripping and wholly compelling.

"Inside Job" is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia.

"Inside Job" is a fascinating, thought-provoking and pertinent look at the financial crisis that still affects many as we speak. "Inside Job" covers much of the same ground that Michael Moore did with his 2009 documentary "Capitalism," but with much more exhaustive detail. Ferguson breaks his film into several chapters to analyze what went wrong, how it happened and what has happened since, and you won't like what you see. The fat cats who caused and allowed the crisis to occur still have their fortunes and aren't behind bars, as many feel they should be.

Not only is it interesting to see the many financial insiders Ferguson interviewed, but the many, many who refused to be interviewed for the film (if you were involved, would you?). It implicates the big financial instituitions for allowing the bad loans, ignoring the warnings that came from many experts and then running to the U.S. government for help, which itself is filled with former financial big wigs in cabinet or consulting roles. "Inside Job" is truly frightening (but unsurprising) as it details the corruptive influence of the financial companies within the government and educational institutions, and how a new U.S. Presidential administration didn't change things much.

The crisis continues to have a ripple effect (especially if you've paid attention to what has happened in Ireland and Iceland lately) even today, and some believe it may happen again. "Inside Job" pulls no surprises and is a little redundant and preachy down the stretch (thanks to Matt Damon's narration, used effectively here); ironically the millions affected by the crisis may not get to see the film because they don't have the money to shell out to see it. Still, it's a must see, powerful film that helps break down what happened, not to mention the many confusing terms you hear in the media.

As one Chinese official says in the film, why pay "financial engineers" so much for building a dream when actual engineers are paid little by comparison for actually building bridges and roads. Those financial engineers changed so many lives, but not for the good, and we're still paying for it. See this film and do something about it.

Love and Other Drugs - C

Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, pervasive language, and some drug material, 113 minutes

Raunchy "Love and Other Drugs" falls short

By all accounts, I went into the new romantic dramedy "Love and Other Drugs" thinking I would love it. It has two lovely actors, Anne Hathaway and "what's his name" Jake Gyllenhaal and a solid director in Edward Zwick ("Defiance," "Blood Diamond"), but for some reason this raunchy film left me feeling a little empty. Sure, Zwick stages some steamy scenes with a naked Hathaway and Gyllenhaal, but does a handful of sex scenes necessarily add up to a great movie? Down beneath all the sex, there's not much there, and the weak story fails to deliver a strong emotional core.

Based loosely on Jamie Reidy's best selling non-fiction book "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman" and it's set in the late 1990's. Gyllenhaal is Jamie Randall, a college grad struggling to find his way. He goes to work for pharmaceutical company Pfizer and does his best to eck out a living. Strong and handsome with chisled looks, he's never had a problem with women, until he meets free spirit Maggie (Hathaway), an artist struggling with some physical and emotional problems. They hook up, have hot sex, and engage in a "friends with benefits" type relationship until they begin falling for each other. Jamie realizes that Maggie is only using her problems as a shield to get in and out of relationships, but he must convey his true love for her.

Zwick and company deliver what has plagued many romantic comedies of late: a mediocre slipshod comedy with a few funny lines and moments. There are many mixed messages there - love in sickness and health - that are never really explored fully (and in one appalling scene a man whose wife has Parkinson's tells Gyllenhaal's character to promptly dump his woman and move quickly on because illness can destroy a relationship).

The uber-handsome Gyllenhall and the always warm, charming Hathaway (who bares just about everything here) perform well given the vacuous story, and while they're certainly eye candy, even their sex scenes have a cold, disconnected and very rehearsed feeling to them, lacking a certain hot vibe to make it genuinely steamy. And while the ending is heartwarming, you sorta know that these two would end up anyway ( see for yourself).

The rest of the cast is misused or underused. "21's" Josh Rad, way overused and largely unfunny; blink and you'll miss the cameos from George Segal and the recently deceased Jill Clayburgh as Randall's parents. Fine comic actress Judy Greer, hardly there. Handsome actor Gabriel Macht, not used enough. Pretty much explains the movie itself. It's certainly seeking a younger, edgier vibe with all the sex scenes, but as we know, good sex doesn't hurt, but it doesn't solidify a good relationship, or a good movie for that matter.

Given that a large part of "Love and Other Drugs" is about Viagra, the script could've risen to the occasion and toned down the sex and toned down the sex scenes and have these unsympathetic, cardboard characters work through issues we actually care about. But that would've been boring given the old addage that sex sells; in this case it sells the movie, just not a good movie.

Burlesque - C+

Rated PG-13 for sexual content including several suggestive dance routines, partial nudity, language and some thematic material, 105 minutes

“Burlesque” is campy, ridiculous fun

Veteran singer Cher still has it. Pop singer Christina Aguilera’s voice is stunningly powerful. They’re the main reason to see the predictably campy rags-to-riches musical “Burlesque,” which teams the two unlikely performers together. It seems evident that a creaky, old-fashioned story has been fashioned around Cher and Christina; both charmingly strut through the movie in video-music form and own the film, even when the weak script can’t keep up with them.

The premise for “Burlesque” is quite simple. Aguilera is a talented small-town girl named Ali with big dreams and even bigger voice. She comes to Hollywood on the first bus out and finds it difficult to break out. She eventually finds a job in an old-fashioned club called Burlesque owned by Tess (Cher) built around some sexy dancers, including Nikki (Kristen Bell) and Georgia (Julianne Hough). A rich businessman (Eric Dane) wants to buy up the place, but Tess feels it still has some life in it, particularly when Ali finds her way in the show and turns the place on its heels.

“Burlesque” is a cheesy, hokey nod to all those old-fashioned musicals of yesteryear, where the movie’s dated story clearly belongs. The energetic music and the dancing are, unsurprisingly, the best part of the film; everything else in between is largely forgettable. Cher and Christina make for a good time; in her film debut, Aguilera shows she has a stunning voice and is a sexy, electric performer. However, her acting skills need a little work, even if her energy and bland charm help carry the film. Cher looks fabulous as usual and is always good for a quip or two though some scenes she resembles a caricature of herself in drag queen form, but she’s still a a great deal of fun.

Of the large cast, only a couple makes a memorable impression. Kristen Bell (“Veronica Mars”) proves to be a decent singer and dancer, while the presence of Stanley Tucci, while fun, is only necessary for the benefit for Cher having a sidekick. Eric Dane along with Peter Gallagher, Cam Gigandet and Alan Cumming have little screen-time, or in Gigandet’s case, a powerful on-screen presence (Gigandet, of “Twilight” fame, is one of today’s blandest actors).

It’s also unsurprising that “Burlesque” seems like an extended music video with about as much depth; video music director Steve Antin’s unoriginal direction doesn’t add much emotional connection, though the film is directed in clear crowd-pleasing form. It’s unfortunate that Oscar-winner Diablo Cody (“Juno”) is credited with the weak script, though substantial revisions were likely made later on.

The songs, the dancing are bouncy, fun and will have your feet tapping by the “Burlesque’s” calculated ending. Cher and Christina are in full control the film, but you’ll hard-pressed to remember any of the story after you leave the theater.

Faster - C+

Rated R for strong violence, some drug use and language, 95 minutes


Silly preposterous "Faster" is escapist, junky enterainment


The Oscar goes to…The Rock for “Faster”! You probably won’t hear those words this year, but the forgettable “Faster” is decent entertainment if you take it for what it’s worth: guilty-pleasure, junky entertainment and bloody fun taken in the right way. Some of it works, much of it doesn’t as it channels The Rock’s serious, darker side, but the preposterous “Faster” is a revenge flick that’s escapist entertainment at its best.

After 10 years in prison, Driver (Dwayne Johnson) has a singular focus—to avenge the murder of his brother during the botched ban robbery that led to his imprisonment. Now a free man with a deadly to-do list in hand, he's finally on his mission...but with two men on his trail—a veteran cop (Billy Bob Thornton) just days from retirement, and a young egocentric hitman (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) with a flair for the art of killing and a newfound worthy opponent. The hunter is also the hunted. It's a do or die race to the finish as the mystery surrounding his brother's murder deepens, and new details emerge along the way hinting that Driver's list may be incomplete.

Taken as a serious film, “Faster” is a contrived, over-the-top mess. As low-brow junky entertainment it works far better if you don’t take it too seriously. Johnson is a better comic actor than a serious one, which is partly why “Faster” doesn’t work in addition to the rather uninspired direction from George Tillman Jr. (“Soulfood”).

Johnson lacks a range of emotion needed to carry this revenge movie off, especially paired against Thornton, playing his typically slimeball characters with great amusement as he chews on scenery. The final twist seemingly comes out of nowhere, but if you play close attention you’ll realize early on the connection that Thornton’s character has with Johnson’s. The car Johnson's car drives, a souped-up 1960s Chevy Chevelle, is by far the coolest thing about the movie.

“Faster” works best when it’s focused on Johnson’s singular mission to bring down everyone that had to do with the murder of his brother, after all this is a revenge flick. It’s when it incorporates the side story of the young rich hitman that it becomes too uneven, especially since you have to wait until the film’s final frames to find out truly why this guy is after Johnson too.

Bloody, silly, and utterly contrived, there are some good moments of violence and mayhem that will please audience looking for those things. “Faster,” much like its name, is quick and efficient, though it leaves a handful of things from its muddled story unanswered, making you wonder if he really got everyone on his list. If you need a quick escape from the turkey festivities this weekend, put “Faster” at the top of your list to see, though your food will be more memorable and flavorful than this.

Tangled - B

Rated PG for brief mild violence, 92 minutes

"Tangled" is a smooth, witty, fun animated musical

Disney does it again. It's created a lively, colorful and charming new animated musical in "Tangled," a fun re-telling of the Rapunzel fairy tale. It comes as a surprise but a pleasant one, given that most of Disney's best work these days is done by Pixar. The fluid animation helps to advance the genre some even if the story seems a tad unoriginal, but this heartwarming tale will leave you with both a smile and a tear in your eye.

A baby princess named Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is born to the King and Queen and her hair has magical powers. However, an evil witch named Gothel (Donna Murphy) steals Rapunzel from the palace in revenge for the royal family taking a magical plant responsible for saving the baby princess and her mother. Gothel keeps Rapunzel for herself for years locked away in a high tower as Rapunzel's hair keeps Gothel young. However, one day a thief named Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) with the stolen royal crown in tow and a bevy of bad guys after him comes to her house, changing everything for Rapunzel, who's destiny hangs in the balance with Flynn's crown, which rightfully belongs to Rapunzel.

"Rapunzel" is a playful, often hilarious and entertaining fairy tale that casts its own spin on the Rapunzel story. The basic themes are in place, but those familiar with the tale will notice the significant changes, noticeably adding a love interest for Rapunzel with Flynn, and the addition of the fun songs. Most of it works well, though the story seems a little "Beauty and the Beast"-ish, which isn't surprising given the music, most of it emotional ballads, comes from Alan Menken, the guy who helped restore Disney back in the late '80s and early '90s with "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," and of course, "Beauty and the Beast."

The cast does well, particularly Tony award-winning character actress Donna Murphy, who nearly walks off with the movie as the evil mother. She's a hoot and she has a glorious, rich voice that lift the story and music to a better place. Levi and Moore are decent but bland, and upstaged at every turn not just by Murphy but by Rapunzel's pet frog Pascal and royal horse named Maximus who acts like a dog and has a love-hate relationship with Flynn.

"Tangled" best, most touching moments come near the end with a host of different "lantern lights" fill the screen quite beautifully. "Tangled" should be a hit, but Disney may have trouble marketing it to anyone other than pre-teen girls, but really everyone will have a good time. "Tangled" is Disney's best non-Pixar film in years and is miles ahead of last year's disappointing "The Princess and the Frog." Definitely worth checking out.

The Next Three Days - C

Rated PG-13 for violence, drug material, language, some sexuality and thematic elements, 122 minutes

Looking for nonstop action? Not in the uneven “Next Three Days”

You’d think that with Oscar-winning actor Russell Crowe and Oscar-winning “Crash” writer Paul Haggis along with a slick marketing campaign, that the new thriller “The Next Three Days” would be a sure-fire action-adventure hit. Well, at least partly so. This uneven, implausible and by-the-numbers movie is mostly heavy-handed melodrama with a sprinkle of action on top, with the action-adventure not figuring in until very late into the film; with that said it will be a disappointment for those expecting nonstop action from start to finish.

Crowe is John Brennan, a Pittsburgh community college English teacher whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is accused and later convicted of a murder of one her professional colleagues. Becoming frustrated with the legal appeal system and convinced of her innocence, John devises a plan to break her free, in spite of the fact he lacks the skills to execute a flawless plan.

“The Next Three Days” is more bleak, downbeat drama than rousing action-adventure, requiring the audience to sit through the depressing story for the film’s best sequence, when Crowe’s character finally goes through with his plan. A remake of a 2007 French Film “Pour Elle,” “The Next Three Days” is most troubling in buying into these uneven characters; it spends far much too much time in its initial chapters detailing what a normal schlub Crowe’s character is and his lack of skill and knowledge. Sure, it’s a departure for the “Gladiator” actor, but it misses a beat or two in showing a credible transformation he makes to smoothly execute such a plan in a seemingly short amount of time, stretching the story’s believability.

“The Next Three Days” is also flawed by Haggis creaky, heavy-handed direction and adaptation; he spends little time developing Banks’ character, and her inexplicable, baffling actions in the final act hurt the film (doesn’t help that Banks is also miscast here). The film also considerably underuses some terrific character actors, especially Brian Dennehy as John’s elderly father, who remains dialogue-free until late in the film, and lovely British actress Olivia Wilde, stuck in a one-note role as the parent of a child he befriends, who should’ve traded roles with Banks (look for Wilde in the upcoming “Tron” sequel). Oh, and blink and you’ll miss Liam Neeson’s very brief cameo as an expert in the field of…breaking out of jail.

The film’s best sequence is its final one, an extended cat-and-mouse chase scene through the streets of Pittsburgh, when Crowe and Banks (and the movie itself) finally hit the ground running. Until then, there’s very little energy in the otherwise downbeat drama with an unnecessary epilogue that attempts to put a pat ending for what the audience likely knows anyway. An open-ended ending leaving the audience to decide for themselves would’ve been more effective.

“The Next Three Days” isn’t a terrible film by any means. Just an uneven, drab one with a bait-and-switch marketing campaign that wants you to believe it’s a breathless, nonstop action film (far from it). And given the A-list cast and story, it could’ve worked far, far better. One of the fall movie season’s first big disappointments.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" - B

Rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality. 146 minutes

This "Potter" is a leisurely, dark but entertaining journey

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” is all about anticipation. Much like the classic Carly Simon pop song of the same name once used to describe ketchup of all things, it could also aptly describe the latest big-screen installment of J.K. Rowling’s literary icon. Slow, leisurely but embodied with a rich, distinct flavor, the first part of the finale serves its purpose well: to set up the penultimate installment next summer; saying that it leaves you hanging is an understatement. This Hogwarts-Quidditch-free outing is a stripped down one: less clutter, better acted, bleaker and more cerebral than previous outings, it takes its time; non-fans will feel the 146-minute running time, while true fans will only be more eager for Part 2 next year.

Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) decide to finish Dumbledore's work and find the rest of the Horcruxes, which are Voldemorts key’s to immortality and destruction. But little hope remains for the trio and the rest of the Wizarding World, so everything they do must go as planned.

The seventh film in the “Harry Potter” series, it is dark, low-key and the most understated of all the Potter films, if that’s possible. There’s still considerable entertainment value, even if some of it feels a little sluggish at times. Fans will love it, non-fans will appreciate it, if not endure it; all the while it prepares the audience for the final – truly the final – act of the book, which has spanned 10 years to Potter emerge into an adult. David Yates, who directed the previous installment, again tackles this one along with stalwart “Potter” screenwriter Steve Kloves, who has the unenviable task of condensing Rowling’s dense, thickest novel of the series into a film. This Potter outing takes it time, probably too much so at different points, but it comes together for a resounding climax that answers a handful of questions but leaves many more until Part 2.

The best thing about Part 1 of “Deathly Hallows” is that underscores the chemistry of the three leads, who anchor this film more than they ever have. This outing purposely reduces clutter and special-effects, taking it completely out of Hogwarts as more or less a road trip for the three, and becoming more of a character study, which accounts for some of “Deathly Hallows” slow-going. Radcliffe continues to develop Potter into a strong character, though Grint and especially Watson are effective as his pals, who get as much screen time and importance to the story. Of the rest of the large, mostly British cast, Fiennes makes the most memorable impression as the film's scariest character, the dark Lord Voldemont.

The production values are typically high, and the special-effects, sets and music are all first-rate. There’s a memorable episode that has the three taking on different bodies, and a scary one involving a rather large snake. As with the other “Potter” films, I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone under 10 years of age, and not just for the dark, intense content, but the extensive 2 ½ hour length that would make it a patience and endurance test for any young child and parent. The climax is exciting, but eager fans will literally be left dangling until next summer.

Anticipation can be a great thing. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” only lays the groundwork for what will be surely be an explosive showdown between Potter and Voldemont, with death in the mix somewhere. This outing is an entertaining, albeit leisurely epic fantasy journey that’s about to end, so savor it while you can.