One for the Money

At some point over Katherine Heigl’s long run of romantic comedies, people started to think of her as a bad actress who only does bad movies. If you go through her filmography, it’s actually not as bad as you think. Now she takes on the comedy mystery One for the Money, based on the first of a popular book series. Heigl plays Stephanie Plum, who takes on a new job as a bounty hunter after being fired from her retail position. When she finds a reward out on a former boyfriend (Jason O’Mara), she jumps at the chance to bring him in. But as the chase evolves, she begins to act as a detective, uncovering the facts of the crime. Of course the police missed some things during their investigation.

With the exception of some questionable New Jersey accents from some of the actors, those involved do well to keep the film light-hearted through some potentially serious moments. This could be viewed as a negative, though I find that the film knows its niche is comedy and there are no attempts to cross into another genre. Daniel Sunjata provides a bit of authenticity to the fact that Heigl’s character is actually able to work in the dangerous profession. But (Spoiler Alert) when a well-known actor like John Leguizamo appears in a cameo role, it reveals that the character likely has a bigger moment coming later in the film.

Even with the bit of predictability, One for the Money is relevant due to the lack of female lead films not driven by a romance. While romantic elements are there, those who don’t like rom-coms would be able to enjoy this one. Most movie critics don’t tend to support movies like this because there is no attempt to reinvent the wheel. But it is possible for a movie to be entertaining without doing so.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Red Tails

Someone walks in to a bar. They are met with hostility that their “kind” isn’t welcome there. A team of fighter pilots identified as “red” and a call number. A hotshot pilot, who is the best, knows he’s the best and doesn’t like being told otherwise. Name this movie. Obviously, since this post is under the heading Red Tails, you know the answer. But I imagine other Star Wars aficionados picked up on these parallels too. Produced by George Lucas, Red Tails tells the story of a group of African-American pilots during World War II. As members of the Tuskegee training program, the team overcomes the usual adversity of war, while facing the stigma of post-segregation racism.

This isn’t the first film made about the Tuskegee pilots, but in terms of remakes, this is a story worth being told again. The film is violent at times, as expected, but by no means too much for older children. In terms of the characters, it is always difficult to properly develop a large group like this. The two main parties are “Easy,” played by Nate Parker and “Lightning,” played by David Oyelowo. These two get the time needed for the audience to become attached while the rest of the team lives out in the background. That isn’t to say these supporting players aren’t necessary, but they’re underutilized. In addition, the two Oscar winning actors, Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding Jr. make extended cameos, even though they are featured prominently in advertising. Both come across as strong characters, so it would have been nice to see them more.

Running long, Red Tails introduces a number of plot points including a new guy on the base and a war of words between military officials in Washington. But there isn’t much effort to develop these moments or resolve them. Since the film is conscious that it is not an epic, and more of a character driven affair, the script needs to cut some scenes. It is very successful however at building tension. The final battle with the Nazis is quite engaging. How did the pilots ever do well without their trusty R2 droids helping out? I had to get in one last Star Wars reference.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Underworld: Awakening

When the battle between the vampires and the lycans is exposed to the humans, a war breaks out with the goal of purging the opponent clans. Kate Beckinsale returns as Selene the automatic pistol wielding death dealer in Underworld: Awakening. The fourth film in the series combines the elements of a crime procedural with the mythology that fans of the series are used to. But unfortunately the addition of new villains doesn’t escape the stereotypes of vampire movies. That is to say non-Twilight vampire movies.

The hype for Awakening has seemingly been bigger than the previous films. This fits because its appeal is more widespread than the niche the others fall into. There are the gory fights between creatures, but it’s more on par with popular comic book films. Beckinsale, who gives a stronger performance than anyone would expect from an actress in the fourth film of a sci-fi franchise, does strut toward the camera an awful lot. The first 10 times it looks pretty intense. After that, it gets a bit excessive.

The supporting cast is not as successful as the lead. None of the characters are thoroughly developed. Then when the young vampire, Eve (India Eisley) gets angry, we get the worst visuals of the film. I don’t know if it is make-up or CGI, but she looks pretty ridiculous. When judging by the action, which is obviously the focus of the film, this is a successful effort. But it still keeps the elements that are aimed toward a predominately male sci-fi/ fantasy demographic. This ranges from Beckinsale’s body suit to the plethora of guns that are used. How lucky for the audience that once Selene escapes her captors she is able to find her complete uniform instantly. It would have been rough if she had to wear something different.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Contraband

How about that Mark Wahlberg? He has expanded his reach in Hollywood with work in comedy (The Other Guys) and been right in the middle of Oscar contenders (The Fighter.) But he knows what his real strength is, and returns to the tough guy role in the action film, Contraband. Wahlberg plays a former smuggler who must run one final job in order to save his brother-in-law from a drug smuggler (Giovanni Ribisi). As an actor who usually plays likeable characters, Wahlberg does well as a family man with a criminal background. He surely isn’t pushing his acting abilities. With the familiarity of the role comes a familiar act. Then when you least expect it Wahlberg pulls a scene like the one in which he jumps Ribisi’s character for mentioning Wahlberg’s character’s wife and children. Impressive.

The film suffers from trying to jam everything they can into the script. While the smuggling is enough for one movie, the characters are forced to partake in an armored car heist followed by a high speed chase. These scenes do pick up the pace from the slower trafficking crimes that make up the basis of the plot, but they aren’t necessary. And it also hurts the believability aspects of the film when almost everyone in the scene is shot and killed except for the characters the audience cares about.

Contraband is an entertaining early year entry into the action genre. With Kate Beckinsale playing the wife of Wahlberg’s character, there is significant time spent on the home front as well as the trip to score the counterfeit bills. This makes for a complete picture, and more depth than is expected. If a few characters and plot points were eliminated to streamline the story, it might be strong enough for a December or summer release. But for now it works well in January where good action movies aren’t expected.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Iron Lady

An overview of the life of former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady is an interesting look at the figure. With Meryl Streep starring as the controversial leader, the story is intriguing for a viewer not as familiar with Thatcher’s policies and decisions as someone from England would be. But being released only a few months after the biopic of J. Edgar Hoover, there is a very similar feel to the two films. Both deal heavily with the figures in their later life and then the audience looks in on select events from the past as the character remembers.

The Iron Lady is very well acted, even though most supporting roles are very brief. Jim Broadbent plays Thatcher’s husband Denis, who appears as a hallucination for most of the film, but is still well developed. The other performances worth noting are the younger versions of Margaret and Denis, played by Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd. As different as they are from Streep and Broadbent’s takes, they are somehow completely believable as the same people. Plus that extensive length of time covered helps build up their relationship in the film.

Like many of the award show favorites, this is not a film for everyone. There’s not much mindless entertainment, though it is very educational and powerful. Beyond Thatcher’s politics, there is insight into dealing with aging, personal loss, and great professional pressure. Since the story is so involved there are some pacing issues, which slow down every time the film returns to the elderly Thatcher sitting alone in her house. Also the attempt to make Streep look identical to the real woman is a bit odd. The audience understands there is an actor playing the character and she will look different. The little fake teeth are quite creepy to be honest.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.