Now Playing

Here's a look at the movies I saw this week. There is a lot of violent films out right now....

Alex Cross
Starring: Tyler Perry, Edward Burns, Matthew Fox, and Rachel Nichols
Synopsis: Tyler Perry has a certain gift set that has helped him carve out a niche in Hollywood. His “Madea” franchise remains relatively popular, and the comedies he produces for the small screen fill a certain void in the entertainment landscape. But in recent years, Perry has sought to branch out. In 2010, he directed an adaptation of the edgier stage play “For Colored Girls,” and his recent films have taken on more dramatic tones. So, in some ways, it seems logical that his next leap would be into an action star role. But the question remains, is that the right kind of path for Perry? Judging by “Alex Cross,” his latest starring vehicle, the answer is no. “Alex Cross” is sort of a prequel film based on the James Patterson novels that feature the famous detective. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Morgan Freeman originated the role of Cross on the big screen with “Kiss the Girls” and “Along Came a Spider.” Much like when Ben Affleck followed up Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in “Sum of All Fears,” Perry has now donned the mantle as Cross in a film that goes back to the beginning. The hope, logically, being that this re-boots the entire franchise. Rob Cohen, who directed “Alex Cross,” has directed a variety of solid action films. This isn’t the best example of his work. Little in the film resonates with the audience, and little in the story or performances is compelling. This is a poor follow up to previous Alex Cross films, and fails in its efforts to re-boot the franchise. A big part of the reason why is the miscasting of Perry. Perry has a certain set of gifts that have helped him build a nice career, but he feels out of place in this role. Some of the speech pattern feels like a poor impression of Freeman’s work in the earlier films, and it’s just hard to take him seriously as an action hero. In fact, the shift to making this more of an action-oriented role feels like a mistake. While I thought “Along Came a Spider” was a bit of a miss, “Kiss the Girls” worked best because it felt more like a cerebral thriller. “Alex Cross” doesn’t seem interested in the cerebral aspects, instead focusing on action sequences and chase scenes. It doesn’t really work and it isn’t compelling. The script from Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson is also to blame. It does little to establish the characters and the world in a compelling way. Before you have a chance to know, understand, or care about the characters, the film shifts to a glorified chase sequence. It isn’t all that interesting and feels too abrupt. Another problem with the film is Fox in the role as the main antagonist. He is edgy and creepy in the role, but it just doesn’t feel like there is good tension between his character and Cross. It feels like a series of odd choices — much of it probably having to do with the script — that give the film a disjointed feel. It’s easy to see what the director, writers, actors, and crew were trying to do with “Alex Cross.” They wanted to build an action-thriller that could jump start a series. But this film falls flat, fails in its aims, and misses in its execution.
Rating: PG-13 for violence including disturbing images, sexual content, language, drug references, and nudity.
Verdict: One star out of four.

Looper

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Jeff Daniels, and Emily Blunt

Synopsis: Rian Johnson delivers a fascinating think piece with "Looper," though it's probable that most audiences will focus on the action sequences in the film. The film is an interesting take on time travel, organized crime, and action films. It offers plenty of food for thought, especially considering the final choice made at the end. My question is what kind of film, and what kind of message Johnson ultimately sought to make here? The first part of the film seems very much like a sci-fi crime drama, only dropping a few hints as to what is to come. The second part of the film seems very much like an interesting sociological study. Essentially this time-travel crime thriller boils down to an interesting question of nature versus nurture. That, of course, is the final element left with the audience, which leads one to conclude that is the part we're meant to focus on. There are also some interesting things possibly suggested at the end of the film that have led to even stranger rabbit trails from some critics and observers I've read. When you're dealing with a movie that's central focus is time travel, these are the sort of questions that get asked. There is also some tough morality in this film — including grappling with the idea of child murder. This, of course, isn't the first time this storyline has been broached. The question has to be asked that, if you could go back in time and knew a young child would become a vicious killer, would it be morally permissible to eliminate the threat before it materialized? Obviously, as Christians, we have a pretty solid stance when it comes to murder, no matter the supposed justification. But all those larger questions loom at the end of this film. Yet, for all the interesting ethical questions posed by the film, I wasn't sold on the narrative or characters. Johnson is a gifted storyteller, to be sure, and this is a creative idea. I just didn't find myself caring that much about the characters or the story at the end. I was somewhat fascinated by the ideas, but I'm not even sure that was his intent. All this to say that "Looper" is more fascinating than many of the films released recently, but it isn't necessarily better than other films offered. I remain split on how I feel about this film even seven days after seeing it.

Rating: R for strong violence, language, some sexuality/nudity and drug content.

Verdict: Two stars out of four.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower

Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Melanie Lynskey, and Ezra Miller

Synopsis: This is a coming of age story adapted from the novel of the same name by Stephen Chbosky. Chbosky wrote the screenplay and directed the film adaptation, so he was able to direct the story. Honestly, this film ended up going to a much different place than I expected. It takes place over a year in the life of Charlie (Lerman), a freshman in high school who is very much an outsider. He has some personal demons that are in his head, he has no real friends, and he doesn't really know how to function as part of a group. Soon, he's adopted by a pair of seniors — Patrick (Miller) and Sam (Watson) — who are no strangers to being slightly outside the popular mainstream. With Patrick, Sam, and their group of friends, Charlie finds a place to belong and begins to open up. He also begins down a tough road of self discovery that helps him uncover the root of his mental and emotional problems, stemming from a rough relationship with his deceased aunt Helen (Lynskey). At times, this is a tough film to watch. But the performances are beautiful. Watson — best known for her work in the "Harry Potter" franchise — shows that she's got range and talent, stepping into a role a million miles from Hogwarts and shinning. Miller, too, is great in his complex role. He brings a great deal of the humor and conflict to the story. But the grounding performance in the film belongs to Lerman, who shines in the lead role. These three characters are well fleshed out, well acted, and help to guide the narrative of this film. It's got humor, sorrow, confusion, love, joy, and sadness — the full array of emotions associated with being human, especially a human trying to navigate the waters of public high school. I enjoyed this film very much, even though aspects of it are tough to watch and quite uncomfortable. This film has a strong complimentary cast as well, and does a good job of presenting the story it wants to tell in a relatable way.

Rating: PG-13 on appeal for mature thematic material, drug and alcohol use, sexual content including references, and a fight - all involving teens.

Verdict: Three stars out of four.

Seven Psychopaths

Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, and Tom Waits

Synopsis: I was a big fan of Martin McDonagh's film "In Bruges," which was a smartly written and directed crime comedy caper. When done well, the crime gone wrong genre can be cleverly entertaining. The Coen Brothers have made a career out of these types of films, and McDonagh delivered a gem with "In Bruges." He tries to deliver one again with "Seven Psychopaths,"but there is something about it that just doesn't quite work. The film has a top-notch cast, and the main leads offer strong performances. Farrell is great in his role as the anchor of the film, while Rockwell, Harrelson, and Walken are great in quirky roles around the periphery. The film plays to the strengths of its performers and makes the best use of the talent in the cast. But there is something a little off about this film in terms of the way it's put together. The film seems like it's setting out to be a straightforward story, which might have worked well enough, but it takes a left turn. The film devolves into what can best be described as an attempt to deconstruct this type of film while still making the film at the same time. This isn't the first time a writer has attempted this. Kevin Williamson famously poked fun at the cliches in horror films while still delivering an excellent slasher film with "Scream" in 1996, but it doesn't work as well here. There is obviously meant to be something going on at the metta level with this film, but it's not as engaging. The humor is there, the wild stories are there, but it's hard to understand the ultimate point that McDonagh is trying to make. There are clever beats and strong performances here, but ultimately the film ends in a confusing place. You can see what was trying to be accomplished, but for my money it never quite gets there. It feels like a series of interesting moments that someone tried to string together into a coherent finished project.

Rating: R for strong violence, bloody images, pervasive language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use.

Verdict: Two stars out of four.

Sinister

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Juliet Rylance, and James Ransone

Synopsis: I admire the care Scott Derrickson puts into his horror films. "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" was part court room drama, part exorcism film and did both well. He got the most out of his cast and made a film that posed enduring, gripping questions after a viewing. "Sinister" isn't as deep from a thinking level, but it's just as effective at nailing its genre. This is a thinking horror film, one that doesn't celebrate gore and graphic violence. It's a film that remembers that sometimes the threat of violence is more unnerving for an audience than the actual delivery of said violence. Not that "Sinister" isn't a violent film — it is. And not that the film doesn't have a graphically disturbing end — it does. But that isn't the main mechanism the film uses to paralyze the audience. Instead, it feels more like the journey of a man slowly going insane — haunted by the demons he's chasing and the mistakes he's made. Hawke is excellent in the lead role as a true crime author so desperate for a hit that he's willing to gamble with the lives of his family. He watches tapes of his past interviews where his sole goal was to find justice, realizing he's now a man willing to sacrifice justice for fame, wealth, and security. All of which leads him to hold on to a tempting and crucial piece of evidence in the latest crime he's investigating. But as he travels down the path of no return, he begins to lose his mind and, quite possibly, his soul. Hawke delivers in this role, watching a man slide so far down the path that he nearly loses sight of what's important. And by the time he figures out what's happening, it's too late. The film has some honest jump moments, and Derrickson does a great job of building the tension and ramping up the stakes leading up to the end. Though the film does depict some heinous acts, and it does end with carnage, it's the stirring journey to that point that gives "Sinister" its bite. This isn't the most original film — in fact it borrows elements of a number of different horror films and thrillers in the past. But Derrickson does a nice job of putting it all together in a compelling way and delivering a film that's both engrossing and surprising. "Sinister" ends up being one of the most fascinating and compelling films in the genre in some time.

Rating: R for disturbing violent images and some terror.

Verdict: Three stars out of four.

Upcoming Releases:

Friday, Oct. 26 — "Chasing Mavericks," "The Cloud Atlas," "Silent Hill: Revelation 3D," "Fun Size"