2.35:1 Widescreen

For first time screen writer Allen Loeb, Things We Lost In The Fire is quite an ambitious script. It relies almost completely on the writing and the performances that can be gotten from the acting leads. There’s really no place to hide in this story for anybody. And while I certainly found several elements of the story forced or contrived, there was an underlining emotion to the whole thing that carried through strong enough for the actors to find some very solid grounding. With that grounding Halle Berry and Benicio Del Toro delivered what should have been award winning performances. Of course, I didn’t see all of the films released in 2007, but I find it hard to believe there were many, if any, better performances. These two had to carry the entire film, all the while manipulating the audience’s emotions, keeping them engaged with very little action or other stimulation. It’s the only thing that kept me watching, that and having to write this review.

Audrey Burke (Berry) has just lost her husband Brian (Duchovny) to an act of violence. She has two young children, and she’s having a very difficult time dealing with her loss. In a rather strange turn of events she turns to Brian’s best friend, Jerry (Del Toro) for some kind of comfort. What makes this so strange is that she, up to this point, hated Jerry and tried to convince Brian to stay away from him. Jerry is a drug addict, whom Audrey believed was just taking from Brian without giving anything back. She resented the fact that Brian was the only person that hadn’t completely given up on Jerry. Now she feels the need to connect with this man. She invites him to the funeral and finds herself fascinated with him. She asks him to stay at her house, and attempts to assist him in kicking his addiction. The two learn to explore their own emotions and deal with their grief. Together they find a way to improve themselves, by sharing this common bond.

Open relationships have never really been in my repertoire. I’m a pretty committed guy. I find a girl or she finds me and we stick it out until one or both of us feel otherwise. Some people will argue that it is not natural to simply have one mate, instead we have to find multiple people to share relationships and intercourse with. In the movie Fling, it deals with an open relationship between Samantha & Mason. My money is on the fact that one of them goes too far in their openness and the relationship becomes strained. Let’s see how good my guesses are today.

Sam (played by Courtney Ford) and Mason (played by Steve Sandvoss) are in an open relationship. Sam is looking to open her own business while Mason writes trashy romance novels. They also find time to have relations with each other and anybody else they can shack up with. At a wedding, Sam rekindles a relationship with James (played by Brandon Routh), an old boyfriend. Mason, meanwhile finds out that his best friend Luke’s (played by Nick Wechsler) sister, Olivia (played by Shoshana Bush) is very taken with him.

On January 23, 2002 Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was kidnapped and eventually killed by terrorists while working in Pakistan. A Mighty Heart is based on this true story. The narrative comes from the book by his wife Marianne Pearl. While this is certainly the tragic tale of a murdered reporter, this film is more the story of Marianne and her struggle to locate Pearl in the 10 days from his capture until a video tape surfaced depicting his beheading.

A Mighty Heart begins with us getting to know Daniel Pearl (Futterman), and it quickly takes us through the events leading to his capture. From here on out the theme shifts to the massive investigation to find him. Various American and Pakistani agencies come together to track down every lead in a relentless search. We are cleverly kept bonded to Pearl through well placed flashbacks mostly dealing with intimate moments shared with his wife. Her memories keep Pearl alive for us as they must have for her during those trying times. Of course, if you are at all familiar with these events, and who isn’t, you already know that this film has no happy ending. There aren’t even any satisfying answers left to at least leave you with some feeling of closure. You will leave, perhaps, with more questions than when you started. But there are no easy answers to be found here, and any attempt to provide them would not be honest if the film intends to make an impact as this one does. There are no apologies made, nor should there be for the brutal way the terrorists and their pursuers are portrayed and the culture in which they thrive.

I was very eager to revisit this film now that it has come our way on Blu-ray and high definition. There are issues that I struggled with in my own viewing that I will discuss later in this review. In high definition this film becomes a case study in contradiction. It’s amazing how pretty a thing can be when it really isn’t very pretty at all. We are witness to bad things, but the director chooses to present these things amid a flurry of beauty. It’s a rather striking contrast, made more so on Blu-ray. It actually made for a much more effective experience, even if most of my initial feelings about the film remain unchanged.

In the vein of The Cincinnati Kid (1965) and a sprinkle of The Sting (1972) John Dahl brings us Rounders. Card prodigy Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) quits the game after losing everything. Once Mike’s best friend Les “Worm” Murphy (Edward Norton), gets out of jail, Worm attempts to get Mike back into the poker world. As Worm’s behavior begins to implicate Mike, Mike decides to come out of poker retirement.

The film itself is good. The on-screen chemistry between Damon and Norton is not forced. The other performances in the film do not distract from the narrative, with Martin Landau’s standing out. The film is shot very plainly without too many fancy editing techniques or wild Dutch angles. Dahl simply conveys a character piece that does what it is set out to do with little failure. David Levien and Brian Koppelman’s script has been appropriately dubbed “cool” by the poker community. Upon initial viewing most poker references will soar above the viewer’s head. However, upon multiple viewings, you tend to pick up on the language. This collector’s edition offers a plethora of bonus features which is miles away from the previous release.

Have you ever had the feeling that you’ve joined a film somewhere in the middle? That’s how I almost immediately felt about Stiletto. I even went back to the menu to be sure I wasn’t starting the film in progress. No such luck. The script drops you in the middle of these characters’ adventure so that by the time you understand what’s going on, you’ve long given up caring. That means the only other thing you might have gotten this film for is to see some full on kick butt chick action. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t really deliver on that either.

Raina (Katic) was a mobster’s girl. Now she’s out for revenge on the entire organization for a particularly brutal act. One by one she’s taking the crew down, but she fails to kill Virgil (Berenger), the leader of the gang. He survives and decides to send his crooked cop, Beck (Sloan) to stop her before she tries to kill him again. It’s a basic cat and mouse game as she continues to “Raina” down on his gang. Alex (Forsythe) has taken the lady into her confidence, but is just using her himself. No doubt that Stana Katic looks pretty good as she methodically kills her enemies, but there’s really no flair to the performance. She was much better in the latest Bond film. I never saw the hatred and emotion that caused these acts in the first place. She’s pretty matter of fact as she goes about the slayings. The events themselves look staged and never deliver on the promised thrills. William Forsythe looks like the scumbag his character is, but I get the feeling that’s just Forsythe. He’s become quite a clichéd character actor, and we’ve seen him like this a hundred times before. Tom Berenger’s face looks like they puffed it out with prosthetics. At least, I hope it’s makeup. Otherwise, dude’s gotten ugly. He either can’t or refuses to emote more than one emotion the entire picture. Don’t even get me started on the gang that calls itself “Nazis For Jesus”. No one in this cast sets the film on fire. What you end up with are countless action sequences that never seem to get your heart racing. Before long I found myself too catatonic to even turn the thing off.

“The dead can hover on the edge of our vision with the density and luminosity of mist. And their claim on the Earth can be as legitimate and tenacious as our own.”

In The Electric Mist is based on one of James Lee Burke’s Detective Robicheaux novels, In The Electric Mist With Confederate Dead. The role was previously played by Alec Baldwin in Heaven’s Prisoners. There couldn’t be any two more diverse actors playing the same role. I have never seen Baldwin’s film, so can’t make an actual comparison, but I suspect that Tommy Lee Jones adds far more depth and a more contemplative nature to the role.

I get worried when I see box art make claims like they have on the recent release of Dorothy Mills. It claims that this film is a contemporary take on The Exorcist. The problem is that we don’t really need a contemporary take on that classic film. It’s a bit pretentious and arrogant to think that this low budget affair can come close to reproducing what that film did back in the 1970’s. Why can’t the folks who make these kinds of films allow the film to stand on its own and aspire to something unique and exciting for its own merits? Fortunately the box art is just marketing hype, probably written by some advertisement executive who never actually even saw the film. This isn’t The Exorcist, nor does it actually try to be. Truth be told, the film doesn’t play out like your normal run of the mill possession films at all. It has a rather clever angle that might be more Sybil than Exorcist.

“Safety is the greatest risk of all, but safety leaves no room for miracles, and miracles are the only sure thing in life.”

Spike Lee finds a noble cause in the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers, fighting in Italy during World War II. There’s no question that history hasn’t always dealt fairly with the contributions the black soldiers have made on the battlefields that have, at times, defined our nation. From the American Revolution through to today’s War On Terror, the black soldier has risked and often laid down his life for a country that at least during World War II, didn’t honor his service or humanity. The problem is that Lee lost focus of whatever it was he was trying to say or whoever it was he was attempting to honor here. This movie never is about these particular soldiers or their contributions. There is no history, to speak of here at all. We don’t see the formation of these units, and the film doesn’t go into their overall importance in the war effort. Instead the film is more about the Italian resistance during Nazi occupation and the politics and betrayals of that movement. It’s almost as if these few black soldiers are merely witnesses to a series of events that were never under their control.

Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies is a reliable piece of filmmaking exemplary of the great director’s ability to make a tensely watch-able film, even if said film isn’t his best work. Such is the case with this Leonardo DiCaprio-Russell Crowe-led action-thriller that focuses on the post-Iraqi invasion conflict. DiCaprio’s Roger Ferris is left with those little pieces of death that have proven so much more dangerous after the old regime was toppled by U.S. forces, and he seems fine with it.More at home is he in the Middle East because control always seems to be within his grasp. It’s when that control is threatened by the meddling of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats that he finds it difficult to function.