Larry Crowne

First Hit:  Although at times amusing, this film misfires in almost every area.

Tom Hanks had an idea and wrote it down on paper, decided it was good enough to be a film, then chose to direct and star in it as well.

Most of these decisions were not the best he could have made. The idea was actually pretty good and could have been expanded upon. People losing jobs after a divorce and finding they are not able to pay the bills could be a very strong story.

What evolved with fellow scriptwriter Nia Vardalos is generally weak and glossy. That the answer to Larry Crowne’s (played by Hanks) problems are to take college courses? Not sure this is real or true. Yes, getting an education is important and can lead one to a successful change in careers, but I didn’t think Larry had any idea as to what he wanted to be?

There is nothing in the film about Larry having a dream to be anything. So why would he go to school? Will a college degree in liberal arts keep him employed? No it won't, just ask the tens of thousands of college graduates who don’t have and cannot get a job.

This point is equally made in the film by his former boss at U Mart losing his job and he is seen later delivering pizza (and he graduated from SMU). Lastly,  would Larry have had grounds for wrongful termination suit? Probably and although

I don't recommend such things, it came to mind because Larry is fired he didn't have the possibility to advance in his career without further education. But where did we think he was pushing for a promotion. He seemed happy doing his job. The point of these comments is to indicate that the setup for this film was trite, untrue and wasteful.

The point of the film was to find a way to get Mercedes Tainot, a worn down by life teacher, played by Julia Roberts to find hope by meeting Larry. To this end the film worked in some ways. Do I believe that there was a real chemistry between Larry and Mercedes? Nope, not in the least and generally felt that they were two drowning individuals who decided to cling to each other to stay afloat.

There were some side characters as well. George Takei played Dr. Matsutani an economics professor. As Dr. M. he brought a whole new look to the film but, for the most part, was an interesting and fun diversion. Another side character who attempts to make Larry more hip was Alvarez (played by Roxana Ortega), she takes a liking to Larry and works with his clothes and gets him to join a scooter club.

Lastly, Alvarez’s boyfriend Dell Gordo (played by Wilmer Valderrama) was funny as the always watching and being jealous by the kind actions of his girlfriend.

Hanks might have made a better showing if he hadn’t written the script or directed himself in this film. Roberts was, by far and away, the best character in the film. She felt real. And despite her obvious beauty, I felt a depth in her character. She was living with her deadbeat husband who loves triple x porn and then goes to her teaching job and only having classes which are barely attended. Takei was funny and solid as an economics professor who believes he, and only he, understands economics. Ortega was cute, a little unrealistic, but embodied a person who follows her own open heart path. Valderrama was fun to watch in his reactions when Alvarez was around Larry. Hanks and Vardalos’ writing painfully displayed their lack of understanding of what is like to be downsized. Hanks showed he cannot direct himself and if directing is a calling for him, then make sure he is not a character in his own film so that he can concentrate on the task at hand – making a film that holds together well.

Overall: Poorly done but there were some fun moments and scenes which made it worth watching but barely.

Jane Eyre

First Hit: Beautifully shot, well-acted, but there was something dramatically missing.

This story has been done many times and this version was one of the most beautifully shot of all of them.

The feeling of the cold moist damp rain of England, the moors, the stone floors, the heavy drapes, the wavy glass windows, the candle and fire lit rooms were all visually arresting and felt true to the time. Here the director got it right.

The film begins with Jane (played by Mia Wasikowska) running away from the home of Mr. Rochester (played by Michael Fassbender) where she had been governess to his child ward. Her journey there began as an unwanted child (played by Amelia Clarkson) by her guardian Mrs. Reed (played by Sally Hawkins). Reed ships her off to a boarding school where she is treated poorly but becomes educated.

Unfortunately there is no resemblance between the actresses of the young and older Jane and this obvious mismatch was troublesome. Although there was a consistent feeling of Jane through these two actresses, and both were very good, the obvious physical discrepancies (mouth, lips, eyes and nose) were disconcerting to me and kept me from buying the story.

When the older Jane arrives at Mr. Rochester’s home she is greeted by Mrs. Fairfax (played by Judi Dench) who guides her into the role as governess. Mr. Rochester is intrigued by Jane and her direct fearless openness towards him and compels him to want to marry her.

In the rush to get the wedding done, a relative of his first wife barges in to object to the marriage. Jane is heartbroken and runs away (the opening scene). She makes her way to St. John Rivers (played by Jamie Bell) and his two sisters. They take her in and give her the opportunity to begin life again as a teacher in a small countryside school. But Jane’s heart yearns for Mr. Rochester and eventually she finds her way back.

Wasikowska is very good and endearing in this role, however I don’t know if it was something her acting, in the direction or in the lack of chemistry between her and Fassbender that left me unconvinced of this story. Fassbender was good as the troubled wealthy man looking for love and peace. But as previously stated something didn’t work in this film. Clarkson was wonderful as the young Jane and despite the obvious physical dissimilarities between her and the older Jane she did a wonderful job. Bell came off as fully untrustworthy from the get go. Whether his was supposed to come off this way or not, I don’t know. But the moment he picks up Jane from his front door, he felt creepy and it bothered me that Jane didn’t see it. Dench was strong as the house head housekeeper and guiding light for Jane. Moira Buffini wrote a good script from the Charlotte Bronte novel. Cary Fukunaga shot this film exquisitely, however there was something missing, a compelling chemistry, to make this version the best ever done.

Overall: I like this film, but left the theater wanting something more compelling.

The Adjustment Bureau

First Hit: A really wonderful, well-acted, romantic thriller.

There was very little that I didn’t like about this film. In fact the only thing I wanted more of was outrageousness and anger by David Norris (played by Matt Damon) at being told that “The Adjustment Bureau” was going to erase (“reset”) his brain if he told anyone of the bureau’s presence.

This is a film about fate versus free will and encased in an amazing love story. David is a young, engaging and occasionally reactive politician who unfortunately loses an election because of a New York Post publication of an old picture of him giving a moon shot.

While practicing his concession speech in the men’s restroom Elise Sellas (played by Emily Blunt) pops out of a restroom stall where she was hiding from hotel security for crashing a wedding party. Their immediate connection through witty conversation is so strong and palpable that I felt I was secretly watching a real and wild romance in the making.

Yes that's what good acting is about – creating belief. I believed David and Elise were truly and deeply connected after the first meeting.

The rest of the film is based on how well this scene is acted. Because it was so good the whole film works. The Adjustment Bureau are a group of guys (why weren’t there any women adjusters?) who influence small things, like a spilled cup of coffee, which change people’s actions and keeping them on their course as dictated by “The Chairman”.

Why is the bureau here? There is a scene where Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) tells Daemon (and us) why the bureau is adjusting human behavior. It is a quick history lesson as to how we are not only killing our fellow human beings but we're killing the planet as well.

Damon is believable and truly wonderful as Norris. Damon always gives strong performances and again here, he is perfect. Blunt is extraordinary. Her voice, beauty, witticisms, attitude and vulnerability is so present and alive in her character. Together I would rate Damon and Blunt as having the most amazing chemistry between couples of anyone on the screen since Jolie and Pitt in "Mr. and Ms. Smith". Anthony Mackie excellently plays Harry Mitchell the adjuster (and occasional Chairman) assigned to David but struggles to keep him in line with his destiny. Stamp was great as the “hammer” and higher-up who can straighten out Damon. Overall the entire cast was great. George Nolfi wrote a great screenplay and directed this film with expert aplomb.

Overall: Sure there may be unanswered questions in this film about fate and free-will, but sit back enjoy the acting and be transported into a great entertaining love story.

No Strings Attached

First Hit: A well done light hearted film about two people, with great chemistry, coming together.

Ashton Kutcher may be limited in his acting range, but he is really good within his range.

As Adam, a fun loving guy trying to be a television program writer with a famous father Alvin (played by Kevin Kline), he is living an easy sort of life. He’s handsome, women find him attractive, and he’s got friends.

Years earlier he met a young lady at camp named Emma (played by Natalie Portman) who is highly intelligent and proclaims, at this early age, she’s not good at affection. Years after that meeting they run into each other and she invites him to a thing.

The thing happens to be her father’s funeral. Later they meet up again and they begin a “friend with benefits” relationship. It is clear from the beginning he likes her more, in a romantic way, than she does him. She is focused in her medical practice and only wants sex with Adam at any time of the day or night.

The audience knows she is falling for him because there are too many hints that she is, despite her words to the contrary. Yes the ending is known because this is a Hollywood movie, but how it takes the audience to the ending is well done and the actors were great at telling this story.

Kutcher may be limited in the roles he's offered or in the choice he’s made. However in this film he’s easy to watch, he’s relaxed in this role and he brings the right amount of range to his character. Portman on the heels of her Oscar nomination deserving performance in “Black Swan” shows some real range by playing someone funny, complex, interesting and most of all believable. As Emma she is wonderful and sexy. Kline as Kutcher’s father is good as an obsessed man who knows he’s been obsessed with his past life as an young actor and he still leaves gatherings of people with a famous line from his early career “Great Scott”! It was nice to see Kline again in a role. Elizabeth Meriwether and Michael Samonek wrote an effective screenplay and story respectively. Ivan Reitman did a wonderful job of taking a predictable story with some good actors and making an enjoyable film.

Overall: Worth the money to go see if you want to sit back, relax and enjoy a romantic comedy.

Love and Other Drugs

First Hit: Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal have an on screen chemistry that works.

Even with many of the good lines already previewed in the trailers for this film, there are many more spoken by the actors as the film unfolds.

Maggie Murdock (played by Hathaway) is a young woman with 1st stage Parkinson’s disease. She takes a number of drugs to help her get by without most people seeing her symptoms. She is independent, strong and doesn’t want to be messed with.

Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal) plays a smart unfocused guy who the ladies are drawn to and, in turn, he loves to bed them. While pretending to be an intern he watches an examination of Maggie. She finds out that he wasn’t an intern and lets him have it.

They find out they have a lot in common; a need to feel free from entanglements, they both like sex, and they have fun together. As with all setups like this, we know they are going to find out they really care about each other and are meant for each other.

The way this story goes about it is really fun and entertaining. It also gives the audience a glimpse of Parkinson’s disease. I would have enjoyed more of the scenes when Maggie goes to an “unconvention” of Parkinson’s patients. Their self-deprecating humor was wonderful and insightful.

However, as the film moved along I didn’t feel we know enough about Maggie, where her family was, what her life was like before the onset of Parkinson’s.

The film seemed to lack some character development. What also didn’t work for me was Josh Gad as Josh Randall, Jamie’s brother. I’m not sure why this character was needed throughout the film.

Hathaway was wonderful to watch and her beauty and openness was engaging. Gyllenhaal was perfect as the guy who can always find a way to get the girl. He carries that air about him that makes life a rollick. Gad was good as the nerdy younger brother, I just didn’t get why he was in the film so much. Oliver Platt as Bruce Winston, Jamie’s sales mentor was funny and on target as a sales motivator. Charles Randolph and Edward Zwick wrote a witty screenplay and Zwick did a very creditable job of directing this in a lighthearted yet thoughtful way.

Overall: This was a satisfying film to watch and it was great to see good screen chemistry at work.