In a city as vast and populated as New York, the new film Jack Goes Boating is a small story centered around four locals. Adapted from a play of the same name, the film stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as the titular Jack, a single man who keeps to himself in the basement of his Uncle’s house.  It’s apparent that Jack struggles to connect with people (a potential social disorder of some sort?), but he maintains one close friendship with his co-worker Clyde.

Jack and Clyde are limousine drivers mired in the routine of their work for years. While Jack comforts himself with the positive vibes of reggae music, Clyde is the self-medicating type who has a wife to go home to.

The story begins with Clyde and his wife attempting to set-up their respective co-workers Jack and Connie on a blind date. Both potential date partners seem ambivalent but acquiesce just the same.  There are hints at likely trauma in both Connie and Jack’s pasts, and they carry that forth into their odd but endearing interactions with one another.  Still, their relationship is only half the story.

Clyde’s burgeoning friendship with Jack is approached with a mentor and pupil mentality of sorts with Clyde leading Jack in an adult version of the birds and bees. This is emphasized while Clyde is attempting to hold together a tenuous marriage at home.  What unfolds is an interesting story about friendship, a tender love story, betrayal, and even strength where you sometimes least expect it. This also shows the growth of a man when he is encouraged to engage.

Hate to disappoint you, but 'Jack Goes Boating' not "motor-boating."

There are several laughs throughout, but the brilliance of Hoffman’s directorial debut is that the laughs are often in the awkward pauses between the characters rather than in the bizarre things that they sometimes say or the peculiar ways they express themselves.  Sometimes you suppose that Jack and Connie simply are afraid to say what they feel, and then one (usually Connie) will say something that floors you.  Good stuff.  The only drawback here is that you can see the story unfolding with the inevitable ending developing from a mile away.

The mini-dreadlocked Jack is the lead character but really equal time is devoted to the four main actors who carry virtually every frame of film. TV veteran John Ortiz’s Clyde makes an impression as a charismatic man with issues that are hidden beneath a harder, jovial exterior. Hoffman and Ortiz are co-founders of the LAByrinth Theater in New York and their easy real-life friendship leads to an uncommon chemistry on the big screen. I anticipate Ortiz’s work will steadily increase from such valued screen time in this role.

Amy Ryan continues to show she deserves more work by tackling the challenging role of Connie and convincing us that she exists on every level.  Part paranoid and tortured, the other part gentle and loving; you waste no time believing that Connie and Jack couldn’t share a relationship despite their obvious deficiencies.

This is a mature work that is definitely not mainstream but completely worthy of an audience, particularly for fans of independent cinema or quirky relationship comedies.  While the drama of how it all turns out is rarely in doubt, its still an enjoyable journey to get there, and that is what matters most here.

Inception is an amazing movie.  There is no sense in moving forward with a full review without first getting that out of the way.  Christopher Nolan and his team, with a cast that is led by the sterling Leonardo DiCaprio, have made a complex, innovative, and compelling film that will be talked about for years to come, let alone is an early awards season favorite.  It is likely the best film that I have seen in the last five years and perhaps longer.  Yes, it is that good.

Now that the superlatives are out of the way, let me tell you a bit about the film that has been hyped on the internet for at least a year.  Inception is a difficult film to define, which will leave you questioning the events you have seen from start to finish.  The idea of inception, is the concept of planting an idea in someone’s mind, in order to make that idea a reality within the individual.  It may sound complex, and it is, but it also is very compelling.

In the film, DiCaprio’s Dom Cobb is a master at entering people’s dream states and stealing their ideas for various uses.  Cobb has a team of rogues that include Arthur (the continually maturing Joseph Gordon Levitt of 500 Days of Summer fame), Tom Hardy’s (Bronson and RocknRolla) impersonator Eames and the rookie architect Ariadne (Juno’s Ellen Page).  The team’s members are all capable of interacting with one another within a dream state.

While Cobb has largely been a stealer of ideas, with the concept of inception, his goal is to plant an strong idea in Robert Fischer’s (Cillian Murphy) mind, as a favor (paid) to billionaire Saito (Ken Watanabe), so that Tom will regain his freedom and be able to return to the United States and see his children.  Cobb has been living on the lam internationally since he was forced from the US upon an accusation that he killed his wife (Marion Cotillard).

Entering the mind is a challenging art as the mind has defense mechanisms built in to defend itself against theft, which is played out in the film in various forms as well.  That is the essential groundwork one can know, in order to grasp the basic principles of what will take place in the movie.  Almost anything else would be considered a spoiler; a slippery slope as it is.  That being said, the journey that Nolan’s Inception takes you on is an incredibly immersing and creative one.

The visual effects are top notch, the creativity involved truly makes a dream world come to life unlike any film I can recall witnessing.  Physics and time rules are tossed out the window (trains travel down the middle of the street, building are bent, gravity shifts – all at a moments notice), and similar to being in a dream, things happen seemingly at random until the “kick”, which is a reference to being jolted awake.

Most everyone knows the feeling of falling from a cliff in their dream and bouncing awake on their bed. Inception takes that fundamental feeling and explains how it happens.

The movie is an incredible thing to witness.  You are taken on a journey across continents, torrential weather changes, shape shifting worlds where houses float and stairs end and begin as you create them in your mind.  Throw that on top of the strong acting and incredible direction.  If you thought The Dark Knight or Memento was Nolan’s strongest point, you can now cast such thoughts aside.

Inception is the clear-cut leader in the awards race for best picture, director and technical achievement at this juncture, if nothing else.  The Oscars, Golden Globes and others will be hard pressed to find a yet to be released film to top it.  A tall statement in July I understand, but one I believe will hold true nevertheless. Inception combines the striking visuals and mind bending concepts of a film like The Matrix, the action of the Bourne trilogy, with the emotional core of a film like Slumdog Millionaire and rolls them into one challenging whole. Inception is a film that demands repeated viewings and philosophical discussions for those truly trying to discern specific answers to it, but even those who leave their minds at the door can enter into a dreamlike state and just take it all in.

Knight and Day is a difficult movie to define.  It is equal parts screwball comedy and action with elements of romance and espionage thriller sprinkled in.  Director James Mangold aims to let the audience in on the fun directly and the results are a mixed bag.

Knight and Day Sees A Return to Form for Star Tom Cruise

On one hand, you have two stars with genuine chemistry between them.  Tom Cruise movies used to be an event, but his star has dimmed a bit in recent years.  Here he plays rogue CIA agent Roy Miller, a man who has fallen out of favor with the agency over what has been deemed to be behavior contradictory to the best interests of the organization.  Cameron Diaz is everyday girl June Havens, an innocent bystander who gets caught up in the web of intrigue as an unknown pawn between Miller and the CIA agents who are tracking him.

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz fire away in Knight and Day.

A third group of sinister types are also in pursuit of Miller, for he is deemed to control a prototype energy battery that is as small as a normal AA Duracell, but can power an entire city with its efficiency.  Miller has the battery and everyone else wants it, so that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.  Whose hands are truly wrong, becomes the twist beyond the action in figuring out this cat and mouse game.

Cameron Diaz Lends Notable Star Wattage to the Cast of Knight and Day

Cruise leaves a trail of bodies in his wake in broad daylight, so believability must be thrown out the door right away, but that doesn’t necessarily detract from the film’s effectiveness or lack thereof.  Mangold opens the film in an airport, and from plane to train to automobile destruction follows in this Bond-esqe actioner.

Cruise and Diaz run/ride with the bulls in Knight and Day.

Miller is a wild card with a good heart (it seems) but Havens can never know for sure.  While June gets swept up as a kidnapped pawn of sorts, it is unclear as to why she is along for the ride.  However, her feelings and desire for fun certainly play a part in that.  But what sane woman would want to entrench herself with a potentially unstable CIA operative who literally leaves dozens of bodies dead littered around her on multiple occasions?  Such is the type of film we are dealing with.

Director James Mangold Might Have Been the Wrong Call to Lead Knight and Day

It’s a messy and inconsistent script that follows its leads through several continents and locations that cause the whole enterprise to tumble.   Mangold, who made his name with dramatic films like Girl, Intterupted and Walk The Line, might not have been the right choice to helm here.  It is unclear whether the lo-tech digital enhancements are merely there to aid in the whole feeling of cheesiness or if they are simply a result of an insufficient post-production budget.  One may never know or care.

Knight and Day is not a bad film experience, but it’s not a strong one either.  It is actually a decent time at the movies if you check your sense of reality at the door.  Mangold’s film is geared toward the date-going crowd, which it marginally satisfies, without breaking any significant ground in the process.  It is a unique film for this day and age, in some ways it feels like a throwback to the Cannonball Run days, but it just isn’t as successful in its execution as one would hope for.  See it if interested, pass if on the fringe.

With the usual summer hype surrounding a sequel of this magnitude, Iron Man 2 had a lot to live up to.  The weight of the proverbial iron didn’t crush this film, but it certainly didn’t resist said weight and reach the height of the first Iron Man.  In IM2, Robert Downey Jr. is back as the titular iron one, but he is joined by a bevy of well-known stars for the sequel. Most notably, gone is Terence Howard, Rhodey from the first film, his replacement is the venerable Don Cheadle.  Also joining the fray are Scarlett Johansson, a more prominent role for Samuel L. Jackson, the always strong Sam Rockwell (Moon), the resurrected career of Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) and usual suspects Jon Favreau (also the director) and Gwyneth Paltrow. Just getting a title card long enough to fit all these names is a task in and of itself. With such a cast, it was hard for the hype meter not to reach dizzying levels.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark in Iron Man 2.

Iron Man 2 finds RDJ’s Tony Stark in a vulnerable spot where the government wants his “weapon” and Rockwell’s Justin Hammer, a Hammer Industries CEO and competitor to Downey’s Stark Industries, is trying to assemble said weapon to sell to the government and acquire unknown riches.  Meanwhile, Stark is in meltdown mode, stressed from running the company and being Iron Man, so his confidante Paltrow’s Pepper Potts can come in and be the antidote for what ails him.  Additionally, Rourke’s Ivan Vanko (aka Whiplash) is of questionable origin, out to gain revenge on Stark for what Tony’s father did to his father.  ScarJo is a kick-ass assistant (and potentially more) to Paltrow, who has ulterior motives and Jackson’s Nick Fury plays a role along those lines as well.  Rhodey mainly in-fights with his buddy Stark who loses control at a party, which leads to further plot machinations.  Each character has their own mini-plot which doesn’t always serve the movie as a whole well.  Convolution galore, as far as the plot goes. It’s not that it’s ridiculously hard to follow, but it also doesn’t flow like a rushing river either.

The film is long and dialogue heavy, but the action sequences do live up to what those in a summer blockbuster should.  Iron Man and War Machine whiz around the sky, Black Widow has some nice fight sequences, and all in all, from that standpoint, things are lively.  Unfortunately, the action is a little too sparse between the long dialogue sequences.  For instance, Paltrow’s Potts appears to be consistently whiny, her character virtually destroying the fun in most scenes she is in. To her credit, this isn’t really all on her, it is the way the character is written, Meryl Streep (hang it up – by the way) couldn’t make Potts any more tolerable.  Alternately, Rourke is strong in his vignettes as a real threat to Stark.  Of course, Downey Jr. brings the goods, a natural acting talent, breezing through dialogue with whipper snapper flow.  Alas, there is no Ghostface sighting like in the original (deleted scene here) which would have helped for simple comedy.  Ultimately, there isn’t enough to raise the bar enough to make it a strong recommend.

ScarJo lends her assets to the "Iron Man" party.

This is average summer fare. It provides what is expected, nothing more, nothing less. It’s easy to be underwhelmed by the results, given the hype, but I find that to be a bit unfair in this case. This isn’t The Dark Knight, something I think many film fans were either clamoring for or hoping for.  Iron Man 2 is serviceable entertainment and a decent way to get the summer season moving at the turnstiles. Just don’t expect anything transcendent and with the proper mind set, you’ll be entertained.

I went to this film on a complete whim, knowing nothing but two things, a.) it starred Michael Caine, an actor I am neutral on at best, sometimes I like him, others not so much, and b.) I had seen one photo of him wielding a gun.  I knew nothing of the plot, so anything could have happened and I would have no preconceived notions of what to expect.  This is a fairly uncommon place to be in for me, a.) as a film writer, and b.) simply due to the volume of information on films available.  I am happy to report, I came away pleasantly surprised with the results.

Harry Brown is a drama/thriller by a relatively new director, Daniel Barber, from a screenplay penned by Gary Young.  Neither of these names are likely to mean much to audiences here in the states (up to this point).  Brown stars the aforementioned Caine as the titular Harry, a widower who lives in a slum akin to those Jay-Z often raps about.  These projects are rampant with crime and drugs, both of which come into Harry’s life in not-so-pleasant circumstances.  I.E., he’s not the one willingly doing blow, brandishing weapons and breaking into people’s homes – at least at first.  However, when a crime is committed on Harry’s best friend Lenny, Lenny attempts to strike back with vengeance on a crew of thugs who are the suspected perpetrators.  The results are less than fruitful as Lenny is murdered.

Michael Caine's Harry Brown is an O.G. that would make Ice-T proud.

Thus begins an investigation into Lenny’s mysterious death and a deeper look at the crimes that the group of hoodlums have routinely become known for.  Emily Mortimer plays Alice Frampton, a new to the precinct law woman who decides she wants to investigate the death with more aplomb than the usual detective would apply.  Normally, its take a report and let the locals sort it out, but her curiosity is piqued for reasons unexplained.  Meanwhile, driven by loneliness and revenge, Harry begins his own sort of investigation to bring his own brand of justice to the passing of his buddy. Thus begins a sort of cat and mouse game between the thugs, Harry, Frampton and even others that will be revealed with a viewing.

As Harry descends deeper into his moral self and calls upon his past as a war hero, a complicated moral quandary comes to the fore front that will be revealed in time.  An intriguing plot unravels on the screen in a rather unusual way.  Caine’s Harry takes on a form of Liam Neeson-lite from last year’s Taken.  Though maybe not highly plausible, the circumstances and actions in the film are still mired in enough realism to keep the viewer on edge.  Barber has some good locations to shoot in and Young’s script delivers a nice mix of both the dramatic and thrilling.  The climax will likely leave you talking about the film afterward.  Brown may not the most rewarding film you will see all year, but it will likely be near the top in originality.  The mix of young (the thugs, gangsterism) and old (Caine, revenge) blend nicely into a cohesive whole.  It’s a close call on the final verdict, but I give Harry Brown a fairly solid recommendation as mature adult entertainment.

Ed: Note, Cyrus was formerly titled Center of Attention.

In terms of my family life, my time on Earth has been fairly charmed. I was lucky enough to be born with parents that were together and have remained together to this point in my existence. They bred two older brothers and a younger sister for me to grow up around, so that I was never bored. I can’t say that I was never lonely, but certainly not for any reason I didn’t create myself. I have no idea what it’s like to be an only child. Nor do I have any idea what it’s like to be raised by a single parent. I have friends that fit into either category and even both. So, even though I’ve never experienced the sensation, I’ve witnessed it first hand. There’d just be no telling how I would’ve come out had things gone differently, especially if my single parent mom had ever brought home some other guy. That’s the situation that belies Cyrus in Center of Attention.

Cyrus isn’t actually the main character of the film, but it certainly revolves around him. Instead, we are first introduced to John. I’d tell you John is recently divorced, as that’s what it seems, but it’s actually been seven years since his wife, Jamie, left him. He’s lonely and depressed and really John’s only friend. She still has a key to the apartment they once shared and after not receiving a response to repeated knocks and calling out of his name, she enters his place to find pizza boxes strewn about and hot wing bones tossed around. As if she’d never left. To top if off, she finds John in a compromised position (think Costanza in the “Seinfeld” episode, “The Contest”). She makes one thing clear to him. He needs to get out.

After repeatedly denying her, John ends up at a party with Jamie and her soon-to-be-husband, doing their best to expose him to other forms of life. He’s less than reluctant, as he sits in front of the fireplace and tosses bits of the label from his beer bottle into the flame. He finally makes a pact with Jamie’s fiancée to get drunk and after a little alcohol flows down his throat, it’s officially on. Strike one comes in the form of a botched conversation butt-in that ends with a broken thermostat. Strike two comes from a hail-mary drunken profession to a girl far below even his standards that even though he’s lonely and depressed, he’s still a fun guy. John awaits strike three to come while he relieves himself into some plant life. This is where he meets Molly. He wonders why a gorgeous woman would speak to a schlub like him, especially given his current act of defiance. Nevertheless, they continue conversing into the night.

Tomei's "Molly" applies a "sleeper hold" to Hill's "Cyrus" as Reilly's "John" looks on.

Of course, conversing leads to an invite into John’s home and an invite into John’s home leads to sex. Everything seems to be going great, except when John wakes up the next morning, he’s in bed along. However, Molly leaves a note to let John know he wasn’t completely abandoned. They go through the same routine the next day, but this time when Molly attempts to sneak out in the middle of the night, John spots her. He asks if she’s married. She denies it, but assures him he needs to leave. John tails her home in an effort to discover her reasoning and falls asleep in his car. He wakes up the next morning to find a 20-something year-old young man patrolling the house. Molly’s son, Cyrus. That’s the rub. John soon finds out exactly why Molly thought it necessary to sneak out and keep him a secret from her son.

John C. Reilly has made a living of playing a likable losers. He was a down-and-out homeless man in Paul Thomas Anderson’s debut, Hard Eight (aka Sydney). He won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for being a whipping-husband to a strong-willed woman in Chicago. He was a 40-year-old child in Step Brothers. Here, he’s a similar character, but Reilly always brings a certain charm to him, which makes you actively root for him, no matter how low the circumstances he finds himself in. Here, he can’t help it. He’s captivated by a beautiful Marisa Tomei as Molly, and although she carries baggage other men might not be willing to put up with, John cares enough for her, but has a certain desperation as well. Jonah Hill seems to get more understated as he goes along and Cyrus is a difficult character to figure out. Hill imbues him with a creepiness, but has a wonderment about a world he hardly knows, as well.

Center of Attention combines a mainstream comedy plot, but told in an independent style. The plot of two men moving under the same roof and going to war with each other mainly reminded me of Step Brothers, which certainly isn’t hurt by the fact John C. Reilly stars in both. The visual style takes a hand-held approach however, giving it an indie and more enveloping feel. Mass appeal, this isn’t. As funny as I found the film and as great as the performances were, I would have wanted a slightly broader take. The war between Cyrus and John is a ferocious one as indicated by the characters traits, but isn’t stressed very much in the story. I would’ve have wanted to witness more of the one-upmanship between them.

Brothers Mark and Jay Duplass have created an intimate character study, which still manages to bring the funny. Their camerawork, as mentioned above, is deliberately shaky at times, using zooms and canted angles. Some might think the style clashes with the plot, but it truly adds another dimension to help encapsulate the audience in the environment of the picture. There’s a particular moment when John discovers something about Cyrus that makes him appear untrustworthy and the camera zooms toward his visage, leaving the identifying object out of frame. The film is infused with this little moment of discovery for the viewer, not shoving information down your throat.

Albeit not deathly funny, Center of Attention packs humor into what ultimately amounts to a character piece about three individuals who find themselves in a situation they’d rather not be in. John would rather have Molly to himself, much as Cyrus would. Molly is the one who finds herself stuck in the middle, with the only two men in her life vying for her attention and love. It’s a love triangle far less cliché than what most romantic comedies bring in droves. Center of Attention deserves yours, but choose who you see it with wisely, you wouldn’t want a war to break out between them.

Leo. Scorcese. Haunting trailers. Hype and buildup heading into a potential late season release.  Everything was looking great for this movie…last year.  With a push back/delay on it’s release date ’til early this year, this strong picture put itself in the precarious position of being released two months too late for the ‘09 Awards season (see my 2009 Film Rankings here), while at the same time being the first big event type film of the 2010 year, though it was not mentioned on this year’s Most Anticipated Films list due to the delay.  All of that mumbo-jumbo aside, Shutter Island lived up to its billing as must see entertainment for me but it will have people questioning whether they feel the same more so than many other movies released this year.

Leo's "Teddy" arrives at the gates of the prison.

Shutter Island is the name of the island US Marshals Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) see as the film opens to a haunting score with their ship approaching the island where the criminally insane are held in prison.  Mass murderers, rapists, criminals of the worst kind are held here for various reasons.  Once you get on the island, the only way out is by ferry.  Think San Francisco’s Alcatraz but more remote and intimidating.  And trust me, Alcatraz is intimidating, I’ve been there and don’t wish to go back.  When the Marshals dock, they give up their guns and thus begins a wicked unspooling of events where they are investigating a missing person.  This potentially dangerous escapee purportedly killed her children years ago and then as Ben Kingsley’s Dr. Cawley (the prison’s superintendent) advises, “it’s like she evaporated straight through the walls.”  Talk about mysterious, without the obvious giveaways found in the classic The Shawshank Redemption.

Throughout the film, Teddy gets deeper and deeper into his investigation and more clues are revealed which lead to more questions.  The entire prison – inmates, staff, cops, doctors – all seem to be involved in one way or another.  Teddy trusts no one, he even starts questioning his best friend Chuck, and is battling his own issues as well.  To tell too much more wouldn’t be prudent.  Various supporting turns are given by Michelle Williams as Teddy’s wife, Jackie Earle Haley (aka Freddy Krueger to be) as a crazy inmate (aren’t they all?), Patricia Clarkson (is she crazy or not?) and the eery Max von Sydow.

The film has various twists and turns but none more shocking than the ending one. This is sure to divide some audiences, but in my mind, if you like the Sixth Sense, then this will sit fine with you.  The film holds elements of David Fincher’s brilliant The Game and Scorcese’s own Cape Fear, along with the previously aforementioned ending.  It’s a cinematic entertainment that provides strong performances, good visuals, and thought provocation worthy of repeat viewings.  I’m eager to see this one again.

Just a regular inmate at "Shutter Island."

Shutter Island stayed with me for a few days after seeing it. That is not something that is easily done.  I do, however, think that the February release date change could hurt it’s awards season chances.  A few days is one thing but nearly a full calendar year is another.  Even having this release in late August would have been beneficial to this date.  But that doesn’t detract from the quality of this film.  If you like Leo, or Scorcese, or thriller films, or any combination thereof – this really is can’t miss entertainment for you.  Highly recommended.

In a year already decorated with and defined by a strong, liberating output from female directors, Lone Scherfig’s An Education is a calculated and sophisticated work about a time when women were questioning and challenging their cultural boundaries. Opposed to Kathryn Bigelow’s magnificent war-drama The Hurt Locker or Jane Campion’s lush period drama Bright Star, Scherfig’s film is the first crowning woman’s achievement of the year that’s actually about women.

Set in suburban London in 1962 and adapted from Lynn Barber’s true-life memoir by screenwriter Nick Hornby, An Education charts the coming-of-age journey of 16-year old Jenny (slam-dunk Best Actress nominee Carey Mulligan), who is courted by a rich, slick traveler and his swooning red sports car on a rainy weekday afternoon. The striking fellow is David, a middle-aged smoothie with nice suits, played by Peter Sarsgaard with astonishing intrigue and mystery. He’s so much more mature and suave than Jenny’s long, lanky and more appropriately aged admirer, Graham, that the film decides to play up this dramatic disparity with welcome comedic results.

Miss Stubbs (Olivia Williams) adamantly dissaproves of Jenny's (Carey Mulligan) decision to continue seeing her middle-aged boyfriend

As a smart, book savvy teenage girl with an almost disobedient affection for French cinema and music, the promise of a life of fortune, fashion and adventure can prove to be too much to ignore. Not only for Jenny, but for her father (played by the wonderful Alfred Molina) who is equally hypnotized and spellbound by the allures of David’s protection as he weighs the cost of Jenny’s education at Oxford.

Such is the vulnerability and inadequacy of growing up a woman in 1962. For them, and for Jenny, your choices are to either lock up with the first rich and confiding man you see or work your heart out to live a life of harmless, but stable conformity – something Jenny sees in her English teacher, Miss Stubs, (Olivia Williams). Jenny describes the blank, expressionless educator as “dead” ever since her graduation from Cambridge, implying a disgracefully apathetic life of tedium opposed to her globetrotting affairs with David.

You could say that this film represents the end of an era where women were powerless and susceptible to an easy life of non-conformity, knowing the alternative. Similar to AMC’s hit series “Mad Men,” also set in the early 60’s, the movie represents an age of impending cultural revolution where women were just beginning to question their societal limitations.

David (Peter Sarsgaard) is a natural when it comes to meeting the parents (Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour).

It’s such an honest and perfectly framed film, quaint and classy, jazzy and refined. Nick Hornby’s script is both penetratingly exact yet opaque, without a wasted breath or scene in-between. Scherfig, meanwhile, uses her feminine touch to make the film resonate where it otherwise might not have – similar to the way Kathryn Bigelow’s unnatural masculinity enhanced The Hurt Locker. Also, John de Borman’s rich lensing gives An Education a pleasurable and alluring palette, like a cozy street-side café.

Carey Mulligan, a 24-year old English actress who will be a household name come Spring next year, gives a star-turn here as the perhaps ignorantly confident Jenny. She has such an immediate presence in the film that’s rare for a young actress and it’s easily the best in a top-to-bottom stunning ensemble. Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike, as David’s equally posh and carefree friends – plus Emma Thompson as the school headmaster – all contribute to the cause.

As Jenny finds her existential truths and her place in the world around her, An Education reverberates like no other coming-of-age drama of recent memory. “Action builds character,” she says, and although it’s not necessarily in the sense that she means at the time, the message fits regardless. Sometimes, the best education is the one that doesn’t have to be bought.

For the better part of a decade, Nicolas Cage has sauntered through a plenitude of dopey, dead-weight, mid-major action films. But like a true savior, Werner Herzog has turned Cage from the dark side – still sensing good in him – and given the 45-year old actor one of the greatest roles of his career as the reckless, off-kilter and just plain bad, post-Katrina Lieutenant Terence McDonagh.

After a rare bout of heroism during the opening scene in Werner Herzog’s crazily trigger-happy Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (an update of Abel Ferrera’s 1992 film), our titular subject and plainly described antihero suffers an evidently permanent back injury. His chest now slinks to one side, his gape more deliberate, his appearance more fatigued – the pain becoming impervious to the delicate relief of the merely prescribed pain medication. Such is the life of New Orleans’ most vulnerable powder keg of a police officer, and that’s before being placed in charge of a brutal quintuple homicide case.

Stevie Pruit (Val Kilmer) and Terence McDonagh (Nicolas Cage) -- New Orleans' finest.

With stress on the job and in his lower back, McDonagh takes advantage of his employee discount and acquires a taste for a more radical dose of painkillers. With the help of a cooperative yet cautious co-worker (Revolutionary Road’s Michael Shannon) and offenders who would like to avoid jail-time, McDonagh recklessly spirals into the life of a drug-addict. Of course, drugs lead to inebriated impulsions and our Lieutenant soon finds himself buried in debt to his regular bookie (Brad Dourif) and the target of a powerful city kingpin after an encounter with a non-paying customer of his prostitute “girlfriend” (Eva Mendes) turns sour. Then, when a break in the case is revealed, placing a cooperating witness in police custody, it’s McDonagh’s job to keep him in town and out of harm’s way.

But this police business proves to be tough sledding when you’re having to dodge your backwoods alcoholic father and sister or the precarious foot-long iguanas that aren’t actually there, if you’re listening to the advice of partner Stevie Pruit (Val Kilmer). There are no pulled punches in the provocation department, and like his main character of interest, Herzog proves to be an addict of the offbeat and the eccentric.

A renowned and legendary German director and documentarian, Herzog is best known for his 70’s/80’s masterpieces Aguirre: The Wrath of God (’72), Nosferatu (’79) and Fitzcarraldo (’82). The two of those films that don’t dredge in vampire legend are warped personal character studies about men who have lost themselves in an attempt to gain something (both played by Klaus Kinski). Here, decades later, Herzog is tapping into similar fundamental material – despite the fact that, at times, it’s unclear what Lieutenant Terence McDonagh actually wants – in a nevertheless, equally disturbing and fiendishly straight-forward study about a man in a serious crisis.

McDonagh doesn't resort to usual interrogation techniques at Deshaun Hackett's (Lucius Baston) home.

But this isn’t Aguirre, or Fitzcarraldo, or one of Herzog’s better films. Its maniacal tone and schizo-comedic shape outperform and upstage the film’s weaknesses and thematic shortcomings, resulting in something categorically auteurist in its own dark and comedically stimulating way. Shot with mostly handheld cameras on location in Louisiana and parts of Southern Mississippi, “Bad Lieutenant” looks like a post-Katrina doc on law enforcement insubordination. Interior lighting is limited to window streaks and only the wide-angle scene-setters of the New Orleans cityscape really glisten. It has all the spark and finish of a direct-to-DVD release.

What Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans has in manic energy and perverse excursions, it lacks in genuine artistry. It’s a pot-fumed, pass-the-joint cult classic in the making but it never calls itself out or gives any rhyme or reason to its motives to become anything more amply deserving. Neither does Terence McDonagh ever evolve over the course of the film, and even though Nicolas Cage is absolutely brilliant at this kind of pulsating, itchy and oddball acting, he’s never fully formed – there is never that moment. Still, it’s endlessly entertaining to watch an actor like this at the top of his game after such an Eddie Murphy-like drought of substance. Like McDonagh, Cage should apply to the theory that sometimes, it’s good to be bad.

A few years ago, a new talent was unleashed upon the unsuspecting public in the form of Muay Thai martial arts sensation Tony Jaa. Jaa was the star of Thai film Ong-Bak, which after two years in release and a couple of celebrity endorsements, namely Quentin Tarantino and RZA, the film made its way onto U.S. shores and a new hero for all fans of martial arts films, replacing Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li, was born. Jaa carried a similar athletic reputation with him and the requisite “he does his own stunts” mantra, making him an instant person-of-interest in future action films. His Muay Thai style displayed in the film contained a ton of brutal elbows and thumping knees landed upon his opponents, eliciting a resounding “wow” factor from audiences. Though the film’s plot had much to be desired, the feats contained within made it a bit of a cult classic and now years later, Jaa has returned to the well that made him famous outside of Thailand, with Ong-Bak 2: The Beginning.

The first difference from the initial film is an obvious one as the story no longer takes place in a modern day cityscape, but the 15^th century Thai jungle. Ong-Bak 2 is a prequel if ever there was one. The story focuses on Tien, a young boy born into nobility, but after the murder of his parents is stripped of his title and relegated to poverty. When in horseback transit to another village, with a bodyguard, Tien is ambushed by a rival tribe and the bodyguard sacrifices himself in hopes of Tien making a great escape.

The guard’s efforts don’t hold up for long, as Tien is picked up almost immediately by the gang of thieves. Tien’s first instinct, however, is not one of fear, but instead he enacts an insubordination and resistance to authority destined to get him killed. This is indeed the gang’s plan, as they force Tien to walk the plank into a muddy pit inhabited by a ferocious crocodile. Tien displays all the mighty heft and angst toward the crocodile as he does his captors and his rambunctiousness is rewarded and his life spared.

After his display of skill, Tien is taken to a martial arts training ground with tons of young students, like a Muay Thai Hogwarts. With a childhood consisting of learning an unwanted dance, Tien is able to quickly adapt to his new surroundings as his acquired skills transfer fittingly to his new teachings. Over a short period of time Tien earns rank in the training ground and is soon promoted to the number two man in charge. However, the breeding is solely for future thieves and murderers and in order to avenge his parents’ death, he must take down the very man who helped him get back on his feet.

The croc's breath is positively abhorrent.

Ordinarily, I’m the type to think it unfair to compare one film to another, especially when determining quality. I believe each film should be given a chance to stand on its own two and not be beholden to any film which came before it. This ideology has to go somewhat by the wayside when discussing sequels, though. It’s inevitable to compare it to parts of the same franchise as they’re supposed to be a continual telling of one story, just in multiple parts. Ong-Bak 2 pales in comparison to the original in many ways and should hardly be considered part of the same franchise, though Ong-Bak 3 is said to fill in the cap between the two. Therefore in George Lucas-ian logic, the chronology of the franchise will eventually be 2, 3 and then 1, forever dooming any child learning to count based on the Jaa-starring series.

As the film’s star, making his directorial debut (as co-director alongside mentor and writer Panna Rittikrai), Tony Jaa had a lot riding on this film. He seems to have taken his position so seriously he is said to have broken down during the middle of the shoot and retired to the jungle, undergoing a personal Hearts of Darkness in the process. He had good reason to be stressed. It’s impossible to blame the filmmakers on desiring to create an artier or more respectable film than the primary entry, but despite that film’s storyline shortcomings, it at least had the action to fall back on. Ong-Bak 2 possesses an even less engaging story, compared to its predecessor, but sadly has not even a handful of the athletic and artfully violent prowess.

The first 60 of the film’s 90-minute runtime will leave action fans sorely disappointed and disheartened. Though Ong-Bak was mainly an exercise in showcasing Jaa’s talent, it did so greatly. With dialogue sprinkled thinly across the film’s surface, Ong-Bak 2 appears to perhaps solely exist to bank off of the Ong-Bak name. Jaa displays little of what made him famous, aside from an overlong 10-minute period toward the film’s end, but done so in a straightforward and somehow disorienting manner, rendering the effect as lackluster. The film’s final pathos is largely devoid of dramatic heft, regardless of how you’re “supposed” to feel

To say I was disappointed by Ong-Bak 2: The Beginning would be understatement, though not a feeling entirely unanticipated. Jaa’s Ong-Bak fallow-up, The Protector, was a letdown from his first film, but at least was able to deliver on an impactful, visceral level. Ong-Bak 2 will leave you yearning for the new discovery once again and perhaps have you doubting Jaa will ever see another uptick in his career trajectory. We would rightfully have felt robbed if Jaa had chosen to let Ong-Bak stand by itself, but these poorer efforts only dilute the initial classic. Instead of spending your life with Ong-Bak 2, give the original one more spin and remember the promise that once was.