I had to go see “The Raven,” firstly because it was about Edgar Allan Poe, and secondly because I’m from Baltimore, naturally my interest is piqued at this Hollywood portrayal of this period of Poe’s life (which was, reputedly, spent in Baltimore!).  

Starring John Cusack as Edgar Allan Poe himself, the film opens to a scene of Poe on a bench in Maryland. The film reminds us that the events surrounding Poe’s death are mysterious; then we backtrack to soon before Poe’s death in 1849 where a woman and her daughter are brutally murdered while the killer escapes from a room locked from the inside, windows barred. Detective Fields (Luke Evans) arrives on scene and realizes that the murder is similar to one of Edgar Allan Poe’s stories and fetches the writer, who has been seen back in Baltimore, drunk, recently.

Poe insists that he is not responsible for the murders, leading Fields to bring Poe along for the next murder, which has been based on “The Pit and the Pendulum.” The pair realize that Poe himself may be the eventual target of the murders, and deduce that the clue left at the Pit murder scene will result in perhaps the death of the host of the ball happening the next evening. Poe, in love with the host Captain Hamilton’s (Brendan Gleeson) daughter, Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve), vows to protect her, but she is taken. The killer demands that Poe write in painstaking detail the facts of the murders now being committed in order to save Emily, or he will never see her again.

The story, I have to admit, was very Hollywood.  It’s a fanciful and creative notion, I suppose, that there could be a killer that did things like this to the writer, but this is obviously a fictional movie that uses a well-known character. A bit far-fetched at some points, the plot moved along at a decent pace and was interspersed with bits of outbursts from Poe, whom they depicted as incredibly smart, condescending, broke, and totally unstable. Acquaintances of Poe in the movie say he is a genius, but followed by loss and grief for his entire life. His love for Emily was heartwarming, as was his devotion to finding her. Like I said, it made for an entertaining, very Hollywood plot (if not a bit reaching at some points).

Cusack, I suppose, did an all right job in his portrayal of Poe. At some points he looked like Poe, others, more like a deranged Nick Cage. Sometimes though, I was able to forget this comparison and get lost in the movie although others around me did not.  Gleeson was delightfully grumpy, holding his own in this movie, while Luke Evans (whom I’ve not seen before in any film) was likeable enough.

Perhaps I only enjoyed this film because of the literary allusions (even if it was silly to use Poe as a character himself).  I think overall I’d say it’s forgettable, albeit entertaining. It has gore, it has love, it has darkness, which in essence, what Poe was as a writer. 

Verdict?   6/10.  Passable. Good if you’re looking for an easy, fluff film. Note that Poe will strike remind you of Nicholas Cage at some points, and don’t go expecting a phenomenal tribute to the father of gothic writing.

— asecretcity

This is a little late and long in coming for this site. Screenings have just gotten a little more difficult to come by lately, and frankly, I’ve not felt inspired to actively look for any in the recent months. So apologies for the hiatus! Life is busy, although my love for films isn’t any less.

I received passes by accident to The Hunger Games, one of the most highly anticipated films for the last quarter or so. And man, people were dying to get these. So when I got my pair, I snatched them up and arrived an hour and a half early to the theater. Stood in a long line that was actually line two. Met a few cool people and found out I had some literary interests in common with them.

We got in and were seated in the 3rd row. I was a little perturbed by this but happy to be in. When the movie started there was general applause. The anticipation was palpable. Finally… the novel on screen.

The movie started quietly, with Katniss Everdeen going about her normal business on Reaping Day. Resident of District 12, a coal mining district of Panem, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) meets up with Gale, her childhood friend, to hunt and gather extra resources in the woods just outside the fence of their home district. They chat about the upcoming Hunger Games, an annual event where each district is required to send two Tributes for a fight to the death, so that each district is reminded that freedom comes at a price. 

Those of us who’ve read the books know what happens next; Katniss’ younger sister Prim is chosen as Tribute but before she can accept, Katniss herself volunteers. She and another boy from the district, Peeta, are taken and whisked away to the Capitol where they’re to prepare for the games. 

Development of the film up until this point was slow, but once they were in the Capitol, the movie’s pace picked up. We see Katniss and Peeta training with the other Tributes, Katniss and Peeta receiving some blunt advice from their mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and then all too soon, the games begin. Katniss and Peeta are thrust into the game arena with little direction other than to survive and play to their own strengths. 

So begins the games, and the rest of the film is spent following Katniss’ battle to survive in the ever-changing arena.  There are fireballs, genetically-engineered wasps (tracker jackers), blood thirsty hounds, and of course, there are the other twenty-two Tributes, all out for blood. 

If you haven’t read the books, I won’t give anything else away.  But the movie fairly accurately portrays the events of the novel even until the end. Yes, we get to see Rue for a while. Yes, the games do end. The plot in the film is done well enough that we’re kept near the edge of our seats. I thought this was important—all too often adaptations simply don’t have the tension that the books are famous for; however, I think this is one thing that the film does fairly well. 

The casting choices were interesting and appropriate; Katniss was done well. I’m glad they didn’t pick someone like Saoirse Ronan; Jennifer Lawrence was likeable and genuine in the role, but not over-the-top. I didn’t really care one way or the other for Liam Hemsworth as Gale (we don’t get much on Gale until later in the series anyway). And Josh Hutcherson as Peeta? Well, he did an all right job. Hutcherson reminds me of a puppy dog that’s been kicked a few too many times, which I suppose is accurate for the character. And Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket was basically what I expected… fun.

Overall? I’d see this movie again. It kept me interested despite being extremely long (and cramped for me, sitting up in the third row there). Interesting music. Hints at great things to come. I’m glad that it wasn’t screwed up like so many book-to-screen adaptations are. 

Verdict:  7/10.  Go see it if you like this kind of genre. Solid movie. Nothing that will change your life, I don’t think, but worth a look. In general this is a series I can get behind (although if you read my other blogs, you’ll notice that we’d posted back-to-back summaries on Battle Royale and this series and our thoughts on the plaigarism issue). 

— asecretcity

“Man on a Ledge” starts off running. Ex-cop turned convict Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) rents a hotel room in the city where he has what amounts to a last meal, and then steps out on the narrow ledge of the building. Where has he come from? How has it come to this? As the onlookers down below gather, the police call detective Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks) in to help talk Cassidy off the ledge. 

Once the police find out who Cassidy is, they bring in heavier forces, for Cassidy is an escapee from prison. Convicted of stealing a diamond from mogul David Englander (Ed Harris), when his father dies, Cassidy escapes from custody and isn’t seen or heard from again until he steps out onto the ledge of the building. But is his escape hiding another scheme? Mercer begins to suspect as Cassidy opens up that this is more than just an attempt to end his own life, but a scheme to prove his innocence.

Not particularly thrilling, this film does move along at a steady pace and has decent action scenes. By the time the first flashback into Cassidy’s backstory has passed, we know he isn’t going to kill himself If he did, this would be a dreadfully short film. I am of course, skipping entirely Cassidy’s brother and fiance’s part in the heist; Jamie Bell as Joey Cassidy did a fine job portraying the antagonistic, angsty brother. But even this additional side story wasn’t enough to make the film fantastic.

Some of the scenes, however, just become a bit silly. For example, Cassidy distracts the onlookers with rolls of bills flung from above, and occasionally makes like he’s going to jump before backing off. This is a clever ruse to distract the public from what’s actually going on across the street—the diamond heist to prove Cassidy’s innocence. 

Despite working with a relatively weak premise—how exactly DO you sustain a feature-length film about a man on a ledge without boring the audience?—the actors did a fine job themselves in carrying the film. If nothing else, it was entertaining and quick. 

Verdict?

4/10. You’re not missing anything if you wait for this one on instant Netflix.

— asecretcity

I was primed for this movie after seeing Liam Neelson’s “Taken” the night prior. All I knew of his latest film, “The Grey,” was that it involved surviving a cold wilderness.

Little did I know what I was in for. SPOILERS AHEAD.

Neelson is Ottway, a sniper hired by a oil drilling plant in Alaska to kill wild wolves that sometimes dare to attack the other workers. He’s somewhat of a loner with a broken heart. It’s the end of the working season and they all board a plane to head on home. However, they never make their destination when they suddenly crash in wild Alaska. Miraculously, Ottway and a handful of other men survive… only to find that they’re not yet out of danger.

Ottway quickly takes charge to round up the survivors. However, one of them is mortally wounded and losing blood. Ottway makes it quite clear to him that he’s about to die and there’s nothing he can do about it, but he still comforts him in last moments. This scene was pretty powerful and set the tone of things to come: people are going to die.

The survivors discover that they aren’t alone: there’s a large pack of wild wolves out there and they’re ferocious. They fight them off, but on the first night, one of them has their guard down and is quickly taken out by an ambush. Ottway determines that they can’t stay in the wreckage and to make it to the woods.

The rest of the film follows their trek in the wild, struggling to survive. However, their numbers fall down one by one not only to the wolves, but to the harsh cold conditions, physical injuries, and some very dangerous terrain. The deaths are very visceral and wrenching to watch sometimes—nature, you scary.

The movie can get very tense and thrilling at times. It can be quick and instinctive like when the wolves attack. It can be intense and nerve wracking like when it’s night and you can feel a pounce at any moment. It has crazy action and some holy shit moments. The plane crash itself was like… damn… reminded me a little bit like the crash from lost, but definitely a lot more violent, real. And I think the writing has done an excellent job to dispense some well-timed and balanced jokes to dispel some of the tension.

Liam Neelson is awesome as always. He is a total bad ass. I remember one part where one of the survivors is looting the dead and Neelson’s character goes up to him and says to put it back or else he’s going to beat his face in! Ottway has the drive to survive… there’s a poem he quotes. It was written by his father:

Once more into the fray—
Into the last good fight I’ll ever know—
Live or die on this day
Live or die on this day

So how far does Ottway and the rest of the survivors make? I don’t want to spoil that. That’s part of the excitement. You want these men to make it, to beat the odds, to overcome nature. And Ottway has his own personal challenges as well. The ending… let’s just say that it’s do or die.

9/10. The cinematics are great. The score is wonderful. Neelson delivers. The story is amazing. What else can I say? Go see it when it comes out!

- JayNCoke

It’s been a while, hasn’t it?

To be honest though, it isn’t that screenings have dried up in Atlanta. It’s just that I’ve been completely taken over by National Novel Writing Month and then in December, Skyrim. Blame them.

That said, I saw my first screening in a while at the Tara Cinemas in Atlanta. “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” This came at a hard time for me because I’d literally just heard some terrible news as I was on my way to the theater.

My friend and I sat up front, and even as the movie began I knew it would be a heartbreaking film. We got to meet Oskar Schelle, a precocious and slightly odd eleven year old, whose father and he have always enjoyed puzzles. When we meet them, he and his father are in the middle of an expedition to discover the elusive sixth borough in Manhattan. Did it exist? Only Oskar will be able to find out by locating clues that his dad (Tom Hanks) has left behind.

Then tragedy strikes—his father is trapped in the September 11 attacks and never returns home. Oskar, in an attempt to deal with the tragedy, begins a mission to locate the owner of a key, a key that had been in a blue vase in his father’s closet. Oskar originally begins his mission believing that the key opens something that his father meant for him to find. 

Belonging to someone with the last name of Black, Oskar begins his incredible journey after categorizing and organizing all the inhabitants of the other five boroughs. He tells his incredible story but is frustrated when he gets nowhere; that is, until he finally meets the renter living with his grandmother across the street. Together they walk the city looking for clues, coming closer and closer to the truth.

What I will say about this is that the film is pretty. It’s got great visuals, good cinematography—there was even a scene that used a tilt-shift effect, something I have only seen in photography and not on film itself—and the actors themselves are great. Hanks is wonderful as usual, and Sandra Bullock (as Oskar’s mother) is believable and raw in this role. Thomas Horn, a relative newcomer, as Oskar, is fascinating to watch if not a little cringe-worthy as he plays his part of an eleven year old lacking social boundaries well.  It makes for a very real portrayal of loss and coping.

It’s also devastating. The movie makes no attempt to hide the fact that it will be pulling on your heartsrings. With actual footage from the 9/11 attacks to the heartrending last words of his father, the film is absolutely brutal in its depiction of loss. I’m fairly certain there wasn’t a dry eye in the entire theater at various points in the film, and perhaps it was a little overdone. But it was effective, anyway.

This is definitely not a movie you want to see on a chipper, upbeat day. It’ll make you feel vulnerable and sad, even though we are all uplifted by the end. Save this one for a rainy Sunday when you’re in the mood for some catharsis. And bring tissues. You’ll need them.

Verdict?

6.5/10 for its melancholy. Clever and worth watching, but only if you can handle the emotional overtones.

— asecretcity

“In Time,” starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried begins with potential.  Sometime in the future, humans have become genetically programmed to live to twenty-five years of age.  At this time the digital clock embedded into a person’s skin activates, giving them one final year to live; when the clock reaches zero, they die. 
Time however, is the new currency in life, and by working at a job, one can earn a few minutes here and there.  Time can also be loaned, given, or stolen.  Naturally, this leads to a severe divide in society; Will Salas (Timberlake), living in the ghetto, one night stumbles upon Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who is recklessly gambling over a century of time away.  After saving Hamilton from some time thieves, Salas and Henry spend the night in a warehouse hiding out; when Salas awakes, Henry is gone and Salas finds himself with over a hundreds years on his clock. 
The Timekeepers catch up with Salas and accuse him of murdering Hamilton, who was worth hundreds of years yet plunged to his death off of a nearby bridge. Salas decides to cross timezones in an attempt to acquire more time from the undeserving wealthy and immortal, and redistribute to his home, the ghetto, where people die in the streets every day. 
The plot up to this point in the film was interesting. We have set up for us obviously a dysfunctional society where people are burdened by the fact that at twenty-six or soon thereafter they will live day-to-day under the constant pressure of having mere minutes until their hearts stop.  
However, once Salas has successfully crossed timezones, he meets Sylvia Weis, daughter to the Weis empire that has control over time for much of the rest of the world. Inflamed by the desire for change, the two eventually hit it off and begin defying Weis’ father, who reportedly keeps a million years locked in a safe somewhere.  If the two can just get to that million years and give it to the needy, this will bring about enough change to bring the system down.
What I disliked about this plot is the fact that much of it seemed poorly executed. Take for example the whole Robinhood idea of this film. Great when you look at it briefly, but once you start to deconstruct the actions of these two, not so great. For example, what is the point of giving a million years out to the poor?  In the future that this film portrays, the population is kept under control by these class limitations. Giving a million years to people who were supposed to die will only inflate the population and create problems further down the road.  
The issue isn’t in the characters wanting change; it’s the mechanism by which this change would occur. If, for example, the characters had found some other way to get rid of the time restriction—changing their genes, for example—thereby causing humans to begin aging again, you would have a far more believable and heroic plot. 
Overall as far as the film goes, it took Salas and Weiss forever to get anywhere significant. The characters spent a lot of time talking about change and several awkward moments in the midst of burgeoning (yet sadly somewhat unconsecrated) love, forever interrupted by the Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) as he relentlessly pursued them for stealing time.  If they had spent half as much time thinking through their plans for social change as they did running around the city, perhaps they might have come up with a smarter way of actually changing things.  
Another major complaint I had was that time itself in the real world seemed not to mean anything in this film.  When the characters had 10 seconds left, why did it seem like 30 or 40 seconds passed before we saw any resolution (death, more time added, or otherwise)?  There were also several awkward cuts in the frames—characters popped from one state to another. In one, Salas had his pants on at a beach, and then in the next frame, he was essentially naked in the ocean without the illusion of time passing.  Small errors in continuity make for a distracting, slightly incoherent film, which this was.
And as for the acting… Well, Cillian Murphy was probably the only one to really pull his weight. Although he had far less screen time and development than I would have wished, he was one of the more interesting characters. When he is on screen, there is always weight to his role.  As for the rest… Timberlake and Seyfried… If both of them stopped acting, I wouldn’t be upset. Seyfried especially, who comes off both awkward and empty.


Verdict?
4/10. Save your money. I thought this was going to be a fascinating romp similar to Logan’s Run… But I was wrong. Misguided & poorly done, despite some really interesting ideas (the clock, the trading of time). If it weren’t for my intense interest at the moment in the cyber/biopunk genre, I’d have skipped this.
— asecretcity

In “Paranormal Activity 3,” we get a chance to go backwards in time to when Kristi and Katie were small girls living with their  mother, Julie, and her boyfriend Dennis.  After some settling in, Julie and Dennis make a sex tape one night; Dennis, who is a wedding filmographer, notices a strange shadow on the film and decides to tape the house around the clock.  He sets up cameras in the bedrooms and one in the kitchen and living room area.

Of course, as is true to the Paranormal Activity series, the ghostly activity becomes more pronounced; at first there are just noises and thumping, then corporeal beings.  Katie’s invisible friend Toby seems to be behind this, but after a creepy session of “Bloody Mary” in the bathroom, the activity becomes darker, even more dangerous, causing the family to move to Julie’s mother’s house.

Generally I enjoy these movies, although I normally watch them in full daylight while I’m doing other things in my apartment (so that I’m not too scared).  This one, however, lost me at the end, as there were other elements introduced that I felt like got away from what made the series good to begin with (yes, I’m being purposely vague so as not to spoil too much).

There were great tense moments, but by the end the thrills felt cheap almost. I’m not sure why; perhaps because the horror had an explanation, whereas in the other movies we were left with the supernatural horror just existing without meaning.  I think that lends itself to being more terrible, when things happen for seemingly no reason. 

Verdict?

5/10.  Didn’t love it. Didn’t absolutely hate it. It’s good for  a few jumps here and there, but don’t expect it to be groundbreaking or anything. 

“Rock ‘Em, Sock ‘Em Robots”  “Real Steel,” starring Tom Hardy Hugh Jackman, takes place in the distant future when robot boxing has taken the world by storm. Charlie Kenton (Jackman) finds himself both broke and suddenly strapped with an illegitimate child he fathered ten years previously.  His robots destroyed due to his stubborness and greed, Charlie reluctantly lets Max (Dakota Goya)  tag along on several more fighting circuits with the trash heap sparring bot Max has found, one that could potentially win a championship.

Well, this was a kid’s movie. Maybe more like adolescent/young adult male movie. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly.  I mean, what more could you want than a movie that was based of the popular Mattel game, Rock ‘Em, Sock ‘Em Robots? Whoever thought of making a movie out of this board game is a genius! Just like those people who thought making four Pirates movies out of a Disney ride were geniuses… Ok… that’s a little extreme. But you know what I mean. Pardon my sarcasm enthusiasm.

Sure, there are plot holes. For instance… how would a kid dig a five hundred pound robot out of a mudslide by himself?  And wouldn’t child services pick this kid up for being too young to attend these fights? But as this is a children’s movie, I suppose we cannot focus on such things. Instead, we should just focus on the fact that Evangeline Lily runs a gym that’s empty the entire time because it’s filled with broken robot parts, which she evidently keeps around so that Hugh Jackman—her childhood love, by the way—will someday return.  And while we’re on the subject of plot holes, why was she as a character even in this movie, except as a pretty face? And didn’t Charlie owe so much money to everyone that he should have been a dead man long ago?  Also during the final scene when Atom the robot is fighting Zeus, the hydraulic monstrosity thought up by the Asians (who else?), how is it possible that the first five punches wouldn’t have completely destroyed the hardware?

Well, the graphics were pretty cool. This is probably what Transformers should have been; the robots moved slowly enough and had few enough moving parts that you could actually tell what they’re doing.  Atom, Max’s robot, even has a creepy rip down the netting of his mechanical face, enough to make him look like a super creepy humanoid. And since Atom has a mimic function (foreshadowing), we often get entertaining scenes were Atom dances like his human trainer. 

Well anyway, Hugh Jackman boxes and makes jokes, Max gets to dance a little with the robot (I felt moderately creepy watching this), and Evangeline Lily gets to look pretty as she stansd by and supports them.  Robots box, fights take place, and everyone wins. As far as entertainment goes, you could do worse this weekend.  Like if you got stuck seeing Abduction.

Verdict?

6.5/10.  Campy and cheesy enough that it works if you can ignore the obvious holes. Parents be warned… the 11 year old curses a lot in this movie. Go if you’re looking for a testosterone rush. Who doesn’t like robots fighting each other and adaptations of movies from games?  I only hope that one day they make a movie out of the board game that defined my childhood: Masterpiece. You heard me. The art auction game of BUYING LOW AND SELLING HIGH, BABY.

— asecretcity

And for the record, what I’d really want to see is “Warrior” Tom Hardy vs. Hugh Jackman. Or better yet, versus Hugh Jackman’s robot, Atom. Because I’m pretty sure Tom Hardy would win. Just sayin.

Apologies—this is over a week late.

“Killer Elite” is based on the true story of Danny (Jason Statham), an ex-assassin sent to save his friend (Robert DeNiro) by avenging the murder of a man’s three sons by British SAS agents. A secret society called “The Feathermen” made up of ex-SAS agents, however, becomes alerted to Danny’s mission and send their watchdog, Spike (Clive Owen) to head him off.

Overall, I can say that this film was all right.  For one, you have a relatively solid conspiracy plot—SAS involved in secret assassinations and coverups over shady missions carried out in the name of war—peppered with action and intrigue.  You have Statham’s character developing more deeply than in other roles (Transporter and Crank, anyone?) with the addition of his ‘other’ life as a carpenter in Australia with a pretty girl waiting. You have Clive Owen being Clive Owen, although kicking ass at some points. Even DeNiro holds his own in the role he’s asked to portray.

So what’s not to like?

I can’t put my finger on it.  Generally this is a solid movie. Nothing glaringly wrong with things, no distracting plot holes to fall through. The action was fine—although since we were sitting a little close, the shaky cam was a bit much. Occasionally I had to look away because it was overwhelming and confusing.

Perhaps it was just that the movie itself was rather unmemorable. Unremarkable. Things happened, but I didn’t feel a connection to the characters or anything else in the movie, really. Statham was doing what he does—fighting—and Clive Owen had his default acting face (1 of 1) on the entire time. He never seemed mad, sad, or really anything else other than a touch insane by the end. The emotional resonance of this movie stayed at a steady -1 the entire time, so I’m thinking that’s what kept me away from saying, “I love it.”

Not much left to say, I suppose.

Verdict?

5/10.  An all right movie. Wouldn’t recommend rushing out to see it, but if you’ve exhausted everything else and all you have left to see is Abduction, picking this movie is a good idea over that one.

— asecretcity

“Abduction” is the new thriller starring Taylor Lautner, releasing next Friday, September 23. 

I should have known to be wary of the film, because when we got in line for the screening, we were immediately joined by my ex-boss and family, followed by a bunch of tweens who were starry-eyed and glittery over Lautner’s new film.  One friend flat out refused the ticket on the grounds that he wasn’t going to see anything with ‘that Twilight guy’ in it, ever.  All of this was a bit discouraging, but I tried to keep an open mind as I remembered I’d have to write this review.  No use in spoiling the movie for myself with my potentially narrow-minded opinions and setbacks, right?

Wrong.

Even before this movie started, we were forced to wait an extra hour and a half for to start while people slowly trickled into the theater.  With a late time of 9:00 PM, that was pushing it for me with it being a work night and all.  I know I may be 90 years old inside, but waiting until 10:30 or 10:45 for a movie to start and knowing that it’s probably going to be bad was enough almost for us all to leave.

From the outset, the film is a mess.    

The film opens with Stephen doing stupid things on a car, getting wasted at a party, and waking up shirtless on the lawn. I suppose I don’t blame the producers for making sure there was at least one shirtless scene in the movie, but what was the point? To establish that the clearly twenty year old who is suppsoed to be in high school is ‘normal?’  To make me like him more?  Anyway, when he’s picked up by his stern father (Jason Isaacs… +1 point for this film now), Stephen spends a lot of time glaring and brooding in silence, even when Isaacs forces him out in the back yard to practice fighting, yes, while hungover. Apparently the film also supports domestic violence now. Right. 

So then, angry Stephen starts a class project that leads him to a site for missing persons.  And the site has his photo. 

Upon calling the number listed, he discovers that his parents are not his real parents, and that he’s in the middle of a CIA plot to recover some data. His ‘parents,’ who are actually agents who protected him his whole life, are killed, and he’s forced to flee, taking his long time love/next door neighbor with him. Yes, very plausible. Uh huh.

The plot makes really no sense. It is so full of awkward pauses and shots that I really wanted to fall asleep and pretend I was back in my warm bed at home, instead of suffering through this movie. Lautner, while easy on the eyes, is an unconvincing actor. The obnoxious girl that plays his female crush Karen (I wouldn’t call it love, as all they do is look at one another with feigned smoldering intensity and make out for a few seconds with no heat between them—I think I had a hotter love affair with my morning coffee today than they did with one another). It was painful to watch, very painful.

The script… maybe if it had been written better, the actors would have had more to work with than one-liners and possibly every cliche from movies like this, ever.  I’m still not sure it would have made up for the awkwardness that Lautner can’t seem to get over onscreen. 

Maybe there were too many spots of ridiculousness here to make it work. For instance, why does a 16 year old own a motorcycle? Why does he have TWO Macs in his room aside from them being obnoxious product placement? How come the tweenage girl crush still liked him even after she witnessed him murdering someone (throwing a man off a train)?  Why are they friends with someone who makes ‘the best fake IDs in the state’ as well as who has access to handguns that he can plant anywhere he wants?  Was the CIA being purposely incompetent in seating a marked man in front of a giant glass window while their lookouts were systematically killed by SWEDISH terrorists?

I almost feel bad reviewing it like this. This was Lautner’s shot at a leading-man role away from Twilight. But does he have what it takes to lead? …. I’m just not sure he does.

Verdict? 

2.5/10 (includes one point extra for Jason Isaacs). Skip it, please, and go see “Warrior” instead. 

— asecretcity