“SEEKING JUSTICE” – 3 STARS

Nicolas Cage’s career has been amazing to watch and I don’t necessarily mean that positively. The once promising actor and Academy Award winner is now known more for his current long streak of bad movies. But yet Cage continues to pump out these pictures every year. That brings us to “Seeking Justice”, his latest film co-starring Guy Pearce and January Jones. This action thriller isn’t the sharpest movie you’ll find nor is it one that will stick with you long after watching it. But I found it to be a fairly entertaining picture and definitely better that Cage’s most recent efforts.

Cage plays Will Gerard, a high school English and literature teacher in New Orleans. He has a great life. He loves his job and he just recently celebrated his wedding anniversary with his lovely wife Laura (Jones). One night as Will is hanging out with his best friend Jimmy (Harold Perrineau), Laura is attacked and raped while walking to her car from a concert. Later, as Will is sitting in the hospital waiting room, he is approached by a mysterious man named Simon (Pearce). Simon tells him he works for an organization that knows who raped Laura and can take care of the rapist in ways the police can’t. In return, Will has to promise to do the organization a small favor at a later date. Will struggles with the decision but ends up saying yes which catapults him into a mess he never anticipated.

The idea behind the story isn’t a bad one and I found myself interested in the whole grief-stricken husband seeking justice from a secret organization thing. Cage actually gives a fairly solid performance as a very ‘anti-action hero’ hero. January Jones is also good individually as his wife. The problem is they have no real chemistry whatsoever and I had a hard time believing in their relationship. Putting that aside, their relationship takes some interesting turns as she copes with her life after such a violent crime and he deals with the decision he made regarding her assailant. Unfortunately these and several other key plot points are never fleshed out. For example, there’s one point in the movie where Laura is just magically over the trauma of her rape. It’s as if the film just decided to drop it altogether. Another example is when Laura finally finds out what Will did. We never see them wrestle over his decision that has put them in such danger. There are several things like this that feel terribly short-changed.

Another issue I had was with the abrupt and almost jarring jumps the movie makes in the first half. This too is related to what feels like shortcuts in the storytelling. There are mammoth emotional holes where the movie skips from one moment to another. And it’s unfortunate because the movie is never boring. There is some good tension and there are some cool twists even though none of them are particularly that surprising. And even though the film ends up taking a pretty conventional path, I still found it kept my interest despite the shortcomings of the script.

I’ve talked about Cage and Jones. Guy Pearce, who is always great, has a lot of fun with his shady Simon character. When I first saw him he reminded me of Paul Newman’s character early on in “The Verdict”. Newman was checking the newspapers for car accident fatalities then attending their funerals where he shamelessly slipped his lawyer business card to the grieving family. Simon hits up Will at the most vulnerable time – an almost predatory approach. Pearce slithers in and out of his scenes and he was the best part of the film even though his character doesn’t have as much mystery behind him as he first leads you to believe.

“Seeking Justice” isn’t a bad movie. In fact it’s a considerable step up for Cage. But is that really saying anything? There are clear issues with the plot and tone and the story ends up with the traditional loud, action-driven finale. But it’s hard to really rail against a movie that did keep my interest throughout and had some really solid moments. Plus Pearce is Pearce which is always a good thing. As I mentioned earlier, “Seeking Justice” isn’t a movie that will stay with you very long, but it does manage to entertain.

“LAWLESS” – 4 STARS

Just seeing the list of great names attached to “Lawless” easily made it one of my most anticipated films of 2012. I’m a huge fan of Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, and Gary Oldman. The thoughts of them in a Prohibition-era action flick had me giddy with excitement. But I also had one serious concern about the movie and that was Shia LaBeouf in the lead role. I’ve never been impressed with his acting and I couldn’t help but wonder if he could hold his own in the company of such great talent. While LaBeouf was certainly better than I expected, he was swallowed up by some really strong performances around him. But thankfully that wasn’t enough to keep “Lawless” from being a highly entertaining piece of American pulp.

Australian John Hillcoat, also known for “The Road” and “The Proposition”, directs the film with fellow Aussie Nick Cave handling the screenplay. Their story is set in the hills of Franklin County, Virginia and follows the Bondurant boys – three brothers who make their living bootlegging moonshine during the Prohibition years. Forrest (Hardy) is the tough, hard-nosed leader of the bunch. Howard (Jason Clarke) works alongside Forrest. Then there’s Jack (LaBeouf) who at one time is described as “the runt of the litter”. The brothers get by alright with their own system of running moonshine, at least until a vicious Special Agent Rakes (Pearce) is sent in to clean up the hills. Rakes immediately clashes with Forrest and before long the hills erupt into violence.

Of the brothers’ stories, its Forrest’s that’s considerably more entertaining even though Jack’s takes up more of the movie. Forrest is a tough-as-nails brute but he also knows how to handle their business. Hardy chews up every scene he’s in with his grunts and mutterings as well as his intimidating stares and low-key dialogue. He’s also not afraid to use brutality with his brass knuckles or razors. But even he is tamed a bit by Maggie (Chastain), a former dancer who moves to the community to escape the troubles of the big city. Boy did she pick the wrong place. I enjoyed the romance that developed between the two. Chastain gives a great performance and she matches Hardy scene for scene and line for line.

The same can’t be said for LaBeouf and his Jack character. As I alluded to, LaBeouf is better than I expected and, to be fair, he’s at times quite good. But he just can’t hold his own especially when alongside Hardy. He is helped by the story which doesn’t build his toughness beyond the bounds of believability. It fact it’s his weakness and desire to prove himself to his brothers that turns out to be the most compelling part of his character. He’s attracted to a local minister’s daughter (Mia Wasikowska) and the two eventually fall for each other. But overall their romance feels inconsequential and adds little to the story. On the other hand, I did enjoy his scenes with his friend Cricket (wonderfully played by Dane DeHaan of “Chronicle” from earlier this year). And he also encounters a powerful mobster named Floyd Banner played by Gary Oldman. Oldman is really good even though he’s given almost nothing to do.

But the biggest delight is Guy Pearce. He’s sensational as the creepy and psychotic special agent who abuses his power and who will stop at nothing to take out those who cross him. Pearce’s high hairline with its accentuated part down the middle, shaved eye brows, and prim and proper wardrobe gives him a distinct eccentric look. But it’s also Pearce’s mannerisms, unhinged chuckles, and the way he carries himself the gives the character a sinister presence. He has some of the film’s best scenes, none better than the tension-filled first meeting between Rakes and Forrest. Pearce is simply fantastic and this is an Oscar worthy supporting performance.

Another huge plus for “Lawless” is the incredible production design. The movie features such a realistic and atmospheric recreation of the hilly, poverty-stricken, 1930’s moonshine territory. Every scene is soaked with period details and the lush, vibrant locations make everything feel authentic. Hillcoat’s unfiltered Franklin County is rusty, dirty, and dangerous. From the opening credits I found myself completely drawn in by the period look. The wardrobes, the automobiles, the rundown shacks – everything contributes to the pitch-perfect aesthetic.

“Lawless” is a tough, bloody, and violent action picture that’s very honest in what it’s trying to be. The story is simple and nothing will catch you by surprise. But it’s also compelling and the characters are easy to invest in. The movie does hit a little lull in the middle and we actually get a skip ahead montage to set up the simply ok ending. But the film still packs plenty of pop and there are some tremendous performances that will stick with you, particularly from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce who may have given us the best villain in the movies this year. “Lawless” is both poetic and visceral and even though it just misses being a real classic, it’s still a true Southern Gothic treat.

MOVIE CONFESSIONS

Well Nostra over at My Filmviews is at it again. The master blogathoner has put together a little thing called “Movie Confessions”. It’s a chance for movie fans to come clean and answer a series of questions that expose some of their cinema shortcomings as well as their past cinema vices. So I thought I should get in on the action. Nostra has asked and here are my answers:

1. Which classic movie don’t you like/can’t enjoy and why?

There are several that could easily be mentioned here – “Easy Rider”, “Toy Story 3”, “Fight Club”. But the main movie that instantly came to mind was Stanly Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”. This is a movie that’s considered monumental for the science fiction genre but I thoroughly detest it, and I’m a huge sci-fi guy! I’ve tried on three different occasions to watch it all the way through and to see what all of the hype was about but I just can’t. Kubrick’s blabbering self-indulgence didn’t work for me at all and I don’t see myself trying to watch it again. I know most consider it a great film and it’s certainly garnered it’s share of accolades, but I promise you, it’ll never make my list of favorite movies.

2. Which ten classic movies haven’t you seen yet?

Sigh. To my shame, I’ve yet to catch “Lawrence”

Gulp! This was the question that I feared the most (Nostra, how could you ask such a question?). Anyway, here it goes:

  1. Singin’ in the Rain” (Sorry, I HATE musicals)
  2. Lawrence of Arabia” (I’ve seen bits but not enough to say I’ve seen it)
  3. My Fair Lady” (Yes, another musical. I’m sorry, ok!)
  4. All the President’s Men” (This just never appealed to me. I know, no excuse.)
  5. West Side Story” (Sense a trend here?)
  6. East of Eden” (Dean’s first major role. Again, I have no excuse.)
  7. The Lion King” (I’m always slow to animated features. It’s to my shame.)
  8. Dr. Zhivago” (Incredibly popular yet I’ve never seen it.)
  9. A Streetcar Named Desire” (Another that I haven’t seen enough of to say I have.)
  10. Any of the “Harry Potter” films (It’s true…yes, it’s true.)

3. Have you ever sneaked into another movie at the cinema?

No. At least not to sit in and watch a full movie. Now I have walked into another room just to see what was happening on the screen. But I’ve never sneaked into a theater or another movie without paying. My hands are clean!

4. Which actor/actress do you think is overrated?

There are several actresses and actors that come to mind. Julia Roberts is certainly one. While she hasn’t been as big lately, she’s still considered a wonderful actress and honestly, I can’t see it. She’s a one-trick pony and so often her roles are just variations of the same performance. Jennifer Aniston is even more overrated. Sure she has the looks but at some point you have to be able to act. I think the roles she’s taking points to her serious lack of acting chops. But ahead of them both would be Angelina Jolie. Talk about someone getting roles for her looks alone (and now even her looks are long gone). She has flirted with decent performances but I’ve yet to see her do anything to warrant the attention she gets.

As far as actors go, Will Ferrell is popular and he seems to be a “love him or hate him” kinda guy. I’ve yet to see anything that earns him the praise he often gets. Worse than Ferrell is Seth Rogan. I know that since I don’t like raunchy comedies he naturally isn’t going to appeal to me, but does he really ever do anything else. Not only is he one-dimensional but I find him extremely annoying. But above all is Ashton Kutcher. Sure, I know he’s mainly reserved for TV these days but he still is a big attention-getter and people really like him. WHY? How does this guy have an acting career. I’ll never understand his popularity.

5. From which big director have you never seen any movie (and why)?

This one was really tough because I have seen films from most of the great directors. But one classic director that I have yet to see a film by is the Italian great Federico Fellini. He’s a highly accomplished and stylish film director and a winner of five Academy Awards. The sad part is that I have no good reason for not seeing any of his films, especially “8 1/2”, a movie that has been in my Netflix queue for months and months. I should have already watched some films made by this influential director.

6. Which movie do you love, but is generally hated?

Yes, I love “The Time Machine”. What of it?

One movie that comes to mind is “The Time Machine”. Now I’m not talking George Pal’s movie from 1960. I’m speaking of the 2002 film directed by Simon Wells and starring Guy Pearce. This adaptation from the H.G. Wells classic was generally panned by critics (its Rotten Tomatoes standing is an abysmal 29%) and by moviegoers alike, but I truly love the film. I whole-heartedly concede that the special effects in the second half of the film aren’t the best. But I still think Pearce was wonderful, the storytelling is strong, and it features a great score. And I still get a warm and almost misty feeling during the wonderful final scene. Yes, I know I’m one of the few, but I loved this version of “The Time Machine”.

7. Have you ever been “one of those annoying people” at the cinema?

I can honestly say no. My mom and dad began taking me to the theater at a very young age. They pretty much taught me early to be quiet, watch the movie, and not ruin it for others. That even stuck with me through my doofus teen years. And still to this day, I can’t stand people talking or being disruptive during a movie. It drives me crazy.

8. Did you ever watch a movie, which you knew in advance would be bad, just because of a specific actor/actress was in it? Which one and why?

Oh yes! I am a HUGE Humphrey Bogart fan. I have the majority of his films in my collection and there were a lot of them. I have even some of his older low-budget pictures and movies where he played only a small part. Some were, to be honest, real stinkers but I not only watched them but added them to my Bogart collection. Yes, I’ve actually watched films such as “Isle of Fury” and “The Return of Doctor X” solely due to Bogart’s participation.

9. Did you ever not watch a specific movie because it had subtitles?

 I’m not going to say I never have, but as a big fan of foreign cinema, subtitles don’t bother me at all. In fact, I would rather there be subtitles that English voice-overs which do more to take away from the film than help it. So for me, subtitles are no problem at all.

10. Are there any movies in your collection that you have had for more than five years and never watched?

Hmmm, yes I have DVDs that I own and haven’t watched but they aren’t movies that I haven’t watched. These are DVDs of movies I have seen before but have never watched my copy. I’ve seen them but may have found them on DVD really cheap or they were given to me. But I don’t think I have a single movie that I haven’t at least seen.

11. Which are the worst movies in your collection and why do you still own them?

Yep, that’s “Van Helsing”!

I mentioned some of the earlier Bogart movies that are pretty terrible but I have them because they are Bogart films. But after briefly looking at my collection there were a handful of others that stood out. Movies like “The 13th Warrior” . I’ve watched it but never again. Then there is the Kevin Sorbo “Kull” movie. I’m not sure why I even bought it. Oh, and how about “Van Helsing” . Kate Beckinsale is in it so there’s the only reason for owning it….maybe.

12. Do you have any confessions about your movie watching setup at home?

I wouldn’t say there is anything I want to confess about it, but it works good for me. I have a 55-inch HD TV, a Playstation 3 for my Blu-Ray and DVD player, and Direct-TV’s HD package. That’s really it. It’s not the greatest setup but it certainly works for me.

13. Any other confessions you want to make?

Well, I’m definitely not the emotional type but good movies have a way of getting to me. If a film packs an emotional punch that’s well done, I’m certainly vulnerable to watery eyes. It may not be the most macho thing to announce, but it’s the truth.

And there it is. My movie confessions. If you’re interested in more information about Nostra’s blogathon, head over to his blog site My Filmviews . There you can find out how to participate and read the confessions of other movie-oholics like me.

“PROMETHEUS” – 4 1/2 STARS

Science fiction is often times a hard sell to movie critics. It can be an even harder sell to moviegoers who aren’t big fans of the genre. I can boldly state that I am a sci-fi guy. I can get lost in well written and well crafted science fiction. For science fiction to work you have to sell the audience on what they’re seeing on screen. The audience has to believe it, not so much from a realism standpoint, but from the perspective of the characters. They have to believe that what they’re seeing is completely consistent with the world the characters are living in. Often times this works due to strong characters worth investing in and an imaginative world laced with thin strands of believability. Director Ridley Scott accomplished this in 1979 with his sci-fi classic “Alien”. Now he’s back with “Prometheus” and he just might have another classic on his hands.

The movie follows the crew of the space ship “Prometheus” and it’s mission to make contact with those believed to have created human life. Two years prior to the mission, scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discovered the same star map on several different dig sites of ancient civilizations. Believing the star maps are invitations, they join the “Prometheus” crew on a mission funded by a mysterious elderly corporate man named Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce). After a long stasis, the crew awaken to find they have arrived at the remote moon LV-233, the site believed to be inhabited by those who created human life. Of course we know that things aren’t as simple as they appear. The story then takes off and we soon discover that its not only the moon that holds secrets, but also the crew members.

The Prometheus has an interesting crew besides Shaw and Holloway. Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) is an employee of Weyland Industries who is sent to monitor the mission. She has an ominous presence and her true motivations are hard to decipher. The one thing that’s clear is that she has her own agenda. David (Michael Fassbender) is the ship’s android created by Weyland Industries. He monitors and maintains the ship but there is something unnerving and mysterious about him. Idris Elba plays Janek, the ship’s captain. He’s a straight-shooter who takes his responsibilities seriously. Some of these and the other crewmen believe in the mission while others are in it for other reasons. But all get more than they bargain for.

There is also the underlying question of faith versus science that pops up throughout the film. Shaw’s faith, that she shared with her father, is constantly brought into question by those with a more scientific slant. But I like how Scott never discounts or discredits her belief. In fact, it becomes clear that all the scientific knowledge they thought they had didn’t give them the answers they sought. I also liked how the movie plays with he contrast between human curiosity and things better left alone. The human desire to know can at times be a wonderful thing. But Scott shows us it can also bring severe consequences.

“Prometheus” takes place within the same world as the “Alien” films but it also sets out to create a new branch of mythology. Scott has been toying with the idea for the film for a long time and after several changes of direction, the results are most satisfying. “Prometheus” feels like an “Alien” picture and at times you see some of the same filmmaking style as was used in the original “Alien” movie. Ridley Scott starts the film out with a deliberate but measured pace, slowly asking questions and building up tension. I found myself completely immersed and constantly wondering “Is this the scene where everything blows up in their face?” John Spaihts and Damon Lindelof’s story gives us a lot of information early, some that’s intended to build the mythology, but some that leave us guessing right along with the characters. I found it to be a phenomenal buildup to the cataclysm that we know could come at any second.

When things do come to a head, the movie’s pace most certainly picks up and the audience is taken on one heck of a ride. Questions are answered as we are exposed to the truth behind the Engineers and their plans. One of my favorite things about the movie was it’s great assortment of characters and we begin to see the motivations and secrets behind the most mysterious of them. They also begin to drop like flies as the ‘survival movie’ element of “Prometheus” kicks in. This is where the movie does run a little off course. There were a couple of things that happen that seem to be out of the clear blue and with no real explanation. It also seems that in the frantic attempt to bring everything together, some useful details were left out. On the flip side, it’s clear Scott intentionally left many questions unanswered, questions that could conveniently (and hopefully) be answered in a sequel. 

The cast of “Prometheus” really shines and some of the performances really stand out. There’s no way to talk about the acting without first mentioning Michael Fassbender. His ability to capture the mystery and complexity of an emotionless, human imitating android is stunning. He never gives away his motivations prematurely and his looks, speech, and mannerisms are simply perfect. He creepily moves about the ship taking care of things while clearly having a more secret agenda. Fassbender sells all of this to us brilliantly. I also really liked Theron who always seems to be in the background observing but who also desperately wants more control than she has. Elba is also good as the Captain, a character that at times came dangerously close to being a stereotype yet he adds a freshness that I really liked. Then of course there is Noomi Rapace. She beat out big names like Natalie Portman and Anne Hathaway for the role and it’s clear Scott made a good choice. It’s a demanding role and Rapace is definitely up to the task.

I also have to briefly talk about the spectacular look of “Prometheus”. Scott certainly uses the modern-day special effects technology to his advantage creating some amazing visuals. The CGI is top-notch and never feels underdone. What’s even more impressive is that Scott insisted on building several sets from the ground up passing over the green screens in many instances. While there is a ton of CGI, I loved the fact that this old school filmmaker still uses old school techniques and uses them well. The futuristic technology in the movie is a blast and I loved watching each cool creation from their vehicles to the suits to “Prometheus” itself. Scott’s visual style is noticeable even here. He enjoys wide but structured shots and he doesn’t try to stage shots with fancy gimmicks like herky-jerky hand-held cameras to add a “chaotic” effect. He frames his shots and then trusts his vision. I like that. The movie also is one of the rare instances where I enjoyed the 3D. It was shot in 3D and Scott had it in mind throughout the picture. But he doesn’t overdo it. It simply feels like part of the movie. But it also doesn’t make or break the movie. I would have liked the film just as much in 2D.

Like I said, I’m a sci-fi guy and when it’s done well I’m all onboard. “Prometheus” is science fiction done well by a director that has already given us one of the greatest sci-fi/horror movies of all time. It’s a visual delight with a story that delivers genuine intensity, some great characters, and an ending that had me howling for more. It almost pays homage to the first two “Alien” films with some striking parallels in story structure and even in dialogue. I loved that. “Prometheus” is certainly a movie that someone could sit down with a pen and paper and find flaws. For me it was an amazing experience. A reminder of how cool science fiction can be and once again I was drawn into a director’s world and stayed there for the whole ride. In other words, I really, really liked “Prometheus”.

THIS WEEK IN MOVIES (APRIL 27th)

Perhaps my favorite bit of movie news this week came with the release of the first trailer for John Hillcoat’s “Lawless”. “Lawless” Official Trailer #1 looks like a tough and gritty Prohibition period action flick. Anyone who has read my Most Anticipated Movies of 2012 post already knows that this film, (previously named “The Wettest County”), is one I can’t wait for. The movie features a cast of some of my favorite performers including Tom Hardy, the underappreciated Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Gary Oldman, and Mia Wasikowska. And then there’s Shia LaBeouf, an actor I simply don’t care for. I’m hoping he doesn’t drag the movie down and by the looks of the “Lawless” Official Trailer #1 there’s a lot more that overshadows him. Everything about the trailer looks GREAT particularly Hardy and Pearce and I am really amped up for this picture. Just click the links to watch the “Lawless” Official Trailer #1. The movie is set to be released on August 31st.

The ad campaign for “The Dark Knight Rises” is really starting to take off. Each week brings new news and information to what is hands-down my most anticipated movie of 2012. Everyone may recall that director Christopher Nolan shot several scenes of “The Dark Knight” for IMAX. Well it was released that over one hour of “The Dark Knight Rises” was filmed for IMAX. That may not sound like a big deal, but as someone who watched “The Dark Knight” on both IMAX and the regular screen, the difference is well worth the extra ticket cost.

But in even bigger Dark Knight news, it was announced that a brand new full trailer will debut in front of next weekend’s “The Avengers” movie. As if I needed any more incentive to see “The Avengers”, now I have a new “The Dark Knight Rises” trailer to look forward to. The trailer is said to show a new and clearer audio for Bane as well as several scenes of brand new footage. I’m getting giddy just thinking about it!

NEW IN THEATERS (APRIL 27th)

  • “SAFE” (R) – Action/Shoot ’em up
  • “THE RAVEN” (R) – Horror/Thriller
  • “THE PIRATES” (PG) – Animated

“LOCKOUT” – 3 STARS

I grew up watching those 1980’s and early 90’s tough guy action movies. During that time, the action genre was immensely popular. For years those movies made one-man-armies and cheesy one-liners commonplace. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t fun and I wouldn’t hesitate calling some of them personal favorites. “Lockout” takes a lot of its inspiration from those 80’s action flicks and it unashamedly tries to recreate the tone and feel of those films. Because of that, the movie could be an immediate turn-off for those who didn’t care for the genre or a disappointment for those who don’t get what the film is aiming for. I found it to be a fun piece of popcorn entertainment despite its few noticable shortcomings.

“Lockout” doesn’t pretend to be earth-shattering or ground-breaking by any means. It’s very straightforward in its presentation and even the trailer seemed patterned after those from the 80’s. Several elements of the story are fairly familiar but with a futuristic, sci-fi angle. Guy Pearce bulks up to play a government operative named Snow. He’s an irreverent, wise-cracking loose cannon who finds himself framed for a crime he didn’t commit (stop me if you’ve heard this before). Meanwhile Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), the U.S. President’s daughter, is visiting an orbital space prison known as MS ONE on a humanitarian fact-finding mission. But while there, the prisoners revolt and take charge of the space station. Snow is asked to go in and rescue the President’s daughter in exchange for his freedom. Of course he agrees but with his own ulterior motives.

The story moves at a pretty fluid pace and at 95 minutes it’s pretty compact and doesn’t drag things out. In many ways Snow is your prototypical tough-guy. He’s tough as nails, has a bad attitude, and fires off more one-liners than bullets. Clearly he’s written to take wise-cracking to the extreme but it’s a little overdone. In fact, it’s almost as if Snow is completely incapable of carrying on a normal conversation. One the flip side, this isn’t a movie centered around stimulating conversation and several of Snow’s quips are quite funny. But it also makes him an incredibly one-dimensional character.

The movie is chock full of CGI and special effects. Some of the effects are well done and they do a lot to create a believable sci-fi environment. But there are also several examples where they look more like a video game than a movie. Before the movie started, the trailer for Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” was shown and the difference in the special effects between the two is staggering. But to be fair, “Prometheus” has about five times the budget and “Lockout” just tried to make due with what it had. The action scenes are pretty well done even though so much of it happens off-screen. This was clearly done in order to obtain a PG-13 rating. But in a way it subverts the tough and gritty look of the film and takes away an edge that would have made the movie better in my opinion.

I’m a big fan of Guy Pearce. When it comes to movie roles he has a pretty diverse resume, but I haven’t seen him play a character quite like this. It doesn’t take long to figure out his approach to Snow. Pearce is clearly having fun with the role and his performance is quite good. I never felt Pearce let’s Snow become just a caricature and in several instances he elevates the material. Maggie Grace does a decent job although she’s not quite on Pearce’s level. The movie is helped by some really good smaller supporting performances. It’s funny to say about this type of movie, but the acting really rises above the story in many places.

“Lockout” is getting hammered by critics and I find that to be no surprise. This is another example of some critics not measuring the film by what its trying to be. Now I’m not saying “Lockout” is incredible filmmaking or a new classic. It clearly has it’s issues that do drag it down a bit. The special effects aren’t the best and the action is sometimes pruned to the point of being ineffective. But I still found it to be an entertaining sci-fi B movie led by a really, really fun performance from Pearce. “Lockout” won’t win any awards but for the most part it accomplishes what it intends to.