If you enjoyed "Wall-E" you will have a very good time with "Up," although, for me, the earlier film is better. I prefer the optimism of a love beginning to blossom to the quiet desperation of a love that has ended (and I'm not giving anything away here as the story line unfolds in the first 10 minutes). The only disappointment with "Up" is with its technology. The 3D is unnecessary and virtually invisible, unlike the recent "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" where the film makers employed the 3D in fun and inventive ways. That aside, "Up" is likely to be the best animated feature of 2009.
"State of Play" is well-paced, tightly-scripted, and except for an unnecessary plot twist at the end quite enjoyable. Interpersonal, political, and financial secrets are a high octane combination especially when those secrets are guarded by lethal antagonists with the resources to do whatever it is they want to do. The protagonists are all likable and the audience cares. The villains are all despicable and the audience can't wait for them to get their well-deserved comeuppance. "State of Play" will be compared to "All The President's Men" and although its fiction will not be as compelling as the latter film's non-fiction, I cannot remember another journalism story that was quite as enjoyable in the years since "All The President's Men."
"Observe and Report" reminded me a lot of "Taxi Driver." The main character walks a tightrope between good and evil and purely by accident ends up a hero. Driven by his love for Brandi (Anna Faris), who does her Cybill Shepherd best to unhinge him, Ronnie is neither appealing nor sympathetic. The police are portrayed as sadistic goons. The antagonist (the Flasher), is more disgusting than threatening. And the entire movie left me feeling I had wasted my money and time. Not to mention that the comedy I had thought I was going to see wasn't funny.
Luc Besson co-wrote "Taken" a film that resembles "The Professional," which he wrote and directed. Both are about a man who faces overwhelming odds trying to save an innocent. The earlier film is much better and quite a bit more realistic (for this genre). However, "Taken" with all the thousands of bullets missing their target is enjoyable for the escapist fare it is. If you liked "Taken" and have not seen "The Professional," I would encourage checking the DVD, the uncut version of which is titled, "Leon, The Professional."
"Miracle at Saint Anna," is frustratingly lacking in its overall cohesiveness. A soldier who is awestruck after having touched a white person for the first time in his life, the volunteers made to feel inferior by an American shopkeeper and Nazi propaganda posters, and the observation they are much more accepted by the Italians they've come to liberate than they've ever been in their country are all wonderful (albeit tragic) moments. Conversely, after having been wronged 40 years earlier would a man still be capable of murder? And the ending is quite inconclusive. So, what happened to the shooter? At a long 160 minutes the audience might not be in the mood to care but it does leave one with the feeling the story has been left unfinished.
To my knowledge, this is the darkest film interpretation of a Batman story ever made. It could just as correctly have been titled, "Dark Night." The villain rivals Tim Roth's character in "Rob Roy" for pure malevolent evil. And, perhaps, it is The Joker's ultimate fate that is this story's single weakness. There is no shortage of evildoers willing to kill The Batman, and for his part Batman is incapable of causing another person's death. This white glove handling of Batman's character is inconsistent with the tone of every other aspect of the film. Prices are paid by the good and honorable who stand up to the criminals, some with their lives and some with their souls. At the end Batman, the hunter, chooses to become the hunted, his "film noir" fate, at least until the next installment. But in a city with elements of pure evil can a hero unable to take a life because his conscience will not allow him to really be called, "The Dark Knight?"
This film is aimed at a younger generation than mine, who I expect will find it very satisfying. I know that when I saw the Pat Boone/James Mason version way back in 1959 I thought that film was one of the best I had ever seen (I was 12). The stories are pretty much the same with the exception that the earlier film had a villain, something the current version could have used, given an interesting plot line. However, where the new film really excels is with the imaginative use of 3D, the format in which it just has to be viewed. The process serves to include the audience in the adventure and raises the material from what I would otherwise consider "average" to a slightly higher level.
I wish they had put as much thought into Hellboy and Liz's relationship as they did into the very imaginative creatures the two must battle. He is weary but stoic in the face of her constant criticism, and when he should be at home with her Hellboy prefers to be having a beer with one of the boys. She doesn't feel the commitment and so she believes she has reason to worry, to the point that she considers running away. By the way, deep down, they really love each other. This romantic formula is unbelievably cliché, having been previously employed in nearly every sitcom (think "Cheers," etc.) and countless films ("Twister," etc.). I know this is a summer action offering, and that's exactly the problem. Don't try to tell me it's something more.