Review: Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" (2012)

Easily Wes Anderson's best and 2012's best so far. Anderson couldn't have gathered a better group of actors for this project. Every look of every face at every moment was perfect. "Moonrise Kingdom" elevated the name of Wes Anderson from quirky, off the wall humor which has attracted a large cult following but not yet appealed to a mass audience. "Moonrise Kingdom" might be the ticket that gets him over the hump and into the living rooms of a far larger audience. The film successfully transgressed the hearts of children and adults, something rare outside of Pixar.

The film is constantly clever, frequently hysterical, and once it was over it was absolutely one of the best films I had ever seen. The chemistry between the actors, specifically Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) were fantastic. Of Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and Frances McDormand, only one name is used to doing the type of film "Moonrise Kingdom" is. Bill Murray seems to only be looking out for films like this, and especially Wes Anderson films. It was a nice surprise to see Bruce Willis and Ed Norton in this project defying their normal type cast characters.

The adventure of this film was unique, special to watch. As Sam and Suzy venture out into the wild, you are walking beside them. So many critics of Wes Anderson claim his characters aren't grounded within reality but I beg to differ. All Wes Anderson does is play out the real fantasies of even adults in beautifully pictured films while using childish or silliness means to communicate his ideas. The imagination of Wes Anderson is short of Terry Gilliam while remaining in reality.

The love story in "Moonrise Kingdom" is between children but can't immediately think of a film with a significantly superior love story. The film attaches you to any sense of nostalgic childhood love while having nostalgic childhood adventures. Nostalgic, that is what "Moonrise Kingdom" was for me. Absolutely a must-see for 2012, the best film of the year outside of an awaiting December.

"Moonrise Kingdom"
9 / 10

Review: Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" (2012)

Steven Spielberg is back! I have failed the film fan community by not yet exposing myself to "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011) or "War Horse" (2011). The marketing for both of those films just didn't sell me the idea that those films were going to deliver. From what I had read both films were moderately reviewed films, but I intend on checking out "War Horse" first of the two. Having said that, the last film Steven Spielberg gave to me was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008) which was a huge letdown even though generally reviewed kindly. The film before that was "War of the Worlds" (2005). In my eyes Spielberg was starting to look like he was entering Hollywood's mediocrity. No director has given the number of iconic films Spielberg has, and "Lincoln" has revived Spielberg's image for me. "Lincoln" reminded me that Spielberg is still a giant, no matter how long it's been since I've seen something great from him.

Spielberg has shown he has a special attention to detail. There wasn't a moment in the film I can recall that I felt something was out of place or didn't feel real. Having said that, Daniel Day Lewis delivers again. Most people have only been exposed to the image of Lincoln on American currency, and now they have been given Daniel Day Lewis. Daniel Day Lewis is Lincoln and this was as surreal a life of Lincoln I will possibly ever see. Daniel Day Lewis gave a consistent performance, expressing to me Lincoln's consistently calm, thoughtful, wise, and ambitious personality.

Lighting is special to me and the lighting of the film was superb. Every mood Spielberg wanted to express through lighting in my opinion was successful. I don't have a sure idea yet where "Lincoln" lines up against Spielberg's top films, but there is a sure chance it will be an arm's reach away from "Saving Private Ryan" (1998)

I admire Spielberg for not sacrificing historical truths and allowing the politics play out as they did in history honestly. So many filmmakers would seemingly sacrifice themselves to degrade their opposing political perspective and opinions. In this film, rarely seen in Hollywood, is a built-up Republican Party which set out against all odds with the jump start and direction of Abraham Lincoln. It was interesting to see how Spielberg played out the roles of both parties in their heated debates in the film. There was a sense of authenticity in the film due to the apparent lack of political bias. Instead of selling political or religious ideas, we are sold an honest view of one of the greatest men in the world's history.

The entire cast was fantastic. Tommy Lee Jones pulled out another good one, best since "No Country For Old Men" (2007). Sally Field's best ever performance. The first time I ever cared to watch James Spader and he gave exactly what the character needed to. Who would have known Joseph Gordon-Levitt was going to be the one on the bottom? I felt like he was picking up where Heath Ledger left off in "The Patriot" (2000), a son defying his father to enlist in a civil war era war in order to find honor.

One of the most successful things coming from this movie is something the mass of Americans has already given up on, that American politics are capable of great things. If trying to swim up creek in American politics has consistently been in the best interest of the majority, perhaps we can take something from the film after all. The film made me evaluate motives of each character, what and why they did the things they did, including Lincoln, and the transparency is actually similar to that of today's politicians. Times are different but maybe not the politics. Thanks to "Lincoln", I have been given more to think about. Really does reveal the pettiness in today's politicians regarding ridiculous issues whereas history's icons like Lincoln dealt with monstrous issues.

I don't think Daniel Day-Lewis gave the year's 'Best Performance', nor do I don't think the film is the best of the year. I do think Spielberg should get 'Best Director'. I don't want to take anything away from Daniel Day-Lewis, he delivers huge in each performance, my favorite in "There Will Be Blood" (2007) but this role while intense in the icon portrayed, I didn't feel the range was great. I'm not sure what Daniel Day-Lewis cannot do.

Outside of political conspiracy films, what political film could compare to "Lincoln"? Can't think of anything on the level of "Lincoln". "Lincoln" is an absolute must-see film of 2012, and must-see in theaters! Without Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" released, this is the overall 2nd best film of the year.

"Lincoln"

8 / 10

Review: George Lucas's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999)

This film comes off of too much time apart from the original trilogy which I think aided in an inevitable failure. It isn't contended among fans or critics of film, or fans or critics of Star Wars. George Lucas as a director is blind. Sure he had a good run with "American Graffiti", but come on, no one is going to make an argument to say he is anything but a bad director. He decided to helm Episode 1, ouch.

If you have seen the film, I will say the whole movie can be really summed up with the same terms as judging the character Jar Jar Binks. Dialogue sucks, graphics suck, and story sucks. Sure, there is creativity. I like the idea of podracing. I like the look of so many things in the film from the droids, costumes, and some of the sets. Unfortunately they all feel empty when there is no story holding it all together. You can wave gold in my face all day, but unless I have the knowledge of value or beauty, it is meaningless. In this case, I was never invested in the story, so when anything happens, it never matters.

The planet of Naboo sucks. Character of Jar Jar is unforgivable. The graphics are lazy. I have heard better stories in pop-up books in an elementary school library. Pretty much everything outside of the idea of podracing, hiring Liam Neeson, and everything that is Darth Maul, the film failed at. Liam Neeson was a great find, its just too bad his character was never explored or able to perform in any scene at his potential. I am actually not a huge hater of the kid actor chosen for Anakin, I blame the direction before all. I think direction can lead to either great acting or terrible acting depending on contentment and picking talent. Contentment was infectious in "The Phantom Menace".

Speaking of it's title, I don't get it. We spend hours adventuring through various lands and scenarios doing all kinds of things, not really grounded in any single direction. All the while it's title is referring to a villain we see for 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, the time spent with Darth Maul is absolutely amazing, and really carries anything good in the film, but to title the film after a character who doesn't impact very much in terms of STORY is really missed. Not that changing the title would save much.

The actors in the film are mediocre at their peak, but usually just plain bad. There isn't much to hang on to in the film. The only argument I could make is comparing it to any other fantasy film to argue its vastness in content. I couldn't argue story, acting, or graphics. I think "Blade Runner" was much more amazing on a much smaller budget. I really believed Harrison Ford was in a real futuristic dirty city, holding a fantastic weapon, in an even better story. Plenty of fantasy to be found in Hollyworld, and this is mediocre at best in just fantasy.

If it wasn't for Darth Maul, from his epic introduction, face, and double lightsaber was pure greatness. Darth Maul could be the single best character given in the prequels, and we don't even know who he is or why he is... he just is.

If you haven't seen the film, I don't know how that would be possible, but seeing it would be a requirement to maintain legal citizenship. It wouldn't be to fulfill any need for quality film. This film would be exceedingly fun for children, but for myself, I can go years without watching the film from beginning to end, and that's because as a Star Wars fan I'm required to endure the pain. At the end of the day, it is a Star Wars film, and contains Darth Maul...

"Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace"

5 / 10

Review: The "Red Riding" Trilogy (2009)

The trilogy was written by Tony Grisoni, but directed by 3 different directors. Tony Grisoni started off his screenwriting career with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", a film not well received by critics, but is living its days as a cult classic. He moved on to do some smaller hit and miss projects, then in 2009 released a popular, well received trio project, the "Red Riding" trilogy. Each is a full length film featuring characters who cycle in and out of each film, with each experiencing their own development. The films are set in Yorkshire, England, during a time of major corruption in the police department. The officers are all together unique, with their own selfish motives, and only some come to confront their darkness. Each film is very good, but altogether a great work.

"Red Riding: 1974" (2009)

The first of the film sets the tone for the series, starting off with a huge bang. The film is carried by a grand performance by Andrew Garfield (soon to be in the new Spider-Man reboot). The film is beautifully shot, each scene more interesting than the previous. The story is relentless, pursuing each character's darkness, moving at high rates of speed and as an audience member, you are waiting to see the crash. The film really has no comparison, it isn't like another movie or series. It is set in a time and place in which most Americans aren't familiar with, but incorporates the common police corruption identifiable by all.

Here you see the effects of corruption, on the small and big, the would be innocent and guilty. The story is compelling, you're emotions like a roller-coaster riding apart the track. This is noir, and a mystery that unravels deeper and deeper, then even deeper. There just aren't many good films based on police corruption worth watching, this one is definitely worth it.

It is a powerful film, and by the end, you will want to watch the next 2 immediately. It is a film that feels directed by David Fincher, from the dark sin in "Se7en" to the mystery thriller of "Zodiac". They are all filmed in the same style.

"Red Riding: 1874"

8.5 / 10

"Red Riding: 1980" (2009)

The second of the series is definitely and obviously the least of the three. I believe it is a key piece of the overall story, in showing the continual and more perverse world of the corrupt officers, but does take a step down.

The story is about "The Yorkshire Ripper" who preys on young women of a poor community. A detective arrives to investigate the crimes, and discovers many inconsistencies, then finds himself surrounded by pressure and corrupted officers.

The film is less compelling than the first, but still offers more than enough to hold it's own. The performance is steady and very good in quality, but there is a lacking greater performance where the first and third are strong. Still, I believe the film carries itself slowly but surely to the finish line, right into the great finish of the third installment.

"Red Riding: 1980"

7 / 10

"Red Riding: 1983" (2009)

The final chapter in the "Red Riding" trilogy hits closer to home than the rest. The third film hits on the more sensitive issues surrounding the more than decade long corruption. I make an attempt to harbor all spoilers, so the effects of the film is delivered fully to it's viewer.

An officer who is in all three films, is now in position to make key decisions. He can aid his fellow officers, who he has grown extensive relationships with, or he can dig up enough compassion to expose the truth no matter the cost. The final film brings the series together, giving much needed remedies to open wounds in the story. I admire the idea of 4 large stories being told, and taking 3 films to do it. I love the styles used, the performances, the films are standout great pieces of work.

"Red Riding: 1983"

8 / 10

For a serious fan of film, this series is a must see. Whether you want performance, a lesson in how to tell a story, or an example of great cinematography, you will enjoy this series.

The "Red Riding" Trilogy

9 / 10

Review: Walt Disney's "Pinocchio" (1940)

In the beginning Walt created Disney and Disney Animation. The animation was good, and hand drawn. The films had great story and art, as Walt was hovering over the projects. Then Walt said "Let there be Snow White", and there was Snow White. Walt saw that it was good and separated his from the rest, calling his "good" and the other's "bad". And there was distinction of quality in animation.

Here, is "Pinocchio", Walt Disney's second well-known full length animation. It is a story about a clock-maker and crafter Geppetto who desires a son, and makes a wooden puppet. Then a magical fairy brings the puppet to life, giving Geppetto his 'son'. Of course Pinocchio isn't a real boy, but he desires to be. He sets out to earn the right of becoming a real boy by proving his bravery, honesty, and unselfishness. Instead he becomes tempted and fooled around every corner, becoming a scared, lying, selfish 'boy'. But when his father Geppetto is taken by a beast, Pinocchio sets out to save him.

"Pinocchio" is one of the best, if not the best classic Disney animation, I have ever seen. The story reveals the wickedness and dependence of man, and then redemption. I saw the film as a child and remember how terrifying the film was, and maybe I only saw it one time for that reason. I wanted the funner more exciting movie, not the honest and gross one.

The film looks amazing, visually championing to any current animated project. The music chosen is amazing as most classic Disney films. The character of Pinocchio is simple, but the situations and characters around him are what amplifies his own character. From the monstrous whale to the creepy villains on Pleasure Island. And perhaps the darkness is even darker with each sitting of the film.

The idea that a child's film would impact such a variety of age groups is great, but the fact that a film as such would pock and prod at such serious implications is far better. You are gross, living in a gross environment, in need of saving. Bam. It is too bad most children's films now are so empty, appealing to adults in humor as it's perversity passes over the heads of the youthful viewer, missing a more powerful message.

This film is truly for all ages, and has lasted over 70 years. This is a must-see film. If you or your child have not seen this film, and you are considering a trip out to see "Shrek 8: The series will not die", you are a fool. Take a trip to the nearest retail store, buy the DVD and a box of popcorn, and watch the movie at home. You will have seen a superior film and own it for future viewing.

"Pinocchio"

9.5 / 10

Review: Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" (2011)

Nicolas Winding Refn, director of "Bronson", "Valhalla Rising", and also the "Pusher" trilogy just delivered perhaps the year's best film so far. A film which displayed a "Gone in 60 Seconds" type appearance in it's preview, couldn't be further from. This film revealed just how valuable it is to have a great performance. I have felt for a long time that a performance can carry a film with a bad story, but a great story cannot carry a film with a bad performance. Ryan Gosling is proving this fact over and over. The roles he decides to take are not going to launch him into DiCaprio type stardom, but he surely deserves nearly all the success for each film he played in. There hasn't quite been a 'big time' film for him, after starring in chick flicks and small independent projects.

In "Drive", Ryan Gosling has shown me that after each film, he is consistently getting better and better. He plays "Driver" and sometimes "Kid" in the film, subtly never giving up his name. The character is a well mannered, well groomed, hardworking stunt driver by day... and a well disciplined driver for hire by night. The Driver decides to fall in-love with a neighbor, who's husband gets out of jail, makes a couple bad decisions, and bam... the Driver finds himself invested in a situation that grows bigger and bigger, and one he may not be able to drive out of.

The film is a beautiful one. Each scene is well thought out, and consistent scene after scene, never giving me an 'out of place' feeling. The movie has many slow moments, but it is valuable time for the viewer to be the Driver... in thought. Each slow moment allows the viewer to think the thoughts of the character himself. The thoughts and feelings are obvious but each character reaction is a real time reaction allowing understanding to take place. The facial expressions of the actors in the film are good, but great from Ryan Gosling. He can seemingly read lines with his facial expressions. His dramatic moments and moments of suspense all come so naturally and also so surprising one thrill after the other.

This is an thrill ride for everyone. From people who don't normally do action flicks, to those who relish in them. When the action happens, it happens with perfection. Cinematography is remarkable. You could have a good idea about what could possibly take place in the next couple scenes, but simple camera angles, and lighting trickery meant all the difference.

The dialog is scarce and meaningful. The Driver doesn't employ or show any interest in small talk, instead decides to observe and be observed. The Driver doesn't share with the audience any kind of back story. We get no information about the character's history prior to the film's beginning. Everything we know about him, we see.

The score of the film fits everything the film did, event he pink font for the title and credits pleased me. The rest of the cast includes... Carey Mulligan (Jenny, "An Education"), Bryan Cranston (Walt, "Breaking Bad"), and Ron Perlman ("Hellboy"). They all accomplish the assumed goals, but none of them bite the heels of Ryan Gosling.

While Quentin Tarantino is successful with great raw action sequences, he also creates some of the best dialog in all the world of film. Nicolas Winding Refn isn't concerned with quotability. He simply places his interest in good film, which I intend on owning the day the DVD is released. This is a must-see film for everyone. So far the year's best. This is an action movie for film savvy intellectuals... not necessarily just for the fans who limit themselves to more recent flicks pumped out by Hollywood's new boyfriend Michael Bay.

"Drive"

9 / 10

Top Ten Best Comic-Book Films.

The List:

1. The Dark Knight - 9 /10

2. Batman Begins - 8 /10

3. Iron Man - 8 /10

4. The Iron Giant - 8 /10

5. Unbreakable - 8 /10

6. Superman - 7.5 /10

7. Captain America - 7.5 /10

8. The Incredible Hulk - 7.5 /10

9. X-Men: First Class - 7.5 /10

10. Batman - 7.5 /10

To see where I rank the rest...

The Batman series:

-Batman (1989) -- 7/10

-Batman Returns (1992) -- 5/10

-Batman Forever (1995) -- 3.5/10

-Batman & Robin (1997) -- 3/10

-Batman Begins (2005) -- 8/10

-The Dark Knight (2008) -- 9/10

The Superman series:

-Superman (1978) -- 7.5/10

-Superman II (1980) -- 7/10

-Superman III (1983) -- 3/10

-Superman IV (1987) -- 4/10

-Superman Returns (2006) -- 6/10

Marvel series:

-Blade (1998) -- 6/10

-X-Men (2000) -- 7/10

-Blade II (2002) -- 5.5/10

-Spider-Man (2002) -- 7/10

-Daredevil (2003) -- 5/10

-X-Men 2 (2003) --7/10

-Hulk (2003) -- 6/10

-The Punisher (2004) -- 6/10

-Spider-Man 2 (2004) -- 7/10

-Blade: Trinity (2004) -- 4/10

-Elektra (2005) -- refused to watch

-Fantastic Four (2005) -- 4/10

-X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) --5/10

-Ghost Rider (2007) -- 3/10

-Spider-Man 3 (2007) -- 5.5/10

-Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) -- 4.5/10

-Iron Man (2008) -- 8/10

-The Incredible Hulk (2008) -- 7.5/10

-Punisher: War Zone (2008) -- refused to watch

-X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 4.5/10

-Iron Man 2 (2010) -- 7/10

-Thor (2011) -- 7/10

-X-Men: First Class (2011) -- 7.5/10

-Captain America (2011) -- 7.5/10

Other Comic Films:

-Dick Tracy (1990) -- 6/10

-The Rocketeer (1991) -- 6/10

-Spawn (1997) -- 2.5/10

-Unbreakable (2000) -- 8/10

-Hellboy (2004) -- 6/10

-Hellboy II (2008) -- 5/10

-Watchmen (2009) -- 6.5/10

-Kick-Ass (2010) -- 7/10

-Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) -- 7.5/10

-The Green Hornet (2011) -- 5/10

-Green Lantern (2011) -- 4/10

Review: Matthew Vaughn's "X-Men: First Class" (2011)

The first good X-Men movie. I think the previous X-Men films didn't all suck, but they were all facing the direction of suck. The first X-Men movie in 2000 was the better of the previous films. It introduced a childhood full of memories, so many beloved characters went from ink to live action. I think it may be possible for this movie to have really sucked and it get a slight pass. The movie had several problems, but those problems seemed to spread like a cancer as each film after it got worse and worse. In 2011 Matthew Vaughn found the cure. It is now his best reviewed film.

Matthew had just wrapped up "Kick-Ass", a crude action film with sex filled icing, and sprinkles of humor. Movies like that make me sick and excited, reminds me of a roller coaster. Just like a roller coaster, with age, they get to be less and less appealing to me. Had it not been for the crude sexual content, the film would have been much better. I think 'First Class' could have had some of that, but chose not to, making it better. Leave the crude at home, and use creativity to make the better bold original pieces.

'First Class' chose to star some very good actors alongside some mediocre ones. There were some flaws in the acting, throughout the film, but overshadowed by the better performances. Just about every scene with Michael Fassbender (Magneto) was stellar. Giving off the feeling that Tarantino was behind the camera in various scenes. Not one other actor in the film gave a performance in any scene comparable to all of Fassbender's. Fassbender carried the film from good to very good, a big leap.

The film lacked character development outside of Magneto, and even that was a bit fast and unexplored. Instead of exploring the character for more than a minute, I felt we were given several difference glimpses lasting seconds. While they looked good, it only lasted long enough in 2 scenes.

The cinematography was good, fine, dandy. Nothing comes to mind when I think amazing, but it was definitely satisfying. Costumes and set designs had a similar problem as "Thor" did, in that it sometimes felt claustrophobic, and some designs of characters I didn't care for. An example is the character of Beast. I didn't like that he reminded me of Teen Wolf. Teen Wolf sucks. Teen Wolf needed to leave the movie.

Kevin Bacon surprised me. I don't know what else to say about him. He wasn't amazing, but he carried his own when I gave him little chance.

When I think about 'First Class', I think about a few disappointments, and an amazing scene with Magneto in a pub. Magneto in that pub was the best sequence in the film, and if it were to loop, it could contend with some great films. The downside is that they connected this film with the others instead of trying to remake the series.

The film is a must see for thrill-seeking, quality film hunters. A must own for anyone who sees the film.

"X-Men: First Class"

7 / 10

Review: Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" (2011)

It's time to nerd out and examine another comic book movie. I did not know a whole lot about the lore and character before watching the film, but I probably knew more than most. God guy, holds a big hammer, breaks things... that guy.

The film has a great story, Thor aims to please his father outwardly while pleasing himself inwardly. In doing so, ends up breaking his father's law. When his father realizes the laws have been broken, confronts his son, failing to repent or turn from his mistakes, pushes on in trying to justify the decisions. His father then banishes him from their world to Earth, a place which equally matches his selfishness, a place where he belongs. Thor's father makes himself available in the form of his own hammer and casts it to Earth, available only to Thor if and when he comes to realize his dependence on his father for his power, turning away from his selfishness. Thor does, and is enabled to lift the hammer, redeemed, able to confront his mistakes and fix his mistakes. Then he is embraced again by his father.

The character development was sufficient, but sufficiency isn't something I settle for. I would have preferred to explore the characters a bit more than the film did. I think the film was too excited to include too many characters for the sake of something grander than it really was. Yes with the lingering existence of an 'Avengers' film, but this is supposed to be a focused introduction film, not a pre-Avengers film.

The film was shot with unique style. The slow motion was fine, sometimes better than fine. I don't like how rushed everything is in the film, every place you go, everything you see, you only see it for a second. Nothing is really explored beyond introduction.

I was excited during the film. The story made me feel most of the emotions it wanted me to. However, the sets were causing me to feel a bit claustrophobic. The town Thor fell to and spent most of his time in, felt like a town of 2 people while the villain who enters the town is supposed to be threatening the planet. I don't believe the threat is that great when his power goes from erasing people and things from existence to simply igniting things on fire. These things are easily overlooked when something significant is happening, and I believe the only significant thing in the movie was the story.

The acting was mediocre at best. I am not a huge fan of Portman and haven't seen enough of Hemsworth. There wasn't a huge demand from their performance so their mediocre performance doesn't stick out as much. I believe any C or B-list actress could have filled the roll for Portman, and Hemsworth perhaps replaced by any muscular B-list actor.

The costumes and such looked fine, everything seemed to look the part regardless of preference. But I did wonder where Thor's helmet was for 99% of the film.

If you haven't seen the film, see it. If you have seen the film, I bet you have your calender marked for when you can again.

"Thor"

7.5 / 10

Review: "The Lincoln Lawyer" (2011)

Good old Matthew McConaughey. He seems to find roles of the same value, none of them of any significance. This was a film scripted for the 90's, a crazy out of the world, see through court room drama. Everything the film tried to tell us was a secret, was obvious. There was no real trickiness to it, and even if there were good tricks, its like good sandwich meat wrapped in moldy bread. There is nothing in this film that makes it passed mediocre. If you want to vegetate on the couch and watch something with no expectations of a good time, and don't have ANYTHING else to do, then MAYBE as you flip through the channels on your T.V. you MIGHT pick this movie over "Dog Whisperer".

The movie might not be too bad for those who don't care about quality of film vs. a cheap thrill. But I consider myself a conasour of quality, and I reject this one. If I saw this movie being given away at Walmart for free I might take a copy. McConaughey is just boring to watch on anything, and come to think of it, I am not sure if there was ever anything I saw him in that he didn't cause me to feel bored.

The film isn't shot with high expectations, the crew seemed to just do their job rather than strive for anything other than normal Hollywood standards. In every scene, you are reminded that the ideas have been recycled already, time and time again. Skip this movie if you can.

"The Lincoln Lawyer"

5.5 / 10