Luke Bohannon

Just when I was beginning to wonder where Matthew Broderick went, he shows back up with Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller to pull off a heist. Honestly, I didn’t see that coming.

But make no mistake – “Tower Heist” is way more of a heist movie than it is a comedy, despite what the trailers might lead you to believe. Although, there are definitely a few solid laughs throughout the film.

The Tower is a luxurious apartment building where only the very wealthy can afford the rent, and they certainly get their money’s worth. The staff, headed by Josh Kovacs (Stiller), are courteous and competent, attending to the tenants from the moment they enter the Tower, where they’re greeted by kindly Lester, the doorman (Stephen Henderson).

One of the most notable tenants is financial powerhouse Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) who owns the penthouse of the Tower as well as a bright red 1953 Ferrari, once owned by Steve McQueen. However, the Tower is turned upside down when Shaw is arrested by FBI agents, lead by Claire Denham (Tea Leoni) and accused of running a Ponzi scheme, which includes the pension plans and investments of the Tower’s employees, even old Lester the doorman.

Outraged, Kovacs rounds up a group of employees, plus a crook named Slide (Murphy), and sets out to rob Shaw’s penthouse in order to steal back their money. Of course things don’t go quite according to plan, but it’s a heist movie.

“Tower Heist” is all about the ensemble, and this one is pretty good. The core team is Kovacs, Slide, Mr. Fitzhugh (Broderick), who’s jobless and has lost his family following his eviction from the Tower, Charlie the concierge (Casey Affleck), the bellhop Enrique Dev’reaux (Michael Pena), and Odessa the maid (Gabourey Sibide). This odd mix of traditionally serious actors like Affleck and Sibide and comedians creates a cool dynamic that allows the movie to switch between serious and funny at the drop of a hat.

Aside from the cast, “Tower Heist” also had an all-star production crew, including Brett Ratner, best known for the “Rush Hour” franchise. Ratner managed to create a movie that defies traditional genres, not just being a comedy or a drama, but rather a subtle blend of the two, all the while giving every actor their moment to shine.

Of course, Ratner doesn’t get all the credit. Writers Ted Griffin (Ocean’s Eleven) and Jeff Nathanson (Catch Me If You Can) created a screenplay that plays perfectly with the tone of the times, touching on the battle between Wall Street and the working guy.

While it wasn’t quite as funny as I expected, “Tower Heist” was a thoroughly enjoyable movie, offering both laughs and genuine quality drama. Definitely check this one out.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

“In Time” combines an interesting new story concept with a well known moral tale to create a fairly unique film that delivers exactly what it promises.

Starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, “In Time” tells the story of a world very different from our own where time is literally money. Each person is genetically engineered to stop aging at 25, after which they’re given one year to live. But people can work to earn more time. So as long as their time doesn’t run out, they never die… unless they’re murdered or die in accidents. Basically, the rich can live forever and the poor try to survive day-to-day.

Will Salas (Timberlake) works a menial job, earning barely enough time to keep himself alive until one night he meets a wealthy man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) in a bar who has over a century on his clock. After Salas helps save his life, Hamilton gives him his remaining time and dies. Salas uses Hamilton’s time to cross “time zones” into New Greenwich, a wealthy district, and meets Sylvia Weis (Seyfried), the daughter of a wealthy citizen.

He soon finds himself accused of murdering Hamilton and is forced to go on the run, pursued by the “Timekeepers,” a police force led by Raymond Leon (Cilian Murphy) and a mob-like group called the Minutemen. Salas and Weis end up going on a crime spree, giving time to the poor.

The film is helmed by Andrew Niccol, director of “Lord of War” and producer for “The Truman Show.” Niccol does a good job with this film, not overdoing the action or drama, which serves to increase its appeal.

But one flaw is that the film doesn’t explain the whole history of the time currency system very clearly. We’re given a very cursory explanation of the whole idea and left to figure the rest of it out on our own.

The casting for this movie is spot on, and while there wasn’t a great deal of emotional depth in the script for the actors to work with, each cast member played their parts well.

There wasn’t anything “bad” about the film, however, there wasn’t much that really made it stand out from other action movies. The Robin Hood-esque storyline has been done before and the premise of the movie didn’t add much to it.

While “In Time” wasn’t anything overly special, it was still entertaining and definitely worth seeing for anyone who’s craving a good action movie.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

I’m a huge fan of the “Paranormal Activity” movies. The unique way in which these films have utilized the “found footage” style has been both refreshing and horrifying – that is, until now.

“Paranormal Activity 3” has fallen very short of the legacy of the series, and it’s a shame to bear witness to.

This prequel to the first two films takes place in the late 80’s and again focuses on the sisters Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi Rey (Jessica Tyler Brown). The sisters are living with their mother Julie (Lauren Bitter) and her boyfriend Dennis (Chris Smith), and have befriended an invisible entity named Toby who lives in their house.

Naturally, some spooky stuff starts happening in the night and Dennis, who just happens to be a wedding videographer, decides to set up cameras in the house to catch said spooky stuff along with a lot of unnecessarily long pan shots and a completely random sub-plot involving witches.

As I said, I’m a fan of this style of filming, but “Paranormal 3” didn’t bring anything new to the table aside from stretching the bounds of believability. There were several moments in the film that I found myself wondering why the cameraman was carrying around a camera at that particular moment or even why the camera was left on.

One possible reason for the shortcomings of this installment could be the directors, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. Neither have worked with the “Paranormal” franchise before this, although they have made another “found footage” film called “Catfish.”

The true disappointment lies with producer Oran Peli, who has been involved as a writer with all of the “Paranormal” films as well as “Insidious.” Seeing as he remodeled his own home to film in and bankrolled the original film, you would think he would have looked at the third one and said, “Maybe this isn’t the direction to take.”

The biggest downfall of this movie is that all the cool and interesting moments advertised, as well as the plot advertised in the commercials, were not actually in the movie. The previews show a house fire that played a large part in the back-story this movie was supposed to portray, yet it was completely absent in the final product.

Also, nearly all of the scary moments shown in the trailers that were omitted from the film for whatever reason were replaced by rather lack-luster scares and false-alarms, aside from one rather inspired moment in a kitchen.

“Paranormal Activity 3” had the potential to be another great addition to the “Paranormal” series, but instead it became a tedious exercise in unrewarded patience for this unhappy viewer.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

What happens when you toss George Clooney, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Ryan Gosling into a political drama? Good things happen.

“The Ides of March” follows a young, idealistic Stephen Myers (Gosling) who is the junior campaign manager for Pennsylvania governor and democratic presidential candidate Mike Morris (Clooney). Myers is working alongside senior campaign manager Paul Zara (Seymour Hoffman) in an attempt to win the voter support for Morris along with the presidential nomination.

As a debate between Morris and his opponent nears, Myers is contacted by rival campaign manager Tom Duffy (Giamatti) with an offer –  jump ship and work for him. Myers refuses the offer. At the same time, Myers new girlfriend is one of the interns on Morris’ campaign.

Little does he know, Myers’ meeting with Duffy and his new relationship are catalysts that will send him on a journey into the dark reality of politics.

Clooney’s directing is at a high point in this movie, and he also managed to portray an interesting behind-the-scenes look into the campaign of his character and at the same time deliver a satisfying amount of intrigue and drama.

Along with his directing, Clooney does a great job on-screen as Morris, looking and sounding every bit like the political powerhouse he’s supposed to be.

But Clooney isn’t the only actor who shines in “Ides.” Most, if not all, of the cast does a fantastic job. Gosling plays his part with simple grace, slipping through his character’s transformation during the film without missing a beat. Hoffman, of course, delivers a great performance as Zara, and Giamatti is a perfect foil to Hoffman’s character.

“The Ides of March” is based on a play titled “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, and it definitely shows. The whole movie plays out like a stage production, focusing on characterization and character-driven drama.

Many hot-button political ideas are addressed in this movie through debates and town-hall meeting, including religion, same-sex marriage and foreign policy. The combination of smart story-telling and political topics will leave viewers with a lot to think about after they’ve left the theater.

The one notable flaw of “Ides” is that it lacked an emotional impact in many scenes, mostly due to the music, or lack thereof. The score of “Ides” is somewhat awkwardly carried out.

In some scenes the music was very obvious, playing out with faux-patriotic tones that bring to mind cheesy History Channel educational videos about politics. But when some sort of musical cue was really needed to underscore a major event, all the viewer gets is silence.

Still, if you’re politically inclined or just looking for an interesting drama to watch, I definitely recommend this film.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

I’m not a huge fan of baseball – I’ll admit that – but I’m definitely a fan of “Moneyball.”

This new drama from director Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote in 2005, shows the gritty reality of the baseball industry from the perspective of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), general manager of the Oakland Athletics.

“Moneyball,” based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis, dramatizes the real life struggle of the Athletics in the early 2000s. It begins with the team’s loss to the New York Yankees in the 2001 World Series.

We immediately join Beane as he begins to try to rebuild the Athletics after the loss of three key players to a free agency. The team also faces an additional financial handicap in comparison with other professional teams. Beane meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who challenges the traditional notions of scouting by picking players based solely on statistics with no regard to personal lives, appearance or age.

The two team up to bring together a misfit team of throw-away players that other teams won’t touch. This leads to conflict with the Athletics’ manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and the entire scouting crew, until the strategy surprisingly begins to work.

Brad Pitt does a great job playing Billy Beane. He hits the mark in his depiction of a concerned father, an ambitious team manager, a scrupulous businessman and failed player past his prime. Pitt manages to portray the weariness of his character as if he himself lived through Beane’s disappointing major league career. Beane’s relationship with his daughter is a central tenant of his character, and every scene with the two of them is pure gold.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is spot on with his portrayal of Art Howe, and truly immerses himself in the role. His performance elicits both sympathy and frustration as he tries to do what he feels is best for his team.

While “Moneyball” seems like just another movie about baseball on the surface, it’s truly something else entirely. For one thing, there’s actually very little baseball played. The focus of the film is on Beane and Brand as they work to create and maintain an all-star team.

However, the baseball that we do see is shot beautifully. It romanticizes the game and still manages to keep it grounded in a starkly realistic style that defines the film.

Miller meshes scenes of the movie with real life footage from games and television shows seamlessly, which really adds to the film. “Moneyball” attempts to portray baseball realistically, and it truly delivers.

While I’m not saying that “Moneyball” will make it to the Oscars this year, I certainly think it’s a great film that’s worth seeing as soon as possible, whether you’re a hardcore baseball fan or just someone looking for a great movie.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

As I sat in the movie theater watching “Straw Dogs,” one thought kept running through my head – “Get on with it already!”

Los Angeles screenwriter David Sumner (James Marsden) and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) decide to move to Amy’s hometown of Blackwater, Miss. so that David can finish working on his new project, a film about the battle of Stalingrad in 1943.

Almost immediately after arriving, David and Amy meet up with Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard), Amy’s high school boyfriend, and his group of redneck friends, whom David hires to fix the roof of the dilapidated barn next to his house. As David and Amy spend more time in Blackwater, tension begins to build both between the two of them and between the couple and Charlie’s gang, which leads to a violent confrontation.

This built up tension is what “Straw Dogs” is all about. Director and writer Rod Lurie has created what might very well be the slowest and most uncomfortable movie I’ve ever seen.

An undercurrent of aggression flows beneath the quiet façade of both of the characters and even the town itself. Underneath all of the southern hospitality and courteous language, it seems as though every character is just waiting for something to come along so that they can snap.

Even so, Skarsgard delivers one of the most masterful and realistic antagonist performances that I’ve seen in a while. When we first meet Charlie, he seems like a nice, average, quiet guy who just happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Amy. But as the plot continues, we begin to catch glimpses of something else hidden below that quiet exterior, a blossoming darkness brought to full strength by his desire for Amy and his disdain for David.

Visually the film is beautiful, and manages to turn an unremarkable southern town into something more. The chilling score of the film reminds us that this isn’t just a town – it’s a place where anything can, and does, happen.

Despite the excellent acting from most of the cast, the visuals and the wonderful score, this cannot make up for the fact that this movie is, for the most part, simply boring. It’s not enough to build up the anxiety over 90 minutes and then unleash it all in the last 20 minutes.

“Straw Dogs” is not for everyone. The disturbing nature of some of the scenes combined with the slow, boring nature the film makes this one for those who are dead set on seeing it.

Luke Bohannon

Luke Bohannon

When it comes to disaster movies, some of us have low, if any, expectations. But “Contagion” goes about the whole disaster genre with something new – intelligence.

Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a mother, wife and patient in this disease thriller. Beth returns from a business trip to Hong Kong feeling a little under the weather, but within a few days both she and her son have died of a mysterious illness, leaving her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) and their daughter alone.

Meanwhile, intrepid blogger Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), begins to track the disease after he watches a suspicious video of a man dying on a bus in Hong Kong.

The third storyline centers on Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) of the Center for Disease Control, and his star-laden team of disease-fighting associates.

“Contagion” skips between these three storylines with grace, managing to avoid the mental whiplash that such a setup might normally induce, thanks to director Steve Soderbergh, who’s no stranger to large ensemble casts. His previous works include the “Ocean’s” series, which are known for their massive casts. Soderbegh brings us a film that seems like the same old disease movie on the outside, but on the big screen, it comes to life with realism and depth.

No punches are pulled when it comes to showing the ugly truth. “Contagion” isn’t gory by any means, but it instead takes the core anxiety of the viewer and magnifies it with chilling shots of cities that have fallen into chaos and mass graves of those killed by the disease.

It’s also impressive how this film manages to make all the angles come together without forcing some sort of awkward intersection. We aren’t forced to watch the grieving father, the blogger and the CDC scientists jump through hoops just so they’ll all meet up. There’s no coincidental plot point that only serves the purpose of putting Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne in the same room just for the sake of having Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne in the same room.

Aside from using basic tools of the trade Scott Burns, screenwriter, wrote a fair amount of social commentary into the script, particularly in Krumwiede’s storyline. Internet bloggers command massive audiences nowadays, and Burns uses this to bring a whole new dimension to the film.

A dynamite cast combined with a smart and chilling script makes “Contagion” a movie that you don’t want to miss – although you might want to take some hand sanitizer.

Luke Bohannon

Following in the tradition of “Paranormal Activity,” “Cloverfield,” and “The Blair Witch Project,” “Apollo 18” takes a tired-out genre and tries to make it interesting again by telling it through “found footage.”

But this film, the first American feature of director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego, doesn’t quite deliver the chills, thrills or outright terror that it promised. While it wasn’t a massive disappointment, there have certainly been better debuts in previous years.

“Apollo 18” follows the crew of the supposedly cancelled Apollo 18 lunar mission in 1974. Two astronauts land on the moon to place detectors to warn of Soviet missile attacks on the United States. However, when the crew goes out to place the sensor, they come across a dead Soviet cosmonaut and a blood-soaked lunar lander.

Naturally when they try to ask why there happens to be a dead Soviet on the moon, the government gets dodgy and tells them to keep to the mission. Things go downhill from there as something begins to menace the astronauts and their mission.

The true disappointment lies with producer Timur Bekmambetov, whose past credits include “Wanted” and “9,” both films with a much higher quality level. I was hoping that with Bekmambetov involved, “Apollo 18” would be at the very least an interesting film, but no such luck.

The main problem was the fact that unlike “Paranormal Activity” or “The Blair Witch Project,” it wasn’t made on a shoe-string budget, yet it still feels as though it was. I didn’t really have any problem with the grainy camera style, after all that’s the whole idea behind the film. It was the fact that this was nothing more than another dime-a-dozen alien thriller being shot in a slightly more inventive style.

However, “Apollo 18” isn’t a total wash. While it didn’t offer up much in the category of suspense or subtle horror, it still had a few genuinely good “jump” moments.

One challenge of using a camera that is also a part of the story is hinting at events without having the characters realize exactly what’s going on, and here that is accomplished with a fair amount of success.

One interesting tidbit about this movie is the fact that NASA actually felt the need to release a message to the public telling them that the events shown aren’t real, despite the fact that the main characters are actors with careers that stretch back for years. But hey, I’m sure NASA didn’t have anything better to do.

Luke Bohannon

“Our Idiot Brother” tells the story of lovable Ned (Paul Rudd) and his three sisters. Ned is a happy-go-lucky hippie who believes in always telling the truth and trusting your fellow man.

This gets Ned into a spot of trouble when he gets “tricked” into selling a uniformed cop some weed (yes, you read that right). Upon his release, Ned finds himself without a home after his equally hippie-ish girlfriend dumps him, kicks him off of their organic farm and claims ownership of Ned’s dog, Willie Nelson. Ned ends up crashing at the homes of his three sisters, causing trouble wherever he goes when his honesty interferes with the deception and lies that help hold their lives together.

This feel-good movie offers equal parts comedy and genuine drama, which are portrayed well by the dynamic cast. Ned’s three sisters are cast and played perfectly. Liz (Emily Mortimer) is a loving mother who has been turned into a doormat by her husband (Steve Coogan) who insists that their child be the best of the best in order to get into a private school.

Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) is a magazine reporter who will stop at nothing to advance her career. Finally, there’s Natalie (Zooey Deschanel), a lesbian stand-up comedian who can’t quite seem to stay faithful to her girlfriend (Rashida Jones).

While the idea behind Our Idiot Brother is nothing truly original, it still manages to stay entertaining. The jokes are smartly written and well-delivered without resorting to low-brow comedy. It was refreshing to see a comedy where intelligent writing and genuine comedy were not replaced by excessive cursing and fart jokes.

The dramatic moments are spot on, lending this seemingly shallow comedy a surprising amount of depth and feeling. Ned’s naiveté and constant good mood mask the character’s wisdom at times. His sisters view him as an idiot for not following their example of using deceit and misdirection to get ahead. Similarly, Ned finds his sisters to be odd as their lies only serve to make their lives more difficult. This clash of ideals lends a great amount of material for both the funny and serious aspects of the film.

The one issue I had with this movie was the fact that it simply seemed flat. Aside from one instance the tone of the movie stays very much the same the whole way through, which makes it seem almost boring at times.

The main charm of “Our Idiot Brother” comes from Ned’s unabashed honesty. While Ned seems to cause mayhem in whomever’s life he happens to stumble into, it usually turns out that whether or not he intended to, he manages to do good.

The film is one of those rare movies that will leave you feeling truly good after leaving the theater. Normally I’m not a huge fan of the convenient happy ending, but any other conclusion to this movie would have been a disservice to the audience. It’s actually somewhat pleasant to see a movie that doesn’t sell its soul just to have a “realistic” ending for once. The verdict? Check this one out in theaters, especially if you’re having a bad day.

Luke Bohannon

best noise cancelling headphones
cheap date ideas
home decorators coupon
pokemon diamond pokedex
albany technical college