Admission

Image

Towards the end of Admission, an English professor describes a performance he had just witnessed as, “Weird…but I liked it.” The same can be said about the film, Admission. While it’s probably not the movie you expected to see, it inspires some genuine curiosity as it moves along.

Tina Fey plays Portia Nathan, an admissions officer for Princeton University. Daily, Portia avoids the wonton glare of prospective students who seek the secret to “getting in.” She spends most of her time weeding through application files with the hefty task of personally deciding which students are admitted and which students are denied. It’s a cute premise, but hardly one that can keep a film narrative afloat for long. Enter Paul Rudd as John Pressman. Pressman runs an unorthodox school that would rarely attract the attention of the likes of Princeton, except Pressman believes one of his students could be the son Portia gave up years ago. This news arrives precisely at the time when Portia finds out her boyfriend (Michael Sheen) has impregnated another woman and is leaving her.  To make matters more stressful, Portia learns that the Dean of Admissions (Wallace Shawn) is retiring and is considering either Portia or her rival admissions officer Corinne (Gloria Reuben) as his replacement.

These complications allow Admission to explore some more interesting territory. The movie does have a bit of an uneven tone, however. On one hand, there is Rudd and Fey, two comedic talents working hard to downplay their goofy personas into something more serious, with mixed results. On the other hand, there is a drama trying to downplay its serious tone for something more comedic and romantic, with mixed results. What we end up with is something, for lack of a better term, “weird.” Lilly Tomlin works very well as Portia’s mother who raised her with tough love, but perhaps too tough, and it is charming to see a film bold enough to partially set its climax in an Office of Admissions meeting. However, the film does try to bite off a bit more than it can chew, especially in its commentary on how to live one’s life. Portia is constantly berated throughout the film for enjoying a simple life while Pressman is a firm believer that one should never stay too long in one place. Both philosophies are hollowed out and filled with stereotypes leaving director, Paul Weitz with little hope of giving the audience a satisfactory answer.

Admission is a surprisingly odd movie. It takes a few risks with its tone, style, and story, and not all of them pay off, but overall, Admission is worth the price of admission. B

 

 

Oz the Great and Powerful

Image

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a triumph in entertainment longevity. Since L. Frank Baum’s novel was published in 1900, the story has found relevance in the lives of generations of fans and has undergone countless reimaginings from page to stage to its most recent screen makeover, Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful.  Oz is Disney’s second notable big budget update on a classic children’s tale after 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, and the comparisons are numerous, which may or may not excite you.

Like Alice, Oz is somewhat of a frame story where the first act takes place in the real world, and a set of circumstances launches the main character into a magical new world.  James Franco plays Oz, a traveling carnival illusionist with lofty goals but little ambition to put in the effort to reach them.  Franco does well as Oz.  His early scenes depicting Oz’s sleazy ethics and immoral ways with women ring true of a young Woody Allen.  This neurotic zeal and ironic self-confidence is very entertaining and it is some of the film’s best material.  However, Raimi does not waste his time getting Oz to…well, Oz.  Oz is transported to the Land of Oz by way of a fortuitous tornado, a way of transportation clearly not uncommon to early 20th century Kansas.

The Land of Oz looks  great and there are some incredible details woven into its fabric, and with a visionary director like Sam Raimi, this is to be expected.  However, the film does lose some of its freshness upon its shift to Oz.  The film is actually at its best when it is developing Oz’s character at the beginning.  Once the film actually moves to the Land of Oz, it gets a bit convoluted.  The Land of Oz is being terrorized by a wicked witch, and far too much time is wasted pretending that the audience doesn’t know which of the film’s three witches is the bad one.  Eventually Oz allies himself with Glinda (Michelle Williams) against Theodora (Mila Kunis) and Evanora (Rachel Weisz).  Weisz is especially effective and it is unfortunate that at some point down the line, we know a house is going to land on her.  To add to the already bloated storyline, Oz also befriends a flying monkey (Zach Braff) and an orphaned enchanted china doll (Joey King), both of whom refer to characters and events set up in the film’s opening act. As the film goes on, it certainly begins to fizzle, but it is not without its charm and is incredibly respectful of the reputation Oz’s legacy has established.

A well-known film critic gave a favorable review to Oz the Great and Powerful partially because he said it, “does not rest or fall back on formula.”  This is a movie that begins in a real-world setting (in black and white), magically transforms to brilliant color upon the main character landing in a fantasy world where he then meets three odd “friends in need” who all team up to defeat a wicked witch.  What part of this is not formulaic?  Additionally, what part of this is not 2010’s Alice in Wonderland?  It’s not that the film is a bad film, but let’s be honest – we’ve seen this before.  What Oz has going for it is visual charm, a good story, and a feel-good tone; all of this working to create an effective movie experience.  Oz the Great and Powerful was released in both 3-D and IMAX and it is The People’s Critic’s recommendation that it be seen in 2-D, but in IMAX if possible.  The 3-D is not worth the surcharge since most of its effect is gimmick based, although the kids will get a kick out of the flying arrows or the water being spit at the screen.  IMAX screens, on the other hand, definitely enhance the fullness of the world that Raimi and everyone else “behind the curtain” created.  B-

Jack the Giant Slayer

Image

The story of Jack and his magical beanstalk dates back to Viking times and over the past 1400 years, we have yet to be sick of it.  Countless versions of this story exist in virtually every format of entertainment imaginable.  The story is a good one though and in the hands of the talented director Bryan Singer, this version is certainly one of the best. 

Jack the Giant Slayer stars Nicholas Hoult whose star is on the rise.  Fresh off of his other starring role as R in Warm Bodies, Hoult functions well as the underestimated, romantic hero.  The main story is mostly familiar.  Jack is trusted with a task to sell items for money, but he returns home with no money and a handful of “magic beans.”  The magical properties of the beans are unleashed when they become wet in a rainstorm sending Jack’s house, and inadvertently the King’s daughter Isabelle, up to a legendary land of giants via a massive beanstalk.  King Brahmwell (Ian McShane) organizes a team to rescue his daughter lead by his trusted knight Elmont (Ewan McGregor) and including Jack as well as the plotting Roderick (Stanley Tucci) who the princess has been promised to for marriage. 

The giants are truly spectacular.  They are easily 20 feet tall and have a very clever form of motivation based on a previous war between man and giant, which resulted in them being magically enslaved by a magic crown.  Nonetheless, they are vengeful and dangerous, bringing a real threat of danger and excitement to the story.  Furthermore, Singer allows several opportunities for tongue-in-cheek humor to permeate the already clever adventure story that takes place up the beanstalk.  Simply put, a strong case is made for Stanley Tucci to have a part in every movie.

The only issue the film has going against it lies in its first act.  Singer’s film begins a bit slowly with terse voice-over narration of parallel backstories for young Jack and young Isabelle.  The children playing these parts deliver excruciatingly clichéd performances, and it was at this point that I admit I was worried.

Consequently, I must pause here to mention that this review comes with a brief stipulation.  When it comes to re-making a fairy-tale, there are many pitfalls that can occur; a major one is choosing the right audience.  Aside from this tepid opening segment, Bryan Singer actually has made a film that would exist more comfortably in Middle Earth than in Disney World.  It embraces its world of man-eating giants and has fun with it.  This decision certainly enhances the film’s entertainment value, but it also takes a familiar children’s tale and puts it just out of reach for children to enjoy. Creating an opening scene so clearly not in congruence with the rest of the film sets the incorrect initial mood that is hard to shake once the movie gets good.  However, if you can make the leap, this film definitely functions much better as a romantic action film than as a cute and safe children’s tale.        

That being said, I liked Jack the Giant Slayer.  I also recommend seeing it in 3-D, which is a recommendation I can honestly say I would give to no more than five films.  This is a fun, entertaining, funny, and good looking film that is easy to enjoy once the film figures out what it is and who it’s aimed at.   B

Gangster Squad

ImageDirector: Ruben Fleisher

Screenwriter: Will Beall

Cast: Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Nick Nolte, Anthony Mackie, Robert Patrick, and Michael Pena

(A genre review, to be read ‘gangster style’)

This is a picture that says, “Listen, you! You’ll sit there and watch if you know what’s good for ya!” Next thing you know, there’s a guy getting ripped in half, just so you get the message. Mickey Cohen is the guy who sends that telegram, and he’s played by Sean Penn who met ‘the top’ one day and decided to go over it, way over it. Just so we’re clear though, that’s just what’s needed to make Gangster Squad tick.

Cohen owns LA, but goody-two-shoes Sgt. O’Mara (Josh Brolin) has other plans for the City of Angels. He’s had enough of this sucker’s drug running, cop buying, and lady trafficking and looks to put an end to it. Problem is, his bird needs a husband not a hero, and what’s more – she’s got company on the way (baby O’Mara). Off the books, Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) says O’Mara’s got to round up a squad Ocean’s Eleven style complete with tough guy Rocky Washington (Anthony Mackie), tech-man Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi), sharp shooter Max Kennard (Robert Patrick), and sidekick Navidad Ramirez (Michael Pena). Not to mention Wildman Sgt. Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) who’s “poaching the king’s deer” in that he’s got an eye on Mickey’s girl Grace (Emma Stone).

What follows is a ride through the gritty, pulpy landscape of post-war LA, where knuckleheads get what’s coming to them if they step out of line. Jerry’s moves on Mickey’s dame put O’Mara’s operation in some hot water, and a cat and mouse chase commences. When it comes to Gangster Squad, you know the drill: operations go south on account that a runt up and turned rat on a guy, tensions swell when a thug drops the dime on his boss, and emotions flare every time a broad bends her arm for another gent. It ain’t Chinatown, but it’s got a scene that takes place there. Point is, this is entertaining and while critically it may be a bust, here’s a fun ride with an expert cast that delivers the goods…with a few bumps and bruises. B+

Les Misérables

Image

It is a fairly accepted story that when the sculptor, Auguste Rodin wanted to sculpt Victor Hugo, Hugo agreed, but demanded Rodin come to his house, and he refused to pose for him. This prompted Rodin to frantically sketch the poet and attempt to capture his essence. This interpretation of Victor Hugo worked out and resulted in some famous sketches, busts and sculptures. It also worked out in 1985 when Claude-Michel Schönberg interpreted Hugo’s masterpiece Les Misérables into a global musical sensation. Now, as 2012 draws to a close, another interpretation of Hugo’s Les Misérables has been released. Director Tom Hooper follows his best picture Oscar winning film The Kings Speech with the first ever film adaptation of the 1985 musical Les Misérables. Unfortunately, Tom Hooper is no Rodin.

Les Misérables (never to be referred to as “Lay Miz” in this review) is set during the French Revolution and follows the trials of ex-prisoner Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) over a seventeen year period. During that time, Valjean experiences the endurance and integrity of the human spirit as he relentlessly sacrifices his wellbeing for the good of his adopted daughter, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried). Much of Hugo’s original Romantic vision is simplified both for stage and for screen. All versions, however, do condemn the corruption of society as its technological advances inspire greed that leads to abuse of the working class, desperation, increases in criminal activity, and a justifiable uprising. Most evocative of this progression of devastation is the story of Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who when fired from her low-paying factory job is forced to sell her teeth, hair, and body to support her daughter. Hathaway has received praise and criticism for her performance as Fantine. However, the fact remains that while not a traditional Broadway-style singer, what Hathaway lacks in technical singing ability, she more than makes up for in emotional presence. Her rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” is heartbreaking and touching.

While Hathaway performs her role very well, there truly is not enough here to warrant too much attention. Hugh Jackman, on the other hand, turns out a career defining performance that alone makes Les Misérables worth the price of admission. This is Jackman’s movie in every single way. Les Misérables is a “sung-through” musical, which means there is no spoken dialogue; all conversations and speeches are sung. This can prove a challenge for many actors, yet Jackman accomplishes this task expertly with every bit of rawness necessary. Jackman is so good in fact, that he makes it easier to overlook the film’s two most glaring faults: its direction and Russell Crowe.

Tom Hooper has directed a very standard looking and staged feeling musical here. His actors save the film, which in essence is stylistically a spliced together collection of absurdly close-up one shots that go on for several minutes without cutting. To call this minimalism would be vastly understating it. While it can be argued that more aggressive direction may compete with the actors’ performances, it is impossible to look back on the film after viewing it and not feel like an opportunity was missed to make it something more. He does offer a glimpse of creativity with the film’s opening scene as well as his staging of the comic relief number, “Master of the House,” expertly casting Sasha Baron Cohen as Thenardier and Helena Bonhem Carter as his wife.

Additionally, Russell Crowe, who plays Inspector Javert, simply can not hold his own as the film’s second lead. It is painstakingly obvious how hard he is trying, and this perceptibility is deeply distracting. Crowe does not ruin the film, however since the heart wrenching story and incredible music make up for much of the film’s shortcomings. “One Day More” is arguably the film’s most powerful song, and it is sure to stick with audience members well after the credits roll. At the end of the day, Les Misérables is mostly effective, especially to original fans of the musical. Nevertheless, it is mostly an underwhelming film, with occasional glimmers of substance, all of which are a consequence of Hugh Jackman’s powerhouse performance. B-

Hitchcock

Image

Movies about the movies are generally fascinating, and this genre has really never gone out of style. 2012’s best picture Oscar went to The Artist, a film about the emergence of sound in film. Robert Altman’s excellent film The Player satirizes the studio system as a backdrop to a murder mystery. The list of films like this dates back to the origin of the motion picture itself. While a common genre to make, these films often find a smaller niche audience and Sacha Gervasi’s Hitchcock will be no exception.

Hitchcock opens with a charming homage to Alfred Hitchcock’s television program, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Anthony Hopkins plays the iconic director, and his bravura for capturing Hitchcock’s eccentricities without appearing overly melodramatic keeps the film afloat through its sprawling middle section (which is curiously similar to the sprawling middle section of the man himself). It can be a double-edged sword to be a director who takes on a film project about a brilliant director. Gervasi’s film is rather unimpressive in its form. It is constructed rather typically and while telling a story about some brilliant editing, it fails to really practice what it preaches. This film is also not a career spanning project; instead, it commences in medias res as the aging director searches for a project that will validate his position as a master of suspense who is not outgrowing his art form. That aforementioned project is 1960’s Psycho.

The battle to get Psycho made is an interesting story and one worthy of the legacy of films about films. Hopkins dispels some of the tainted oddity that surrounds the reputation of Hitchcock by revealing the passion that lies underneath. Additionally, the film showcases his symbiotic relationship with his wife, Alma (Helen Mirran), a previously unsung heroine who put up with a lot and always stood by the flawed auteur. However, the film does tend to be a bit too “inside” for the casual filmgoer. It is almost imperative to have a working knowledge of Psycho to truly enjoy the film. Moreover, there are multiple winks at the audience for those who come in to the theater already knowing some of the behind the scenes stories like Hitchcock’s battle with Bernard Herrmann about the score or what images were truly spliced into the famous shower montage.

Nonetheless, Hitchcock does sail on in a relatively entertaining way. There is a bit of a lull as the film shifts focuses from Hitchcock to Alma’s friendship with Whitfield Cook (Danny Houston). This side-story is pivotal, but it is dwelled on and overly represented. Hitchcock’s infamous curiosity with his leading ladies is explored as Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) and Vera Miles (Jessica Biel) arrive on the set. This story of the director at work is much more compelling and deserves to be showcased a bit more than it is. This obsession that Hitchcock had with his lead actresses on set was also examined in HBO’s The Girl, which debuted on the network earlier this year. In that film, Toby Jones plays Hitchcock with a malevolent and sinister air. Hopkins provides a slightly softer, warmer (yet still faintly obtuse) view of his behavior. Hitchcock is far from the comprehensive, authoritative source on the life of its subject. That film is yet to be made and perhaps never will be. However, it is not without its charm and is sure to please fans, although it may fail to create new ones. B

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

11162899_detThere was once a beloved trilogy. One day, its creator decided a series of prequels were in order, so he directed…Star Wars: Episode 1-The Phantom Menace. Thus was born mankind’s apprehension and speculation over prequel trilogies. A case is yet to be made for why Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit requires three parts. Nonetheless, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a very good film…whew, what a relief!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey takes place sixty years before Frodo takes his first step towards Mordor. The story is simple this time around, as we return to Middle Earth. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is persuaded, or rather coerced, by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to assist a party of 13 dwarves in their quest to reclaim their lost kingdom. Freeman is very effective as the neurotic, Woody Allen-esque, Bilbo. His nuanced touch to the role gives the audience a very likable and enjoyable central character arch that is only accentuated by our familiarity with him from Jackson’s previous Lord of the Rings films. McKellen slips seamlessly back into his gray robes as Gandalf. While Gandalf is always wise and sensible, McKellen portrays him here as slightly less “urgent” given the lessened threat to Middle Earth and existence that occurs in The Hobbit. This lack of urgency translates to the entire film, which may disappoint die-hard Rings fans. There are more scenes in the “silly” category here than in the previous trilogy. Additionally, there is simply a lowered sense of critical doom and immediacy in this storyline. The film’s opening scenes go on for quite a while and while enjoyable, the end result is a slightly bloated film.

These criticisms are certainly legitimate, but they are truly its only faults. The film looks beautiful and lives up to what one would expect from Jackson’s take on the Tolkien mythology; New Zealand should probably be nominated for best supporting actor. The adaptation of Tolkien’s book is developed in such a way that it will lead up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy very nicely. Familiar characters appear along the way, and they are not unnecessary or false. All of them further the story and add something to the film, which is a credit to the host of screenwriters including Guillermo del Toro and Jackson himself. Furthermore, the dwarf plotline is elevated from the childish mood reflected in the novel to one that feels a bit more mature. This is a good decision and while younger kids can enjoy this film (if they have a long attention span), it is clear that the Hobbit films look to maintain a similar tone to the previous films in the series. At the end, there is quite a bit to like about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While it lacks the epic quality and complex narrative of The Lord of the Rings films, the groundwork is set for an excellent companion trilogy that is fun, technically impressive, and brilliantly respectful to fans and film lovers. B+

Skyfall

ImageSkyfall marks the Bond franchise’s 50th year and 23rd film in that time. For those familiar with the franchise, it is not rare to see the world of Bond tweaked, updated, modernized, and “freshened up.” Skyfall is a very different Bond film, in that regard. It seems director, Sam Mendes goes out of his way to saturate his film with thematic trappings that chastise the egoism of youth and praise the wisdom of age. This is an intriguing direction to take, but it does slightly miss the mark.

In Skyfall, Daniel Craig reprises the legendary role for his third time. After a tragic mishap in Turkey, Bond finds himself off the grid and at a crossroads. A surprise attack on MI 6 forces his hand to once again enter the fray of espionage where he is met with doubt and reservation both by M (Judi Dench) and newly appointed Chairman of Intelligence, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes). It seems the world of espionage has become a digital one and the artistry of the field operative is becoming superfluous. Nonetheless, Bond is reassigned to active duty to track down an ex-operative and cyber-terrorist (Javier Bardem), fueled by revenge against those in the British government whom he believes betrayed him.

The Bond films that rest on a revenge storyline are historically some of the weakest entries in the history of Bond, and this one fits nicely in that group as perhaps the best of the weak. The action starts strong in classic Bond style, as 007 chases down a terrorist with a hard drive that contains all of the identities of undercover agents throughout the world. Bond and M’s relationship is explored in Skyfall in much more depth than ever before, and this film does advance the mythology of Bond a bit more than some other previous entries. However, the film does hit a snag as Bond goes through the motions of tracking down leads throughout China. It is in China where Bond delivers his line, “Bond, James Bond,” and it is also where he drinks a Heineken (Heineken reportedly paid $45 million dollars to have Bond sip their brew in Skyfall). Furthermore, the climax, which does reveal the film’s namesake, also feels a bit clunky and hokey. While Bardem’s villain, Silva does provide some memorable scenes, he is simply a melodramatic excuse to allow Bond to remind us not to underestimate the power of some spit and elbow grease. Silva is, instead, a missed opportunity to chew the scenery along side some of the best Bond villains.

Skyfall is not a bad Bond movie, and it is certainly not a bad movie. Sam Mendes accomplishes his goal of creating a heavy-handed thematically driven exploration of Bond’s inner workings. This is by no means a bad idea. However, this deviation from expectations is not executed with precision and allows the film to flounder in parts. There are some sequences that are absolutely heart pounding and the film leaves us eager to see what’s next; just don’t expect to see your Heineken investment pay off just yet. B-

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is the closest thing we’ve seen to a John Hughes movie since Cameron Crowe channeled him to make Almost Famous. That film felt more epic than the traditional Hughes film, in part due to Crowe’s drawing from his experiences with Rolling Stone. Author/Director Stephen Chobsky also draws from experience to create Perks, however his film has the more intimate feel of a Hughes movie (The Breakfast Club), and that makes it great.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is set in or around Pittsburgh, PA in the early 1990s. Charlie (Logan Lerman) is the aforementioned wallflower; a high school freshman with light heart, but a heavy soul since his best friend recently committed suicide. He finds fitting in and making friends a challenge and instead chooses to lose himself in the novels of equally awkward, soul-searching literary protagonists supplied by his English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd). Charlie’s awakening comes as a result of being accepted by a group of like-minded upper-classmen. It is here that Charlie’s coming of age journey into adolescence finds its stride.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower seems to unfold effortlessly. We learn more about Charlie as he learns more about himself. This surrealist approach to self-discovery allows the viewer to be both surprised by and understanding of Charlie’s decisions and actions. His closest friends are Sam (Emma Watson) and Sam’s step-brother, Patrick (Ezra Miller), and they shape the heart of this film. Sam’s confidence, charm, and beauty complement her romantic and impulsive attitude towards life, which spellbinds and captivates the sullen but passionate Charlie. Ezra Miller as Patrick deserves special notice as he steals every scene he’s in. This character is miles from his ultra-disturbing performance as Kevin in We Need to Talk About Kevin, but is even more impressive. Patrick’s story reveals him to be somewhat of a foil to Charlie as both have similar struggles of adolescence and deal with them very differently. The supporting characters all have their moments as well, allowing secondary characters to be purposeful and not artificial. The film’s best line is given to Charlie’s dad, played Dylan McDermott, in an amusing exchange about borrowing money for a date.

The success of Perks also lies in Chobsky’s handling of his own source material’s tone. He never lets us, or Charlie, get too comfortable, hinting that something more sinister is lying beneath the surface, yet he never allows the film’s youthful spirit to suffer. This balance illustrates the volatility of teenage years with that same touch John Hughes had. The film also allows music to play a major part in the characters’ lives, which was a classic Hughes trademark.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is very successful at what it sets out to be. Many recent films of this genre either feel too self-important and preachy or they go the other way and seem shallow. This film strikes out a balance and while not treading new ground, deservedly treads proudly. B+

Premium Rush

Premium RushPremium Rush

Director: David Koepp

Screenwriter: David Koepp

Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon

Once upon a time, August was considered the dumping ground for mediocre films that, for whatever reason, have lost the love and support of their studios and were left to duke it out for the “end of summer” scraps. Lately, this has seemed to change. Sylvester Stallone brought The Expendables in 2010, which grossed over $100 million. It’s sequel, Expendables 2, is enjoying a strong reception by audiences, bringing in $28 million in its opening weekend. Last year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes was an August release and made $176 million with a sequel slated for 2014.

This year’s August releases are no exception. First, Bourne Legacy, then ParaNorman and Expendables 2, and now the electrifying Premium Rush. Premium Rush puts a microscope over the lives of NYC bike messengers. This is a very misunderstood and under-appreciated microcosm of modern civilization, which makes it ripe for a brilliant, late-Summer action flick. Joseph Gordon-Levitt returns to his indie roots as Wilee, a thrill-seeking bike messenger who’s steel-framed bike is custom equipped with no gears and no brakes. Wilee’s philosophy on bikes is like his philosophy on life; “I like to ride…can’t stop, don’t want to.” With the introduction of a McGuffin in the form of an envelope, this movie is off and it doesn’t want to stop either.

The envelope entrusted to Wilee for delivery is also desired by corrupt NYPD officer, Bobby Monday, played on full-tilt by Michael Shannon. The cat and mouse chase format is kept fresh with a tricky non-linear timeline, some imaginative multi-dimensional stunts, and enjoyable supporting characters like Wilee’s girlfriend Vanessa (Dania Ramirez) and his jealous pumped-up rival, Manny (Wole Parks). I was surprised how much I enjoyed Premium Rush, but this is a film that is quite aware of its escapist qualities and goes to great lengths to protect them and not exploit them. Writer/Director David Koepp keeps the pace quick and the audience cheering. I hope August continues to see fun, exciting movies like Premium Rush, so that movie studios have no dumping ground, but rather an obligation to simply release good movies. B+