1. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford: I loved this film. Loved every conversation. Every quiet moment. Every pause. You either love this film or you hate it. If you don’t like westerns, stay away. Stay FAR away. Watch 3:10 to Yuma instead. Roger Deakins owns the cinematography.   2. Sunshine: Critics would be baffled I think by this decision but I adored this movie. I’m a huge fan of Science Fiction and this is, by far, the best that I’ve seen in years. I admire Boyle (the director) for his diversity. He went from 28 Days Later (Retro Zombie film) to Millions (Family film) to Sunshine (VERY Science Fiction film). He hit it out of the park. Love this film.  3. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: I’m a fan of dark material but I’m not normally big on musicals, yet this one worked beautifully for me. To my surprise, I loved the music. I loved the actors. The intimacy of the story took me by surprise. I LOVED the cinematography. I really can’t say enough about this film. It’s dark and bloody so, if you’re expecting a bright little musical, you won’t get it.  4. There Will Be Blood: I’m a BIG fan of Paul Thomas Anderson and an even bigger fan of Daniel-Day Lewis. His performance has been widely discussed as the best in three decades and rightly so. It is a monstrous achievement in the acting world. Besides that, it’s an absorbing film. Not necessarily emotionally involving but I was hypnotized from opening frame to ending frame. Mesmerizing.  5. No Country for Old Men: The best Coen Brother’s film, next to Lebowski for me. Every scene of dialogue is so perfectly executed. Every scene is beautifully written. Javier Bardem is scary as hell and deserves the oscar. Josh Brolin has been overlooked and that’s crap. He’s fantastic. Cinematographer Roger Deakins once again owns. The much talked-about ending has split audiences down the middle. I challenge you to watch it again. pay close attention as to what the characters are discussing. Foreshadowing lingers in every scene. Terrific film.  6. Charlie Wilson’s War: The film has garnered a lot of praise for it’s actors, but the film itself is brilliant. The screenplay is just a comedic masterpiece. I enjoyed every second of this movie. The actors just have tons of fun and although the story may lose focus because of that, I didn’t care. I had a great time with it. Philip and Hanks are amazing. I’ve never been a huge fan of Julia, but she does solid work.  7. Zodiac: Initially, I liked it a lot. I remember it vividly, people in the theatre got extremely restless and complained about the film’s length. I watched it again. I loved it. It is utterly absorbing. Terrific writing. AWESOME cinematography. Knock-out performances. Don’t expect Seven, which is the other film the director did. He’s done that, it’s over. What he made here is not quite as good but great none-the-less.  8. The Mist: Another choice that I’ll get crap for. I was gripped by this film from beginning to end. It did what really good movies do, spark conversation. I loved that, in the end, it wasn’t what was in the mist that mattered but rather the situation between the people that mattered. The ending is incredibly bleak but ballsy. Really admired Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption) for that decision. Scary in the right kind of way. 9. Grindhouse: This was by far one of the single greatest movie theatre experiences I have EVER had. I had so much fun here. It’s really a shame that they split the film’s up. I don’t think you could’ve truly experienced Grindhouse without seeing it in theatres anyway but it was terrific fun. I preferred Death Proof over Planet Terror and the Thanksgiving trailer was amazing.  10. Gone Baby Gone: A film that challenged me to question my morals. Such a smartly written, acted and directed film. Casey Affleck is really up-and-coming and just blows it out of the park. Check this one out. Runner Ups: 300, Hot Fuzz, Knocked Up, Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma, Eastern Promises, Michael Clayton, Juno, American Gangster, The Lookout, Ratatouille, Breach, Superbad, The Simpsons Movie, Ocean’s Thirteen, Paris, Je T’aime, Lust, Caution Films I have yet to see: Once, 4 Months, 3 Weeks And 2 Days, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Orphanage, Away from Her, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, Lars and the Real Girl, Persepolis, After the Wedding, Into the Wild, La Vie en Rose, The Savages, In the Valley of Elah, The Lives of Others, Control, The Host, The Hoax, A Mighty Heart, You Kill Me

The fall movie season is by far the most rewarding time for film-goers. After countless mind-numbing summer blockbusters and big-budget actions films, the oscar movie season has begun with the release of Tony Gilroy’s directorial debut, Michael Clayton. In the vein of Michael Mann’s The Insider, this is a film of men-in-suits, heavily populated by quick, intelligent dialogue and three-dimensional, complex characters. This is cinema for adults.

Following an appointed law firm “fixer”, Clayton struggles to discover the truth over a four day period after an important client has a mental breakdown. The seemingly insane client manages to convince Michael to dig further and reveal the corruption within his law firm. The more truth Clayton uncovers, the deeper he digs himself into danger and the more demoralized he becomes about the work he’s done for most of his life.

George Clooney never fails to impress but usually he seems to play the same sly, well-spoken man as he does in the Ocean films. Not here though. Yes, he’s a slick talker but this is a man who is at his end. He’s broken, incapable of continuing with the life that he’s had and Clooney portrays his gradual downfall with brilliant subtlety. Tom Wilkinson deserves an oscar nomination. His supporting performance is real, fearless and mainly, seamless. Tilda Swinton also turns in a very brave performance, playing the role of a woman who is so self-conscious and so hopelessly concerned with success that, like Clayton, is also at her end. Extremely courageous performance.

Tony Gilroy, who is most widely known for his work on the Bourne movies, emerges with an exceptional directorial debut and reveals a commanding presence behind not only a typewriter but the camera. Every performance is keenly focused and the script is so competently written that each scene only builds on top of the next, making the climax that much more rewarding.

Despite my ravings, like every film, it isn’t without its flaws. The pacing lags for a brief section of the movie and the beginning of the film is particularly confusing. Be patient though. Initially it’s difficult to sink in to the film’s groove but once you do, it won’t let you go. Keep in mind, the film is dialogue-filled, so those expecting some kind of slam bang thriller will not receive it. This is an intelligent, character-driven suspense picture and one of the better films of the year.

“There’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer.” That tag line alone expertly explains what to expect from this film. Most movies centering on a murderer or at least the investigation of one, never explore the commitment required to track down an unknown suspect. Not many films make that courageous leap into the psyche of obsessed men, where an initially normal homicide eventually becomes their lives. Being an enormous fan of David Fincher, I, like many others, hoped and expected a film comparable to Se7en but instead of following a standard serial killer formula, Fincher explores the lives that were consumed by these otherwise insignificant string of murders.

In the late 1960’s, a killer known as the “Zodiac” plagued the San Francisco Bay Area, sending numerous letters to local newspapers with ciphers that taunted police and freightened the locals. The film isn’t concerned with the killer per se, but more the men and women who relentlessly pursued him and how they gradually suffered for it. Ultimately, it isn’t the unspectacular murders that fascinate people but simply for the fact that it remains, even today, one of the most famous unsolved mysteries in history.

Robert Graysmith (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, becomes fascinated when the strange zodiac ciphers arrive at the paper. Utterly fascinated by the letters, Graysmith takes it upon himself to solve the Zodiac killings himself (eventually writing the books Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked) and eventually assists Inspector David Toschi (played by Mark Ruffalo) in his deliberate case to find the killer. The film spans over many years and makes no attempts at rushing it’s pace, the two hour and forty minute film takes its time to tell the story.

The cast is flawless. Jake Gyllenhaal successfullly pulls off the naive, clumsy aspect of the character as well as the smart, determined side. His dedication to solve the case of the Zodiac is brilliantly played out in not only the dialogue but his eyes. Constantly, you’re convinced that he will stop at nothing to find out who the Zodiac is. Mark Ruffalo particularly nails it. His progression from confident, focused investigator subtly transitions to tired, depressed failure and Ruffalo always plays it straight. It’s by far the best role he’s ever had.

The supporting actors are all equally stunning such as the always reliable Brian Cox, Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas and Chloe Sevigny but the reigning actor in this line up by far is Robert Downey, Jr. His performance is comedic, yes, but not in a conventional sense. If he does anything remotely amusing, it still feels completely organic. Unlike some of his other movies, he refuses to go over the top with his wit and keeps everything in focus. I loved every minute he was on screen.

Fincher has always been known as a stylist but unlike Panic Room or Fight Club, he restrains himself from being over-stylized and always keeps a consistent tone. That isn’t to say that Cinematographer Harris Savides doesn’t perform, on the contrary, every frame in this film is absolute perfecton. Every shot is impeccably framed and not once did I question the time period. Every street corner, every color, every little spec of detail is so accurately executed that it seamlessly transports us to the 1960’s.

This isn’t David Fincher’s best work (Se7en dominates that throne) but it is certainly one of the best films he’s ever made. As a filmmaker, he deftly demonstrates his focus and maturity, showing us that he could potentially join the ranks of Scorsese or Spielberg. As bold a statement as that seems, this film proves it.

If you’re expecting a film similar to Se7en, please don’t. This isn’t Se7en. Fincher has been there and done that. This is a drastically different film in comparison that moves in a slow pace and tells its story through character development and good dialogue. If you’re expecting an action film, think otherwise, it’s much more than that. It’s a near-masterpiece.

A very fine line rests between absurdity and believability. Where a storyteller draws that line depends greatly on the universe created around their story. Sometimes that line is forgotten and discarded in the third act of a film as most recently seen in De Palma’s The Black Dahlia or most movies with a surprise twist. Occasionally though, a film’s ending will border on ludicrous and insanity, like a fantastical, fairy tale ending in a gritty, tough crime drama, almost as if the writer just didn’t know how to end it. Unfortunately, that’s the ultimate downfall of Tom Tykwer’s Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.

Set against the backdrop of 18th Cenutry Paris, Perfume revolves around Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, who’s unmatched sense of smell and rough, anti-social upbringing has made him an outcast to normal society. Aimlessly wandering through life with no particular ambition, Jean-Baptiste discovers the scent of a beautiful, young woman and from that moment on, becomes obsessed with capturing a woman’s scent. Without any regard to human life, Jean-Baptiste attempts numerous means of capturing that particular scent and eventually becomes a wanted murderer.

Initially, Perfume is fascinating both visually and stylistically and despite some minor missteps, moves at an efficient pace. However, not once, did I ever sympathize or identify with the characters or their situations. The character development is thin and the actors who portray them aren’t completely convincing but regardless, I strangely liked it, particularly when Jean-Baptiste encounters Giuseppe Bladini (played by Dustin Hoffman).

The section of the film where Giuseppe takes Jean-Baptiste under his wing are the best scenes in the film, largely due to Dustin Hoffman’s performance. Unlike everyone around him, he’s over-the-top and fun, never taking the character or the story too seriously. Ben Whishaw, who plays Jean-Baptiste, is simply a blank for most of the film until his final scenes. Whishaw never makes you feel anything for this character and although the story is promising, the character himself is just uninteresting. The most disappointing aspect was Alan Rickman’s underwhelming performance. I’ve been a huge fan of his for years now and he seems so bored and disinterested. I never believed in his character and never felt anything for him, even at his most tragic moment. Very disappointing.

Although Cinematographer Frank Griebe excels and the illusion of 18th centruy france is exquistely done, the film never has any emotional weight. You never believe in any of the characters or empathize or sympathize. You simply feel nothing. Despite the unineresting characters, the film still held my attention but returning to my initial point, the ending completely loses me.

The film takes itself so seriously that when the conclusion comes, instead of being powerful and provocative, it is downright silly. Whishaw finally shines in this scene but what happens around him and how he meets his fate is utterly ridiculous. Instead of touched or blown away, I felt cheated. It’s not a bad film, it just isn’t a very good one. If anything, watch it mainly for Dustin Hoffman and the beautiful cinematography, otherwise, I’m on the fence about recommending it.

Science Fiction films will inevitably fade from our movie theatres in the exact same fashion as the Western has. It saddens me greatly to admit this. Some of my absolute favorite films have come from the fantastical genre, such as Star Wars, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, Alien, Aliens, Gattaca, Terminator 2: Judgement Day and most recently Sunshine and Children of Men (two great sci-fi films that unfortunately fumbled at the box office). But perhaps my statement is premature. I hope it is. Maybe James Cameron’s Avatar will revive the genre and inspire audiences to be wowed again. Until then, however, we’ll have to endure “independent Science Fiction”, which is a collection of words that I have yet to fully absorb but have willingly embraced all the same.

One of the best of these independent Science Fiction films is Kurt Wimmer’s apocalyptic-thriller Equilibrium. The best Science Fiction movies didn’t solely consist of spaceships, explosions and galactic (I can’t believe I’m using that word) action, but rather challenging and thought-provoking ideas. Yes, the action is a plus but it isn’t what science fiction is about. Science Fiction is about encouraging people to think, which is where Equilibrium greatly excels. It forces the audience to be contemplative, to ponder relevant issues and think outside of convenient ideas.

The film centers on Preston, a Gammatron Cleric, who’s sole duty is to eradicate all forms of art and music or rather anything that could provoke emotion. After a devastating third world war, what’s left of humanity inhabits a large city called Libria, where any form of emotion is suppressed by a daily drug. Failure to inject the drug will result in execution via fire chamber. But when Preston decides not to take the drug, he immediately becomes entangled in a complicated plot that changes the repressed society forever.

Christian Bale is one of my favorite actors. Every performance he’s ever given has been dedicated and intensely serious. In any other actor’s hand, the film wouldn’t have been as effective. Bale’s performance is key to keeping this film together. As an audience member, we are essentially in his shoes and we need to be able to know what he’s thinking. There wasn’t a moment in the film where I couldn’t tell what was on his mind. His performance is excellent as usual.

The supporting cast is good but nothing to really rave about. Taye Diggs and Emily Watson do the best they can but their roles aren’t particularly strong. The same goes for Sean Bean, who plays this short role very well and to the best of his abilities.

Any attention that the film garnered was purely for the action sequences and rightfully so. One thing I did not expect from the action scenes was originality and it was the first time in a long time that my mouth dropped after watching an action scene. The reaction I had to the second time Preston was forced to use his guns was the same reaction I had when I watched Neo dodge bullets in the original Matrix. The action is simply very creative, such as the last fight scene that plays out more like a gun-sword fight and although it could’ve easily failed, it ends up working unbelievably well. Anyone looking for something new in their action will find it in this film.

Equilibrium isn’t perfect. The film has its flaws but ultimately is a terrific addition to the Science Fiction genre. It’s a thought-provoking action picture and one of the better recent Science Fiction films released.

There is nothing more infuriating than a panicked studio-head, who fears box office numbers will be drastically affected by a film’s length or rating, regardless if it’s a potential candidate for best picture or a genuine masterpiece. The studio that just so happened to back this particular film are also the same monsters who rushed X-Men: The Last Stand into production (with mediocre results), forced a PG-13 rating on this past summer’s blockbuster sequel, Live Free Or Die Hard and also gave the same rating treatment to 2004’s Alien V. Predator.

Obviously, I disliked the theatrical cut of Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, which majority of the world saw, and to this day, I am still mystified as to how anyone could’ve enjoyed it. The film felt so disconnected, unemotional and off beat (very similar to Troy), restricting one only to view the battle sequences as a grand spectacle rather than a gripping action scene. And though it isn’t the first film where the studio’s final say is apparent, it is, however, the first film to be so painfully obvious about it.

Normally, I’m skeptic about Director’s Cuts. In most situations, their just an excuse for DVD sales but not in Kingdom of Heaven’s case, not by a long shot. The film is restored with forty-five minutes of added footage and the extra-long running time makes all the difference. Kingdom of Heaven: The Director’s Cut is arguably one of Ridley Scott’s absolute best films to date.

The story centers on Balian (played by Orlando Bloom), who aids the city of Jerusalem during the 12th century Crusades, to defend the people from the muslim leader Saladin (intelligently played by Ghassan Massoud) as he launches a vicious attack on the Christians. During Balian’s journey, he searches for answers from God, finds love again and reunites with his long lost father, Godfrey (played by the always-amazing Liam Nesson). It’s a busy movie.

If you share mutual feelings towards the film and felt there was something missing from the original cut, then you’d be right. The priest who constantly torments Balian is his brother! Sibylla (Eva Green) has a son! And there is a final confrontation between Balian and Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) that definitely should’ve made the cut. Not only did these smaller story details add another layer of depth to the characters but it granted me the emotional impact that I so desperately wanted from this film.

Orlando Bloom, who I’ve never really been a fan of, impresses me here more so than he did in the original. His contemplative expression and pensive eyes worked so well for the character in the new version and often times, you could actually figure out what he’s thinking about. Liam Nesson, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Marton Csokas, David Thewlis, Edward Norton (who plays the king but remains uncredited for it) and every one else in the cast give flawless performances as they did in the original but the one who stands out greatly in this, as opposed to the original, is Eva Green. Her entire story thread is finally revealed and fleshed out and she easily has the most heartbreaking scene in the entire film. Every look, every tear and every bit of dialogue is right on point. I adored her performance in this version.

The cinematography, like the original, is just breathtaking. The opening shots are by far some of the most beautiful images I’ve ever seen on film. The score by Harry-Gregson Williams is absolutely flawless. The music alone adds just another layer of emotion to this epic masterpiece. William Monahan, who recently won an oscar for writing the Departed, draws every character so clearly and accurately captures the living conditions of the time. It is a brilliant screenplay. Lastly, Ridley Scott. This man has given us Gladiator, Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Black Hawk Down and in my personal opinion, Kingdom of Heaven: The Director’s Cut is his best film. He should’ve easily been nominated for Best Director and it’s truly a shame that he has yet to win a gold statue.

If you have or haven’t seen the theatrical cut, it doesn’t matter, I beg you to seek this film. Like most people, you will be missing out on one of the greatest epics out there, certainly the best film about the Crusades. Kingdom of Heaven: The Director’s Cut is worth the trouble of finding it.

There are few films that have instantly captivated me with merely a single scene. With only a glimpse of the grimy, gritty beauty of the cinematography and the brutal, intense nature of the violence, I was immediately riveted by Fernando Meirelles’s masterpiece, City of God. Easily one of the most recognizable foreign films today, God authentically captures the violent reality of the slums in Rio de Janeiro during the early 80’s.

Often referred to as the Brazillian Pulp Fiction, the film tells the story of two growing men over the course of a decade. The comparisons to Pulp Fiction pertains to the out of order manner it unfolds in and similar to that film, it sections each story off by a specific character’s situation. However, the film mainly follows the life of Rocket and Lil Ze’. The two men’s lives couldn’t be anymore different, yet they always seem to connect at some point or another.

Lil’ Ze divulges into thivery and murder, while Rocket does everything in his power to escape that life, which eventually leads to his fascination and love for photography. Lil Ze’ and Rocket are ultimately connected by people such as Knockout Ned and many other supporting characters, which, once again, comes back to Pulp Fiction.

Although it seems unfair to compare City of God to Pulp Fiction because they are so drastically different in subject matter and style, I would argue that City of God is far more resonant and memorable. Not once during this rapid-fire film did I question believability or realism. Each and every performance is so spot on that not once did I questioned whether or not these people inhabited this chaotic neighborhood. Although I take in to account that actors such as Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta are worldwide celebrities, the actors here are so seamless that it felt more like a documentary than a written screenplay.

The cinematography by Cesar Chalone elevates the film to another level. You can see every scar, every scab, and every wound with frightening clarity and it immensely assists the movie in capturing that documentary-like feel. The screenplay by Braulio Mantovani is nowhere near comparable to Tarantino’s dialogue but the balance between the many characters is nearly unmatched. Each character, no matter how minimal a role, is defined and fleshed out. And amidst all this, is Fernando Meirelles, who handles the chaos in such a professional, focused manner. This is his crowning achievement (even though, The Constant Gardner, his second film is also very good) and I greatly anticipate his next film.

One would assume that there would be a weak link in the string of multiple storylines but like Soderbergh’s masterful Traffic, there isn’t one second that isn’t completely involving or utterly horrifying. City of God isn’t an easy film to watch but it is by far one of greatest films I have ever seen.

David Lynch is an acquired taste. Audiences who actually watch his films either find him deep and meaningful, or pointless and tedious. Arguably though, Lynch is at his best when he simply tells a straight-forward, universal story (i.e. 1999’s The Straight Story) but his attempts at making very non-linear, off beat pictures have more often failed. The only exception is 2001’s Mulholland Dr., which beautifully combined those straight-forward story elements with his signature chaotic plot structure. Sadly though, his new three hour opus falls short of the heights that Mulholland Dr. reached and much like his earlier work, it doesn’t seem to add up to anything.

The film centers on Nikki Grace (astonishingly played by Laura Dern) and I’ve endlessly pondered how to explain the film’s premise but any form of a cohesive story is squandered by Lynch’s abstract approach. The only way to make sense of the film is to view it as a character study on a woman who can’t determine dream from reality. Lynch has always been fascinated with dreams and as a result, his films are normally bizarre and disconnected. Inland Empire is nothing but disconnected.

The film constantly feels like a string of insanely grotesuqe sequences that were written on the spot. One scene never matches the other and the movie carries on like this for nearly three hours until it tries to make sense of everything in the last twenty minutes. Unfortunately by the time “explanations” are attempted, the audience is so frustrated that you will no longer care.

Despite the film’s senseless nature, Laura Dern’s diverse performance is so believable that I kept neglecting the fact that she was acting. Her performance is so brave and dedicated that I couldn’t help but admire her. Other supporting actors turn up such as Jeremy Irons and Justin Theroux and they make the best of their minimal screen time, especially Theroux, who is still virtually unknown and shouldn’t be.

Though there are moments of disturbing, genuinely frightening imagery, the film overall seems built-up mostly of hot air. The cinematography is so amateurish that I sometimes felt like I was watching a home movie. Inland Empire is one of the single most maddening experiences that I’ve ever had watching a film. Perhaps my expectations were too high due to the excellence of Mulholland Dr. or maybe I shouldn’t have been expecting Lynch to retread familiar ground? His films are evidence of his diversity but regardless of my feelings toward Inland Empire, I remain an admirer of Lynch. In the end though, his new film seems to just get lost in experimentation and feels like a waste of time.

Revenge films have always been a hard genre to swallow. More often than not, they aren’t particularly fun (except for Kill Bill or The Crow and a few others that I currently can’t recall), with most being depressing and morbid, usually following the same plot device that I refer to as “the check list”. The overused premise goes something like this… the wronged heroine undergoes a transformation after a brutal incident and kills anyone involved with his or her suffering. Sound familiar? Thought so. Revenge has the potential to be thrilling, but even to the average movie-goer, some surprise is desired and in that sense, they are mostly tedious and unmemorable.

The Brave One is neither unique nor completely generic but rather in between. The story centers on Erica Bain (played bravely by Jodie Foster, no pun intended), a local radio talk show host, who is brutally beaten alongside her fiancé’ David (played by Lost’s Naveen Andrews). Unlike David, Erica manages to live through the attack only to find herself completely alone with no one to confide in.

Unable to tolerate the police’s incompetence or even comprehend the psychological trauma she’s experiencing, she buys an illegal firearm and roams the streets of New York, killing random criminals, in search of the men responsible for her fiancé’s death. Over the course of the film, she manages to befriend a frustrated but honest cop, Detective Mercer, (played well by Terrence Howard) who happens to be the lead investigator on her criminal-shooting spree.

The film was directed by Neil Jordan, who was responsible for 1992’s controversial The Crying Game, and you get the distinct impression that he made this for a paycheck. Despite the good performances and occasional thrilling action, the film overall is an extremely been-there-done-that, by-the-numbers revenge film. Although they attempt to make it much more than it is about, questioning whether or not what she’s doing is justified, the film is inescapably generic.

Despite the film’s lackluster story, Jodie Foster is particularly strong in the role of a tortured woman, coming to grips with the death of her lover and continuing on with her life. Foster’s tired, often frightening eyes tell a story all their own. Instead of allowing this character to be a casual killer, she beautifully portrays her as a tormented, doubtful woman, who can’t decide whether or not she herself is right.

On the other hand, Terrence Howard also gives a notable performance as the honest cop and does the best he possibly can to make up for the screenplay’s one-dimensional character. But the two actors really shine when they’re on screen together. The chemistry and understated sexual tension between them is brilliantly played and subtle. Without saying a word, they say more about the characters then the dialogue does.

Sadly though, the film remains average with a conclusion that borders on ludicrous and a story that that nearly becomes too tedious. In short, it’s an OK script elevated by a talented cast and a good director. In anyone else’s hands, the film would’ve been as laughably bad as Death Sentence but rest assured, it isn’t nearly that horrid. If nothing else is playing at your local cinema, then it’s the type of film that I’d shrug at and say, “why not?”