Well, after having seen back-to-back 10s in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “War Horse” the past two weeks, it was back to reality at the theater this weekend as “Contraband,” a new action thriller starring Mark Wahlberg and Kate Beckinsale, opened nationwide. Unfortunately the film is a cut below mediocre, and, in fact, many current TV shows are better than this big-screen snoozer.

The film actually is a remake of a movie from Iceland titled “Reykjavik-Rotterdam,” and interestingly enough Baltasar Kormakur, who was the lead in that movie, is the director of this one. I’m just wondering whether or not the Icelandic version was better than this lackluster film.

Whalberg plays Chris Farraday, who once had the dubious distinction of being the best smuggler in the business. But Chris gave up his life of crime years ago, and now he has a beautiful wife, Kate (Kate Beckinsale), and two sons. Before he decided to settle down, Chris’s exploits as a smuggler were the stuff legends are made of, but now that he has a family, he is perfectly content with living the safe life in New Orleans.

Yes, Chris obviously made a wise decision, but his brother-in-law, Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) isn’t as smart as Chris, and he becomes involved with a ruthlessly vicious drug kingpin named Tim Biggs (Giovanni Ribisi). And as someone who works for a scumbag like Tim, poor Andy commits the unpardonable sin of screwing up a big job. Now he is a world of trouble, and he needs to figure out how to smuggle $15 million in counterfeit money out of Panama into the United States so that Tim won’t kill him.

Of course only one person can pull off a massive assignment like this, and Andy throws himself on the mercy of Chris, who feels obligated to help the guy out because he is Kate’s brother. Thus, against his better judgment, Chris puts together a team to help him and heads to Panama in an attempt erase Andy’s debt to Tim.

Predictably, however, things don’t go as smoothly as Chris intended, and he soon finds that he has put the lives of his wife and sons in danger, and he has to figure out a way to get back to them before Tim gets hold of them.

If you are looking for anything original or imaginative in this crime drama that you haven’t seen in other such films of the genre, you can forget it. The movie is riddled with clichés from every heist film you’ve ever seen. How many times have we seen the guy-leaves-his-wife-to-commit-a-crime-only-to-have-the-wife-end-up-in-the-hands-of-the-bad-guys scenario? And that’s exactly what we have here.

Even the action scenes are so hackneyed that they lack any real punch, and the film doesn’t manage to build and sustain any sense of suspense and mystery. It also lacked any particular intensity that is necessary for a good thriller. Never once was I on the edge of my seat, and I actually had to work at staying awake.

The acting in this movie wasn’t anything to brag about either. Wahlberg just seemed to be going through the motions, but at least Beckinsale appeared to be interested in her part. It was Ribisi, however, who turned in the best performance. He made a very creepy villain, and he ratcheted his voice up to such a pitch that it made you want to do something drastic to shut him up. In the film’s production notes, he referred to his character as “the bogeyman” when he described Tim.

“He’s the guy you don’t want knocking on your door at night. He just spent five years in Angola, and he’s your worst nightmare. I feel like Balt (the director) stretches the boundaries of ordinary filmmaking because the film is so steeped in reality. He doesn’t glamorize smuggling; he shows the reality of it.”

With both “War Horse” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” playing at the theaters, don’t waste your money on a second-rate action movie like “Contraband,” which earns a final score of five. If Ribisi hadn’t been so good, who knows what its grade would have been? And if you are planning to wait for the DVD of this movie to be released, I wouldn’t pay for it. You might want to consider hiring someone to smuggle it into your house for you.

Every once in a long time Hollywood turns out a film so perfectly made that available adverbs and adjectives don’t really do it justice, but I’m going to take a crack at it. “War Horse” is a breathtakingly beautiful, majestically magnificent, sensationally stunning, visually mesmerizing, hypnotically engrossing, and gorgeously picturesque film.

Based upon the 1982 best-selling novel for young adults by Michael Morpurgo and directed by incomparable Oscar winner Steven Spielberg, “War Horse” tells the heart-wrenchingly touching story of the relationship between a boy and his horse set against the backdrop of World War I in England. Anyone who doesn’t like this wonderful film needs to make an immediate appointment with the Wizard of Oz for a heart installation.

As the world hovers tenuously on the brink of an all-out war, a financially strapped English farmer named Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) goes to a horse auction with the intention of buying a solid workhorse to do his plowing. But he ultimately gets into a bidding war with his landlord over a high-spirited colt that looks more like a racehorse than workhorse.

When Ted arrives home and his wife, Rosie (Emily Watson), sees the horse he has purchased and learns that he had to use rent money to pay for it, she is understandably furious. However, their son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), is thrilled with the animal, names him Joey, and promises his parents that he will take care of taming and training him. And he even vows that he will teach Joey how to plow the fields.

As the ensuing days pass, Albert works indefatigably with Joey, and the two of them form the kind of indestructible bond that only a true animal lover can understand and appreciate. Despite their initial skepticism, Albert’s parents are impressed by his dedication to Joey’s training, and they come to love and respect the animal almost as much as Albert does. Watching the love, trust, and respect between Albert and Joey germinate, grow, and blossom is among the myriad high points in the film.  Then the war begins, and Albert’s world falls apart

Animals, especially horses and dogs, were an invaluable part of World War I, and the horses were used for everything from serving as steeds for the cavalry to pulling ambulance wagons and heavy artillery. Statistics show somewhere between 4 and 8 million horses died during the four-year war, and there were times when the English sent 1,000 horses per day into battle to replace the ones that died. The United States also contributed horses to the effort by sending 182,000 of them into the conflict, which claimed 60,000 of them.

Over Albert’s vehement and futile protestations Joey is sold to begin his varied war career as a vital member of the British cavalry. During his gut-wrenching odyssey through the war, Joey participates in cavalry charges, pulls ambulances across battlefields, brings momentary joy to an ill French girl, and moves cannons up steep hills in the mud. He finally ends up in the area between the British and German lines ominously referred to as “No Man’s Land.”

In the meantime, Albert joins the British forces and vows to find Joey and bring him home safely. But his quest is fraught with the perils of war, and it soon becomes anyone’s guess whether either Albert or Joey will survive the conflict.

“War Horse” has all the elements that make a Spielberg film something beyond special – drama, pathos, love, mystery, and thrills. It also boasts exquisite cinematography from two-time Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski (“Saving Private Ryan”) and a typically stunning musical score by five-time Academy Award winner John Williams (“Star Wars”), whose brilliance as a composer has earned him more than 40 Oscar nominations.

On the acting front, veterans Mullan and Watson are excellent as Albert’s parents, and rookie actor Irvine turns in an outstanding performance as their son.

But the acting in the film is really secondary to the marvelous sets, the lovely English countryside, the superbly choreographed battle scenes, and some stellar special effects.

Most special of all, however, are the magnificent horses superbly trained under the supervision of Bobby Lovgren. Although the part of Joey was played 14 different horses throughout the film, the main star was Lovgren’s own beloved horse, Finder. Anyone who doubts that horses can change facial expressions will be a believer after watching this amazing animal. The scenes between Albert and Joey will melt your heart, and some of the segments where Joey is galloping at top speed across the battlefields will take your breath away. In the film’s production notes, Lovgren explained what makes Finder such a special horse.

“Finder has an uncanny ability to convey his feelings. Two of the trickiest scenes for a horse are when Joey is caught in the barbed wire fence, which was actually made from plastic so as to be harmless to the horses, and when Topthorn struggles and Joey takes the reins to try to pull him up. It was so important to get the emotion of these scenes, but it’s quite hard to do that with a typical horse. I was really lucky with Finder because he has a personality that connects emotionally with audiences.”

Of course whenever a film features animals to the extent this one does, a big concern is for their safety. In order to guarantee that the horses were never harmed or in danger of being injured in any way, Spielberg had Barbara Carr, a representative of the American Humane Society on the set at all times.

In the production notes Carr commented, “Everything was done in the safest, kindest ways for the animals. You could see in Steven that he truly cared deeply about the animals, and that was reflected in the entire production.”

In addition to being a visual banquet, the film also delivers an important message about courage, relationships, and love as Spielberg explained in the production notes.

“Courage is what keeps Joey and Albert going through four danger-filled years apart, and it is courage that becomes a theme woven through the entire texture and fabric of the film. I think “War Horse” has a lot to say about courage and about doing things not just for yourself but for the sake of those you love. That theme comes through in many different ways.

“Albert and Joey have a tenacious belief in one another. It all begins when they attempt together to plow this impossibly stony, infertile field in Devon before the war. That creates such a synergy and empathic collaboration between horse and boy that when they are separated by the war, I think the audience senses that at some point there is going to be a date with destiny. And when that date occurs, you see that, out of the chaos, something wonderful happens.”

“War Horse” (It gets the highest 10 on the scale.) makes something wonderful happen on the silver screen, and it is a true testament of filmmaking at its finest. Don’t miss it.

 Stieg Larsson was a Swedish journalist who was just 50 years old when he suffered a fatal heart attack on Nov. 9, 2004, after climbing seven flights of stairs to his office because the elevator in the building was out of order.

Among the things Larsson left were three completed manuscripts for novels comprising the Millennium series, which have joined the ranks of the bestselling books in the world. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” and “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest” are three remarkable crime novels that tell the story of the relationship between a financial reporter named Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander, a brilliant but bizarrely eccentric investigator, who join forces to solve a fascinating crime. Books this good inevitably make their way to the silver screen, and Swedish filmmakers already have crafted outstanding movies of all three of them.

But the American version of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” just opened nationwide a few weeks ago, and it is so good that it should be a lock for a number of Oscar nominations, including best picture and best actress. In this riveting mystery, Daniel Craig portrays Mikael Blomkvist, a financial journalist who is the managing editor of “Millennium” magazine. The main purpose of Mikael’s publication is the exposure of financial corruption, but he recently overstepped his boundaries in a story and has lost a major libel suit. Therefore, he decides to take a break from work until he can get things straightened out in his life, but he doesn’t have much of a vacation because Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), an outrageously rich businessman, contacts him and summons him to his estate on an isolated island located on the frigid Swedish coast.

When Mikael arrives at Vanger’s house, the old man explains that his niece disappeared about 40 years ago, and he thinks she was murdered. He is willing to pay the journalist handsomely to investigate the situation and see whether he can bring any closure to the matter. Mikael accepts the assignment, and he ultimately ends up hiring an assistant named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who was hired to do a background check on him. Lisbeth’s outrageous physical appearance, complete with multiple face piercings, belies her razor-sharp mind and her uncanny skill with computers.

As Lisbeth and Mikael proceed with their investigation into Harriet’s disappearance, they soon realize that they have uncovered the existence of serial killer who has preyed on a number of young women throughout the years, and as they learn more about this monster, they find that their own lives may be in danger.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a fascinating film on a number of different levels. It’s an outstanding mystery, a strange love story, a horrifying thriller, and a superb tale about the epitome of investigative journalism. Anyone interested in journalism should love this movie because Mikael’s search for the truth about Harriet’s disappearance unfolds like a giant jigsaw puzzle. He painstakingly makes his way through countless photographs and stories about the family before he finally discovers something in one of the pictures that proves to be a key lead. And Lisbeth’s research is just as intriguing because she manages to uncover the thread connecting a number of female murder victims.

Now while we are on the subject of Lisbeth, we must point out that in creating her, Larsson has given us one of the most interesting heroines in literary history and subsequently a great movie character. She has no parents, and when her beloved guardian suffers a stroke, another one is assigned to her, but he is a sadistic sexual predator who subjects her to an unspeakable experience in his house. But Lisbeth is one tough young woman, and her revenge is swift, creative, vicious, and violent. And it will make you want to stand up and applaud.

Mara is simply brilliant in the role of Lisbeth, and I will be shocked if she doesn’t receive and Academy Award nomination for her incredible performance. In fact she already has earned a Golden Globe nomination as best actress for her work in the film. The role of Lisbeth is an unbelievably demanding one from both an emotional and physical standpoint. In the film’s production notes, Craig explained what he thinks makes Lisbeth such a great character and why moviegoers will admire her.

“I think what is interesting about her is that even though she is a victim of sexual violence, she never psychologically becomes a victim. Her strength and the way she can take a knock, get up, and carry on is something I think people really hook into.”

Also in the production notes, Mara spoke about the how difficult the sexual abuse scenes were and how she and Yorick van Wageningen, who plays her abusive guardian Nils Bjurman, made the scenes work.

“The scenes were intensely challenging, both physically and psychologically, but also key to understanding Lisbeth’s impetus to help Blomkvist ferret out a murderer of women. The scenes with Bjurman tell you the most about Lisbeth. The abuse drives her, and the rest of the story to follow, in so many ways. Those were the scenes I was always thinking about.

“I always knew those scenes would be hard, but they were even harder than I thought they would be. Yorick is like the sweetest guy ever, but I stayed away from him because I didn’t want to be thinking about how sweet he is. It was better for us not to talk too much, but to just go into the room and see how things unraveled.”

Craig also is outstanding in his part as the stubborn journalist who refuses to be deterred from his assignment even when his life is threatened. He brings a perfect blend of persistence and class to the role of Mikael, and the way he portrays the character is exactly the way I had him pictured in the novels. In the production notes, Craig explained what he admired about his character.

“I like his attitude, I like his politics, and I like the way he’s all mixed up but in interesting ways. He’s fighting the good fight, trying to uncover corruption and to be an influential journalist, if that’s still possible.”

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” gets an unequivocal 10. It is superbly acted, beautifully photographed, and brilliantly directed by two-time Academy Award nominee David Fincher (“The Social Network.) Be forewarned, however, that it is not for the faint of heart because some of the scenes are dare so graphic that they are quite disturbing. Nevertheless, it is one of the best mysteries I have seen for a long time, and I hope both Craig and Mara will agree to reprise their respective roles if the two other books in the trilogy make it to the big screen. I can picture no one else in those parts.

Good day, dear reader.

The man you are looking at is Tom Cruise, one of the highest-paid actors in the world.

Recently his newest movie opened nationwide to generally favorable reviews. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go to the theater, see the film for yourself, and determine once and for all whether the myriad praise for the movie is indeed justified. As always, should you or anyone who accompanies you to the cinema complex be reprimanded by the manager or ejected from the theater, the movie gods will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will not self-destruct in five seconds because I don’t know how to do that. Good luck, reader.

Yes, after a five-year hiatus Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is back for the fourth installment of the “Mission Impossible” series on the big screen. Based upon the popular CBS television series that ran from 1966 to 1973 and on ABC from 1988 to 1990, the films have enjoyed immense popularity, and “Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol” should be no exception because it’s the best one yet.

As the film begins, we find Ethan incarcerated in a Russian prison after the IMF Secretary disavowed his actions in the wake of an explosion in the Kremlin. Of course Ethan was innocent of any wrongdoing, and now he and his makeshift IMF team comprising the beautiful but tough Jane Carter (Paula Patton), technical genius Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and agent William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) have to undercover to reestablish their reputation, thus the terms “ghost protocol.”

Shortly after Ethan meets his team, he approaches a pay phone, presses the buttons, and receives the following message.

“Welcome back, Ethan. In your absence, IMF has learned that Cobalt is or was a level-one nuclear strategist for Russian intelligence. Therefore, the only way to uncover his actual identity is to infiltrate the Kremlin itself. In order to get past the checkpoint, you’ll be impersonating General Anatoli Federov. We believe Cobalt will do everything he can to destroy any record of his identity. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to penetrate the highly secured archive inside the Kremlin and retrieve Cobalt’s file before he can destroy it. New intel suggests Cobalt is already en route leaving you four hours and 52 minutes to infiltrate. To save time, we have chosen your team for you, agents Carter and Dunn.  As always, if you or any of member of your team is caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Ethan.”

And it’s game on for Ethan and his team as they race frantically to recover from an assassin the codes capable of launching a nuclear attack that could virtually wipe out the United States. The IMF team’s pursuit of Cobalt takes them from Los Angeles to Moscow to Prague to Dubai to Mumbai to Vancouver, and the unrelenting action is constantly fast and furious.

Although there are those who are not enamored by Cruise, I maintain that he is one of the best actors in the business, and if you have any questions about either his range or ability, get a copy of “Born on the Fourth of July” and tell me when you have ever seen a more impressive performance. And I can’t think of anyone better than Cruise to play Ethan. In the film’s production notes, the actor explained his affinity for the series.

“I loved the show when I was a kid. I felt that, as a film, it could take us to different locations, have pulse-racing action sequences and smart, innovative tech. It was the first film I ever produced. As a filmmaker and as an actor, I’m always thinking about the audience. I want to entertain them and give them a new adventure every time.”

He certainly has succeeded in doing that with this film because the fight scenes and the stunts are absolutely spectacular. Of course we have some obligatory car chases, but the really impressive scenes are the escape from the Moscow prison, Ethan’s fight at the end of the scene where he attempts to obtain the briefcase containing the precious codes. He does something at the end of this scene that defies description.

But the stunt to top all of them occurs on the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building (2,716.5 feet), which towers over Dubai. At one point Ethan has to get to a location of security control without anyone seeing him, and the only way he can do this is to scale the outside of the building. As one who hates heights, I can tell you that my heart was in my throat during this sequence. And the word is that Cruise eschewed the idea of filming this sequence on a set and opted to dangle outside the real building instead. If this segment doesn’t leave you breathless, you may want to ask someone to check whether or not you are alive. In the production notes, Patton remarked on her reaction to this scene.

“We were shooting a scene where Brandt catches Ethan’s leg, and then I catch Brandt, and we’re pulling him back in through the window. I saw him hanging there, outside the Burj Khalifa, and he just looked at me and said calmly, ‘Hey, Paula,’ and I’m, like, ‘Hi.’ I looked down and realized I had inched my way outside the window somehow. It was astounding to be looking out that building. In many ways, you are overcome by the beauty of the city. I couldn’t believe I was doing it.”

If this chapter in the “Mission Impossible” series has a weakness, it is that it asks viewers to suspend their disbelief too much, but when you consider other action sagas like “Lethal Weapon” and “Die Hard,” you realize that all films in this genre require a high suspension of disbelief.

“Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol” (Give it an eight.) is the best film in the series so far. Fans of Ethan should love it, and I’m already for the next one because I find not enjoying these films completely impossible.

I really can’t remember the last time that I was moved to use the word “magical” in describing an entire film, but that is simply the best adjective for “Hugo,” the most wonderfully appealing family movie I’ve seen in a long time.

Based upon Brian Selznick’s bestseller titled “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” and directed by Academy Award winner Martin Scorcese, this marvelously filmed and superbly acted film should charm just about everyone regardless of age. Forget about “Alvin and the Chipmunks” because “Hugo” is everything a holiday movie should be and more.

The film is set in Paris, the year is 1931, and the hero of our tale is 13-year-old Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), whose father (Jude Law) was a clockmaker before his untimely death that left Hugo an orphan to be cared for by his alcoholic Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone). Uncle Claude was in charge of winding the massive clocks in the Gare Montparnasse, a huge train station, until he simply disappeared one day, and then Hugo took over the job of keeping the clocks running.

Hugo makes his home within the walls of the train station, and he manages to steal food from the vendors in the station. In addition to keeping the myriad gears of the clocks oiled and running smoothly, Hugo’s main project is the attempt to restore to working order an automaton that his father had been working on before he died. In order to obtain some of the parts he needs, Hugo steals various springs and gears from a toy store owned and operated by an old curmudgeon named Georges (Ben Kingsley). One of Hugo’s most prized possessions is a book of sketches his father left him, and Hugo believes it holds the key to fixing the automaton.

Although Hugo usually is very successful in stealing things from the toyshop, one day he becomes a bit careless, and Georges catches him in the act and takes his book of sketches from him. He threatens to burn the precious book unless Hugo agrees to work in the toyshop for him. Hugo really has no choice, and it is through his new relationship with Georges that he meets Isabelle (Chole Grace Moretz), George’s goddaughter, whom he and his wife have raised as their own.

Hugo opens up a whole world for Isabelle because she has led a very sheltered life and has spent much of it in the library. When Hugo realizes he can trust her, he shows her what his world inside the walls of the train station is like, and she vows to help him get his notebook back from her godfather and to help Hugo get the automaton working.

Isabelle soon learns that Hugo’s existence is constantly fraught with danger because the train station is patrolled by a Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) who, with the help of his Doberman, makes it his business to round up orphans and send them off to orphanages. But she also finds Hugo’s life terribly exciting, and when he takes her to a movie, he opens up for her a world she never knew existed.

As Isabelle and Hugo continue to work on the automaton, they discover that it has a very special message for Hugo, and this ultimately leads to a startling discovery about Georges and his past as a famous magician and filmmaker. This surprise is the major twist in the film, and so I won’t tell you who he is, but it makes everything come together beautifully.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association recently released its annual Golden Globe Nominations, and “Hugo” was nominated for Best Motion Picture –Drama, and Scorcese also received a nomination for best director. Because many consider the Globes as a predictor of the Academy Awards, it would not be surprising to see the film also receive some Oscar nominations, and whatever honors this film earns will be well deserved.

The film is beautifully photographed, and the opening scene is nothing short of spectacular. The camera shows an overhead shot of a train approaching the station, and then it zooms in on the people who are boarding or departing from trains and continues into the station until it comes to rest on one of the huge clocks overlooking the huge lobby. And peering out through one of clock’s numbers is Hugo. This scene effectively introduces us to Hugo’s unique world, and from here we go inside the clock to a maze of metal stairs and gears.

In addition to the superb cinematography, the film features some outstanding acting by its two young stars. In the film’s production notes, Scorcese explained why he chose Moretz and Butterfield for the parts of Isabelle and Hugo.

“I was seeing a few young actresses from England. Chloë came in, and she spoke with a British accent, and I thought she was from England as well. At that stage, we started reading actors in pairs for Hugo and Isabelle, and Asa and Chloë just looked right together. There were a couple of other actors, and we switched the pairs, but the looks weren’t right. Not only did they look right together, they sounded right together. They play off of each other very well, and they have very distinctive personalities, very different.”

The chemistry between Moretz and Butterfield is remarkable in such young performers. But they fit together perfectly, and it’s a real joy to watch them. In the production notes, both young stars offered interesting insight into their characters.

“Being 13-years-old, as the characters are, there’s always something that you want to find out,” Moretz said. “There’s always something that you‘re poking and prying, trying to figure out what‘s going on, or how something works. In this movie, Isabelle and Hugo are poking and prying at people.”

“You never know that much about him,” Butterfield said about Hugo. “Loads of traumatic things have happened to him; his father has died; his mother’s died. And he ends up living with his Uncle in a train station, doing a man‘s job. And then his Uncle leaves and doesn‘t come back. By the time the story starts, all that’s happened to him, and he’s just left alone with this robotic figure, the automaton. So he’s quite to himself until he meets Isabelle, and then that starts getting him out of his shell.”

As I watched “Hugo,” I couldn’t help thinking about the film “Rear Window,” that great Hitchcock masterpiece where Jimmy Stewart’s character watches all the people in his apartment building going about their daily lives without knowing someone is spying on them. From his vantage point high about the floor of the massive train station, Hugo also spies on the people who work at the station, and, just as the apartment complex in “Rear Window” became a character in the film, so does the train station in “Hugo.”

“Hugo” (Yes, it gets that elusive 10.) is a testament to the kind of quality films Hollywood is capable of producing when the filmmakers manage to sublimate their seemingly overwhelming desire to churn out movies rife with blood, explosions, gun battles, car chases, and gross humor. This is family entertainment at its finest, and it’s a wonderful Christmas gift from Tinseltown to all moviegoers. Merry Christmas!

Few, if any, actors have undergone a more remarkable metamorphosis than Leonardo DiCaprio. His part in “Titanic” just about ruined the movie for me because I simply could not fathom that a woman like Kate Winslet’s character would be attracted to a baby-faced little squirt like Jack Dawson played by DeCaprio.

Since that time, however, DeCaprio has matured in both his looks and as an actor, and his work in such films as “Inception,” “Revolutionary Road,” “The Aviator,” “Blood Diamond,” and “Shutter Island” has been nothing short of superb. He already has earned three Academy Award nominations, but this may the year he finally takes that coveted gold statuette home for his incredible portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover in the film “J. Edgar,” directed by Academy Award winner Clint Eastwood. DeCaprio’s performance in this film is beyond brilliant.

As the film begins, we find Hoover in the twilight of his years railing against communism to one of his colleagues.

“Communism is not a political party. It is a disease that corrupts the soul turning even the gentlest of men into vicious, evil tyrants. What we are seeing is a pervasive contempt for law and order. Crime rates are soaring. There is widespread open defiance of our authority. Mark my words. If this goes unchecked, it will once again plunge our nation into the depths of anarchy.”

Although the film opens in the early 1970s, when Hoover has decided to dictate his memoirs, it quickly flashes back to 1919, when he first became a part of what was then as simply the Bureau of Investigation, and it moves back and forth between the past and 1972, when Hoover died at the age of 77. The constant changing timelines are effective in the film because they provide an interesting insight into Hoover’s development as the director of the FBI.

As Hoover’s life and career unfold on the screen, the focus mainly is on his relationship with the three most important people in his life: his mother (Judi Dench), his devoted secretary and personal assistant Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), and his colleague, constant companion (and quite possibly his lover) Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). These three people were fiercely loyal to him throughout his lifetime, and the superb performances by Dench, Watts, and Hammer are vital to the film’s overall effectiveness.

Whether people liked him or hated him, there was no dispute that Hoover was a fascinating person, and it was no secret that he would stop at nothing to protect the United States from anything or anyone that he perceived to threaten it. Indeed he was not above resorting blackmail and wire-tapping if they served his purpose.

One of the aspects of the film that I found most fascinating was the FBI’s investigation of the famous Lindbergh kidnapping case. In Hopewell, N.J., on the evening of March 1, 1932, Charles Lindbergh, Jr., the 18-month-old son of aviator Charles Lindbergh and his wife, Anne, was abducted from his home. The infant’s body was discovered less than five miles from the Lindbergh home two months later, and although he maintained his innocence to the time his death, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was electrocuted for the murder and kidnapping on April 3, 1936.

Watching the FBI become involved with the investigation was both intriguing and informative, but after reading some accounts of the case, I think that Hollywood may have embellished Hoover’s actual role in the whole thing. Nevertheless, it was riveting.

Another good thing about this film is its general look. It captures the time period beautifully with outstanding costumes, sets, and other props. I’ve always enjoyed period films, and this one is truly exceptional, and it’s highly entertaining to watch the aura of the G-men come to life on the silver screen. Special recognition goes to costume designer Deborah Hopper (“Million Dollar Baby” and “Gran Torino”), who had the challenge of dressing the actors in clothing representative of the early 1900s all the way up to 1972. To achieve the necessary authenticity in dress, DeCapiro changed costumes about 80 times.

All of the aforementioned elements combine to make “J. Edgar” an excellent film, but it’s DeCaprio’s amazing performance that really makes it as effective as it is. Whether he’s portraying the young or the old Hoover, DeCaprio slips easily into either part, and, with the help of some marvelous makeup, his transformation into the older Hoover is nothing short of astounding. His speech inflection and his body language are remarkable, and in the film’s production notes, the actor offered some interesting insight into playing such an iconic figure.

“I think what allowed me to really get a real sense of this man I was portraying was that, at its heart, ours is a story about the person inside. Lots of stories have been told about Hoover, but I feel that his relationships with Clyde Tolson, Helen Gandy, and his mother really forged who he was for the entirety of his life and career. That was what compelled me to go to work every day, and it’s what I hope will intrigue people as they watch the movie.”

DeCaprio also provided some pertinent character analysis.

“Hoover was incredibly ambitious as a young man. He was highly motivated to succeed in Washington, primarily due to his mother’s expectations of him. His father had failed to become a major political figure, and Annie wanted her son to carry the family name to great fame and fortune, with little or no regard for what else Edgar might have needed for himself. He became this stoic, bulldog enforcer who had to keep his personal life very personal. He became all about secrets.

“It was a terrific challenge to breathe life into this person, because he was such a mystery. I did find that he was very manipulative and very charming; he could charm anyone in the room but at the same time intimidate them. He liked the spotlight, but he concentrated so much on work that it defined much of who he was, his morals, the decisions that he made on really every level. I hesitate to use the word priest because J. Edgar Hoover was no priest, but he certainly looked at the FBI as his church.”

I realize that no film can treat every aspect of a man’s life in depth, but I was a bit disappointed that “J. Edgar” (Give it a final score of eight.) did not go into a little more detail about Hoover’s strained relationship with the Kennedys and particularly Bobby. We get just a glimpse of it in the movie, but because of my interest in the Kennedys I would like to have had more about this.

Nevertheless, when the Academy Award nominations are handed out for this year’s films, I fully expect DeCaprio to be among the nominees for best actor. And based upon the performances I’ve seen so far, I’d bet my house on him to win.

Adam Sandler has amassed a fortune by making mindless comedies, and I have no problem with that. If people want to hand over their hard-earned money to watch him play a variation of the same idiotic character in one film after another, it’s their problem. Certainly if someone were willing to pay me millions for making a fool of myself, I’d jump at the chance. How hard can it be anyway?

But here’s the thing that puzzles me about Sandler. He has the talent to do so much more that simply reinvent himself in just about every part he plays. A prime example of this is his heart-wrenching portrayal of Charlie Fineman in “Reign Over Me.” If you have seen this movie, you know that Sandler plays a man grieving over the loss of his family during the terrorist attack on the United States on Sept. 11. Sandler’s performance is nothing short of brilliant, and I wish that he would make more films like that one instead of churning out movies like “Jack & Jill,” his latest foray into cinematic inanity.

Jack Sadelstein (Sandler) is a successful advertising executive who lives with his wife, Erin (Katie Holmes), and their two children, Sofia (Elodie Tougne) and Gary (Rohan Chand) in Los Angeles. Jack grew up in the Bronx, and when he moved away, he left his twin sister, Jill (also played by Sandler), to take care of their parents.

Although Jack became a family man, Jill never married, and she continues to live in New York. The only time the two of them see each other is when Jill makes her annual trip to Los Angeles for a Thanksgiving visit with Jack and his family. Although they were close as children, the twins have grown apart during their adult years, and Jack finds himself dreading Jill’s yearly visits more and more as he grows older.

As “Jack & Jill” begins, Jack leaves to meet Jill at the airport, and he’s not all that happy about it. His mood darkens even more when he sees that Jill has brought enough luggage to stay for the rest of her life. Of course it’s not hard to see why Jack is not that fond of his sister because she is loud, pushy, and obnoxious.

When they arrive back at the house, Jack and Jill are immediately at each other, and finally Jill makes Jack feel guilty about treating her so badly that he invites her to extend her stay through Hanukkah and promises to take her to some of the things Los Angeles is famous for including a Lakers basketball game. And this proves very interesting.

One of Jack’s biggest clients is Dunkin Donuts, and the big wigs there want Jack to obtain the services of Al Pacino for a commercial to be called Dunkaccino. Among Jack’s many problems in attempting to get Pacino to do the commercial is the fact that Pacino is in the throes of a nervous breakdown, and his mental state is very fragile.

When Jack and Jill go to the Lakers game, Jack spots Pacino (played by Pacino) sitting courtside with Johnny Depp (played by Johnny Depp), and he approaches him to talk about making the ad. But Pacino has eyes only for Jill, and from this point on the film evolves the story of how Pacino tries to woo Jill while Jack attempts to use her to bring Pacino on board for the commercial.

Portraying the dual roles of Jack and Jill gives Sandler plenty of opportunity to do his shtick as both a male and a female, and those who like Sandler’s brand of humor probably will get a kick out of seeing him play both roles. In all fairness, he does succeed fairly well in making Jill a sympathetic figure when she attempts to enter the realm of Internet dating and ends up going out with a class ass.

Overall, this film is typical of all Sandler’s movies, and early on I was thinking it might just earn the score of a disgraceful zero, but then Pacino appeared, and his incredibly uncharacteristic performance made the film bearable for me. In the film’s production notes, Pacino offered an interesting comment about playing himself in the movie.

“I love the idea of playing an older movie star, clinging, trying to get back to what it was that made him do this thing in the first place. My character is a guy who just wants to go back home, wants to be simple again, but will never be able to be that way again. And no matter how crazy he is, his instincts are still working as an actor. If he engages her in the same way Don Quixote engages Dulcinea, he can find out if he can really play the part in ‘Man of La Mancha.’ It’s subtle and unusual, but this is the actor’s journey out of madness.”

A major part of Pacino’s dementia involves his confusing the various roles he has played throughout his career, and this is interesting, as is his pausing in during a Shakespearian play to take a call on his cell phone.

But the thing that rescues “Jack & Jill” from being a zero and elevating it to a final score of five is the Dunkaccino commercial at the end. (The other reason for the higher score is that Holmes still is cute.) This is Pacino as you have never seen him before, and I thought the bit was beyond hysterically funny. However, one humorous routine does not a great comedy make.

In addition to Pacino’s appearance in it, the film contains a number of cameos including Drew Carey, Shaquille O’Neal, Dan Patrick, Christie Brinkley, Michael Irvin, and John McEnroe. Oh yes, even the incredibly annoying, consistently grating, and undeniably arrogant Regis Philbin managed to inject his unique brand of  obnoxiousness into the film.

“Jack & Jill” is typical Sandler fare, but the Dunkaccino commercial almost makes the whole thing worth the price of admission.

Whooooaahh, Al!

Vampires and werewolves and a hybrid baby, oh my!

Yes, fans of “The Twilight Saga,” that ongoing, coming-of-age, blood-soaked vampire soap opera based upon the best-selling novels of Stephenie Meyer, received their long-awaited, most recent transfusion when “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” opened nationwide recently. Predictably, the film is raking in multi-millions both domestically and abroad, and the overwhelming success of this series is a bloody mystery to me.

“Breaking Dawn” is the fourth novel in the series, but Hollywood decided to divide the story in half for the big screen. For anyone who may have been comatose for the past three or four years, the first three films – “Twilight,” “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” and “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” which have taken in a whopping $1.8 billion worldwide, told the story of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart, a 17-year-old who moves to Forks, Wash., with her father.

One of Bella’s classmates at her new school is Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a mysteriously standoffish guy who seems to reject Bella’s attempt at friendship, but the mutual attraction is too strong for them ignore. And even when Edward confesses to Bella that he is vampire, she still is drawn to him. One of Bella’s problems, however, is that her other best friend is Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who just happens to be a werewolf.

The latest installment of the saga begins with people receiving invitations to the eagerly anticipated wedding of Bella the human being and Edward the vampire. Edward has refrained from turning Bella into a vampire, and this makes the nuptials all the more interesting. Of course when Jacob receives his invitation, he responds by dashing into the woods and morphing into a werewolf.

As the time for her wedding draws near, Bella becomes increasingly anxious about the whole thing, and her malaise is exacerbated when Jacob goes ballistic after finding out that Bella plans to embark on her honeymoon as a human being. Apparently sex between humans and vampires can be dangerous. But despite Jacob’s concern and whatever misgivings she may have had, Bella ultimately conquers her fears, and the wedding comes off without a hitch, or I should say with a hitch because the two of them are married.

The ensuing honeymoon is just a bit bizarre because a number or strange things that I won’t divulge here occur, but I will tell you that Bella and her new husband have sex. That should be no surprise, but what is a bit unusual is that only 14 days later, Bella finds herself carrying a live fetus. Now because the two of them didn’t engage in sexual activity before the wedding, the only conclusion to draw is that male vampires produce super sperm.

From this point on the film deals with Bella’s pregnancy and the impending birth of whatever inhabits her womb. Nobody can find out what’s in there, however, because ultrasounds and needles are incapable of penetrating the embryonic sack. Thus we’re left to speculate as Bella’s health continues to decline until the little whatever-it-is decides to make its entrance into the world.

Although I haven’t read any of Meyer’s books, I have suffered through all four films spawned by them, and I really fail to find what is so special about this story. In fact, there is something that really bothers me about the vampires as they are portrayed here. Call me a traditionalist, but I grew up believing that vampires were nocturnal beings that found sunlight either extremely uncomfortable or fatal. Yet in this movie, Bella and Edward are married outdoors in the bright sunlight, and they subsequently spend their honeymoon swimming and playing chess outdoors in sunny Brazil. What in the hell happened to sleeping in coffins in dank basements?

And here’s something about this story that really puzzled me. On the night of the honeymoon, Edward asks Bella if she would like to take a swim. She accepts and sends him to the beach promising that she will join him soon. So what does she do as soon as he is out of sight? She brushes her teeth. I get it. She doesn’t want to have bad breath when she kisses him. (Of course Edward is centuries old. Can you imagine what his breath must smell like?) Then she combs her hair. Got it. She wants to look her best. But then she shaves her legs! Now what kind of woman waits until her wedding night to shave her legs. Did she forget to do this earlier? Or are her legs subject to a five-o’clock shadow?

As far as the overall film is concerned, I thought it was mediocre at best. The acting is passable, but it certainly isn’t superior, and most of film leading up to the birth in the final 20 minutes or so is relatively dull. Of course I understand that the books and the films are meant to appeal primarily to a female audience, but I’ve seen any number of “chick flicks” that I found both more entertaining and enjoyable than this one.

I must admit, however, that I did love a particular line in the film. First, let me say that I do not like either Bella or Edward. I think she is weak and annoying, and I find him a disgrace to all the vampires I have encountered in either books and films because he is a whining, wishy-washy wimp. And he’s certainly not good looking. If Bella had any sense, she would have married Jacob because he’s handsome and much more masculine than Edward. And if she had picked Jacob, she wouldn’t have had to worry about shaving her legs ever again.

Jacob is the only character I remotely like in this film, and, during an argument with Bella when she is the latter stage of her pregnancy delivers the line to which I referred earlier. He’s expressing his concern over watching the fetus sap her strength, and she says, “I can do this, Jacob. I’m strong enough.”

And he replies, “Come on. You can spout that crap to your bloodsucker, but you can’t fool me.”

Is that profound or what?

“Breaking Dawn – Part 1” (Give it a final score of five because Jacob is a cool werewolf.) already has earned massive millions at the box office, and I’m sure it will continue to suck money from those willing to pay to see it. I also have no doubt that those who are into the series are willing to overlook the mostly lackluster performances and the absence of any dynamic action to watch these irritating characters (with the exception of Jacob) attempt to deal with their mundane problems.

And those who care will have to wait until “Breaking Dawn – Part 2” to find out whether Edward, Bella, and their little offspring get to sit around the television sipping blood and watching old Dracula movies. The rest of us can only hope that before then perhaps a sharpened wooden stake will find its way into Edward’s heart.

I’ve never been a huge Eddie Murphy fan, but I did like him in the “Beverly Hills Cop” and “48 Hours,” and I also thought he was great as the voice of the donkey in the “Shrek” series. On the other hand, his foray into donning fat suits for “The Nutty Professor” films and “Norbit” did absolutely nothing for me.

Murphy is best suited for playing smart-mouthed guys with a chip on their shoulders, and that’s why he is a lot of fun to watch opposite Ben Stiller in “Tower Heist,” an enjoyable and entertaining film that should please all those who like robbery or revenge movies because this one falls into both those categories.

“Tower Heist” is set in New York City (Where else would you put a story about a robbery in a tall building?), and much of the action occurs in a swanky condominium in Central Park, where Josh Kovacs (Stiller) is the manager of the building. In fulfilling his daily duties, Josh oversees a staff that includes Lester (Stephen Henderson), the popular doorman who knows all the tenants, and Enrique DevReaux (Michael Pena), a newly hired elevator operator and bellhop, Charlie (Casey Affleck), Josh’s down-on-his-luck brother-in-law who works as the concierge, and Odessa (Gabourey Sidibe), the maid.

Among the residents of the building is Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), an obscenely wealthy money grabber who occupies the penthouse atop the condos and who has just been sentenced to house arrest by the FBI pending an investigation into a scam that bilked $2 billion from those who invested in it. Among the victims are the members of Josh’s staff, who lost all of their pension plan money and other savings.

Obviously the staff members are devastated by this turn of events, but Josh is dedicated to them and decides to help them recoup their losses by robbing Shaw’s luxurious apartment. Josh is convinced that the scoundrel has millions stored in a secret wall safe, and if he can locate it, he and his staff will enjoy instant wealth. There’s only one small problem – Josh has no idea how to plan and pull off a successful heist. But he knows someone who will be able to help him.

Each day as he goes to work, Josh exchanges unpleasantries with a fellow named Slide (Murphy), a streetwise, trash-talking blowhard who is a small-time thief. Slide robs only balconies so that he can’t be charged with breaking and entering, and when Josh gets the idea to relieve Shaw of some of his millions, Slide is serving some time in jail. Josh bails him out, and at first Slide is both suspicious and belligerent, but when Josh tells him how much money is involved in the plan, Slide signs on.

As he begins to formulate a plot, Josh realizes that even if he locates the safe in Shaw’s place, he doesn’t have a clue about how to open it. But it just so happens that Odessa’s father was a safe cracker in Jamaica and taught her the craft or art or whatever you want to call it. And so it’s game on as Josh and his team of novice thieves (with the exception of Slide) prepare to pay Shaw back for stealing all their retirement money.

Ever since “The Great Train Robbery” back in 1903, Hollywood has churned out a veritable plethora of heist films, but I think of “Tower Heist” as a combination of robbery and revenge, and in that category one film is in league all by itself. Of course I’m talking about “The Sting,” an absolute classic starring Paul Newman, Robert Redford, and Robert Shaw.

Although “Tower Heist” isn’t in the same ballpark with “The Sting,” it does offer a nice blend of humor, action, and mystery with a clever twist. And perhaps the best thing about it is that Eddie Murphy returns to the kind of role in which he excels instead of donning a fat suit and making a complete ass of himself. He and Stiller work very well together, and their repartee throughout the film is consistently clever and entertaining. In the film’s production notes, Murphy talked about returning to a role that is very familiar to him.

“The theme of the film, with the workers being taken advantage of by the rich folks and then turning the tables, is timeless. One of my earliest movies, ‘Trading Places,” was like that. Those themes work forever. It was fun for me to work on because I hadn’t done a role like that in a while. I’ve done a lot of family movies, and I’ve done a lot of projects in which the characters were not ‘street-y’ guys. There was a freshness to this.”

Also in the production notes, Stiller commented on how much he admires Murphy and his work.

“Eddie Murphy is iconic, especially for my generation. He defines a lot of what comedy is over the last 25 years, so it was very cool to work with him. I sometimes felt like an audience member as I watched him do his thing. I would think, ‘Wow, that’s good.  That’s going to be in the movie.’”

Alda is particularly effective in the part of the greedily predatory Shaw, who cares about nothing except amassing more and more wealth no matter who is hurt in the process. We usually think of Alda as playing nice guys, but in this film he manages to make Shaw perpetually despicable throughout the film.

All the members of this talented ensemble cast are excellent in their respective roles include Tea Leoni, who plays Claire Denham, the Special Agent for the FBI charged with investigating Shaw. And even though Sidibe doesn’t have a big part, her portrayal of Odessa is a real hoot.

The big secret that is revealed in the film is where Shaw actually stashed his money, and it’s a real surprise when you finally find out. In fact, it’s a stroke of genius, as you will see.

“Tower Heist” (Give it a seven.) certainly won’t contend for best picture of the year, but it provides good escape entertainment if you’re looking for something light to pass the time. It will put a smile on your face, and it’s worth the price of admission to see Murphy in a film sans the fat suit.

Imagine a world in which currency doesn’t exist. Instead of reaching for your wallet or purse to pay for something, you simply extend your arm to reveal a ticking timer embedded beneath your skin, and a device deducts an amount of time from your lifespan in exchange whatever you purchase. In this world, one-night stay in a nice hotel might cost you anywhere from two weeks to two months, and a dinner for two at an upscale restaurant my run you anywhere from 10 hours to a day.

This is the fascinating and unique premise of “In Time,” a tension-packed new thriller starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. The film is set at an undisclosed time in the future, and in the beginning, Will Salas (Timberlake) explains the situation in a voiceover.

“I don’t have time. I don’t have time to worry about what happened. It is what it is. We’re genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. Trouble is we only live one more year unless we can get more time. Time is now the currency. We earn it and spend it. The rich can live forever. I just want to wake up with more time on my hands and hours in the day.”

After people reach the age of 25, they can collect more time, but if they don’t, they drop dead (or time out) on their 26^th birthday. Talk about pressure! Now Will must like to live dangerously because most of the time his body clock shows no more than 24 hours on it, and he works in a factory where he earns an extra 24 hours each day. This seems to be a risky way of living, but Will has managed to make it all the way to the age of 28.

Various time zones comprise Will’s world, and he lives with his mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), in Dayton, the zone where poverty reigns supreme.  Although Rachel is celebrating her 50^th birthday, she looks the same age as Will because people in this world always look just one year older than 25.

Dayton is a dangerous place because it is overrun with thieves known as Minute Men, who are always looking to prolong their own lives by stealing time from those too weak to resist them. Time can be stolen by merely putting the arms containing the clocks in contact with each other.

One evening Will is at a bar where he runs into a fellow named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who is a walking target for the Minute Men because his body clock shows that he has 100 years to live. Most people with as much time as Henry has would take great pains to conceal it, but much to Will’s surprise, Henry seems unconcerned about whether or not others find out how “wealthy” he is.

It doesn’t take long for the word to spread about Henry, and when the Minute Men come into the bar after him, Will helps him escape, and the two of them end up in a safe spot for the night. At this point Will’s body clock reveals that he has just 17 hours to live, whereas Henry, who already is 105, still has more than 100 years, but the prospect of living this long doesn’t really make him happy, and he explains his malaise to Will.

“Everyone can’t live forever. Where would we put them? The cost of living keeps rising to make sure that people keep dying. For a few to be immortal, many must die. The day comes when you’ve had enough. Your mind can be spent even if your body is not. We want to die. We need to.”

Before they part company, Henry gives some his time to Will, who suddenly finds himself wanted by the authorities known as Timekeepers. Since Will is on the run anyway, he decides to see what life is like on the other side of the tracks and heads to New Greenwich, where only the very wealthy reside. Here he meets Sylvia Weis (Seyfried), daughter of a corrupt and wealthy businessman, and the two of them ultimately team up to spread time around more equitably than it has been.

Part science fiction, part thriller, part mystery, part adventure, and part romance, “In Time” adds up to a 109 minutes of fast-paced entertainment with plenty of edge-of-your seat moments to hold your interest. The entire premise of the movie is an intriguing one, and it opens up all kinds of interesting possibilites. For example, think how easy it would be to lose weight. I’d much rather live four hours longer than spend them on a piece of prime rib. And there’s no way in hell that I would relinquish two months of my life to pay for one night in a fancy hotel.

Throughout the film it is obvious that Timberlake relishes playing the role of Will, and in the production notes he explained what drew him to the movie.

“When I was a kid, some of my favorite movies were action pieces like ‘First Blood,’ ‘The Fugitive,’ and ‘Die Hard.’ The one thing I loved about those specific movies was that the protagonists were everyday people placed into extraordinary circumstances and doing extraordinary things. Will’s heroics are triggered by an easily relatable factor. Will has grown up with essentially nothing. He wakes up every day and goes to work to stay alive. Through a series of events, he decides that he’s not going to take it anymore, and he takes it upon himself to try and change the way things work in this world.”

Timberlake and Seyfried share a lot of screen time together in this film, and the chemistry between the two of them is excellent. When they first meet, they are a bit wary of each other, but as their relationship progresses, you can both see and feel their emotions as the two of them are irrepressibly drawn toward each other.

In the production notes Seyfried offered an interesting and perceptive analysis of her character.

“Sylvia dreads her life every day. She wants to have some kind of adventure. In a world like this, you spend so much time trying to protect your life that you don’t really end up living. Everybody has bodyguards. They all eat very well, but very little, they don’t drink or smoke; it’s mundane. Sylvia just isn’t made for this kind of life. She gets her wish for a different life when Will takes her away.”

Although I am not a huge fan of films set in the future, “In Time” (Give it a solid seven.) is driven by such an original premise that it really sucked me into the story. In fact I became so involved that I found myself anxiously squirming in my seat whenever Will or Sylvia’s body clocks began running low.

Those who enjoy action and adventure should find this film definitely worth their time. (Yes, I meant to say that.) It boasts a number of tension-filled scenes and several dandy car chases, and it also will make you aware of how precious life is.

And here’s another thing. Oh, sorry. I just ran out of time!