Potentially John Rambo could have had more punch than the boxer movie Rocky Balboa, but it’s a dud. At least with Rocky you had some nostalgia albeit forcefully jammed down the movie goer’s throats with some old clips and locations.

This movie is emotionally dead. Such a big waste of opportunity if you think about it considering its intent was, like Rambo III, to try to bring attention to a war torn country: Burma in this case. But when part III succeeded, part IV failed.

John Rambo had the usual elements of war. There was all this brutal killing of civilians, but the problem is none of whom were any character of note. Genocide notwithstanding I did not feel any emotional connection to slain civilians – who were they; why were the soldiers killing them; what do they do.

And other than having innocents I cannot relate with and probably the biggest problem of this movie is that there is no worthy villain that the audience can hate. On paper, Major Pa Tee Tint (Maung Maung Khin) is supposed to be Rambo’s main enemy. Other than doing young boys at night, I have no idea what this character is supposed to do. I can’t remember if he even fired a gun or even discussed strategy with his men. This Burmese major is so forgettable that I had to look up at imdb.com if this character even had a name.

The main character, John Rambo, is the only thing right in a movie filled with disappointments only because Stallone looks and feels the part. But unfortunately at least for this sequel the character looked old. I don’t mean physically old, though Stallone has aged a lot since the last sequel; but old because of the lack of fire that was so loved of John Rambo.

Maybe it was the lack of action sequences. Maybe it was the bad script. John Rambo no longer impresses me with fear as a Vietnam Vet and Green Beret with emotional issues. He no longer elicits empathy as a man with nowhere to go. But apparently he has a father no one knew in past sequels. And again like the rest of the film, I saw no father nor heard any talk of who he is.

There is just no depth in anyone in this film. It’s like all the life went with actor Richard Crenna (god rest his soul) who played Col. Trautman, Rambo’s sidekick and Commanding officer. Now there was the time when this franchise had decent banter.

The movie ends with Rambo walking into the farm of his father. If we go by Stallone’s age, that father should be just about 80 years old. Maybe the character has other family, then maybe Rambo is his only heir, but hopefully this is the end of the road for our favorite Green Beret. Let him just be the son he never was to his father. No more missions!

Let’s not resurrect characters that should have been retired already!

‘If you can go back in time and change anything, what would it be?’

You cannot, obviously.

Atonement is a film about wanting to go back, but maybe the more accurate description is it’s a film about being burdened with a pain in the past. As in life, there is not much the lead can do. What is done is done; there is no going back.

We make amends, do penitence; then maybe fate will look kindly, and give back that which was destroyed. Maybe . . .

This film, however, is primarily a love story while being about pain and penitence. Cecilia Tallis (Keira Knightley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) play the star-crossed lovers separated by a childhood misdeed and the Second World War. They are very capable actors backed up by an equally capable cast that is if you don’t mind the accent. It’s an all British cast.

I sometimes find myself needing more concentration in an all British movie; with the accent and the use of words. But this film is ok, no danger of nosebleed for just understanding the dialogue.

The concept of Atonement is perfect. Like any movie, any story, we look for the challenges and the conflict. In love stories the conflicts you see are warring families; one lover rich and the other poor; or other lovers, but what greater challenge is there than a world at war. How can you find love in all that hate?

In some ways the same can be asked of the lovers in the film: ‘how can you find the love?’ Sure Cecilia and Robbie longed for each other excruciatingly in the war scenes, but I never really felt the attachment on their relationship. Poof they’re in love and poof World War II.

Cinematography is great. There were nice scenes of aristocratic England; the Dunkirk evacuation; and World War II era London. The film’s musical score has one unique element to it; the sound of a typewriter. That should give you a hint of what the ‘atonement’ is.

What I find unfavorable about this film is the storyline. It needs some getting used to, but honestly at times, when I recollect, I find it horrible. Sometimes the story goes forward, then it rewinds again, this time through the eyes of another character. While ultimately it builds up to the twist in the end I find that it interrupts my momentum in getting a feel for the character.

I was so dazed in fact that I find myself saying ‘what!!!’ in the end. With so many backwards and forwards, I didn’t realized I had already reached it.

Fortunately, what I know is I’ve reached the end of my review.

I looked the movie up on imdb.com and was only to happy to see the quote I loved and decided to start the piece with it.

“In all the years you've been doing this, how often can you say that we've produced truly legitimate intelligence? Once? Twice? Ten times? Give me a statistic; give me a number. Give me a pie chart, I love pie charts. Anything, anything that outweighs the fact that if you torture one person you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies.”

Rendition is named after a legal jargon of the same name wherein United States security agencies outsource their torture of terrorism suspects to countries that are more lenient to more ‘physical methods’ of persuasion. The quote mentioned above was said by one of the main characters questioning the practice.

This film deserves the highest credit for being relevant to the times as it tackles sensitive issues especially torture. Would you torture a suspected terrorist for information? But often there is the argument that dehumanizes suspects. Why should it bother you that a terror suspect is tortured? And that is often followed by- maybe you’re a terrorist yourself for showing pity to these people.

Hard questions. I certainly won’t have pity on a man who will be so willing to blow himself up or order others to do the same. But on the chance that I am wrong what will I do? Let him go or kill him, and yes, I will most likely create enemies as stated by the quote above. What makes a person guilty anyway with this method called ‘rendition’? Oh yes did I mention there was no trial . . .

Rendition has a good cast of actors but my applause goes to husband and wife, Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) and Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Both have ably shown the emotions that come with being the wife of a husband who disappeared and accused of being a terror suspect; and being a man who was tortured, wondering if he’ll see his wife and child again.

The film had this flashback that seemed highly irrelevant but placed as the movie’s special twist. Even now I question, what the point of that flashback is, but, with all the relevant legal, moral, ethical, political and practical pitfalls of rendition that this movie has brought into light I guess I can overlook a bad movie timeline.

As I end this piece let me use a quote I have used before: He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

If blowing planes and killing innocents can be considered as monstrous, what can be said of a government picking people off the streets? If it’s the right thing to do then everyone should take part in it.

I have search my memory and I have come to the conclusion that Lion for Lambs is the first Tom Cruise starring movie that has made me think – all thanks to Robert Redford who directed it.

But I must warn Cruise fans out there Lion for Lambs doesn’t have much of a story; no cat and mouse suspense; no death defying action; no sex. The film isn’t about making Tom Cruise looking cool. It’s a debate film, if that is the appropriate description; as all of the characters at one point or another have engaged in a debate with fellow characters. And the issue of the day is the War on Terror.

What mimics as a story are two underprivileged young men, who, to the surprise of many of their classmates sign up for an unpopular war. Yet even they as characters are not exempt from debate. They defended their point of view to their classmates and to their professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford).

I was grasping for an analogy and the best I can come up with is an editorial column. But these columns are often one sided regardless if its argued from all points of view; the publisher’s/paper’s point of view has to stand out. An editorial column brings arguments derived from issues of the day and afterwards the paper makes a case of their own.

Lions for Lambs is surprisingly fair to all sides; it is balanced. Now that’s not something I can say for the creations of anti bush filmmaker Michael Moore.

Arguments for the war can be seen in the scenes involving Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Sometimes the hawkish Irving seems right and sometimes the anti-war Roth gets the better of the argument. If Irving in the end looks like an ambitious presidential aspirant it doesn’t rob the impact of the characters arguments.

Professor Malley’s own “debating” scene is about the undecided which represented by his student. This is the debate, the part of the movie which is most relevant to everybody. It’s the one to watch.

The undecided student, or maybe disheartened is the more appropriate word, is really about the common man. Many are disheartened and yet many of them passionate, but instead of engagement they choose to stay out, be uninvolved, and all the while criticizing.

The films tagline gives the message in a nutshell: if you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything.

Acting wise nothing negative can be said of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. They were perfect. I liked Meryl Streep as a reporter, the way she wore her glasses, asked the questions, and played with her pen. Maybe the surprise here is Cruise. There is not much change in the way he acts, moves, or handles himself; but the role is just perfect for him.
Lions for Lambs is not a film I’d recommend for everybody especially at today’s movie prices. It’s the type film where you might get “nosebleeds” as my friend would describe it.

But if you’re not into the movies for fun then by all means watch it. It’s a thinking movie and the way that society is going, we really have much to think about.

Independence Day’s opening sequence is incredible; one of the best I remember. Dozens of fifteen square mile saucers landing on earth from a mother ship that seems to half the size of the moon; a musical score in the background giving you a feeling of dread; and a line from an R.E.M song “it’s the end of the world as we know it…”

It’s both scary and in some strange way festive, which, if you think about it, seems unfitting in a story that is about worldwide destruction. In this case, the pair of emotions worked because, in all likelihood, a real alien presence would arouse both fear and joy.

Are they good are, are they friendly? Do they even have mouths with which to talk to? By any stretch of the imagination when alien existence is proven true it will be a world changing event that has never been seen before.

Effects wise, there can be no mistaking of the feeling you get the look of the saucers; it was all fear. It was done very convincingly that the viewers may ask themselves how they would react if it was real: city-sized saucers are indeed hovering all over many of Earth’s capital cities; more so when they destroyed many of the planet’s recognizable landmarks.

The destruction of famous landmarks was a nice touch though I wish they’d made it more global; maybe a shot of the Eiffel Tower or the Coliseum. Independence Day has had portions where people of all nations work together, so why not show a shared grief.

The characters are very well portrayed and are simple enough to understand. There’s a stripper, an environmental geek, an indecisive president; there is no character too complex that’ll give you a headache on how they fit in. Everyone is straightforward and simple plus they mesh which is very important.

Of the lot, I don’t like Bill Pullman, the indecisive president. He was meant to look weak as president but unfortunately he doesn’t come off strong at being a pilot which should have been - in the characters own words - his forte.

An old movie buddy of mine cry often cried out imperialism in the many films that we have seen. Independence Day is such a film. The world may unite under such conditions, under the American flag even, but does it have to be under the 4th of July. But it’s an entertaining film I told her so why ruin the fun with such thoughts, which is not to say she was wrong in her assessment.

She enjoyed the film as much as I did. It’s only now, a decade after the film was first shown, that I think of hidden messages and motives.

Why? Caused enjoyed it then; the film was that good that my mind was not floating around on things not seen on screen. That is my barometer, if my mind does not fly off then the movie was/is an entertaining experience.

The Kingdom is not a very good film in spite of being relevant with the times. It’s a donut because it started big and ended great, but it had no fulfilling content in between.

There is an historical recap at the opening credits where you’ll get some highlights encompassing almost a hundred years of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; from the colonial days to the crash landing planes of September 11.

There was a small portion in that intro about oil which got my interest. Tackling it would have given the film more personality in the sense many people are already alleging that American interests are not about peace and democracy in the Middle East but securing oil interests. Saudi is after all the leading oil producer in the world.

Issues of that nature, sadly, were not tackled. After the opening credits, history lesson, and a perfectly executed terrorist attack in the opening sequence the rest of the film is all about explosions, guns, and CSI-like investigations.

Jamie Foxx plays, Agent Ronald Fleury, the head of the FBI team sent over to Saudi to investigate an attack against US citizens. He’s a great actor with an Oscar statue to prove it. I liked him best in his role as a cab driver in Collateral. He and Tom Cruise had good chemistry as taxi driver and cold blooded assassin exchanging (or debating) views on life and morality.

There was a nice opportunity for a love-hate relationship in The Kingdom in Agent Fleury and Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). An FBI agent and a Saudi colonel; worlds apart; they could have done some meaningful passionate exchanges of concerning both cultures and yet there was none.

Chris Cooper (Agent Grant Sykes), Jennifer Garner (Agent Janet Mayes), and Jason Bateman (Adam Leavitt), round up the rest of the FBI team. I like Cooper and he was his usual best. Can’t say the same for the former Alias star; her performance was fine but the role itself lacked depth. If Alias fans are hoping for some kick-ass performance from their hero they will be disappointed because there just isn’t much of her.

Jason Bateman is just an odd man out for me. They were trying to have him as comic relief and his humor is just wrong in the situation they are in. Overall the collection of actors just didn’t blend as well as they should.

There is nothing spectacular, no suspenseful cat and mouse chase. When you finish watching this film you will get to the conclusion that ineptitude and perhaps cultural backwardness is the chief hurdle in the investigations; and it takes an ‘enlightened’, capable, FBI agent to truly get to the bottom of a terror attack. All Agent Fleury had to do was to give one honest statement to a Saudi Royal and that’s it. The investigation goes on high octane.

But if I were made to choose between the closing scene/statement and the entire film I would choose the ending. It’s a one liner said twice in the course of the film in whisper; only in the end was it disclosed. This one line was said in time of grief by both American and terrorist; it is a true sentiment by many people. We have much reason to worry.

“Don’t worry”, it goes, “we’re going to kill them all.”

In an age when emperors were gods, Alexander the Great was supreme. He conquered his enemies despite having much less. Like a hot knife through butter, his army went from Greece to India; leaving a dead carcass that was once the most powerful empire in the world – Persia.

Unfortunately, for all the fame and glory that the Macedonian conqueror got, the film that bears his name is a dud. People hardly remember it now. Definitely disappointment for one of Hollywood’s up and coming star, Colin Farrell.

Twists and new endings are two luxuries a movie like Alexander cannot have. And it seems Oliver Stone did not even give it a try. Finishing the entire film was a waste of time. I felt that I can all the information that I needed by just watching the conqueror series of Discovery channel, where Alexander the Great was featured. If thinking out of the box actually had a box, then the film was perfect fit. The box is sealed without so much of a peep out of it.

The film’s 3 hour run time showed everything that was expected. Alexander was courageous, bold, ruthless, and generous. He showed out of the box thinking in the heat of battle, and never was this trait more successful than in the Battle of Gaugamela.

After the Persian Empire’s death at Gaugamela, Alexander’s power began on its slow decline. Here Oliver Stone started brewing a conspiracy within the Greek camp. This decision to include a conspiracy was a stand on an issue that has been debated since the days of the young conqueror: Did Alexander die of murder or sickness?

Philip of Macedon (Val Kilmer) was prophetic when said to his young son: “A king isn't born, Alexander, he is made. By steel and by suffering. A king must know how to hurt those he loves. It's lonely. Ask anyone. Ask Herakles. Ask any of them. Fate is cruel. No man or woman can be too powerful or too beautiful without disaster befalling. They laugh when you rise too high. And they crush everything you've built with a whim. What glory they give in the end, they take away. They make of us slaves.”

Acting wise Farrell’s accent came out too strongly. Whenever he talks I always get this idea that I am watching Highlander. I know, I know, Colin Farrell is Irish and the highlands refer to Scotland, but it keeps popping in my mind. It’s very distracting.

Over the course of the film he always seemed to be shouting. I think it was to make a point that Alexander, though respected and feared, was not really understood. The shouting could also be a means to show strength of character: a character so strong that it ruled the world.

It is that character that has kept me awake in the course of 3 hours, but then, I am not everybody. Ultimately the lack of imagination of the filmmaker and bad acting caused the film to suffer the fate of its character; it was never understood.