024. The Bonfire of the Vanities

024. (22 Jan) The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990, Brian De Palma) 13



A notorious critical and commercial failure for all the right reasons, The Bonfire of the Vanities is all style, no substance. De Palma is so lost in his intricate tracking shots, he loses focus on a screenplay that's oblivious, offensive and irritating. He should be ashamed of himself, but then so should the ensemble. Kim Cattrall, Melanie Griffith and Tom Hanks are the worst in that order, but only Morgan Freeman comes off well. The courtroom scenes are some of the worst I've ever seen, defying reality in ways that should offend anyone with a shred of common sense.

019. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

019. (21 Jan) Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, Kevin Reynolds) 7



Kevin Costner and Christian Slater are easy scapegoats because they are, after all, unbelievably wretched here. But Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves fails on most basic levels. Despite all the period sets and costumes, it looks and feels like something a Renaissance fair would put on. As an adventure film, it's boring and obnoxiously self-serious. Without any fun or excitement, this is overlong, tiresome and ultimately painful.

296. The Dark Knight Rises

296. (02 Dec) The Dark Knight Rises (2012, Christopher Nolan) 39



The most tolerable of Christopher Nolan's Batman films, The Dark Knight Rises at least has an iota of levity. For the most part, it trudges along in the self-serious fashion of the first two films, but Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle offers a faint glimpse of the franchise that might have been. She's a buoyant, even silly presence — cracking wise and kicking at things with outrageous heels when she could clearly tone it down. But therein lies the fun in a superhero movie, as Bane is every bit as unpleasant a presence as Heath Ledger's Joker was.

Setting up preposterous plot that never feels properly established or developed, Bane is relentlessly irritating. With the exception of the action sequences centering around him, he's another joyless mouthpiece for Nolan to make Batman as gloomy as possible. The ensemble is bloated, to be sure, but no one sucks the life out of the film as readily as Bane.

The opening scene on an airplane, the football field collapse, and Batman's flying machine make this a worthy Oscar contender for Best Visual Effects. The sound work is also impressive. It took sloppily written transitions and clichés too clunky to ignore (a ticking time bomb, a busload of orphans) to keep this out of the Best Picture race, and I'm so grateful for it.

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises, 2012
Directed by Christopher Nolan

I remember the summer of 2008. The Dark Knight was released, and there was a massive buzz around it. Even working at summer camp with hardly any link to the outside world, we all knew The Dark Knight was the movie to see. And though I was never a superhero fan (I generally enjoyed the first two Spiderman films, and had watched Batman Begins once), I was excited to see it. I got home from camp, and saw it with my father right away.

And that's how I came to love and appreciate the Batman trilogy. After that, I was more interested  in Batman Begins (a film which I still really really love), and of course, loved The Dark Knight, and rooted so hard for Heath Ledger at the Oscars, and will defend to this day that he still would've won even if he hadn't have died.

Superhero movies were never really things I could get into. They were superhuman people, "doing the right thing" and "saving the world" from "evil". They were all kind of the same, and therefore uninteresting. But Christopher Nolan didn't make superhero movies when he made Batman, they're more intellectual and psychological than that. They're complex and political, character driven, and dark. And this most recent addition is the most complex, character-driven and darkest yet. While Captain America, Spiderman, etc weren't that light of movies, The Dark Knight Rises makes them look incredibly simple and fluffy.

This film is set 8 years after after the events of the Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne is a recluse, mourning what the Joker did to Gotham, and having let Batman take the fall for Harvey Dents murder, leaving the people of Gotham to remember him as a good person. Meanwhile, Gotham is in good hands. Organized crime has been swept up, things are looking good, and it's a time of peace for Gotham. But as Selina Kyle says, a cat burglar who finds the attention of Bruce Wayne, "a storm is coming". And come it does. Bane is a terrorist, intent on taking over Gotham, and while young John Blake, a young curious cop, is intent on handling him, alongside Jim Gordon, things don't go as planned. And it seems Gotham once again needs Batman.

As stated, I'm a Batman fan. No, not in the way of having seen all the old Batman films, but I really enjoy Nolan's trilogy because it's not that "superhero" and it's complex, and intelligent. There are so many mindless action movies out there (think Battleship, Transformers, etc) that it really becomes exciting when something so intelligent and complex like The Dark Knight Rises comes out. It's a brain movie, not one just for the eyes (though this one is particularly striking).

I'm not going to lie, this film is not as straight-forward as Batman Begins or the Dark Knight were, and there were a few times where I wasn't positive who everyone was, what they were about, and what was going on. Additionally, what ended up being the main problem (after like 1 1/2 hours), was a bomb and the race against its detonation. While I found this to be quite cliche (how many movies are there about this!?), and Nolan could've given Bane something way more original and he deserved more than that, it still made for an interesting watch, and with Christopher Nolan, you never really know where he's going to take you in this. Ever since he killed off Rachel Dawes, I've never really known what to expect from him. But nonetheless, it was slightly cliche, but it worked incredibly well for this film, and didn't come off as cliche while watching.

Additionally, there were several different things going on at all times, and it seemed Bruce Wayne/Batman were thrown in as an afterthought a few times. At the fore-front of this film we have Bane, played by Tom Hardy, with menacing mask and voice and brute strength. We have Selina Kyle, played by Anne Hathway. I still laugh thinking of all the nay-sayers who were upset at Hathaway being cast as Catwoman. Hathaway was the star of the show, and gave the best performance of the cast. She was witty and sexy, and was totally awesome and was an awesome female addition at the cast, where the previous two films had been incredibly male dominated. It was nice to see a woman out there who wasn't Rachel, and who could fend for herself. And then we have John Blake, played the new hot-and-in demand star Joseph Gordon-Levitt. For a while the film almost feels like the John Blake show, him being a new and curious cop who's a big Batman believer. All three give great performances, and John Blake was a welcome new character who gave a different side to the police side when Jim Gordon wasn't available, and was the ultimate "good guy".

Normally, I don't find actions movies to be that "visually stunning" as some people would call them. Yes, there's good graphics and car chases, but I describe movies like 2005's Pride & Prejudice as visually stunning. But I'd toss it out there that The Dark Knight Rises is the best looking film in the trilogy. The cinematography was particularly gorgeous (all the scenes in the snow, gorgeous), the scenery was great and everything just looked so good.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. Yes, there were a couple plot holes and things that got wrapped up really quickly, as well as there was a little too much going on at a few points that I found it a little tricky to follow, but that's what the second viewing is for (which will probably be next weekend). This movie had incredible expectations. And while my friends and I all knew we weren't going to get something better than The Dark Knight, I went in not expecting a whole lot from this film other than it was going to be awesome and intelligent, and that's exactly what I got. This was Nolan's opus of the three films. He was the conductor, and the composer, giving everyone different and complex parts, but weaving them all together effectively to make a beautiful movie.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and look forward to having a second viewing so I can completely grasp everything that happened, who everyone was, and pick up on more of the little things that happened that got lost in the wide-eyed viewing of the first round.

Will this film end up making a Best Picture run? While a movie like The Dark Knight deserved it, I'm less sure about this one, though wouldn't be too surprised to see it up there on Oscar morning. However, I'd say it's less likely, and fanboys shouldn't hold their breath, but we'll see in the coming months, I suppose. It has great shots within the technical aspects, and I'd love to see it up for Best Score, as Hans Zimmer always delivers.

Overall, a great film, and definitely this years best blockbuster by far. A worthy ending to the ending of one of the best and more beloved trilogys of all time. And if this entire film wasn't fantastic, the last few minutes (give or take 10 to 15) are the most shining moments and the very perfect wrap up. I wish I could share exactly what happened, but to me, Nolan wrapped things up in his own way, and did it perfectly. It's a perfect sequence, and is the shining moment of the film.

Acting- 8/10
Directing- 8.5/10
Screenplay- 8/10
Music - 9/10
"The look"- 9/10
Entertaining- 9.5/10
Emotional Connection- 9.5/10
Rewatchability- 9/10
Did I like It?- 9/10
"Total Package"**- 8/10 

Total: 87.5

BATMAN BEGINS

BATMAN BEGINS
Written by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy


Thomas Wayne: Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

From the terrifying opening shot of countless screeching bats flying across a burning red sky, it is unmistakably clear that Christopher Nolan’s BATMAN BEGINS will be nothing at all like the film incarnations that came before it. I describe it as terrifying because, like the man behind the mask of the titular character, I too am not a great fan of bats. I do however, enjoy movies about men who like to dress up in giant bat costumes quite a bit, and when I first saw Nolan’s reboot of a series that had been run deep into the ground by the previous hack of a helmer, I knew that this Batman would not only be invigorated for a new generation of fans but that it would likely go on to become the definitive incarnation of this iconic hero.

True to its title, Nolan, along with co-screenwriter, David S. Goyer (BLADE), provide the audience with a truly authentic and well-rounded origin story. What is perhaps most impressive about their take is how original it feels considering its been told so many times before. We are introduced to Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) when he is still just a child. While playing, he falls into a cave and is attacked by a colony of bats. While this scene doesn’t pretend to show that this is where Batman was born, it does, at the very least, show us where his fascination with the winged creature came from. Cut from his first bat encounter to years later, as he takes his first steps toward becoming Batman, fighting, as Wayne in plain clothes, in a Bhutanese prison against a number of opponents, before embarking on an intensive ninja training that leads to his ability to appear invisible and his flare for the theatrical. These choices are so well rooted in believable reality that for the first time I can account for, Batman seems like someone who could actually exist.

The main theme of BATMAN BEGINS is fear. Wayne is afraid of bats; he is afraid that ultimately he is responsible for his parents’ death; perhaps most significantly though, his fear has paralyzed him from participating in life since he was that small child. He learns, under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), not only how to face his fears but to have those same fears fuel his fury forward onto his enemies. Having found himself and a way to follow in his father’s footsteps by helping the good people of Gotham City (which is breathtaking in its glory days), Wayne grows up before our very eyes and Bale does a marvelous job at conveying this to his audience. We know he has a great spirit hidden far behind the self-imposed walls surrounding him; his supporters, and our superb supporting cast, from trusted butler and guardian, Alfred (Michael Caine) to childhood sweetheart and current Gotham City district attorney, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), know what he can truly be if he lets it happen; the only person who still doesn’t see it is Wayne himself.

Just like you and I, Batman too has bats in his cave that plague him. Instead of cleaning them out though, he learns how to harness their power for the good of the many. With BATMAN BEGINS, Nolan redefines what it means to make a comic book movie. Unlike some other superheroes, Batman is just man. He just happens to have extensive training, enough money to equip himself with plenty of gadgets to take down his detractors, and a chip on his shoulder large enough to keep him doing it for the rest of his life. Nolan knows that this chip is what bonds Batman to the masses though. His mission to do right by the people of Gotham makes him a hero, but his somewhat selfish motivation to right the wrong that was done to his parents right before his eyes, taints his supposedly altruistic nature and makes him human. Batman has always been conflicted but never before has it been communicated on film in such a relatable way. And, never before, has it been so damn good.

Best Supporting Actor 2004: Results

5. Jamie Foxx in Collateral- Foxx gives a functional performance some of the time, but he also fails to capitalize any scene that requires more from him.

4. Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby- Freeman gives a painfully standard performance, that although it is not bad it always feels uninspired.

3. Alan Alda in The Aviator- Alda has very little to do but still his performance is effective as he shows both the charm and the cruelty of a career politician.

2. Clive Owen in Closer- Owen although has strong elements particularly in portraying the harsh bluntness of his character, but also lacks in terms of his onscreen relationships with his female co-stars.

1. Thomas Haden Church in Sideways- A very easy win for Church who easily gives the best performance of the five through his great achievement of finding a way to make what technically should be just a despicable character, a endearing one instead.

Deserving Performances:
David Carradine in Kill Bill Vol 2
Michael Madsen in Kill Bill Vol 2

Best Supporting Actor 2004: Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby

Morgan Freeman won his Oscar from his fourth nomination for portraying Eddie 'Scrap Iron' Dupris in Million Dollar Baby.

Morgan Freeman although would have been a deserving winner for all of his previous nomination, especially for Street Smart, he did not win until here in the best picture winner Million Dollar Baby, which is film that just gets worse and worse every time I watch the dreary film. Morgan Freeman here did received a career Oscar here, that really seemed to be a role that was far too much devised Freeman. This sometimes can mean they'll give a performance, and it will be a role they were born to play, but it can also cause one to give a very by the books and standard performance like Freeman's here.

Morgan Freeman offers the narration in the film, and it is not nearly as well handled as in The Shawshank Redemption. In Shawshank it was frankly better performed, but also better used in that it felt like more of the reflections of his character more than just narration, here it feels just like narration nothing more. Freeman being the narrator is only one facet that feels like a far too standard of a role for Freeman. His role is just of a has been old timer who offers advice to the main characters not much more than that.

Most of the time in the film Freeman just gives the same slightly dispassionate expression. It sort of makes sense due to what happened to his character but it does nothing to brighten up the dreary nature of the film, and it would have been nice if there was a performance that did that. Freeman's performance really is just rather repetitiveness giving that same expression that reflects his past, but trying to offer some warmth or advice to the other characters in a minimalist fashion, that again technically fits the character, but feels always like a far too by the books performance from Freeman.

Freeman gave some good performances in the past he was amazing in Street Smart for example, but in Street Smart he really went as far as possible with his performance, and created a truly memorable character. Here though Freeman never turns Scrap Iron into just a serviceable character because of his only serviceable performance. I will admit it is not a bad performance because Freeman is a good enough actor that he really has to try to give a bad performance, but his performance is very uninspired.

Best Supporting Actor 2004

And the Nominees Were:

Alan Alda in The Aviator

Thomas Haden Church in Sideways

Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby

Clive Owen in Closer

Jamie Foxx in Collateral

Driving Miss Daisy

Driving Miss Daisy, 1989
Directed by Bruce Beresford
Nominated for 9 Oscars, Won 4

Synopsis: Miss Daisy, a Jewish woman, can no longer drive. She is getting older, and her son Boolie, insists on hiring her a driver, a man named Hoke. It's the 1950's, and this means her driver is black. At first Miss Daisy is quite resistant, but when Hoke points out he's being paid to do nothing, she starts letting him drive. And slowly, the two form a life-long bond.

Here I am again, reviewing for the second day in a row. And right after this, you'll be reading a review for War Horse! Christmas break is certainly the time to watch movies!

This film is certainly a touching one. Having watched 'The Help' only 2 days ago, I thought it would be interesting to compare the two. While both have quite comedic moments, and some very serious stuff to make you cry, they are very different movies. While The Help focuses on the relationship between all the black maids, and the children they care for, as well as other women they don't tend to, this is strictly a movie about a Jewish white woman, and her black driver, and how unlikely their friendship is too.

I must say I absolutely adored this movie. I have nothing but praise for Morgan Freeman, who played Hoke, the driver. Hoke is an enthusiastic, talkative and charming man, which is very different from the roles I've seen Freeman play (such as God in Bruce Almighty, Lucius Fox in the Batman series, and Eddie in Million Dollar Baby). He played the role extremely convincingly and I thought he did a fantastic job. I'm quite surprised he didn't win an Oscar for the role, but he had tough competition that year, being up against Daniel Day-Lewis, Kenneth Branuagh, Robin Williams and Tom Cruise.

On the other hand, I was also vastly impressed with Jessica Tandy, who played Miss Daisy (and subsequently won an Oscar for it). She was brilliant as a stubborn woman, and aged perfectly over the 25 years the movies is set in.

Additionally, this is one of the few times I really noticed make-up in a film (other than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- another brilliant film). It was phenomenally done, and the aging was done perfectly. Nothing looked too cheesy, or too forced. It was shocking how well they really aged, and it deservingly won the award.

Overall, I thought the film was fantastic. It was well-told, extremely well acted, and looked fantastic. I laughed, I teared up, and I smiled. So far, one of my favourite winners.

8.75/10

Best Supporting Actor 1987: Results

5. Sean Connery in The Untouchables- Connery has little to do in his role besides act tough and give inspirational talks both which he does adequately enough but never to any sort of amazing degree.

4. Denzel Washington in Cry Freedom- Washington gives a fine quietly passionate performance that avoids the problems some of his other performances suffer from.

3. Vincent Gardenia in Moonstruck- Gardenia gives an effectively colorful performance that only succeeds in adding to his film.

2. Morgan Freeman in Street Smart- Freeman gives a great performance excelling in both showing the odd charm and charisma equally well with the terrifying brutality of the same man.

1. Albert Brooks in Broadcast News- This for me was a rather close choice between the top two, although I really should not have had to make because Brooks gives really more of a lead than a supporting performance. Brooks either way gives a great performance that balances the different aspects of his character making a winning performance. He gives a charming humorous performance that finds the right emotional tone throughout the film.

Deserving Performances:
Vincent D'Onofrio in Full Metal Jacket
R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket
Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride

Best Supporting Actor 1987: Morgan Freeman in Street Smart

Morgan Freeman received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Leo "Fast Black" Smalls Jr. in Street Smart.

Street Smart tells a needlessly contrived story about a magazine writer (Christopher Reeve) who makes up a interview with a pimp, but finds himself in trouble when the world's dumbest assistant district attorney thinks the writer was referring to a real life pimp Fast Black who is on trial for murder.

The film has some serious problems in terms of its story as well as because of Christopher Reeve's performance who as an actor always seemed a bit lost when he was not wearing a Superman costume. Also the whole world of the writer who instantly becomes a star, and a television reporter from a single magazine story never feels like it has any sort of credibility luckily though Morgan Freeman as the pimp on trial for murder does manage to create the wanted credibility with the darker side of the film.

What works so well about Freeman's performance is his ability to portray the unpredictability found in Fast Black. Freeman shows a full person with Fast Black and he never portrays him for a moment as a one dimensional sort of pimp, as it would have been very easy to do. Freeman never keeps Fast one way in a single scene and the way he can change his behavior or attitude so suddenly is what makes this such an effective turn by Freeman.

Freeman so well is able to realize the different aspects of Fast and still able to keep him as one single man. Freeman does have an odd degree of charm and charisma in the role. It might seem a bit odd really for a character like his to be charming in any sort of way, but Freeeman makes it work surprisingly enough. There is a jovial quality about Fast that Freeman brings showing that Fast Black most certainly likes being Fast Black.

Freeman is brilliantly disconcerting though through how chilling he is in his extremely brutal moments of abuse and cruelty. He has an overwhelming presence in these scenes that makes him completely control them. He is particular frightening though because of this fact. Scenes like these are easy to overact but Freeman is always brutally honest portrayal of Fast Black.

I think in particular his strongest scene is when he tells one of his hookers that he is going to cut out one of her eyes and that she merely must pick.  Freeman is absolutely chilling in this scene because he is so matter of fact about the whole affair, as well as the fact that he makes it believable that the prostitute would eventually choose an eye simply by his violent presence.

Although this is not a good film at all even making it so that Freeman's is not given a final scene deserving of his terrific performance.  Nonetheless though this is still a terrific performance that fully realizes his frightening character without ever running into any of the cliches that usually comes with this sort of character. It is a great  characterization that most certainly deserved a better film to go around it.

Best Supporting Actor 1987

And the Nominees Were:

Albert Brooks in Broadcast News

Denzel Washington in Cry Freedom

Sean Connery in The Untouchables

Vincent Gardenia in Moonstruck

Morgan Freeman in Street Smart

MillIon Dollar Baby

Million Dollar Baby, 2004
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 4

Frankie Dunn has coached some amazing boxers in his time, but he "doesn't train girls". At least, that's what he tells Maggie Fitzgerald when she comes up to him after a match, when she joins his gym, and when she won't go away. After a little convincing from his old partner that helps him oversee his gym, Eddie Scrap-Irons Dupris, and when his best fighter leaves him for another coach and goes on to win World Champion, he finally agrees to take her own, and she tells him he'll never regret it.

I got this movie out from the public library. I got about halfway through it when it started acting up, and then just stopped working completely. At that point, while I searched for the rest online (shhh) and loaded it up, I thought this movie was so-so. Hilary Swank was pretty good, Morgan Freeman was great (when he had screentime), and Clint Eastwood... well, he's not really my favourite actor, though he also did a good performance.

The story was interesting, albeit progressing really slowly, with not too much action besides the odd might (which Maggie always seems to be losing, or owning). It was more talk than action, and I haven't decided whether that was a good thing or not. I wasn't exactly sure where this was going when we got to the halfway point.

It's hard to make any comments anymore because the second half of the movie completely makes up for the slow and drawn out first. This is where all the performances truly shine. Swank blew me with her performance, as did Eastwood. Though Morgan Freeman, who won an Oscar for this performance, didn't have a whole lot of screen time.

The lighting, also, I thought was interesting in this film. I know that's kind of an odd thing to remark upon, but I really noticed it. Many times, faces were shadowed while bodies had light cast upon them, or half faces were illuminated, and half weren't, or only one characters could be seen. It was an interesting technique.

I'm not sure what else to say about this film because if I say anything else, I would spoil so much of it. This is a tough rate because the 2 halves of the movie were so different, and I felt so differently about the two of them. I'm sorry I can't say more about this film, but this is a spoiler-free blog!

The only thing I was say more is, I haven't cried harder in any film. Yet. But I am, slightly, a movie-crier.

Overall, the film was an okay one. It's definitely not my favourite movie, not even my favourite boxing movie (The Fighter was just really good, sorry), but it had some great performances, looked really great, had an interesting story, and had potential, though I think it could've been done better, though I do applaud the ending, which was fantastically done.

Rating: C+

Wanted

“Wanted” is a film of such staggering stupidity that I could only shake my head in disbelief. The fact that this nonsense actually got favorable reviews from many critics is even more astonishing. I hated every minute of “Wanted” and don’t think I’ve had a more depressing time at the movies this year. Also jaw-dropping is the film’s truly in-your-face contempt for its audience. More on that later.

The coming attractions trailer for “Wanted” really put me off, but some friends saw it and really liked it. Roger Ebert gave it a favorable review, which counts for something. It had a Danny Elfman score and was filmed in Chicago. So that was good enough for me.

I was hoping the bad vibes from the trailer would be overcome. Money is not so plentiful that I could afford to see a film I knew I would not like. I really wanted to like “Wanted.” But as the Duke says throughout “Big Jake” (1971): “Not hardly.”

“Wanted” is a good representation of everything that’s wrong with contemporary action movies. Computer-generated imagery allows characters and vehicles to defy the laws of physics, with stunts impossible to stage in real life….because they could not possibly happen. So they’re staged in a computer instead.

Most big-budge action movies require a sense of disbelief. That’s a given. The late Cubby Broccoli, producer of the James Bond movies, was quoted as saying something along the lines of, “Bond movies could be improbable, but never impossible.” The last Pierce Brosnan offering, “Die Another Day” (2002) often veered to the impossible, and suffered for it.

“Wanted” is one big, long, impossible.

Based on comic book series (God, I can’t wait for the day when producers and directors go back to adapting novels), “Wanted” tells us a secret order of assassins who have been around for 1,000 years. They get their orders to kill someone from coded words left in weaved thread from a loom, or some such nonsense. Wouldn’t a voice mail message be easier?

Mild mannered Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is a dweebish, put-upon accountant who hates his job and his life. He is recruited by Fox (Angelina Jolie) into the order. Fox tells him he is the son of one of their greatest assassins, who was killed the week before. The order is headed by Sloan (Morgan Freeman).

Good people here, and Terence Stamp shows up for a few scenes later on. It’s amazing that people of this caliber got talked into this. I’m also amazed that Jolie, who does so much great humanitarian work in real life, consented to appear in this film which is so debasing and contemptuous of humanity.

Wesley undergoes orientation sessions consisting of lots of punches to the face. The guys in “The Fight Club” didn’t undergo this much brutality. It goes on for what seems like days. He also trains with weapons, but this is actually a bearable scene, thanks to Elfman’s first-rate musical support.

We get lots of chases and gunfights here, which some critics are praising for their style and energy. Not me. The cutting is fast and everything is a blur. Favorite Chicago locations shoot by in the blink of an eye. Of course, cars and bodies fly though the air in gravity-defying detail, and a later chase scene has Fox crashing her car onto a moving train and surviving. It might look cool to a comic book reading 13-year-old boy, but for the rest of us, it’s stupid beyond words.

Equally inane is the trick they use to “curve a bullet”, meaning they shoot in such a way the bullet moves in an arc to reach its target instead of a straight trajectory. Who comes up with this stuff?

There are some twists at the end that are mildly interesting, but I had long since gotten past the point of caring.

What really pushed the film for me into the cinematic pits of utter loathing was the contempt it has for us, the audience. At one point in his narration, Wesley tells us (and I’m paraphrasing because I can’t remember the exact words), “At one time I was sad and pathetic, just like you.”

Gee, thanks a lot.

At the end, after an orgy of violence Wesley tells us about all the killing he’s done and then looks at the camera and says to us, “What the f--- have you done lately?”

Well, Wesley, I’ll tell you what the f--- I’ve done lately. I went to the show on a Sunday afternoon and saw the worst film of the year so far, a colossal dungheap of nihilistic, depressing junk. If this is what Hollywood is offering as entertainment these days, it’s no wonder the rest of the world hates America so much.

Rating for “Wanted”: Zero stars.