CONTAGION is structured like Soderbergh’s Oscar-winning TRAFFIC in that we have an ensemble cast of characters. Like TRAFFIC, each character’s story represents one aspect of the viral outbreak scenario. The film begins with Gwyneth Paltrow, who is one of the first people to spread the virus globally by contracting it while she’s on business in Hong Kong. As she travels back from Hong Kong back to her home in Minneapolis, she causes the virus to spread through human direct and indirect physical contact. When she gets home, she spreads it to her child. Her husband is played by Matt Damon and suddenly he’s faced with a dead wife and a dead son. However, he’s found to be immune to the virus. In the meantime, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) is alerted to this new deadly virus. Laurence Fishburne plays the head of the CDC and he begins to investigate the virus’ origin and how to best contain it. He sends out Kate Winslet, a CDC doctor, to go and find out how to contain the virus. At the same time, Marion Cotillard plays another doctor who works for the WHO (World Health Organization) and she travels to Hong Kong to find the original carrier of the virus. During all of this, we have Jude Law, a conspiracy blogger who is intent on revealing the government’s shadowy tactics in hiding the virus’ serum from the general population.

The film has a nice opening that’s set against cool electronic music where we see the virus travel from person to person, city to city, and begin a global epidemic. It’s a great beginning that unfortunately is unable to maintain its momentum. The remainder of the film plays like a clinical examination of all the likely possibilities to occur in the event of a global epidemic. I don’t have a problem with that and films of this style have been done much more successfully in the past (SYRIANA for instance). However, with CONTAGION, Soderbergh has forsaken the building of momentum, suspense, and drama for a textbook exploration of the subject matter. We simply move from one scene to another until we reach the end and a cure for the virus has been disseminated among the population. The end.

I think one reason why momentum, suspense, and drama is lacking in CONTAGION is partly because we have so many stories being juggled around that there doesn’t ever seem to be an opportunity for the filmmakers to stop, take a breath, and develop these basic elements of a successful film. Relatedly, none of the stories are explored fully enough for the audience to invest in any of the characters or to their stories. TRAFFIC had the same problem, but the characters in that film were fascinating enough to at least get the audience interested in what would happen next. But if you have had the fortunate chance to see TRAFFIK, the original miniseries that the film was based on, you would know that there is so much more to that story than what Soderbergh was able to fit into a couple of hours. CONTAGION doesn’t even have interesting enough characters to make me want to know what would happen to them. We are given enough of each character’s plot to move the story forward, but not enough to make me connect with any of them. Matt Damon’s story in particular just seemed to go nowhere for me. His character doesn’t really undergo any arc like all major characters should do in a movie. After his wife and stepson die, Damon is merely seen reacting to all the events going on around him as he tries to protect his daughter.

Another reason why I didn’t care about the characters was their lack of likeability. None of these characters, with the exception of Marion Cotillard, are people I would want to know personally. And even with Cotillard, she’s barely in the film in relation to the others so you never get a chance to really get to know her and establish a connection. CONTAGION, as a whole, lacks emotion and perhaps Soderbergh intended this given that his movie is about a virus that decimates a very large number of people. You don’t see very much the human side of the virus’ destructive path. There is one scene where we briefly see a small Chinese village that has been severely affected by the virus, but again, no time is spent to sufficiently explore these effects.

Like all Soderbergh films, all the actors do a fine job in the acting department. Especially noteworthy is Jude Law, who is excellent as the conspiracy blogger. The character is sort of an asshole and much of what he does is for the purpose of receiving recognition and fame. At the same time, however, the information he reveals to the public is useful and he serves as the voice of the masses during the epidemic. I haven’t seen Law put in a great performance in quite a long time and it’s nice to finally see him come back with a meaty role (is it also coincidental that he, Paltrow, and Damon, the stars of THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, all return together in this film?). A fine performance is also given by Laurence Fishburne as the CDC director. He’s one of the few characters with any semblance of a sense of humor so his scenes provided a nice counterbalance to the film’s generally grim atmosphere.

One thing I will give CONTAGION is that it is an exceptionally smart movie. The story doesn’t dumb itself down for the audience just because its dealing with science and medicine. I felt like I was actually learning something by listening to the characters explain how a virus travels, mutates, etc. Like I said before, CONTAGION feels like a clinical exploration of a viral epidemic and this is mainly because of Soderbergh’s textbook approach to the subject matter.

I was clearly not as enamored over CONTAGION as the critics were. Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Burns leave a lot unexplored and hanging in an effort to tell multiple stories. TRAFFIC had its own issues, but these were not among them. This is an ambitious and well-meaning film that falters in trying to do too much. Consequently, we’re left with something that resembles a documentary rather than a thrilling and suspenseful movie.

WARRIOR is about two estranged brothers (Joel Edgerton & Tom Hardy) who end up facing against each other in a huge MMA (mixed martial arts) tournament. Tom Hardy is a physics high school teacher who is struggling to make his home mortgage payments and now faces foreclosure. Joel Edgerton is an ex-Marine who is haunted by an incident that happened while he was in Iraq. Now back from the war, Edgerton seeks out his father (Nick Nolte), who is a recovering alcoholic. Due to his drinking, Nolte alienated his entire family, including his two sons. Edgerton left with his mother and took care of her until she died. This fact has embittered Edgerton toward his dad. He also harbors resentment toward his brother for not joining he and his mother when he had promised to do so. Hardy decides to rejoin the MMA circuit so that he can provide for his family and prevent foreclosure. Edgerton also gets back in the ring and he asks his father to be his trainer. Taking all these elements together, an emotional and suspenseful backdrop is created for the two brothers’ eventual meet-up at the tournament.

WARRIOR is not an original film by any means. Many may deride it for being clichéd, formulaic, and emotionally manipulative. To some degree, I agree. However, I don’t think its fair to judge a movie on whether or not it offers audiences something new and fresh. If a film can successfully transport you to whatever place it wants to take you and can generate the emotions and excitement it intends to create, it has done exactly what it is supposed to do. For 2 hours and 19 minutes, I was fully engrossed in the characters’ journeys, their relationships with one another, and their final outcomes. I was immediately invested emotionally in all the characters and never once was something amiss to take me out of the film. The MMA action sequences are brutal, fast-paced, and thrilling. I’ll admit that the film even managed to get me curious about the sport.

However, what really drives this film is the marvelous acting from Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte. These three actors pour out their souls and reassert the power of human drama in film. The most noteworthy performance in WARRIOR and a performance that I believe stands among his best career efforts is the one given by Nick Nolte. Watching him play the repentant father who repeatedly tries to regain his sons’ love is absolutely heartbreaking. Although you discover just how bad of a father he was, you immediately sympathize with Nolte’s character because you can see the sincerity in his face as he tries to mend his broken relationship with his family. I really hope that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences gets past its assumed bias against WARRIOR’s MMA subject and give recognition to Nolte’s powerhouse performance.

This was the first time I have seen Joel Edgerton. He received praise for his performance in last year’s ANIMAL KINGDOM, which is a film I keep promising myself to see. Edgerton plays the ex-Marine brother who is tormented by past demons from his stint in Iraq. Edgerton doesn’t receive as much screen time as Tom Hardy and that is unfortunate. Not to minimize Hardy’s accomplishment, but throughout the movie, we know little about Edgerton’s past. His character doesn’t say much, but when he does, his words are packed with so much anger and hostility that you’re left wanting to see more and to learn more about what this person is about. Edgerton gives an intense performance in this movie and he’s an unrelenting character who doesn’t give in to heart tugging entreaties from his brother or father.

Finally, we get to Tom Hardy. From what I hear, Hollywood is poising him to be the next big movie star in the same vein as Russell Crowe or Colin Farrell. I have no problem with that because based on his performance in INCEPTION, WARRIOR, and his anticipated turn as Bane in next year’s THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Hardy has earned that status. In WARRIOR, he’s the nice guy. He’s the family man who’s entered the ring in order to save his family from financial doom. You root for him because he’s the Rocky in this picture. He’s the underdog who’s too old and has never proven himself to be better than average. What’s more, he’s been suspended from his high school teaching job so fighting has now become his sole source of income. Hardy does a fine job in WARRIOR and his contrasting role as the cocky Brit in INCEPTION shows the wide range he possesses.

WARRIOR will remind you a lot of ROCKY. Both brothers are underdogs just like Rocky Balboa. There is even a scene where Edgerton is mockingly compared to Rocky. And like ROCKY, this film is also mostly set in Pennsylvania (but not in Philadelphia like ROCKY was). I think you would need to essentially be heartless to not be emotionally stirred by the film’s drama and not find yourself cheering for these characters. Our main characters are not simply looking for a win in the ring like ROCKY did. They are seeking to redeem themselves in each other’s eyes and its that extra dimension that adds so much depth to this story.

I don’t think anyone who sees WARRIOR will walk away not liking it. Some of those may dismiss the film as being formulaic, but they will still find it to be a rousing experience. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie where I seriously wanted to get up from my seat and cheer at the screen like a sports fan who’s just saw his team win a close game. WARRIOR has set a nice benchmark for the remainder of this season’s films and I can only hope that we will see more equally if not better caliber films during the coming months.

2. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

3. Crazy, Stupid, Love

4. Thor

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

6. The Help

7. X-Men: First Class

8. Attack the Block

9. Super 8

10. Kung Fu Panda 2

THE DEBT is about 3 Mossad (Israel’s intelligence agency) agents (the younger versions of the agents are played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, and Marton Csokas) who in 1965 captured an infamous Nazi doctor (Jesper Christensen) who performed experiments on humans in German concentration camps. The doctor escaped from the agents, but in order to save face, the agents reported him dead and they became national celebrities for their deed. However, 30 some years later, its learned that the Nazi doctor has turned up alive somewhere in Europe. The agents, now retired (the older agents are played by Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds, and Tom Wilkinson), decide to hunt him down and kill him before news of the doctor reaches Israeli media and their lies have been exposed.

The film’s biggest problem is that one story (the one set in the 1960s) is far more engaging than the other story (the one set in the 1990s). Complicating this is the fact that the stronger actors are featured in the later, weaker story whereas the weaker actors are in the earlier, stronger story. I was a huge fan of Steven Spielberg’s MUNICH. After all, no one likes Nazis and if there is anyone in the world who is entitled to find and capture them, it’s the Israelis. Throw in a plot full of intrigue, suspense, and action, and you have a winning formula. THE DEBT should have been that film and the portion of it that’s set in the 1960s is certainly it. We watch the three agents carefully plan out their strategy to capture the Nazi doctor and smuggle him to Israel. The filmmakers also throw in an interesting love triangle between the agents that adds even more tension to the successful completion of their task. If it wasn’t for the poor casting choice of Sam Worthington, the 1960s narrative would have been enough to make for a good film.

Unfortunately, what bogs THE DEBT down and ruins its pacing is the storyline that takes place later in the 1990s. This narrative is so heavy-handed that any enjoyment and thrill you get from the earlier story is crushed when the story switches to the present. Not even the great talents displayed by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Ciaran Hinds can save this plotline. This story spends the majority of its time with the retired agents discussing and dealing with the lie they have been living with all these years and its probable repercussions. When the story finally decides to move forward and we see Helen Mirren going to Europe to find the Nazi and kill him, we’re exasperated enough to just have the film be finally over. Besides, having an old lady like Helen Mirren, who’s been out of the spying business for decades, track down and kill an elderly and sick Nazi in a hospital looks pathetic and its impossible to generate any suspense out of two geriatrics duking it out. I also couldn’t figure out how, given the reporter’s discovery that the Nazi is still alive, these agents finding and killing the Nazi would prevent the Israeli media from finding out the real truth. What’s more, the film doesn’t spend enough time building for the audience the importance to Israel of what these agents had supposedly done for their country. Yes, we see Mirren’s daughter get up and discuss the book she’s written about her mom and how Israel is indebted to her, but that’s it. Therefore, we can’t really appreciate the magnitude of what it would mean if Israel discovered the truth about these agents.

Overall, THE DEBT contains a pretty impressive cast. Helen Mirren never disappoints and she’s earned a nice fan following over the years among older audiences. Although she gives a good performance, her talents are overshadowed by the poor storyline. The same can be said of Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds. What’s worse for them is that their roles are much smaller in the film and they don’t do a whole lot. At least we get to see Mirren go out and kick some ass whereas Wilkinson is stuck in a wheelchair and spends most of his time grimacing while Hinds is mostly seen in brief flashbacks. The talents of these actors are unfortunately squandered by the lame plot.

As for the younger cast, they have the advantage of being in the better storyline. I was disappointed, as usual, by Sam Worthington’s emotionless delivery, but he wasn’t bad enough to take too much away from the strength of the plot. Of the three agents, I was mostly impressed by Marton Csokas. He displays a raw intensity that’s inspired by his Jewish nationalism, his love for the female agent, and his jealousy that she’s with the other agent. However, if there is one performance to single out in this movie that would easily be Jesper Christensen. He owns this movie as he effortlessly steals the spotlight in every scene that he is in. In fact, the main reason why I think the 1960s plotline works is because of his scenes. In particular, his interactions with his captors is extremely engaging and he does such a fine job of evoking both sympathy and racist hatred. The only other time I have seen Christensen is in the most recent James Bond films and after seeing him here, I wish he had been the main villain in the Bond films.

Overall, THE DEBT doesn’t reach the heights of other similar films like MUNICH, MARATHON MAN, or THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL. This film had an opportunity to explore interesting and controversial topics such as violence, revenge, and Jewish identity (which are all explored masterfully in MUNICH). I wish the film dealt with the morality and legality of finding these Nazis and basically smuggling them back to Israel without regard to international law. And what about the issue of these agents lying to their country about what they had done? The agents “resolve” this problem by going out and killing the Nazi without really facing their country and their families. I would also like to believe that if the filmmakers had just spent 5 minutes thinking about the plausibility of their climax, they would have realized how horrible it was. I refuse to believe an 80 or 90 year old man could inflict serious harm on Helen Mirren, even if she is herself old and has been out of the secret agent business for many years. This film would have been a much stronger film if it had remained entirely in the past and it didn’t cast Sam Worthington to play one of the agents.

DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is less horror film and more like a Grimms Bros. fairytale. The film is about a man (Guy Pearce) and his girlfriend (Katie Holmes) who purchase a very old, run-down Victorian mansion in Rhode Island with the intent of restoring it to its former glory so that they can grace the cover of Architectural Digest and sell the house for a ton of money. We are also introduced to Bailee Madison’s character, who plays Guy Pearce’s daughter. She has been sent to live with her dad and his girlfriend and its not an arrangement that she is altogether thrilled by. Unhappy with her new living arrangements and the fact that her father has replaced her mother with a new woman, Madison resorts to spending her time wandering around the mansion. One day she discovers a hidden basement, which she brings to her father’s attention. In the basement is a sealed metal grill and to her surprise, Madison hears voices coming from it and asking her to let them out. Obeying their orders, Madison opens the grill and we soon learn the horrible errors of her decision.

I actually enjoyed the premise of the story. As I said, DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK doesn’t strike me as a horror story. The elements of the story are far more akin to the dark nature of the Grimms Brothers’ fairy tales. The story is about a little girl who, against her better judgment, unleashes fantastical (fairy) creatures who wreak havoc and bring death to others. These are the sort of things you see in a (non-Disney) fairy tale and I wish the film had been marketed as such. I wonder if the studio felt that by selling the movie as a horror film (unless, of course, it really did see it as being a horror film), it would attract a bigger audience than if it sold it as a gothic fantasy.

Regardless, the premise of the story is an interesting one, but it fails to be executed properly due to weak characterizations (that is partly hindered by poor casting) and a screenplay that cannot connect with its audience. First, casting Guy Pearce to play the girl’s father was a misguided decision. There is no doubt that Pearce is one of the finest actors working today, but he shines in playing tough, serious roles (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, MEMENTO), not caring daddy roles. For most of the movie, Pearce comes off as a self-centered asshole who doesn’t give his daughter any attention and even acts like he never really wanted her to live with him. (SPOILER ALERT) When he finally believes his daughter is telling the truth about the fairy creatures, his sudden transformation from disbelieving dad to hero father who must get his family out is disingenuous and implausible. The story contains no build-up to even suggest Pearce is beginning to believe his daughter. It suddenly becomes decided that his daughter is telling the truth and he must now get his family out. Because of this, its difficult to accept Pearce’s change of heart. For an example of a film that successfully shows a similar transformation of a father’s pessimism to belief, see Craig T. Nelson’s performance in POLTERGEIST. It also doesn’t help Pearce’s performance that he simply doesn’t have a very caring-looking face. It was hard for me to even buy him as a father.

The easiest target for any naysayer of DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is probably Katie Holmes. I along with most critics regard her as an actress who should have remained in obscurity along with the rest of her DAWSON’S CREEK colleagues. Unfortunately for us, her marriage to Tom Cruise has given her the opportunity to prolong her lifeless career. Although I obviously don’t hold Holmes in high esteem, I do give credit where it is due and I have to admit that Holmes does an adequate job in this movie as Pearce’s girlfriend. Holmes is put in the difficult situation of having to connect with a girl who views her as her mother’s replacement. Perhaps channeling her real-life maternal role to her children, Holmes convincingly portrays a caring woman who takes a genuine interest in the welfare of the child and believes in the child’s claims of fairies being real. I’m not saying that Holmes’ performance is noteworthy or amazing, but compared with her past efforts, this is a decidedly big improvement.

The real star of this movie, and a deserving one at that, is Bailee Madison. Without her stellar performance, DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK would have ended up being a far more stale effort than it already is. Its amazing to think that this little girl is only 11 years old when she can turn out such a convincing and natural performance. At times, even I began to wonder whether Madison, the actress, truly believed that these fairies existed and were out to get her or if she was really just playing a frightened character. This film has already ended up being a box office failure, but I hope that its showing at the box office doesn’t cause studio executives to overlook the quality of this girl’s performance.

DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK has serious issues and one of its biggest is in the execution of its screenplay. I’ve never seen the 1973 television film that the movie is based on so I don’t know whether or not the father and girlfriend in the original are trying to restore the house so that they can make the cover of Architectural Digest and sell it for a lot of money. However, this idea is simply not something that most audiences can connect with. To me, Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes are just a rich couple that likes to buy fancy, expensive homes and flip it for a few more bucks. How can you expect the audience to sympathize or understand something like that? Thankfully, the film’s main focus is on the little girl, who we can sympathize with. The story also relies far too much on creating a gothic physical atmosphere than giving us an engaging story that builds up to an explosive climax. It certainly succeeds in creating that atmosphere, but not without sacrificing the plot and how it’s told. It becomes obvious early on that the filmmakers were more concerned with creating this atmosphere with sights and sounds instead of telling a story. As a result, the story is lazily told. An example of this lazy storytelling is a scene where Katie Holmes goes to the library to research the backstory and legend of the mansion. There she meets a remarkably knowledgeable librarian who sits her down and runs through the mansion’s entire history with the fairy creatures. Let’s not even discuss how the librarian knows so much about the house. What’s worse is how the filmmakers simply decided to conveniently craft a scene where one person explains to another what should have instead been gradually revealed to our characters through self-discovery. We instead get a scene that’s full of boring exposition.

Another major issue with this film is how the fairy creatures completely fail to elicit any fear in you. Based on a recent conversation I had with a friend who has seen the original, a big reason why anyone would become scared of the creatures was due to the low-tech method used to create the fairies. Here, they are computer-generated and that right there renders the creatures less scary. In fact, I found the fairies to be annoying rather than frightening. What’s more, their backstory about how they sleep for 100 years before craving human teeth is simply lame. Why sleep for 100 years? Why not just constantly crave teeth? Finally, the biggest blunder the filmmakers commit with these creatures is showing them in full instead of allowing the audience’s imagination to fill in what’s not shown. This way, the movie would have actually been frightening.

If anyone is going to be frightened by this film, it will be children. Adults, on the other hand, may even find this film laughable at worst and a brief and forgettable time killer at best. Once again, I have been disappointed by Guillermo del Toro’s output and I think the failure of this film has vindicated my feelings about the director’s talents (or lack thereof).