Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor in "I Love You, Phillip Morris"

Love can make you do crazy things. Maybe it will make you overspend on a gift, or stay up all night talking on the phone, or repeatedly break out of a Texas penitentiary.
OK, so that last one really only applies to Steven Russell, a real-life conman who kept escaping from jail just to be with the man he loved.
This strange-but-true saga is the basis for the odd, but endearing movie “I Love You Phillip Morris.”
Steven is played by Jim Carrey, the manic comedian who has also proven himself to be a decent actor. This role has been called daring, but its really only daring in the sense of a straight actor playing a homosexual and let’s be honest, that’s not as daring as it used to be.
In truth, this role is safely within Carrey’s wheelhouse. Steven’s identity is as pliable as Carrey’s features and he hides his frauds and embezzlements behind a lot of false bravado.
When we first meet Steven he is walking the straight and narrow as a police officer married to a goodhearted Christian woman named Debbie (Leslie Mann). But a car wreck makes Steven reevaluate his life and he decides to be honest about his homosexuality, which, incidentally, is probably the last thing he is ever completely honest about.
He sets out on a new, extravagant lifestyle that requires a lot of less-than-legal schemes to attain the cash required. He quickly lands in jail where he meets the love of his life, the titular Phillip Morris.
Phillip is played by Ewan McGregor as a blonde-haired, soft-voiced, babe-in-the-woods who landed in jail for failing to return a rental car. It is love at first sight for Steven and Phillip, but their whirlwind romance, both in and out of prison is constantly marred by Steven continually playing fast and loose with the truth.
But if anything is a constant for Steven, it is his love of Phillip, and when he winds up back in prison, he perpetrates one ingenious escape after another to get back to Phillip.
I suppose if you had to categorize “I Love You Phillip Morris” it would have to be a comedy, mostly due to the completely absurd nature of Steven’s various hijinks. But there is a soft heart at the center of this movie and it boldly steers into the drama and romance genres as well.
The credit for this ambiguity working as well as it does goes to co-writers-and-directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa. This dynamic duo wrote the deliciously black comedy “Bad Santa” so they are quite comfortable playing in the extreme ends of the comedic sandbox.
Once you are able to get past the insanity of the plot (a vast majority of which is completely factual, by the way), the movie rests on the shoulders of Carrey and McGregor. It’s no surprise to see Carrey hit all of his marks as his versatility has been proven time and time again, but it’s McGregor who truly impresses as he conjures up a character that is so delicate and sweet he becomes the perfect counterpoint to Carrey’s aggressive performance.
You are certain to laugh at “I Love You Phillip Morris” but even more so you’ll find yourself impressed by the power of love and what it makes us capable of. Granted if you are a sociopath you’ll be able to take it that extra mile, but still it’s love that makes the world go ‘round.
“I Love You Phillip Morris” is rated R for sexual content including strong dialogue, and language.

Mat DeKinder (mdekinder@yourjournal.com) was once described by a guy named Nate as “the Jackie Moon of film critics.” He appears courtesy of Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis.

Angelina Jolie as "Elise" and Johnny Depp as "Frank" in Columbia PIctures' THE TOURIST.

In the heyday of Hollywood’s Studio Era, there was a simple elegance to moviemaking. When it was at its best, talented directors would be paired with gifted screenwriters and beautiful movie stars (who also happened to be decent actors) would be filmed in glorious, exotic locales.
Given these parameters, “The Tourist” is a throwback to this bygone era down to its very core.
The plot is elementary Hitchcock as Johnny Depp plays the classic role of the Wrong Man. He is Frank Tupelo, an American math teacher on vacation in Europe. On a train to Venice he meets Angelina Jolie, herself playing the classic role of the Mysterious Woman.
Her name is Elise and she is going to meet up with her great love, a fugitive embezzler named Vincent. Her every move is watched by INTERPOL so in order to throw them off her trail she takes up with Frank with the hopes of convincing those who are watching that he is the plastic-surgery-altered Vincent.
Naturally her ruse works and manages to dupe not only the police but the ruthless gangster (Stephen Berkoff) from whom Vincent stole an obscene amount of money.
The movie then takes off on a series of chases, captures and escapes as Frank tries to avoid being arrested or killed, all the while falling in love with the resourceful Elise.
When you boil the whole thing down, “The Tourist” is a silly little movie where the sum of the parts is much greater than that of the whole. That said, the various parts work so well together that it is easy to forgive the movie’s lapses in cohesion and plausibility.
German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (how that name doesn’t have an umlaut I’ll never know) knows that his primary job here is to shoot beautiful people doing beautiful things in beautiful places.
He also snagged a writing credit along with screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”) who helps keep the screenplay light and the plot-twists from becoming too cumbersome.
“The Tourist” is also boosted by a fine supporting cast, including Paul Bettany as the dogged Scotland Yard agent intent on bringing Vincent to justice, and Timothy Dalton as his politically fixated boss.
But let’s not beat around the bush, you’re going to be plopping down American dollars to see this movie for two reasons and two reasons only, Depp and Jolie.
It’s nice to see Depp in a “normal” role where he’s not buried behind makeup or a crazy accent. He plays the everyman well and it is his restraint in the role that makes his performance fun to watch.
As for Jolie, (bold statement alert) she has never looked more stunningly beautiful in a movie. So often in movies we are supposed to suspend disbelief in regards to the attractiveness of an actress and believe she is a poverty-stricken working mother or a shunned misfit.
It’s almost a relief to see literally every person in the movie, including the extras she passes in the streets, reacting as if she is one of the most beautiful women in the world; which, you know, Jolie actually is.
Depp and Jolie’s chemistry isn’t exactly sizzling, but fortunately the script doesn’t really demand that we be floored by their deep, abiding love. Yet another old-fashioned convention “The Tourist” embraces.

Mat DeKinder

This movie could have been released in 1946 starring Carey Grant and Grace Kelley and no one would have batted an eye.
I suppose how well received “The Tourist” is depends on how cynical modern audiences have become to this retro form of cinema. As for myself, I’m a total sucker for this stuff and gladly soaked in every frame.

“The Tourist” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief strong language.

▲ Mat DeKinder (mdekinder@yourjournal.com) was once described by a guy named Nate as “the Jackie Moon of film critics.” He appears courtesy of Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis.

In the field of fantasy epics, C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia” have been greatly beloved, but always considered a bit lightweight. While it lacks the bombast of “The Lord of the Rings” or the cohesion of “Harry Potter,” Narnia still has remained relevant throughout the generations thanks to a lot of pluck and appeal to kids’ sense of adventure.
We stand three films in to what is a seven-book series with the release of (pause for ridiculously lengthy title) “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.”
To date the results of the films have been mixed. The first movie, “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe” was thrilling fun and introduced us to Narnia and the Pevensie children who stumble onto this magical and troubled world.
The second time around “Prince Caspian” proved to be a mostly joyless outing that got bogged down in Narnian politics and shaky plotting. The success and failures of both rested squarely in the pages of Lewis’ work.
Fortunately with “Dawn Treader” the filmmakers were a little more proactive and kept the story framed to a tight little quest and this movie comes out a quite a bit lighter on its feet.
Maybe some of this has to do with the cast being slimmed down a bit as the elder Pevensies, Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) are now too old to enter Narnia. This leaves Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley), who get sucked back into this dream world of magic while staying with their aunt and uncle.
They are reluctantly joined by their abrasive, know-it-all cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) who is none-to happy to be dealing with quests and kings and talking animals.
The children find themselves on a boat called the Dawn Treader (hence the title) where they reunite with Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) and join him on a mission to locate some missing lords and rid the world of a vague, never quite defined, evil.
Also on board is the swashbuckling mouse Reepicheep, voiced by the incomparable Simon Pegg who takes over the character from the equally incomparable Eddie Izzard. I refuse to compare them.
Of course presiding over all of this is the wise and powerful ruler of Narnia, Aslan the Lion (Liam Neeson) who doesn’t do much but provide occasional guidance from afar and have his name mentioned excessively in the script.
Much of the credit for the quality and focus of “Dawn Treader” should be given to venerable British director Michael Apted who is better known for character dramas like “Coal Miner’s Daughter” and “Gorillas in the Mist.”
This is probably why “Dawn Treader” is at its best when it is focusing on people instead of the special effects.
The visuals in this movie are as wondrous as you would expect, however it is being presented in absolutely unnecessary and tacked-on 3D. If you felt robbed by the crap-tacular 3D effects of “Clash of the Titans,” then you’ll likely feel downright irate if you pony up extra cash for a movie that takes zero advantage of the third dimension.
Save your dollars, see “Dawn Treader” in glorious 2D and you’ll be perfectly satisfied with the results.
What will be interesting is the future of this franchise. “Dawn Treader” is the last film to heavily feature the Pevensie children and the question remains if the producers will be willing to see this series through to the bitter end. The fact that the “Chronicles” wind up being a very thinly veiled allegory for Christianity is the 500lb lion, er, gorilla in the room, and how the filmmakers handle this inevitability should be fascinating to watch, especially if the movies continue to rake in the cash.
As for “Dawn Treader,” it is a fun and entertaining piece of moviemaking. It’s not particularly memorable, but it does offer up two solid hours of holiday distraction which a lot of us will be desperate for as December wears on.

“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” is rated PG for some frightening images and sequences of fantasy action.

▲ Mat DeKinder (mdekinder@yourjournal.com) was once described by a guy named Nate as “the Jackie Moon of film critics.” He appears courtesy of Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis.

By Mat DeKinder

Behold perhaps the most review-proof movie of all time: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.”
Look, after six movies in the “Harry Potter” series you are either fully invested and are eager to see this thing through to the bitter end or you stopped caring so long ago that the only harry potter you know is the bearded dude down the street with the kiln.
But what is undeniable, devoted fan or no, is the massive cultural impact these films have had on an entire generation of movie-goers.
This saga of a young wizard coming of age, based on J.K. Rowling’s wildly successful literary series, is finally reaching its end. Well almost, hence the “Part 1” at the end of the title. Rowling’s last book has been split into two films, the second of which will open in the early part of next year.
Therefore this movie can’t help but feel incomplete and a tad unsatisfying as the sprawling story hurtles towards conclusion. It’s a good thing the book wasn’t released this way, with the last 300 pages left blank. Barnes and Nobles across the country would have been reduced to smoldering ash by rioting 14-year-olds.
So while it will be impossible to judge the full effectiveness of “Part1” until it has been joined by its companion “Part 2,” what is clear from watching this movie is that it manages to embody all the strengths and weaknesses of the entire “Harry Potter” series.
What Rowling, and by extension the films, should be praised for is constructing the single greatest magnum opus on coming of age. The sheer excitement and terror of emerging from adolescence into adulthood is perfectly examined in this fantasy world of magic and wizardry.
Even more exiting has been watching the young actors physically complete the process of growing up before our very eyes. Especially the lead trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint who have gone from cute kid actors to full-blown adults capable of carrying an entire movie.

Mat DeKinder

This is what stands out most notably about “Part 1;” while the “Harry Potter” films have gathered perhaps the greatest collection of living British actors to fill out the adult roles, nearly all have been reduced to bit players. This serves to emphasize the solitude of Harry and his friends while showing that the fate of the world truly does rest on their shoulders.
I did mention weaknesses before and if there are any failings in the series it is how beholden they are (and must be) to the source material. The dense world and plotting created by Rowling plays great on the page, but can at times be too much for the structural framework of cinema to support.
Alfred Hitchcock coined the phrase “MacGuffin” to describe an object in a movie that drives the action, but is ultimately unimportant when compared with how the characters react to it. The glowing briefcase in “Pulp Fiction” is a good example of a MacGuffin.
There are no less than half a dozen MacGuffin’s floating around in “Part 1” as Harry and his friends quest for a seemingly endless number of objects in order to destroy ultimate baddie Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who in turn is questing for an entirely (maybe?) separate group of objects to do bad things with.
The movie should come with flowcharts and a checklist. Even the gi-normous “Lord of the Rings” trilogy could be boiled down into one sentence: take evil ring, throw it in volcano. Good luck trying to do that with “Harry Potter.”
If you are willing to fight through the minutiae (and by this point I’m sure you probably are) the emotional resonance of “Part 1” is what you will leave the theater with. Growing up is a hard and ultimately lonely experience, but man is it a heck of a ride. Bring on “Part 2.”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” is rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality.

▲ Mat DeKinder (mdekinder@yourjournal.com) was once described by a guy named Nate as the Jackie Moon of film critics. He appears courtesy of Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis.