Remember Me is a tragedy.  

I’m not talking about the film’s plot or themes, or even the idea that it’s a dead-on-arrival romance. In fact, it isn’t. Surprisingly, Rob Pattinson and Emile De Ravin make a believable and interesting couple and the film actually delves into some effectively dramatic family relationships.

What’s tragic about the movie is that after finding its legs and delivering several wonderful and on-point moments, Remember Me destroys every single thing that came before with an ill conceived, nearly flabbergasting ending that doesn’t just cheapen the film and its characters, but renders them all inconsequential.

Imagine going to the house of a casual friend who often irritates you, sitting down and then being treated to some wonderful cooking and great conversation. Just as you are thinking what a great idea it was to get together, said friend sneaks behind you and brains you with a shovel, and then immediately bolts out the door. It’s exactly like that and it hobbles what was working as a good, poignant romantic drama.

But let me digress from the ending and its obvious troubles and focus on something else. Rob Pattinson is acting here, and on top of that, it’s good acting. Lost’s Emile De Ravin (she’s Claire) shares much of the film’s screen-time with him, and they take this slight, New York-centric indie chick flic and give it honest, emotional gravity. This is particularly an amazing feat given how contrived and heavy the general premise feels.

Pattinson plays Tyler, another angsty twenty-something (as opposed to Ed Cullen’s  angsty 220-something), who’s a heavy drinking, rebellious mess of daddy issues and deep grief. The daddy issues come for distant businessman, Pierce Brosnan, who spent his life financially providing for his family, and saw that as pretty much the end of the responsibility. The grief is from the death of Tyler’s brother, who killed himself 6 years prior and shattered the family even further as a result.

 One night, Tyler drunkenly shoves Sgt. Craig (Chris Cooper) and gets a face full of windshield for his troubles. Craig himself is a brooding type, and with good reason; his wife was murdered on the subway in front of his young daughter. Now that daughter, Ally, is grown-up and played by Ravin. Tyler’s sleazoid roommate, Aiden, identifies her at school and pushes Tyler to date and dump her, as revenge for the officer’s brutal handling of him.

Of course, as is the case of things in a movie like this, they fall for each other and Tyler abandons his plans of vengeance in favor of cuddling, sharing sob stories, and eventually, doing things with Ally that will no doubt make any Twilighters  in the audience pass out and choke on their gummi bears. This plot is old, old news, and I’m not so sure I liked it the first 400 times they walked it out of the gate. But, when you have the right people and the right pieces in the right places, any formula can work (except for torture films and anything with Stephen Baldwin). This one does, I’m almost loathe to admit, largely because of Pattinson.

What the Twilight saga has so thoroughly obscured is Pattinson is a gifted actor with his own sort of charm. Yes, that charm is based off of an aloof, sulking kind of persona, but if you can build a character that exists under that, then there’s something that an actor and an audience can unwrap; you aren’t left with just a pale, pasty straw man eyeing up your neck. Pattinson really pulls up some emotional baggage in Tyler and then he gets to show the young man in the process of throwing that baggage away, and it’s largely due to Ally’s influence on him.

The most welcome surprise of the film is that Pattinson’s best scenes aren’t just reserved for his time with Emile, and he gets some stellar interaction with Brosnan, who’s making a new career out of very juicy bit parts. Tyler also has a kid sister, played by Ruby Jerins, and they have this very warm, sweet relationship that could have generated a different and likely better film all on its own. 

Ravin began as a pretty face on Lost, but she built Claire out of strong stuff and pushed the character through several emotionally tricky circumstances. She’s got a very disarming way of playing notes of distress or sadness, and it helps that she manages to soften and radiate during moments like that. It makes Ally not just credible, but her attraction to Tyler credible too. This isn’t a pairing based off of long moody stares, but shared pain and struggles with family, and the movie has the courage to let the characters work through both factors; the pain and the family.

Unfortunately, we’ve reached that point of the review, where it becomes necessary for me to bring up the film’s end and issue a disclaimer for what has been a positive review. I’m not going into a single spoiler, but quite frankly, there’s no single good reason why the choice was made to shoot this ending. Understand, it’s not just bad, or dishonest, or even inherently divisive to the rest of the film. It’s worse than that; it’s completely overwhelming, the kind of broad, shocking statement that is trying to create context and give us something we can socially connect to.

So, take that into account. If you leave the moment Rob Patt walks out of his dad’s office, you will have still seen a good movie and can go home with the integrity of your 10 dollars intact. If you stay, well I warned you. Some may suggest I should be harder on the film, but the truth is that most of it works and it will serve as a good reminder to fans of Pattinson’s vampire stuff that not every love story is based around pouty looks.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Atomic Popcorn has an awesome opportunity for 40 of you (along with a guest) to attend a screening for Summit Entertainment’s latest political thriller. The Ghost Writer stars Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, and Kim Cattrall, opens in Baltimore, MD on Friday, March 5, 2010.

For those of you not watching Atomic Popcorn or living under a rock, here is a short synopsis of the movie.

When a successful British ghostwriter, THE GHOST, agrees to complete the memoirs of former British Prime Minister ADAM LANG, his agent assures him it’s the opportunity of a lifetime. But the project seems doomed from the start—not least because his predecessor on the project, Lang’s long-term aide, died in an unfortunate accident.

The Ghost flies out to work on the project, in the middle of winter, to an oceanfront house on an island off the U.S. Eastern seaboard. But the day after he arrives, a former British cabinet minister accuses Lang of authorizing the illegal seizure of suspected terrorists and handing them over for torture by the CIA—a war crime. The controversy brings reporters and protesters swarming to the island mansion where Lang is staying with his wife, RUTH, and his personal assistant (and mistress), AMELIA. As The Ghost works, he begins to uncover clues suggesting his predecessor may have stumbled on a dark secret linking Lang to the CIA—and that somehow this information is hidden in the manuscript he left behind. Was Lang in the service of the American intelligence agency while he was prime minister? And was The Ghost’s predecessor murdered because of the appalling truth he uncovered?

Resonating with topical themes, this atmospheric and suspenseful political thriller is a story of deceit and betrayal on every level— sexual, political and literary. In a world in which nothing, and no one, is as it seems, The Ghost quickly discovers that the past can be deadly—and that history is decided by whoever stays alive to write it.

We have also included the trailer below for you all.

Now on to the part that you all have been waiting for: how do I win? That is the easy part. The first 40 people to sign up below wins an admit “two” pass – good for two to the above screening. Again, if you want to bring a date you still only need to enter once! This is a pass good for two of you! Due to this being such short notice anyone can sign up.

This Screening is now FULL – THANKS

I do ask that due to the size of the screening that you try and be there by 6:30pm as this will guarantee you a seat. This will allow all of you fine folks to grab your passes and a great seat for the film.

Your email will be put on a “list” at the door and you will be notified of the theater and showing time via email!

Make sure you check out our other free screenings in the Baltimore Area.

Percy Jackson desperately wants to be Harry Potter.

He’s got a duo of friends like Harry, a magical school and a patient tutor, a fabled quest for a magical object, and a movie with a title nine miles long. For the film, he’s even snagged Harry’s original director, Chris Columbus. The good news for Percy is that his first outing on the big screen is an exciting and enjoyable fantasy feature that plunges headlong into the kind of delicious matinee daydreams Ray Harryhausen delivered in his prime.

Based on a series of novels by author Rick Riordan, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief tells the story of teenage Percy who learns he is a little more than your average high-school student when the world of Greek mythology comes crashing into his reality. Turns out he’s actually a demi-God, half mortal and half divine, conceived by the philandering deity, Poseidon (Kevin McKidd), whose aquatic abilities he’s inherited.

Apparently, Captain Trident picked up Jackson’s mother on the Jersey Shore and then headed off to the nearest Day’s Inn to shake the pillars of heaven, leaving shortly after. Years later, Percy is living in anonymity with his mom (Catherine Keener) and belligerent stepdad (Joe Pantoliano) when Zeus’ lightning bolt goes missing and he targets the young half-breed as the thief.

Now, the people closest to Percy are revealing themselves as mythical forces both benign and malevolent, and when he’s attacked by a monster hiding in human form, his guardian, Chiron, steps up to protect him. Chiron (Pierce Brosnan), who is confined to a wheelchair in his mortal guise, is actually a centaur and tutor to the demi-gods, whose ranks also include Percy’s pals Grover Underwood (Brandon T. Jackson) and Annabeth Chase (Alexandra Daddario). All three have superhuman powers, and Chiron’s school at Olympus will teach them how to harness those abilities.

As you can see, it’s a little bit X-Men, a whole lot Rowling and both mixed with a healthy dash of Clash of the Titans. The story isn’t terribly original, and I imagine it has been further simplified from the novel in order to cram an inordinate number of big fantasy action set pieces into the two hour running time.

None of this is really a problem, because Columbus demonstrates a sure hand in the direction and the pacing of the film, both things he hadn’t yet mastered when he directed the first two Potter pictures. This one flies right along, giving us as many monsters, magical beings and thunderous battle scenes as can be achieved without losing sight of Percy and his comrades.

When all manner of special effects are being flung across the scene, Lerman, Jackson and Daddario play stabilizing center with performances that aren’t extraordinary but contain exactly the energy the parts call for. Brosnan walks around with a horse’s rear attached to his bottom half and wears it well enough that no one bats an eye while Sean Bean is appropriately petulant and authoritative as Zeus. My two favorite characters, however, are Uma Thurman’s daffy Medusa, whose snake-hair is kind of beautiful in a late 90’s Madonna kind of way, and Steve Coogan’s always amusing Hades, who can be menacing when he isn’t channeling an aged rock star.

What actually distinguishes Olympians as a worthy piece of adventure filmmaking is its light and amusing tone. There’s not as much pomp and circumstance here as there is in the Twilight films, and the mythological element is refreshing because it actually plays into the storyline while remaining true to the thematic gist of the old Greek legends.

There’s even a kind of poignancy to the plot threads involving absentee parents and familial bonds that prove stronger than celestial wrath. On the outside, The Lightning Thief may look like one more cookie-cutter fantasy movie, but instead it’s a wonderful and pleasing matinee adventure.

Hey, there’s also a fire-breathing Hydra. You really can’t ask for much more than that.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

Recently I asked you who your favorite big screen werewolf was and that got me thinkin’ about some other popular characters portrayed by multiple leading men in the movies. This discussion must always start with the character of agent 007 James Bond, best played by Sean Connery. Other popular Bonds were Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore while Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby aren’t

remembered so fondly for their portrayal of the famous secret agent. Currently carrying the torch and ordering shaken martinis is Daniel Craig who seems to make a lot of people happy; I prefer him on the other side of the law as he was in Layer Cake and Road to Perdition.

Then there’s Dracula, or vampires in general. The list of actors who have played a vampire on film is a long one. So here are a few that come to mind, please remind me of any as I’ll most definitely leave some out – Leslie Nielsen (Dracula: Dead and Loving It), Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise (Interview with the Vampire), Willem Dafoe (Shadow of the Vampire),  Robert Pattinson (Twilight), Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Gary Oldman (1992′s Dracula), Frank Langella (1979′s Dracula), Christopher Lee (1970′s Count Dracula), and Kiefer Sutherland (The Lost Boys). Needless to say, all of these guys suck, but who is your favorite?

Second in big-screen adaptation popularity to Dracula is  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes who, along with Dracula, has been in the movies since the very beginning. Personally I’ve got a John Barrymore’s Sherlock Holmes (1922) waiting for me on my DVR, which I recorded after seeing Robert Downey Jr. play the part this past Christmas. I also watched a slew of Sherlock films from the late 1930s into the 40s starring Basil Rathbone, the man most of us think of when we imagine Holmes. Robert Stephens played the part of Holmes in what I consider to be one of the worst Holmes films The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Probably the most popular Holmes story The Hound of the Baskervilles has seen many leading men including Peter Cushing (1959) and Peter Cook (1978) in the role of Holmes. My favorite Holmes adaptation is Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective (1986) starring Barrie Ingham’s Basil of Baker Street as a Holmes-like mouse.

Another Hollywood mainstay that’s been around almost as long as Sherlock and Dracula is Robin Hood. Russell Crowe will be slinging arrows this May in theaters as Robin Hood. My favorite Hood is a tie between Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Disney’s foxy 1973 adaptation voiced by Brian Bedford. Douglas Fairbanks first wore the tights and feathered cap in 1922′s Robin Hood followed by Errol Flynn in 1938′s Robin Hood. Mel Brooks didn’t play the part but he did direct Cary Elwes as he had fun with the part in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. One Hood adaptation that I’ve not seen and as a native Texan am dying to see is Gene Autry’s 1947 Robin Hood of Texas! I can only imagine…

Honorable mention goes to Batman and Superman, both qualify for this discussion but I really don’t think either are very interesting as the best/worst in each case are pretty black and white. Don’t agree with me? Say so!

Is it possible that I’m actually intrigued by Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief after this trailer?

Chris Columbus’ attempt to fill the upcoming Harry Potter film vacuum seemed rather derivative and vapid in it’s first teaser, but now that I’ve seen that leading actor Logan Lerman (3:10 to Yuma) has been surrounded by the likes of Rosario Dawson, Pierce Brosnan, and Sean Bean, my excitement has risen a bit.

The film also stars Catherine Keener, Steve Coogan, and Uma Thurman. It’s due for release on February 12th, 2010. Check out the trailer below, and let us know what you think in the comments!

Let me clear the air by saying that I was unwillingly dragged to see “Mamma Mia!”, the latest Hollywood interpretation of a stage musical.

Clearly, I’m not the type of person the people behind the film adaptation of “Mamma Mia!” were trying to please.  People like me, who are generally against musicals can and should find a better way to spend their time at the movies and leave the people who are actually interested in this film to see it.  However, I truly feel bad for anybody dragged to this incessantly corny and nearly insufferable movie musical that is so bad, even the presence of Meryl Streep can’t save it.

So, if I normally resist big, lavish movie musicals such as this, am I really the right person to review “Mamma Mia!”?  Well, I’d say no, but I’ll let you be the judge of that.  I’m not reviewing this movie for the fans of the musical, because I know that they’ll be pleased with what they get; I’m reviewing it for everyone else.  Now, that’s not to say that I automatically give every single musical I see a negative review.  I really enjoyed 2005′s “The Producers” as well as “Chicago” from 2002, and last year’s “Sweeney Todd” was my pick for the second-best film of 2007.  What ultimately made me not like “Mamma Mia!”, I guess you could say, was the simple fact that the film seriously missed every single mark it was trying to hit.  This movie is meant to be a fun, breezy hour and forty-eight minutes at the theater, but I thought there wasn’t any fun to be had and due to its dragged-out songs, there was nothing breezy about it.  Whereas “Sweeney Todd” played like a smooth flowing and hauntingly beautiful opera, and rather successfully at that, “Mamma Mia!” instead plays out like karaoke night in Greece.

Well, let’s face it.  Musicals aren’t meant to have elaborate or intricately crafted plots and that’s the case here (which invites another comparison to “Sweeney Todd” that I’ll make later).  The plot for “Mamma Mia!” is paper-thin and it always comes to a complete halt whenever the next musical number starts up.  So, the light and bright Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is about to get married to stud muffin Sky (Dominic Cooper), who incidentally has cloudy eyes.  Sophia’s one wish, though, is to have her father attend her wedding and give her away to her McDreamy.  The only problem is that her catamite of a mother named Donna (Meryl Streep) slept with three different men around the time Sophia would have been conceived.  That means that there are three possible candidates for the title of ‘Dear Old Dad’: Bill (Stellan Skarsgard), Sam (Pierce Brosnan) and Harry (Colin Firth).  And yet another problem is that Donna doesn’t want any of them at the wedding.  But as we all know, they’ll inevitably stay and that will cause serious romantic decisions to be made in one weekend that would normally take more than a weekend to decide to be made in, well, one weekend.

The plot’s only true purpose is to act as an engine to get us from one musical to the next, and that’s one of the biggest problems I’ve always had with musicals.  I can understand the necessity for an uncomplicated plot, but still, why can’t the writers at least try to bring more to the storyline so that the movie doesn’t feel like it can simply end at any given moment if one of the three men just came up and revealed that they are the father of Sophie?  Plus, I think it’s safe to say that you can pretty much guess who the father is by the way the camera lingers on each individual bachelor.  Now, I will admit that “Sweeney Todd”  does have a similarly thin plot, but the difference there is that the songs of that movie essentially were part of the plot.  It avoided that choppy style because the songs actually moved everything forward.  Here, the songs seem to be there just for the heck of it and while they may be mildly enjoyable, the choreography that accompanies them just makes everything feel like an overdone production of Riverdance.  And I’ll say this: if I had to sit through one more musical number where men and/or teenage boys tried to imitate professional dancers on a pier, I’d have been ready to throw my bag of popcorn at the screen.

For a musical meant to have purposefully bland performances made even more bland by professional actors such as Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan, then there’s something wrong in the acting department.  Meryl Streep has always been a terrific actress, but she’s given virtually nothing to work with here.  Oh, she can sing just fine and is definitely capable of holding her own whenever she bursts  into song, but it’s the in-between stuff that had me scratching my head in wonderment, trying to discern how Streep couldn’t be up to her own standards.  Also, her two shallow, giggly girlfriends portrayed by Julie Walters and Christine Baranski are the character equivalents of nails on a chalkboard.  And the serious overacting of Amanda Seyfried as Sophie doesn’t help much, either.

I think the best thing about “Mamma Mia!”, though, is the scenery of Greece.  Every outside scene carries vibrant sunshine, aqua-blue ocean and lime-green trees that at least give the movie points for eye candy.  And if I had to say something good about the cast, it would be that Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard do pretty decent work and are the most interesting to watch.

However, when a musical is iffy on the music and very noticeably at that in addition to being a challenge to sit through, then something went wrong somewhere.  I think it’s safe to say that the people who want to see “Mamma Mia!” will probably end up liking it, but me personally, I prefer my musicals to lay off the annoying choreography and make the songs pieces of the plot, rather than roadblocks to it.

Rating: ★½☆☆☆