“I just wanna see The Rock be The Rock.”

Thus spaketh my neighbor a couple of seats over at the screening of “Snitch,” where she and her companion commented — loudly and frequently — upon their views of the new movie starring Dwayne Johnson, formerly known as professional wrestler The Rock.

I don’t know where these amateur Eberts came from or how they came to be sitting in the press row, but I think she was actually speaking for a lot of people who won’t like this movie. Specifically, those who think Johnson and people who look like him should only make big, dumb action movies in which they deliver a quip after blowing some guy away.

You see, “Snitch” is not that sort of the film. It stars Dwayne Johnson, not The Rock, and features Johnson straining to reach for something higher and more honest as an actor … and succeeding.

It’s a gritty drama, not an action movie, and Johnson is playing a regular guy instead of a Superman. When somebody points a gun in his face, he’s frozen with terror. While the villains strut and sneer, he cowers and quakes.

Johnson never takes off his shirt, intimidates anyone with his size, and about the only thing he says in anger is to holler at his wife, “Are the sprinklers on?!?”

The film, ably directed by Ric Roman Waugh from a screenplay he co-wrote with Justin Haythe, is based on a true story that was featured on a PBS documentary. It’s about a father who will go to any ends to help his son, including breaking the law and putting the rest of his family at risk.

John Matthews is a successful Missouri businessman in the construction/trucking industry. He lives in a big house, has a beautiful wife and daughter, and seems to have few worries. But then his teenage son from a previous marriage, Jason (Rafi Gavron), gets busted for distribution of Ecstasy.

The kid’s not a drug dealer, just a sap who got rolled by his friend. But the federal prosecutor (Susan Sarandon) says she’s bound by minimum-sentence laws that could put John’s son away until AARP age. She’ll only reduce his prison term if Jason snitches on another drug pusher, which he refuses to do.

So John takes it upon himself to bring down a big-time dealer on his own. His first effort ends in disaster, but he gets craftier. He recruits one of his employees, Daniel (Jon Bernthal), who did time for drugs, offering $10,000 to make an introduction to some of his old contacts.

This leads to an increasingly dangerous climb up the ladder of the narcotics chain of command, from local kingpin Malik (a sly, charismatic Michael Kenneth Williams) to Mexican cartel boss (Benjamin Bratt).

Intending it to be a one-and-down deal, John finds himself cornered between the drug lords on the one hand and the politically ambitious prosecutor on the other. Meanwhile, Daniel suspects his motives, Malik starts dropping by John’s house to terrorize his family, and even the undercover cop (Barry Pepper) handling the case drops hints that maybe he’s in too deep.

Johnson does eventually get to do some Rock-ish things toward the end, but he does so in duress rather than out of any sense of righteous rage. These perilous scenes are all the more convincing because his character is ordinary and exposed.

In her own way and without really intending to do so, my loudmouthed, erstwhile fellow critic has delivered a much more brilliant review of “Snitch” than I ever could. For someone like her, this movie could only a letdown, which should be a hint for the rest of us.

4 Yaps

Having not read the novel by David Mitchell, my guess is that “Cloud Atlas” is one of those books that was considered untranslatable to the big screen. The Wachowski siblings, the creative team behind the “Matrix” films, and their writing/directing partner Tom Tykwer, have accomplished about as successful an adaptation as could be hoped.

It’s a sprawling, ambitious, troubling, occasionally glorious and often vexing film. A hair under three hours long, it links dozens of characters across a multitude of time settings, with the same set of actors playing multiple parts. These stories do not unfold in temporal sequence but instead cut back and forth with no transition for the audience. The abruptness is intentional.

So, one moment you can be watching Tom Hanks playing Zachry, a suspicious but good-hearted hunter in a post-apocalyptic primitive society hundreds of years into the future, and in a blink, he has become Dr. Henry Goose, a nefarious physician/charlatan in the Pacific Islands circa 1849.

The theme here is that these actors are not simply inhabiting different roles but represent different incarnations of the same eternal soul replicated over and over again throughout the eons, facing much the same challenges in each reincarnation.

For instance, Hanks’ character(s) struggle with summoning the courage to do the moral thing. For Dr. Goose, that battle was obviously lost some time ago. For Zachry, it’s an ongoing struggle, with the forces of suspicion and hatred represented by Old Georgie, a devil in a top hat who whispers vile thoughts into his ear.

Zachry’s time era is probably the most critical, acting as a framing device for the other stories. Sometimes we see the same person decades apart in their lives, but for the most part it is new incarnations each time around.

In Zachry’s time, he is suspicious of Meronym (Halle Berry), a representative of a more technologically advanced alien culture or possibly the remnants of humanity that survived the “Big Fall” of mankind. Meronym and other people of her ilk seem to have electronic devices implanted under the surface of their skin, while Zachry and his people have extensive facial tattoos.

Meronym has ingratiated herself into the people of the valley’s tiny community, where they struggle to survive against wretched tribes of cannibals who raid from time to time. Meronym says she’s there to help and indeed heeds Zachry’s plea to save the life of his niece, but it’s clear she’s there with an unspoken mission.

Other significant settings are the Pacific Islands in the mid-19th century, Cambridge of 1936, 1973 San Francisco, modern-day London, and Korea somewhere in the 23rd century.

Jim Broadbent plays Timothy Cavendish, an itinerant publisher who hits the big time when his thuggish author executes the dream of what every writer wants to do to a critic, becoming a celebrity in the process. But money troubles and a hateful big brother leave him incarcerated in a mental hospital, which builds up to a septuagenarian version of “The Great Escape.”

Ben Whishaw is Robert Frobisher, a brilliant but poor musical genius who takes on a position as assistant to a once great but now forlorn composer. Jim Sturgess plays Adam Ewing, a young man making a highly profitable business trip for his slavemaster father-in-law who encounters the unexpected friendship of a runaway slave (David Gyasi).

In 1973, Halle Berry plays Luisa Rey, a crusading young journalist who uncovers a nefarious plot at a Three Mile Island-ish nuclear facility, and finds her life in peril.

Perhaps the most evocative setting is Neo Seoul of the future, a nightmarish landscape that seems to combine the worst societal elements of “Blade Runner” and “The Matrix.” Here, Doona Bae plays Sonmi-451, a “fabricant” — aka synthetically created human slave — who serves as a waitress in a trendy restaurant. One day, she’s liberated by a leader of the rebellion against this totalitarian society and finds herself becoming the image and voice of a movement (and later, in Zachry’s time, something much more).

“Our lives are not our own,” Somni intones, underscoring the film’s message. “From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime and each kindness, we build our future.”

I will say that time does not drag while watching “Cloud Atlas.” I looked at my watch exactly once and was astonished to see that 2½ hours had already gone by.

But the various actors each playing three, four, five or more roles ended up being distracting, especially as I attempted each time to puzzle out who was who under the heavy layers of prosthetic makeup. I found that the mental energy I expended in this exercise left me unable at time to get emotionally engaged in the characters’ plight.

I also admit to being uncomfortable with some of the transformations. At various times, Caucasian actors are made up to look Asian, Asians as Caucasians, and African-Americans as whites or Asians or Latinos, and none of it very convincing. I did note that at no time was a non-African-American actor made up to look black. Consciously avoiding that risk of an unpalatable accusation of blackface only serves to make the other cross-racial portrayals seem even more squeamish.

“Cloud Atlas” is a bedazzling cinematic experience, though one that will no doubt leave some audience members confused and frustrated. For me, there was enough enchantment to overcome the head-scratching.

4 Yaps

There are very few movies that have made me tear up upon the rolling credits: “Up,” “The Green Mile,” “Remember the Titans” and now “Jeff, Who Lives at Home.” This film is a heartwarming film that will tug at your heartstrings and then make you stand up and cheer.

For Jeff — played brilliantly by Jason Segel — it’s a day like any other; sitting around his mother’s basement watching infomercials and smoking pot. Slowly but surely, Jeff witnesses signs from the universe and sets out for the adventure that was meant for him. As Jeff gets deeper into his journey, he runs into his estranged brother, Pat (Ed Helms), and the two discover that every moment in our lives happens for a very specific reason.

I want to do nothing more than applaud everyone that was involved with this film. I don’t know what it was about this film, but it was so real, that I could connect with it on so many levels. Jay and Mark Duplass have constructed such a simple tale and such vibrant characters, from Jeff’s monologue about the universal significance of M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs” to Pat and Jeff having a heart to heart while sitting in a bathtub. Jay and Mark are a great filmmaking duo, and I can’t wait to see more from them.

The real reason for these characters’ warmth and validity was due to powerful performances by Segel and Helms. I’m a huge fan of both of these actors and I was stoked to see them have the chance to flex those dramatic muscles.

What I think I liked the most was that Helms got a chance to play a different character. He always seems to play the overly nice guy, but here he gets to play someone in need of redemption. He’s completely lost sight of what’s important in life, but underneath he wants to find his way. My favorite scene is when Pat and Jeff are at their father’s grave and talk about a mutual dream. Their sweet moment turns into a juvenile fight because Pat has to make fun of Jeff.

I’m not really sure what to say about Segel beyond the fact that he was so endearing in his performance. His character was so innocent and trusting that it was heartbreaking to see his family push him away. My favorite scene with him is when he hitches a ride on the back of a delivery truck. He tries so hard to inconspicuously follow the delivery driver, but Segel’s size makes it comical. Segel is such tremendous talent, and I’ve never been disappointed by his films.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is a beautiful movie and one of my new favorites. Seeing it in 1080p makes it all that more beautiful. I think that this movie is one that deserves multiple viewings, and I have a feeling it is meant to be in everyone’s movie collection.

While I would’ve liked to have some behind the scenes featurettes, sadly there are no features in sight. I guess they just weren’t meant to be.

Film: 4.5 Yaps
Extras: N/A

Understated comedies just so happen to be my favorite brand of humor. Unfortunately, due to the nature of these films, they are oftentimes hit or miss. “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” did not meet my expectations, but I ended up enjoying it nonetheless. Surprisingly, the film is best enjoyed as a coming-of-age drama rather than a comedy.

If I were to best describe the movie, I would say it’s a dark comedy wrapped up inside a family drama. Jason Segel plays the title character, a stoner who lives with his mother, Sharon (Susan Sarandon). Jeff holds a unique perspective on life and destiny, one that leaves him misunderstood by his family — especially his older brother, Pat (Ed Helms). Pat is more career-driven and focuses importance on material possessions. They are at odds until they are brought together under the pretense of Pat’s crumbling marriage to Linda (Judy Greer). When they see Linda having lunch with another man, Pat and Jeff take it upon themselves to follow her and find out for sure what’s going on. Along the way, the pair experiences a series of life-changing events that brings them closer than they ever thought possible.

Their clash is the film’s main source of humor — Jeff believing firmly in the power of predestination while Pat holds a far more self-centered nature. Their sibling rivalry is genuinely funny, but again, it’s not that type of movie. I foresee this plot surprising some people.

Meanwhile, Sharon is entering a sort of midlife crisis and is at her wits’ end with Jeff slumming around the house. Her role counterbalances the chaotic nature of the two sons rather nicely. The subplot of her trying to fall in love again brings a much needed sense of warmth and endearment to the film.

The movie deals with adult issues such as divorce, losing loved ones and finding your place in this world from a philosophical perspective rather than a comedic one. The second half of the movie, in particular, takes a concerted, serious turn as the family is brought together under peculiar circumstances. That’s not to say that “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is a bad film. It’s well put-together, but I wouldn’t go into it expecting a laugh riot. The misleading nature of the trailers make it out to be a stoner comedy, when in fact it’s more Wes Anderson than Judd Apatow.

Part of what makes understated comedies so great is the relatable nature of the jokes. The bickering between Jeff and Pat personally reminded me of the relationship I have with my brother. It’s the type of movie that will leave you with a greater appreciation for the ones closest to you. The journey from beginning to end sputters at times as the comedic relief comes in waves, yet that sort of staggered pacing is the perfect representation of the chaotic relationships exhibited in the movie. The climax of the film in particular is a perfect culmination of all the awkward tension that precedes it. When left to their own devices the brothers cling to what they are most familiar with … family.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” may not be the laugh riot you were hoping for, but you’ll walk away feeling soulfully satisfied.

In this week’s show, Joe and Chris yap about Harrison Ford and other big stars whose careers go through big changes as they get older. Some actors, like Audrey Hepburn, hang it up while they’re still rather young, while others find themselves more or less forcibly retired. We also talk about today’s big stars like Will Smith and Tom Cruise, and prognosticate about the future of their acting careers.

With a title like You Don’t Know Jack implies this film shall expose a new truth about Jack Kevorkian. His name is basically a punchline today because things have settled down a bit since he was in practice. With this new HBO TV movie, the debate can begin again.

Al Pacino plays Kevorkian, a match that fits so well it’s almost not even fair to anyone else who wanted the part. This is not a biopic. The film begins with him deciding to take his assisted suicide belief to practice. He wants to make his mark on the medical scene.

Kevorkian believes that it is inhumane to have people suffer through agonizing terminal diseases. He believes that if they want to die and are of rational mind, they should be allowed to have that wish granted by a medical physician. Now the film is not preaching this belief, but it is letting Kevorkian make his case.

Unlike other movies that follow a character with a point of view Jack wisely allows there to be plenty of gray area in all directions. The legal opposition is a bit faceless, but at least they have rational points. The film never feels preachy because their portrayal of Kevorkian is warts and all.

Boy does he have warts. He is very arrogant and difficult to control at times. He makes plenty of poor decisions that have serious ramifications legally and personally. The whole journey is so fascinating because of the strength of Adam Mazer’s script. Everything moves at a natural pace without feeling the pressure to include every piece of research that would make this feel like a textbook.

Barry Levinson was in the director’s chair and returned to high form. This is his best film since 1997’s Wag the Dog. Everything is so well crafted while having this dark overtone to the entire thing. Some of the suicides are just heartbreaking and nothing is ever played for melodrama.

HBO has created a standard of making these TV movies that rival most of the Oscar nominated films of any given year. It still hasn’t raised the prestige of an Emmy, but it has changed the Hollywood interest in these projects. It’s no longer just the epic miniseries like John Adams or The Pacific that are gaining interest in big names, but now these smaller films. Not only does this film have fantastic work by Pacino and Levinson, but John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, and Danny Huston. This movie could have easily played in theatres and been a success.

The DVD is pretty bare aside from a 10-minute featurette where they talk about the real Kevorkian and his unique personality. It’s fun to see Pacino examine him as a person and then cut to the actual Kevorkian, who was speaking a lot like the eccentric man in the movie. In fact all of the cast were rather blunt about Kevorkian, especially his disturbing paintings. I wish it was a longer feature but I’m sure this was played between movies on HBO for months. Still, there could have been more on the DVD.

Film: 4.5 Yaps

Extras: 2 Yaps

“Team America: World Police”
Rated R
2004

Renegade satirists Trey Parker and Matt Stone are songsmiths at heart. Why else would the “South Park” creators paint a wide swatch of blue across the Great White Way with a full-fledged Mormon-mocking musical?

Yes, 2004’s “Team America: World Police” shrewdly, scathingly spoofed the jarhead action of Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay — giving full blockbuster treatment to a film featuring marionettes. (If not Bay, “America” seems to have shamed Bruckheimer out of that genre altogether.)

But such films are nothing without crappy songs, with which “America” is purposefully chockablock. Highlights of Parker’s on-point lyrical work include: “Freedom Isn’t Free,” a send-up of opportunistic flag-waving country tunes; “Only a Woman,” re-envisioning “Top Gun’s” sex scene with golden showers and Cleveland steamers; and the infinitely self-explanatory “America, Fuck Yeah!”

Team America are commandos combating the plot of “9/11 times 2,356” hatched by North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, actor Alec Baldwin and the F.A.G. (Film Actors Guild) — which includes Helen Hunt, Susan Sarandon and a Matt Damon marionette incapable of uttering anything besides his own name.

Vacancy in the marionettes’ eyes differs little from, say, Megan Fox’s, and throwaway perspective gags (goldfish swimming beside a submarine) add to Parker and Stone’s absurd, but sensible, string-yanking of the action genre.

Throw in a mélange of al-Qaeda terrorist gibberish (with the occasionally surfacing words “Muhammed,” “jihad” and “Allah” all Hollywood often hears anyway) and semi-sensible anatomical analogies for foreign policy, and it’s clear “America” rowdily resurrected the Zucker Brothers’ spirit of peerless, puerile genre satire.

I love it when a dramatic actor takes a break and actually jumps into a really comedic character. Sean Penn was great in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Sweet and Lowdown. Robert DeNiro was brilliant as the gay Captain Shakespeare in Stardust. Now Edward Norton had a field day in Leaves of Grass.

In fact Norton actually has two roles since he is both of the identical twins. Bill Kincaid was the brother who grew up writing long papers dissecting criticism and philosophy while Brady stayed in Oklahoma selling pot and partaking in all sorts of mischief. Bill’s life is going well with Cambridge considering him for a new professor position. Yet he’s called back home when he hears his brother was murdered with a crossbow.

That turns out to be a lie. Brady just needs Bill’s help. He needs Bill to pretend to be him so he can have a successful alibi when he has to confront a business partner of his from out of town played by Richard Dreyfus. Bill hates every part of the world he’s abandoned, especially his disappointing mother (Susan Sarandon). The only shining light is meeting Janet (Keri Russell) a beautiful woman who can quote Walt Whitman while gutting a catfish.

Norton is brilliant in this duel role. He’s very sophisticated and polished as Bill, but as Brady he’s all over the place. He has this ridiculous accent and you can never exactly tell if he’s under influence or not. Yet he’s just as brilliant as Bill but went down a different path. He’s like Mycroft Holmes, if Mycroft was more interested in growing marijuana. Neither the characters nor the performances fall into stereotype and kept within its reality.

Tim Blake Nelson wrote and directed this fascinating and funny movie with a large degree of intelligence. There is plenty to dissect about the complexity of the two brothers and how it parallels what Bill is teaching. Yet none of that ever eclipses the humor and warmth of the movie.

The movie’s shocking use of violence is really well done. It’s brutal and unexpected but adds a lot to the environment that Blake has created. The movie doesn’t even pass two hours but it feels so well realized and that is connected to the strong writing of Nelson. He is usually known as a fun character actor (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Holes) and he also has a small part as Brady’s sidekick. I think writing is his real strength, because this movie is full of surprises and well-done arcs for its characters. This is a very strong comedy because of how original it is.

The DVD is pretty bare. There is an 11 minute long “making-of” documentary that is too cluttered with clips from the film you’ve seen. They keep interrupting the interesting comments by the people they’re interviewing. There is also a very nice commentary track with Nelson, Norton and one of its producers.

Film: 4.5 Yaps

Extras: 3 Yaps

It has been 23 years since Oliver Stone solidified the image of the Decade of Greed in the pop culture zeitgeist, and the sequel wants to be an update of how things have changed — for the worse. It’s set in 2008, when our entire financial system nearly sputtered to a standstill, and instead of being the merchant of inside information, this time Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) has positioned himself as the oracle of fiscal sanity.

Or is he?

After spending eight years in prison for insider trading and other crimes, Gekko is out hocking his book, “Is Greed Good?” He gives speeches to rapt audiences talking about how the leveraged debt and other shady dealings carried on now put anything he did to shame.

“While I was away it seems greed got greedier, with a little bit of envy mixed in,” he says.

His would-be protege this time is Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a hungry young trader with a passion for green technology. He’s also engaged to one Winnie Gekko (Carey Mulligan), the estranged daughter of Gordon. She won’t speak to her dad, and runs an anti-Wall Street web site called Frozen Truth.

Now, think about that for a minute. Here’s a principled young woman who despises her father, despises the abuses of the financial markets, and has centered her career around denigrating them both. And yet she would fall for a young shark like Jake who relishes making deals and cutting the throats of the competition? The sort of guy who buys her an engagement ring worth a house in the suburbs?

Winnie remains an unbelievable figure throughout. She’s supposed to be smart, but a few words from Jake and she’s ready to turn over the keys to her family legacy (amortizing in a Swiss bank) to him. A few words from Gordon and she’s ready to forgive him, too.

Stone was never very good with centered, plausible female characters, and Winnie is just another in a long line of women who exist merely to further the plot.

The heavy is Bretton James (Josh Brolin), head of the powerful firm of Churchill-Schwartz. There’s bad blood between him and Gekko, and Gordon’s looking to use Jake to exact a little revenge — some for himself, and some for sending Jake’s company down the tubes, and his beloved mentor (Frank Langella) along with it.

But Bretton throws them a surprise, by offering Jake a job instead of crushing him. Soon the idealistic young Jake is inside the enemy’s camp, carrying water for Gekko and keeping secrets from Winnie. At this point, a little more than halfway through, the movie has no more secrets that we haven’t already guessed.

Stone displays his usual visual flair, sending his camera spinning around stock tickers and up and down the sleek walls of Wall Street, showing us the environment of steel dedicated to the hoarding of wealth for its own sake. “Money is a one-eyed bitch who lays in bed staring at you … if you’re not careful, in the morning she’ll be gone,” is how Gekko puts it.

The screenplay by Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff is filled with zippy dialogue and crisp scenes. I especially liked one where Gekko, having dinner with Winnie and Jake at a swank Manhattan restaurant, greets one of the Wall Street titans and the guy blows him off, not even recognizing him. Douglas gives a terrific reaction that reveals his mortification — not at the social faux pas, but at the fact it demonstrates he’s not a player anymore.

I also loved when Gekko calls a bunch of college students the “Ninja generation”: No income, no jobs or assets.

But despite these slick elements, the movie is a confused mix of personal story and indictment of the financial sector that never really tie together. The central dynamic seems to be whether Gekko has truly reformed or not, but he’s really a secondary character who flits in and out of the background for most of the film, until he takes on a sudden importance close to the end.

The Bretton James angle holds no mystery — the way Brolin snorts and glares, we know it’s just a matter of time before he’s buried under a mountain of his own arrogant missteps.

Fairly or not, “Wall Street” nailed the culture of avarice that undeniably existed in the 1980s … but so it did in the ’90s, ’00s and every decade before (and will after). Stone’s haphazard sequel reshuffles the deck, but relies on the same old cinematic card tricks.

3 Yaps

“Moonlight Mile”
Rated PG-13
2002

Dedicated to “all our loves departed or yet to arrive,” 2002’s “Moonlight Mile” undoubtedly poured forth from a place of personal pain for writer/director Brad Silberling — boyfriend to actress Rebecca Schaeffer when she was killed in 1989.

From real-life tragedy, Silberling crafted an occasionally roughshod drama that tackles the confusion and conflict that surrounds sudden death, unexpected love and unresolved tension — from a parade of casseroles and condolences to parents forced to reevaluate life after a daughter to whom they devoted everything has died.

Jake Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon deliver a trio of terrific performances. Joe (Gyllenhaal) is a beleaguered bridegroom whose fiancée, Diana, is murdered days before their wedding. In the resultant limbo, Joe moves in with Diana’s parents, Ben (Hoffman), a real-estate agent, and Jojo (Sarandon), a writer.

Silberling lets their tangle play out with more toughness than tenderness, understanding some families entomb people before they’re really gone.

Although they mean well, Ben and Jojo thieve Joe’s life and time — replacing the child they’ve lost with him. It’s a burden he’s hesitant to bear but reluctant to reject, as loyalty to his “in-laws” clashes with stirring passions for a local barmaid (Ellen Pompeo, a fiery sparkplug).

“Moonlight Mile” concludes with a series of livable compromises, but it’s as much about the doubt and panic that linger after life’s plans scatter and persist even after they settle again. Moreover, it’s about the hardship of honoring the memory of someone from whom everyone is best off moving on.