"STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE" (1999) Review
Sixteen years after the 1983 movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI" hit the movie screens, producer-director George Lucas returned to the world of STAR WARS for a new trilogy that depicted the years before the 1977-1983 movies, starting with the 1999 film, "STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE".
"THE PHANTOM MENACE" was received very poorly by critics and veteran STAR WARS fans when it was first released in 1999. Many believed that it failed to capture the spirit of Lucas' saga first established in the first three films. Despite the negative opinions, the movie proved to be a blockbuster champion at the box office. But public opinion of the movie in the following sixteen years remained negative. In fact, public opinion has not been that kind to the two movies that followed. When Lucas announced his intentions to re-release "THE PHANTOM MENACE" in 3D over three years ago, many either wondered why he would bother or accused the producer of trying to milk the STAR WARS cash cow even further. As for me, I received the news with mixed feelings. When the movie was first released in 1999, I must admit that I enjoyed it very much, even though I would never view it as one of my top favorite STAR WARS movies. On the other hand, I despise the 3D process. I despised the use of it in movies like 2009's "AVATAR" and my feelings for it had not changed when I last saw it used for "THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER". But my love for STAR WARS overcame my distaste for 3D and I went to see the movie.
Like other STAR WARS, this one began in a galaxy, far, far away . . . thirty-two years before the events of the 1977 movie. Instead of an empire, this story is set during the Old Republic in which knights and masters of the religious Jedi Order serve as "the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy" on behalf of the Republic Senate. A Jedi Master named Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice (or padawan) have been dispatched by the Senate's Chancellor Finis Valorum to negotiate a peace between the planet Naboo and the Trade Federation, an organization who has decided to establish a blockade of battleships in response to a taxation on trade routes. The Federation has made this move on the "advice" of their partner, a Sith Lord (and enemy of the Jedi) named Darth Sidious. Unfortunately for Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, the Trade Federation attempt to kill them on the order of Darth Sidious. Both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan escape from the Trade Federation battleship and make their way to Naboo's surface, during the former's invasion of the planet. The pair enlists the help of Jar-Jar Binks and his fellow Gungans (Naboo's underwater inhabitants) to reach Queen Padme Amidala, the planet's 14 year-old ruler. They save her and her entourage, before making their escape from Naboo. Due to a failing power converter, the entire party make an emergency landing on the remote Tatooine in order to find the parts to fix the ship. In one of Tatooine's major cities, Mos Espa; Qui-Gon, Padme (who is disguised as a royal handmaiden), and Jar-Jar meet a young slave boy named Anakin Skywalker. It is not long before Qui-Gon Their meeting will prove to not only have major consequences on the outcome between Naboo and the Trade Federation, but also upon the galaxy.
My recent viewing of "THE PHANTOM MENACE" made me realize that after 16 years, I still love the movie. Nothing has changed my view of the movie, including the addition of the 3D effects. However, I cannot deny that "THE PHANTOM MENACE"was not perfect. I have my complaints. My major complaint was Lucas' addition of the 3D effects. They were not impressive. I had expected them to be, considering the outstanding 3D effects of the updated STAR WARS attractions at the Disney amusement parks. But the movie's effects proved to be a poor comparison and a not-so-surprising disappointment. My second complaint centered around the use of Tatooine as a setting. In fact, the saga's use of Tatooine has proven to be a major disappointment since the first movie, 1977's "A NEW HOPE". Aside from a few sequences, Tatooine proved to be a major bore. After Qui-Gon and Padme's first meeting with Anakin, I had to struggle to stay awake before the podrace sequence. Lucas' slow pacing and John Williams' less-than-stellar score nearly put me to sleep. The only movie in which Tatooine proved to be interesting from start to finish was 2002's "ATTACK OF THE CLONES". I realize that many STAR WARS fans dislike the Gungans and specifically, one Jar-Jar Binks. There are times that I feel I could write a detailed essay on the fans' dislike of Jar-Jar, but this is not the time or place for such an article. Although I harbor no dislike of Jar-Jar, there were a few times when I had some difficulty understanding his and the other Gungans' dialogue.
It may not be perfect, but I cannot deny that I found "THE PHANTOM MENACE" enjoyable as ever. George Lucas wrote a complex, yet comprehensive tale that set in motion the downfall of the Galactic Republic, the Jedi Order and most of the major characters. "THE PHANTOM MENACE" offered a great deal for all ages and tastes. It provided a complex political tale that culminated in an exciting military battle that freed Naboo from the clutches of the Trade Federation. It provided an exciting duel between the two Jedi - Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan - and Sith Lord Darth Sidious' apprentice, Darth Maul. The movie provided characters such as a nine year-old Anakin Skywalker, his Tatooine friends and Jar-Jar Binks for children. But the one thing that really impressed me was the exciting Boonta Eve Podrace that Anakin participated in order to win parts for Qui-Gon, Padme and their ship. In fact, if I had to choose my favorite sequence in the entire STAR WARS movie saga, it had to be the one featuring the podrace. This sequence began with the Skywalkers, Qui-Gon, Padme and Jar-Jar arriving at the Mos Espa arena and ended aboard the Nabooan starship when Qui-Gon introduced Anakin to Obi-Wan, following his brief duel with Darth Maul.
"THE PHANTOM MENACE" provided some solid acting, despite George Lucas' cheesy dialogue. This is no surprise, considering that a combination of solid acting and cheesy dialogue has been the hallmark of STAR WARS movies since the first one in 1977. Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson, Ahmed Best, Hugh Quarshie, Terence Stamp, Andrew Secombe and Ray Parks all did solid work. It was nice to hear vocals from STAR WARS veterans Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker. The movie also featured brief moments for British stars such as Keira Knightley, Oliver Ford-Davies, Celia Imrie, Brian Blessed, and Richard Armitage. But there were a few performances that stood out. One came from Ian McDiarmid, who returned to portray Senator Palpatine of Naboo aka Darth Sidious for the second time in his career. Unlike his portrayal of Palpatine in 1983's"RETURN OF THE JEDI", his performance was a great deal more subtle and layered with much charm. Jake Lloyd may not have been the best child actor in existence, but I cannot deny that his Anakin Skywalker was like a ball of solar energy that charmed the pants off of me. The good-bye scene between Anakin and his mother, Shmi was one of the most poignant in the saga. Both Lloyd and Pernilla August did such a superb job that their performances brought tears to my eyes. And aside from a few wooden moments, I thought he handled the role rather well. But if I had to choose the best performance in the movie, I would select Liam Neeson as Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn. First of all, he did a great job in conveying Qui-Gon's warmth and appeal. He made it easy for many to see why both Anakin and Obi-Wan viewed him as a father figure.
Since this is a STAR WARS movie, one might as well discuss the technical aspects of "THE PHANTOM MENACE". Without a doubt, it is a beautiful looking movie. It was so beautiful that I did not know who to single out. But I can think of a few. First of all cinematographer David Tattersall did a beautiful job in photographing the movie's locations of England, Tunisia and especially Italy. Thanks to Ben Burtt and Paul Martin Smith's editing, the podrace and the Battle of Naboo proved to be two of the best sequences in the movie. And what can I say about Trisha Biggar's dazzling costume designs? Just how beautiful are they? Take a look:
It seems a crime that Biggar's work was never acknowledged by the Academy Arts of Motion Pictures and Sciences or the Golden Globes. At least she won a Saturn Award for the costumes in this movie.
However, it was George Lucas who put it altogether in the end. Twenty-two years had passed between the time he directed"A NEW HOPE" and "THE PHANTOM MENACE". Personally, I thought he did a pretty damn good job. The 1999 movie was not perfect. And if I must be perfectly frank, I was not impressed by the movie's 3D effects. But I am glad that I went to see "THE PHANTOM MENACE" in the movie theaters again. It reminded me that the STAR WARS saga had not lost its magic on the big screen.
"ONCE UPON A TIME": TOLERATING AMBIGUITYA good number of the "ONCE UPON A TIME" fandom seemed to be divided over what was revealed in the series' latest episode called (4.16) "Best Laid Plans". This division seems to be especially apparent in the episode's flashbacks and the moral implications hinted from those sequences. Since the second half of the series' Season Four began, there have been rumors and hints on the Internet that two of the series' leads - Snow White aka Mary-Margaret Blanchard and Prince Charming aka David Nolan - may have done something questionable or even terrible in their past in the Enchanted Forest. The first hint appeared in the episode, (4.12) "Darkness on the Edge of Town", when the couple had protested against allowing villainesses Ursula the Sea Witch and Cruella DeVille to enter their Maine community, Storyrbooke. Later in the episode, both Snow and Charming warned the villainous pair not to say a word about their past to anyone, especially their daughter Emma Swan.The episode, (4.13) "Unforgiven" gave further hints of the royal pair's ominous deed. The Storybrooke sequences featured Snow and Charming's failed efforts to prevent Ursula and Cruella (with Rumpelstiltskin's help) from resurrecting their former comrade, Maleficent. The latter had been trapped in dragon form by Regina Mills aka the Evil Queen in a cavern underneath Storybrooke during those 28 years of the first curse, until Emma killed her in the Season One episode, (1.22) "A Land Without Magic". But the flashbacks for "Unforgiven" revealed that the Charmings had briefly formed an alliance with Maleficent, Ursula and Cruella to find a way to prevent Regina from casting the first curse. The alliance fell apart after Maleficent killed a pair of guards who blocked their way to a magical tree that could give them advice. Snow and Charming eventually learned - ironically from Maleficent - that the former was pregnant with Emma. They also learned that their unborn child would not only have the potential for good, but also for great evil. To anyone with common sense, this would be an apt description of any sentient being. Yet, the idea of their future child - who became dubbed as "the Savior" - possessing a potential for evil frightened the Charmings . . . especially Snow White.So, what actually happened between the Charmings and the "Queens of Darkness" in the Enchanted Forest? "Best Laid Plans"provided the answer. The episode revealed that the royal couple had stopped to help a roadside peddler, who warned them that Maleficent had torched a village after becoming a dragon and laying an egg. He also advised them to seek advice from a "man in a cottage". The latter turned out to be the Sorcerer's Apprentice, the same elderly man who had directed Queen Ingrid aka the Snow Queen to our world and whom Rumpelstiltskin (with Hook's reluctant help) had entrapped inside the Sorcerer's Hat. It was the Apprentice who told the Charmings that their child would grow up with the potential for both good and evil . . . like everyone else. He also added that if they wanted to ensure Emma would remain good, they would have to find another sentient being to serve as a vessel to absorb their unborn child's potential for evil. In the end, the Charmings kidnapped Maleficent's egg, which carried an unborn child to use as a vessel for Emma's inner evil. And the Apprentice, who cast a spell that sent Emma's inner evil into Maleficent's unborn child, took the royal pair by surprise by declaring that such evil should not reside in the Enchanted Forest. He sent Maleficent's child to "the Land Without Magic", sucking Ursula and Cruella into the portal, as well.The reaction to the Charmings' actions in the Enchanted Forest and their subsequent lies in present-day Storybrooke proved to be very emotional and mixed within the "ONCE UPON A TIME" fandom. Many fans accepted what the Charmings did and recognized what they had done was wrong. However, other fan reactions to the Charmings' actions and "Best Laid Plans" has been . . . well, interesting. Some fans have accused show runners Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis of retconning Snow White and Charming's characterizations . . . and bad writing altogether. Others have made excuses for the Charmings, claiming they could understand the couple's need to save Emma from a life of evil. Others have used the peddler, who turned out to be the Author that many have been seeking, as an excuse for the Charmings' terrible act. The episode revealed that instead of recording the going-ons in the Enchanted Forest, the peddler had been occasionally manipulating the actions of the inhabitants to "make a better story". And since the episode revealed that the peddler/Author had manipulated the Apprentice into sending Maleficent's unborn child to "the Land Without Magic", he must have manipulated the Charmings into kidnapping the child in the first place. Ironically, the charges of bad writing and excuses reminded me of the reactions to Snow's murder of Cora Mills aka the Queen of Hearts in Season Two's (2.16) "The Miller's Daughter". For some reason, a certain portion of the series' fandom find it difficult to accept any signs of moral ambiguity from either Snow White, Prince Charming or their daughter, Emma Swan. And there are those fans who have raked the Charmings over hot coals for their deed. I get the feeling these particular fans are angry at the couple (or at Horowitz and Kitsis) for shattering their ideal image of innate goodness.Personally, I had sighed with relief over the revelation of the Charmings' past misdeed. No one was more happier than me when Snow and David proved how low they could sink. Some might view my comment as crowing over the couple's downfall. Trust me, I am not. I am happy that Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis has finally resumed portraying the couple's moral ambiguity after . . . how many seasons? I believe the last time audiences really saw any signs of questionable morality from either Snow or David was in Season Two's (2.16) "The Miller's Daughter", when Snow murdered Cora Mills aka the Queen of Hearts by cursing the latter's heart and emotionally manipulating Regina into placing that heart back into Cora's body. Many fans - to this day - have used Cora's own moral compass and goal to become the new "Dark One" as an excuse for her murder. These same fans continue to claim that Snow's intent was to save Storybrooke from Cora's machinations. But Snow White's declared intent to murder Cora in revenge for her mother's death in (2.15) "The Queen Is Dead" makes it clear that Snow White's only intent was to exact revenge. There have been other signs throughout the series of Snow's moral ambiguity. Flashbacks revealed in episodes that she was a kind, yet spoiled and slightly bratty child. I have always wondered about her attempts to redeemed Regina on her own terms, instead of allowing the latter to make the choice to seek redemption, herself. Was this some effort on Snow White's part to regain the affection of the young woman who first saved her when they met? Or to be the "loving" stepmother and mother substitute she had assumed Regina was before King Leopold's death? Who knows. I also recalled Snow White's attempt to murder Regina in the flashbacks featured in Season One's (1.16) "Heart of Darkness". Many fans had attributed Snow's murderous intent to the potion given to her by Rumpelstiltskin, which stripped away her memories of Charming. Those fans seemed to forget that the potion merely erased her memories of Charming. It did not make her murderous. I suspect that the stress of being a fugitive, along with anger and resentment over Regina's part in Leopold's death had finally got the best of Snow and she decided to resolve her situation with an act of murder. Thankfully, Charming managed to stop her. And for quite some time, I have brought up Snow's action against Mulan in Season Two's (2.08) "Into the Darkness", in which she and Emma were trying to leave the Enchanted Forest and return home to Storybrooke. As many know, Mulan had snatched a magical compass that mother and daughter were planning to use to return home. But Mulan wanted to exchange the compass for Princess Aurora, who had been kidnapped by Cora. Snow and Emma managed to catch up in time, before the former engaged in a tussle with Mulan that led to an implausible victory for her. Angry over Mulan's theft, Snow demanded to know the reason behind it. Even though Mulan admitted that she stole the compass to save Aurora's life, Snow gave into her anger and tried to kill the former. Fortunately for Mulan, Aurora (who had been freed by Killian Jones aka Captain Hook) stopped Snow from committing murder. Emma, on the other hand, had done nothing to stop her mother. Wow. Snow managed to commit two murder attempts before finally achieving one, when she arranged Cora's death. Now, her body count is a far, far cry from the likes of Rumpelstiltskin, Regina, Cora, Zelena and other villains. But for someone with a reputation for innate goodness, her penchant for murder (whether successful or not) is at least worth contemplating.As for David, one of his major character flaws has always been his penchant for judging others with extreme prejudice. Not only has this trait been apparent in his attitude toward Regina - even when she finally managed to achieve some form of full redemption - but also toward others whom he would view as different. This is a trait that Snow White also shares. How else could someone explain the couple's willingness to use Maleficent's child as a vessel for Emma's inner evil? As far as they were concerned, the baby was nothing more than a replica of her mother - a personification of evil. Transferring Emma's inner evil to her would cause no harm . . . or so they would believe. David was also willing to destroy the book's page that contained the entrapped Author - an act that could have killed the latter and robbed anyone else of a future "happy ending". He wanted to destroy that page to hide his and Snow's theft of Maleficent's child from everyone . . . especially Emma. His willingness to destroy the page struck me as a stark example of his own personal cowardice that has manifested itself, time and again. In the Season Two episode, (2.02) "We Are Both", he told the citizens of Storybrooke that the cursed David Nolan who was too cowardly to be truthful about his adulterous affair with the cursed Mary Margaret Blanchard; and the heroic Prince Charming were one and the same. In Season Three's (3.14) "The Tower", he resorted to hiding from others for a few nips of booze in order to hide from his guilt over Emma's upbringing away from the family and a fear that he might prove to be an ineffective father to his son, Neal, with whom Snow was pregnant at the time. In "Unforgiven", Snow woke up in the middle of the night following a nightmare about Maleficent, and found David drinking on the staircase to hide his worries over Ursula and Cruella's arrival in Storybrooke. I am beginning to suspect that he might be a secret lush. Oh dear. And most addicts, if not all, tend to resort to this behavior because they are afraid to face the complete truth about themselves - especially their less than admirable traits. Charming has always struck me as the type willing to face external dangers like evil magic practitioners, dragons, a dangerous water temptress and his malevolent adopted father. Facing his flaws, personal mistakes and demons has always been a problem for him.Why is it so difficult for some fans to view the Charming family - Snow White, David, Emma and Henry - as morally ambiguous? I never understood this attitude. "ONCE UPON A TIME" is not a television series solely for children. If it was, ABC/Disney would have aired the show on Saturday mornings, instead of during the usual prime time hours. This is the same series in which other heroes and villains have been portrayed in an ambiguous light. Why should the Charmings be exempt from such ambiguity? Because they are among the show's main protagonists? Some would point out that Emma is a morally ambiguous character, due to her past as a thief and ex-convict. But Emma has committed some questionable acts since the series began - destruction of property, breaking and entering, accessory to her mother's attempt to kill Mulan in "Into the Deep", changing the timeline and lying to Henry. In fact, she is still driving the same yellow Volkswagen that she and Neal Cassidy (Baefire) had stolen when they first met. However, many fans tend to brush aside these acts - including the stolen Volkswagen. With the exception of her lies to Henry, which they saw as a threat to the Charming family's reunion, many fans were willing to brush aside Emma's questionable acts as long as she was not guilty of murder. Personally, I find this viewpoint rather hypocritical and an example of certain fans' insistence upon viewing protagonists like the Charmings as morally ideal.I personally do not care for morally ideal characters. I find them rather boring and unrealistic. I remember reading in a few Agatha Christie novels in which the main character - usually Miss Jane Marple - tend to express the view that just about anyone is capable of murder, given a specific situation. I agree with this assessment. I sometimes feel that human beings like to regard themselves as better than we really are. Perhaps this is why they love the idea of fictional characters - especially those dubbed "the protagonist" or "hero/heroine" - as being morally ideal. Mind you, this is merely an opinion of mine. I tend to find morally ambiguous characters more interesting. Such characters are very entertaining and really do make a story bridle with energy. Characters of one-dimensional morality do not. Even one-dimensional villains. Both Regina and Rumpelstiltskin had struck me as a pair of uninteresting villains in Season One, until episodes like (1.08) "Desperate Souls" and (1.18) "The Stable Boy" revealed just how ambiguous and interesting they truly were.After Season Two, both Snow White and Charming seemed in danger of becoming a pair of rather dull characters. Between(2.17) "Welcome to Storybrooke" (in which Snow tried to me avert the emotional impact of Cora's death) and "Darkness on the Edge of Town", they were not that interesting to me. Well . . . there was the (4.11) "Shattered Sight" episode, in which Queen Ingrid of Arendelle aka the Snow Queen's spell in which the couple exposed their . . . um, inner resentments and anger toward each other. But for me, that was not the same as deliberately indulging in or utilizing one's unpleasant traits. After all, they and other Storybrooke's citizens were under a spell. However, this story arc featuring Maleficent's stolen child is an entirely different matter. Yes, Snow and Charming's crime happened in the past. But they were not under a spell.But there is one potential problem. Earlier, I had revealed that in "Best Laid Plans", audiences learned the true identity of "the Author" - a peddler who had been commissioned by the Sorcerer and his apprentice to record the happenings in the Enchanted Forest and other "fictional" realms. After the Apprentice had sent Maleficent's child to "the Land Without Magic", he confronted the Author and accused the latter of manipulating him into banishing the unborn (or unhatched) child to our world. He also accused the Author of manipulating past events in the "fictional" realms. Certain fans jumped on this narrative turn-of-events and claimed that the Author had manipulated Snow and Charming into stealing Maleficent's child. Yes, it is possible that the royal pair had been manipulated by the Author. Then again, the Apprentice never accused the Author of that particular act. So, the audience will never learn the truth, until Horowitz and Kitsis decide to reveal it. If they reveal that the Charmings' act of kidnapping had been manipulated by the Author, then I will be sadly disappointed. But you know what? Even if the show runners decide to include that Snow and Charming had been manipulated into kidnapping Maleficent's child, the royal pair still managed to commit some morally questionable acts since the Apprentice had entrapped the Author in that book. And because both of them, along with other characters in "ONCE UPON A TIME", have shown they are capable of both decent and very questionable acts, I can never regard them as innately good. Frankly, I see that as a good thing. Because in my eyes, there is nothing more boring or damaging to a good story than a morally one-dimensional character.
"THE BOUNTY HUNTER" (2010) ReviewWhen I first saw the preview trailers for both ”THE BOUNTY HUNTER” and ”COP OUT” five years ago, I had naturally assumed I would prefer the action/romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my opinions of the two movie proved to be reversed. I am not claiming that ”COP OUT” was an exceptional action/comedy film. Trust me, it was not. But I consider it a piece of cinematic artistry in compare to the incoherent ”THE BOUNTY HUNTER”.To my knowledge, ”THE BOUNTY HUNTER” told the story of a New York journalist named Nicole Hurley, who jumped bailed and ignored a court summons over an altercation with a cop in order to pursue a promising story about a suicide that smelled suspiciously like a murder. Hot on the journalist’s trail is her ex-husband, a former cop-turned-bounty hunter named Milo Boyd. He had been given the assignment to find her and turn her over to the police. Once Milo found Nicole, the two were forced to contend with another former cop, who also happened to be a killer; and a pair of hired thugs who worked for a bookie to whom Milo owned money.Judging from the plot’s outline, one might assume that it was not that complicated. I wish I could say that the movie was not complicated. After all, there were aspects of it that I enjoyed. For instance, I enjoyed the bed-and-breakfast scene where Nicole and Milo a moonlight dinner on the hotel’s terrace. Not only did it featured first-rate acting by Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler, but also allowed their characters to reflect upon their error in getting a divorce. I also enjoyed the rather humorous scene in which the pair tracked down a golf caddy, who could provide information on the killer, to a country club. And Nicole and Milo’s encounter with the killer on the road back to New York City, was filled with both humor and good action. I must almost admit that director Andy Tennant did a solid job in pacing the film, despite the unnecessary plotlines in the script. One last thing . . . I enjoyed Oliver Bokelberg’s crisp and colorful photography of Manhattan, Atlantic City and other parts of New Jersey and New York State.As for the plot . . . what in the hell happened? What led screenwriter Sarah Thorp to take a straightforward plot and screw it up? What problem did I have with the story’s plot? Its execution made no sense whatsoever. I had no problems with the idea of a bounty hunter searching his bail jumping ex-wife. However, I had a problem with how Thorp handled the entire story. In the movie, it took Milo a few hours to track down Nicole from her Manhattan apartment, to her singer/mother at an Atlantic City hotel and finally to a racetrack. But once Milo caught up with Nicole, it took them two days to return to Manhattan. Why? Because Thorp had sidetracked the couple with some unnecessary adventures.One, Nicole and Milo stopped at an Atlantic City casino-hotel to gamble at the craps table. Milo had made a deal with Nicole that if she served as his good luck charmed and enabled him to win at least $5,000 (the money he was receiving for her capture), he would let her go. He ended up winning $8,000, she walked away, he eventually lost the money with more gambling and they ended up spending the night together at the casino-hotel. Their second day on the road included a close encounter with the killer (unmemorably portrayed by Peter Greene), a side trip to a country club to interrogate the golf caddy and an unnecessary stop at the very bed-and-breakfast where they had spent their honeymoon. Meanwhile, the movie also focused upon a pair of hired thugs for a female bookie portrayed by Oscar nominee Cathy Moriarty, to whom Milo owned money due to his gambling habit. A good deal of mistaken identity ensued when the thugs picked up Nicole’s newspaper colleague, whom one of them had mistaken for Milo. Finally, the movie ended with a showdown with the killer and Milo’s ex-partner. The entire sequence was nothing more than a vague, yet convoluted mess that left me feeling dissatisfied.Some critics have complained about a lack of screen chemistry between Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler. I would have to disagree with that opinion . . . somewhat. I must admit that the two stars had failed to produce any sparks in their first scene together. Fortunately, Aniston and Butler managed to create some kind of chemistry, as the movie progressed. But they did not have the kind of chemistry that Butler had with Katherine Heigel in ”THE UGLY TRUTH” or Aniston had with Vince Vaughn in ”THE BREAK UP”. In fact, Butler’s role seemed like a remake of his Mike Chadway character in ”THE UGLY TRUTH”. Whereas his Chadway character had managed to perfectly contrast with Heigel’s prissy character in the 2009 comedy, his Milo Boyd character failed to do the same with Aniston’s more sardonic and extroverted personality in ”THE BOUNTY HUNTER”. But the pair still managed to create some chemistry.Only a handful of the supporting cast actually impressed me. Dorian Missick did an excellent job of portraying the ambiguity of Detective Bobby Singer, the police detective who was Milo’s ex-partner, the couple’s close friend and of whom they suspected of being corrupt. Christine Baranski was charming and funny as Nicole’s mother, a nightclub singer at an Atlantic City casino. Siobhan Fallon was equally funny as the wife of the bail bondsman that Milo works for. Christian Borle gave a hilarious performance as the country club golf caddy who reluctantly gave Milo and Nicole the information they needed on the killer. I would have included Jason Sudeikis’ hilarious portrayal of Nicole’s wacky colleague and former one-night stand, Stewart. But once he got caught up in the useless bookie storyline, he became a nuisance and I eventually lost interest in him.In the end, I do not know if I could really recommend ”THE BOUNTY HUNTER”. A forgettable villain and numerous subplots that made the movie’s story convoluted prevented it from going anywhere. Pity. The movie could have been a first-rate comedy in the vein of 1988’s ”MIDNIGHT RUN”. Instead, it turned out to be a second-rate movie with too many flaws.
