This movie was pretentious and mediocre, at best. I liked the performances by Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Helen Mirren, and a decent job by Vanessa Ferlito (who I found difficult to enjoy when she appeared in season 3 of "24"). But the direction and cinematography were cloying and manipulative. There were all these hazy, diffused, slow-motion images of leaves falling and sun glinting and naked bodies rolling around in bed or on the ground. I think the director is one of many contemporary, pedestrian filmmakers whose only means of depicting emotion is a close-up of an actor emoting, and whose only means for showing intimacy between actors is a sex scene. Eventually, though, even though I admired Gooding's performance, I got tired of seeing the soft-focused, beefcake photography of his naked or semi-naked body.

And the writing fairly sucked, too. Not only was this yet another movie about an aging, dying assassin questioning his/her moral status and the existence of God, but the movie constantly brought up plot points and character conflicts that it, seemingly, had no interest in. What exactly is Gooding's relationship with Mirren? Who is the Gooding character? Is he anything other than a weird, incestuous, lover/son/boy-toy and business associate of Mirren's? There were other points that needed exploring as well, but the movie seemed to have no problem forgetting them, so I've already forgotten them as well. And there were other things, too, like elements of the story that were purely for the sake of narrative convenience. Like the entire character played by Stephen Dorff. I keep looking forward to the day when we get fed-up with movies that must establish early on that their villains are irredeemably evil sadists who deserve any horrible fate that awaits them in the final reel. But Daniels apparently doesn't think we've gotten to that point, yet. Another unexplained narrative convenience is the 5-6 years that pass in an instant so that the child in the movie is suddenly about 7-8 years old. I think the only reason for this is so that the kid is old enough to use a gun well enough to emerge as the filius ex machina at the end of the movie. Meanwhile, every other character, conflict, and relationship in the movie is in suspended animation while the kid gets old enough to be the budding little button man that he eventually becomes.

I guess that's one of my gripes. I think this could have been a better movie (still derivative, but stronger) if it had allowed Gooding's character to be the main character in the movie. But instead of revealing his character, all Daniels managed to do was to reveal was his stony face, rock-hard biceps, and trim buttocks. I didn't get anything close to a satisfying glimpse of what made him who he was, other than the clichéd childhood traumas concerning his hit-man father. But even if that was the anchor issue in his life, the movie doesn't reveal Gooding working through it or even the extent to which it matters to him. Apparently, the movie thinks this pop-psych backstory is important, since the movie ends with Gooding's life echoing in that of surrogate son, but since I never quite know what Gooding's childhood meant to him, I don't really care about what it might mean to the monstrous little Anthony who has magically learned to kill and be fine with it.

My sense is that in this film's rush to be important, it missed every opportunity to be "important" (whatever that means) as well as the chance just to be entertaining. It could have focused fruitfully on either Mirren's character or Gooding's, but instead it flitted from Mirren to Dorff to Gooding to the doctor and Mo'Nique, etc. I'm curious to see what happens when this movie gets out into the world (apparently in June). I can't imagine it being a wide release, but in the art house circuit it will compare very unfavorably to movies that are better directed and better written.

Movie has its flaws like the blonde wig that lasts for years and then disappears without comment but I have to admit that generally the movie was well crafted. It moves at a clip that supports its gory and odd characters. Some of the pairings are fabulous .. are there really people walking among us that are like that? I prefer to believe they only exist in screenwriters minds. Mirren is her usual superb self and Gooding shows he really can act. The question is were they in love or was he simply controlled by her. I did not look forward to a nude scene with a woman her age but it was handled extremely well. Also the music choices were excellent. I haven't seen any comments about that aspect of the film.

Okay, this isn't a review but I couldn't put this under goofs...and it's been bugging me.

In the scene where Clayton's lawyer (?) is in a hallway arguing with a woman wanting money, she says, "Define 'soon,'" and the lawyer says it's a noun. That is grammatically incorrect. "Soon," is an adverb. Phew. Glad I finally got that off my chest.

Oh, and I felt the movie was mediocre at best. Even the great Helen Mirren couldn't save it.