Goldeneye (Martin Campbell, 1995)

Although it is excessively irreverent, Goldeneye contains the essential ingredients of a feel-good Bond film: Action-packed chase scenes, a bad guy with an evil plan, seductively secretive women, cool gizmos and a tenacious MI6 Agent we know all too well.

Goldeneye prospers once the plot picks up steam and is an enjoyable film overall, but it suffers from an incoherent intro, a so-so endgame, an unconvincing romance and a contrived nature. Yes, Mr. Bond has a bullet deflector, and yes, the film should merit a pardon for its lack of realism, which is normally accepted for any action-packed adventure.

But Goldeneye ultimately feels off-center, forced, routine, rushed and simple. It has a deeper story than what is permitted to be told, holding itself back and thus lacking the attractive complexity of other Bond films, yet sadly also the pizzazz we've come to expect.

Stardust (Matthew Vaughn, 2007)

I've never had a problem with being swept away into a magical land where the rules of real life cease to apply, a land bustling with unicorns, evil witches, dark magic and huge pirate airships. Each experience of this kind is usually the same adventure simply told in a slightly different way (and a good one), generally full of color, imagination and likeable characters.

Stardust, for the most part, lives up to the tradition of magical storytelling but also embraces the limitations that come along with it. A mostly predictable outcome that one can see coming from miles away, a greedy bunch of bad guys and very slight mystery. Most of the answers we get are obvious from the start, as is the straightforward and basic plot, but the adventure is still, again, for the most part, an enjoyable vacation from the real world.

The acting is sufficient, the pacing is up to par, with a rousing musical score and apparent humor, but the ambiguous world is barred further by a shoddy screenplay that falls apart. There isn't an outstanding quality inside of Stardust, and frankly it stops making sense, as do some of the characters. If it was meant to be a dreamy wonderland, clearly I'm left wondering why common sense stayed behind during some moments. This has been a sad fate for too many otherwise great films.

For what could've been a fascinating adventure of a dazzling alternate realm, Stardust fails to keep our eyes popping once our curiosity beckons us in for a taste of the appealing unknown. It is too confusing and hobbles itself, like a bad tour guide of this fantastical world.

I feel as though I was left at that doorstep, without a remarkable and rewarding sensation to take back home with me, left with naught but a copy of the novel to perhaps explain things better. Frankly, in the world of cinema, a film shouldn't have a fallback plan. Where is the solid translation of this story? Roger Ebert said it best: "There is a kind of narrative flow that makes you want to be swept along, and another that's just one thing after another." Major sequences should be efficient, or these filmmakers need to stop insulting our intelligence.

Baby Boy (John Singleton, 2001)

John Singleton chauffeurs us to 'the hood' for this sobering tale of responsibility, purpose and fear.

The portrait is led by Tyrese, who is shockingly good as a "baby boy", a 20-something momma's boy who still lives at home, gets girls pregnant on the weekends and generally does little if anything at all. Tyrese not only has the brawn for this film, but also a convincing range of emotions, as the "baby boy" cycles through insecurity and bravado. To think, I had only known him beforehand as the comedic relief from 2 Fast 2 Furious.

A talented ensemble of African-American performers fill out the handful of a cast that compliments the contained atmosphere of the film. Each one constructs a character that is colorful, flawed and unsure about their future or purpose in life, all of which is authentic within the confines of their urban prison. Taraji P. Henson is outstanding as the love interest, showing sweetness and goodness that imbues pity for her plight as a virtually single mother.

The only exception is Snoop Dogg's inclusion as a worthless thug. Not only is he given the obligatory yet vile role that is devoid of any positive qualities whatsoever, but Snoop Dogg also manages to inject his breezy star presence. The result is jarring and takes us out of the portrait once he comes on screen. Since it is a Singleton film about 'the hood', I'm not surprised to see Snoop Dogg, since Singleton once hoped to cast the entire group of NWA for Boyz n the Hood, which you might remember Ice Cube from, who clearly did better.

If you've seen Singleton's Boyz n the Hood, the atmosphere won't feel new to you, but it should become a pleasant and more cheerful reunion with Singleton's earnest and meticulous direction. There are clearly several elements that feed Singleton's underlying message. A higher power, divine intervention, 'ghetto' mentalities, the little engine that could and even the Oedipus complex show up as these people tussle with the silly nature of their lives, lives that honestly expect more from them. While these characters borderline on preposterous, it is merely a painful reminder of how troubled, foolish and hypocritical people can be in life. The bonds of friendship and love will take them places. Yes, they will stumble along the way but these inspiring unions are really all they have, unless they improve their lives.

While there will be a moment that makes you think you're watching Boyz n the Hood simply 'shot' through a different lens, fear not, for it is replaced by the smarter choice, albeit capricious and fanciful. The effect casts an uplifting and feel-good message for viewers who can be touched by this cleansing tale. Clearly, Singleton didn't want to rehash old stories and it pays off. Pacing and editing go by undetected in a good way (especially for a 2 hour film) and the figures in this portrait are so shamelessly likable that you can't stop looking at them and wish them the best, hoping they can break away from their repetitive shortcomings.

The Chamber (1996)

Sadly forgotten and talented Chris O'Donnell (Scent of a Woman) plays the obligatory curiously tenacious party in "The Chamber", penned by none other than John Grisham, whose convolution is ripe as ever in this trip down 'Intolerance Lane', a visit I found to be more charismatic and inviting than usual. Maybe it's the direction, the quick cuts from the camera, or maybe it just flows!

As a fan of the charming blue-eyed O'Donnell, I liked him more than say Tom Cruise in The Firm. It's a shame his career left the serious route, since he clearly does better with deeper roles. Gene Hackman convincingly melts into his own. Don't expect another riddle-speaking Hannibal Lecter here; Hackman is merely a irritable and unsatisfied Klansman.

His interaction with O'Donnell flows well and despite the Klansman's crude nature, Hackman's portrayal struck me as humorous, throughout his heated arguments with O'Donnell which refreshingly comes back onto screen before too long to keep the plot growing.

Given that its a Grisham story, something deeper always lies beneath and the can of worms is slowly revealed. Characters are realistic, exhibiting raw emotional reasoning rather than callousness for their actions, whose beliefs have simply become tough meat that is hard to chew and accept as reasonable.

Delightful scenery inside and away from the courthouse keeps the pace up to par while something wicked manifests itself waiting to rattle O'Donnell's poor unassuming lawyer, including a scene straight out of The Shawshank Redemption, set in the prison yard, in which Hackman's Klansman veers a wary eye to the watchtower.

It's a Grisham story; we know what is hiding up there. But… it's still worth looking at. There is a softness to this one, a nice change from the formulaic style.