It’s difficult not to appreciate the contemporary significance of the new film Coriolanus.

The story follows a brilliant military leader who — upon returning to Rome after a valiant fight — is cast out of the city. Perhaps the title character doesn’t have the personality of a politician. But he has the integrity of a hero, more about
and that should count for something. Shouldn’t it?

As the story begins, Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes) is a hero to the people of Rome with enough scars on his body to show his willingness to fight for his country. He’s a stoic military man, but he doesn’t feel the need to prove his allegiances to the general public.

After his military service, his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) urges him to run for Consul — a high political office — and Coriolanus accepts. He’s a soldier first but a devoted patriot always. Until he faces the scorn of his fellow citizens.

Coriolanus doesn’t realize that military service and patriotism aren’t enough to earn him elected office. It isn’t enough for the voters that he has military wounds all over his body. He is asked to show them off repeatedly as if the deepness of a man’s scars indicates how much he loves his country.

Based on William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, this story features complicated and thought-provoking characters. Coriolanus is a hero, but his belligerence towards the public is one of his greatest political weaknesses. At times, he connects with them and wins them over. But that changes when his political adversaries undermine his honor and question his patriotism. It isn’t only once that he is labeled a traitor when he runs for office.

The betrayal of his fellow countrymen ultimately leads the title character out of the city, and he eventually befriends a former adversary (Gerard Butler) and pledges to seek vengeance on the city of Rome—a city that used him up and threw him away like a piece of meat.

I am disposed to admit that the main character is a controversial one. While some may appreciate his service to his nation, others will unavoidably question the patriotism of a man who ultimately turns against his own country. Such arguments are vital to this story’s existence. In this work—as in many other Shakespeare pieces—heroes and villains are ill-defined. Who looks back at “Romeo and Juliet” and argues about who was right: the Montagues or the Capulets? Instead, we focus on the battles themselves and how they affected the characters drawn into them.

In his directorial debut, Fiennes takes a strong story and brings out its potential creating with a strong script and solid performances. Noteworthy in particular are Fiennes and Redgrave, a woman who seems to be speaking to the audience itself when she seeks to compel her son to change alliances.

This is one film where when you arrive at the final act, you wonder to yourself if this was all worth it. How did one misstep lead to a second one and a third one and an avalanche of consequences that give this story its tragic shape? Perhaps the conclusion is inevitable. But perhaps it wasn’t.

“He who deserves greatness deserves your hate,” Coriolanus states, but the film itself deserves your applause and appreciation.
It’s difficult not to appreciate the contemporary significance of the new film Coriolanus.

The story follows a brilliant military leader who — upon returning to Rome after a valiant fight — is cast out of the city. Perhaps the title character doesn’t have the personality of a politician. But he has the integrity of a hero, buy
and that should count for something. Shouldn’t it?

As the story begins, store
Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes) is a hero to the people of Rome with enough scars on his body to show his willingness to fight for his country. He’s a stoic military man, information pills
but he doesn’t feel the need to prove his allegiances to the general public.

After his military service, his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) urges him to run for Consul — a high political office — and Coriolanus accepts. He’s a soldier first but a devoted patriot always. Until he faces the scorn of his fellow citizens.

Coriolanus doesn’t realize that military service and patriotism aren’t enough to earn him elected office. It isn’t enough for the voters that he has military wounds all over his body. He is asked to show them off repeatedly as if the deepness of a man’s scars indicates how much he loves his country.

Based on William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, this story features complicated and thought-provoking characters. Coriolanus is a hero, but his belligerence towards the public is one of his greatest political weaknesses. At times, he connects with them and wins them over. But that changes when his political adversaries undermine his honor and question his patriotism. It isn’t only once that he is labeled a traitor when he runs for office.

The betrayal of his fellow countrymen ultimately leads the title character out of the city, and he eventually befriends a former adversary (Gerard Butler) and pledges to seek vengeance on the city of Rome—a city that used him up and threw him away like a piece of meat.

I am disposed to admit that the main character is a controversial one. While some may appreciate his service to his nation, others will unavoidably question the patriotism of a man who ultimately turns against his own country. Such arguments are vital to this story’s existence. In this work—as in many other Shakespeare pieces—heroes and villains are ill-defined. Who looks back at “Romeo and Juliet” and argues about who was right: the Montagues or the Capulets? Instead, we focus on the battles themselves and how they affected the characters drawn into them.

In his directorial debut, Fiennes takes a strong story and brings out its potential creating with a strong script and solid performances. Noteworthy in particular are Fiennes and Redgrave, a woman who seems to be speaking to the audience itself when she seeks to compel her son to change alliances.

This is one film where when you arrive at the final act, you wonder to yourself if this was all worth it. How did one misstep lead to a second one and a third one and an avalanche of consequences that give this story its tragic shape? Perhaps the conclusion is inevitable. But perhaps it wasn’t.

“He who deserves greatness deserves your hate,” Coriolanus states, but the film itself deserves your applause and appreciation.
Both Coriolanus and This Means War arrive in theaters this weekend. The former is actually about war. The latter doesn’t involve battle sequences but a rivalry between two men of action. The word “War” sounds better on a movie marquee, buy
so a fight between two friends for the love of a woman is amplified to attract more ticket buyers.

War’s key relationship is the bromance between CIA agents FDR Foster (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy). Foster is the irresponsible one–a bachelor prone to one-night stands and lousy pick-up lines. Tuck is the sensitive soul – a divorced father who longs for his one true love and feels no need to settle.

In his quest for female companionship, ask
Tuck sets up a profile on a dating website where he encounters a woman named Lauren (Reese Witherspoon). Of course, neither of these good-looking individuals would need to visit such a site in real life, but this story requires you to suspend disbelief throughout its 98-minute running time.

A date between these two lonely hearts goes remarkably well, but Lauren decides to end it quickly so she can visit the video store– continue to suspend disbelief here– where she meets FDR. Pine’s character was waiting there in case he needed to rescue Tuck from a bad date.

Soon enough, both men are dating the same woman- a coincidence that becomes apparent to them in one of those corny scenes where both men turn around their computers and reveal that—SURPRISE—Lauren’s been spending time with them both.

The gentlemen come up with an agreement where they both plan to date Lauren but hide the arrangement from her. Of course, these characters have never seen a movie where this plot device has ended badly so they naively agree to it.  They also decide against undercutting their competition—a rule that is quickly broken. By both of them. Repeatedly.

The story has fun with the ways that these men shortchange each other. A sleeping dart here. A surveillance camera there. And that’s where the story hits its stride. It’s fun watching each of these two charismatic charmers attempt to woo the object of their affection, despite the obstacles that have been placed in their path.

Of course, the story isn’t deep on any level. A subplot about the CIA trying to locate a known criminal feels tacked on, as if the writers needed to add something about what the CIA actually does.

But the three leads do enough to make this story worth watching. It’s a light-hearted, superficial film in the same way that the Tom Hanks/ Julia Roberts  film Larry Crowne was last year. Both of these films are driven by star power but are superficially satisfying and offer a few genuinely funny moments.

This Means War has its share of obvious weaknesses. Lame jokes that bog down the story. Coincidences that would never occur in real life. Chelsea Handler.

But the charm of its leads and a few funny moments combine to make this an enjoyable film. This Means War is a pleasant enough way to spend a Saturday afternoon.