(Long Island, N.Y.) You know, Spider-Man 3 was only released in 2007…the decision to reboot the series a mere FIVE YEARS (it feels shorter, I know) later seems a bit crass, even by Hollywood standards. I mean, director Sam Raimi did the famous wall-crawling crime fighter proud in his film adaptations of the classic comic book. Sure, the third movie was pretty bad, because there was just WAYYY too much going on; too many sub-plots, too many villains, too much everything. But honestly, the fact that Spider-Man 3 wasn’t a total train wreck is a testament to Raimi’s talents, as a lesser director couldn’t have possibly fashioned a coherent film out of that mess like he did. Still, the film had problems, but Spider-Man 1 and 2 were good enough that I was willing to give Raimi a pass for the somewhat dire third entry in the series.

And yes, I remember giving Spider-Man 3 a good review back in the day. I still enjoy aspects of it (Venom!), but there’s this little thing called hindsight. Oh, and free will, too. Even film critics have it….yes, we’re allowed to change our minds, just like regular folk.

So, Raimi ran into problems with film franchise rights owner Sony on Spider-Man 4 and basically split that scene, and instead of just hiring a new writer/director, Sony just decided to chuck everything and start over. This news hit me in two ways…one, there were aspects of the character I felt Raimi nailed, but aspects I also felt he neglected to carry over from the pages of the funnybook. But, on the other hand…I have to sit through ANOTHER origin tale? Ugh.

Well, after much speculation, Sony announced their director for the Spidey reboot: Marc Webb (perfect name for a Spider-Man director, huh?), who’s pretty well-known for a film called (500) Days of Summer. However, I’ve never seen this movie, nor can I explain why the number 500 has parenthesis around it (that’s actually part of the title), but it was well-received by the people who actually did see it, so, despite the fact that it was 1Z1-219 some kind of little indy-style romantic comedy and not a superhero movie, I tried to keep an open mind.

Well, the reboot is here, and it’s titled The Amazing Spider-Man, and it’s actually pretty good. Not AMAZING, like the title would have you believe, but it’s a fun movie that takes the series in a different direction, stylistically speaking, and serves as a great springboard for a new franchise, as long as they can tighten a few things up. Let’s look into what makes this flick tick, shall we?

I’ll give you the short version of the origin of Spider-Man, since between Raimi’s movies and this one, and the comics, and the cartoons, pretty much everyone that even has a remote interest in watching this knows the drill: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield replacing Tobey Maguire), nerdy high-schooler who lost his parents at an early age and who lives with his Aunt and Uncle, is bitten by a radioactive spider and given (ta-daa!) spider-like powers; he has super-strength, a precognitive sixth-sense what warns him of danger, and can easily walk on walls. As a result, the genius-level Peter ends up creating a costume and mechanical devices that enable him to produce webbing like an actual spider, dubs himself (guess what?) Spider-Man, and starts battling crime after he learns an important yet tragic lesson- with great power, comes great responsibility.

But while establishing a reputation as a vigilante, ol’ Web-Head runs afoul of first the NYPD, and later a deadly threat to the entire city…a monstrous reptilian creature called The Lizard. Oh, and he has to deal with family problems, abandonment issues, and even budding first love. Yeah…Pete’s life is a tad complicated.

So…what does the Spider-Man reboot get right? Well, Marc Webb made the right choice by incorporating aspects of Spidey into the movie that previous director Raimi left out. For example, Raimi had given Peter natural, organic web shooters, whereas in the comics he relied on wrist-mounted web-shooters that he invented himself (apparently Raimi didn’t think mechanical webs would be realistic…um, okay). Webb, meanwhile, went with the old-school artificial web devices, and this alone gives this version of Spider-Man a different flavor. Besides, there are some fun scenes where Peter’s experiments go awry until he perfects his invention.

Another thing Marc Webb nails that Raimi didn’t was…well, Spider-Man talks now. Not that he didn’t before, but in the comics, Spider-Man basically doesn’t shut up; he’s always cracking jokes, being a wise-guy, and basically driving everyone around him crazy. Andrew Garfield does this to perfection in the reboot; Tobey Maguire was a mute in comparison. Personally, I like talkative Spidey. Overall, in fact, I like Marc Webb’s Spider-Man a bit more than Raimi’s…he just has more personality.

Plus, the movie itself is just fun. Yes, it treads over very, VERY familiar ground at points, but it tries to do little things differently, and giving Spidey an actually super-powered monster to fight instead of just another dude in a costume really allows the filmmakers to cut loose with the fight scenes, which are done very well. In some ways I feel Raimi’s fight scenes, especially in Spider-Man 2, were a bit more imaginative, but Webb’s felt more true to how the fights played out in the comics. It’s hard to compare the two.

The acting’s a mixed bag. As Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield is awesome. As Peter Parker, I found myself missing Tobey Maguire, who excelled at playing a clueless yet endearing geek. Garfield? A bit too Emo and angst-filled for my tastes. Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, Peter’s love interest, and frankly, she was wonderful, and her chemistry with Garfield felt very real and charming. Garfield may have been mixed on his own, but when paired with Stone, the two really clicked, more so than I felt Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did in the original series (they weren’t bad, however).

Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Curt Connors, a scientist whose experiments regarding re-growing his missing arm end up turning him into a giant iguana that threatens NYC, and this character represents a hold-over from Raimi’s films…tragic villains with a sympathetic edge. I enjoyed the character. Martin Sheen and Sally Field play Peter’s aunt and uncle. They’re good, too.

What’s wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man? Well, overall, it’s got a similar problem to Spider-Man 3…too much going on that distracts from the meat of the story. There’s this sub-plot about Peter’s parents and, outside female-marketed moisturized receiving couldn’t. There’s other filler as well, including a plot about an evil corporation, blah, blah, blah. There are also little changes to Peter’s origin that are a tad silly and some of the performances suffer when compared to their forbearers in Raimi’s films.

So, it’s a matter of give and take when comparing Marc Webb and Sam Raimi’s films, each director has their strengths and weaknesses, and their films play to them. If I had to rank The Amazing Spider-Man, I’d say it’s A LOT better than Spider-Man 3, a little better than Spider-Man 1, but NOT as good as Spider-Man 2, which was amazing. And no J.K. Simmons as J. Johan Jameson takes points off as well. If you want a good review from me, put J.K. Simmons in your movie. It’s as simple as that.

Oh, yeah, the special effects and action scenes. Gotta mention those. I’ll just say that the effects remind us how poorly some of the CG in Raimi’s movies have aged and leave it at that. Suffice it to say, The Amazing Spider-Man looks every cent its $220,000,000 budget. The action scenes are solid, sometimes even fantastic, but sometimes they fall a tad flat. They’re blockbuster quality at times, made-for-TV-movie quality at others (this is an area where Raimi’s films succeeded a bit more). I will say that I got a kick out of the fact that Spidey had to adjust to his powers and ended up being a bit of a klutz at first, which was a nice touch.

So, while it’s still hard to believe that a super-successful franchise is being re-booted too soon, once you get past that shock, you’ll find that The Amazing Spider-Man is a great film in its own right, warts and all. How great this new franchise will be remains to be seen, however, but it’s off to a solid start.

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s funny…everyone is waiting for Pixar to finally lay an egg, fire off a dud, hit a foul ball, and they never do it. It’s like people WANT them to fail, and it’s gotten to the point these days that if Pixar releases a film that might be anywhere from, say, anywhere from one to seven percent removed from the greatness of their all time classics (such as Toy Story or WALL-E), everyone is suddenly saying Pixar is going down the tubes, even though said film is still most likely better than 99 percent of the movies released that year. Hell, that decade. “Oh, gee, Brave only made $66 million in its opening weekend! Pixar’s going down!”

ONLY made $66 million. That’s insanity. People love to hate success, even when said success is deserved.

Anyway, yes, today’s review is Brave, the latest effort from Pixar Animation Studios, the only decent creative arm of Walt Disney these days. It’s a bit of a departure for Pixar in the sense that it’s their first film featuring a female protagonist. It’s also unique in the Pixar lexicon in the sense that it features an almost all-human cast, as opposed to toys or robots or monsters or insects (although there ARE a few cute animals co-starring…The Incredibles is really their only Pixar film with just human characters…I think?).

Anyway, Brave is an adventure film set in 10th century Scotland, involving a princess named Merida (Kelly Macdonald), who is set to wed an eligible bachelor (exactly whom is to be decided via an archery contest). However, Merida, a fiery redhead (aren’t they all?), would much rather wander the countryside adventuring, bow in hand, than live in a castle with some stranger she calls a husband. Wanting to be master (mistress?) of her own destiny, she comes into conflict with her mother, the strict Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), who insists that she carry on with their tradition.

When Merida herself competes in the archery contest to decide her hand in marriage in an attempt to free herself of the obligation of marrying into one of the allied clans of her father, King Fergus (Billy Connolly), her mom pretty pissed, and after winning the contest, Merida runs off into the forest, where she encounters a witch who offers to help her in her family situation…with a bit of magic.

However, as usual, we discover that all witches are evil, and when they offer to help, they really have ulterior motives, and Merida spends the rest of the movie trying to fix the havoc wrought by the witch’s spell (I won’t tell you what she did, but let’s just assume it’s not a NICE spell she cast, okay?). Along the way, lessons are learned on family, love, and acceptance, and all that heartwarming stuff that Pixar does so well.

Even when they’re not 100 percent on their game, Pixar still delivers the goods. They excel at crafting very human, very poignant, very emotional tales that entertain, involve, and make you laugh, while filling them with characters you actually care about, which nine out of ten films fail miserably to do these days. Apparently, it’s a lost art to make a movie that audiences will remember for months or years after they walk out of the theater, as opposed to something they’ll forget five minutes after the projector stops rolling (or whatever it is that digital projectors do these days, since I doubt they roll when there’s no film involved in digital…ah, forget it).

Brave isn’t perfect…the cast isn’t quite as endearing as some of Pixar’s past successes, and the plot could have been fleshed out a bit more (in the second half of the movie things kinda get a little bland and inconsequential), but as it is, it’s still a fine piece of entertainment. Don’t worry…you’ll have fun.

And this is Pixar we’re talking about here, so of course the visuals are doing pretty much everything that they can to get your attention away from the plot and characters. As far as the graphics and animation go, this is Pixar’s finest work yet…watching Merida’s crazy, curly red mane bob every which way for 90 minutes or so worth the price of admission alone. Wow, remember the early days of CG when the characters had this big, molded, single piece of plastic hair that didn’t move? We’ve come a long way.

And yes, John Ratzenberger, the man Pixar calls their “lucky charm,” shows up in his usual bit part, keeping his Pixar streak alive. Go John!

So, Brave is good…very good, in fact, but not perfect…I mean, it’s no WALL-E, but it nonetheless represents yet another triumph for Pixar. Kid or adult, you will enjoy it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Hey…on the lookout for a movie without any story whatsoever? Then you’ve found it! Well, okay…I’m exaggerating a tad. Snow White and the Huntsman DOES have a story. Well, barely. After all, it’s based on the beloved children’s fable compiled by the Brothers Grimm, but only in the basest sense.

Honestly, the damn fairy tale had a deeper, more nuanced storyline than this heap of garbage. Granted, it didn’t have the film’s millions and millions of dollars of ridiculous computer graphics, but it was a book; all the good stuff happens in your head when you read one of those, and it’s usually better than what some marketing clown at a major Hollywood studio comes up with.

It’s funny…considering that Snow White and the Huntsman starring mopey Twilight gal Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, and Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth, has no real story, I was considering just leaving a great big, blank area of my review dedicated to describing the plot. You know, to get across the idea that…well, this movie has no story. But, since that course of action probably won’t get me paid, I’ll forgo that idea and just tell you what the movie’s all about, okay?

Here goes: Snow White’s (Stewart) father marries Ravenna (Theron) who then kills him and seals Snow White up in a tower because she’s “fairer” then she is (whatever that means). Snow White escapes and Ravenna sends Thor (Hemsworth) after her because she holds the key to ending her power over the land. Oh, yeah, Ravenna uses magic to stay young and beautiful.

Um…that’s pretty much it. And that was the LONG version of the plot. I think I covered pretty much everything. And what that translates into when taken as a cinematic experience are short, pretty, computer-assisted action scenes separated by long, boring stretches where nothing matters because there’s no story, no character development, no nothing going on. This honestly might be the most vapid film I’ve ever seen.

Oh, and apparently little people are up in arms because the movie uses a weird special effect where they digitally graft well-known actor’s faces onto the bodies of dwarves for these characters who are supposed to be gnomes or something. Honestly, the effect is seamless and somewhat amazing, yet I found it to be somewhat disturbing once I actually realized what was going on. Before that point, I was just going,” Hey! That dude looks like the guy from Shawn of the Dead!” Turns out it WAS him after all.

The main thing this movie has going for it is Charlize Theron. Ravenna is very under-developed as a character, like everyone in this damn movie is, but Theron does as much with the role as she possibly can. In addition to being striking-looking in terms of costume and make up design, Theron just OOZES sensual evil. It’s a nice piece of work.

Another plus is the beautiful design work put into the world of Snow White and the Huntsman. From sprawling, dense, dead forests to mythical fairy kingdoms, the creativity in the environments is pretty impressive, as are the video-game graphics used to bring them to life.

Chris Hemsworth does a solid job of reprising his role of Thor…he’s charming and all, but doesn’t exactly dazzle. But the real weakness of Snow White and the Huntsman is Kristen Stewart. Well, not her, so much as her character, and how much she basically sucks.

The movie (and even some reviewers!) has been touting itself as “feminist” and “empowering for women” and the character of Snow White as a “warrior princess.” To those ideas, I send a hearty LOL. Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character from the Alien series…now THAT’S a symbol of bad-ass female empowerment. Stick-figure Kristen Stewart fumbling through the forest, waiting for her two hunky love interests to stop fighting over her and come and rescue her (gee, sounds like Twilight all over again, huh), only to finally don armor and wield a sword in the movie’s last five minutes after receiving no training and do…well, really nothing actually. She’s as weak, helpless, and pathetic in this movie as she was as Bella Swan in Twilight, although I will admit that her acting is at least marginally better here.

So, Snow White and the Huntsman is pretty, vapid, and ultimately pointless and a total bore. Skip it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I went into Chernobyl Diaries expecting garbage. Maybe fun garbage, but garbage nonetheless. What I got, surprisingly, was an atmospheric horror movie in a unique setting that does a nice job of building a mounting sense of dread. It’s nothing groundbreaking and it certainly won’t be remembered as a classic, but if you’ve been steering clear of Chernobyl Diaries and consider yourself a fan of horror flicks, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

On paper, the set-up is as generic as they come; Chris (Jesse McCartney), his girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), and their friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) are traveling across Europe and, while stopping over in Kiev, Ukraine to visit Chris’ brother, Paul (Jonathan Sadowski), decide to go on a guided tour of Prypiat, an abandoned town right next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. You remember Chernobyl, right? The worst nuclear power plant accident in history?

Anyway, back in 1986, an explosion spewed loads of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, and everyone in Prypiat, where all the workers lived, got the hell out ASAP. The town has remained completely deserted for over 25 years, and to those who dig those sorts of things, like our film’s protagonists, it makes a nice underground tourist attraction.

With their guide Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko) driving them there in his crapped-out minivan, our gang goes to check out the radioactive ruin of a town. As for the dangers posed by contamination, they’re assured that getting the equivalent of non-stop chest x-rays for a few hours won’t hurt them, which, of course, they believe. Stopped at a checkpoint by Ukranian military, Uri instead finds a “secret” path through the woods to get into the city, and soon they’re walking through creepy empty buildings and having a grand old time.

Until, naturally, it’s time to leave and they discover that (SURPRISE) the engine won’t start because (SURPRISE X2) someone ripped out the cables from the distributor…thing. I think? I know nothing about automobiles, but suffice it to say, the van’s been sabotaged by unknown individuals, and they’re stuck for the night.

While stranded, our gang is attacked, first by mutated wild dogs, and then…by something else. Soon, the group is whittled down one by one and it becomes a question of what will get them first- the cannibalistic mutant creatures inhabiting Prypiat, or the deadly levels of radiation?

Again, when discussing the plot of Chernobyl Diaries, it sounds like a billion other horror movies (someone count…have there actually BEEN a billion horror movies made, or am I guilty of hyperbole?). But, in its execution, it’s the little things that set it apart. It flows at an excellent pace, slowly building up to the scary stuff gradually without throwing everything at you at once. I would almost say it has a slow pace throughout, but I think this works in Chernobyl Diaries’ favor, as it helps to highlight its second strength: the setting.

Chernobyl Diaries appears to have been shot 100% on-location, and somehow the filmmakers found a very convincing Soviet-era town and industrial area that was appropriately dilapidated to shoot in. Everywhere you look, you see dust and decay. It also helped that these environments were lit with very natural-looking light, especially in the night scenes; too many horror movies go for an overly-lit, “studio” look where you can see everything, but in Chernobyl Diaries, it’s the moonlight, and character’s flashlights, and that’s it. Very effective, as is the fact that you never really get a good look at the creatures in this movie, leaving their true, horrifying nature up to the viewer. It’s very Silent Hill-like in that respect.

All this, plus some very solid acting from the cast, add up to a dreadful atmosphere where you really feel like the characters are alone; isolated in an alien landscape and surrounded by the unknown. Yes, the characters do some really dumb crap at points, but I never said the movie was perfect. Chernobyl Diaries was written and produced by Mr. Paranormal Activity himself, Oren Peli, and his knack for coming up with a story that puts a twist on a well-worn horror archetype certainly still seems to still be working.

So, overall, Chernobyl Diaries is a very decent horror offering, and if the genre at all appeals to you, I highly recommend you check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Men in Black III is a better film than Men in Black II. Of course, I could have handed a monkey a camera and he could have produced a better film than Men in Black II, so it goes without saying that any attempt at filming a third installment in the franchise would be an improvement by default, unless the filmmakers were actually trying to make a worse film on purpose. And even then, it’d be an uphill battle for them.

I really don’t remember much about Men in Black II, honestly. I remember it being bad, of course, and I remember that Lara Flynn Boyle (no relation) was a fairly lame villain, and that Johnny Knoxville was her insanely annoying sidekick, and I remember the film just trying WAY too hard to live up the original and failing miserably. I also remember the rampant product placement everywhere, to the point where a PlayStation Dual Shock controller was used to pilot a flying car (Columbia Pictures distributes the MIB movies, and is owned by – you guessed it – Sony, the maker of the PlayStation). Other than that, I remember very little, other than the general bad taste I get in my mouth whenever I think of Men in Black II, which is rarely.

Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to be talking about Men in Black III, here. Sorry. So, Men in Black III is better than Men in Black II….wait I said that already. Let’s start over.

The Men in Black series started in 1997 and is based on some comic book that I’ve never heard of. The original movie was actually pretty great…the premise is that mankind has been clandestinely dealing with extraterrestrials for decades through a super-secret agency called the Men in Black, who monitor their comings and goings on Earth, acting as ambassadors and, when needed, law enforcement. In the original film, grumpy veteran MIB operative Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) recruits streetwise smartass Agent J (Will Smith) into the organization, and together the mismatched pair (is there ever any other kind in these movies?) save the planet from a giant monster cockroach. Men in Black 2 saw the duo back together again, but that movie just sucked, so can we FINALLY get to Men in Black 3, please?

Men in Black III involves a bad guy named Boris (Jemaine Clement), incarcerated and de-armed by Agent K 40 years prior, who escapes from a lunar penal colony with revenge on his mind. He travels back in time to murder K to change the present, ala The Terminator, and is successful. But for some reason, Agent J still remembers K despite now existing in a timeline where the two never met…of course, if the two never met, and K recruited J into MIB, how is J still an MIB agent? Wha…? All I know is that it has something to do with chocolate milk. Seriously.

Also, in this alternate timeline, K’s death in the past has resulted in an alien invasion in the present, so everything’s pretty much gone kaplooey. Naturally, it’s up to Agent J to set things right.

So, J travels back in time to stop K’s murder and, in doing so, runs into a 29 year-old K (played by Josh Brolin), who is just as brusque in his youth although not nearly as curmudgeonly, which gives J insight into his partner that he never had before, allowing the two to finally bond (well, sort of). The two agents team-up against the duo of past and future Boris, with the future of the planet (not to mention K’s future, or lack thereof) hanging in the balance.

Men in Black III was fun. It didn’t try too hard, unlike the previous movie. It had a fun, emotional dynamic that, honestly, not even the first movie had. I’m not saying it’s a better film than the original…it’s not. But none of the MIB movies really dealt with J and K’s relationship and the feelings behind it to this degree, which is something the series needed by this point. The slapstick and wiseass comedy was toned down, which I also found to be welcome, because Will Smith playing Will Smith for the billionth time would have been just too much. Smith still plays J as an obnoxious loudmouth, don’t get me wrong, but his performance is tempered with maturity and experience now, as if Smith realized that, after 15 years as an MIB agent, J wouldn’t still be acting like a total buffoon.

Tommy Lee Jones is Tommy Lee Jones, playing K as his usual crusty, cranky old guy character. He really isn’t in the movie that much, because he gets murdered early on, but when he’s around, you get what you expect. But the scene-stealer here is Josh Brolin as Jones’ younger counterpart. Thankfully, MIB3 doesn’t just rely on the gimmick that Brolin can do a dead-on Jones impersonation strictly for laughs…instead, Brolin takes the part and makes it his own, injecting K with a bit of warmth and humanity. Honestly, if they make a MIB4, I’d be okay with them finding a way to replace Jones with Brolin.

And oh, yes…Boris. Possibly the best villain of the series, Jemaine Clement plays Boris (don’t call him Boris the Animal) both as well-spoken and articulate (with a smooth British accent), and yet bad-ass and horrifying at the same time. Also noteworthy is his character design…while basically humanoid, Boris is eventually revealed as a hideous mass assembly of appendages; a brilliant idea that harkens back to the design of Stan Winston’s Predator in terms of sheer originality. MIB creature designer Ken Baker is truly a master of his craft.

Of course, MIB3 isn’t perfect…several aspects contribute to it falling short of the fantastic original film. First off are some of the inconsistencies when it comes to the changes to the time stream and their affects on J, which I already covered. Next is this odd sub-plot where modern K is even more grumpy and cranky than usual (bordering on outright depression, actually), which is attributed to some unexplained event in his past that is supposed to have been really, really horrible. Eventually, this event is revealed, and while it’s not pleasant, it’s certainly nothing that would forevermore disfigure your personality the way it happened to K. And without spoiling anything, this event also changes some of the dynamics of the first movie…in a negative way, in my opinion.

But, overall, Men in Black III is fun, funny, and a fairly original and creative take on the whole MIB premise. That said, I think they’ve milked the series for pretty much everything that they can by this point…when a franchise has to resort to the whole time travel MacGuffin, you know it’s just about run out of steam. But if MIB3 is indeed the last of the series, at least it’s going out with its head held high.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Sacha Baron Cohen is a genius…well, of a sort. A British comedian and interviewer who has made a career out of melting into tailor-made, subversive roles for the purpose of revealing his subject’s inner prejudice and ignorance (as well as just generating untold amounts of shock value), Cohen’s creations – Ali G, Borat, and Bruno – have freaked out a lot of people and made a huge name for their creator.

But the brilliance of Cohen’s work is how much he would submerge himself into any given character, no matter what the result; for any human being to possess the ability to relentlessly stay in character in the myriad array of real-life situations he subjects himself to in his “mockumentaries” is just crazy. Even in the face of arrest or violence, he stays the course.

Or, at least, he did. Unfortunately, Cohen became too well-known, and was forced to retire his “undercover” characters. He is currently in the process of transitioning from unscripted man-on-the-street fare to more conventional movie-making, but thankfully, his talent has proven to stand the test quite well.

This takes us to The Dictator, Cohen’s latest Larry Charles-directed film and his first starring role in a scripted production since 2002’s Ali G Indahouse. The story of “a dictator who risked his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed,” the film is about the fictional North African Republic of Wadiya and its absolute ruler, Admiral General Hafez Aladeen (Cohen). Aladeen is a vain, brutal, yet childlike warlord, spending his days threatening death to all who oppose him, holding rigged Olympic Games where he knocks down world records like bowling pins, paying countless celebrities to sleep with him, and telling the world that he’s NOT building weapons of mass destruction (but…wink-wink…he is!).

Called to New York to address the United Nations on his non-existent (wink-wink) WMD program, Aladeen is kidnapped by a hitman hired by his uncle Tamir (Ben Kingsley), who secretly wants to replace his nephew with a brain-dead double so he can declare Wadiya a democracy and sell off all its lucrative oil rights.

Rendered unrecognizable by having his trademark beard shaved off, Aladeen escapes and is forced to take refuge with a hippie activist named Zoey (Anna Farris), who merely believes that Aladeen is an oppressed refugee of Wadiya. But, of course, while Aladeen plots to retake his throne, he’s subjected to how the other half lives…will confronting his humanity soften the ruthless madman who, deep down, really just longs to be cuddled after paying to have sex with Arnold Schwarzenegger?

No, that’s not a typo. Believe me, I wish it was.

Has enough time past for 9-11 jokes? The Dictator seems to think so. I was impressed, actually, that Cohen’s latest film still manages to retain some of the “cringe” factor that his previous works excelled at, despite his act being directed at actual thespians and not unsuspecting citizens on the street. There are many “he did NOT just go there” moments in The Dictator, and given it’s short length, it’s seemingly jam-packed with gags and jokes, leaving the viewer feeling almost assaulted once it’s over. And I mean that in a good way.

The supporting cast is effective, sure, but this is Cohen’s show. The concept was built solely around him and his abilities, and he runs with it. While certain celebrities carve out whole careers playing themselves in each and every movie, Cohen (so far) has done the exact opposite; every character he plays is just that- a character. In fact, few people really know who the notoriously media-shy Cohen really is, which, in my opinion, actually helps make it easier to buy into who/whatever it is he’s playing at any given moment.

Do I feel stupid for not instantly recognizing Cohen when I first saw the trailer for The Dictator? Sort of, but I must point out that I DID recognize him after about 10 seconds. But it’s just a testament to his acting prowess that he’s able to pull the wool over the eyes of even so jaded a film critic as myself. Hey, it happens, give me a break…the guy’s good, and it makes me wonder how he’d do in an actual dramatic role. But now that I think about it, forget that idea…who wants to see Sacha Baron Cohen emote about something pointless when we can just watch him portray a 40 year-old man discovering the miracle of masturbation for the first time, as Aladeen does late in the movie? Like

I said, the man is a genius!

So, The Dictator is fun, funny, and even contains some teeth- Cohen’s Aladeen delivers a speech at one point about the wonders of dictatorship that uncomfortably mirrors many of the more underhanded things currently going on in OUR grand nation. Cohen is one of the most talented, bravest actors in the business today, and I recommend that you see The Dictator ASAP…at least, before running out to see The Avengers for the 23rd time, that is.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I love stop-motion animation. Just the sheer amount of effort and detail readily apparent in each and every painstakingly-crafted frame just fills me with awe. And the currently kings of the hill when it comes to stop-motion are the delightful Brits of Aardman Animations, makers of the godly Wallace and Gromit series.

Starting out with various short films (their earlier offerings being Creature Comforts and, of course, Wallace and Gromit), Aardman later branched out into feature films, and efforts such as Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit were given a massive boost in terms of budget and animation complexity, truly creating memorable and amazing visual spectacles.

Of course, it didn’t hurt that Aardman’s works weren’t just pretty; their ability to tell fun, quirky, and exciting tales punctuated with dry wit and humor that appeals to both kids and adults put the company on the map just as much as their distinctive animation and character design style did, in addition to their ability to attract top voice talent.

This brings us to their latest film- The Pirates! Band of Misfits (released in Europe as The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists). The tale is a simple one: in the year 1837, The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant in a really impressive vocal performance…I really couldn’t tell it was him), who is a…well, a pirate captain, is determined to win the annual Pirate of the Year competition, Robes de bal courte the winner being whoever can plunder the most booty. It’s a competition that The Pirate Captain has lost every year, but with the help of his goofy band of pirates, he plans on taking the gold off of each and every ship he can find.

However, The Pirate Captain is, in fact, poorly named, because every ship he and his merry band attack has anything BUT gold aboard. Ridiculed by his peers (especially because his wanted posters offer a “free pen” as a reward), The Pirate Captain is ready to throw in the towel when they come across Charles Darwin (David Tennant- hey, it’s 11th The Doctor!), who points out that a member of the Captain’s crew is, in fact, a valuable scientific find! Determined to win a prestigious science contest in London with this new-found information, The Pirate Captain figures that the assumed prize money will, in turn, win him the Pirate of the Year competition. But things go wrong in the worst possible way, and soon the Captain loses everything. However, determined to set things right, The Pirate Captain sets out to confront the evil Queen Victoria of England, and well…hijinks ensue. You’ll have to see the rest for the outcome, of course.

Aardman’s latest is a bit of a mixed bag, and it pains me to say that, considering the massive respect and love I have for their work. Visually, they deliver…each scene is filled to the brim with beautifully animated characters and complex and breathtaking background environments. The environments are so detailed, in fact, that when the eventual DVD comes out, I know I’ll be wearing out the pause button to catch every odd reference and in-joke plastered about by Aardman’s design staff. This film is truly a work of art.

Some CG is mixed in with the traditional hand-animated stuff, but it’s not overly intrusive, and honestly, I don’t see how they could have done the CG elements differently.

Likewise, the cast also delivers…as already mentioned Hugh Grant does an amazing job, as does his supporting cast, made up of many great actors such as Martin Freeman, David Tennant, Salma Hayek, Jeremy Piven, Brian Blessed (Vultan!), and Anton Yelchin (among many more). Everyone imbues their character with a load of distinct personality and everyone seems to be having fun with their roles.

So, what’s the problem with The Pirates! Band of Misfits? Well…first off, it’s not quite as funny or as clever as the usual Aardman outing. It’s hard to explain, but something just seemed off. The humor just wasn’t quite as inspired as in past Aardman movies and shorts. That’s not to say that I didn’t laugh…in fact, I did. Quite a bit in fact. But, while watching, I was also aware of the fact that I wasn’t laughing as much as I expected, or hoped to.

But the main problem with The Pirates! Is the fact that the plot is, shall we say, very well-worn and uncreative, which is a shocker considering that this is a company that once made a movie about a man who turned into a giant, carrot-eating rabbit monster under a full moon. Whoever wrote the script for The Pirates! was clearly a student of Film Progression 101: there are no twists, turns or surprises, and everything turns out exactly as you’d expect, and exactly as you’ve seen before in 1000 similar movies. It’s a shame for Aardman to make such a clichéd, Hollywood-style movie after eschewing those conventions in so many of their previous efforts.

But, in the end, even an average Aardman offering is better than 99.9999999% of the junk clogging up movie theaters these days, so I will still recommend it to anyone looking for a few laughs and loads of personality. The Pirates! Band of Misfits, despite not being a great Aardman film, is nonetheless still very good and well worth experiencing.

Now where’s my Wallace and Gromit sequel??

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, after what seemed like forever, it’s finally here: The Avengers, the superhero team-up movie to end all superhero team-up movies, pitting Marvel Comics’ mightiest do-gooders against a threat that promises to decimate the entire planet.

The seeds for what would eventually become The Avengers were first sown back in 2008’s Iron Man, Marvel Studio’s very first in-house film project after farming their properties out to other studios for years beforehand. Marvel would then continue the buildup by releasing The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger, with the goal being to eventually release a film that teams up these individuals in a virtual superhero smorgasbord, and in doing so, shatter loads of box office records and possibly becoming the biggest moneymaker of all time. We’ll see, but if there’s a movie that deserves it, this is it (certainly more-so than Avatar).

Okay, plot recap time…you’re about to sit through a lot of actor credits:

Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), are recruited by American spy organization SHIELD’s head honcho Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to battle the evil Demi-God Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who has stolen a powerful artifact known as the Tesseract and plans to use it to open a portal to Earth so his alien army can invade and conquer. Of course, someone is pulling Loki’s strings, but as for who that mysterious dude is, well…you’ll just have to wait for the sequel. Or just watch the post-credits sequence. Either or.

Honestly, given the size of the cast and the egos involved, this movie could have very, very easily become a super train-wreck the likes of which have never been seen before, but somehow director Joss Whedon managed to craft a tale that remains coherent, fast-paced, and exciting throughout. I’ve never seen a movie juggle so many characters so well in my life. Each character is represented perfectly and each and every one of them is given their chance to shine; no one is shoved to the background, ignored, or marginalized. The Avengers is what The Expendables tried so hard to be but so totally failed at doing; assembling a dream team of characters and blending them together perfectly while retaining each of their individuality. In contrast, The Expendables was just about Stallone and Statham…everyone else was reduced to scrub status and given the boot until the shootout at the end.

The plot keeps things moving along and does a great job of combining extremely witty humor with gravitas where appropriate. As far as character development or back stories, there’s precious little of that, but that’s what the character’s individual films were for; their tales where already set up so they could just get together and cut loose in The Avengers, and that approach works to perfection. After all, if they stopped to cover everyone’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, histories, etc, the film would have been a total clusterfu…um, I mean, a real mess. As it is, the movie runs well over two hours, but is so entertaining that I only noticed the length when my butt started hurting; the rest of me was otherwise having an awesome time.

If you’re familiar with the performances of Downey, Jr., Evans, Hemsworth, and Johansson from their previous outings, they all continue to do their alter-egos proud, but the real surprise here is series newcomer Mark Ruffalo, who inherits Bruce Banner/The Hulk role from Ed Norton, and if you ask me, does one better with the part. Gone is the annoying angst, and in its place is a calm and almost playful acceptance of the fact that Banner has a super-angry steroid monster buried deep inside, just itching to bust out and destroy some real estate. And when he finally does….man, oh man. It’s a hoot!

Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye is very cool, which is amazing, since I could never stand the character in the comics. Hiddleston’s Loki is the ultimate smarmy villain and a load of fun, and Sam Jackson is Sam Jackson playing Sam Jackson…as Sam Jackson always does.

The story of The Avengers is solid, the acting top-notch, the pace blazing, the action scenes mind blowing and a total joy to behold (thanks to some fantastic cinematography), and the special effects even managed to wow a jaded grump like myself with their grandeur and technical wizardry. Honestly, I can’t even find anything to nit-pick about this one…I wouldn’t change a thing. Oh, and the enormous battle at the end with The Avengers squaring off against an entire army of alien freaks and weirdos in the streets of Manhattan? It’ll knock your eyes out and leave ’em spinning in tight little circles.

In other words, The Avengers is a nearly perfect film, within the constraints of the superhero genre, of which it currently sits as the greatest example of (alongside films like X-Men: First Class and the first Iron Man). Marvel and Joss Whedon really knocked it out of the park and beyond with this one, and for the sequel, Marvel just needs to hand Whedon a blank check, an island full of bikini-clad women, and just get the hell out of his way. The Avengers 2 can’t possibly come soon enough, but the reality is that we’re going to probably have to wait a few years for it; Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and probably others are slated to be made first. But considering the high caliber of the villain that’s slated to take on Earth’s Mightiest Heroes in the sequel, Avengers 2 will be worth the wait.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Great…my official 200th review for Long Island Exchange and it has to be The Raven. I hate Hollywood.

You know, I thought that the recent Sherlock Holmes movies starring Robert Downey Jr. that re-imagined the drug-addicted intellectual super-sleuth as a martial arts expert/action hero were pushing it as far as raping the memories of classic literature went. However, if there was an even more ill-fitting person to get this ridiculous treatment, it’s Edgar Allan Poe; this is especially true considering the fact that Poe was not a fictional character, but a REAL PERSON.

But, this seems to matter little to director James McTeigue and company, as The Raven is a fictionalized account of the life of the famous author and poet of the macabre as he is called into service by the Baltimore police department to track down a serial killer who is basing his murders on the fates of the characters in Poe’s grisly short stories. Yes, folks, Poe has to play detective to solve crimes that originated in the pages of his own books, obviously perpetrated by a crazed fan of some sort, leading to Poe engaging in fast-paced shoot-outs and chase scenes while racing against the clock to save the life of the woman he loves.

How contrived and ultimately lame does that sound, especially considering the fact that the real Poe was plagued with maladies ranging from alcohol and drug addictions to cholera, heart disease, rabies, and tuberculosis? Hardly the action hero type, I would say.

Of course, we’ll get to the secondary reasons why this movie is a miserable train wreck in a moment, but first I’d like to highlight The Raven’s main shortcoming- its star, John Cusack, who plays Poe himself. Plainly put, the guy is as miscast for the role as Bea Arthur would be if called upon to play Adolph Hitler. Cusack is a gifted actor when it

comes to comedies, but it appears that anything with a certain amount of gravitas is well beyond his reach. It certainly doesn’t help that he spends the entire movie looking like it’s the last place he’d rather be, which is kind of how I felt sitting in the movie theater watching this crappy movie.

As for the film itself, it ultimately fails because it’s so incredibly boring. The real Poe was a complex and interesting (yet very flawed) guy, and I think a legit biopic would have been far more enticing than shoehorning him into this terrible Sherlock Holmes-wannabe of a movie. The rest of the cast is limited in number, and none of the characters are really given much if anything intriguing to say or do as the pace of the movie just kind of plods along. Luke Evans, who plays Detective Emmett Fields, and Emily Hamilton as Alice Eve, Poe’s love interest that he spends his days drunkenly pining away for, are both almost as bland and uninspired as Cusack is.

And while the action scenes don’t quite approach the utter ridiculousness of Robert Downey Jr.’s Holmes flicks, there are a few scenes that reek of that taint, such as one where Poe chases the killer on horseback while having a shootout with him. Considering the fact that the real Poe was a frail, sickly man (as mentioned above), this portrayal of him really didn’t even come close to ringing true. It’s a shame dead people can’t sue filmmakers from beyond the grave.

So, here’s my 200th review, and instead

of reviewing

something at least fun, which I’m sure this week’s The Avengers will be, I get to review sewage with a plot shamelessly stolen from the life of a classic author who never asked for this stupid movie to be made to begin with. This treatment ranks right up there with the instant death known as the “remake” to me, folks, and it will never get my endorsement. At least, until it’s done right.

And The Raven? It’s not done right. Avoid.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, well, well…if it isn’t the most unoriginal action movie ever made: Lockout. Written and produced by Luc Besson, who has brought us great films such as Taken and From Paris With Love, Lockout falls directly into line with Besson’s established formula: take a cool, deadly, charismatic leading man, add him into a simple, derivative, one-note plot, set the blender to “kill,” and stand back and watch the carnage.

It’s funny how little details can separate two films that, on paper, can be almost identical in theme and/or content. Now, last week, I gave the awesome Indonesian flick The Raid four, count ’em, FOUR stars, within the context of being the best pure action movie made in the last 10-20 years. Did it have a plot? Not really. Originality? Nope. Dialogue? Barely. Insane, heart-pounding, unique, masterfully choreographed action scenes that blast you in the face, one after another after another, until you almost can’t take it anymore? YOU BETCHA.

And yet, when you put it side-by-side with another movie that takes the same simplistic approach – Lockout – their similarities only serve to
free it exam pdf highlight the weaknesses of Besson’s film and underscore the strengths of The Raid. How? Well, I’ll get to that shortly. First, let’s tackle Lockout’s plot.

Prepare for cliché overload in 3…2…1…Snow (Guy Pearce? In an action movie? Huh?) plays a government agent (cliché #1) convicted of a crime which he did not commit (cliché #2) who is offered a pardon (cliché #3) if he rescues the President’s daughter (cliché #4) from a prison (cliché #5), which happens to be in outer space (I guess that’s not really a cliché) which has been taken over by its prisoners after a riot (cliché #6). Snow is tough (cliché #7), insubordinate (cliché #8), spouts non-stop one-liners (cliché #9), and plays by his own rules (cliché #10). Those in charge loathe the idea of sending him in (cliché #11), but are forced to since he’s the only man available who can get the job done (cliché #12).

Whew! Yeah, I warned you…Lockout leaves no stone unturned when it comes to recycling plot elements from just about every action movie ever made. But otherwise, Lockout is a very straightforward tale; all the characters are simply caricatures you’ve seen billions of times before, the plot contains no twists, turns, or deviations from its narrative, and the action scenes, while solid, never fully manage to impress, partly due to the Lockout’s somewhat low-budget feel.

Not that’s there’s anything wrong about being low-budget, but when you overextend yourself beyond what your budget can accurately portray, you run the risk of heading into SyFy Original Movie territory, which is a place you don’t wanna be. Lockout actually mostly manages to look pretty impressive from a visual standpoint despite its $20 million budget, but it’s uneven; sometimes it also looks cheap. Meanwhile The Raid, which cost much less to produce, nonetheless looks consistently better because it’s low budget was dispersed into a production more realistic when considering the money available. Instead of an expensive CG space station, we have a run-down building, and the money is spent in ways more advantageous to the production.

Likewise, where Lockout and The Raid both are driven by simple plots, The Raid also works better in this respect due to the fact that the limited storyline enabled the filmmakers to run wild with inventive fight and stunt scenes without having to give each one context; sometimes working with less enables you to do more. Lockout, however, seems hampered by its simplicity. It delivers good action and fight scenes, but nothing that ever tries to push the envelope. Perhaps it’s because it’s not a film made with a cast of crazy Indonesians willing to throw themselves headfirst into walls and off of balconies, or perhaps it’s because Lockout is such a slave to the genre conventions that it’s following, but it’s bare-bones plot comes across as sluggish and predictable without the exhilarating combat delivered with nonstop intensity by The Raid. Instead, the gaps between fights just come across as filler instead of something driving a good narrative. Hell, I don’t think The Raid had ANY gaps.

Don’t get me wrong…Lockout is a good, solid action movie with a neat science fiction twist. But it’s so weighed down with following every action cliché ever conceived that it never really becomes engaging, because you feel like you’re watching every old-school action film ever made rolled up into a package that brings nothing new to the table. Plus, it had the misfortune of being reviewed by me mere days after watching The Raid, and ANY action movie would suffer in comparison in that case.