(Long Island, NY) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen learned nothing from its predecessor, 2007’s Transformers. Directed by Michael Bay and based on the popular toy line and cartoon about sentient alien robots from the planet Cybertron (the good Autobots and evil Decepticons) living on Earth with the ability to shape-change into every-day vehicles, it’s still all about big, loud, expensive action scenes. Again, the giant robots we came to see are cast into the background and never given any character-building moments. Again, the humans are all completely bland, one-dimensional, and take up far too much screen-time from the giant robots. Again, the fight scenes are almost impossible to follow because the robots all look alike and the camera is just

too close to the action and shakes far too much. All of this was forgivable in the original, a film I actually enjoyed (it had problems, but it was also charming and fun, and for a movie based on a kid’s toy line, it treated the source material with a fair amount of respect), but for a sequel not to learn, grow and evolve at all is something that is not as easily forgiven.

All in all, Revenge of the Fallen isn’t a bad film- if you enjoyed the first one, chances are (barring some warts to be covered shortly), you’ll enjoy this one too. The new film simply ups the ante on everything you’ve seen in the previous movie, throwing more robots, more explosions, and more characters than ever. But man, does it all look pretty! Like the original Transformers, this film features some awe-inspiring effects, tons of action, and the most seamless blend of CG and live-action I’ve ever seen. It’s almost too easy to put your brain in

neutral and just sit back and enjoy the endless assault on your eyes…that is, until some major problems come creeping in, issues that existed in the original Transformers, but not nearly to the degree that they do now. These problems take a film that would at worst be the epitome of the mindless summer action flick and point it in a direction that some might find downright offensive, and are centered directly on what Michael Bay considers “humor.”

So, what does Michael Bay find funny and appropriate for a film aimed mainly at young boys, you may ask? Folks, be prepared for dogs having sex, Transformers farting out parachutes, showing their robo-testicles (I know you’re not buying that, but I swear to you I’m not kidding), and mothers getting zonked out on pot brownies, not to mention that not one female in the film (other than the aforementioned mother, thank goodness) owns anything longer than a micro-micro-miniskirt (I actually don’t mind that one so much). But once you think Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can’t sink any lower in that regard, it introduces you to Mudflap and Skids, twin Autobots that embody every offensive and negative African-American stereotype you an imagine. They have gold teeth, speak Ebonics, can’t read, are gorilla-shaped…the list goes on. Now, I’m all for thumbing my nose at being politically correct in our straight-laced society, but there’s lines you just shouldn’t cross, and Mudflap and Skids cross the hell out of ’em. Personally, I can’t decide if the filmmakers either didn’t know what kind of hole they were digging for themselves with these characters, or just didn’t care. But even if you ignore that horrific bit of racism for a moment, the twins also happen to be VERY annoying, as if Bay watched the Star Wars prequels and decided to out-do George Lucas with what are essentially TWO Jar Jar Binks (one of whom is actually voiced by Spongebob Squarepants actor Tom Kenny…!). Regardless of how you look at it, these characters are a detriment to Revenge of the Fallen, especially considering that Mudflap and Skids have more screen-time allotted to them than any other robot in the movie. Geez.

Oh, wait, I suppose I should take a quick break and recap the plot, right? Okay. In the first Transformers movie the Autobots

and Decpticons both converged on Earth, looking for an all-powerful artifact called the Allspark which could either be used to save their dying homeworld (which the good guys wanted to do) or conquer the galaxy (which the bad guys wanted to do). It is revealed that Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), a teenage human, holds the key to its whereabouts. The Autobots befriend Sam, lots of big robots beat each other up, the good ones win, the end. Fast-forward to the sequel, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen- the remaining Atuobots on Earth, lead by the wise and powerful Optimus Prime (voiced again by fan favorite Peter Cullen, returning from the cartoon), have teamed up with the military to hunt down rogue Decepticons wreaking havoc across the globe. Meanwhile Sam is preparing to go away for his first year of college in an attempt to live a normal life, leaving behind

his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox, reprising her role) and his protector, the Autobot Bumblebee (who vocal module injury oddly seems to have resurfaced since the last movie- he can’t talk again, but communicates via pop songs from his radio), both of whom are pretty bummed out about it. Still, the planet is safe, so no one really has anything to complain about too much, do they?

But unbeknownst to everyone, my favorite Decepticon, Soundwave (who is sadly no longer an 80’s boombox, but at least is voiced as he was in the cartoon by the great Frank Welker), has hacked into Earth’s satellites and is busy tracking down the last remaining shard of the Allspark, thought destroyed when it was used to kill Decepticon leader Megatron (Hugo Weaving) in the climax of the first movie. Soundwave dispatches Decepticons to retrieve the Allspark shard (which is still in the pocket of the sweatshirt Sam was wearing two years before- doesn’t he wash it? Eeww) and revive Megatron, whose robo-corpse was dumped into the ocean by the Navy (Why? Wouldn’t it benefit mankind to study his technology instead? Eh, whatever).

The cyberpanther-like Ravage is successful in stealing back the remaining fragment of the Allspark, but not before Sam discovers the shard which magically fills his mind with ancient Cybertronian mumbo-jumbo that the Decepticons need, otherwise no one would care about him and he wouldn’t have been needed for the sequel. Led by Megatron’s master The Fallen, the Decepticons invade Earth, demanding Sam (well, his brain, anyway) and threatening to extinguish the sun just for kicks. Sam, Mikaela, and Bumblebee, along with Mudflap and Skids (AKA Car Car Binks) seek out assistance in learning the secret of the Allspark and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Cue the return of John Turturro as Agent Simmons, the character who almost single-handedly ruined the first movie, now running an alien conspiracy website. As a former secret government agent, Simmons knows all about Transformer activity on Earth, and with his help (along with a talking RC Truck named Wheelie, also voiced by Tom Kenny), the gang locates an aging old Transformer named Jetfire hiding out in the Smithsonian Aid and Space Museum in Washington D.C. who in turn directs them to Egypt to discover something called the Matrix of Leadership, meanwhile Decepticon reinforcements arriving from deep space for the final battle…ah, never mind. Just forget it. I’ve already wasted more time trying to explain the story of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen than the movie actually does in its 2 ½ hour

running time. Honestly, the film treats the plotlines as inconsequential- it’s all just an excuse to get to the next explosion.

There’s not really much else to say. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has plenty action, things blowing up, people screaming, and giant robots beating the tar out of each other, all of which can be considered as good things, especially for a summer blockbuster. For that reason alone it would be a solid recommendation, if not for the out-of-place risqué humor (why did they have to show Devestator’s cyber-junk? Why?), the racist homeboy bots, the lack of any real plot at all, and too many characters to keep track of or care about. I’d comment on the acting, but there wasn’t any that I was aware of.

Overall, Revenge of the Fallen is a disappointment, although not nearly to the degree that Terminator: Salvation was to me personally (now that film REALLY missed the mark). But like I said above, there’s certainly some good to be found in the new Transformers flick. Actually, the movie eventually gets so over-the-top that you might not care about the things I’m nit-picking about- the non-stop robo-carnage and things going boom will eventually numb you to any stimulus from the outside world, which might make Revenge of the Fallen an excellent alternative to Novocain the next time you visit the dentist’s office. Consider it.

(Long Island, NY) Yes, yes, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is yet another remake. Actually, it’s a remake of a remake originally based on a book. Confusing? Not really. It all started with a 1973 novel by Morton Freedgood that was adapted into a film in 1974 starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw.

Despite the excellent movie’s status as a classic and the fact that film remakes weren’t really en vogue at the time, Pelham 1 2 3 was remade as a television movie in 1998 starring Edward James Olmos. But apparently, this wasn’t enough, as director Tony Scott felt the need to dust off this tense tale yet again for the 21st century. I was initially prepared to hate The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, but shockingly enough, it wound up being a solid and effective romp through New York’s subway systems. Let’s dissect it, shall we?

By the way, while writing this review, I’m munching on some Kraft Macaroni and Cheese crackers. Yes, crackers. They’re amazing. If you’re at all an aficionado of cheese and crackers, I highly recommend them. No, Kraft isn’t giving me kickbacks.

Now, I’m as sick of Hollywood’s penchant for remaking films that were done perfectly the first time around (if the rumored remake of John Carpenter’s The Thing ever sees the light of day, I’ll REALLY be upset- and YES, I’m aware that the film itself

is already a remake)- it represents a complete creative bankruptcy on their part. Is it really THAT hard to come up with something new and fresh? To take a chance on an unproven concept? There are countless young and talented independent film-makes out there waiting to have their ideas heard. It’s a shame, really.

The only instance where I’ve found remakes to be effective is when the source material is not copied scene-for-scene, but used as a loose framework for a different approach. Good examples of this would be Al Pacino’s Scarface, or the aforementioned The Thing. The 2009 version of The Taking of Pelham

1 2 3 is also such a film. The basic plot is still in place- a NYC subway 6 train and its passengers are being held for ransom by a madman- but it’s given a modern facelift and a direction that deviates from previous incarnations at key points. It works well enough, despite some problems that plague it throughout its running time.

Four armed men hijack a single car of the NYC subway 6 train (aka the Pelham Line) and hold its passengers hostage for a 10 million dollar ransom, to be paid within 60 minutes (with a “one passenger is shot per minute late” penalty- these guys don’t mess around). The leader of the hijackers is Bernard Ryder (John Travolta in full “wacky villain” mode ala Face/Off). After uncoupling the remaining train cars and sending them back to the nearest station, Ryder begins a radio dialogue with the MTA dispatcher in charge of the Pelham Line, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington). Ryder relays his list of demands and insists on communicating only through Garber, having established a rapport of sorts with the civil servant. But just to show that he means business, the cold-blooded Ryder kills the Pelham train operator who was a friend of Garber, giving him a personal stake in the crisis. Despite a top NYPD hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the Mayor himself (James Gandolfini) getting involved in the situation, Ryder still demands

only to speak with Garber.

It’s eventually revealed that Garber is currently demoted to working the Rail Control Center pending an investigation into a bribery scandal he was allegedly involved in, a fact that was revealed by Ryder, who manages to somehow secure an internet connection in the tunnels and dig up some info on the web about his new friend. This fact coming to light initially sheds some suspicion on Garber’s possible involvement with the hijackers and their plot. Nonetheless, Garber tries to do what he can to prevent innocent people from being killed by the maniacal Ryder, who has made it clear that he’s neither afraid of killing his hostages or dying himself. With time running out, can Garber prevent Ryder from carrying out his nefarious plot (which just may simply be a red herring for an even grander scheme…), even as he himself is personally thrust into harm’s way by the deranged madman?

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a very good, yet flawed movie. At its heart, it’s an intimate tale of two men talking over the airways and figuring out what makes the other tick. Unfortunately, Tony Scott’s flashy and kinetic cinematography lessens the impact of any such scene. Apparently afraid of his actor’s abilities to enthrall an audience by means of their acting alone, Scott’s camera is constantly drawn back, roving around the set, cutting to and fro, never focusing on any one spot or person for more than a second. I feel the radio scenes between Travolta and Washington would have been far more effective if the camera just drew in close and allowed them to take center stage. Still, the dialogue remains tight and effective, and the acting’s there in spades (Washington always delivers the goods, and Travolta, who is normally less consistent, also steps up), but Tony Scott’s ADD-inflicted cameraman tries to do everything in his power to take away from it. Just pull in tight and let your actors act, man!

Actually, the ONLY real flaws of Pelham 1 2 3 are visual. Tony Scott has a thing about fast edits, cutting between sped-up and headache-inducing low-framerate footage, odd color filters, and freeze-frames. His style is overly flashy in a forced way, as if he watched all the stuff hip young filmmakers were doing and tried to cram it all into one movie in a desperate attempt to be “cool.” The rap music-style opening credit sequence is a prime example of this, and it ill-fits the film he was trying to make. At its heart, Pelham 1 2 3 is a tense drama, not a music video. Then there’s the ill-conceived ending, where Denzel Washington’s character suddenly becomes an action-film star. It’s like Scott didn’t know what kind of a movie he wanted to make, so he threw everything into a blender. Weird.

All that aside, Pelham 1 2 3 is still an entertaining and gripping movie, with a lightning-fast pace and characters that are actually fleshed-out, enabling you to actually care for them. As I already stated, Travolta and Washington not only avail themselves individually, but they gel together perfectly as well. It’s an accomplishment considering the majority of their interaction takes place not face-to-face, but over the radio- it invokes memories of the relationship between Bruce Willis’ character and the cop in the first Die Hard movie, although (naturally) more adversarial in nature. It makes the inevitable meeting between the two all the more interesting when it finally happens. The supporting cast

is equally excellent, with Turturro and Gandolfini standing out. Luis Guzmán also shows up as one of Travolta’s gang, and I’m always happy when this underrated actor gets a chance to pop up in a major motion picture like this.

So, the verdict? The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a good flick. Does it reach the lofty heights of the gritty 1974 original? Not quite, but it is a worthy attempt and certainly goes beyond merely being a run-of-the-mill remake in the basest sense of the term. Go check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) As a horror movie (which it was billed as), Drag Me To Hell was a complete failure. But as a comedy, it was HILARIOUS. But don’t take my word for it…ask the entire audience of the showing I went to. They laughed and cracked jokes non-stop during the entire thing. That’s never a good sign.

Seriously, it’s a horrible movie, but of the ‘so bad it’s funny’ variety. Director Sam Rami (of Spider-Man fame) apparently couldn’t decide if he wanted to make a straight horror film or an over-the-top camp-fest like his classic

Evil Dead series, and as a result Drag Me To Hell wound up more goofy than creepy. The atmosphere wasn’t scary in the least, suspense was non-existent, and the film and relied on cheap, clichéd horror flick tactics (fake scares, music swelling unexpectedly) to try and make you jump. And when it actually TRIED to be horrifying, it usually wound up humorous instead. I mean, a killer handkerchief? A battle royale in a car between the heroine and toothless old lady trying to gum her to death? A re-tread of the ol’ “swallow the flying eyeball” trick from Evil Dead 2, except this time done in poor-quality CG? A trash-talking goat? Demons possessing people…and then dancing? Rami’s been doing stuff like this for years, and it’s wearing thin.

So, the main point Drag Me To Hell tries to make is that apparently gypsies get mad and curse you to an eternity of torment in Beelzebub’s infernal realm for just about darn near anything. When the film first opens, a flashback scene set in 1969 shows a Spanish couple unsuccessfully trying to have a curse placed on their child removed. The result? They get to watch as Satan himself actually reaches through the floor and drags their kid into a fiery pit. What did this poor child do to deserve such a grim fate? Well, he stole what appeared to be a .25 cent necklace from some old gypsy woman! Hey, the kid even tried to return it, but she wasn’t hearing it. No, no, no, you can just go to hell, boy. Literally.

Fast forward to the present. Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), a young and ambitious loan officer at a bank is vying with co-worker Stu Rubin (Reggie Lee) for the recently-vacated assistant manager position. Christine is feeling immense pressure- first, from her boss Mr. Jacks (David Paymer), who wants a real “go-getter” for the job, and second, from her loving boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long), whose parents have high expectations for their son’s choice in a potential wife.

Enter Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver), an elderly Gypsy woman and customer of the bank. Seems Mrs. Ganush can’t pay her bills and wants to leech off of the bank some more, and Christine has the misfortune of being the loan officer forced to deal with her. However, being a nice person at heart, Christine tries to help the old deadbeat get a third extension on her house loan, but her boss nixes it (He sarcastically says “It’s YOUR call.” Obvious translation: “You better not give her that extension, I’m just testing you to see if you can make the big decisions”).

Anyway, the boom is lowered on Mrs. Ganush and she starts whining about losing her home, accentuating her rant by drooling delicious yellow sludge all over the desk. Christine, still a nice person at heart, tries to suggest alternate places for granny to live, like with the grand-daughter that co-signed the loan (“I don’t want to burden my grand-daughter.” Sure, but you’ll burden the bank? Thanks). Instead of thanking the nice girl for trying to assist her, the disgusting old crone steals her candy and makes a loud scene, embarrassing herself and blaming Christine when everyone in the bank has the audacity to stare because she’s making a fool of herself. Later, Mrs. Ganush shows up in the deserted garage where Christine parks her car to sic her evil handkerchief on her, drool some more of that delightful goo on her face, and finally steal a button from her coat so that she can place a curse on her! Honestly, the reason she cursed Christine was so flimsy that I couldn’t take it seriously, and when the initial premise for a film’s plot can’t be taken seriously, you have a hard time really getting into things moving forward.

The rest of the movie involves Christine randomly wandering into the parlor of Rham Jas (Dileep Rao), the only palm-reader in the city with legit psychic powers, who informs her and her obligatory disbelieving boyfriend that she’s been cursed. Just like the child in the opening scene, Christine will be picked on by a pretty mean demon for 3 days, after which he’ll DRAG HER TO HELL (sorry, I couldn’t resist). As the demon bullies her by doing things like manifesting itself as the now-deceased Mrs. Ganush (she died the next day? So what did she need the house for?) for some fun drool-and-maggot vomit sessions, creaking old iron gates, and tossing her into furniture, Christine grows more and more desperate and with Rham’s help, she sets upon finding a way to break the curse before it’s too late.

By some chance that you skipped my opening paragraphs, I’ll just re-iterate here that Drag Me To Hell is a fairly bad movie.

The scariest thing about it, in my opinion, is that it’s getting almost universal good reviews across the board (except here, that is). It has a “Certified Fresh” rating of 93% on Rotten Tomatoes (a website that collects review data), based on 152 reviews (142 “fresh”, 10 “rotten”), with an average rating of 7.8 out of 10. I…I just don’t get it.

As stated above, aside from the rampant jump-scares, there’s no tension or real horror on display in this movie at all. And of course, it’s chock full of Rami’s usual filmmaking tricks, including odd camera angles, fast, shaky zooms and pans, and human bodies containing more blood than anyone ever could in real life. There’s a scene where Christine has a nosebleed that turns into (at least) a 5 gallon-gusher that soaks her boss (“Did I get any in my mouth?!?”), and she doesn’t even appear light-headed afterwards.

However, that’s not to say the movie was COMPLETELY bad. The actors seemed to have fun with their roles, with Alison Lohman especially embracing the off-kilter mood of Drag Me To Hell. Her character starts off fairly sweet and earnest, but as she’s subjected to more and more demon tomfoolery she starts to crack and get edgy ala the Ash character from Rami’s Evil Dead series (though she stops short of chainsawing her hand off, thankfully). Also of note was Lorna Raver as Mrs. Ganush, who really seemed to take her role seriously as a gross, vindictive old lady with an axe to grind. Justin Long (of Jeepers Creepers fame)

(Long Island, NY) Terminator Salvation was pretty good, but it wasn’t the movie I wanted to see. At all. Back in 1984, an unknown director named James Cameron introduced us to a low-budget science fiction film simply called “The Terminator.” It told the tale of a post-apocalyptic future war between an evil supercomputer called Skynet and the remnants of humanity, devastated by a nuclear holocaust the survivors dubbed “Judgment Day.” The eponymous Terminator was a flesh-covered robot sent back in time to the year 1984 by Skynet to kill the mother of the leader of the human resistance, John Connor, before he was even conceived.

The film was a huge surprise hit, and served to launch the careers of both Cameron and a certain Austrian bodybuilder named Arnold Schwarzen-something-or-other, who played the unstoppable T-800 Terminator (well, he was eventually stopped, but you know what I mean…). Among the film’s highlights was Cameron’s dark and unique vision of the future: cities blown to rubble, human beings reduced to little more than rats living in dirty underground bunkers, starving and frightened of the killer machines hunting them down. And yet these poor souls still possessed the courage to rise up and fight back against the robotic Hunter-Killers and Terminators, eventually driving Skynet to the brink of defeat. This nihilistic conflict was dubbed the “Future War”, and audiences found themselves hoping for a sequel set in this dystopian future.

Come 1991, a sequel to The Terminator finally became a reality. While it wasn’t the futuristic battlefield movie everyone was hoping for, it certainly was the next best thing. Cameron and Schwarzenegger re-teamed for Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and this time Arnie played a GOOD robot, re-programmed and sent back to the past to protect a young John Connor from an advanced liquid metal Terminator called the T-1000. Like the first entry of the series, T2 was a massive hit and raised the bar not only for action films, but character and storytelling as well. Again, Cameron teased us by showing another glimpse of the Future War between Skynet and humanity in a flashback scene (which was originally supposed to be longer, but was cut back due to budget constraints), and again, we all hoped that the talented and creative director would eventually give us the big payoff in a third film.

Alas, this was not meant to be. After another hiatus, a Cameron-less Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines hit theaters in 2003 (directed by Jonathan Mostow), and AGAIN it featured a good Arnie-bot (Schwarzenegger’s final film before becoming Lord and Master of California) being sent from the future to protect John Connor from a bad Terminator. Can you say “re-tread”…? Anyway, while T3 was a competent action film, it otherwise lacked everything that made the first two installments so memorable- a strong storyline and characters, an original plot, and most notably, the Future War! Sure, T3 had the obligatory flashback sequence of that much sought-after event, but it was annoyingly short and appeared to have been inserted almost as an afterthought.

Both The Terminator and Terminator 2 became cultural phenomena, becoming engrained in popular culture and generating millions in merchandising. Terminator 3, in contrast, failed to match both its predecessors in terms of cultural significance, and was seen more-or-less as an inferior cash run, tarnishing the brand. With James Cameron having no interest in re-joining the franchise and Arnold retired from acting to govern California, The Terminator again went into hiatus, its future uncertain.

Eventually, Terminator Salvation was announced, and guess what? Word on the street was that it was eschewing the usual time travel hooey of the Terminator series and focusing on…John Connor (played this time by the awesome Christian Bale, no less!) and the Future War! After so many years of waiting, fans felt excitement welling up…until the director was announced: McG (AKA Joseph McGinty Nichol). Known for the mind-numbingly stupid Charlie’s Angels films, most Terminator fans felt McG lacked the chops to do their beloved franchise justice. And alas, they were right.

Terminator Salvation opens unexpectedly: on Death Row in 2003. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) has a date with a needle for killing some people, but first he signs an organ donor form supplied by Dr Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter, who almost single-handedly ruins this movie), a representative of Cyberdyne Systems (the company that will one day create Skynet). Then Marcus is executed, but if you think that’s the end of his story, you haven’t been watching the commercials on TV.

Fast-forward to 2018: After the nuclear bombing of the Earth by Skynet, shown at the end of Terminator 3, the machines wage war against the rag-tag leftovers of humanity. We meet John Connor (Bale), future leader of the rebellion against the machines, who we all have watched grow up as a character throughout the Terminator series. He’s leading a group of soldiers in raiding a Skynet facility, a raid that winds up being a trap and leaves him as the only survivor. After Connor makes his escape, we see our friend Marcus from the opening scene stumble out of the same stronghold, 15 years after being supposedly put to death, naked and very confused as to what’s happened to the world around him. Marcus takes some clothes from one of the many corpses lying around and sets out to explore this strange new land. He soon runs into and befriends a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who Terminator fans will recognize as the man who will one day go back into time and father none other than John Connor himself. Reese is kidnapped by a Skynet harvester and Marcus, despite only knowing the kid for 10 minutes, decides it’s his duty to rescue him. Taken to the resistance for help by a jet fighter pilot named Blair (Moon Bloodgood), Marcus meets John Connor face-to-face. It is at this point that we all discover that Marcus has a wee little secret that even he doesn’t know about, and one that instantly causes Connor to wonder…is this stranger a friend or foe, and can he be trusted to help free Kyle Reese, a man John desperately needs to survive to ensure his own existence?

And in addition to this potential threat, there are rumblings of a new, more advanced Terminator prototype being developed by Skynet as flawless infiltrator…one with living human tissue covering a deadly metal endoskeleton and an Austrian accent…

Early on in Terminator Salvation we realize that John Connor, the man who the entire Terminator universe revolves around, will be basically a guest-star in his own movie. You see, Terminator Salvation isn’t John’s story…it’s the story of Marcus, and that’s one of many problems this film brings to the table. While Marcus’ story was somewhat interesting, his whole plot-line should have not even been in the movie. It not only added nothing to the Terminator myths, it ALSO took away from potential John Connor and character development scenes…all of which were desperately needed.

Where did Terminator Salvation go wrong? It’s both easy and hard to say. Early in pre-production, much was made of Christian Bale’s insistence that you should be able to read the script on a stage with no special effects and still find it compelling, but in the finished product there is no character development whatsoever. None. Not a second of time was spent on establishing who any of the characters were or their relationships with each other. If you had walked into the theater from off the street never having seen a Terminator movie before, you wouldn’t have cared about anything that happens to anyone in this movie- everyone is a blank, featureless cardboard cutout. That alone is unforgivable. Bryce Dallas Howard co-stars as Kate Connor, John’s wife, and was just there to look all googly-eyed and pregnant. I don’t think John even said her name once or even noticed that she was knocked-up. It’s sad, really.

Also, to the chagrin of Terminator fans the world over, this version of the Future War in Terminator Salvation isn’t anything like the awe-inspiring one shown in James Cameron’s Terminator films. Those flicks showcased a blackened, dark, ruined landscape overrun by humans and machines firing purple lasers at each other, sort of like the most awesome G.I. Joe cartoon ever brought to life. And when taking breaks from turning robots into scrap, humanity basically lived a lot like homeless people in NYC’s subway tunnels- dirty, scared, eating rats and using TVs as fireplaces. That imagery was striking, because it really drove home the level of desperation the human race was taken to. But in Terminator Salvation, missing is the incredible nightmare world of Cameron’s films- the resistance casually lives out in the open, have large above-ground bases and hangers, bright white teeth and perfect hair! It’s like modern actors are terrified of looking in any way unattractive, even when it’s called for like in this instance. I mean, these people are supposed to be living in a nuclear wasteland and eating toxic garbage! Where are they getting toothpaste and Crest whitening strips?

Another reason this was a sub-par Future War (and in turn, Terminator) movie is because there was BARELY ANY human vs. Skynet forces action on display. Almost none, really. Sure, the human resistance might run into the occasional, rusty old Terminator prototype or flying gunship, but otherwise that’s it. Apparently Skynet controls the planet with just two minigun-toting T-600s (admittedly very cool rubber-skinned predecessors to Arnold’s deluxe T-800 model), two flying gunships, two robo-motorcycles, and one big robot that looked to be on loan from Will Smith’s Wild Wild West movie (which stomps around loudly yet can sneak up like a ninja on unsuspecting victims hiding in 7-11s). Human vs. robot conflict is aparently given the backseat treatment in favor of shoving a bunch of non-developed characters down our collective throat that you won’t know any more about by the end of the movie than when you were first introduced to them in the beginning. Also, where did the purple lasers go? Everyone is toting machine guns suddenly. Don’t they have…ray guns?

The point I’m trying to make is that I’ve waited years to see a Terminator Future War movie. So where the was my Future War?

That’s not to say that Terminator Salvation was horrible. While McG gets nothing out of his actors (save for Bale, Worthington, and Yelchin, who are all very good), the film itself is fast-paced and full of well-done action pieces. There’s no suspense to speak of, due both to the aforementioned lack of character development and some poor editing, but that’s par for the course when it comes to today’s action movies. Also well-done were the visuals, with a nice mix of excellent CG and real, physical props created by the late Stan Winston. A CG-assisted cameo by a certain governor was especially jaw-dropping- there’s scene late in the film where we meet the T-800 for the first time, and this was achieved by mapping Arnold Schwarzenegger’s computer-generated mug (circa 1984) onto a double’s body. The effect was flawless- it was like Arnold was magically de-aged 25 years, for all intents and purposes. This technology opens up all sorts of scary possibilities as far as bringing back actors that are old or dead for new movies, but the scene itself seemed very convoluted and pointless, inserted just to please the fan-boys. Arnold could have been used better. Still, it was cool.

The cinematography is expertly carried out, with an especially interesting scene early on that involved Connor taking off in and crashing a helicopter, all in apparently one take. The film’s color is desaturated to the point that it almost looks black and white in some scenes, but it does help to convey the desolate nature of the world we’re viewing. Overall, it’s safe to say that Terminator Salvation looks real nice.

But the more I think about it, the less I like this movie. Like I said, it was good in the mindless, plot-less action flick sense, but it was nothing like the kind of movie I (or everyone else) wanted (ot the Terminator series deserves). And it had a lot of silly nonsense that really ruins the experience once you sit down and think about it. That may take a while, however, since it’ll take your brain a while to clear after being assaulted non-stop by all the pretty explosions and CG. Sadly, in McG’s hands, the Terminator franchise has yet another dud. Plot-wise, nothing of any consequence happens in this movie- at the end, both humanity and Skynet are in the same exact places that they started in. Word is that this happened because the producers envision Terminator Salvation as the start of a full-blown trilogy and are waiting for the future entries to really let loose, but in my opinion any film should be able to stand on its own without waiting for other movies to make it complete, or relying on the viewer’s intimate knowledge of the source material to make sense of it all.

I hope honestly that McG never gets to make another Terminator movie again, and the reigns of Terminator 5 are handed to someone who can take better care of the once-revered series, previously known for its heart and soul as much as its special effects. In the end, I’m probably being much harder on Terminator Salvation than I would be if it were simply a stand-alone film without the excellent Terminator 1 & 2 in its lineage, but being a film critic can make you a little jaded, I suppose. Such is the hard life I lead…

(Long Island, NY) Angels & Demons is a sequel to last year’s hit movie, The Da Vinci Code. Both films are based on novels written by Dan Brown that I’ve never read, and although I’m told that Angels & Demons was published and takes place before The Da Vinci Code, the film adaptation is being touted as a sequel, which is confusing because it’s actually a prequel. This never becomes an issue, however, as I didn’t have any problems at all following Angels & Demons’ rather mundane plot.

Now, I’ll readily admit to never having gotten caught up with the whole Da Vinci Code craze. For a while there I seemed to notice a copy of the novel glued to everyone’s hand while they walked down the street, and the very notion of a single tome capturing the imagination of nearly the entire American populace made me shudder with apprehension. Harry Potter I can understand somewhat, but seeing a guy wearing a grimy tank-top, NASCAR hat, and jeans with a hole ripped in the posterior carrying the Da Vinci Code with an actual BOOKMARK sticking out of it was a bit much. Needless to say, I never read it, nor did I see director Ron Howard’s 2006 film adaptation starring Tom Hanks.

So, here I am, walking into Angels & Demons with nary an inkling of what the hubbub is all about concerning the series. Anyway, the film opens with the funeral of the Pope in the Vatican, which is sad. But after that scene we find ourselves at a lab in Geneva where some scientists are experimenting with the creation of antimatter, the stuff that powers the Enterprise and Photon Torpedoes in Star Trek, which is cool. However, the antimatter is stolen right after its successful creation, and soon afterward a Vatican police officer visits Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, reprising his role from The Da Vinci Code), who is a professor at Harvard University who specializes in religious iconology and symbology (I’m sure his classes are just packed). It seems that someone is threatening the Vatican and has kidnapped the four cardinals who were jockeying for the recently-vacated Popemobile. The dastardly fiend promises to start rubbing them out, one an hour, starting at 8PM that evening. Now, I’m not sure how being a professor of iconology and symbology qualifies Langdon as a detective, but nonetheless, he arrives at the Vatican and is informed that, in addition to the kidnappings, the stolen antimatter is hidden somewhere in the city, presumably to be used to blow up the world capital of Christianity. That’s naughty.

Langdon, knowing everything about religion like he does, deduces that the culprits are the Illuminati, who are a sect of Catholics who had the audacity to favor science over the Church’s teaching (GASP!). Way back in the 17th century, after the Church gave the Illuminati the boot, they went and formed their very own club, waiting and plotting their revenge. Almost 400 years is a long time to hold a grudge, but I’m still annoyed that I never got that Star Wars Boba Fett Slave 1 spaceship that I wanted for Christmas when I was 10, so who am I to judge?

So, Langdon, knowing everything about religion like I said, also figures out that the cardinals are being held in for different hidden locations, locations that can only be discovered by deciphering ancient clues to discover the locations of the….um, locations (Hello? Thesaurus?). Thus begins a race against time to save the abducted cardinals before they are executed, find and diffuse the antimatter bomb, and uncover a conspiracy within the Vatican itself that may or MAY NOT be orchestrated by the Illuminati…apparently this is one of those situations where nothing is what it seems! All in a day’s work for your average Harvard professor.

Personally, I didn’t find Angels & Demons all that compelling, which speaks volumes about the supposed quality of its cinematic predecessor, The Da Vinci Code, which by all accounts is an inferior movie. There was a lot of controversy prior to the release of Angels & Demons about the content of the film upsetting the real-life Vatican, what with the movie featuring wanton violence in Vatican City and a supposed thematic hard stance against the Church’s customs, especially their aversion to science. In reality, the film takes the easy way out. Sure, it’s violent in parts, but it’s disappointingly tame when it comes to making any sort of statement about the Church’s policies in its dealing with the modern world. Robert Langdon’s character is set up several times to deliver scathing rebuttals to blind religious rhetoric, but always opts for the soft, politically correct response instead. Odd, since Langdon supposedly has all these major issues with the Church.

Likewise, Langdon’s puzzle-solving merely came across as Indiana Jones-lite, with Langdon knowing the answers to obscure religious nonsense that Vatican scholars wouldn’t on their best day. The action scenes were tight, however, but I can’t think of any film, good or bad, that ever fell flat when going for a fight scene or shootout. Hollywood is just full of professionals that can take care of that for you easily.

As for the acting, the usually excellent Tom Hanks under whelms here, as he appears to be phoning in the role. It also doesn’t help that Hanks is A) obviously wearing a hairpiece, and B) is sporting a nice gut. I know getting older is a fact of life, but it’s depressing when it happens to actors that you grew up watching. It has a way of killing their mystique. Moving onward…Ewan McGregor shows up as a member of the Vatican (I didn’t even know he was in the movie before viewing it…seems he’d be worth advertising), and pulls off an impressive, multi-faceted performance here. The rest of the cast is solid, but none are especially noteworthy. Director Ron “Opie” Howard doesn’t seem to get as much out of his actors as he used to. But at least he still knows how to construct a movie that flows well, even if where it flows to isn’t all that thought-provoking or exciting.

So in the end, Angels & Demons is an average effort from all hands involved, save perhaps for Ewan McGregor, who always brings the goods (except if it’s a Star Wars movie). You can’t really go wrong if you choose to spend your hard-earned dollars on it- it’ll entertain you, but it’s also fairly forgettable, and if that notion is worth 10 or so bucks to you, then go for it. There are worse ways to part with your money, like sewing it into clothing or giving it to strangers on the street holding a “Ninjas killed my family, need $$$ for Karate lessons” sign (which I’ve really seen).

Until next time, when I’ll be reviewing the highly-anticipated Terminator Salvation (please be good, please be good…).

Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek, directed by J. J. Abrams, is a “reboot” of sorts of the classic science-fiction media franchise that has existed for decades. Now, do I really have to explain to you the significance of Star Trek in American society? I can’t imagine anyone not having some kind of experience with this phenomenon, sci-fi fan or not. It’s simply engrained into our popular culture. However, since I don’t merely consider myself a film critic, but a journalist and perhaps even teacher of sorts (my pride knows no bounds), I’ll give you a brief schooling of Trek lore. After all, there IS off-chance that someone out there has been a coma since birth, just awakened, turned on a computer, and the first thing they’re viewing is this column. It’s possible, isn’t it?

Created 1966 by Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek takes place in the 23rd century and tells the ongoing adventures of the star ship Enterprise of the United Federation of Planets. The ship, commanded by the iconic Captain James Kirk (wonderfully played by William Shatner), was tasked with the mission of exploring new worlds, establishing contact with unknown alien races, and defending the peaceful Federation from outside threats. Roddenberry used the show as a means to address many social issues of the 60’s, such as racial equality, prejudice and mankind’s ability to better itself. The Enterprise’s crew was an eclectic mix of races and backgrounds, comprised of Japanese, Russian (remember, this was during the Cold War), Black (the civil rights movement was also in full swing), Scottish (well, everyone loves the Scots), and even alien members (most notably, Leonard Nimoy as the logical, pointy-eared Vulcan Mr. Spock). Of course, Kirk and Spock are the best of friends, something the figures prominently in Abrams’ reboot.

Although the show only spanned 3 seasons, it spawned a large following whose popularity eventually led to a total of six television series and eleven feature films (chronicling the exploits of not only the original Enterprise’s crew but, introducing new ships, characters, and crews in their universe), not to mention countless video-games, toys, novels, and fan conventions.

But while Star Trek has flourished throughout the years, recently the appeal of the franchise has waned somewhat. Roddenberry’s death in 1991 after launching the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series allowed the creative reigns of Star Trek to pass through numerous hands, with varying results. As of recently, it has become apparent that the franchise has being wrung for its very last drop of profits and its future was in doubt…the latest TV series (2001’s Enterprise) was a commercial failure, as was the most recent film (2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis). Paramount Pictures, the parent company of Star Trek, decided that a hiatus was in order to give the brand a much-needed creative rest.

Enter director J. J. Abrams, who was contacted by Paramount Pictures in 2005 for ideas on how to revive the series. Abrams, a casual fan of the series, decided that an approach designed to appeal to a broader audience while still remaining faithful to the Star trek canon was in order. Also, Abrams reasoned that the best way to begin anew was to journey back to Star Trek’s roots, and thus based his new film on the main characters of the original Star Trek series, portrayed by a new cast (of course). What was once old is new again, as Abrams delves into the back stories of the main characters of the series, Kirk and Spock, showing their turbulent youths and ascension through the ranks of Starfleet Command. And on the whole, Abrams’ film is a resounding success.

For once, I’m going to go light on the plot description, with runs contrary to the format of my usual reviews. But, since Star Trek was created to be accessible to newcomers and veterans alike, this is one instance where I’d like the viewer to enter the theater with a sense of not knowing what to expect.

I feel the experience will only be all the more pleasant that way.

That said, I will give you the basics, as Star Trek’s plot can be a tad complex to the uninitiated. A mining ship commanded by a Romulan named Nero accidently journeys backward 153 years into the past and attacks the first Starfleet vessel he encounters (the USS Kelvin), forever altering the timeline going forward. However, one of the survivors of the attack is an infant named James Kirk, an infant whose father, Captain George Kirk, lost his life while in command of the Kelvin. Growing up on Earth without a father, Kirk (Chris Pine) becomes intelligent yet rebellious and cynical, and it is only with the encouragement of one of his father friends, Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) that he joins Starfleet Academy in an attempt to become a starship captain like his father before him.

Meanwhile, on the alien planet of Vulcan, the brilliant yet troubled young Spock is taunted by bullies for his unique heritage- while his father is the Vulcan ambassador to Earth, his mother is a human, and it is Spock’s constant struggle with his emotional, human side that conflicts with the cold, logical traditions of the Vulcan people. Nonetheless, Spock surpasses the expectations of all his educators, but as an adult (played by Zachary Quinto) opts to join Starfleet instead of staying on his home world, and you get the sense that this decision was made out of resentment due to the prejudices shown to him by his fellow Vulcan.

Spock and Kirk meet Starfleet Academy, and the two future friends at first become bitter rivals. They find themselves assigned on Captain Pike’s ship, the Enterprise, and it is here that we are re-introduced to the characters that were the mainstay of the series when Star Trek first came on the scene over 40 years ago. Their first assignment is to investigate a distress call from Spock’s home planet of Vulcan. It turns out that Nero, the Romulan responsible for the death of Kirk’s father 25 years before, is attacking the planet. Possessing a weapon capable of creating planet-eating black holes, Nero intention if the destruction of Vulcan, after which he plans on turning his attention of the very heart of Starfleet: Earth. Soon after arriving, Captain Pike is taken prisoner and the mantle of leadership falls squarely on the shoulders of Kirk and Spock. Can the two overcome their dislike of each other and become the well-oiled team of legend, and if so, can the threat of Nero and his unstoppable technology from the future be overcome? In a timeline where the future has irreversibly changed the past, no one has the answers.

Overall, the new Star Trek is outstanding. It pays homage to the series that came before it (to the point of even featuring one of the stars of the original series in a guest-role) while striking new ground in terms of back story and character development. The uniforms and technology design harkens back to the 1966 originals while being given a modern, iPod-ish twist, as if the producers hired Apple Inc.’s art department for a few days. The new Enterprise is an interesting mix of sleek and industrial, and it’s an appealing mix visually. In contrast, the Romulan vessel’s design is far more chaotic and menacing, and the threat it presents is made all the more poignant because of it. All of this is brought to life with some excellent physical and CG effect work, probably some of the best ever seen in a film. However, saying that a movie has nice effects work these days when you can randomly throw a rock and hit an impressive team of CG artists is hardly worth mentioning. Suffice it to say, the movie looks good.

But it’s the actors and their characters that make this reboot work so well, and first and foremost is Zachary Quinto’s Spock. While the issue of Spock’s struggle with his human and Vulcan halves has been addressed throughout the years, it’s never been tackled with this level of intensity or depth before, and it gives Spock as a character an additional level of appeal never before seen. Quinto apes Leonard Nimoy’s classic mannerisms while adding enough of his own to the role, uniquely making it his own. Also of note is Chris Pine’s James Kirk, whose performance manages to be even more distinct from Shatner’s than Quinto’s is from Nimoy’s. Pine channels Kirk’s arrogance and decisiveness, while blending in a sense of humor, and it is this ability of laugh at himself that makes Pine’s Kirk a winner. And fear not, Star Trek faithful, Kirk still has an eye for the ladies as well. However, as strong as Pine is in the role, he still falls short of Shatner. But after being deified for so many years for the role, one-upping The Shat is all but impossible, so it’s not really Pine’s fault. He does just fine, trust me.

The rest of the cast also avail themselves, each dissolving into their role without resorting to blatant imitation. While Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy deserves special praise for channeling the cantankerous doctor, the real credit belongs to Eric Bana as the villainous Captain Nero. Displaying an intensity he’s never really shown before, Bana makes Nero one of the more memorable Trek baddies. But honestly, the cast really possesses no weak links. Even Simon Pegg shines as the lovable Chief Engineer Montgomery “Scotty” Scott. I honestly want to say that SOMEONE did a bad job just to even out all the good, but I just can’t.

So, there you have it- the second summer blockbuster of the year has been released (the first being last week’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and so far they’re both quality films, with Star Trek edging out Wolvie due to it’s excellent storyline and packing, fast-paced action scenes, and endearing characters. I highly recommend it.

(Long Island, NY) Back in 1963, the comic book “X-Men” was created by the duo of writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby for Marvel Comics. Considered very progressive for its time, the comic used the fictional subject of human mutation as a metaphor for the growing civil rights movement of the time. The X-Men were mutants, an evolution of humanity born with abilities that set them apart from normal people, making them a target of fear and hatred by those that didn’t understand. But despite being ostracized from society, the X-Men sought to co-exist with and protect humanity, which often drew them into conflict with all manner of naughty bad guys. Over the years, the series itself evolved to reflect current social issues, and while the team’s roster saw characters come and go on a regular basis, it has always remained a best-seller.

One of the X-Men’s most popular members (and indeed one of the most popular comic book characters of all time) is Wolverine. A Canadian amnesiac named Logan born with regenerative abilities that enable him to rapidly recover from almost any wound or disease, enhanced animal senses, retractable, foot-long, razor-sharp claws housed in his forearms, and a skeleton bonded with an indestructible metal called adamantium, Wolverine is a ruthless loner with an attitude.

Running contrary to the squeaky-clean image of the typical superhero at the time, Wolverine was a breath of fresh air to funny book fans and rapidly grew in popularity, crossing over into other forms of media including action figures, video games and cartoons. And when the current craze of adapting comic books into live-action feature films came to pass, he was featured prominently in 2000’s X-Men and its two sequels, portrayed by actor Hugh Jackman (who embodied Wolverine so well that it lead many to speculate that the Aussie actor was genetically bred in a lab somewhere to play the part). Sadly, the rather lame third X-Men movie may have spelled doom for that franchise, but now 20th Century Fox, the holders of the film rights for all things X-related, is foraging ahead with multiple character spin-offs. Who’s the first on the list, you ask…? Well, who have I been talking about this whole paragraph?

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a prequel whose main storyline is set about 15 years prior to the original X-Men, before Wolverine’s skeleton was bonded with adamantium. However, our tale begins actually beings waaay back in 1845 in the Northwest Territories of what will one day become Canada. Young James Howlett (Troye Sivan), who will one day grow up into Wolverine/Logan, has just killed his adoptive father’s murderer (Thomas Logan, revealed to be his real father) with his newly-discovered mutant bone claws and is on the run with his half-brother, Victor Creed (Peter O’Brien), who shares similar animalistic powers. Wait, now the X-Men comics take place in the modern day, you say? How is it that Wolverine was even alive back in 1845? Well, it’s simple…Wolverine’s healing abilities also serve to slow down his aging process a great deal, so modern-day Wolvie is easily over 160 years old. Now, if you could please stop interrupting me…

Anyway, as the two brothers slowly age into adulthood they eventually join the American military for unexplained reasons. The opening credits sequence of X-Men Origins depicts grown-up James (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) serving in all of the major conflicts of our country’s history, including the Civil War, World War 1 & 2, and Vietnam. Despite James’ attempts to control him, during the latter war Victor finally succumbs to the same feral nature that James has been suppressing for years and kills a superior officer, resulting in a military firing squad for the brothers. However, due to their mutant healing factors, the bullets merely “tickle” and James and Victor then find themselves wasting away in a cell. They are visited by William Stryker (Danny Huston, playing the role originated by Brian Cox in X-Men 2), who offers them a pardon if they join his secret covert-ops team comprised solely of mutant operatives. Naturally, they accept, and James and Victor soon find themselves engaging in special-forces missions with their new teammates, which include several other Marvel Comics characters including fan-favorite Wade Wilson, AKA Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), a wisecracking yet deadly mercenary. Just picture how Reynolds played Hannibal King in Blade: Trinity, replace the guns with swords, and you’ll get the idea.

Soon, James discovers that Stryker’s covert-ops team is up to no good when they start slaughtering innocent villagers in Nigeria while looking for a mysterious meteorite. James, disgusted by the actions of the team (including his own brother), abandons the group and disappears, only to resurface years later as a logger in the Canadian wilderness under the name of “Logan.” He’s living with his girlfriend, Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins), and is basically enjoying the good life of a hard-working man who has a rustic mountaintop cabin with a hot woman waiting for him inside every night. Alas, one day the past rears its ugly head, and William Stryker arrives at Logan’s job to inform him that “someone” is killing the members of the now-disbanded unit, a plot point that instantly reminded me of the Schwarzenegger classic “Commando.” I half-expected a guy in a chain-mail tank top to show up and kidnap Logan’s daughter…if he had a daughter, that is. Never mind.

Of course, Logan ignores Stryker’s warning and soon after Kayla winds up dead, an apparent victim of Victor, who is also revealed as the one hunting down Stryker’s team members. Logan sets out for blood, but the stronger Victor, who has now completely given into his animal nature and is harboring resentment towards Logan for leaving him behind, easily manages to defeat him. While recovering from having 6 tons of logs dropped on him and being run over by a truck, Logan is again approached by Stryker who offers him his old job back and an ace-in-the-hole: to have Logan’s skeletal structure and claws enhanced with a newly-developed super-metal called adamantium, harvested from the infamous Nigerian meteorite years before. Logan agrees, and taking the code-name “Wolverine” (based on a story Kayla told him), undergoes a painful procedure that he is only able to survive due to his unique regenerative abilities. After the procedure Logan overhears Stryker’s order to have his memory erased and to harvest his body for an experiment, starts killing everyone, and flees. But Stryker isn’t about to let his creation escape without a fight, and dispatches a small army after him.

Wolverine eventually discovers that Victor was actually working for Stryker all along, naturally wants revenge, and begins tracking down their base of operations. He enlists the aid of former teammate John Wraith (will.i.am) and Remy LeBeau, AKA Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), a character fans have been waiting a long time to make his big-screen debut. But even with their help and his now-unbreakable skeleton and claws, will Wolverine be able to defeat his own brother, uncover the conspiracy behind Stryker’s fiendish plot, face the return of friends and foes thought long-dead, and deal with the possibility of having his very memories ripped away from him?

Overall, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a good movie. Aside from stupid little things (Why didn’t they explain why little Jimmy’s real dad killed his adoptive one? Why did Jimmy and Victor fight in every major war? Why did they feel the need to completely ruin Deadpool at the film’s climax when he started out so well early on? Why was a popular character like Gambit barely featured? Oh, and memory-erasing bullets? Who came up with that one?), the film really outshines some of the negative reviews I’ve read on it thus far. The story had a few holes, yes (prequels sometimes do), but overall it was fairly epic and interesting. The pace was nice and fast, the action scenes tight and flashy, and best of all: it’s better than the horrid X-Men 3, and for that ALONE it deserves credit.

Acting-wise, there’s not much to say. None of the actors are really testing their emotional range, but they all do fine jobs. Hugh Jackman seems to have tackled his signature role on his first solo outing with a fervor rarely seen, having whipped himself into amazing shape. I mean, the man has veins popping out all over the place. It’s gross. Also, he’s very, very good at looking very mean and screaming a lot. There’s really not much more required for the role of Wolverine, although Jackman does manage to sneak in some flourishes of genuine emotion here and there when the need arises. He also seems to specialize in roaring to the heavens while clutching a departed loved one in his arms, something he does at least three times in this film. And you though that was done to death in parodies…

The rest of the cast was solid as well. Liev Schreiber deserves credit for effectively channeling the ferocious nature of Victor Creed (AKA Sabretooth, although he’s never called that in the movie). Basically, he’s just playing a meaner version of the character he played in 2008’s Defiance, except he has claws and and jump real high. Taylor Kitsch is good as Gambit, the card-dealing’ Cajun (aide from his almost non-existent attempt at a Cajun accent), but he’s given so little screen-time that his character goes almost nowhere. Ryan Reynolds manages to make a big impression in the brief time he’s allotted for his role as Dead-pool, and word has it that he’s up for a spin-off feature of his own. Of course, considering what they do with his character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, whoever ends up writing that flick will find themselves in quite a hole to climb out of…

The special effects, of which there are many, are generally well-done and convincing, aside from a scene involving Wolverine’s newly-metal claws and a bathroom mirror (in which the CG is almost embarrassingly bad). The digital DE-aging effect seen in the opening of X-Men 3 is present again when a special someone makes a surprise cameo near the end of the film, and it’s just as effective now as it was then.

So, X-Men Origins: Wolverine paves the way for a series of solo adventures for everyone’s favorite mutant. Talks are already underway for the series’ second installment involving Logan’s time spent in Japan fighting Samurai and Ninja, which personally has me pretty excited at the possibilities, because let’s face it…ninjas are awesome. But aside from that, the opening weekend success of this film (87 million domestically, 160 worldwide) ensure that not only sequels will be coming our way, but hopefully other movies depicting the origins of famous X-Men as well (rumored up next: X-Men Origins: Magneto, the X-Men’s arch enemy). It’s a good time to be a fan of comic book movies, that’s for sure.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I have no idea what the hell I just watched. Crank: High Voltage, a sequel to 2006’s Crank, is the craziest movie I’ve ever seen. It makes the

intense original film seem tame and mild-mannered in comparison. I’m not even sure how to review it, what score to give it, or how I even feel after subjecting myself to its insanity.

Okay, here goes: At the end of the original Crank, Chev Chelios (everyone’s favorite Brit B-movie action star, Jason Statham) fell out of a helicopter, plummeted several thousand feet, and went ‘splat’ on a car. Apparently this was not enough to kill him, as High Voltage picks up right where the first movie left off with Chev literally being scraped off the ground with a shovel and carted off by Chinese gangsters with the intention of harvesting his organs. Now, this wasn’t random- the gangsters specifically wanted Chelios, due to his superhuman resistance to a deadly Chinese poison he was injected with in the previous film. I guess they just decided to drive around every day and wait for Jason Statham to fall from the sky like magic, which ended up actually working. I know it sounds nuts, but if you try to apply logic to Crank: High Voltage, you’re in for a whole heap of trouble.

Anyway, Chev wakes up in a makeshift hospital while doctors remove his heart and replace it with an artificial one. Chev’s heart is then boxed up on ice and taken away by Johnny Vang (Art Hsu), headed fro parts unknown. Discovering that several other of his organs are next on the chopping block, including (ahem) “Little Chev,” he promptly kills the doctors and escapes. Outside, he shoots several thugs and interrogates a survivor regarding the whereabouts of his heart, coercing

the info by means of a rectal shotgun suppository(!!!!). Finding out who Johnny Vang is and where he’s heading, Chev steals a car and departs.

Discovering a cell phone on route, Chev calls Doc Miles (Dwight Yoakam), who informs him that he possesses the skills to put his heart back where it belongs, provided Chev can find it first. Doc also reveals that Chev’s artificial heart (an AbioCor, a model designed to keep patients awaiting transplants alive) is powered by an external battery pack, in addition to a one-hour internal back-up. As if on cue, Chev immediately crashes his car and destroys the external battery, but manages to use jumper cables to recharge and sprints off like The Flash in pursuit of Johnny Vang. It seems that Chev can keep his heart beating by directly absorbing electricity through his skin on a regular basis, and this becomes a

running gag throughout the film, with Chev finding new and more outlandish ways of electrocuting himself. Adding to the cartoon-like nature of High Voltage, each time Chev gets juiced up, he suddenly displays super abilities much like Popeye does when he eats his spinach. Like I said, this movie is crrraaaazy.

The rest of Crank: High Voltage is just an madcap montage of chase scenes, sex, violence, comedy, and surrealism. While chasing after his heart, Chev encounters Mexican gangsters, Chinese Triad members, his girlfriend-turned-stripper Eve (Amy Smart, who has good chemistry with Statham), an annoying Asian prostitute, a guy with Full Body Tourette’s Syndrome, the disembodied head (kept alive in a tank) of an arch enemy, public debauchery, Godzilla-inspired fight scenes, weird hallucinations, talk-show flashbacks, lots of harsh language, flying bullets, cops, porn stars and strippers. The movie’s intensity never lets up for a second, assaulting the viewers with all manner of demented characters and imagery on its

way to its blistering (literally!) climax.

Crank: High Voltage is basically the same movie as its predecessor, only turned up to 11. It starts out fast, frenzied and offensive and just gets more and more deranged as the movie progresses, and it manages to be a lot of fun…at least, until they start going overboard about halfway through. Things eventually start getting REALLY bizarre, and there were several scenes that put an “I just made in my pants” expression on my face. There was just no other way to react. I don’t want to get into the specifics and risk spoiling things for those of you that haven’t seen High Voltage yet, but the latter half of the movie goes so far over the edge that it starts becoming almost impossible to

take anything seriously. But that was obviously the filmmaker’s intent, and I respect their attempt to create something fresh, different, and wild…I suppose I’d rather see a film narrowly avoid brilliance by blatantly overshooting the mark as opposed to coming up short in every way. High Voltage sure ain’t boring, that’s for sure. It’ll just leave you very bewildered.

I’d comment on the acting, but there’s not much to say. Everyone in Crank: High Voltage is too busy running around and shooting at/having sex with each other to waste time trying to be thespians, and what dialogue exists is only there to drive forward the plot (such as it is). Jason Statham does his usual solid job, playing retired hit man Chev Chelios with intensity and brutality, although not without a good dose of slapstick and charm ala Jackie Chan. Statham’s character in the Crank films is basically indestructible and unstoppable…the guy shrugs off such inhuman amounts of punishment while killing people left and right that I keep expecting him to slip on a hockey mask at some point. As stated before, if you’re expecting realism, you’ve come to the wrong movie.

One thing about Crank: High Voltage that was particularly interesting to me was how it was made: to keep costs down, the movie was shot exclusively on low cost consumer hand-held HDV cameras, which also enabled the filmmakers to record shots and angles that would be impossible with larger, more expensive cameras. But after extensive post-production work, color correction, and editing, the film never betrays its low-budget roots. If anything, Crank: High Voltage’s approach to filming should encourage a whole slew of independent film productions in the future, because it’s proven more and more every day that you don’t need millions and millions of dollars to make a good movie. You just need creativity.

That said, I can recommend Crank: High Voltage to fans of Statham, action movies, and people looking for something (very) different. But be forewarned: the movie is just plain looney to the point of overkill, and not for everyone.

(Long Island, NY) Observe and Report is a very unusual movie. How, you may ask? First of all, the advertising campaign: the film that it’s portraying in ads is nothing like the film you see when you actually go to the theater. Observe and Report’s commercials paint a picture of a silly, happy-go-lucky romp that doesn’t take itself very seriously. A typical romantic farce, if you will.

The reality is the exact opposite- Observe and Report is actually a very black comedy that occasionally delves into some very dark places. Don’t get me wrong…there are some laughs and plenty of sophomoric humor on display, but it’s not exactly what I would call a “date movie”. But does the deceptive marketing campaign mask a good yet unconventional film, or attempt to hoodwink the public into seeing something the studio has little confidence in? Honestly, I’d have to say the answer lies somewhere in-between.

In the Forest Ridge Mall, justice is dispensed by the head of mall security, Ronald “Ronnie” Barnhardt (Seth Rogen) and his crack team of misfit a disgusting flasher (Randy Gambill), complete with raincoat and knee-high socks. Ronnie, having little else going on in his life, takes it upon himself to capture the pervert, hoping to achieve two objectives: protecting the public at large, and winning the affections of Brandi (Anna Faris), his dream-girl and latest victim of the flasher. In reality, however, Brandi is an air-headed floozy with little interest anything other than getting drunk and…well, getting drunk again once she sobers up. But alas, Ronnie is in love, and doesn’t even notice a true chance for happiness in the form of Nell (Collette Wolfe), who spends every day pining away for him while working in the mall’s food court.

Meanwhile, the mall is being robbed at night by an unknown masked bandit, leaving stores ransacked, cash registers empty, and Ronnie looking fairly incompetent. But while hoping to take on the brunt of these investigations himself, Ronnie is upset to discover that his boss has lost confidence in him and called in the police to look into these matters. Feeling threatened, Ronnie immediately finds himself butting heads with the officer in charge of the case, Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), who in turn despises Ronnie’s bumbling interference in his case. Hoping to circumvent Harrison’s hindrance, Ronnie attempts to become a real police officer, but I’d really have think twice about living in any city that would ever allow a goof like him to carry a badge.

Things start taking a bad turn for Ronnie, as the flasher starts striking at will, the robberies continue, and problems arise with his barely-there relationship with Brandi. Soon, Ronnie’s job is at risk, not to mention his mental health and freedom…will he pull it together, solve the crimes, and get the girl? Or will he just watch as his life slowly goes down the drain?

Like I said in my opening paragraph, Observe and Report is NOT the movie the ads make it out to be. It’s actually a very dark film at times, with some segments that seemed purposely designed to make its audience squirm a bit. Such scenes involve Ronnie casually interacting with his hopelessly alcoholic mother, actually getting the empty-headed Brandi out to dinner (the resulting alcohol binge and subsequent sexual encounter barely manages to avoid being date rape…I think), and rampantly using street-drugs (including shooting up Heroin!). And that’s not to mention that the climatic chase scene at the end involves more exposed male genitals ever featured in a major studio film that wasn’t pornography. By the way, all of the scenes I just described (in addition to numerous more) are actually played for laughs. Yes, Observe and Report is not the light-hearted family fare the commercials make it out to be.

But while it is indeed a comedy, the question remains…is it actually funny? The answer: sometimes. There’s genuine laughs, especially early in the movie, but eventually things start getting bogged down with irrelevant sub-plots that go nowhere, outlandish acts that don’t have the consequences you’d expect in real life, and the film’s pace drags in spots. And while I do happen to have a deep love for well-done black comedy, the filmmakers here don’t display the ability to take the morbid and consistently present a humorous spin on it. That’s not to say that it isn’t funny when it DOES work- it takes a certain amount to raw talent to craft a legitimately funny scene in which the main character’s drunken mother swears off liquor in favor of beer and the main character is actually happy and supportive about it. Tender mother and son moments like that always warm my heart…

All that said, the cast of Observe and Report makes the most of the uneven script they’re presented with. Seth Rogan seems to be in a new movie every month, and while he appears poised to become a top guy when it comes to comedy, average films like this aren’t going to get him there any faster. Still, he tackles the role of Ronnie with his usual energy and excellent comic timing, so the film’s shortcomings aren’t really his fault. Anna Faris expertly channels the spirit of the stereotypical party-girl you’d meet in any club or disco, which is impressive and a little repulsive at the same time. And I’m always happy to see the great Ray Liotta in any film, and he lives up to his extensive and impressive pedigree, despite being mired in this mediocre film.

Overall, Observe and Report isn’t the film you though it was, and it isn’t all that great, either. However, it fails while trying to do something different from the norm, so while I can’t really recommend it to the average moviegoer, I can’t really condemn it, either. I’d say that you should only check it out if you’re the sort looking for something strange yet flawed, which is a risk I’m always willing to take (and sometimes I pay the price). Otherwise, wait until it hits DVD.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Fast & Furious is a difficult film to review, I’ll admit. On the one hand, I tried my very best not to enjoy it, feeling myself above the type of “all style and no substance” drivel that this flashy streetcar-racing franchise (now four movies and counting) is known for. But, despite my best efforts, I found myself actually being entertained throughout its entire running time. Bear in mind, said entertainment was on the basest levels imaginable, much in the same way that ancient cavemen would sit transfixed by the wonderment of fire, or even a really cool rock. But entertainment is entertainment, and while most of us like to make some pretense of our sophistication, at times there’s nothing like slumming when it comes to a quick fix of excitement.

While Fast & Furious is the 4th movie in The Fast and the Furious series, chronologically, it’s set between the second and third films (not that this has much bearing on the plot). The real draw for this installment, however, is the reuniting of the core cast from the original flick- Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster all reprise their roles.

Apparently that, and the promise of intense street racing involving exotic foreign and domestic muscle cars, was enough to draw the masses out of their homes and into the theaters, making Fast & Furious’ opening weekend the biggest of 2009 thus far- and by a wide margin. Does it really deserve to hold such a lofty position over such excellent contenders as Watchmen, The Wrestler, or even my beloved Taken? While the answer is an emphatic “no,” Fast & Furious is nonetheless still good for a few cheap thrills. Read on.

Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), a successful street racer and truck hijacker (as seen in the first film), has gone on to become an internationally-wanted criminal living in the Dominican Republic with his girlfriend/partner Letty (Michelle Rodriguez). After an extremely close call during his most recent hijacking attempt, Dom wakes up to the fact that the authorities are more than likely going to be closing in on him soon. Not wanting to bring Letty down with him, he leaves her and disappears to Panama, only resurfacing years later when he receives news of her tragic murder back in the States. Despite his status as a highly wanted man, Dom sneaks back into the country with vengeance on his mind and starts searching for information on Letty’s killer.

Meanwhile, Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker)- formerly an undercover cop who had previously infiltrated Dom’s gang- is now an FBI agent tracking down a notorious drug lord named Arturo Braga. His investigation causes him to once again cross paths with Dom, who has discovered that Letty’s death was caused by a one of Braga’s henchmen. Realizing that their goals are the same, Dom and Paul team-up and start working undercover as street racers, running heroin for Braga across the Mexican border to gain access to his organization. While the duo works on getting close to Braga, Paul takes the opportunity to re-kindle a past romance with Dom’s sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster). However, Dom’s status as a fugitive from the police, combined with Paul’s hard-edged, “break all the rules” style soon lands the two in hot water on both sides of the law. Can they get the redemption and justice they’re both out for, or is this their last race together? Things don’t look good for our heroes…

Fast & Furious continues the trend of this series with the same formula as before: hot cars, hot women, flashy editing (which is amazingly impressive, from a technical standpoint), and no brains whatsoever. All of this is mixed with a very authentic, gritty street vibe that really helps define the “underground” feel Fast & Furious tries to portray. The dialogue and plot are as threadbare as 20 year-old Goodyears, but the action comes at you so fast and furiously (heh) that you don’t really care. Why? Because the street racing scenes are so breathtaking and intense that your mind is instantly thrown into neutral, and soon little things like character development or story progression become secondary to all the pretty lights and things that go “VROOM.” With all the insane stunts, crashes, computer graphics, and lightning-quick camera work, the visuals of Fast & Furious are mind-bendingly cutting-edge- and we all like pretty things, yes?

Beyond that, we have a basic plot mostly about revenge, which is basically just an excuse to get in those cars and drive real, real fast. As such, you’re never really all that involved with the plights of the characters, but that’s never been the selling point of this series, so it’s pointless to dwell on that. As far as the actors go, Vin Diesel is Vin Diesel, which is perfect for this movie- a big, tough, gravely-voiced guy who beats people up. It’s the role he was born for, and while I’ve seen proof (Saving Private Ryan) that his acting skills possess greater range, he seems content to simply play the same character type over and over. The rest of the cast perform their required duties effectively also- Paul Walker comes off well as the FBI agent working against the meddling of his superiors and torn between duty and his friendship with Dom. Jordana Brewster doesn’t do much besides look cute and squeeze out a few tears here and there, but Michelle Rodriguez’s scrappy character was fun- too bad she’s not in the movie as long as I would have liked.

So, Fast & Furious is all flash and little substance, but sometimes that’s enough. After all, one can not sustain themselves on nothing but 4-star films their entire life, can they? It’s like a proper diet should be: for the most part, you try to eat well- avoid sugar, maintain the proper protein/carb/fat ratio, and exercise…but once in a while you need that bowl of ice cream, if only to keep you sane. In that sense, I suppose that Fast & Furious is the Bryers vanilla bean (yummy!) of the current movie crop. So, if you need your junk food movie fix, you certainly could do worse.