(Long Island, NY) I’ve been a huge James Bond fan ever since I was introduced to the British secret agent’s films as a kid growing up in the 70’s. Back then Roger Moore played the titular role, and I reacted with stunned disbelief when informed that this wasn’t always the case- apparently, some unknown named Sean Connery portrayed Bond first (well, okay, maybe you’re heard of him).

James Bond, if you’re unaware, is the creation of late writer Ian Fleming, who depicted agent 007 of England’s secret service in a number of novels and short stories. Bond was a debonair yet ruthless spy armed with exotic gadgets and weaponry, able to bed any woman who came across his path, all while saving the world time and again from various sundry super-villains. But while Fleming’s stories proved popular, it wasn’t until they were translated into a super-successful series of motion picture adaptations (some more loyal to their source material than others) that Bond became a household name.

As time went by, various other actors have taken a crack at bringing the suave MI6 operative’s exploits to life, but one thing always remained constant- the rampant speculation that occurred when the reigning Bond would retire the part and hand the mantle onto another. The public would always wonder- who would take up the role next? Most recently, Bond actor Pierce Brosnan failed to reprise the part after 2002’s Die Another Day (reportedly not by his choice, but by a decision of the studio, EON Productions), and the iconic tuxedo handed over to character actor Daniel Craig, who has since been hailed as one of the best Bonds ever. I find myself agreeing with that assessment- while Sean Connery to me will always be the quintessential Bond, Craig comes in second with his rugged, gritty interpretation of the character, combining grace and elegance with intensity and brutality.

Craig’s freshman effort as Bond, 2006’s Casino Royale, held special significance in that it was the first film of the series in many years to be based on an original Fleming novel, as opposed to an new script. To date, all of Fleming’s novels and stories had been translated by EON Productions save Casino Royale, the rights of which were purchased by a different studio many years before and filmed and released in the 1960’s as a Bond parody, of all things. EON finally managed to acquire the rights to this “missing” story and were finally able to give it the serious treatment is deserved, and Daniel Craig’s debut was widely hailed as the breath of fresh air the series needed, which at one time was accused of becoming stagnant and formulaic. Casino Royale, which “re-booted” the franchise, eschewed much of the reliance on cheesy humor, rampant womanizing, and ridiculous over-the-top action pieces, as well as toning down the silly sci-fi gadgets, and concentrated more on hard-edged realism, intense yet believable action, and (gasp!) actual character development- things sorely missing from other installments of the Bond series. As a result of mixing up the formula in this way, Casino Royale was a huge success, and people immediately began anticipating its follow-up.

Well, here it is- Quantum of Solace, directed by Marc Forster, is a direct sequel to the events of Casino Royale. We find Bond hot on the trail of vengeance for the death of his girlfriend Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), killed in the climax of the previous film. Vesper had been manipulated, forced to betray Bond, and ultimately murdered by a mysterious organization called “Quantum,” and Bond starts tracking down those responsible. This brings him into conflict with Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an environmentalist who is secretly a member of the Quantum organization, and who intends to stage a coup d’état in Bolivia to take control of its water supply. While traveling from country to country, following leads and killing a great many people, Bond discovers an ally and potential love interest in a woman named Camille Montes (new Bond Girl Olga Kurylenko), who is on her own mission of vengeance. But when Bond discovers that Quantum is entrenched in the highest levels of British government and even his own MI6, he must use all his cunning and resourcefulness just to remain alive, let alone achieve the revenge that is eating away at his soul.

Quantum of Solace is not quite the film Casino Royale was. While the previous movie had a finely-crafted story, the sequel has almost none to speak of. Well, I suppose there was a story tucked in there somewhere, but it was pretty much lost amongst all the fight scenes and car chases. Quantum of Solace does experience a lull in action mid-point but the story doesn’t bother to take up the slack, and as a result the film starts to meander and drag until things start blowing up again. It’s a shame- Casino Royale was a beautifully honed tale, so obviously labored upon in terms of script, and painstakingly brought to life by characters that were interesting and dynamic. A great deal of that was lost in Quantum of Solace- the storytelling was discarded in favor of punches, kicks, crashes, and things that blow up real nice. Oh, and let’s not forget about the uninteresting characters that you won’t care about. For example, Camille Montes, the new Bond Girl that I mentioned above, is a total bore and makes you wish Vesper Lynd could somehow come back from the dead.

Now, don’t get me wrong- Daniel Craig turns in another great performance as Bond, but he just has so much less to work with here. I know he’s supposed to be upset and driven by revenge in this film, and that can make a chap rather unpleasant, but as a result he’s lost a lot of the charm he brought to the role in Casino Royale. This fact, coupled with all the one-dimensional supporting characters he’s forced to share screen time with, all adds up to a Bond film that fails to capture you like the last one.

And that brings me to another flaw of Quantum of Solace- it just doesn’t feel like a James Bond film. Casino Royale introduced the world to a tougher, edgier Bond, yet he retained the trappings of a gentleman established in the series prior. But this new film ignores all that in favor of imitating the recent Jason Bourne spy films starring Matt Damon. Nearly all of the Bond trademarks have completely vanished (such as gadgets, cars, cool bad guys, charisma, humor, booze, etc), replaced by washed-out color palettes, headache-inducing shaky camera work, and MTV-style rapid-fire editing during fight scenes, ensuring that you can’t see that the hell is happening. The people calling this movie “James Bourne” have the right idea.

Despite all these complaints, Quantum of Solace is a solid action movie- it just falls way short of the high mark set by Casino Royale, which was one of the finest Bond films in years- perhaps even decades. Can a James Bond movie only be really good if it’s based on an Ian Fleming novel? I’d like to say no, but the past is making me think twice about that. I hope Daniel Craig’s next outing as everyone favorite super-spy is given better treatment- whereas Casino Royale was crafted as if with a surgeon’s scalpel, Quantum of Solace feels more like they used a hammer and chisel. If this franchise re-boot is to continue its success, they need to concentrate more on story and character in the sequel and less on things that go boom.

(Long Island, NY) Overall, I’m not what you would call a fan of Kevin Smith’s movies. The New Jersey-based writer/director burst onto the indie film-making scene back in 1994 with the low-budget hit Clerks, but since then has produced a number of movies that seem to fall short of greatness (or even averageness).

They all hold the same traits in common: they’re all set in New Jersey, they all star characters who are losers and social rejects, and they all have very forced humor, awkward dialogue (consisting of mostly silly, vulgar, pop-culture-laced rants), and a constant need to tinge every ending with a veneer of sappiness. These reoccurring aspects tend to make his films very hit-or-miss…well, mostly miss, in my opinion. However, despite any apparent need to evolve as a filmmaker, the man still occasionally rises above his own shortcomings and produces something watchable. This was almost one of those times.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno started out promising enough. It’s about…well, the title tells you what it’s about, doesn’t it? I mean, the basics, anyway. But

I suppose you’ll need a tad more to go on, if you’re going to formulate your own opinion about plunking down the dough to see this movie. Okay…roommates Zack Brown (Seth Rogen) and Miriam “Miri” Linky (Elizabeth Banks) are a pair of losers (in keeping with the Kevin Smith formula I outlined above…I guess someone felt like an outsider growing up and is making movies now as a form of therapy, huh?) who are way, way behind on their bills. It seems that Zack’s

coffee shop gig and Miri’s mall job simply can’t cover the bills, and the childhood friends soon find themselves with no water or power, not to mention a big fat eviction looming over their heads. Growing desperation and some inspiration from a gay porn star (don’t ask) leads them to make the same decision anyone else would make when trying to get their heads above water- let’s have sex on camera for money!

Recruiting his coworker Delaney (Craig Robinson) as a producer (mainly so they can use his plasma screen TV fund as investment capital), Zack and Miri concoct an adult film script based on the classic Star Wars movies (called “Star Whores”), rent a sound-stage, and hire “actors” (including Smith mainstay Jason Mewes) for their film. However, due to a corrupt landlord, the soundstage is bulldozed the next day, leaving their equipment and costumes buried under a heap of rubble…but not their hopes and dreams!

Zack decides to instead shoot the porno film in the Starbucks-like coffee shop he works in during the hours they are closed, using the owner’s surveillance camera (which appears to be DVD-based, so it could only record an hour of footage at a time, negating its usefulness as a surveillance camera…but whatever, I’m nit-picking). The filming commences, and despite their bumbling and total lack of experience, everything is proceeding smoothly until

Zack and Miri’s big nookie scene. Despite their mutual vows that the sex would just be for the sake of making easy money and not change their status of being “just friends,” can these vows really stand up after you’re been…um…naughty with one another? Or can physical intimacy (well, as intimate as you can get with someone with a film crew standing over you while you copulate) inevitably lead to…love?

I’m telling ya, Smith came close to nailing it (ha!) with this one. Zack and Miri Make a Porno started out well enough…it was funny, flowed well, and starred a cast that obviously had a fairly good bond with one another behind the scenes (Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks had previously starred together in The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and their chemistry here was very apparent). Sure, the trademark geeky verbal tirades and speeches started popping up as usual for a Kevin Smith film, but overall the experience was enjoyable and the humor was more genuine, as opposed to the way Smith tries to normally sledgehammer it into our heads.

Then, it happened- Zack and Miri Make a Porno got all

mushy. Emotionally, I mean, not… never-mind. But from there, it was all downhill.

It seems there can’t be a comedy nowadays where the main characters don’t undergo some sort of catharsis and emerge as better people, and from that point on, the movie usually loses any edge that it

once had. Sadly, Kevin Smith is more guilty of this than anyone working in Hollywood today, and when his movies turn sappy, he does it with all the subtlety of a kick to the groin. I won’t go into specifics for risk of spoiling the plot of Zack and Miri, but most people will probably figure it out for themselves. Suffice it to say that there’s one point where things get very emotional, people start doing odd things that normal people would never do (and I mean in addition to making a porno in a coffee shop), all the humor just evaporates in favor of angst set to cheesy music, and the movie just totally loses your involvement. At that point I started thinking about washing my socks and if I had any Ovaltine left, and chances are, you will too.

It’s a shame to see a movie come so close to being good and then snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like this, but that seems to be the norm for Kevin Smith. I suppose if I didn’t feel that he truly possessed some undeniable talent buried deep down, I wouldn’t care that he keeps churning out so many bad movies. But the fact of the matter is that the man IS talented, but you only manage to see glimpses of that talent in each flick he creates. Sadly, he always manages to shoot himself down in the end. Perhaps one day he can get his act together, grow a little as a filmmaker, and actually see an interesting concept through to the end instead of retreating the same lame formula over and over.

So, do I recommend it? Well, it’s an average movie at best- I feel no better or worse for having seen it. If you expect no more from your entertainment, then go for it. Otherwise, it can wait for DVD.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I have to really get this out of the way first- while

Max Payne, starring Mark Wahlberg, is a fairly below-average movie, I’ll nonetheless be making my best efforts to avoid any jokes involving the film’s title. Example: “Max Payne caused me a lot of pain.” Nope, you’ll be seeing none of that, although I’m sure many other critics out there will be having a field day with such cheap shots.

Also, I have to say that Max Payne is supposed to be based on a best-selling video game, although I must admit that I’ve never played it. So while I can not attest to the film being a close adaptation of the game or not, I can only hope the game manages to generate more excitement than Mr. Wahlberg’s latest foray into cinema does.

Okay, onto the review. Max Payne (yes, that’s his real name) is a NYPD detective working the Cold Case unit. The Cold Case unit, for those that are unaware, is basically where all the dead-end and unsolvable cases go. Max volunteered to be transferred there 3 years prior, following the murder of his beloved wife and newborn child. This tragic event has transformed Max from a nice, happy guy to (you guessed it) a granite-faced “cop on the edge” with “nothing to lose” (picture Mel Gibson’s character

in Lethal Weapon, but without humor, intensity, or any charisma).

Max spends his days pushing meaningless paperwork and his nights attempting to track down the men who killed his family, with little success in either area. But with the help of his former Homicide partner Alex Balder (Donal Logue), Max draws a connection between the murders and an underground gang dealing in a hardcore new drug called Valkyr. With the help of his father’s former police partner, B.B. Hensley (Beau Bridges), himself retired from the force and now working at a pharmaceutical company, Max goes on the trail of the makers of the drug, hoping they will lead him down the path of vengeance. But when Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), the sister of another person slain by the drug gang shows up and casts light on several mistruths, Max will realize that the only person he can trust is himself. But ain’t it always like that in these movies? I mean, once the main character starts trusting anyone, that’s when he finds himself knocked out or in fiendish 1960’s Batman-style trap, right? If cinema has taught us anything, it’s that it is better to go it alone.

So, I mentioned earlier that Max Payne was a below-average movie. Here’s where I tell you why- it’s poorly paced and annoyingly dumb. Dumb how? Well, remember that drug I mentioned, the one called Valkyr? Well, whenever somebody takes it, they have these goofy hallucinations involving demons flying around and attacking them. Never mind the nonsense all users of the drug, people all with different psyches and brain chemistries, would all have the same exact visions when under its influence. But the film also goes out of its way to attempt to blur the lines between what is and isn’t real, and the results end up just being silly. People are killed and at times it’s made to look like perhaps the demons did it, when they don’t even exist.

Also, Mark Wahlberg continues his streak of stoic, wooden performances, which is a shame because I’ve always considered him a solid actor who excels in gritty, realistic, “everyman” type roles. But between Max Payne and his

hilariously bad turn in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening earlier this year, it appears that either Mark is taking jobs based solely on the paycheck these days, or he’s just plain lost his passion for acting. Either way, I hope the Mark Wahlberg of old returns soon, because I just can’t stand this evil clone who’s taken his place.

Also, for an “action” movie, there’s precious little of it. From what I understand, the video-game was basically all intense run-and-gun action- how can you make a shoot-em-up flick last 100 minutes and have 1st real action scene at like 65 minutes in? I could deal with it if the non-shooting scenes were interesting, but everything drags and drags, with no one saying or doing anything even vaguely interesting. And when the gun-play does kick in, it’s horribly inept.

There’s a scene where they show Max falling backwards with

a shotgun in slow motion for like 10-15 seconds, all before he even fires the first blast. Meanwhile, a bad guy is behind him on a catwalk armed with a machine gun with a scope mounted on it, taking slow deliberate aim at Mr. Payne but still managing to miss him by about a good 20-30 feet. I’m not kidding. Also, there’s a scene where Max, in a desperate moment to prevent hypothermia after being dunked in the river during winter, consumes

two vials of Valkyr and starts roaring to the heavens like the Incredible Hulk while demons and fire suddenly start swarming. Best unintentional comedic moment of the year, folks.

I’d totally write Max Payne off as worthless, except for one thing- the Cinematographer knew exactly what he was doing, and frankly, deserves to be working on better films than this. Max Payne went heavy on the dark, moody lighting and dramatic camera angles, and that, combined with some effective CG snow and gritty set design, beautifully established an interesting mix of modern and 1920’s detective-style film noir. The atmosphere of Max Payne is brooding and thick, and it’s a shame it was all but wasted on such a sub-par script consisting of so many clichéd plot devices. But in the end, the near-beautiful visuals made Max Payne at least watch able throughout. All style and no substance.

So, in the end, if you like pretty movies, go watch Max Payne but perhaps try wearing an iPod while doing so- that way, you can just enjoy the aesthetically pleasing eye-candy and otherwise zone out and groove to your favorite tunes. Otherwise, give it a pass.

(Long Island, NY) Righteous Kill got a lot of pre-release hype due to the clandestine paring of two acting icons- Robert De Niro (Goodfellas, Raging Bull) and Al Pacino (The Godfather, Scarface). Both men have achieved much in their careers and actually specialize in similar roles, so it’s actually surprising that they haven’t worked together more often. However, the advertising for Righteous Kill went so far as to present the film as the first on-screen pairing of the two, which is not true- the duo were first featured in together in The Godfather Part II, although they didn’t appear in any of its scenes together. Next up was the 1995 crime drama Heat, where they finally got to interact with one another, although only on a very limited basis.

While the Righteous Kill marketing team may be guilty of a bit of misdirection, the film does indeed represent the first instance where De Niro and Pacino perform together throughout the entire length of a movie. In addition, the movie also has an impressive supporting cast including Donnie Wahlberg, John Leguizamo, Brian Dennehy, and Curtis Jackson (Fitty!). It’s just a shame that the movie, while solid, doesn’t measure up better as a whole considering its impressive pedigree.

The film is your basic urban cop-drama with some action thrown in to keep things spicy. The plot is pretty basic as well- Tom “Turk” Cowan (De Niro) and David “Rooster” Fisk (Pacino) are veteran New York City detectives, investigating a series of murders, but what’s unusual about the victims is that they are all criminals that have slipped through the cracks of the Judicial System. As the investigation mounts, the evidence seems to suggest that the culprit behind the killings may in fact be a police officer, which…well, has been done countless times in movies before, but that makes it no less disconcerting when one of our public servants takes the law into their own hands, now does it?

Of course, the possibility of a vigilante cop on the force leads to some cloak and dagger shenanigans, with the spotlight being cast squarely on one individual for most of the film’s running length. But things are never that obvious, and the question is apparent- did he really do it, or is someone else behind everything? Of course, this builds up to a twist at the film’s climax which isn’t really much of a twist, but more of a…half-turn, maybe? A quarter-step? I’m not sure, but if you have any reasoning abilities at all, you shouldn’t walk out of Righteous Kill shaking your head at how that brilliant director and screenwriter pulled the wool over your eyes.

I may make Righteous Kill sound rather unremarkable in my write-up thus far, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t have its strong points, and those strong points are indeed its cast. Honestly, De Niro and Pacino appear to be phoning it in here, but whenever you have two actors of their caliber onscreen, one can’t help but to be transfixed. I mean, these two guys are so legendary that they could be giving backrubs to sumo wrestlers and people would buy tickets, so numbed as I was by their presence, I found it easier to digest the rather generic plot and average direction. Wahlberg and Leguizamo (whom I’m a big fan of) added to the film immensely as the pair of younger NYPD detectives working opposite of De Niro and Pacino’s characters on the murders, and the conflicts regarding the investigation between the two teams provided a welcome bit of fire to the otherwise somber proceedings.

The rest of the cast turned in solid performances (including Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson as a crooked nightclub owner and Brian Dennehy as the Police Chief) and the movie flowed well, never getting bogged down but never really generating much excitement, either. The blame for this falls squarely on the very foundations of the film- its script. It’s just a mish-mash of very worn clichés and plot devices, built to service its star power as opposed to giving its stars a reason to produce a memorable flick. Excellent direction could have helped to improve things, but it seemed to be beyond the capabilities of Jon Avnet, who helmed this project. It’s a shame that a cast such as this is somewhat wasted on what amounts to a very by-the-numbers production.

Still, in the end, I believe much of the bad press my fellow critics have been giving Righteous Kill is unwarranted. Granted, its credentials naturally raise expectations, but to most films those kind of lofty expectations tend to be unattainable. When looked at as merely a random motion picture with actors, it’s pretty good, actually. Still (and I’m just being realistic here), I can say that it does indeed reek of being a missed opportunity. Since Robert De Niro and Al Pacino only seem to make a movie together once every decade or two, coupled with the fact that they’re both pushing 70, one can only hope that they attempt to collaborate again sooner rather than later, and that this time they choose a better script as opposed to merely a payday.

(Long Island, N.Y.) This is the first time in ages I’m going to voice a positive opinion of a film written and directed by Paul W. S. Anderson. Not an overall positive opinion, mind you, but Death Race is a level above the usual deck expected of him after delivering to us such cinematic “classics” as Alien Vs. Predator and Resident Evil. And maybe the reason he’s more successful this time out is because he set his sights…lower. By that, I’m saying that Death Race is not an example of an experienced Hollywood director maturing and increasing his skill-set.

If anything, it’s a regression- it’s mindless, with all style and zero substance, and there’s hardly any plot or character development to speak of. But perhaps Mr. Anderson has finally realized that this is where he works best. Death Race is parsed down to it’s very essentials, and not weighted down by silly things like a story or logic- areas where Anderson’s movies usually cause intense pain. Does that make it a good movie? I can’t say, but if a movie scarcely leaves you time to breathe, let alone engage your brain in any way, how can it be that bad?

Death Race is yet another in a long line of Hollywood remakes. 1975’s Death Race 2000 was originally brought

to us by the granddaddy of the B-film, Roger Corman, and Paul W. S. Anderson’s “re-imagining” has been in the works for quite some time. Ensnared in legal and creative red tape, the way was finally cleared after several years and Anderson set about to finally give us his vision of…well, somebody else’s vision. Death Race 2000’s original vision was that of a campy across-America race in goofy “futuristic” cars and a point system involving how many pedestrians you managed to run over. You know, good family fun! What Mr. Anderson has done with that formula is to strip it of its satirical elements and update it for modern audiences, which means that everything is gritty, rusty, and the subject of more fast camera edits than you can imagine.

I’ll try to encapsulate our story, which shouldn’t be difficult because there’s hardly any: Jensen Ames (Jason Statham, my personal pick as heir to the long-vacated Action King throne) is a steel mill worker who just lost his job. Feeling pretty bad about his future prospects, he sucks it up and goes home to his wife and daughter. A few obligatory scenes are shoehorned in to show everyone how very much Jensen loves them, and then he’s framed out of nowhere for his wife’s murder by an unknown intruder (gee, I wonder if he shows up again later in the film…). Despite having no

motives whatsoever, Jensen is nonetheless convicted and sent to the Big House. As a coincidence (or is it?!?), this same prison is host to a deadly pay-per-view gladiatorial car contest entitled “Death Race.” The idea behind this is that prisoners race heavily armed and armored cars to the death, and whoever manages to win 5 contests in a row also earns their freedom. The reigning 4-time champ, a mysterious and wildly popular masked man known only as Frankenstein, has been out of commission for the past 6 months after eating a missile fired from the car of his arch rival, Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson).

Unbeknownst to the general public, however, Frankenstein did not survive. But the prison’s evil warden (aren’t they all?) plans on extending Frankenstein’s legend (and the juicy buy-rates he ensures) as long as possible. Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen), aware of Jensen Ames’ past as a professional driver (I assume she watched Transporter 1 & 2), offers him the opportunity to serve as Frankenstein’s doppelganger, and since the champ already had 4 races under his belt, all Ames need do to earn his ticket out of the slammer is to win just one more. Haunted with the idea of his daughter being raised by some creepy foster family, he begrudgingly accepts.

As for the race itself, it’s pretty simple- all the contestants have cars covered with armor plating, machine guns and missiles, and they have to race through what appears to be an enclosed, abandoned factory for 3 days while cutting each other to ribbons. While this differs greatly from the 1975 version, oddly enough the idea of each driver having a female navigator is carried over to the new film. This concept made sense back in 1975, as Death Race 2000 was a cross-country race, but in the remake it simply makes the contestants look mentally challenged when they need help driving around in a circle over and over. But it’s obvious that the navigators are there just for the cheesecake factor since they’re all shipped in from the supermodel prison, and apparently every one of them were convicted of breast implant theft since they all have the incriminating goods with ’em and out on display.

What follows is basically a lot of noise, death, violence, blood, and explosions…and then more noise, death, violence, blood, and explosions. It’s brutal, fast paced and doesn’t let up fro a second, which is good because such frenzied action helps to prevent you from realizing that the film has depth of a Petri dish. It’s also the closest I’ve ever seen a movie come to being a real-life video game. Remember playing Twisted Metal on the Sony PlayStation? Here it is, in the flesh (er, metal). I mean, in the movie there’s even icons embedded in the raceway that give you weapons when you drive over them…how much more video game-like can you get?

But in the end, it’s a solid action movie. Every character and plot point is a cliché and the overall premise is as unoriginal as it gets, but with all the racing and popular music and things going boom and people dying, there’s no time for anyone to say or do anything all that stupid or annoying. This is a stylish, brainless, bare-bones action movie, and if you look at it that way, it certainly gets the job done. This is faint praise indeed, but when it’s directed at the likes of Paul W. S. Anderson, well, the man should feel like he accomplished something (not much, but something) for once.

(Long Island, NY) I love WALL-E. There, I said it, and I certainly feel better getting that out of the way early on. And I could really just stop here with my review, because…what else needs to be said? It’s a movie created by Pixar, the premiere computer graphics animation studio responsible for mammoth hits such as Toy Story and Finding Nemo. Their track record in the industry is nearly flawless, their movies are all critic-proof, so everyone will see WALL-E anyway, regardless of what I say. And they’d be right for doing so, because WALL-E is more deserving of your money than possibly any feature Pixar has produced to date.

Pixar Animation Studios is a CGI animation studio founded in 1986 by Apple Inc. co-founder, Chairman, CEO, and all-around filthy rich guy Steve

Jobs. Initially a computer

hardware manufacturer whose initial ventures fell flat and almost bankrupted the company, Pixar eventually moved into graphics and animation and found far greater success. Partnered with and eventually purchased by the Walt Disney company (who distributed and marketed their movies for them), Pixar began releasing a series of feature-length motion pictures and short films which not only showcased their technical merits, but their ability to tell soulful, emotional tales flawlessly intertwined with humor. Following the unfortunate death

of hand drawn feature film animation in favor of 3D polygons and texture maps, Pixar has obtained distinction as one of the few practitioners of this new style capable of instilling life and personality into their films that rivals and at times surpasses their two-dimensional forefathers.

Which brings up to Pixar’s latest creation…a clunky, rusty little robot named WALL-E. WALL-E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class, and it’s his job to clean up a toxic and garbage-infused Earth (very much resembling the South Bronx at any time of the day or night) while humanity waits patiently in the stars for the time the planet is once again inhabitable. Originally WALL-E was one of thousands of similar models, all working together to compact the trash into a more easily disposed-of form, but the clean-up has taken far longer than anticipated (oh, only about 700 years) and WALL-E is the lone robot still functioning when the movie begins. Befriended only by a cockroach (if you think they’re impossible to kill now, just imagine another 700 years of evolution on top of that), the centuries have had an odd effect on WALL-E: he has developed an actual personality and a penchant for collecting random knick-knacks found in the trash. With little else to do but trying to finish his job, feeding his cockroach stale Twinkies, and watching an old VHS tape of Hello Dolly, our robotic hero is getting a little lonely.

That is, until a surprise visit from a strange spacecraft that deposits a sleek, futuristic robot in WALL-E’s backyard before rocketing back to space. Dispatched by the humans in the hopes of proving that their home world can once again sustain life (after foolishly rendering it incapable of such centures before), EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), starts carrying out her directive by searching for plants, but to no avail. Unlike the back of my refrigerator, here’s just nothing growing in the virtual toilet that Earth has become.

Meanwhile, WALL-E is enthralled by the very sight

of EVE, and with the romanticism of Hello Dolly going through his head, attempts to woo the shiny robot, who at first very nearly blows him to scrap. But soon

she begins to trust the odd little guy, and he invites her back to his place, impressing her with his collection of rubber duckies, sporks, light bulbs, and singing mechanical fish. I sure wish I were as smooth with the ladies as WALL-E…

Looking to deliver the knockout blow, he presents EVE his coup de grace: a plant he found while out working one day. True to her programming, EVE automatically stores the plant inside herself, shuts down, and begins transmitting a homing beacon. Despondent that his new friend no longer ambulatory or responsive, WALL-E tries to keep her safe until the spaceship returns for her. Stowing aboard the vessel, WALL-E eventually encounters what humanity has become after 700 years in space, makes friends with some screwball malfunctioning robots, and uncovers a conspiracy to prevent mankind from reclaiming the Earth, all while pursuing the love of EVE. Doesn’t that sound sweet?

I LOVED THIS MOVIE. Words cannot convey how totally endearing Wall-E as a character is- he’s far more loveable and human than most characters who…well, actually ARE human. And he manages to pull this off despite his quirky personality and beat-up, time-worn exterior, not at all appearing callously designed by studio marketing types to be specifically loveable, unlike most animated characters these days. Eve, the renegade robots…hell, even WALL-E’s cockroach was touching and funny. I will punch anyone in the face who talks badly about this film. Well, maybe not a child, but they always love flashy, pretty, and cute things anyway, so there’s little chance I’ll be running into any kids I’d have to beat up. But fair warning to all you grown-ups out there…

An especially unique aspect of WALL-E as a film is that there is only a minimal amount of actual dialogue throughout. The only characters that actually talk are the humans, but since they don’t get a lot of screen-time, we’re left with large stretches populated solely by robots who don’t speak so much as they make sounds effects. Sound designer Ben Burtt is responsible for generating the robots “voices” by taking various mechanical/computer sounds and combining them to resemble dialogue. This might seem strange to an inflexible mainstream audience, but I found it to be absolutely brilliant, and a strong point of the film.

I think what makes Wall-E as a film so amazing is that it manages to involve you in the plight of the characters without the benefit of Hollywood A-List actors emoting and/or spitting out cheesy lines and lame pop-culture references that will be woefully dated in 3 months. Mostly removing speech from the characters’ repertoire, Pixar instead relied on their body language, actions, and some wonderful animation to convey their personality and emotional states, which in my opinion is a much harder road to travel as far as storytelling goes. But somehow Pixar and director Andrew Stanton (who also helmed Finding Nemo) managed to pull it off. Plus, the love story EVE and WALL-E managed to walk the (very) fine line between being heartwarming and overbearing. That’s not easy, either. In an age of ever-increasing graphical technology and a race to top everyone in terms of pretty visuals, it’s nice to know that in the end Pixar

still manages to tell an excellent and touching story first and foremost.

By the way, my theater was showing the digital version of WALL-E, and it was absolutely beautiful. The increased picture resolution provided by means of digital projection really brought out all the mind-numbingly blissful detail present in the film, especially the scenes set on the garbage-strewn Earth of the future. The detail was truly amazing. But after watching a second showing of the film via standard film projection, it was like a layer of sticky, sweaty gauze was suddenly draped over the screen- it’s that big a difference. It’s worth hunting down a theater showing the digital version of WALL-E, as it truly gives you insight a just how much work the artists and programmers at Pixar put into this film.

I honestly have no complaints whatsoever about this film. Go and watch it 200 times. NOW.

src=”https://www.longislandexchange.com/images/stars/star.gif” alt=”Star” />

(Long Island, N.Y.) Remember my Iron Man review? If not, please feel free to visit my extensive review archive at the bottom of this page and read it prior to reading this review. Otherwise, I’ll feel compelled to remind you all of how Marvel Comics recently started their own production studio and are actually financing their own film projects now instead of selling them off to other companies and losing profits and control in the process, and I’d rather not have to do that out of sheer laziness. Wait, I just did…anyway, Iron Man was the first of these projects and a huge financial success for Marvel, paving the way for the new comic book-based movie we’ll be discussing today- The Incredible Hulk.

For those of you out of touch with popular culture for the last 46 years, The Hulk is a big green man who talks like a third grader and is very mad and very strong, and the madder you make him, the stronger he gets. His interests primarily include smashing things like buildings and cars, behavior which is generally frowned upon by the general public and in turn often brings him into conflict with the U.S. Military. But he has a gentle side as well, and wants most of all to be left alone in peace (aww).

His alter ego, a puny scientist named Bruce Banner, accidentally awakened this explosive force within him during experiments involving Gamma radiation, trapping himself in a hellish Jekyll and Hyde-type existence where he’s forced to transform into The Hulk during periods of extreme anger or stress. When transformed, Banner’s personality is submerged and the Hulk’s becomes dominant. But while the big green behemoth is responsible for a great deal of property damage, his heart is ultimately in the right place and often finds himself fighting evil on humanity’s behalf, making him both hero and menace at the same time.

The Hulk has been the subject of more media adaptations than almost any Marvel Comics character to date. Of course we all fondly remember the classic 1970’s television show starring the late Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou “twice Mr. Universe, that’s not too bad either” Ferrigno as the Hulk himself, but there have also been cartoon series, video-games, you name it. A live-action feature film seemed inevitable, and in 2003 director Ang Lee released “Hulk.” The film was strongly derided by fans and critics alike for its many flaws, including straying too far from its source material and (for a Hulk movie, anyway) attempting to be too “deep.” While personally I felt the movie had it’s strong points (Lee tried to actually incorporate a complex comic book-like presentation into the film’s visual style, which I thought was very fresh and interesting- most people hated it, however), I ultimately had to side with its detractors. The Hulk is mainly a character that mindlessly smashes things, and attempting to psychoanalyze him and find out what makes him tick just seemed way out of place.

After Ang Lee’s Hulk was released, the rights to the character reverted back to Marvel, and they set about making plans for a sequel, keeping in mind the complaints aimed at Lee’s version. Louis Leterrier (who helmed Transporter 1 & 2) was recruited to direct, and uber-talented actor Edward Norton was signed to play Banner (Eric Bana, who portrayed him in Lee’s film, declined to reprise the role). The very presence of Hollywood A-lister Norton gave the production a major air of legitimacy, making people take notice. Known for sometimes taking control of the films he stars in, Norton proceeded to re-write the script, severing any ties to the original film and making this new Hulk a complete reboot of the franchise. Honestly, Norton had the right idea- the original Hulk film left a bad taste in many people’s mouths, and a fresh start was needed.

So this brings us to 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. Despite being a reboot, the film wisely dispenses with re-telling

the Hulk’s origin yet again, except in flashbacks and revelations. Instead, the movie opens with Banner on the run from the U.S. Army, lead by General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt). Well aware of the public threat the Hulk poses and that he and Banner are actually one in the same, Ross considers the elusive scientist to be a valuable asset to the Military and vows to stop at nothing to capture him. Meanwhile, Banner has taken refuge in Brazil, working in a soda pop factory and spending his spare time training with a Jujitsu expert in an attempt to control his emotions and suppress his transformations into the Hulk. He also communicates nightly with a mysterious internet contact (presumably met through MySpace or something) who appears to be a fellow scientist willing to help him find a cure. However, this existence is shattered when “Thunderbolt” Ross discovers Banner’s whereabouts and sends a team of commandos to retrieve him, lead by Russian-born British special operations expert Emil Blonsky (played by a sweaty-looking Tim Roth). During the capture attempt, Banner turns into the Hulk and escapes, but not before nearly killing Blonsky by pitching a forklift at his head.

After reverting back to normal, Banner realizes that any hope for a normal future lies with his returning to the States and finding a cure once and for all. Sneaking back into the country, he makes contact with his former girlfriend and daughter of General Ross, Betty (Liv Tyler), who helps him get in touch with his enigmatic internet contact in an attempt to rid himself of the Hulk’s specter once and for all.

Upon reporting the outcome of the Brazil operation to General Ross, Blonsky is informed of Banner’s secret and is offered a chance to even the playing field: a World War II era super-solider serum (a Captain America reference, which by the way is Marvel’s next film project) is painfully injected into the past-his-prime operative, giving him increased strength, stamina, and speed. The roided-up Blonsky then leads the next capture attempt on the Hulk, but even with his enhanced abilities he’s no match for the monster and is basically punted like a football, turning his skeleton into jelly. However, the serum amazingly enables Blonsky to heal at a speed that would make most major HMOs giddy, and soon he is whole again, itching for revenge. Desperate for yet more power, he submits himself to the same Gamma radiation treatment that gave birth to the Hulk, and the resulting abomination becomes strong enough to go toe-to-toe with Banner’s grumpy alter-ego. The resulting showdown between these two super-powered titans? Well, it’s a doozy.

The Incredible Hulk is a very good movie, and a large improvement over the 2003 original. It dispenses with the psychological mumbo-jumbo of Lee’s film and focuses more on intense action and chase scenes. But that’s not to say the film is completely one-dimensional- a fair amount of time is spent focusing on Banner’s struggle to keep his emotions in check

and control the raging beast within him, and Norton manages to convey that restraint and conflict effortlessly.

Having a history of playing characters afflicted with dual personalities (as he did in both Primal Fear and Fight Club), Ed was certainly the right choice for the role, and a vast improvement over the wishy-washy Eric Bana. The rest of the cast is quite solid as well, but none stand out as much as the film’s star.

There are also several cameos that will make long-time fans of the Hulk smile. The Hulk’s comic book creator, Stan Lee, has a small role (as usual for Marvel movies), as does Lou Ferrigno (who also provides Hulk’s voice in this film). The late Bill Bixby also shows up, albeit on a TV show Norton is watching early in the movie. These are all nice little nods to the Hulk’s fans, and it’s good to see them included.

Of course, our review wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the special effects involved, as nowadays you really couldn’t get away with bringing the Hulk to life with a bodybuilder, a can of green paint and a roller. No, our modern Hulk is all computer graphics, and honestly, I think the result is very impressive. Rendering organic objects with CG has always been difficult (metal is far easier), but technology has gotten to the point where artists can create very realistic humanoid beings. The Hulk himself is a prime example of this, managing to convincingly convey emotion, flex muscles, interact with his surroundings, you name it. There’s a nice scene where Hulk has rescued Betty from certain death and whisked her away to a rainy mountain cave in the forest. Hulk is noticeably nervous in Betty’s presence and at the same time incensed by the violent thunderstorm outside, and Betty does her best to calm the dangerous yet child-like creature down, until he’s quietly sitting by her side, like a little boy next to the girl in school he has an innocent crush on. It’s actually rather touching, and the scene wouldn’t have worked if the Hulk looked like a character in a PlayStation game.

Not everything is flawless, however. The most glaring problem is that the relationships between most of the characters aren’t fleshed out very much, with the movie relying too much on the viewer’s familiarity with the comics and the previous film instead. As a result, some of their interactions seem rather forced, which in turn makes it harder for the audience to care about them and get involved. This is balanced out somewhat by the cast’s overall acting talents, but considering the fact that the Hulk is a character is driven purely by emotion, it’s ironic that some of the scenes feel cold and flat.

So in closing, The Incredible Hulk gets my stamp of approval, and I’m very much looking forward to the sequel (the plot of which was already set up in this installment). I want to give The Incredible Hulk three stars, but while it’s a good movie, it’s not quite Iron Man good, which I also rated with three stars. So, does this mean I should have given Iron Man 3 and a half stars? Or should I give The Incredible Hulk 2 and a half stars, which is still an above-average score? Ah, the life a film critic isn’t easy, loyal readers. I guess I’ll just go with the precedent I set with Iron Man’s score and give Hulk 2 and a half stars, but with the disclaimer that it’s still a very good movie and well worth your time. Hulk smash!

(Long Island, N.Y.) Tony Stark, AKA Iron Man, is atypical as far as superhero alter-egos go. He’s not a nerdy school kid pining away for the girl of his dreams, nor is he some angst-ridden recluse out to avenge the death of his family. He’s not even mildly annoyed about social or environmental issues. In reality, Tony Stark is an arrogant billionaire playboy industrialist living the good life, and there’s not much these types really need to fret about, is there?

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Oh, boy, yet another movie based on a comic book superhero.” And yes, you’d be right for thinking that, but you’d be mistaken if you wrote it off as simply run-of-the-mill. Iron Man, although not as well-known as Spiderman or Superman, has nonetheless produced a film that easily on par with the very best of the comic book genre and then some.

Iron Man, a character originally created in the 1960’s by Stan Lee for Marvel Comics, represents a major first for comic book-based movies. It’s the first movie where Marvel refrained from selling the rights of one of their properties to another studio, losing creative control and the majority of the profits in the process. Establishing their own production company, they put up the money for Iron Man themselves through various backers, hired the director (Elf’s Jon Favreau), the writers, and kept a firm grasp on the creative reigns throughout. As a result, Iron Man has the distinction of not only being an excellent movie in its own right, but being one the most loyal comic-to-film adaptations of all time.

So, I mentioned this Tony Stark guy in the first paragraph. Played brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr., Tony Stark is a genius inventor and owner of Stark Industries, a mammoth corporation inherited from his late father. Although Stark Industries’ commercial interests run the gamut from medical to the scientific, their primary business is arms dealing, and it is this aspect of his company that brings Tony to Afghanistan to demonstrate his company’s newest weapon system for the U.S. military. Accompanied by his long-time friend and military liaison, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), Stark wows the Army brass, ensuring himself of yet another juicy arms contract.

However, en route back to headquarters after the demonstration, Stark’s convoy is attacked and he finds himself seriously wounded and captured by very rude terrorists. Armed with spiffy Stark Industries weapons and oddly aware of exactly who he is, they demand Stark build a missile for them out of a heap of scrap that would make Fred Sanford jealous. With the aid of a fellow captive, Stark first constructs a miniature arc reactor to power an electromagnet “pacemaker” which protects his heart from shrapnel in his chest, embedded during his capture. And as a nice F-U to his captors, Tony decides not to build a missile but instead a crude armored exoskeleton, which he uses to stomp the terrorists into the ground and make his escape, A-Team style.

Rescued, Stark has not come through his ordeal without having his eyes opened to the realities of his lucrative arms dealing. Seeing first-hand how much suffering his weapons have caused to innocents, Stark calls a press conference and announces his company’s complete withdrawal from the arms business, much to the chagrin of long-time business partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges, completely bald and sporting a beard). Taking a break from public life, Stark retreats to the seclusion of his personal high-tech estate, interacting only with his personal secretary and budding love interest, Virginia “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and his artificially intelligent computer system, JARVIS. Stark finds himself intrigued by the armor he was able to cobble together out of old car batteries and lawn mower parts and decides to see what he can do with some real resources behind him. Eventually, he realizes a new, more powerful version of his life-sustaining arc reactor and a far superior suit of armor, one capable of flight and packing enough firepower to take on all of Compton.

Learning that his company’s munitions are still finding their way into the hands of terrorists and being used against civilians, Stark uses his armor to fly to Afghanistan, rescuing a village from the same terrorists that had previously captured him and destroying their weapon stockpiles in the process. As the story continues, Stark is confronted with betrayal from trusted allies within Stark Industries itself, and eventually is forced to do battle with a larger, meaner suit of powered armor, reverse engineered from his very own prototype suit discarded in Afghanistan. Sounds exciting, doesn’t it? Of course it does.

Iron Man is very different than many of the recent films based on comic book characters. How so? Well, there’s a number of ways:

First, it feels a lot more realistic. Yes, I know it’s about a guy in pimped-out flying robotic armor, but how they slowly develop the technological evolution that gets him to that point makes it easier to believe in. It’s established that Tony was a Wile E. Coyote-style super-genius practically right from birth, so when he builds the clunky Mark 1 armor out of junk, it’s much easier to buy into than if he was just some dullard off the street.

Second, we have an all-star cast headed up by the amazing Robert Downey Jr., who manages to carry this movie square on his shoulders with his amazing performance. Downey’s well-publicized personal inner demons made him a perfect choice to play Tony Stark, a character with many similarities to the formerly-troubled actor. It’s a testament to Downey’s abilities that he can take an arrogant, hard-partying, womanizing wiseass and have him come across as a completely likable jerk with a sense of humor. Howard, Bridges, and Paltrow all hold up their ends of the bargain as well.

Yet another reason why Iron Man works so well is due in no small industry legend. Eschewing computer graphics whenever possible in favor of complex physical effects, Stark’s armor comes to life in a way I never thought possible. It seamlessly helps you suspend disbelief- there never was a point where I was nit-picking how cheesy anything looked, as the combination of CG and live-action was so perfect.

And special mention goes to the great job Jon Favreau did directing this thing. Favreau’s preference towards building up a solid, well-paced and entertaining story with solid character development over just mindlessly delving into the action right off the bat is a refreshing change of pace these days. While I was a comic book fan growing up, I had always considered Iron Man a second-tier character when compared to the likes of Spider-Man or the X-Men. Jon Favreau has changed all that and is responsible for the beginnings of what’s sure to be a huge franchise, unless Marvel does something completely stupid like not re-hire him for the sequel (already scheduled for release on April 30, 2010- talk about striking the “Iron” while its hot).

Iron Man is an odd movie to recommend- one would assume this would only be appreciated by comic book aficionados, but the buzz this film is generating and its current huge success (#1 two weeks in a row) suggests that it’s actually crossing over into mainstream movie audiences. It’s solid in many ways that most comic books movies aren’t in the sense that it tries to be a good movie in it’s own right, regardless of its comic book roots. The fact that it manages to do so while remaining so loyal to its source material is just a huge bonus.

In closing, I realize that I’ve not said one negative thing about Iron Man, but the complaints I have are minor and would spoil certain plot points I’ve gone out of my way not to reveal. Trust me, whether you like films about superheroes or not, give this one a try.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Doomsday is basically a mish-mash combination of a number of various movies, and the resulting concoction adds up to far less than the sum of its parts. Director Neil Marshall’s rip-off…um, excuse me, I mean “homage to” various beloved movies of his youth starts out promising enough, but soon just dissolves into a stew of stupidity and the dreaded “been there, done that” syndrome.

Right off the bat, let’s list off the primary movies/plot points that are blatantly referenced by Doomsday, with little or no effort made to differentiate itself from them:

• Escape From New York (society’s rejects are walled off from the rest of the world, and a rebellious character with one eye is sent in to their turf with a time limit to look for something vital to the world)
• The Road Warrior (said societal rejects are all violent 80’s-style punk rockers who drive around in cars decorated like the walls of a TGI Friday’s)
• 28 Days Later (said societal rejects are infected with a disease that causes them to go batpoop crazy and kill people, which is why they were walled off from the world to begin with)

Now, let’s discuss the threadbare plot that attempts to provide an excuse for importing all these other works into Doomsday. We’ll begin with Rhona Mitra, a hot British model/actress last seen (by me, anyway) in the abysmal Ali G direct-to-video movie “Indahouse.” Here, she’s doing her best female Kurt Russell/Snake Plissken impersonation, which for you and I means that it’s yet another movie where a 105-pound unarmed supermodel can easily manhandle armored, axe-wielding men who outweigh her by over 100 pounds. This constant trend of butt-kicking women in action movies is wearing a little thin with me, but at least Mitra looks a little tougher-looking than a twig like Milla Jovovich (of Resident Evil fame).

I remember a movie I caught on cable years ago. The name escapes me, but it was some wretched sci-fi Z-grade action flick starring some barbarian woman who just pounded everyone she encountered- men, women, robots, trees, you name it. But the producers did a smart thing- they cast an actual female bodybuilder in the role…someone that actually looked like they could beat you to death in real life. It didn’t stop the movie from sucking, but at least the he-woman in this random cable flick helped me buy into the main character’s seemingly legit toughness. But now that I think about it, who would I rather watch bodyslam people for 2 hours- a man with a vagina, or rampant eye-candy provided by the likes of Rhona Mitra? I’m sorry, but I’m about to completely destroy my rant here by choosing Rhona. I’m sorry for wasting your time.

So…the story of Doomsday goes something like this: The Rage virus…wait, I’m sorry, that was 28 Days Later, one of the movies Doomsday rips off…let’s start over: The Reaper virus infects the island nation of Scotland and the infected residents are all dying and/or killing each other. Since no cure exists, a contrived plot device is introduced where New York builds a wall around Manhattan to contain…wait, I’m sorry, that was Escape from NY, one of the movies Doomsday rips off…let’s start over: A wall is built around Scotland by England to contain the spread of the Reaper virus. Naturally, leaving the Scots to eat each other and eventually die off doesn’t win England any humanitarian awards, nor does it endear them to any of their other constituent countries, but hey, that’s life. You move on.

27 years later: the year is now 2035, and the Reaper virus has re-emerged and now comes home to roost in jolly old England. Instead of building a wall around themselves and waiting to die, this time around Brits actually decide to pool their resources and attempt to find a cure. Their main lead comes in the form of satellite surveillance photos taken in the quarantined Scotland that show signs of survivors. Believing that these survivors may be resistant to the virus and in turn may hold the key to a possible cure, a team is assembled to enter the entombed country to seek these Scots out, presumably to be prodded, poked, and ultimately dissected in the name of the good people of England.

Leading this team is a tough-as-nails cop named Eden Sinclair (Mitra), herself a Scot and one of the last survivors airlifted out of the country before it was walled off. Having lost her right eye while escaping, she now employs a cybernetic implant that she can take in and out of her eye socket at will (gross). Hand-picked for the job by her boss Bill Nelson (Bob Hoskins), Eden’s motivations for accepting the mission go beyond saving her adopted homeland, however- she secretly wishes to locate the long-lost mother she left behind all those years ago.

Since Scotland is now a “no fly” zone (you can land in a helicopter 5 feet from it, but you just can’t fly over the wall), the high-tech and heavily-armed team enters Scotland via armored troop transports, their only lead being a scientist named Kane who may or may not have been researching a cure and who may or may not still be alive. Admittedly, it’s not much to go on, but if things were easy (or made any sense), there’d be no movie.

Alas, Eden’s team discovers that there are a great many more survivors than they were lead to believe, and they are tattooed, pierced, and very angry. Despite their weapons and armor, most of the team is killed, and Eden is taken captive. She is introduced to Wez, the leader of the Marauders…wait, I’m sorry, that was The Road Warrior, one of the movies Doomsday rips off…let’s start over: She is introduced to Sol, the leader of the Marauders, who

are cannibalistic bandits who now control most of Scotland. She manages to escape with the help of Sol’s estranged sister and reunites with the remaining members of her team. Eden and company then continue their search for the elusive Kane, with the crazed Sol hot on their tails. With England’s inhabitants already tearing themselves apart and a worldwide outbreak imminent, will Eden find a cure for the Reaper virus in time?

Doomsday started out halfway decently, but quickly turned horribly wrong. The exact point of the film that this occurred is crystal clear- once the head punk rocker Sol started dancing to The Fine Young Cannibals’ “Good Thing” on-stage for a rabid crowd and male can-can dancers appeared to back him up(?!?), I suddenly realized that there were problems with Doomsday that would easily spell doom for far superior films, let alone average dreck like this. Needless to say, my movie-viewing experience, very much like the contents of a toilet that’s been flushed, started a downward spiral, never to return.

The main problem with Doomsday is that it so blatantly wears its influences on its sleeve (some of them bizarrely clashing in look and tone), but with no attempt to do anything new or innovative with them. Plot devices are clearly lifted from numerous movies, and as a result, Eden, Sol, and even Kane (a lame cameo by Malcolm McDowell) are all blatant carbon copies of characters you’ve seen before, placed in situations that seem all-too familiar.

It also doesn’t help that the characters of Doomsday tend to repeatedly make stupid and inexplicable decisions, needlessly placing themselves in danger when escape would be all too easy. You know, like running directly in front of a bus that’s trying to mow you down or ignoring a rescue helicopter for the second or third time in a row. I know it’s a movie, but when you’re watching people on-screen

doing brainless things that no one in real life would ever emulate, it just takes you out of the experience.

I can’t end this review without informing fans of gratuitous gore that they will be in heaven here- in this film, heads explode, guts fly, and blood flows like the mighty Mississippi. If you’re a bloodthirsty maniac, ignore the rest of this review and go watch Doomsday now. You’ll love it.

As for the rest of you…if you’re the biggest Escape from NY/Road Warrior/28 Days Later fan ever and dream at night of a movie that combines them into some kind of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup-like concoction, go for it. For everyone else- I’d say it’s safe to pass it on by.