(Long Island, NY) We Own the Night is a crime drama set in Brooklyn, NY during the late 1980’s, an era known for its decadence, style, and big, big hair. The film focuses on the Russian mob’s emergence on the local drug scene and the violence that follows, and how it relates to a dysfunctional family with members caught on both sides of the conflict. The film’s unusual title is actually based on the NYPD’s slogan in the war on drugs at that time, although the drug issue is more of a backdrop to the family drama present throughout the movie.

A gritty film set amongst the Russian night clubs and seedy alleyways of Brighton Beach, We Own the Night chronicles a family of cops trying to make a difference in their community. It’s an uphill battle, however, as the new drug-fueled crime wave created by the Russians finds the police force out-manned and out-gunned. The death toll mounts as Joseph Grusinsky (Mark Wahlberg), son of Police Chief Burt Grusinsky (Robert Duvall), is promoted and given the unenviable task of cleaning up the streets. Needless to say, our Vodka-swilling friends don’t appreciate Joseph’s efforts and come upon him late at night, leaving him with a bullet in his head. Joseph survives, but is laid up in the hospital for months, eventually being released and resuming leadership of his team. However, while the physical scars the attack has blemished him with Robes de bal courte have healed, Joseph has developed mental ones as well, and it is these scars that will prove to be the more debilitating of the two.

Meanwhile, Joseph’s estranged brother, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix), is enjoying the good life. Bobby’s a manager of a nightclub owned by the very same mobsters responsible for his brother’s attempted assassination, and seems to have an endless supply of money, alcohol, and fun. However, among all this revelry, there’s the possibility of a wee little problem brewing- you see, the Russians are unaware of Bobby’s blood connection to law enforcement, as he runs the club under an alias (“Green” as opposed to “Grusinsky”). I think we can all imagine what would happen to dear old Bobby Green if news of true identity were to leak out, but luckily, this hasn’t happened…yet.

Until now, Bobby has led a hard-partying, carefree lifestyle, and is generally disinterested in the moral decay around him. But the attempted murder of his brother seems to awaken him from his stupor and, with his girlfriend Amada (Eve Mendez) reluctantly in tow, he attempts to help bring the Mob leaders who ordered the hit to justice. Bobby’s transformation from greasy degenerate to fine, upstanding citizen isn’t a smooth one, however, and a whole lot of lead will fly before our film reaches its conclusion.

Again, I’m reviewing a movie starring everyman actor Marky Mark Wahlberg, and again he turns in a solid, serviceable performance as a recently promoted police officer given his own task force and thrust in above his head. It winds up being a more complex role than one would think, one where he’s forced to showcase his character’s myriad vulnerabilities. Personally, I feel it’s his best piece of pure acting since Boogie Nights, and that’s a big compliment.

Joaquin Phoenix continues to be the chameleon of the acting industry, seamlessly flowing into a role once again and actually becoming the character instead of simply reading lines and collecting a paycheck. His Hollywood resume is as varied as they come, playing a plethora of different personas, and We Own The Night is no different. For an example of what I’m talking about, if you watched Ridley Scott’s epic Gladiator, followed by this film, you might be shocked to discover that Phoenix is in both of them. These are just two of the many movies that illustrate the vast difference with which this guy can play his parts.

Filling the role of their father is Robert Duvall, whose character is a Police Chief that, frankly, looks waaay too old to be an actively serving officer. But other than his very crusty, weathered appearance, Mr. Duvall shows us all why he is such an esteemed veteran of Hollywood, as he touchingly portrays a gruff old man struggling to protect his family and community against a brutal threat unlike any he’s seen before.

Overall, We Own the Night is a solid, exciting, and emotional film. The only flaw I could really cite would be the complete 180 degree turnaround that Phoenix’s character takes halfway through the movie. One minute, he’s a crooked nightclub manager that doesn’t care about anything and often starts rabid arguments with his family, and the next he’s taking the police exam and everyone’s all lovey-dovey. It’s a tad hard to swallow, but the events that compel him to change are so extreme that I suppose I can forgive this. And if you can get past that (it’s not that hard), you’ll find We Own the Night is a tightly-paced, excellent drama worthy of your time. Highly recommended.

(Long Island, NY)You normally won’t find the words “fine cinema” and “based on the hit video game” in the same sentence. Such is the stigma that video game-based

film adaptations have had to endure throughout the years, although the burden is not entirely undeserved. Early on, video game movies were rushed, cheap, sloppy, and often catered directly to children (hello, Super Mario Brothers).

It appears, however, that Hollywood is beginning to realize that the children of yesterday are now the adults of today, and that they’re still playing (and have more money to spend). The video-game business is maturing and now spans all age ranges, from kids to grandparents. In terms of entertainment media, video-games are beginning to compete with (and in some ways even eclipse) Hollywood’s

efforts in terms of profitability.

Here’s a good example of how neck and neck gaming and movies are currently running: Remember my brilliant review of last summer’s blockbuster film Spiderman 3? That movie set an initial box office record of $59 million in its first 24 hours of release. That’s a lot, right? Now, along comes Halo 3- a highly-anticipated game for Microsoft’s Xbox360 console- and it sells more than $170 million worth of copies in its first full day of release. Impressive, yes, but even more so when you figure in their respective budgets- Spiderman 3’s was a whopping $258 million, while Halo 3 clocked in at a meager (competitively speaking) $25 mil. Of course, when we also take into account a movie ticket’s price ($10) versus a video-game price ($60- ouch), the gap closes ever so slightly, but the fact still remains- video-games are big business. Thus, it would be expected that the associated tie-ins (in this case, films) would finally increase in quality, and for the most part, it’s happening.

Which brings us to today’s film review- Resident Evil: Extinction, the third of a trilogy spun off of the immensely popular series of “Survival Horror” video-games made by Japanese developer/publisher Capcom. Players of the Resident Evil games find themselves combating undead zombies, exploring spooky old mansions and laboratories, searching for vital items and solving complex puzzles. A film adaptation seemed only natural, since the Resident Evil video-games were themselves inspired by zombie movies, mainly George Romero’s Dawn/Day of the Dead. So, we have films giving birth to games giving birth to yet more films- that’s called coming full circle, folks.

The Resident Evil film series, which deviates slightly from the ongoing plot of the games, follows the evil machinations of the Umbrella corporation, a multi-national conglomerate that specializes in bio-organic and viral weapons for the U.S. military. Their crowning achievement is the development of the deadly T-virus (no relation to Mr. T, although I pity the fool exposed to it), a mutagenic agent that kills those infected and re-animates them as bloodthirsty zombies. Through internal espionage, the T-virus is released into one of Umbrella’s research facilities, and from there spreads to the town of Raccoon City, transforming its innocent inhabitants into savage monsters. In an attempt to contain the virus before it spreads further, the military drops a nuke on the once-peaceful mountain town. Now, we’ve all seen this done before (Return of the Living Dead comes to mind) and, as we all know, it never works. And guess what? It doesn’t work this time, either.

In Resident Evil: Extinction, we learn that, within months of the Raccoon City incident, the entire Earth has been overrun with the T-virus. The remaining uninfected humans, lead by Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), roam the ruined cities and roadways of America in a convoy of armored vehicles, surviving the zombie hordes by keeping on the go and taking

food and fuel where they can find it. With that said, I love how Claire’s convoy has to scavenge for food and gas, but they seem to have no problem finding all the toothpaste and Crest Whitening Strips they’ll ever need. I mean, these people are eating expired, botulism-infested refried beans out of rusty tin cans but they all have gleaming, pearly-white teeth. It’s amazing.

But the story of Resident Evil: Extinction centers around not our roving gang of American Dental Association-approved road warriors, but the character of Alice (Milla Jovovich), the heroine of the previous two films. Alice, as it turns out, is Umbrella’s ultimate bio-weapon, a creature that looks oddly-enough like a twig-thin supermodel, but is in fact a genetically-engineered, T-virus mutated, superhuman fighting machine. Their control over her lost, Alice has escaped Umbrella’s grasp and is now wandering the wastelands of Earth alone. However, the diabolical corporation is one step behind her at all times, with the ruthless scientist Dr. Sam Isaacs (Iain Glen) plotting to use Alice’s unique genetic makeup to further his own twisted ends.

Joining up with Claire’s convoy, Alice and her new allies fight their way through the zombies surrounding one of Umbrella’s fortified underground bunkers in a bid to steal a helicopter to escape to the supposed safety of Alaska. But will Alice go with them, or descend alone into the mysterious depths of the bunker to confront both her past and her future? And more importantly, is there abundant dental floss and mouthwash awaiting our survivors if they reach Alaska?

Resident Evil: Extinction was solid- it’s a flashy, mindless action flick, just like the first two, so if you liked those, you’re bound to like this one as well. It was fast-paced- lean on storyline and fat with gunfire and hand-to-hand combat, with minimal baggage to slow down the plot (as threadbare as it is). Extinction is also fairly predictable- as usual, you’ll find the typical underdeveloped stock characters for the monsters to eat, and it’s pretty easy to guess who’s living to see the end credits. But speaking of monsters, the makeup and CG effects on the various creatures was indeed quite impressive- the best of the series to date, in fact. However, I would have liked to have seen a greater variety of the grotesque enemies representing the video-game series’ extensive bestiary- there are plenty of fan-favorites to choose from.

Now, let’s get to a personal gripe I have with the Resident Evil movies: Watching 75-pound Milla Jovovich spin-kick and manhandle armies of monsters three times her size like they were kindergarten students takes a suspension of disbelief that is almost impossible, even in this day and age. But after watching her do it for three Resident Evil movies running, you

can almost manage to believe if you try hard enough. It’s much easier when it’s Arnold Schwarzenegger on the screen killing everything that moves with his bare hands, but alas, he’s busy running California.

Of course, the ending of this film leaves it wide-open for yet another sequel, so I’m sure there will be yet more zombie hi-jinks coming to a theater near you in 2009 or so. But the fact remains that this is a successful, solid franchise, and if you’re looking for some hard-hitting horror/action fun, you’ve probably come to the right place. There’s no way it could ever be mistaken for the “fine cinema” mentioned in this review’s opening paragraph, but at least it’s a sure sign that video game adaptations are improving from the garbage we used to get just a few years ago.

(Long Island, N.Y.) In 1978, fledgling director John Carpenter released a low-budget, independent horror film titled simply: Halloween. It told the tale of Michael Myers, an escaped mental patient in a spray painted William Shatner mask (true story) who returns to his hometown to engage in a mass killing spree. The movie was a surprise hit, and became one of the highest-grossing independent movies of all time. In addition, it helped give birth to the “Slasher” film genre, and soon scores of imitators were happily chopping up innocent teenagers on movie screens across the nation.

Halloween spawned a long-running franchise (9 installments to date), with John Carpenter only directly involved with the first two films. In the hands of various other directors, Michael Myers has seen varying degrees of success at the box office, yet has always remained a somewhat second-tier villain to the likes of Crystal Lake’s very own Jason Voorhees.

I’ve been a big Rob Zombie fan for years, and the news that the rock star was helming a remake of John Carpenter’s original Halloween was greeted on my part with equal portions of interest and disappointment. Why the split? Well, let’s cover why I was interested first – in addition to being a unique and talented songwriter and artist, Mr. Zombie

has revealed himself to being quite the film director as well (previously directing his band’s music videos). His directorial debut was the fun-yet-amateurish House of 1000 Corpses. A modest hit, it was followed by The Devil’s Rejects, which displayed a huge growth and maturity in Zombie’s skills. As a fan of both films, I awaited his next cinematic undertaking with fevered anticipation. Yet, upon the announcement of Halloween, I couldn’t help but feel a tinge of the aforementioned disappointment. Why? Read on.

One of the latest Hollywood trends (and the most reviled) is the remaking of films. Now, on occasion, remaking a movie can be a good thing. Due to any number of factors- budget limitations, inadequate technology, a good plot idea that didn’t meet its potential- a flawed or outdated film could be expanded upon in some way if revisited. Actually, one of my all-time favorite movies is John Carpenter’s The Thing, itself a vastly-improved re-imagining of 1951’s The Thing from Another World.

However, the recent glut of non-stop remakes that Hollywood is spewing out seems to represent nothing more than a sense of creative bankruptcy and a willingness to ride on the coattails of other people’s work. Instead of coming up with new ideas, the screenwriters of today leech off of the name recognition that established films possess and, at times, churn out almost shot-for-shot recreations of them. If you’re not at least trying to improve on the original or place a different spin on it, there’s no

point.

So, as a fan of Rob Zombie, I was let down that his newest project was merely a (gasp)

remake. Was Rob selling out? I was also confused as far as the reasoning went for ‘rebooting’ the Halloween franchise, since it’s not like the series has been lying dormant and waiting for a revival- the last installment was released in 2002, merely 5 years ago. But trust Rob to lay all my fears to rest, as he

has managed to create an outstanding film that greatly expands upon the original, while respectfully paying homage to it at the same time.

In John Carpenter’s version, Michael Myers was first shown as a boy, with the film opening depicting his brutal murder of his older sister and subsequent imprisonment in a mental hospital. From there, time fast-forwarded to his adulthood. But what led up to the murder? What was Michael like in the hospital? And why did he start wearing his iconic mask? These are the answers the remake provides, and it’s fascinating to watch the

infamous killer as a (not at all) normal boy. Personally, I never realized how showing almost nothing of Michael’s youth in the original worked against him as a character, as far as establishing his personality went (Myers was previously devoid of one).

In this new version, we have 10-year old Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) growing up in a typical American household in Haddonfield, Illinois- his mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) is a stripper, her live-in boyfriend (William Forsythe) is a drunken, abusive cripple, and his older sister (Hanna Hall) is promiscuous to say the least. Like I said, typical household. Anyway, little Mikey is socially awkward, often hides behind a mask, and digs carving up defenseless little animals. Yeah, the warning signs for trouble are all there, but Michael has one redeeming factor- his love for his mother and younger sister, a baby he affectionately calls “Boo.”

Michael’s pattern of disturbing behavior culminates in him horrifically murdering his sister and her boyfriend on Halloween night. For good measure, he also slays his Mother’s boyfriend…but he was a jerk and kinda had it coming, so that’s okay. Only Michael’s mother and baby sister are spared.

After a long trial, Myers is imprisoned in Smith’s Grove Sanitarium, where he is placed under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell). Loomis futilely struggles for years to get through to Michael, who has no memory of the killings and becomes more and more withdrawn and distant by the day. Eventually, he grows into adulthood as a towering mute (played by the 6’8″ Tyler Mane), and his fascination with masks has now become an obsession- his cell is filled with them.

During a routine transfer to a new cell, Myers suddenly lashes out furiously, killing his guards and escaping the hospital. Dr. Loomis immediately knows where his psychopathic patient is heading- back to Haddonfield. Upon arriving, Michael begins stalking young high school student Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), but the reason why is a mystery. Do Laurie and Michael share some unknown connection? Will Dr. Loomis stop Michael before he kills again? Or will the town of Haddonfield turn into a bloodbath?

The new Halloween is a very different movie than the original. Michael Myers slowly stalked his victims in the Carpenter’s version, but now he’s a locomotive that can’t be stopped. Once Michael grows up, escapes, and gains his signature coveralls and mask, the pace of the film is refreshingly relentless. The remake also did a good job of showing Michael’s human side, but didn’t overdo it to the point that Michael became sympathetic, thus ruining his intimidation factor. It’s a fine line that the movie successfully manages to transverse. In fact, it managed to sustain a feeling of dread throughout its entirety, which few horror films seem to manage anymore.

The acting was solid and realistic. Zombie manages to get very gritty performances out of his actors, which always helps to make things far more believable, even when his characters are thrust into some pretty crazy situations. Also worthy of note are the fun little cameos by Zombie’s usual players, such as Sid Haig, Bill Mosley and Ken Foree.

Unfortunately, there’s precious little character development for anyone in this movie (save Michael), but that’s more a problem with the Slasher genre in general, and one that needs to be fixed. What these films need, to be truly effective, is to get you to actually care for the victims. If you are emotionally invested in a character, their impending death can create great tension. But when you’re just watching cardboard-cutouts without any depth getting slaughtered, you usually cease caring and, even worse, start rooting for the bad guys (I know I sure do!).

Another issue I had: This film’s stated intent was to make Michael more “real,” as opposed to his previous, superhuman portrayal. Yet Myers endures sufficient punishment in this movie to kill 10 normal men, and is able to do the old ‘lift your victim by the throat with one hand’ party trick that all movie

maniacs love to do. In this sense, Myers is as much a superhuman monster as he always was.

In closing, Halloween clearly establishes Rob Zombie as the real deal. He managed to take John Carpenter’s classic and, in some ways, actually outdo it. It’s not original at all, but while Halloween sticks firmly to all the standard selling points of the Slasher genre, it manages to do so to near-perfection. It’s visually arresting, fast, brutal, and (at times) very funny. It adds a great deal to the legacy of the first film, while keeping the basics of the original that needed to be there. If all remakes were like this, I wouldn’t be cursing the very concept like I currently do.

Now hopefully that new Friday the 13th movie I keep hearing rumors about will get made…

(Long Island, N. Y.) Few things are worse than something that exhibits promise, yet fails to live up to it. A good example of such a thing would be a movie that claims to be a comedy, but in reality, it isn’t. What reasons could there be for such a contradiction? I mean, something defined as a comedy should simply be as such, should it not? But what if the movie in question, for whatever reason, just isn’t funny? Therein lies the paradox- it’s a comedy, yet it’s not a comedy, because it’s not funny. How can this be? Would a failed comedy actually be considered a tragedy? I don’t know, but I’ve already put far more thought and effort into this review of Balls of Fury than anyone involved with its production. It certainly doesn’t deserve it.

On to the obligatory plot recap: 30 year-old Randy Daytona (Dan Folger), a former child table tennis prodigy who blew his chance at an Olympic Gold Medal, now ekes out a dreary existence doing ping-pong tricks for elderly dinner theater patrons. Like most child stars, time has not treated him well- he’s portly, unmotivated, and suddenly finding himself out of work, after a mishap on his part slays a patron. Right as things seem their bleakest, however, Randy is approached by FBI agent Rodriguez (George Lopez) to engage in a secret mission that only he has the ability to undertake.

It seems that a mysterious crime lord, the evil Feng (Christopher Walken, who’s REALLY slumming here), is staging an underground table tennis tournament in his secret hideaway. Given his skills, Randy is a sure bet to catch Feng’s eye and receive an invitation to compete. The FBI’s plan is that, while there, Randy can attempt to uncover whatever naughtiness Feng might be up to. But first, he has to display his abilities on the open table tennis circuit, and his first foray into competition in 19 years ends in dismal, humiliating defeat. Can an old, blind Chinese ping-pong master (James Hong) and his cute yet scrawny daughter (Maggie Q) re-ignite the talent that Randy displayed so many years ago?

Balls of Fury basically shoehorns ping-pong directly into the plot of the 70’s kung-fu film Enter the Dragon. It’s an effective parody in the sense that they cover all the cosmetic aspects of Bruce Lee’s classic martial-arts epic, but otherwise the film’s a complete bore. The premise was amusing enough to provide for a fun, mindless romp, but the execution was pedestrian to the point that every scene was just incredibly bland. The problem appeared to be that the movie simply needed to be helmed by a director that was more willing to take the concept and run wild with it.

As for the actors, let’s start with star Dan Folger. Dan happens to be a lot like Jack Black- only fatter. However, despite the (slight) difference in girth, he remains just as hilarious as Mr. Black (which means he’s as funny having a drunken tryst with a fully-active beehive). If I never see him (either man, actually) in another movie ever again, I’d be totally cool with that. Maggie Q, however, actually pulls off a decent performance. Despite being American-born, she’s enjoyed a great deal of success in the Hong Kong film market and is just recently making a splash in American films, recently seen opposite Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 3 and Bruce Willis in Live Free or Die Hard. She might have a career going for her if she A) never stars in a movie like Balls of Fury ever again, and B) eats a few steak sandwiches. She’s just way too thin.

No one else really stands out in any meaningful way. There are a number of character actors you may recognize from the various roles they’ve played over the years, but no one you could probably name offhand. You’d be more likely to just point at them and say, “Yeah, I know that guy! He was in the movie where the thing blew up. And then Arnold killed him.” Of this notable bunch is the sinister-looking guy that played Shang Tsung in 1995’s Mortal Kombat and James Hong, who I remember playing all sorts of stereotypical Chinese roles from as early back as the 1980’s.

But distressing to me personally is the inclusion of Jason Scott Lee in a minor role as a ping-pong hall tough guy. A talented actor that showed great promise early in his career (in a fun coincidence, he even convincingly played Bruce Lee in the biopic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story), he’s been reduced to awful throwaway roles such as this, and it’s a terrible shame. The guy is quite talented and deserves more, especially since Asians rarely have any real contribution to American movies outside of niche parts like this. It seem that if you’re Asian and not playing a ninja, a monk, or a hooker, you’re out of luck in the U.S. of A.

So, while Balls of Fury is instantly forgettable, it does appear to have one redeeming quality- it’s a very effective cure for insomnia. My friend Don has been stressed about work and not sleeping well as of late, but under the soothing effects of Balls of Fury’s banality, I’m happy to report that lad was sleeping like a baby in no time. So if you have any friends or loved ones stricken by this horrible malady and suffering from the living hell that is sleep deprivation, I recommend this film whole-heartedly. Otherwise, skip it.

(Long Island, NY) There have been a lot of “cop buddy” movies throughout the years. A “cop buddy” film is when two police officers with obviously clashing personalities are forced to “team up” on a case, usually for comedic effect. At times, the rift between the two cops is minor- say, one’s a slob, the other a neat freak. But in more extreme instances,Ball Gown robes de mariée a man can be forced to work with a dog, or his mother, or robots, zombies, and even cartoon characters (seriously). Sometimes it works (Arnold Schwarzenegger’s brilliant Red Heat comes to mind), and sometimes…no. “Cop buddy” movies are a popular formula with audiences, however, so you can usually expect a new film from this genre on a regular basis.

The Rush Hour series are some of the top movies on the “cop buddy” heap, and the first two installments have provided quality entertainment for your movie-going dollar. Compared to the aforementioned team-ups listed above, our pairing here is somewhat more conventional- a wisecracking American Black man and a straight-laced Chinese kung-fu master, both law enforcement- which opens the door for all sorts of culture shock-related hi-jinks.

Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chief Inspector Lee (Hong Kong action legend Jackie Chan) were first forced to join forces when the Chinese Ambassador’s daughter was kidnapped. Carter would jive and make fun of Lee’s ethnicity, and Lee would jump-kick villains from moving vehicles and say things like “Raim brack,
Robe demoiselle d’honneur rouge raim row brrower” or something. If nothing else, The Rush Hour movies function well as a Litmus test of sorts in regards to how the public perceives racism- with Carter’s non-stop ethnic jokes at Lee’s expense, it appears that racism against Asians, when played for laughs, is still quite socially acceptable in film.

Even though they appear have nothing whatsoever in common, and at times it even seems a detriment to Lee to have the bumbling and mean-spirited Carter as a friend, the two remain close and continue to engage in various adventures. The first two films in the Rush Hour series made untold millions of dollars, and when things make untold millions of dollars, you inevitably get more of them. Thus, we now have Rush Hour 3. Unfortunately, this also possibly signals the end of the franchise, as incessant salary demands (Chris Tucker insisted on- and got- 25 million), combined with a script obviously penned by very small children, have combined to produce one of the biggest let-downs in recent memory.

Well, let’s cover the plot first- what there is of it, anyway. James Carter has been demoted from Detective to traffic cop for a reason that is never disclosed. Inspector Lee (they’ve never even bothered to give him a first name…or is Lee actually his first name? I don’t know) is now the Chinese Ambassador’s bodyguard, but not even the almighty Jackie Chan can stop an assassin from nearly taking the Ambassador’s life with a bullet. After a pursuit that is accidentally foiled by the dim-witted Carter, it is revealed that Lee has a connection to the would-be killer.

Keeping a promise to the Ambassador’s daughter, whom you might remember as the little girl kidnapped in the first film, Lee and Carter (but isn’t he a traffic cop now?) start investigating into the attempted murder of her father. In doing so, they uncover a conspiracy in France involving the organized Asian crime syndicate known as The Triads and a secret list of their command hierarchy that’s currently out on the open market. Both the cops and the Triads are gunning for the list, but since the list actually has legs and walks around (hint: it’s a person), finding it is harder than it sounds. Of course, Lee and Carter wander into the middle of the situation, leaving chaos and (occasionally) humor in their wake.

Rush Hour 3 has a few decent laughs here and there, but the rest of the movie was disjointed, unfunny, and cartoonish- when they weren’t ripping off Abbott and Costello bits, they were lifting scenes straight out of Looney Tunes. The ending is especially outlandish and only serves to make Saturday morning cartoons look realistic in comparison. The same could be said for a scene where Lee and Carter fight some dopey giant Chinese guy. It’s just silly and over the top without being funny at all.

Don’t get me wrong- the movie isn’t 100% garbage (AKA Epic Movie), but there’s way more bad than good on the plate here. Rush Hour 3 is filled with plot points that make no sense, with each scene feeling like a silly standalone skit instead of part of a whole. Plus, this movie has more coincidental garbage going on than all 6 Star Wars movies put together five times over. Characters pop up in impossible places just at the right (or wrong) moment constantly.

The two previous films had their share of outlandish stunts and gags, but they still managed to remain rooted firmly in reality. But in Rush Hour 3…well, I’m not really sure what happened. Is Rush Hour series director Brett Ratner, fresh off his success helming X-Men: The Last Stand (which was a hit more due to the strength of the X-Men name than his directing skills), the one to blame? It’s hard to say. Things that look good on paper can become total crap once filmed, but there had to be a point where Brett saw what he was putting together this time around and realized that it just wasn’t working. For me, it would have been the scene where Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan sing a horrific duet. Yes, imagine Jackie Chan singing. In “Engrish,” no less.

Speaking of Jackie Chan, it’s sad watching him get older and no longer able to do his famous Hong Kong-style stunt work. In days past, Jackie would do a complex stunt in one shot. In Rush Hour 3 he’ll do simple things, like sliding down a flagpole, with multiple edits to hide the fact that he can’t bring it

like he used to. It’s like he’s trying to hold on to his stuntman legacy, but Jackie is getting too old to be making action movies anymore, in my opinion. You know something’s wrong when the bloopers shown during the credits of a Chan movie are 98% people blowing lines and not stunts/fights gone wrong.

I’ve actually seen some of his Hong Kong movies and Jackie Chan is very capable of good acting, but sadly, Americans don’t care. They just want to see him falling off of skyscrapers onto thumbtacks.

And even though Chris Tucker does nothing but make a Rush Hour movie once every 5 or 6 years, his act is already stale. All he seems capable of is cracking goofy jokes and dancing like a buffoon. But if this is indeed the last film of the series, we’ll probably never see him “acting” in another film again. So, at least some good will come of all the pain Rush Hour 3 has inflicted on me.

However, aside from being a total dud and tarnishing a beloved action/comedy franchise, Rush Hour 3 does offer up some valuable information I was previously unaware of- apparently, it’s 100% legal to assault police officers in both the United States and France. You can even punch a Police Chief right in the face in front of all his men with no repercussions! Keep this in mind the next time you get a speeding ticket, but

just don’t tell them I told you about it.

People have long been intrigued by the glamorous picture painted by the celluloid spy, starting in the 1960’s with the granddaddy of them all, James Bond. Deep undercover, engaged in covert activities, traveling exotic locales, romancing beautiful women…James sure had the life. Times change, however, and in recent years (due mostly to inept screenwriting), the Bond franchise has faltered in terms of quality. The attempt last year at re-booting the series with newcomer Daniel Craig certainly appears poised to return Bond to his former glory, but recently there have been many attempts by newcomers to take advantage of James’ current slump and usurp

the Spy King title from his clutches. Thus far, however, these attempts have pretty much all fallen short of the mark.

Enter Jason Bourne. The creation of late novelist Robert Ludlum (and considered his signature character, as James Bond was to author Ian Fleming), Bourne is a former black-ops assassin for the CIA and one of the most deadly and resourseful people in the world. Following a mission gone wrong, Bourne is betrayed, shot in the back, and left for dead in the Mediterranean Sea. He manages to survive his wounds and is rescued by a fishing boat, but now suffers from (yup, you guessed it) total amnesia. Have you ever met anyone suffering from even from

mild amnesia, let alone total? No, me either, yet in movies everyone seems to develop it as easily as the common cold.

Anyway, Bourne can’t remember anything- who he is, what he was doing for the CIA, why he was betrayed, or even how good the baked potato soup is at Houlihan’s (and it’s good, believe me). Despite this handicap, Bourne still retains his brutal combat skills and razor-sharp instincts, talents that he doesn’t hesitate to use to get to the bottom of a vast CIA conspiracy of which he is the center. His quest has been chronicled in two movies thus far- The Bourne Identity (2002) and The Bourne Supremacy (2004), both of which were based on Ludlum’s novels, albeit loosely.

Robert Ludlum only penned three

Bourne novels before his death in 2001, and the subject of today’s review, The Bourne Ultimatum, is the third and final film adaptation of that series. Despite having exhausted Ludlum’s work, future installments could possibly be based upon new Bourne novels written (with permission from Ludlum’s estate) by Eric Van Lustbader, such as The Bourne Legacy and The Bourne Betrayal. Personally, I’d like to see them start having some fun with the usual Bourne naming convention and release adventures like “Bourne Again,” “Bourne to be Bad” or even “Air Bourne.” Wouldn’t that be fun?

In The Bourne Ultimatum, Matt Damon again reprises his role as the eponymous title character and brings a certain rugged, everyman quality to the role, in addition to sufficient physicality to make you believe he is, indeed, a world class combatant. The role doesn’t really require much emotional range, as Damon is somewhat wooden throughout, but I suppose it serves to underscore the hardness and inner emotional turmoil of his character.

Working against Bourne are the CIA and its various operatives and assassins, headed up by Noah Vosen (David Strathairn). Although it appears that the deck is completely stacked against Jason this time around, he finds assistance in the unlikeliest of places- within the CIA itself. Deputy Director Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), originally working to help capture Bourne, discovers the cover-up surrounding his history and has second thoughts about her role in the situation. But even with Landy’s help in uncovering the mysteries of his hazy past, will Jason Bourne survive long enough to reclaim the life he once possessed, or is this truly the end of the line for our intrepid hero?

Overall, the ongoing plot thread that ties all three movies together is fairly unoriginal. In fact, it actually reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s classic sci-fi thriller Total Recall a great deal: we have a butt-kicking super-spy who is hounded by assassins while trying to discover his true identity, and when that identity is finally uncovered, he realizes that he may have voluntarily been involved in creating his current predicament. It’s the usual “I want my memory back, I want revenge” motif that’s been done many times in film before, but at least it’s an excellent excuse for the main character to kill lots of people.

Speaking of killing people, the fight scenes of The Bourne Ultimatum are truly a sight to behold. Jason Bourne engages in several hard-hitting instances of hand-to-hand conflict, and the fight choreography displays a man that is highly-trained in taking out opponents with maximum speed and damage. The combat suffers from the usual malady of fast edits and the reviled shaky camera work so prevalent in film these days, but if you’re familiar with the previous Bourne film (Supremacy), at least I can report that it’s more subdued this time around. Meaning, you can actually watch The Bourne Ultimatum without popping Dramamine non-stop for motion sickness.

Also of note is an excellent car chase scene that uses real cars. Yes, real cars, as opposed to the

computer generated ones used in the videogame-like Live Free or Die Hard, a recent Bruce Willis action film that took absurdity in stunt work to a level never achieved before in modern film. Despite this rare yet welcome

dose of reality in The Bourne Ultimatum, however, Jason Bourne himself seems to enjoy the same absurd degree of invulnerability to physical damage as Die Hard’s hero, John McClane. Oh well,

so much for reality.

Overall, The Bourne Ultimatum is somewhat generic in terms of plot and its title character’s motivations, but it’s still a great time at the movies. It’s fast-paced, exciting, and very clever in parts. But does this mean that Jason Bourne is set to take the crown from James Bond and reign supreme as the new king of spy flicks? Currently, I’d say no, as Matt Damon seems to lack the charisma of Sean Connery or Roger Moore, but time may tell a different story if they choose to continue the Bourne franchise and flesh out the character some more. But in the meantime, check out The Bourne Ultimatum. It’s well worth watching.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Harry Potter. The famous boy wizard and star of author J.K. Rowling’s recently-concluded series of books has become the stuff of pop-culture legend. Books, movies, toys, video-games, magazines, you name it- the revenue from the merchandising juggernaut that is Harry Potter has basically turned his creator into the Bill Gates of Britain, in terms of net worth. Not bad for a woman that wrote her first novel in a coffee shop because her apartment at the time reportedly had no heat, huh?

I’ll admit that I’ve not read any of the Harry Potter books, but so far I’ve seen the movie adaptations of the first five and found them all to be charming and enjoyable. However, the one problem they’ve all had in common is that they cater directly to those who have read the books, making them less accessible to casual moviegoers. It’s to be expected, of course, considering the huge fan base of the novels,

but I always end up encountering scenes where I’d be at a loss as to what’s going on, had I not made it a practice of bringing a companion well-versed in Potter lore each time.

Oh, you’ve never heard of Harry Potter? Well, lumber out of your cave and I’ll be happy to tell you all about him. Harry (played in the films by the talented Daniel Radcliffe) is a student of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and the only known person to ever survive an attempt on his life by the evil Lord Voldemort, who’s sort of the Darth Vader of the series. The previous films have each chronicled one year in Hogwarts, starting with Harry as a freshman with his friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Thought vanquished long ago, the deadly wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is working behind the scenes in order to regain his body and continue his plans of conquering the world. Having finally re-appeared in the flesh in the last film, Voldemort has now started committing all sorts of tomfoolery and, of course, it’s up to Harry and his friends to stop him.

This brings us up to the newest entry in the series- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. In his latest adventure, we find that Harry and Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts and Obi-Wan Kenobi to Voldemort’s Darth, have told the illustrious Ministry of Magic about the Dark Lord’s harrowing return. You’d think such a weighty claim would send the Ministry into full alert mode, but it’s instead met with complete disbelief, mostly because in movies no one ever believes stupid little kids or batty old men. If they did, the menace would be nipped in the bud and then we’d have no movie, now would we? Ignorance of the painfully obvious is one of the most important plot devices in all of Hollywood, my friends. Everything revolves around it.

The Ministry’s odd behavior doesn’t stop with simply ignoring the magical equivalent of Hitler and the grave threat he poses to the planet, oh, no- they go one step further and

attempt to clamp down on Hogwarts, erroneously viewing Harry and Dumbledore’s report as a blatant lie meant to sow dissent among the Ministry. To this end, the Ministry appoints Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) as Hogwart’s new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher, and from there she spreads her vile influence until she’s usurped control of the entire school from Dumbledore and his professors. To minimize the perceived danger to the Ministry, Umbridge adjusts Hogwarts’ curriculum, eliminating the practice of actual magic in favor of textbook-based lessons. Rules governing behavior are tightened to the point where all personal freedoms are nearly eliminated and dissent is actually punished physically. In an attempt to rebel against Umbridge’s horrific authority, Harry forms an underground group of fellow students he instructs in smoking and drinking hard liquor- no, no, he

actually just teaches them the mystical arts instead, in preparation for a possible attack by that Voldemort guy. They know it’s coming, even if the brain-dead grown-ups refuse to accept it.

Meanwhile, Harry is also in contact with Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), his Godfather and only living relative (Harry’s parents had sadly been killed by Voldemort when he was a baby). Sirius is the leader of the Order of the Phoenix, a secret organization of good wizards committed to combat Voldemort, should he ever return. But can even Sirius and the Order protect Harry from not only the Dark Lord himself, but the ruthless police state that Hogwarts has become?

In my not-so-humble opinion, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix just may be the best entry in a series that has consistently churned out quality installments. While it retains its roots as a children’s movie, the franchise is taking a decidedly darker tone as its stars get older and more mature. Harry and crew are in their mid-teens now, and watching the characters grow older and become more complex has been an interesting experience.

Watching their actors grow older has been interesting as well. Some of them, like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, has remained nearly identical-looking since their inception into the series. Rupert Grint started looking rather odd in the last film, but somehow looks like himself once again. But the two actors that play his twin brothers appear to be suffering from Luke Perry syndrome and look like they’re in their 40’s

now. Not good when you’re playing teenagers.

And while we all know I love to complain about movies that are unnecessarily long, Order of the Phoenix never felt that way, despite clocking in at nearly 2 hours and 20 minutes. It helps that the story is engaging and the characters quite likable or diabolical, depending on what side of the good guy/bad guy fence they’re standing on, of course.

One thing that made no sense to me, however, was when Dolores Umbridge basically turned Hogwarts into an interment camp of sorts, stifling the student’s freedom and refusing to teach them any magic. I mean, their parents are PAYING to send them Hogwarts- it’s not a charitable institution. I would imagine the tuition for such a place is quite pricey. It would be like sending your kids to Harvard Law School to become attorneys and having the professors insist on teaching them Advanced Umbrella Opening or Ice Cube Theory instead. You’d pull them out,

right? Maybe, I guess. I sure might.

So, overall, there appears to be just no way of stopping Harry Potter. Everyone loves him. Please go see his movie and make J. K. Rowling even richer, if that’s even possible. Sure, you’ll be buying into a pop culture phenomenon, but in this case that’s okay- for once it’s not a vapid, soulless one like most of the others that come and go on a daily basis. Harry Potter is a series that’s chock full of imagination and excitement, even for jaded grown-ups like me. I keep meaning to actually try reading one of the Potter books at some point, but if the film translations continue to retain their high level of quality, I probably won’t ever bother (yes, I’m lazy). Highly recommended.

(Long Island, NY) Ah, the Transformers- I loved those things growing up. Initially starting out as a line of Japanese toys imported by Hasbro and released in America back in 1984, the idea of everyday, innocuous objects such as cars, jet planes and boom boxes that transformed into fighting robots caught the imagination of children everywhere. According to the storyline, the Transformers were sentient machines from the planet Cybertron that were divided into two separate camps at war with one another- the heroic Autobots and the evil Decpticons- with their conflict eventually leading them to Earth.

Once on our planet, their mechanical shape-shifting abilities allowed them to scan and imitate any mechanical device of equal size in order to blend in unnoticed. Unnoticed except at cash registers, that is, where the Transformers generated millions of dollars in profit for Hasbro. This triumph at retail lead to equally successful Transformer spin-offs, such as cartoons and comic books. It also lead to numerous rip-offs, such as the lowly Go-Bots, but that’s the last time I’ll mention those losers here.

Throughout the years, the Transformers have remained popular throughout many different incarnations (there have been new toys released ever year without fail since their inception

in 1984), but the characters of the original 1980’s line, such as the heroic Optimus Prime and the evil Megatron, remain the most popular by far (my personal favorite was Soundwave- why isn’t he in this movie?). Their enduring appeal has now resulted in a live-action, big-budget Hollywood movie treatment by the producer/director team of Stephen Spielberg and Michael Bay, both of whom are known for their summer blockbusters.

The two have treated the Transformers seriously and with respect, despite the series’ origin as a mere toy line. Most of the major points fans were clamoring for director Bay got right, and the little things he changed would be considered a big deal only by the most hardcore and socially maladjusted. However, the film does contain some glaring flaws when you look at it within the context of an actual movie and not a toy commercial, which I’ll discuss as I now dissect Mr. Bay’s latest cinematic offering.

The Autobots and Decpticons have been warring for thousands of years, laying waste to their home planet of Cybertron and extinguishing almost all life there in the process. They key to creating robotic life

anew, known as the Allspark (which looks a lot like a Borg cube from Star Trek), was lost to the farthest reaches of space and winds up on Earth (it’s amazing how these things always wind up here, isn’t it?). Megatron, the leader of the Decpticons and would-be dictator of Cybertron, sets out to track down the Allspark to augment his armies and subsequently disappears. For thousands of years afterwards, both the Autobots and Decpticons scour the galaxy for the Allspark, with the fate of their planet hanging in the balance.

Fast-forward to Earth, 2007, where we find ourselves in the war-torn Middle East. An unidentified MH-53 Pave Low helicopter has intruded into the U.S. Army’s airspace and is being escorted by fighter jets to their base for questioning. However, upon landing, the helicopter does something just a tad out of the ordinary- it reconfigures itself into a giant robot who proceeds to stomp the base into the ground like like you or I would an ant hill. The U.S. Government is naturally concerned when they learn of this development, and begin an investigation.

Afterwards, we are introduced to high school student Sam Witwicky (played by Shia LaBeouf of Disturbia fame), who is currently pining away not only for his first car, but for his beautiful classmate, Mikaela Banes (the aptly named Megan Fox). Mikaela currently appears out of reach (as she’s your typical movie girl in the sense that she’s dating a total jerk but doesn’t realize it yet), but at least the car isn’t, as his father is matching him dollar-for-dollar on the price. Father and son take a drive down to the used car lot, where a mysterious, beat-up 1974 Chevy Camaro falls right into Sam’s price range- and seems very interested in going home with him, the reason why to be revealed later.

Sam takes his new ride out for a spin and as luck would have it, it’s about this time that Mikaela realizes that her current beau is a creep and walks out on him. Sam uses this opportunity to do the right thing- he dumps his friend to the curb and offers Mikaela a ride home. On the way, Sam’s Camero seems to be doing everything in its power to help him woo his passenger, at one point even pretending to break down at a strategically romantic location. Later, the Camaro exhibits more odd behavior, like driving itself and even transforming into a giant robot, an event that Sam witnesses. Shocked by this (indeed, Camaros didn’t come with these options until 1975), Sam runs to the nearest police car, which ALSO transforms into a giant robot- however, this one proceeds to

attack him.

Saved by his Camaro, Sam learns that the car is, in reality, an

Autobot named Bumblebee sent to protect him. After being introduced to Bumblebee’s fellow Autobots, including their leader Optimus Prime (whose alternate form is that of a Peterbuilt truck), some big questions are answered, including the obvious one: why is Sam so important? It turns out that his great-great grandfather, the famous explorer Captain Archibald Witwicky, had encountered frozen body of Decepticon leader Megatron over 100 years ago, entombed in ice in the Arctic Circle. Accidentally activating

Meg’s navigation systems, the coordinates of the location of the Allspark were etched by a laser beam into Captain Witwicky’s glasses- glasses that Sam had been trying to sell on Ebay recently for his car fund. It turns out that both the Autobots and Decepticons have web access, are aware of the glasses, and are hunting Sam down.

Thus begins a battle for possession of the Allspark, with the Decpticons wishing to use it to conquer Earth and destroy humanity, and the Autobots to repair their dead homeworld while protecting the inhabitants of Earth. As plots go it’s not Shakespeare, but it’s a toy movie- it’ll do.

Overall, Transformers was entertaining. The movie had a lot of charm and personality, and as a fan I really have to admit that the nostalgic rush I got from the film was amazing, especially when the Autobots finally landed on Earth and took their car forms. It was actually a little moving, seeing symbols of my childhood realized on the big screen. The fact that the producers recruited the voice talents of Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime from the 80’s cartoon series, certainly helped in that regard. In addition, the film’s humor was spot-on, especially the amusing banter amongst the Autobots.

Visually, it practically melts your eyeballs. The computer graphics were astonishing, with nearly photo-realistic Autobots and Decpticons that seamlessly integrated with the actors and backgrounds. Their transformations between robot and vehicle forms were especially impressive. Industrial Light and Magic, who handled the Transformer graphics and whose processing and data storage capabilities were reportedly taken to their limits by the task, certainly earned their paycheck.

Later on in the film, the giant robot-on-robot battles are awe-inspiring- or rather, they would have been, if the camera had been pulled back about 20 feet and kept still for all of 2 seconds (yes, our friend the shaky-cam returns yet again). It’s almost a shame, as all that hard work was spent on rendering these amazing robots and the director almost seemed to be going out of his way to make them impossible to see in action.

As for the humans- first off, I have to say that Shia LaBeouf is a great actor. He took a character that would have been 100% annoying and that would have ruined the whole movie if played by anyone else on the planet and actually made him very likable. The rest of the cast was solid with the exception of John Turturro, whose practically ruins every single scene he’s in.

Speaking of bad, there was one major problem with Transformers- way too much emphasis was placed on the humans, and not enough on the robots. Director Michael Bay never put the human drama in the background and allowed the audience to get to know the robots. The fact is that there was almost too much going on with all the assorted human characters, story-wise, and it really hurts the movie at times. Originally, this was touted by Michael Bay in the press as simply the story of a boy and his car. But it’s not just the story of a boy and his car- it’s a boy and his car and the boy’s parents and his girlfriend and his great-great grandfather and the Government and their hackers and the friends of their hackers and their Dance Dance Revolution-playing cousins and secret undercover agencies and their annoying agents and the Army and their families and all sorts of other nonsense that took away from fleshing out the main reason people paid to see the movie- the giant robots.

Movies do this all the time- when a film’s main characters are inhuman or other-worldly, they feel the need to awkwardly insert “normal” characters (in this case, humans) so the audience has someone they can “relate” to, not realizing that it’s often unnecessary, at least to the degree displayed here. The personalities of the various Transformers were all clearly established in the beloved cartoons and comic books and that’s what the public wanted to see, not Anthony Anderson inhaling a plate of donuts or John Turturro in his undies.

It’s almost like they were trying to combine a children’s cartoon and a grown-up drama, and it just didn’t quite gel. Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of robots running around and they got an adequate amount of screen time, but the spotlight was always clearly shining on the humans.

Overall, I’d say Transformers was good, but a little disappointing at the same time. The obvious sequel they set up for at the end should be mind-blowing if they fix the problems this one had, because what they got right they really nailed. And with the vast Transformers Universe to choose characters from, I’m really looking forward to what the next film brings to the table.

(Long Island, N.Y.) In 2005, the original Fantastic Four was released in theaters and was a major hit with moviegoers. No surprise, as comic book-based movies are all the rage lately and the Fantastic Four are one of Marvel Comics’ most iconic superhero groups. For those of you who never read the comic or saw the original movie, the Fantastic Four are a group of four people who are fantastic. Thus, the Fantastic Four. Not so hard, is it?

Okay, I’ll elaborate. The Fantastic Four are four people who gained superpowers after being exposed to cosmic rays during a scientific space mission. After coming to grips with their new abilities and the problems they cause, they end up using them to protect the world from danger. Our jolly team consists of:

• Reed Richards, AKA Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd): He’s the team leader, a brilliant yet nerdy scientist, and can make himself all stretchy like carnival taffy.
• Sue Storm, AKA The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba): The very attractive yet plastic Barbie doll-looking girlfriend of Mr. Fantastic. She can turn invisible and create force fields. She wears glasses when she wants to “look smart.”
• Johnny Storm, AKA The Human Torch (Chris Evans): The cocky, arrogant brother of Sue. His powers enable him to control fire, fly, and spew a never-ending stream of one-liners at anyone within earshot.
• Ben Grimm, AKA The Thing (Michael Chiklis): Yes, it’s Vic Mackey from The Shield playing a lovable orange rock monster from Brooklyn with superhuman strength.

In a departure from the comics, series baddie Victor Von Doom ends up tagging along on the ill-fated space mission as well, similarly gaining superpowers which he ends up using for…(cue manical laughter)…evil!! Of course, this leads him into direct conflict with the our beloved Foursome, who proceed to give him a proper superhero beat-down. Defeated and frozen into a living statue (don’t ask), Dr. Doom is shipped off to his home country of Latveria at the end of the first movie. Why? I’m not quite sure. U.S. jail overcrowding, perhaps? It certainly got Paris Hilton sprung from the joint early.

I found the original Fantastic Four to be pretty entertaining. No, it wasn’t fine cinema or anything, but it was a fun, lighthearted movie. It also remained fairly loyal to the comic it was based on, especially in regards to the characterizations of the team itself. In the comic book they had this sort of dysfunctional family thing going on and their big-screen counterparts pulled this dynamic off very well.

Well, movie studios do love their successful franchises, so naturally we’re now being treated to a sequel, entitled Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer. What’s a Silver Surfer, you may ask? It’s this chrome guy that looks like the T-1000 from Terminator 2 who flies around space on a surfboard. Yeah, a surfboard. I know it sounds silly, but in motion it actually looks pretty cool, so have an open mind, okay? The longer answer is that he is a herald for a planet-eating force of nature known as Galactus. The Surfer scouts space ahead of his master, seeking planets for Galactus to suck the delicious life-energy out of like a giant Starbucks Java Chip Frappuccino, leaving them barren, lifeless husks. For the one person out there who hasn’t already guessed, allow me ruin your surprise- yes, Earth is next on the menu.

Meanwhile, Sue is trying to tear the nerdy Reed away from his research long enough to get married. She almost succeeds long enough to seal the deal, but the untimely appearance of the Surfer disrupts the wedding and causes chaos across the globe as he preps our planet for his galactic gourmet of a master to devour. Working with the military in order to stop the Surfer and the Earth’s impending doom, the Four are forced to work with their old enemy, Victor Von Doom, who has somehow been released from his frozen form by a random discharge of the Surfer’s cosmic energies. That’s a convenient plot device, huh?

The Surfer’s powers are vast and the military are ineffective against his might, but Reed manages to concoct a scheme to separate him from his cosmic surfboard, which appears to be the source of his powers. While in the custody of the Army, Sue discovers that the Silver Surfer isn’t the villian he initially appeared to be, and that he chafes in the service of Galactus and his role in the destruction of countless living worlds. Oh, and Sue also discovers that the Surfer’s tummy is an HDTV. That was weird.

Can the Fantastic Four convince the Silver Surfer to help them save the Earth, or will our planet take an exciting tour of Galactus’ digestive tract? And can they trust their shaky alliance with the evil Dr. Doom, or will he stab them in the back all villains tend to do? Don’t ask me, I give away too much info in these reviews as it is. The answers await you at your local movie theater!

Overall, Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer was fine- about on par with the original. “Cheesy but fun” is the ideal phrase I’d use to describe it, which my friend Don chimed in with upon leaving the theater once the feature was over. As in the original movie, the Four have good chemistry and the overall lighthearted tone of the movie was a refreshing change of pace from all the dark and gritty comic book adaptations as of late.

The Silver Surfer himself was just okay. Everyone I spoke to before seeing the film was going on and on about how amazing he looked and moved and how Doug Jones (the actor who preformed the Surfer’s movements) is a physical wonder and all that, but I really thought the character needed to be expanded upon. His personality (as voiced by Laurence Fishburne) was actually kind of bland, but Galactus’ herald was exciting in motion- we needed to see more of him in action.

As for Galactus…well, I don’t know. In the comics, as created by the great Jack Kirby, Galactus was a giant wearing intricate purple armor and considered a major force in the Marvel Universe. In this movie, however, he’s…a big cloud. That’s it. However, if you watch closely, there’s a scene when there’s a flash behind the cloud, and you see a purple silhouette shaped exactly like the Kirby version of Galactus. Maybe he was back there after all. Of course, it would have been a 1000x better if he walked out of the stupid cloud and started stomping buildings on Earth, but…

And speaking of villains, my only real complaint about this series so far is how horribly they’ve handled Dr. Doom, one of the most infamous bad guys in all of comics. The fearsome monarch of Latveria has been reduced to a sniveling, annoying shell of his former self. He wasn’t so bad in the first film, but in Rise Of The Silver Surfer I was really hoping that The Thing would just start slapping Doom silly and never stop. Such a shame.

Taken as a whole, Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer was pretty good. Action/Adventure fans should enjoy it, as should fans of comic book films (and there seems to be a lot of you out there). It’s fun, it’s funny, and it’s appropriately over-the-top without being TOO cheesy (although Mr. Fantastic’s dance number came really close). It’s even okay for kids. Check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) In 2005, Eli Roth’s Hostel was released and managed to spark some controversy with its brutal subject matter. It depicted a depraved underground organization in the European country of Slovakia that specialized in luring young people backpacking across Europe into staying at an obscure Hostel (a low-cost boarding house of sorts). In turn, they would be kidnapped from the Hostel, taken to a grimy, abandoned factory, and

provided to paying clients to sadistically maim and kill. Obviously, it pays to avoid the Economy Tour when traveling abroad.

Hostel gave birth to a “torture” sub-genre of horror which has seen numerous imitators released into theaters in recent years. Now, if you’re a regular reader of my column (and really, who isn’t?), then you probably know that I’m an avid horror fan. Blood, gore, violence, that’s all cool in my book. However, what I’m not a fan of are films where people are tied into chairs and mutilated while crying and begging for their lives. There’s just something about it that makes me feel a little dirty. I mean, against someone like Jason Voorhees they at least have a chance- well, okay, they still have no chance, but at least they can still run away and survive a few extra seconds. That’s fair, right?

But other than that unpleasantness, I thought the original Hostel was a pretty good movie. It had some nice character development, a little bit of mystery, and a fairly satisfying ending. It was a good follow-up for fledgling director Eli Roth after the success of his debut film, 2003’s Cabin Fever.

Of course, successful movies breed sequels, and Hostel is no exception. Thus, we now come to the subject of today’s review: Hostel Part II. Picking up right where the first movie left off, we learn the ultimate fate of Paxton (Jay Hernandez), the sole survivor of the first film. After that is dispensed with, we are introduced to Part II’s dual set of protagonists. The first group is a gaggle of young American girls taking a break from their studies in Europe- Beth (Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo). They’re innocently looking to blow off some steam and in search of some harmless fun- you know, drinking, drugs, sex with strangers, etc. As in the original movie, they are eventually drawn in through a web of deception until they are in the vile clutches of the clandestine association introduced in the original movie.

Now, the bidding begins. Pictures are circulated to prospective “clients” via the internet and an auction of sorts ensues. It is at this point that we are introduced to our second group of protagonists,

Stuart (Roger Bart) and Todd (Richard Burgi), two American businessmen who think it’d be really cool to chop up pretty girls. Stuart doesn’t appear to be gung-ho at the prospect, but Todd (seemingly a real Patrick Bateman-type), bullies him into it like they were high school kids. Soon, their private jet is touching down in Slovakia and they

are whisked away to the factory for some impromptu brain surgery with the captive girls. Blood will flow, true natures will be revealed, and tables will be turned.

Overall, Hostel Part II fails to impress. The

premise of the sequel sounded interesting on paper, as they were planning on delving into the inner workings of the organization that runs the evil snuff factory introduced in the first movie. But

in the end they revealed little of consequence, and overall, nothing at all was really different from the original Hostel- except that all the mystery of the first film was lost because they used the same tactics to lure people in and you saw everything coming from a mile away. The way the organization solicited its clients was silly as well, as people all over the world are shown competing in Ebay-style auctions for the various girls up for grabs.

And where the original

was disturbing, Part II was more on the cheesy side. The kills were far more cartoonish and over-the-top and as a result, lost their realism and impact. In a way, I suppose this is a good thing, as I was not a fan of the carnage of the first picture.

But this change also caused the grittiness and tension (so prevalent in the original) to vanish as well. I think the fact that the main characters were far less compelling and likable (despite being attractive women) than the trio of victims in the first movie contributed to this as well.

As for the depraved people out there who loved all the blood and skin in the first Hostel, you’ll be saddened to learn that the sequel is FAR tamer- way less gore, way less female nudity, and way more male genitals (huh?).

Taken on its own, Hostel Part II is a slightly below-average film at best. But movie sequels should

always up the ante and outdo the previous film. If it’s just more of the same, or in this case much less of the same, there’s just no point in bothering. Don’t go out of your way to see it, even if you were a fan of the original.