(Long Island, N. Y.) Man, some series just have to run themselves into the ground before they realize their time is up…and yeah, Scary Movie is such a series. David Zucker has quite a pedigree. Heck, this is the man that created possibly

the greatest spoof film in history- 1980’s “Airplane!” I just watched it the other day on cable and it STILL holds up, over thirty years later.

Unfortunately, however, Zucker can only ride by on his rep for only just so long, as the fifth installment of Scary Movie (a parody of horror flicks that Zucker took over from Keenan-Ivory Wayans starting with the second installment) is just an example of beating a horse to death, and then just embarrassingly trying to ride the corpse. Apparently just throwing out random pop culture references disguised as “jokes” isn’t really getting audiences laughing like they used to. I, for one, am overjoyed about that.

Scary Movie 5 attempts to poke fun at several recent notable entries into the horror/sci-fi genre, including “Paranormal Activity,” Black Swan,” “The Cabin in the Woods,” “Evil Dead,” “Inception,” “Insidious,” and many other movies of varying quality and worth that are all nonetheless still better than Scary Movie 5. Plus, it stars “actors” such as Lindsey Lohan and Charlie Sheen (playing themselves, of course, and playing up their real-life public blunders and gaffes)… thankfully, Anna Faris and Regina Hall, the previous stars of this series, had the good sense to sit this one out. We do get Snoop Dogg and Mac Miller in this one, though,

so all is not lost, I guess.

And that’s another problem when your film relies almost completely

on popular culture- you need to be bleeding-edge with your lame references to current trends and gossip, because in 2-3 months (taking into account the average attention span), your feature will be hopelessly dated and out of touch. I remember Scary Movie 2 referencing (I think) a Nike basketball commercial in a gag that not only would go over the heads of most of today’s audience, but actually make no sense whatsoever to boot. Needless to say, these movies don’t stand up to repeat viewings.

However, there IS a bright spot to this whole Scary Movie situation- most likely, this will be the very last we see of it. Bombing

at the box office this past weekend (and currently sitting with a dismal five percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which I’m sure will go down even further once this review is taken into account, of course), it seems that Scary Movie will be going away for good. If there is one thing that Hollywood studios are predictable about (actually, what AREN’T they predictable about?), it’s money; if you’re not making it for them right here and now, they’re not going to invest a dime in you, no matter how

awesome your past record is as a filmmaker. Hollywood execs have very poor memories, you see.

So, please avoid Scary Movie 5, although you probably don’t need me to tell you that- if you’re not the type of person who saw it opening night, you’re most likely not the type of person who plans on seeing it at all. Full of “not really” jokes, poor taste, boredom, and stupidity, Scary Movie 5 is lame, tired, and just needs to go away forever.

David Zucker- I humbly thank you for Airplane! Now please stop. Thanks.

(Long Island, N. Y.) First, I’d like to open this review to acknowledge the untimely and unfortunate passing of one of the true greats in my biz…Roger Ebert. You will be sorely missed, my friend. Evil Dead, the twisted z-grade 80’s horror flick that has enslaved generations of rabid fan-boys, launched a cult media franchise, and put director Sam Rami and geek icon actor Bruce Campbell on the map, has finally received the usual Hollywood remake treatment. It never ends, folks. It never ends.

However, whereas the typical remake treatment usually adds little or nothing to the pre-existing material (other than to needlessly tarnish its good name, in many cases), word on the street was that director and co-writer of the new Evil Dead, Fede Alvarez, was taking on the project with utmost seriousness
and reverence. After all, to the horror community, Evil Dead is an (un)holy thing. But while it was in production I kept hearing that Alvarez’s remake was eschewing fake-looking CG in favor of practical, physical effects and that atmosphere and true terror were his aim when it came to the crafting of the movie.

Despite being a major horror buff, I had never worshiped Campbell and Rami as reverently as others who dig all things dark and evil when it comes to celluloid (their films can be a little too goofy at times, in my opinion). However, when hearing how the remake was supposed to be turning out…my interest was piqued.

In the original Evil Dead, the premise was as simple as they come…a bunch of college kids head up to a deserted cabin in the woods to party, discover the mysteriously abandoned works of a professor deciphering an ancient evil book known as the Necronomicon, and unknowingly unleash a horde of demons when they play the tape recorder he had been using to transcribe the terrible text. One-by-one, the kids are possessed by the “Deadites” and basically tear each other to pieces, leaving only one survivor (Campbell, of course!).

It was unoriginal on paper, but where Evil Dead worked so well was in the execution. Made by kids barely out of their teens, director Rami used a number of innovative and just plain nutty film-making techniques (in addition to bucket-loads of gore) to craft a horror flick that many now hail as a classic. While it was cheap and amateurish-looking, it also had a thick, creepy atmosphere of isolation and dread that proved very effective. Sequels would add more and more slapstick comedy, but the original Evil Dead remains a great horror film to this day, as its legions of fans will attest to.

Well, I just saw the remake…and it was just okay. The original was actually a much better movie (and I’m not even the biggest fan of it, so I’m totally impartial here). It was far more intense overall, and the Deadites were way, waaay more messed up and twisted. Don’t get me wrong…the remake isn’t horrible or anything. It’s just your average, generic modern horror movie with maybe a little extra gore than usual, that’s all.

The remake also had a few lulls in the action that killed the pacing. The film was gory as hell, and they thankfully used practical effects for the most part, but otherwise it wasn’t that great. Even the main plot driving the movie was stupid…instead of just going there to party, the kids are there to strand their junkie friend out in the middle of the woods so she can detox far away from any hospital with only an RN to look after her; some stupid kids just camping out to drink and fornicate was easier to buy, to be honest.

I could comment on the fact that the kids do all the usual horror movie nonsense – make stupid decisions, are vapid and underdeveloped, etc. – but that would be overstating the painfully obvious. It was in the original movie, so it’s in the remake, of course. But as a lady friend of mine stated after seeing the film, it’s just lazy scriptwriting and it always fails to endear you to the characters and, in turn, it fails to get you to care when they’re put in danger. If anything, filmmakers should challenge themselves by writing characters who actually AREN’T blithering idiots, yet STILL manage to get in danger. But I know, it would take actual work, so it’s never likely to happen.

I still can’t get over how ‘eh’ the possessed people were in the remake compared to the original. In Rami’s flick they were all rotted and deformed as well as being fairly fast and strong, whereas in the remake they were basically slow zombies with just a little blood on their faces and scary contact lenses. They also died way too easily compared to their 80’s brethren, who almost had to be messily reduced to their component molecules before they could be stopped.

The main thing the remake was missing that the original had in abundance was, simply put, “crazy.” Rami’s Evil Dead was crazy, whereas the remake felt…restrained. Gory, violent, but never out of control. However, in the case of some of the original’s “racier” content, that might actually be a good thing. I’m sure those who have seen the first movie know exactly what I’m talking about.

Of course, the remake has a few pluses…the practical gore effects were refreshing in this day and age of video-game blood and entrails, and there were a few genuinely creepy moments sprinkled about. But the uneven pacing and interchangeable characters really worked against the film at every opportunity.

I love horror movies, but I can’t think of the last modern one that I thought was legit scary; the Evil Dead remake sure wasn’t. I’m not sure if I’m desensitized to the whole horror movie thing these days (I hope not!), but in my opinion, you’re better off just renting the original and enjoying it in the safety of your own home, where evil remakes can only cross your doorstep if you allow them to.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Growing up in the 80’s was a great thing…entertainment in that day exposed children to endless amounts of violence, blood, and wanton destruction, and nothing epitomized that more than Hasbro’s awesome GI Joe toy line and cartoon series. I loved it then, and I love it now.

GI Joe, originally starting out as a line of 12-inch army dolls in the 1960’s, was updated and re-launched in the 80’s as a scaled-down 4-inch line

of action figures reflecting a modern, high-tech fighting force of military specialists assembled to fight Cobra, a “ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world.” Being the maladjusted sociopath that I am, I more often than not sided with Cobra and their clandestine leader, Cobra Commander, but overall, I loved the franchise to death, and continue to collect it to this day.

Yes, I’m a geek. Whatever.

So, when the live-action film adaptation of the franchise debuted in 2009, entitled G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, I was understandably excited, to say the least. That is, until I watched it.

Obviously directed by a hired gun that clearly didn’t “get it,” Rise of Cobra reduced the colorful personality of GI Joe into a cheesy, generic action flick, and it was slammed by both fans and critics. However, most likely thanks to nostalgia, the film managed to make enough dough to warrant a sequel, but it was clear that this next installment would be a make-or-break deal for the future of the series.

New series

director John Chu (whose previous credits include a Justin Beiber documentary that was actually critically acclaimed…now THAT takes talent!) managed to make an early positive impression on fans with a strongly-professed childhood love for GI Joe, as well as some impressive preview footage that drastically seemed to change the look and tone of the first movie, bringing it more in line with the classic Joe look and feel that fans craved. Finally, it seemed, someone got GI Joe right.

However, fans would have to wait a little longer than first anticipated after a last-minute false start on the part of the studio, who decided to pull the film from release less than a month before it was due to premiere for a nine-month 3D conversion.

But GI Joe: Retaliation is FINALLY here, and the question must be asked: was it worth the wait?

It sure was. Yes, it has some flaws, but overall, old-school GI Joe fanboys (as well as new recruits to the cause) finally have the live-action film they’ve been dreaming of since they first opened the packaging of their very first figure.

Retaliation functions as both a sequel and a reboot as it relates to Rise of Cobra; director Chu and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick managed to jettison most of the objectionable and outlandish material from the first movie for the sequel, grounding the movie more in reality and interjecting much of the personality and individuality that the characters were previously lacking.

The story of Retaliation hinges on one vital plot point carried over from Rise of Cobra: Zartan (Arnold Vosloo), the evil master of disguise who is impersonating the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce), orchestrates a plot to frame the GI Joes as traitors and orders a surprise military strike on them to wipe them out. Believing the only ones who can foil the plans of Cobra to be dead, Zartan enlists the ninja Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and the mercenary Firefly (Ray Stevenson) to rescue their leader, Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey), from a government penitentiary. With the Commander now free and pulling the strings in Washington, the outlook for the safety of the free world is looking pretty dismal.

However, there’s one thing the forces of Cobra didn’t count

on- there are surviving GI Joes. Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Cotrona), and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) managed to survive the massacre of their comrades, and covertly turn to retired General Joseph Colton (Bruce Willis) for help in their desperate counterattack. In addition, another Joe, silent ninja commando Snake Eyes (Ray Park), sets out to track down Storm Shadow, a fellow member of his Arashikage ninja clan, to answer for his crimes and to discover Cobra’s plans.

However, with Cobra set to disarm the world’s nuclear arsenal and introduce a devastating super-weapon of their own, are a mere handful of surviving GI Joes enough to prevent global destruction, especially with a naughty dude like Cobra Commander calling the shots?

GI Joe: Retaliation was a damn good movie. It’s not perfect…the flow of the story felt a tad disjointed at points (the Zartan/Storm Shadow connection was HORRIBLE), and I felt that it could be a little confusing for people who either hadn’t seen the first movie or weren’t familiar with the overall story of the comics. Also, since this is a story about the Joes knocked down and on the run, there was plenty of great action, but not on an army vs. army scale like they had in the comics and cartoon- I missed that a little. But otherwise, Retaliation was easily 10,000,000 times better than Rise of Cobra.

Retaliation is fast-paced and fun, with a lot of action and personality, some well-placed snippets of humor, and a great grasp of the nuances that made the modern era of GI Joe connect with fans worldwide for over 30 years and going. One action scene in particular – the ninja mountain battle scene – is easily worth the price of admission alone. And while I wouldn’t say that there’s any real character development or depth to the story, the Joes for the most part are likable enough, and the Cobras a dastardly bunch.

Also of note is the 3D conversion process the film was put through; despite not having been shot natively in 3D, the post-production work was done right, resulting in a movie that actually looks fairly impressive when you’re wearing those funny glasses. Some action scenes blur, of course, but overall the 3D effect is good and adds to the proceedings.

The tech level of Retaliation is firmly based in the modern day, unlike the crazy sci-fi ray guns and nanotechnology featured in Rise of Cobra, but there are enough advanced weapons and vehicles (including a variation of the iconic HISS tank!) on display to keep with the usual cutting-edge “near-future” Joe aesthetic.

Cobra Commander, woefully misrepresented in the last movie, was so improved this time around that I was actually annoyed that he wasn’t in the movie nearly as much as I would have liked. He costume, now very reminiscent of his classic trademark mirrored battle helmet (instead of the bizarre goldfish bowl he was saddled with on his mug in Rise of Cobra) was quite badass, and the voice they used for him was great…it reminded me of the “where’s my cake…?” zombie in the first segment of Creepshow. Good stuff.

Firefly was really cool as well, but pretty much anything Ray Stevenson does is good, so whatever. Byung-hun Lee picked up his game from the previous movie to a huge degree, although his character of Storm Shadow also suffered a bit from some bad script issues, which we’ll get to in a moment. Oh, and Jonathan Pryce as the fake President nearly stole the whole show.

Dwayne

Johnson as Roadblock was good, Adrianne Palicki Lady Jaye was good (although predictably used for cheesecake factor), and D.J. Cotrona as Flint was…kinda bland, actually. Bruce Willis had a somewhat larger role than I expected (I really just thought he would have a small cameo, despite being plastered all over the promotional materials), and appeared to be enjoying the role. Ray Park as fan-favorite Snake Eyes owned the movie, and his armored black ninja costume was far better this time around…his mask no longer sports the goofy big rubber lips it did in Rise of Cobra, thankfully.

The only really two glaringly bad things about Retaliation…the first was Wu-Tang rapper RZA, who played the Blind Master, the Arashikage ninja clan leader. RZA is seriously the worst actor in history and ruined every scene he was in; between this and The Man with the Iron Fists, it’s more than clear that he’s far better at scoring movies than actually acting in them.

Oh, and the other major flaw in Retaliation is a convoluted Zartan/Storm Shadow storyline, which was horribly done to the point that people in the audience I was at were actually throwing up their arms in confusion. I know it was thrown in as a bone for fans, but it’s possible to do that and have it actually make sense. Just some really bad writing, there.

Otherwise, GI Joe: Retaliation is a great action movie and a major shot in the arm for the franchise. Considering the fact that it opened at #1 at the box office and had already amassed $132 million worldwide during it’s opening weekend, a sequel has already been announced, and I for one can’t wait.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Olympus Has Fallen follows the rather implausible premise of terrorists taking over the White House and holding the President of the United States hostage. Still, it’s a movie, and if you buy into movie logic and are capable of suspending disbelief…well, it’s STILL rather implausible. But we’ll get to that in a moment.

Gerard Butler, who consistently stars in some of the worst movies imaginable, finally ups his game by starring in an average production for once. He plays Mike Banning, a Secret Service agent and former U.S. Army Ranger who is in charge of the security detail for the President (played by Aaron Eckhart). Or rather, he was, until a silly little car accident on the way home from Camp David leaves the First Lady in a car wreck at the bottom of the drink. Banning manages to save the President himself, however, who shows his appreciation by transferring him to the Treasury Department, since having Banning around reminds him of the dearly departed wife.

Maybe he should have saved the First Lady and let the President drown…I’m sure the Vice President would have been a lot more grateful for the resultant pay hike. Anyway, while Banning is toiling away crunching numbers at the Treasury, the White House is invaded by North Korean-led terrorists headed up by Kang Yeonsak (Rick Yune), who demands that the U.S. military withdraw from Korea, but he also has more dastardly designs: he wants to destroy the U.S. by blowing all of our nukes in their silos ’cause his folks were killed by American air strikes during the Korean War when he was a kid. Seems the President and some of his associates have the codes to do so, and Yeonsak is determined to get them no matter what.

Banning, hearing of the situation, is forced to invoke the power of Steven Seagal 80’s hit Under Siege when he sneaks into the White House and, of course, ends up being the only man bad enough to save the President. Countless action movie clichés abound, the end.

Overall, Olympus Has Fallen is a decent entry into the world of modern action flicks, which means it’s below the high-water mark set for such fare in the 1980’s, but it still manages to be entertaining on a base level. Gerard Butler is a solid actor who manages to star in terrible movies, so when he finally manages to get himself into an average film with a surprisingly good supporting cast, he can finally show off his modest talents.

Speaking of that cast, we have an impressive who’s who of actors whose careers are winding down: Aaron Eckhart, Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett, and Cole Hauser, just to name a few. All bring their A-Game here, although some are used better than others (Judd’s role as the President’s wife amounts to little more than a glorified cameo). As usual, Rick Yune plays an evil Asian, as he does in most of his movies, which is disappointing, as he’s actually a really great actor and I feel he suffers a great deal of unfair typecasting in Hollywood.

As for the movie itself, the actual raid of the White House is pretty unbelievable, if you know anything about the extreme amount of security surrounding the President’s crib, especially in the United States-post 9/11. I really don’t think a cargo plane bristling with multiple Vulcan cannons can really get into Washington D.C.’s airspace unmolested to conduct a strafing run on the White House, let alone a small army of armed and armored terrorists who manage to easily overrun the Secret Service. As I said, it’s all rather implausible, but the film is nonetheless fun and paced well, and the action itself, while too laden with CG as most Hollywood productions are in this day and age, still packs a punch when needed.

So, Olympus Has Fallen is an okay movie, and if a quick action fix is all you’re looking for, I suppose it will scratch that itch just fine. However, if you’re looking for a REAL action movie, the big guns of 80’s nostalgia are finally set to be gloriously unleashed this week…G.I. Joe Retaliation is coming out this Thursday after a gut-wrenching, last-second nine-month delay to needlessly convert it to 3D, and I get the feeling it’s be a great deal more fun. Stay tuned for my review, kids!

(Long Island, N. Y.) Everyone knows The Wizard of Oz, right? I mean, if you’re a modern parent, and you haven’t shown your kids this timeless classic by the age of four or five at the latest, you really should have Child Protective Services called on you. And everyone knows that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and is desperately trying to cash in on nostalgia via remakes and prequels instead of trying bold new ideas and concepts that would, in the long run, save the industry from the overall slump that it’s currently experiencing, right?

Well, combine the two, and you get Director Sam Rami‘s (Spiderman and Evil Dead trilogies) newest film: Oz the Great and Powerful, a prequel to The Wizard of Oz that shows how that useless old coot in the original old film ended up on Oz to begin with, because everyone has been clamoring to find out for over 70 years now. Wait, no they haven’t.

Well, that didn’t stop Hollywood from trying to give it to you, anyway…in their own unique way. That is, with eye-searingly blissful CG visuals designed to wrest your attention away from the fact that this journey back to the magical land of Oz is fairly vapid otherwise, lacking in any real sense of character, personality, or substantial plot? That it is, like so many movies nowadays, all about style and not substance?

I don’t suppose I have to fill you in on the plot of The Wizard of Oz, do I? Dorothy? Kansas? The Ruby Slippers? Munchkins? The Wicked Witch? Of course I don’t. So let’s skip the setup and jump right to Rami’s prequel. Oz the Great and Powerful involved the man who will one day become the “Wizard of Oz,” a scrub magician in a traveling carnival named Oscar Diggs (James Franco), who is basically a con artist and a womanizer who is whisked away via a hot air balloon to the land of Oz, where he encounters Good Witch Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that he is the prophesied Wizard who will defeat the Wicked Witch who killed the king of Oz. Diggs, recognizing a chance to finally claim his own sense of greatness, goes along with it, never believing that he will actually have to live up to these lofty expectations and actually become a hero. And, of course, along the way, he’ll run into all sorts of characters, locations, and situations that should be familiar to fans of the original movie (and the book it’s based on).

Yes, just like the fabled “man behind the curtain,” Oz the Great and Powerful does everything possible to provide distraction and misdirection to its shallowness…it painfully lingers over every pretty CG-laden shot while things constantly pop out of the screen to take advantage of the expensive 3D presentation (lamely attempting to justify your hundred-dollar 3D movie tickets), but when it comes to presenting actual characters you can relate to and care about, director Rami kinda glosses that over, giving a somewhat sterile feel to the proceedings. You will likely not really find yourself involved in their fates while your brain is rendered numb by essentially watching a 2-hour videogame, for all intents and purposes.

I suppose I should mention the actors…they do a good job of standing in front of green screens pretending to interact with things that aren’t there, I guess. However, James Franco’s terrible performance here almost single-handedly ruins the film, and Mila Kunis comes across as slightly mis-cast for the direction her character eventually heads in. Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams (as good ol’ Glinda from the first movie) pop up as well, and do serviceable jobs in their roles, but again, they’re secondary to the CG.

Oh, and for you Bruce Campbell fans, yes, Rami gave him yet another cameo, and as usual, it’s pretty awesome but way too short. Supposedly Rami’s trademark Oldsmobile shows up somewhere as well, but I didn’t notice it anywhere.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not a terrible film, or even a bad one…on a base level, it’s entertaining, and even occasionally charming, I guess, but only in fleeting, small glimpses. Rami has shown much greater range with both story and character in the past, sadly, but here, much like other contemporary popcorn movies such as A Good Day to Die Hard or Jack the Giant Slayer, it’s a bland affair where CG stunts and set pieces come first and actors come second…or not at all. Just turn your brain off and enjoy the pretty pictures and you’ll do okay. Otherwise, watch the original Wizard of Oz. No, it’s not a deep, introspective character study, but it possesses a charm and sense of wonderment that all the CG in the universe cannot hope to replicate.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Jack the Giant Slayer has been getting ripped apart early on by both critics and audiences alike based on the fairly lame advertising campaign that predated its release. That’s a common problem in the movie business…the quality of a trailer can make or break a film, and a bad one can totally sink it.

There have been several recent high-profile box office bombs, most notably John Carter and The Last Stand, and many point the finger of blame not on the quality of the films themselves, but on trailers that perhaps

weren’t representative of the quality or actual content of the final product.

However, I can’t say that was the case with Jack the Giant Slayer’s recent floppage at the box office on its opening weekend. I can say with the utmost authority that the somewhat bland trailer that’s been running in the months leading up to its release perfectly represented the somewhat bland feature it was pushing on audiences.

Director Bryan Singer, who helmed the first two successful X-Men movies (and the upcoming X-Men: First Class sequel Days of Future Past) has made a $200 million stumble Jack the Giant Slayer. An update of the classic children’s fable Jack and the Beanstalk, the movie tells the rather uninteresting tale of the eponymous Jack (Nicholas Hoult) a loser who stupidly sells his uncle’s horse for some supposedly magical beans (well, the beans were actually collateral, but whatever). Said beans are capable of growing beanstalks miles high when exposed to water, which Jack is warned about before the new owner of his Uncle’s horse rides off.

However, Jack’s new beans were actually stolen property; see, the back story of the movie establishes

that a previous giant beanstalk had reached the realm of giants far above the clouds, prompting an invasion by the unstoppable behemoths that were only stopped by the king of that era and his magical crown, which essentially makes the wearer the king of the giants. Banished back to the clouds, the land soon settled back into peace.

Such things eventually faded into legend, but the beans and the crown still exist, and are part of the plans of the evil Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci) to take over the land and gain the hand of the princess, Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson). When Jack gets mixed into the picture by accidentally growing a mammoth beanstalk of his own that takes his house and the princess up into the clouds, he’s charged by the King to ascend the huge green veggie to the land of the giants with his

royal guard and get her back. Unfortunately, Roderick has the magic crown and his own plans…

Bland, middle-of-the-road, ‘eh’…any phrase or cliché that conveys mediocrity also describes the experience of watching Jack the Giant Slayer. It’s by no means a bad movie, but one devoid of any excitement, laughs, or interesting developments. The plot speeds along fast enough, so it’s never really boring, but it’s never really engaging on any level either. The dialogue, the action, the storyline…nothing really grabs you, so you just settle into a haze and wait until the credits.

However, there IS a good-natured air throughout the proceedings that make it tough to actually hate the movie. Plus, the giants themselves, while goofy-looking in a design sense, are still pretty effective and fun antagonists. That’s something I feel the need to say, lest I come across

as a hardcore detractor of Jack the Giant Slayer; despite my criticisms, it certainly has some

merit.

The performances are solid, but out of the entire cast I’d that say Ewan McGregor, who played Elmont, the head of the King’s Guards, was the only real high point of the movie. Successfully playing a cocky bad-ass with a humorous air, McGregor was pretty much the only character with any personality. Stanley Tucci was a decent villain, and I guess Nicholas Hoult was likable enough as Jack, but none really jumped off the screen like McGregor did with his arrogant swagger.

A lot of ire has also been directed at the quality of the computer effects that fill pretty much every frame of the movie; and while they are indeed highly-detailed and well-animated, there’s something just…off by it all. Things don’t quite look real. It’s hard to point out the problem, but the movie doesn’t quite look like they got every cent out of its bloated $200 million budget. It’s possible that the filmmakers took this approach on purpose to make the movie look more storybook-like, but overall, the visuals are a bit underwhelming. They do, however, convey an effective sense of scale, so it’s not a total failure.

Jack the Giant Slayer might be an okay movie for kids (despite its PG-13 rating, there’s really nothing objectionable about its content), but most adults will be bored or, at best, barely entertained. Approach with caution; hopefully Director Bryan Singer will put forth a better effort with the next X-Men installment.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Finally, Dwayne Johnson is coming around. The former

World Wrestling Entertainment superstar left the mat several years ago to concentrate on his budding Hollywood career and was seemingly poised to inherit the Action Hero crown from none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. He seemed the perfect heir apparent: he had the looks, the muscles, the charisma, and the athleticism. Unfortunately, what he seemed to lack was an agent who would teach him to say “no” to obviously terrible scripts, as “The Rock” started starring in some of the worst films imaginable.

After a slew of pathetic family-friendly Disney flicks, Johnson seemed destined for Direct to DVDsville until he finally seemed to wake up and realize his true potential was not starring as a Tooth Fairy, but in kicking butt and saying naughty words. Johnson finally started back on the road to edgier, more adult-oriented fare, and his career appears to be on the upswing once again because of it. His recent addition to the popular Fast and the Furious and G.I. Joe franchises have only served to cement his status as a rising action star once again, and his newest effort, Snitch, continues that trend.

Snitch is a crime movie starring Johnson as construction

company owner John Matthews, whose son Jason (Rafi Gavron) is arrested on drug distribution charges; in reality, Jason was set up in a sting operation by a friend looking to reduce his own prison time after a conviction. With his son facing a ten-year sentence, Matthews cuts

a deal with District Attorney Joanne Keeghan (Susan Sarandon) to work with Agent Cooper (Barry Pepper) to infiltrate the cartel of a high-ranking drug lord Juan Carlos “El Topo” Pintera (Benjamin Bratt) as an informant. If Matthews” intel leads to an arrest, John goes free, but not without putting not only his life at risk, but the lives of his family and friends as well. Sounds easy, right?

Wrong. casino online Damn, this son of yours better be worth all this trouble, dude.

Snitch is a well-done action/crime flick that really showcases the talents of its star. Dwayne Johnson is one of the more accomplished Action stars

in recent memory as far as his acting abilities go, and it”s good to see him finally choosing roles that aren”t total career suicide. For example, Snitch, while obviously specifically developed around Johnson, would probably still be a solid film even with another actor in the lead. This is due to an effective supporting cast (Sarandon and Pepper are very good, but Bratt almost steals the show), some tight, fast-paced direction, and a storyline that manages to generate a fair share of tension. Adding Johnson to the mix, especially considering that he”s brought his A-game here, only makes Snitch all the better.

Snitch can be a little heavy-handed in its message (the film ends quoting statistics about how first-time drug offenders get more time than rapists or murderers), but otherwise it”s a gripping and exciting drama with some great action scenes sprinkled in. Johnson has previously displayed his knack for comedy in the past, but Snitch really brings his dramatic skills to the forefront, giving him one of the better films of his career thus far. I really hope he

continues with adult-oriented work and leaves the kiddie stuff behind, as he”s coming much closer to fulfilling his potential as a movie star going this route.

Snitch is a good movie. Check it out.

(Long Island, N. Y.) A Good Day to Die Hard? For this series, maybe. Listen, everyone loves 1988’s Die Hard and John McClane, the tough-as-nails, down on his luck, everyman police officer played by Bruce Willis who takes on a skyscraper of terrorists. 1990’s Die Hard 2: Die Harder has its detractors but I totally dig it, as McClane finds “the same thing happening to the same guy twice” as he battles an airport filled with…yup, terrorists. 1995’s Die Hard With A Vengeance in some ways may have been the high point for the series, pairing McClane with a sassy partner played by Sam Jackson as they take on a city willed with…zoo animals. No, no, just kidding…terrorists!

From there, the series seemed to go on hiatus until 2007, when Willis dusted off the McClane character in Live Free or Die Hard, where he takes on – you guessed it – terrorists! Only this time, due to the day and age, they were been updated to the cyber variety, and McClane was forced to take them on with the help of an annoying little hacker sidekick while trying to repair his relationship with his estranged daughter. It was here, unfortunately, that the Die Hard series began less resemble the bad-ass films of old and more a sad, videogame-like cash run. In the past, the character of John McClane was a plucky, never-say-die kinda guy who never let the bad guys get away with their shenanigans, always coming out on top in the end but always looking much worse for it; typically, McClane would close out the first three films covered in blood, cuts, and bruises, wearing nothing but a filthy wifebeater while lighting up a cigarette. The series up until that point was action-packed and over-the-top, to be sure, but it was always within just a hair’s breadth of reason…enough to allow you to suspend disbelief.

But with Live Free or Die Hard, despite being in his 50’s Willis as McClane was no longer an everyman. He was not a superhero, and with the bountiful aid of computers, he was suddenly doing crazy things that made even the most extreme stunts of the previous three Die Hards seem like stuff little kiddies would do in the sandbox at lunchtime, and walking away from it with nary a scratch. Even for a modern action film, Live Free or Die Hard shuffled well beyond the realm of believability, all while jettisoning the series’ trademark charisma and personality in favor of paper-thin characters you didn’t know or give a damn about and pretty, pretty explosions. I was left to wonder how this installment could have missed the mark so completely as far as what made the previous installments work so well.

All that brings us to A Good Day to Die Hard, Willis’ latest attempt to milk the series to an unnatural death. Any hope I had about Willis realizing the mistakes made with the previous film and delivering a more grounded entry in the Die Hard series was dashed within about five minutes after the opening credits ended when Willis’ McClane, in Russia to assist his previously unmentioned, estranged CIA agent son named Jack (Jai Courtney), who has been arrested for murder, engages in a car chase/firefight that sees him flip a truck over an incoming RPG and then get hit by a car with no ill effects. In fact, he gets up, punches out the driver of the car, and then jacks the ride to continue the chase! Did I mention that Willis is now 57 years old?

The plot, such as it is, revolves around Jack’s attempts to save a political prisoner Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch) from corrupt Russian official Viktor Chagarin (Sergei Kolesnikov) and his henchman Alik (Radivoje Bukvic), and of course McClane gets mixed up in the middle of everything. Why are the good guys good and the bad guys bad, exactly? Nobody bothers telling us…it’s just established that way by the barely-there script that seems far more interested in getting to the next CG-stunt, explosion, or action piece than actually building upon any of the character’s relationships or histories.

In fact, the problems of Live Free or Die Hard are only magnified by this insipid sequel, whose action scenes are even more unbelievable, outlandish, and just plain un-survivable than in the previous film. McClane and his son trade lame banter that’s supposed to pass as bonding as they leap from multi-story buildings, crashing through floors and glass roofs as helicopters strafe them relentlessly, landing without any significant injury to continue the fight. The fact that Willis has said in recent interviews that he’d like to “do one more Die Hard” before finally retiring the character is just mind-boggling. I guess Die Hard 6 will have him taking on the entire Martian army with his estranged second cousin or something.

A Good Day to Die Hard is not just a terrible movie, but a waste of a once-great talent, since Willis is normally an excellent actor when he brings his A-game, which is happening less and less frequently as of late (recent exception: Looper). At least Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is also getting up there in age, is now accepting age-specific roles. Willis could learn from his example.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Identity Thief is a terrible new comedy starring Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy. What, I have to write more? But it’s bad enough that I had to watch this movie…I have to relive the rotten experience by writing about it? You mean, it’s my job? Well…okay. Fine.

We all know

Jason Bateman. He’s the guy, more than any other Hollywood actor working today, that has typecast himself into a very narrow niche- playing the nice, square, white guy. He plays it in EVERY movie he makes, over and over. The man has no range, at least none that he’s ever displayed or that I’m aware of, and while it’s paying him dividends currently, I’m sure he’ll wear out his welcome sooner or later. It happens to all one-note actors sooner or later.

In the meantime, I get to review him in tripe like “Identity Thief.” It’s a film starring Bateman as Financial bureaucrat Sandy Patterson, a guy who has had his identity stolen by a con-woman named Diana (McCarthy), who has been using his alias to rack up an impressive amount of retail purchases and petty crimes. Patterson becomes aware of the besmirching of his good name when his credit card gets declined at the gas pump; this is followed up by an arrest for missing a mysterious court date in Orlando, Florida, where he has never been.

With Patterson’s job on the line, he heads to Florida to track down Diana with the intention of bringing her back to clear his name. It’s odd that he should need to do that, however, as ID theft is quite commonplace these days and actually rather easy to establish and fix, isn’t it? Well, that little fact doesn’t deter Patterson at all, and once he finally gets a hold of Diana, the duo start a road trip back to Denver; unfortunately, in addition to Diana being a fairly unpleasant traveling companion, Patterson also has to contend with criminals who are also after Diana for conning them…except their solution to the problem is a tad more *ahem* permanent than the one Patterson has in mind for her.

Identity Thief, directed by Seth Gordon, is not funny. At all. The fact that it made major bank at the box office on its opening weekend I feel has

more to do with its currently “hot” star than its merits as a comedy or even it’s rather lackluster marketing campaign. Jason Bateman is a nice, safe actor for middle-class

American families to go and see handle whatever problem gets thrown at him. To me, however, he gives me the occasional smile and even a rare guffaw, but otherwise he’s as bland as they come. Still, you can’t blame the guy for sticking to what works…there are thousands of people struggling for their big break, and I guess if you find something that gets you parts in films on a regular basis, why mess with it? Jim Carrey tried to expand his range and look at him now. Where, you might ask? Exactly.

It doesn’t help that the material he’s forced to work with here is completely uninspired and just lacking in any legitimate humor. Melissa McCarthy kind of upstages Bateman because her character is more loud and over-the-top, but it’s more the film’s mediocrity that sustains her performance than her role functioning as a tentpole, so to speak. In reality, nothing in this film is worthy of praise, except maybe

the addition of Jon Favreau, who usually is a minor boon to any picture he’s in when he’s not busy directing. Too bad he’s only in this movie for five minutes.

So, Identity Thief is not bad, per se…it’s just boring. I’d prefer it to be bad, actually, as it would probably be more entertaining and at least open the doors to unintentional humor; the pain of ennui is far worse, my friends.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, two of the biggest action stars ever, have released new films in the last few weeks…and both films have tanked hard at the box office.

I guess the 1980’s, the heyday of both the Action genre and of Schwarzenegger and Stallone’s careers, are officially dead. It is a sad day.

Alas, while I can look back at the merciless cinematic bloodletting that Arnold and Sly provided during my youth and smile, it’s a simple fact that kids seeing movies today have no idea who these guys are. Both actors are now in their 60’s, and both are attempting late-career comebacks, but the numbers speak for themselves- Schwarzenegger’s “The Last Stand,” a film I felt was a very fun, strong entry into a crowded January marketplace, opened with a meager $6.3 million, and this week’s review subject – Stallone’s “Bullet to the Head” – did even worse business with a mere $4.5 million opening.

Now, I’ve always been a far, far bigger Arnold fan, but the fact that The Governator’s film bombed LESS than Sly’s is cold comfort; the big picture this represents is disheartening, as it’s saying that perceived relics from the 80’s are no longer welcome in 2013. Sure, people will buy tickets for the traveling

side-show that The Expendables represented out of pure curiosity of how their childhood action heroes have aged throughout the years, but apparently they’re not interested in anything

beyond that. In the case

of The Last Stand, that’s a shame, as it was a well-made film with a very impressive performance by Schwarzenegger in an age-appropriate role, backed up with good action and a great supporting cast.

But Bullet to the Head…not so much.

Honestly, Stallone’s solo return to theaters after the success of The Expendables films (which were a group effort) is less than good. However, it’s really not his fault- he seems to be the only person in the film trying, and at 66 years old, Sly is as chiseled and buff as ever, which is pretty crazy when you think about it. He also appears to still be able to move fairly decently despite his advanced age (a little choice editing helps, of course), and still seems to possess his trademark intensity. It’s pretty impressive that he can still bring it.

No, the problem with Bullet to the Head, directed by Walter Hill and based upon a French graphic novel, isn’t with Stallone; it’s with pretty much everything and everyone else not named “Jason Momoa.” Momoa, if you recall, played the title character in the recent Conan the Barbarian reboot and was pretty much the only bright spot in that steaming pile of garbage. Here, Momoa plays a vicious baddie and again, is pretty much the highlight of the film; his physicality and charisma pretty much demands another shot at some kind of starring role down the line, to be sure. No, he’s not the problem, either.

However, the story, the supporting cast, and dialogue…THAT’S where Bullet to the Head falls into the sewer.

The story is as cliché and threadbare as they come- Stallone plays Jimmy Bobo (lol), a hitman who doesn’t kill women or kids (of course, he wouldn’t be likable if he did, right?), but will kill just about anyone else. After a job, the evil Keegan (Momoa) attempts to rub Jimmy out, but while he escapes, his partner Louis (Jon Seda) isn’t

so lucky and is killed. Hey, it’s a revenge film!

So, in order to take

down Keegan and avenge his friend’s death, Jimmy is forced to partner up with a slick cop who is also on Keegan’s trail (played by Fast Five’s Sung Kang, who is just a horrible bore here), and of course the two are polar opposites and hate each other at first. Oh, and Jimmy’s got an estranged daughter to whom he promised he would get out of his life of crime, but while she’s mad at him for not doing so, she’s (naturally) sweet on his partner, despite the fact that he has the personality of navel lint.

Does all this sound familiar? Oh, did I mention that director Walter Hill made his name crafting mismatched partner action movies (48 Hours, Another 48 Hours, Red Heat, etc.) like this back in the day? Yeah, that’s why.

The dialogue is bad. The actors that say the dialogue are, for the most part, bad. The story is paint-by-the-numbers and, yes, bad. This is a generic, bad movie. Just know that.

However, on a base level, there’s some fun to be had. Bullet to the Head doesn’t have the good casting or flashy direction of The Last Stand, but it does possess some nice, throwback 80’s Action charm. I mean, there were, like, A MILLION of this kind of movie made back in the day, although many of them were better than this. And while it does come across as kind of tired filmmaking at this point, there is something to be said for taking a trip down memory lane, even if it’s a poorly-made example of said lane. Nostalgia can only go so far, of course, before the

obvious warts adorning Bullet to the Head start becoming all too apparent, but it’s better than nothing, I guess.

So, if you want to watch 80’s Action in its death throes and mourn the passing of the most testosterone-laden genre ever while it slowly burns and rises anew like a phoenix from the ashes into its modern cinematic incarnation – a far more tame, CG-laden, and pedestrian product populated by sensitive men who scarcely tip the scales at

150 pounds – then I guess give Bullet to the Head a shot. But ONLY if you haven’t already seen The Last Stand, okay?