(Long Island, N. Y.) I hate to go against the grain here, as everyone is showering Steven Spielberg’s biopic Lincoln with near-universal praise. And, in many ways, it’s very deserving of it. It features a stunning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose near-obsessive method acting technique is once again brought to the fore as he tackles a role he was seemingly born for: portraying Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation’s truly great leaders.

In addition to Day-Lewis, Lincoln also features an expansive cast of revered acting names, such as Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Hal Holbrook, Tommy Lee Jones, Jackie Earle Haley…the list goes on and on and on. The locations, garb, and everything else are painstakingly period-accurate. It’s been ages since we’ve seen a historical epic of this degree in a major motion picture. Even Steven Spielberg, who I consider well past his prime as a filmmaker, has kicked his game up a notch here.

So why don’t I just love Lincoln to death like everyone else on planet Earth, then?

Honestly, it has a lot to do with the film’s scope- it’s narrow. I mean, NARROW. How narrow? Apparently, it only concentrates on perhaps the most well-known aspect of his political existence: his quest to pass the Emancipation Proclamation and free the slaves. But, while a vitally important turning point in our nation’s history, the film concentrates on this singular aspect of Lincoln and nothing else; it assumes that everyone watching already knows everything about the 16th president of the United States, and while we all pretty much do (at least those of us who stayed awake in school), a film shouldn’t rely on the audience having prior knowledge of its subject matter to this degree…especially when they breeze over or just outright eliminate so very much of that history as Spielberg does.

That’s right…this film is about the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation and NOTHING ELSE. We learn precious little about Abraham Lincoln the man; nothing of his youth, what shaped him into a great leader, nothing. We merely view him through rose-colored glasses while he’s in the very prime of his presidency, with no warts on display. Yes, we do get a glimpse of his problems with his emotionally-unbalanced wife, played by Sally Field, but it’s a moot point. I want to know not just what makes the man tick, but why he ticks, if that makes any sense…and Lincoln doesn’t deliver. I mean, this guy was a bad-ass wrestler in his youth…I would have LOVED to have seen that aspect of him tackled on film!

I came away with no new understanding of the man himself, nor any new revelations into history itself; Lincoln himself is portrayed as having very selfless and altruistic motivations for freeing the slaves, but there are naysayers out there who claim he had other ideas. I’m not saying that he had any desires other than equality on his mind, but if there are other legitimate viewpoints, I’d like them explored and/or debunked. Lincoln doesn’t bother to do this.

Also, Spielberg would have you believe that Abraham Lincoln spoke exclusively in clichés and analogies; and while this may or may not be historically true, it’s nonetheless annoying to have to decipher everything he says. Not difficult, mind you, because the clichés are blatantly obvious and well-worn, but still annoying.

But, the film is nonetheless very well-made and, while annoyingly narrow in scope, is still very entertaining in spots. A lot of that entertainment value comes directly from Daniel Day-Lewis, who physically and spiritually embodies Lincoln so perfectly that it’s hard to believe that Spielberg didn’t just build a time machine, pluck Abraham out of the past, and simply slap Day-Lewis’ name on the poster so as not to around suspicion of his blatant violation of the laws of nature.

However, the cast uniformly delivers the goods, and the story, while bland and pedestrian in its attempt to deliver a vision of Lincoln that is in-line with every second grader’s history book, is still well done and engaging to a degree. And again, great pains were made to make the period and its trappings as authentic as possible, and at times it’s pretty darn impressive.

So, while I’m not bonkers over Lincoln as the rest of the universe, I still think history buffs can still enjoy it if they go in with moderate expectations. The story goes that, early in Lincoln’s development, Liam Neeson was originally cast in the role, but withdrew during the film’s protracted development because he felt he had aged out of the part. It makes me wonder if the film would have fared better or worse, because while it’s hard to believe that Day-Lewis’ performance could be topped in any way, perhaps the god-like Neeson’s rugged physicality would have drawn the film in a different direction? Who knows, but as it is, Lincoln is adequate, but it could have been so much more.

(Long

Island, N. Y.

) I’m a massive James Bond fan…always have been. Whether he was played on the silver screen by Sean Connery, Roger Moore, or even George Lazenby (but not so much Timothy Dalton…sorry, Tim), I’ve always enjoyed the cinematic tales of author Ian Flemming’s British MI6 agent with a penchant for tuxedos, ladies, exotic gadgets, and vodka martinis as he battles the evils of the world with suave and style.

However, the awful Pierce Brosnan era almost killed Bond for me. It was marked by forced adherence to every single tired Bond cliché ever…every film had to shovel in the stupid puns, the progressively sillier and sillier gadgets, the instant sexual conquests, the over-the-top video-game stunts, the maniac-of-the-week determined to rule the world, the lame catchphrases…it felt like the filmmakers had an endless checklist they were compelled to mindlessly follow.

And among it all, Brosnan’s Bond himself never felt like an actual human being- just a cold collection of established traits and mannerisms. He wasn’t a character that ever grew or changed, and while the same could be said of pretty much all of the previous actors who had taken

on the iconic role, at least they made up for it in charisma; in the case of Brosnan, both Bond and the overly “extreme” situations he was constantly thrust into had just become boring, cheesy, and impossible to take seriously.

But Bond, as played by actor Daniel Craig, IS a genuine character who expands, changes, and possesses emotional depth; as a result, he’s a million times more engaging, and possibly the best Bond to date. Considering his competition, that’s certainly saying something.

Craig’s first outing as Bond, in 2006’s Casino Royale, was an unbridled success, effectively rebooting the

series and ushering in a grittier, more realistic take on the mythos. However, 2008’s follow-up, Quantum of Solace, was considered by many a bit of a misstep for the newly-revived franchise, and financial problems at parent studio MGM prevented work from proceeding on the sequel for several years. But, it’s now 2012 – the 50th anniversary of the first Bond film, Dr. No – and Skyfall is finally here, and believe me…it was well worth the wait, kids. Bond is back, and he’s better than ever.

Dumping bad CG in favor of practical stunts and effects and delving more into Bond’s history and psyche than ever before, Skyfall, directed by Sam Mendes, is a complex tale that acknowledges the rich past of the previous 22 films in the series while at the same time making a bold statement that this is a NEW Bond…a fresh Bond, stripped down to the basics, that will take the franchise boldly into the future.

Skyfall matches Bond against bad guy Raoul Silva (played by the amazing Javier Bardem) a dangerous former agent gone rouge and who has sworn revenge against the head of MI6, M (Judi Dench). It’s a surprisingly personal tale, foregoing a radical global threat in favor of an intimate and deadly game of chess not only between Bond and his foe, but his personal demons as well. It’s a long, emotional, and deep trek through Bond’s recovery from past injuries, both physical and mental, while nonetheless maintaining the trappings that make him what he is. The core basics of the character are there, to be sure, but they never come across as forced or needlessly shoehorned into the plot; indeed, the script is expertly crafted in a way that they organically drive the plot.

Daniel Craig, with his chiseled features, icy blue stare, rugged physicality, and wide array of emotions, is easily the best Bond ever. He embodies the best aspects of the character while giving him a soul and a human personality at the same time. Javier Bardem serves as one of the most memorable Bond villains in ages, and Judi Dench gives an inspired performance as the plucky M in perhaps her biggest role in the series to date.

The plot itself is beautifully woven, and while the film is long, it never feels that way. The ending is

both draining and, at the same time, sets up an extremely intriguing future for the series, and I for one can’t wait to see where it goes. Skyfall is fun, exciting, and engaging; it’s one of the very best of the Bond film series, and a fantastic way to celebrate its 50th anniversary. Here’s to the next 50 years!

At The Movies: The Man with the Iron Fists

(Long Island, N. Y.) Well, we all know that I love action movies…because I tell you, my loyal readers, every single time I get a chance. And one subcategory of this amazing genre that I especially adore is that known as the Kung-Fu movie.

Born out of the fabled land of Hong Kong, the Kung Fu genre typically features masters of martial arts gifted with superhuman abilities who often battle to the death in matters of honor, revenge, and awesomeness. Eastern philosophy, acrobatics, wire work, complex fight choreography, absurd fantasy elements, the representation of multiple combat arts and weapons, goofy humor, and (of course) poor English dubbing only adds to the inherent, aforementioned awesomeness and elevates Kung Fu movies from escapist entertainment to a possibly life-altering experience.

Staten Island rappers the Wu-Tang Clan basically based their entire careers on the concepts and their love of the Kung-Fu movie, and the group’s leader, RZA, is achieving a lifelong ambition- he’s actually directed his very own cinematic homage to the films that shaped his life. Thus, I give to you today’s film review: The Man with the Iron Fists.

The short review: it’s pretty great.

The longer review: RZA has crafted an excellent modern take on the classic Kung-Fu film, directing, co-writing, and starring in an ensemble picture that gathers together numerous Hollywood and Hong Kong players in a tale of vengeance and death.

RZA plays The Blacksmith, known far and wide for his skill at crafting deadly weapons. Living and working in Jungle Village in feudal China, The Blacksmith is forced to choose sides and join in with a conflict involving several distinct, warring factions, all of whom are vying for the emperor’s gold as well as The Blacksmith’s services as a weaponsmith. Constructing a set of deadly metal gauntlets, The Blacksmith becomes the eponymous “Man With the Iron Fists” and, with the help of some unlikely allies, sets out to defend his village.

The Man with the Iron Fists is a fascinating look at a novice filmmaker putting everything he has into his fledgling effort. Where the movie falters – its pacing is thrown off at one point by an unnecessary back story sequence for The Blacksmith’s character, and some of the editing is confusing – RZA’s raw passion and creativity more than takes up the slack. The Man with the Iron Fists is clearly a love letter to martial arts movies, and even it’s weaknesses harkens back to the very same warts that classic Kung Fu movies possessed in abundance; it can be argued that these very same warts, along with some great fight scenes, are what helped to make these films the quirky classics they were destined to become.

Bizarre weapons (iron gauntlets, spiked fans, twin Ying-Yang swords, but alas, no Flying Guillotine) and characters with outlandish abilities (a guy named Bronze Body can transform his body into…well, bronze) also help establish the film’s creativity and overall inspired style. CG graphics are integrated into more old-school Kung-Fu movie techniques, and all of this goodness is melded with a gritty urban sensibility. It’s loads of fun, warts and all.

The casting is equally unusual but effective, with RZA joined by such actors and actresses as Russell Crowe, Lucy Liu, David Bautista, Cung Le, Rick Yune, Byron Mann and Jamie Chung. Everyone involved seems to be having a good time with their roles; Crowe especially plays his part of a knife-wielding, opium-addicted British soldier in a hilariously awesome, over-the-top manner and instantly commands attention in any scene he’s in.

RZA, meanwhile, plays The Blacksmith in an unusually understated manner, which I found effective; the master of the Wu-Tang managed to convey controlled discipline and enlightenment in such a manner, the two most important ingredients for any true martial arts master.

The Man with the Iron Fists, while not perfect, is nonetheless a blast to watch, especially if you’re a fan of Kung-Fu films and offbeat action movies in general. It’s creative and bleeding passion for its subject matter, but to his credit, RZA doesn’t just produce a carbon copy of his favorite movies; he adds their distinctiveness to his own and creates a loving homage and a flawed yet effective hybrid. Personally, I can’t wait to watch how RZA’s film-making technique matures with his next feature.

At The Movies: Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

(Long Island, N. Y.) I’m a big fan of the Japanese-developed Survival Horror video-game series known as Silent Hill. Each installment is a deep, atmospheric trek

through the cursed town after which the series is named, relying on psychological terror, disturbing creatures that are created by the characters’ twisted psyches, and fear of the unknown; the only illumination in many of the environments is supplied solely by the flashlight of the protagonist.

The story-lines tend to be highly emotional and cryptic, evoking a dream-like state that quickly delves into a nightmare, with the surrounding landscape twisting and morphing into a vision of hell adorned with metal, rust, blood, and rotting flesh as the characters struggle to solve mysteries, fight monsters, and ultimately

save their souls.

Sounds pretty freaky, huh? But what’s REALLY scary are when people try and make films out of this stuff.

In 2006, French director Christophe Gans helmed a movie adaptation of the game series, and while I thought the film totally nailed it in some ways (the visuals, mostly, and some of the atmosphere), I thought it was incredibly stupid in most others (the story, characters, dialogue, ending, etc). Monsters and situations from the games that were specifically tailored to certain characters’ fears and pain were turned into generic boogeymen, and the motivations of the female lead were among the dumbest in history; a game series that stood out from the norm for being truly disturbing and different was turned into a standard spook fest. It wasn’t horrible- when it was on, it was ON, but when it wasn’t…ugh.

Still, the film did well at the box office, and soon talk of a sequel was brandied about. However, it took quite some time for anything to materialize…six years, to be exact. But the sequel’s finally here, in the form of Silent Hill: Revelation 3D, directed and written by Michael J. Bassett. Is it a better film and, more importantly, a better adaptation of the video-game series?

In a word: no. In two words: it’s worse.

A translation of the Silent Hill 3 game, Silent Hill: Revelation 3D is a direct sequel to the first film. Sharon (Adelaide Clemens), the teenage daughter of Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell) and her husband Christopher (Sean Bean), has been living a normal life after escaping the evil cult of Silent Hill in the first movie. However, she eventually finds herself experiencing nightmares of the ghastly town, and soon she is drawn back there to confront the evil of Silent Hill, once and for all. However, the cult of Silent Hill have plans for Sharon as well, horrible plans involving the re-birth of their pagan

god who will subsequently purge the world of life in favor of a horrific and bloody new utopia. But can some bratty teen kid really prevent a literal hell on Earth?

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D is a boring film devoid of scares, good dialogue, solid acting, and a well-structured story. Adelaide Clemens is the main offender here; a Canadian actress playing an American, she flip-flops back and forth to her native accent so much that it soon grows infuriating. She also displays the

acting range of a cup of weak coffee, so when I read that the producer’s main requirement for the role was the actor possessing a page on the Internet Movie Database, well, it came as no surprise.

Like the first movie, the creature effects and environments are mostly done with practical effects, but needlessly “enhanced” with CG that take away from the work of the make-up artists. However, the bleak and lonely atmosphere, well-established in the original nothing vie, is largely abandoned, robbing Silent Hill: Revelation 3D of any true scares; with the addition of a slow and plodding pace, the film is rendered into a bland exercise into boredom instead of a journey into terror.

Oh, and let’s talk about the “3D” in the title; it’s

all but non-existent. Again, it’s just an attempt to jack up your ticket price while adding nothing to the movie going experience. To date the only films that make effective use of 3D are Avatar and Dredd. All others…steer clear and save your money.

I’d say that I’m hoping that someone finally gets it right if they make yet another Silent Hill movie, because the source material could easily make for one of the best horror films ever made. But given the abysmal response to this one, coupled with it’s pathetic take at the Box Office this past weekend, it’s safe to say that movie audiences have finally done what the protagonists of the game series have failed to do- banish the evil of Silent Hill once and for all.

(Long Island, N. Y.) When it comes to Paranormal Activity 4, I guess you could say what is old is new is old again, if that makes any sense. Written, directed, and shot by amateur filmmaker Oren Peli in his very own home, the original Paranormal Activity was the story of a young couple, Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat), who are being spooked by a demon that would manifest itself at night while they slept. Wondering what the hell is going on, the couple start leaving a camcorder trained on their bed each evening, and each morning the resultant footage gets freakier and freakier. Eventually Katie is possessed, kills off Micah by pitching him like a lawn dart, and disappears for parts unknown.

It’s amazing how, when Paranormal Activity first burst onto the scene back in 2007, it gave the stagnant and status quo horror genre a major shot in the arm. The horrifying “found footage” tale of possession and things that (literally) go bump in the night had audiences screaming in fear, which made for an invigorating movie-going experience to say the least.

Of course, the fact that the first movie was shot for pocket change, coupled with the insane bank it made at the box office, ensured the world that we’d be getting a new installment of this profitable series every single year. Fast forward to 2012, and I’m now reviewing Part 4 and telling you that this series, like anything mined for all of its inherent worth, is starting to run dry; the horror genre is once again stagnant and status quo.

Let’s face it…the “found footage” genre, which is where the film is comprised solely of video shot by the characters and conveniently “found” after the fact so it appears that the events were somehow “real” has its limitations; among them is why people would be constantly filming themselves and somehow always catching the right moments at the right time to propel the story forward, batteries and hard drive space be damned.

Paranormal Activity 2 tried to stretch this concept a bit by using security camera footage, Paranormal Activity 3 I believe used…um, I forget…and now Paranormal Activity 4 resorts, in part, to using webcam footage. I guess it works, sure, but what’s next? Will the next movie be shot on cell phones to keep the novelty alive?

Yeah, so anyway, in Part 4 demon-possessed Katie is still on the loose with the kid she kidnapped at the end of Part 2, and now she’s…moved into a house in a suburban neighborhood? Yeah, ’cause that’s what satanic kidnappers do, right? But when Katie has to go to the hospital for some reason, the neighbors across the street have no problem taking in the “child” of this stranger for a few days. Enter “Robbie,” Katie’s “son.” Well, we all know he’s really her demon-possessed kidnapping victim, but whatever, I’m still trying to get over the idea of the family taking in a stranger’s kid like that, no questions asked. That’s just weird…and I’m saying this about a movie featuring demons and stuff.

So, naturally, all sorts of freaky stuff starts happening, and night by night the freaky stuff gets freakier and freakier…until Katie finally shows to pick up her kid, and, shockingly, she’s none too appreciative of this nice family’s charity. Killings ensue, leading to yet another sequel next Halloween. Whee.

Again, another Paranormal Activity will break the bank at the box office, and given the fact that these films cost little to make and can be shot on the crummiest, cheapest cameras possible, you can bet that, just like the lackluster “Saw” series before it, Paranormal Activity will be visiting us in yearly installments until the unknown demon at the center of its tale of evil finally succumbs to something even the evil dead have no defense for: dwindling profits.

I will say that the scares are still there, to a point, and that the acting is serviceable, although Katie is the least threatening bad guy in horror movie history…well, except when her face gets all demonic and CG-laden. Then she’s kinda scary, I guess. But the most shocking thing to me was the fact that teenaged main character Alex (Kathryn Newton) was actually played by a teenager instead of a 30 year-old, which most movies bizarrely seem to do lately (for a recent example, see Maggie Grace in Taken 2 for major lolz).

Otherwise, it’s paint-by-the-numbers Paranormal Activity action, folks. If you’re a fan of the series, go for it, but don’t expect the refreshing, terrifying rush you first experienced back in 2007. Me, I’m going to wait for the next Big Thing in horror to come along, wow audiences, and subsequently be run into the ground by overzealous studio marketing gurus. And so it goes, sadly.

(Long Island, N. Y.) 2001’s hit, Insidious, was considered by many as a creepy renaissance of sorts; after years of boring, bland, cookie-cutter horror films, the director/writer team of James Wan and Leigh Whannell crafted a terrifying tale that had audiences screaming and peeking at the screen through their intertwined fingers. Not a bad accomplishment, eh?

Of course, groundbreaking movies breed copycats, and today I’m reviewing one in the form of Sinister- yeah, even the name is basically a rip-off. Surprisingly, it’s a pretty decent rip-off, but not without its warts. Let’s delve into what’s sure to be an upcoming wave of carbon copy horror flicks that rely on creepy sudden reveals, bleak atmosphere, and scary yet slightly goofy antagonists.

Sinister opens with footage of an old home movie where a mysterious figure hangs a family of four from a tree. There’s a fifth family member who turned up missing after the murders, but don’t worry…I’m sure they’ll turn up sooner or later. But the good news is, now that they’re dead, the family’s home goes on the market at a real bargain price, and is eventually purchased by writer Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), who moves into it with his wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), and their two children Ashley (Clare Foley) and Trevor (Michael Hall D’Addario).

Ellison, who bases a new book on the murders, finds a box of film footage in the house’s attic one night, and upon watching it, discovers that they’re actually a series of snuff movies depicting various families being killed, including the family from the opening of the movie. To make things worse, Ellison notices a demonic something-or-other in the footage, which really freaks him out.

After watching the films, Ellison notices all sorts of spooky shenanigans going on around the homestead, and soon discovers that the demon thingy he caught a glimpse of is actually real, and may have been set loose when he was reviewing the footage of the families being murdered. Does this mean a terrible chain of events has been set in motion that will claim the lives of Ellison’s family as well?

Sinister is a solid little horror flick that takes great pains to pattern itself Insidious, although it misses the mark and more often than not. The performances are all good across the board, and it effectively uses the “kids in peril” plot device that’s been done to death in every other movie of its ilk. There’s just something…off about Sinister. It’s hard to put my thumb on it…it’s the mysterious little “X-Factor” that separates a decent movie from a good or even great one. Insidious had it. Sinister…not so much, but it’s still worth your time if you’re looking for a few scares.

But what Sinister does right, it does well. The demon behind the murders, named “Bughuul,” is actually a pretty unsettling dude, silly name aside. There’s also a really nice twist about the murders which I found fairly unsettling. In many ways, Sinister is certainly better than a lot of the junk masquerading as horror films these days, although some of its more lazy and cliché attempts at establishing scares certainly drags it down a bit.

Still, if you’re a horror fan, you could certainly do worse than to take in a viewing of Sinister. Check it out if you’re fiending for a scare or two in time for Halloween later this month.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Taken…oh, how I love thee. Liam Neeson’s lovingly-crafted ode to blood, death, and bodily dismemberment was a highlight of 2008 for me personally, and a much-needed shot in the arm of the limp and floundering action movie genre in general, which had unfortunately lost a great deal of its vitality and manliness in recent decades.

Taken is the tale of ex-government agent Bryan Mills (Neeson), whose daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is kidnapped while vacationing in Paris, France and sold into an evil Albanian sex slavery ring. Using his “particular set of skills,” Bryan arrives in Paris and proceeds to destroy approximately 80 percent of the population in the most reprehensible and brutally awesome ways possible until Kim is safely back in his bloodstained hands. Nothing says love more than mass murder, folks.

Taken is a high water mark of action films for a number of reasons. Most notably, after the heyday of 80’s Action flicks, modern action movies began a horrific slump into sensitivity and passiveness that all but emasculated the genre, rendering movies such as Four Weddings and a Funeral more hard-hitting than, say, Gamer or The Condemned. But, out of nowhere came Taken, which featured Liam Neeson as an utterly ruthless human meat grinder who was all too willing to shoot, bludgeon, maim, and dismember anyone who got in his way (even innocent bystanders) until his daughter was safe. Who couldn’t get firmly behind that?

Another reason Taken succeeded is the fact that someone had the brilliant idea to cast a lead that could actually ACT as well as annihilate. Enter THE MAN, Liam Neeson, distinguished Irish actor of stage and screen whose career in recent years apparently have become that of Charles Bronson; a welcome transition, I must say. At 6 foot 4, he makes for an imposing presence, and to have his dialogue ring true and actually convey emotion and sentiment instead of the garbled and stuttered nonsense issued forth by most modern action heroes greatly helps you to buy into his cause and care about his character, even while he’s gleefully feeding the electrical current of the most romantic city on Earth into a dirty Albanian dirt-bag during an impromptu torture session.

Taken was a massive success, and, of course, success in the film biz almost always translates into sequels. Surprisingly, one didn’t materialize right away, and soon talk of Taken 2 became the stuff of legend. You know, someone heard something from his father’s brother’s cousin’s friend about how maybe they were making it sometime next year. It got aggravating after a while, since I was fiending for a

sequel, despite knowing that it would be an uphill battle to craft something that measured up to the nearly-perfect original. But, finally, a continuation of the epic story of Bryan Mills finally came to light…Taken 2 is now a reality.

Despite my previous fears to the contrary, Taken 2 is actually very good, although not quite as good as the first film. However, I knew there was no way it was going to be – again, how do you top near perfection? So, instead, I took it for what it was and had a great time. Overall, it was fun and it didn’t feel like a re-hash of the first movie, amazingly, despite sharing many of the same plot points.

This time, the relatives of the degenerates dispatched by Bryan in the first Taken come after him for revenge while he’s vacationing in Istanbul with his daughter Kim and his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen), whose current marriage is conveniently on the rocks. In a nice twist, Bryan and Lenore are “taken” this time, which leads to a fun sequence where Bryan instructs Kim via a hidden cell phone on how to track him down by hilariously chucking grenades randomly throughout the city while he gauges his distance from the sound of the explosions. It’s fantastic, and once Bryan gets free, the carnage begins once again; this time, its Lenore’s life on the line, and Bryan starts tracking her down, slaughtering scum all the while.

Do I have to mention that Liam Neeson remains godlike in this role? I believe I’ve already made that abundantly clear, but just in case you didn’t get the idea I was trying to convey, here it is in black-and-white: Neeson still delivers the goods like no one in Hollywood today, even at 60 years of age. It’s a fact.

It’s nice that

Maggie Grace gets to actually do something semi-substantial this time around, although the four years since the

first movie have not be kind; I liked that she now looks 30 but is still supposed to be in high school, with the movie including sub-plots involving passing her driving test and her first boyfriend (lol). It made for the most unintentional age-related laughs in a movie since The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift featured an apparently 45 year-old high schooler in the lead.

My only complaints center around the direction of Olivier Megaton, who replaced the director of the original film, Pierre Morel. Morel crafted a brilliant film where the action was in plain sight; cut and framed well, it flowed beautifully and never came close to inducing epilepsy in theater patrons. When it was announced that Megaton was helming the sequel, I had some worries, as I had seen his work, and was familiar with his habit of fast cuts and quick editing in his fight scenes; alas, that trend continues here, making Neeson’s ballet of death a bit harder to discern and robbing it of some impact.

And of course, like the original,

you could tell that the violence was cut to ribbons to make a PG-13 rating, to the point where some of the kills almost don’t make sense; if you don’t notice the quarter-second shot of a coat hook behind the head of a baddie, you might think that Bryan kills him simply

by putting his hand on his face. The Vulcan Death Grip, perhaps? Anyway, I can’t wait to watch the real version of this when the unrated version hits DVD.

It’s not as good as the original, but Taken 2 is still fun and easily upholds the magical belief that a lone man can depopulate a mid-sized European nation in a tide of

blood and bullets in order to maintain the sanctity of his family. Check it out.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Don’t let the goofy name fool you…Looper is a pretty hard-edged sci-fi/action film with a brain. Looper opens like any self-respecting science fiction movie does: with a voice-over courtesy of the main character explaining the world you’re about to enter to the audience. Judge Dredd did it last week when I watched Dredd 3D, and this week Joseph “Joe” Simmons (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) did it at the beginning of Looper. It’s standard sci-fi procedure, folks…everyone does it.

So, what’s a Looper, you ask? Well, in 30 years time travel is invented and subsequently outlawed, because we all know the naughty shenanigans that time travel can be used for, right? Unfortunately for criminals, super-duper forensic techniques have also been invented, ensuring that it’s impossible for criminals to get rid of a dead body. Therefore, a black market has been developed for stashing those bodies; using illegal time travel machines, the mob of the future transports unwanted dudes 30 years into the past, where contracted hit-men known as “Loopers” are waiting with a big ol’ blunderbuss (kinda like a shotgun for dummies). The Looper blows away the victim, collects the silver bars strapped to their back as payment, and disposes of the corpse.

Oh, there’s a twist; eventually, every Looper knows that he’ll be killing their future counterpart for a big final payment of gold. It’s just part of the job, but while they then are officially “retired” and can live the good life, they have to do so knowing that in 30 years they’ll be staring down the same barrel of a gun that they killed themselves with back in the day. Wacky concept, huh?

Joe Simmons (Gordon-Levitt) is one such Looper. He spends his days doing the future mob’s dirty work, and his nights taking drugs and partying. That is, until one day he finds himself face-to-face with his future counterpart, played by Bruce Willis. However, there’s a catch; whereas the victims of a Looper generally arrive wearing a hood, Old Joe arrives unmasked, giving Young Joe pause. That pause is all Old Joe needs to make good his escape, which lands Young Joe in hot water with his bosses, including Abe (Jeff Daniels), a mobster from the future sent back to manage the Loopers.

This leads both Young and Old Joe on a chase that involves a Terminator-like plot development where Old Joe is determined to make changes to the past to affect the future…changes that Young Joe is worried might actually lead to disaster. So, it’s a battle between the mob and the two Joes, and one fact established early on in the film provides little comfort- that the future is not set, and anything and everything can be changed.

Looper is a very good movie with some amazing performances…heck, it’s the most alive I’ve seen Bruce Willis in a role in years. I’ve always thought that, in the right roles, Willis is an amazingly gifted actor, and Looper proves that he still has that spark…again, in the right roles. Hopefully he’ll keep picking them.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to carve out his niche in Hollywood, proving himself to be a talented, versatile actor who can seemingly tackle almost any type of role. He does a pretty uncanny Willis impersonation…in fact, I was more impressed by his merits as a thespian in Looper than I was by the technology on display that helped to complete his transformation. It appeared that a combination of facial expressions, make-up effects, and CGI were used to make him more closely resemble a young Bruce Willis, but the end result (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) were…weird. Most of the time, Gordon-Levitt looked more like a transsexual Robert De Niro. Whatever they did, however, at least they got Willis’s nose dead-on; the rest, not so much. Thankfully, Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance picks up the slack in that department.

I thought the farm sequence, where Young Joe encounters a single mother (Emily Blunt) and her telekinetic son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), kinda slowed the pace down to a crawl for a bit, but overall, a very enjoyable, well-written and intelligent movie with some impressive action sequences.

Oh, and the young Seth/old Seth scene early on was chilling. If you watch it, you’ll know what I mean.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Judge Dredd, England’s most popular comic book hero, got his start in the pages of 2000AD Magazine way back in the 1970’s. Taking place in a post-apocalyptic America, the Judge Dredd comic concerns the last remnants of humanity who have holed up a giant walled metropolis known as Mega City One. Containing 800 million residents, unemployment and crime run rampant in Mega City One, and to combat the social chaos, a new breed of lawman is created: the Judges.

Patrolling Mega City One on their Lawmaster motorcycles, the Judges are heavily armed and are Judge, Jury, and Executioner all rolled into one, able to dispense on-the-spot criminal sentencing on perpetrators, up to and including death. The most feared and respected of these Judges is Dredd, a stoic, tough-as-nails veteran whose mission is life is to bring law and justice to the masses…. and if he has to curtail a few personal freedoms along the way, well, that’s okay by him.

Judge Dredd has been a successful cult comic for decades thanks to its striking view of the possible future of humanity, outlandish black comedy, and biting social commentary. In 1995, Hollywood tried their first attempt at adapting the comic to the silver screen with Sylvester Stallone in the lead role, and the results are still the butt of many a joke by Dredd fans and casual viewers alike. While the film got many things right, it got just as many wrong, including committing the ultimate sacrilege among fans: Dredd removed his helmet for most of the movie. NOTE: Dredd NEVER removes helmet! How could he be a credible metaphor for the facelessness of the justice system if he’s constantly mugging for the camera like Sly did?

A critical and commercial flop, the Judge Dredd movie faded into the classification of “so bad its good” and stayed there. Certainly, fans never expected their favorite lawman to venture out of the funny pages and into cinemas again.

Well, surprise, surprise. It’s 2012 and I’m reviewing Dredd (or, if you feel like shelling out an extra $20 or so, “Dredd 3D”). A British/South African co-production directed by Pete Travis, written by Alex Garland, and starring Karl Urban (Star Trek, Lord of the Rings) as the eponymous Mega City Judge, and wow, does this film ever wash the taste of Stallone’s cinematic misstep out of my mouth. It’s not a remake of the 1995 flick…it’s a new, unrelated adaptation of the comic. The plot concerns Dredd taking a rookie Judge, Cassandra Anderson, out on a “make her or break her” training run, and the two find themselves responding to a homicide in a massive city block-sized building run by a vicious drug boss known as Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), who’s peddling a massively addictive narcotic known as “Slo-Mo,” which causes the user to experience time at a fraction of its normal passing.

Mirroring the plot of awesome Indonesian action movie The Raid, Dredd and Anderson become trapped in the building and have to fight their way through armies of baddies in their attempt to bring Ma-Ma to justice. But despite the aforementioned plot similarities with The Raid, Dredd’s pacing and sci-fi elements make enough of a difference that I didn’t really find myself comparing the two much, thankfully.

Despite some obvious budget constraints, this movie pretty much kicked unholy amounts of booty. Karl Urban was perfect as Dredd…scowling, raspy-voiced, and uncompromising, he IS the law! If you’re ever read the comic, you’ll be happy to know that he NEVER does anything that was un-Dredd-like, like crying, smiling, or (gasp!) kissing a yucky girl.

He also never removes the helmet. Well, actually, that’s a small lie…he DOES have one shot in the movie where he’s not wearing the helmet. It’s his big “suit-up” scene in the beginning, but he’s completely in shadow so you don’t even get a hint of his face. Once the helmet goes on, it stays on and never comes off. The helmet and Lawgiver pistol are spot-on to the comic, and the slightly re-designed uniform is awesome.

Yeah, it was weird seeing Dredd driving around in a city that looked pretty much like a modern-day metropolis (as opposed to a futuristic mass of gleaming metallic towers and highways), especially after watching Stallone’s Dredd flick, which at least had the look of Mega City One right for the most part, albeit molded 100% from CG. In Dredd, they clearly filmed in a actual city, but at least they peppered the area with a bunch of huge CG buildings to make it look more like the Mega City One from the comics.

Visually, the 1995 Judge Dredd movie had a lot going for it; despite the astonishing amount of cheese, the film had some fantastic production design which really brought Mega City One and The Cursed Earth to life from the comics in a very breathtaking and believable way. In addition, make-up and practical effects work on characters such as the Angel Gang and the ABC Warrior Robot were benchmark achievements in the genre. Heck, Stallone was even pretty solid as the character of Dredd…but then the helmet comes off, the cheese oozes in, and the instant death that is Rob Schneider is unleashed, and the movie just goes off the rails and never recovers. But visually, at least, the 1995 version is pretty hot.

In this respect, Dredd 3D doesn’t quite stack up against Stallone’s flick…part of the obvious budget constraints I was talking about. No robots, no aliens, no flying cars, no sprawling, crowded metropolises…nothing like that. The Stallone film had the money ($90 million in 1995 dollars vs. Dredd’s $45 mil in 2012 dollars) to at least give Mega City One the sense of scale and futuristic tech that this movie couldn’t, unfortunately. However, Dredd did a lot with its tiny budget…despite obviously rolling back the timeline to a more modern-day looking society populated with vehicles that you could look out of your window right now and see, it otherwise never looked or felt cheap. If they had tried to do something on the level of the Stallone flick on their budget Dredd probably would have looked like a Syfy Channel movie of the week.

Still, the tech was where it counts. The lawgiver handguns still shoot varied ammo types by voice command (standard, full-auto, incendiary, high-ex, stun, flares, etc.) and the judges still ride around in their cool motorcycles with machine guns and stuff mounted on them.

The 3D was actually pretty effective, especially during the fancy-shmancy “Slo-Mo” scenes. Those were actually beautiful, even when it was a shot of someone’s head getting blown open by Dredd with the guy’s teeth flying out and everything. It wasn’t just extreme slow motion; they also applied filters to the film to make the colors really pop during these scenes, giving it a surreal look. A really interesting, unique visual effect, and one that actually figured into the plot of the movie; Slo-Mo wasn’t just for show.

The violence was high and the acting top-notch, especially for an action flick- Olivia Thirlby, the actress playing Judge Anderson is good, and Lena Headey was very solid as the bad gal; she quite isually striking, with her matted hair and facial scarring. The pace is a tad slower in parts than I was expecting, but that’s not really a bad thing. Also, Dredd’s gun runs out of ammo way too fast, but that might just be because he kills so damn many people with it.

Oh, I WAS angry that there was no “Walter the Wobot” cameo. But otherwise, this is the Judge Dredd movie I’ve been waiting for since I was a kid. It’s fun and very loyal to the comic without going overboard on the outlandish black humor (which worked in the comic but would have seemed silly in live-action), and it’s about 1,000,000x better than the Stallone mess in most respects. And while it’s not currently breaking box office records here in the States, it’s not too late! If you’re in the market for a well-made, fun, violent sci-fi/action movie with an interesting plot device, I’d highly recommend you check it out. Besides, I’d love a sequel with a bigger budget and Judge Death, please, so go out and support Dredd!

(Long Island, N. Y.) So Resident Evil: Retribution wasn’t that hot. And after five installments in the series, it ended in yet another cliffhanger, too. So, considering the fact that this movie was a hit at the box office this weekend, it looks like yet another sequel’s coming for sure. Wheeeee.

For newbies to the series, Resident Evil is a adaptation of the hit series of Survival Horror video games by Japanese developer Capcom. The games are, for the most part, great. The films, produced, written, and usually directed by Paul W. S. Anderson, are not. Anderson, for the uninitiated, is perhaps the premier purveyor of mindless style-over-substance/intelligence in the movie biz today. Just an awful, awful human being, aside from his one fluke; 1997’s Event Horizon, which is pretty much awesome. Since then, I’ve been waiting for him to achieve a similar level of brilliance. I’m still waiting.

The Resident Evil movies are very loosely based on the games; main character Alice, played by Anderson’s wife, Milla Jovovich, battles against the evil Umbrella corporation, a multi-national conglomerate responsible for a world-wide viral outbreak that has transformed most of the Earth’s population into zombies and other assorted monsters.

More than any other installment of the Resident Evil film series, this one just seemed so totally by the numbers. Nothing of any consequence happened. Characters from the previous movie are mentioned in passing and then never show up again,leading you to wonder what the hell happened to them. And Umbrella has this MASSIVE underwater testing complex that had exact scale recreations of New York, Moscow, and Raccoon City (a city from the games), not to mention millions and millions of clones of people on a conveyor belt, all for testing purposes of Umbrella’s viral weapons. It just made no sense.

Speaking of clones, why bring back clones of half of the people killed in the first movie, just to have most of them do nothing of any importance?

Oh, and in addition to yet another cliffhanger, we also get super-powered Alice back. You see ,early in the series, Alice is injected with the mutagenic “T-Virus,” which, instead of transforming her into a monster, gives her insane super-powers. So, we got a stick-thin super model now able to plow through hundreds of powerful creatures without breaking so much as a partial sweat. Honestly, it was very annoying to have such an invincible protagonist, one especially hard to buy as such considering that Milla Jovovich has the body of a 12 year-old boy. It came as a relief when she had those powers taken away in the beginning of the fourth film of the series, but at the end of Retribution she gets ‘em back thanks to series baddie Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) to help him prevent the extinction of humanity. Welcome back, Super Alice. Whoopee!

Honestly, I can’t wait to see the difference, because even though she had no “powers” for most of this movie, Alice was still somehow able to punt zombies 20 feet through the air and do spinning aerial back flip kicks while gunning down four other targets simultaneously and even survive getting punched directly in the damn heart, Terminator-style. Hell, I was stunned that Milla Jovovich’s director/husband allowed her to actually lose a fight in this film, but of course two seconds later she’s back to saving the day once again, so whatever. It was of no consequence.

The much-touted 3D effects were, of course, non-existent and not worth the $40 it adds to the ticket price. But you can see what’s going on at least, unlike most 3D action films where everything is blurred to death. Fans of the games will be happy to see the inclusion of several favorites, such as Leon S. Kennedy, Ada Wong, and Barry “Jill Sandwich” Burton . Unfortunately, these fans will be disappointed to discover how poorly/under-utilized these characters are, and devastated over how utterly atrocious the acting is across the board. Even Jovovich, an actress I’ve seen do good work in the past, is more wooden than a pirate’s peg leg here.

On a positive note, I think this was the first time I’ve ever seen Michelle Rodriguez dolled up all girly-like, and she was actually pretty hot. She seemed to have fun playing against type as well…it’s a shame she was also under-utilized.

Despite my almost non-stop hating on Resident Evil: Retribution, which is well-deserved, I still get a perverse sense of guilty pleasure out of watching these movies. Perhaps it’s because I’m a fan of the games; perhaps it’s because I’m a fan of action/sci-fi movies; or perhaps it’s just that I can find fun in even the crummiest flick imaginable. Whatever it is, Resident Evil: Retribution will not change your pre-conceived notions of the series based on your experience with previous installments; if you liked Resident Evil 1-4, you’ll like 5. If you hated them, you’ll hate this, and will likely hate the 200 sequels to follow. And so it goes.