(Long Island, N.Y.) Aw, no…not ANOTHER demonic possession movie that’s “based on true events.” I…I can’t take it anymore! They’re all really starting to blur into one big indistinguishable mess of film after film, each one looking, sounding, and acting the same as the one that came before it.

The Possession (even the name is generic) is the latest of these assembly line flicks. Directed by Ole Bornedal and co-produced by Sam Raimi (whose name when it comes to horror isn’t as revered as it used to be), this movie pretty much hits all the usual creepy clichés like clockwork, albeit with one deviation from the norm: the addition of a strange old box that helps to give a slight aura of mystery to the proceedings. A few better-than-average acting jobs by the cast members also help to elevate The Possession above the level of similar fare clogging the toilets of the film industry these days, but make no mistake; this movie is decisively “eh.”

Okay, quickie plot recap time: Clyde (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) and Stephanie Brenek (Kyra Sedgwick) get divorced, and start doing the usual shuffling of the kids, Em (Natasha Calis) and Hannah (Madison Davenport), between mommy’s house during the week and daddy’s house on the weekend. One weekend, Clyde, being the Earth-shatteringly exciting parent that he is, takes the kids to a yard sale. Apparently, its H.P. Lovecraft’s yard sale, since Em finds a creepy box for sale engraved with Hebrew inscriptions, and, of course, she just HAS to have it. Already, we know this box can mean nothing good for our protagonists.

And, wouldn’t you know it, Em starts acting all weird once daddy buys her that box! Soon, it’s clear that something has become quite wrong with the lass, and it’s obvious that her wonderful new box has something to do with it. Is the box a conduit for demons eager to devour Em’s soul? Or is something even worse going on (really, what could be worse than that)?

The only thing The Possession has going for it is the rather touching relationship between Clyde and his daughter, Em. Thanks to the acting talents of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Natasha

Calis, abilities that deserve to be in a better film than this one, you actually find yourself invested in the plight of this father and daughter. Their relationship is actually rather endearing, and it’s rare, especially in a cheapie, by-the-numbers horror movie, to find any one character you actually care about, let alone two. Any tension or foreboding The Possession manages to generate while you’re watching it can be attributed solely to the performances of Morgan and Calis.

Not wanting the audience to get too much of a good thing, Clyde’s other daughter and his ex-wife pull you back to reality with their bland and unimportant characters. Also in abundance are lots and lots of predictable plot points and boundless horror movie clichés that have been done to death in parodies, including the ever-reliable (read as: predictable) “jump scare.” You know, it’s quiet, the music blares out of nowhere, a book falls on the floor, and…ha! Fooled you! It’s nothing. I hate those…it’s a cheap, no-talent filmmaker’s trick. I know that even the greats have fallen back upon them from time to time, such as John Carpenter during his zenith, but since he always packed in a plethora of genuine scares as well, it’s easily forgiven. Not so in The Possession’s case…director Ole Bornedal just ain’t in the same league.

Oh, and the film’s marketing department isn’t helping matters, either, since several of The Possession’s big scares were stupidly spoiled by the trailer. It’s not as bad as Quarantine, a 2008 horror movie whose ENDING was spoiled not only by the trailer, but by the lobby poster as well, but it’s bad. What is wrong with these marketing types, anyway?

The Possession is a cheap, gimmicky, middle-of-the-road horror flick that you’ve already seen 20,000 times before. If it wasn’t for the real human drama brought into it by the performances of Morgan and Calis I’d say give it a pass, but if you’re dying for a horror movie fix and want to feel the frustration of seeing two actors give it their all in roles that really don’t deserve it (it might be kinder to say that their roles help to elevate a so-so movie to a level higher than it would have been otherwise), then check The Possession out. Just don’t expect much and you might even be mildly entertained.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Man, Lawless is BRUTAL. Brutal, I say! Oh, and it’s a great movie, too. Read on, brethren. Directed by John Hillcoat and based on Matt Bondurant’s 2008 novel “The Wettest County in the World” (what a terrible title) about his grandfather and great uncles in Prohibition-era Virginia, Lawless (a much better title) tells the tale of the Bondurant brothers – Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) – and their backwoods liquor bootlegging business.

At first things are running smoothly, with local law enforcement turning a blind eye in exchange for a few cases of the good stuff. But things start to get ugly when corrupt cops from the Big City show up to get a piece of the pie as well, led by Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce). Real ugly, and soon the hills are flowing with blood instead of moonshine, and anyone and everyone is fair game for a bullet, knife, or bucket of hot tar. Justice was harsh in Prohibition-era rural America, and Lawless pulls no punches whatsoever; as I said, it’s a brutal movie.

Beautifully filmed in sets locales that scream authentic Prohibition era, Lawless included countless little touches that serve to envelop you in the sights and sounds of backwoods Virginia. Don’t let the “Based On A True Story” quote at the beginning of the film fool you; while Lawless is based on real characters, the majority (if not all) of the narrative is completely fictionalized. But that doesn’t stop the film from being a gripping, absorbing crime drama with fleshed-out, humanized characters that are brought to life with some high-caliber acting. Even being aware of the spectacular ensemble cast going into my screening, Lawless’ quality truly surprised me.

I don’t want to give anything away, but the reason Lawless manages to build and sustain a nonstop mounting level of tension throughout its running time is because it’s the kind of movie where anything can happen to anyone at any time. I can’t really say any more than that, as I don’t want to spoil anything, but you know how in 99 percent of movies you know that nothing overtly bad will happen to the leads? I mean, they’re the leads, right? Can’t have a movie without them, right? Not so in Lawless; everyone is fair game, and with that fact set firmly in place comes all that beautiful tension I was talking about. There’s something frightening yet exhilarating when every character in a film is fair game that all the CG in the world can’t compare to.

Tom Hardy (I still can’t believe this guy was the skinny little Captain Picard clone in Star Trek: Nemesis) continues his climb to stardom (or is he already there?) with his performance as Forrest Bondurant. Once again confirming his status of melting into the roles he takes, the hulking Hardy manages a quite credible Southern accident (when he actually speaks, that is…most of his communication comes in grunts, moans, and grumbles) and playing the part equally split between quiet and pensive and explosively violent. Yet, despite all that, he still manages to be endearing in a way…the hallmark of a great actor.

Still, there’s this one ongoing plot point about Forrest Bondurant that, while I won’t spoil here, does get to be a little silly as the film goes on. I’ll leave it to you to figure it out, but I feel Lawless would have been better served not going where it goes with his character.

Shia LaBeouf is Shia LaBeouf. Fan of him or not, Lawless will not change your mind about him either way, as once again he plays a dork whose primary facial expression is one of confusion, with a secondary of fear when he’s getting beaten up any one of a hundred times over the course of the film. His character of Jack Bondurant is basically a spineless punching bag, and when he FINALLY has his big “manning up” scene, you almost don’t care, because the scene wouldn’t have even been needed (and people close to him wouldn’t have died) if he hadn’t been such a wussy-boy beforehand.

Gary Oldman is great in the 14 seconds he’s actually in the film. He plays a legendary gangster in a nice return to violent form after years of playing nice-guy roles, but…well, he’s in the film for 14 seconds, so he doesn’t really get to do much with it.

And I’ve GOT to talk about Guy Pearce. His Special Agent Charlie Rakes is equal parts prissy, sophisticated, disturbing, and crazy, and it’s one of the more memorable screen villains, both in appearance and in action, that I’ve seen in a while. With his fancy, pastel double-breasted suits to his Alfalfa-like, inch-wide part down the middle of his hair, his suave mannerisms belay the true psychopath lying in wait just beneath the surface. Truly a bad guy that you desperately want to die, as my friend Don, who watched Lawless with me, can attest to.

Jessica Chastain, who plays the attractive city-gal character of Maggie Beauford and love interest for Forrest, seemed out of place both in her desire to work in the Bondurant’s disgusting backwoods diner and, well, as a love interest for Hardy’s frumpy character. I mean, why him? But it’s a credit to her that she nonetheless makes the role work, playing Maggie as a strong, caring, independent character with a murky past she’s obviously trying to leave behind in order to make a new life…even one where she’s serving roadkill to toothless old drunks on a daily basis. Man, what could she be running from that’s worse than that…??

The remainder of the main cast – Dane DeHaan, Mia Wasikowska, and Jason Clarke – all excel in their roles as well, although Wasikowska’s character falling for LaBeouf is about as unbelievable as any of the other supermodel characters that fall for him in his other films, but at least Wasikowska is a good enough actress that she makes her fall for him a gradual thing, with actual resistance shown early on, so I guess it was easier to buy in this case. Sorta.

So, if you want to watch a wonderfully-directed, visually arresting, period piece about an especially tumultuous and nasty era in American history with some fantastic acting, Lawless comes with my highest recommendation. It’s not perfect (especially the ending), but neither was the time period nor the characters it depicts. Go check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I loves me some stop-motion animation. In this age of super-slick GCI cartoons, the sheer amount of labor and artistry that goes into your typical stop-motion film is truly awe-inspiring to behold. For those of you who aren’t in the know, stop-motion animation is…well, I’ll just let Wikipedia do the talking for me on this one:

“Stop motion is an animation technique to make a physically manipulated object appear to move on its own. The object is moved in small increments between individually photographed frames, creating the illusion of movement when the series of frames is played as a continuous sequence. Dolls with movable joints or clay figures are often used in stop motion for their ease of repositioning.”

Sounds like exhausting, maddening work, right? But that’s why I love it so; not only is it impressive in a technical sense, but such hands-on work inevitably produces little mistakes and warts

that, in part, gives such a production a unique charm. I love stop-motion animation.

Which brings me to today’s review- ParaNorman, a horror/comedy animated movie with an impressive cast of voice actors, including Casey Affleck, Tempestt Bledsoe, John Goodman, Bernard Hill, Leslie Mann, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Kodi Smit-McPhee, among others. It’s a fun, funny movie with some nice morbid overtones, similar in feel to 2009’s wonderful Coraline, and with good reason: both movies were produced by the same American animation studio, Laika, and based on their track record, I’m going to have to be keeping my eye on these guys. They do good stuff.

At first the premise of ParaNorman might not sound all that original- a New England kid named Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee, star of the pointless Let The Right One In remake) is able to speak with the dead, just like the kid on The Sixth Sense. But it’s in the execution of this story where ParaNorman differs from the aforementioned movie; while living people ostracize and make fun of Norman for his abilities, he’s quite popular with the dead folk. His only living friend is the tubby and awkward Neil (Tucker Albrizzi), who is also the only person who actually believes in his ability to communicate with the dead. Life kinda sucks for Norman, but at least things couldn’t get much worse, right?

Wrong, actually. When his Uncle Prenderghast (John Goodman) issues a strange warning and then passes away, Norman eventually finds himself tasked with taking over his Uncle’s duties, which consist of defending the town he lives in from the curse of an ancient witch, long kept at bay from meddling in the affairs of the living. With the help of Neil (which is really like no help at all), Norman sets out to perform a ceremony to keep the evil dead at bay. Unfortunately, thanks to the interference of a school bully, it doesn’t quite work…which means that the live folks in Norman’s town are bound to have a bad day if he doesn’t do something about it.

ParaNorman is beautifully animated, easily ranking up there with the best of the stop-motion field while retaining a creepy, one-of-a-kind look and feel that really drew me in. It’s solidly scripted as well, with a fairly interesting plot and some good laughs, and even a genuine scare or two, which is surprising given that this is targeted at kids. Why? Well, unlike Pixar, whose movies are almost always appropriate for little kids but contain jokes that easily go over their heads so grownups can appreciate them as well, Laika Studios’ movie’s aren’t quite as accessible to all ages. By that, I mean that there’s some weird, questionable, and slightly adult content that perhaps wouldn’t make films like Coraline and ParaNorman something to show to the REALLY young. Well, if you’re a lame parent, that is. Me, if I had kids, I’d LOVE to ween them on spooky Laika fare like this. After all, not every kid should be sheltered and cultivated into an uninteresting little wuss.

The

plot and acting are all really well-done also, and as I previously mentioned, the movie is funny as well, which helps soothe the ache in my heart after another recently-released stop-motion film, Aardman Animations’ The Pirates, sadly failed to live up to my expectations, ending up fairly flat and unfunny.

So, kid or adult, I recommend ParaNorman highly. Check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) This is a strange movie for me to review, in the sense that I really feel a strong obligation NOT to tell you anything about it. The Cabin in the Woods is the kind of movie where it’s best to go in knowing as little as possible….the experience will be all the more enjoyable for you that way.

I guess I CAN say that it’s a horror movie. Sort of. And I could say that it’s about five kids who head out to a secluded cabin in the wilderness to party and what happens from there, but not. I might even be able to get away with saying that it’s about a bunch of corporate Joe’s in shirts and ties during a normal day at work, if that makes any sense.

But the most effective thing to say about The Cabin in the Woods is that it is a deconstruction of common horror films, and the movie that Wes Craven’s Scream wishes it could have been, essentially.

The Cabin in the Woods was originally shot back in 2009 and then sat on a shelf until recently, one of the many films that were victims of the MGM’s infamous financial woes. Directed and co-written by Drew Goddard and co-written and produced by Joss Whedon (of Firefly fame), The Cabin in the Woods is basically the duo’s homage to the horror genre, which they felt had become stagnant and in need of a swift kick in the pants.

Assembling a cast of talented young actors, including Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth (it’s THOR! Well, before he got all ‘roided up to play Thor, that is), Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams, Goddard set out to establish a film that initially adheres to all the established horror movie norms…and then simply chucks them all out the window and goes absolutely crazy.

If you MUST get some general idea of what The Cabin in the Woods is, and essentially are the type who HAS to know what you’re walking into at all times (in other words, someone who doesn’t like to have fun), I will give a brief, general description of what this movie is. However, if you’re the cool kind of person who likes to be blindsided by unique and amazing experiences, I will warn you to skip the next sentence. Ready?

It’s basically The Evil Dead/Cabin Fever meets the video game Portal (hopefully you know what Portal is…if not, play it ASAP).

I’m not saying any more…in fact, I’ve already said too much, and I hope all you cool people out there skipped even that vague description. For you lot, all I’ll say is this: if you love horror movies – TRULY love them – but are sick of the clichéd, recycled plots, stereotypes, and characters, this is a movie you should run out and embrace. It deconstructs the conventions of the horror movie genre and by the end of the movie it wraps up everything so neatly and brilliantly that you’ll walk out of the theater with a case of the warm fuzzies. And if blood is your thing, well, The Cabin in the Woods delivers that as well. Just you wait.

That, and the fact that the final third of The Cabin in the Woods is insanely fun and one of the biggest treats ever for real horror fans, should be enough to get you up and running like hell to the nearest theater showing it. It’s intelligent, clever, witty, but, unlike so many movies these days, has the restraint to hold its cards close to its chest until the end. If you’re the annoying, impatient type of clod that likes having everything spelled out for you in black and white right away, this isn’t the movie for you. But if you love that infrequent, wonderful feeling of having stumbled onto some fresh and new, not knowing what the hell is going on, and just allowing yourself to be taken along for the ride…yeah, this is what you’ve been waiting for. Besides, if you’re savvy, you should be able to figure things out soon enough.

Believe me, there’s so much I’d like to tell you about this movie, but because I do love it so, I won’t…because I want you to be as floored as I was when you watch it. Suffice it to say that The Cabin In The Woods does for horror movies what The Raid did for action movies.

(Long Island, N.Y.) We all know I love the carnage, destruction, and oozing machismo of the 80’s Action film genre; I declare my devotion of this sweet art form at every opportunity when I write my movie reviews. So when The Expendables came out in 2010, an ensemble action/adventure flick combining noted action stars of both the 80’s, 90’s, and today, I was pretty sure that the pinnacle of human achievement had just been reached.

Alas, it was not to be. While at times fun in a base sense, The Expendables mostly reeked of disappointment. A sequel was eventually announced, but after beholding

the majesty of the incredible Indonesian ode to death that is The Raid: Redemption, I declared that, even if it did manage to improve on the lackluster original, The Expendables 2 could in no way clear the hurdle presented by The Raid; the mark had just been set too high.

Let’s cut to the chase: The Expendables 2

is MUCH better than the first one. It basically fixed everything that the original Expendables loused up. There’s no more fast edits/shaky camera during fights; they spread out the screen time amongst the various actors much more (the first movie was all Stallone and Statham, with the rest of the cast having what amounted to glorified cameos); the film flowed much better with no slow, boring scenes; the action was brutal and bloody; and it was much funnier.

Also, the story that tied everything together in The Expendables 2 was more basic and simplistic than the rambling mess of the original film; that simplicity allowed the plot to be more focused on advancing the action, rather than retarding it. The result is a film that is everything that the first Expendables should have been, and then some.

The Expendables 2 sees the entire cast from the first movie return (thankfully sans the useless character Mickey Rourke played): Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Terry Crews. Together, they are The Expendables, an elite band of mercenaries who, in this installment, are tasked with retrieving a mound of plutonium before a rival mercenary sells it on the black market. Blood and death ensures.

New to the line-up this time around are the future Mr. Miley Cyrus (AKA Liam Hemsworth), Chuck Norris, and Jean-Claude Van Damme. In addition, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s cameos from the first movie are greatly expanded upon for the sequel. In particular, seeing Arnold back in action after all this time almost brought a tear to my eye. Okay, okay, I’ll stop lying- I wept openly at the sight of the Austrian Oak once again gloriously pumping lead into anything that moved. It was a beautiful sight. And the scene where Arnie, Sly, and Bruce team up to lay waste to terrorists inhabiting an airport was surreal. I mean, I couldn’t comprehend what I was seeing.

Van Damme made for an excellent villain and, despite not really being a Norris fan, I also enjoyed his part in the proceedings. The overall sense of nostalgia (which was mined liberally for some great self-referential humor) in The Expendables 2 was almost mind-blowing, if tempered a bit by the realization that these guys are, sadly, getting pretty damn old by this point. Note to Van Damme: you should have left those shades on, buddy.

My only real complaints were that some of the CG was horrible, like the helicopter in the opening battle (although the CG gore was actually pretty good). That, and I noticed a huge goof…the Expendables’ plane is shown having a cargo door in the back so the jet skis can board it, but when they cut out of wide shots, it’s a completely different kind of plane- not a cargo plane at all. Like, huh? Also, the Stallone vs. Van Damme fight was a bit of a disappointment.

And I know I was saying this movie would be crap compared to The Raid,

but in fact, it’s hard to compare them because they’re two totally different kinds of action movies. The Raid is an action masterpiece and an overall better film, to be sure, but The Expendables 2 excels at exactly what it set out to do (and what the original failed at): to be a fun and exciting homage to 80’s Action flicks.

Honestly, after the first movie my expectations were low going into this. I’m so happy with how well The Expendables 2 turned out…I felt warm and fuzzy pretty much the entire time I was watching it. I need to see this again, and I need The Expendables 3 with Wesley Snipes, Clint Eastwood, and Steven Seagal (even though he’s a great big fatty these days) ASAP, thank you very much.

(Long Island, N.Y.) The Bourne Legacy is a good movie that didn’t need to have the word “Bourne” in its title. Don’t get me wrong; I can understand why the filmmakers wanted to cash in on the name recognition of the popular spy series now that star Matt Damon has split the scene and a new (unrelated) character played by Jeremy Renner has taken over, but honestly, the weakest parts of the movie are the half-hearted attempts to tie it into the previous movies when the film is (surprisingly) strong enough to stand on its own.

This marks the fourth film based on Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne novels; loosely based I should say, because other than some character names and basic plot points, none of the movies really have much to do with any of the Bourne books. It actually makes me wonder why they just didn’t make up an original name and go from there.

Anyway, Matt Damon starred in the first three installments of the series as Jason Bourne, a genetically-enhanced amnesiac assassin for the U.S. Government who went rogue after being betrayed by his bosses. Known for its gritty realism and brutal hand-to-hand combat scenes, the Bourne franchise made major bank, so it’s no mystery why the producers were keen on continuing to milk the Bourne name after Damon decided to take a walk after the third one.

Instead of rebooting the series or recasting the role, the studio instead just introduced a new character: Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner, AKA Hawkeye from The Avengers), a genetically-engineered member of Operation Outcome, one of the Department of Defense’s black ops programs, who is betrayed and left for dead by his higher-ups when the media threatens to expose their shady doings to the world.

However, that isn’t Cross’ only problem. His special physical and mental abilities come from a daily series of pills he must ingest; green for muscles, blue for brainpower. Now cut off from his supply, Cross worries that he will begin to lose his enhanced abilities, but he discovers from Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), the scientist who had been monitoring and tweaking his meds, that his physical abilities have been made permanent; however, without treatment, his mental abilities will start to deteriorate rapidly. The kicker is that, prior to his enlistment in Operation Outcome, Cross was actually…um, shall we say, “derpy.” That is, he was a little slow, and the thought of going back to that state terrifies him.

With killers trailing both of them, Cross and Shearing race against time to cure his condition and disappear from sight for good, before a dark Government conspiracy claims them both.

I enjoyed The Bourne Legacy quite a bit. It’s the antithesis to the modern action movie, starting with a slow buildup to the action instead of just dropping the viewer right in the middle of things. As a result, it is able to concentrate more on its characters and atmosphere

than blowing up cars every eight seconds, so when the action does finally kick in it actually has more meaning and impact.

I also found the simplicity of

The Bourne Legacy’s plot incredibly refreshing and surprisingly cliché-free in this day and age of convoluted plots and ever-rising stakes. Instead of saving the world, millions of lives or even going out for revenge against those who have wronged him, The Bourne Legacy is, at its core, just about one man’s fight not to be stupid again. Honestly, that alone adds a slightly more intimate degree of emotionalism to the proceedings than your average spy/action flick, giving the film a slight feel of Daniel Keyes’ Flowers for Algernon…that is, if the protagonist was a death-dealing, bone-crushing one-man-army instead of a scientist.

Another cliché the movie thankfully avoids is shoehorning in a steamy love scene with a female sidekick. I know, there IS a female sidekick in The Bourne Legacy, but Cross never seals the deal, so to speak. The way the film is set up, it just would have come across as forced and awkward, and I’m glad they kept things plutonic. Besides, if there’s a sequel, I’m sure there will be booty time aplenty for all involved.

Actually, the main strike against The Bourne Legacy is its relationship to the Bourne series; it doesn’t actually need one. Yeah, the name will sell some tickets, but the film, on the surface, has almost nothing in common with the Matt Damon Bourne movies and could have easily, with VERY minor tweaking, been a stand-alone series. As it is, the attempts to connect it with the Damon flicks are superfluous, forced, and probably confusing to newcomers; Jason Bourne is namedropped randomly throughout the movie without any context or purpose, other than to remind viewers that yes, this is a movie with the name “Bourne” in the title, even if that character never appears or makes any noticeable impact on the proceedings.

The craggy-looking Jeremy Renner, despite being an unconventional leading man (if he grew a mustache and squinted his eyes, he’d kinda-sorta pass for the late Charles Bronson), nonetheless is a great replacement for Matt Damon and brings the goods both in terms of acting and physicality, which helps to sell you on his character’s plight and gets you behind him as he races to save his IQ from going down the toilet. Renner mirrors Damon’s skill at destroying opponents via viewer-unfriendly rapid-cut camera shots, leaving you both in awe of the carnage he has wrought and wondering what the hell he exactly did to put all those poor dead people on the floor, but the combat nonetheless remains satisfying. He also manages to run and navigate tricky obstacles (the other main requirements of the series) very well.

The rest of the cast is solid as well. I didn’t even recognize Rachel Weisz until the end credits (possibly because she did the typical Hollywood thing and got too skinny as she got older), but she played the usual impossibly-attractive genius-level scientist/damsel in distress very well, providing an excellent companion for Renner’s Cross. Edward Norton plays the bad guy who pulls the strings from behind the scenes; he’s a consultant of sorts that the Government brings in to clean up their mess when Jason

Bourne starts blowing the cover of their illicit covert ops programs to the media, and it’s really not much of a role. Norton just sits in darkened rooms barking orders at people and little else. It’s a shame, since it’s been a while since I’ve really seen the talented actor take on a meaty leading role…lately, he seems to just be coasting through his career and collecting the occasional paycheck to keep the

lights on in his various mansions worldwide.

I liked The Bourne Legacy, and I feel it’s a great starting point for a new spy/action series for Jeremy Renner, and a nice little side gig for him in-between Avengers movies. There’s no need to be a Bourne fan to hop on board with this installment; in fact, it’s best you forget the name of Jason Bourne altogether and just enjoy the new adventures of Aaron Cross.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Hollywood’s obsession with corporately-mandated, money-grubbing Office 2013 nøglen remakes hit a new low when it was announced that Total Recall, the brilliant action/sci-fi flick directed by insane Dutchman Paul Verhoeven and starring the mighty Austrian Oak himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was due to receive the soulless modern recycling treatment. I knew right away that no good would come of it.

Total Recall was (loosely) based on writer Philip K. Dick’s story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.” Intense, action-packed, cheesy (in a fun way), funny, and featuring groundbreaking physical effects work by industry legend Rob Bottin, it was big hit when it was originally released back in 1990 and has gone on to achieve  SharePoint Server nøglen an everlasting footprint in popular culture.

What made the news of a remake especially infuriating for me personally is the fact that the film was pretty much perfect the first time around. Now, I’m not against the idea of a remake if there’s something new to bring to the table, thematically speaking, or if new technology exists that can complete the vision that the original was unable to achieve back in the day, but remaking Total Recall? With an actor that ISN’T Arnold? I can’t think of anything more pointless.

And never mind the fact that the original was ONLY released 22 years ago. I mean, come on.

Anyway, here’s our plot: the Earth has gone kablooey via chemical warfare, and only two places can currently support life: England (where the high-class citizens live) and Australia (where all the scrubs who do the dirty work live). Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is one of the Australian scrubs who travels to England every day via a tube that extends through the planet called “The Fall” to work a crummy job assembling Stormtrooper robots. Frustrated and bored with his life, Quaid hits up a company called Rekall, which specializes in implanting realistic yet false memories of your fantasies into your noggin. While in the middle of having a “secret agent” program implanted, Quaid is suddenly besieged by soldiers and robot commandos and finds himself on the run; his Rekall memories seemingly come to life. It turns out that Quaid’s memory has been erased, and everyone wants to get their hands on him before he remembers who he really is.

Much like in the original, there are two women in Quaid’s life- his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinsale), who is revealed to be an undercover agent now tasked with capturing him (although she’d much rather kill him instead), and the mysterious Melina (Jessica Biel), a member of an underground resistance movement that he only remembers from his dreams.

While on the run, Quaid finds himself at the center of a plot hatched by the dastardly Chancellor Vilos Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) to conquer and eliminate the population of Australia so that England can expand. But as Quaid pieces together the puzzle of his own identity, will

he be the resistance’s

savior…or destroyer?

I went into Total Recall totally prepared to hate on it massively. But imagine my surprise when I discovered that the movie, directed by Len Wiseman (known for the pretty yet vapid Underworld movies), actually ISN’T horrible. It’s soulless, humorless, bloodless (gotta love that PG-13 rating), and clearly values flash and style over any shred of substance, but it’s NOT horrible. By modern action movies standards it’s rather limp, yet fast-paced and, at times, even somewhat entertaining. Forgettable and run-of-the-mill, of course; yet also inoffensive and perhaps even a little fun in a certain base manner.

Please bear in mind, however, that the fact that my expectations had previously taken a long trip down the assorted pipes and tubes leading from my toilet to the local sewer may have helped with my (very) mild enjoyment of the film. Just thought I’d share that.

Visually, Total Recall is a beauty; there’s CG galore and it all looks pretty damn good. But aside from that, the design aesthetic of the future presented here is impressive and eye-catching, combining Eastern and Western influences in a complex, inventive, and appealing way. It’s hardly original (Blade Runner says omghi2u), but it’s done well, and it gives the film a dark, gritty visual hook that the 1990 version didn’t really have.

But where Total

Recall fails is when it’s trying to directly ape the 1990 version. Now, as beloved as Arnold Schwarzenegger is, no one’s ever accused him of being a master thespian; no, his talents obviously lay in the swift and brutal killings of hundreds of enemies instead of emitting viable emotion. However, I have to say that, when it comes to establishing Douglas Quaid’s disappointment in the mundane life he’s made for himself to the degree that he decides to engage the series of Rekall, Arnold actually OUTDOES Colin Farrell. With Farrell, you never really get the vibe that he’s ever that upset. Don’t get me wrong- the movie shows him whining about his life, slaving away in a factory, getting passed up for a promotion, but at no point does he ever seem

genuinely distraught about it like Arnold was. It’s weird, since both films hinged on that aspect of Quaid’s life being conveyed to the audience.

Likewise, other scenes that recall (haha) the original tend to fall flat. They try once to play with the idea that Quaid’s actually dreaming everything, sending in his friend Harry (Bokeem Woodbine) as a memory “implant” to try and convince him that his reality is false. But aside from the fact that the scenes plays out with zero tension, if nothing Quaid is seeing is real, why is Harry wearing a bulletproof vest? It’s little things like that that make Total Recall not work as a whole- when it’s struggling to maintain the link to the original film, the remake falters and comes across as clumsy; when it tries to do its own thing, it’s mostly bland and forgettable, with little hints of fun peppered about.

The acting is what it is. Colin Farrell is good at looking confused, jumping around, and falling hundreds of feet without getting hurt. But not much else. Kate Beckinsale was actually amusing as a relentless bad-ass assassin, and Biel…looked good, I guess? Let’s just say that everyone’s passable and leave it at that.

Oh, and I will also say that the villain, Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston), doesn’t hold a candle to the great Ronnie Cox, who originated the role back in 1990. There’s no “I’ll be back home in time for corn flakes” line in the remake either, which is unforgivable.

So, Total Recall is a pointless remake of a vastly-superior film when compared to the original, and just a pretty yet ‘eh’ action flick to the one or two people who

didn’t see the Arnold movie. Its okay, but I’d recommend skipping it and renting the original instead. You’ll have more fun.

(Long Island, N.Y.) The Watch is an ensemble sci-fi/comedy film starring Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and Richard Ayoade as suburbanites who form a neighborhood watch group and end up taking on outer-space alien invaders who threaten the planet. Yes, that’s really the plot. I don’t normally get that out of the way in the first paragraph of my reviews, but that’s what happens when you write on the fly like I tend to do. I’m unpredictable, folks!

So, I already described the plot, but how’s the experience of watching The Watch (that sounds odd…)? It’s actually pretty okay. While The Watch isn’t going to endure throughout the years as a comedy classic, it’s an amusing way to kill about an hour and forty minutes. The laughs, which come at an adequate and sustained pace, mostly consist of verbal gross-out humor. In other words, the characters say lots of obscene stuff. If that’s your thing, and I’m ashamed to admit that it’s mine, then you’ll find entertainment here.

But you won’t find LOADS of entertainment, mind you…The Watch doesn’t get by on razor-sharp wit or cleverly set-up punchlines; it’s just a race among the characters to see who can say the most outrageous potty-mouthed quips before the end credits run, a comedy element that’s becoming somewhat overplayed in today’s film market. But hey, it works, although not as often as it should considering The Watch’s cast; the jokes miss almost as often as they hit.

Speaking of the cast, Stiller, Vaughn, Hill, and Ayoade all share some pretty decent chemistry with one another, which is why I suppose the hit-or-miss humor was more tolerable than it might have otherwise been. It also made the premise of an alien invasion easier to buy into…or at least easier to not mind.

Oh yeah, the aliens…I might as well talk about them. Stiller’s character, Evan, is a manager of a local Costco and one night his friend, a security guard, is murdered by one of the aforementioned creatures. Yes, it seems that the alien invaders have holed up in Costco because, as one of them confides later in the film, “The place is great, it has everything that

we need.” Of course, the murder is chalked up to a human assailant, despite the dismembered corpse being covered with strange green goo.

By the way, the invaders look kinda like the monster from Ridley Scott’s Alien (well, not really), only not as cool, and their sole weakness is…well, I won’t spoil it, other than to say that it’s a typical weakness 99.999% of human men share with them. Yes, myself included, sadly.

So Evan, ever an active, annoying, nonstop participant in his community, decides to further neglect his wife Abby (Rosemarie DeWitt) by starting a neighborhood watch to find the killer and bring him to justice. But what he and his friends discover instead is a possible “Invasion of the Body-snatchers” scenario with the fate of the planet hanging in the balance. Good thing the gang has found a mysterious extraterrestrial bowling ball whose energy blasts can level entire

buildings…

So, that’s really it. Yeah, there’s some interpersonal strife among our four leads, and Stiller’s character has to hash stuff out with his miserable wife, but in the end there’s personal growth and lessons to be learned…or, at least, what marginally passes as character development in a film such as this. Really, it’s stupid to expect more than that.

Stiller and Vaughn’s roles aren’t much of a stretch for either man; they both play to established type, with Stiller being a neurotic weirdo and Vaughn being a motormouth. I know nothing about Ayoade so his shtick is new to me, and I found him to be rather amusing. But the best part about the movie is Hill, who is starting to show more range (well, a little, anyway) than anyone would have ever expected out of the guy when he first showed up in Superbad a few years ago. He and Will Forte as a bumbling police sergeant kinda steal the movie, and my buddy R. Lee Ermey pops up in a fun little cameo as well.

So, The Watch is a fun if unexceptional little movie that will entertain if you have a rather unsophisticated sense of humor (guilty!) and need a break from repeat viewings of The Dark Knight Rises (guilty again!). Check it out, but be sure to set your expectations low.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, director Christopher Nolan‘s fascinating take on the Caped Crusader finally comes to an end with The Dark Knight Rises, the final film in the trilogy that began with Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008). It’s almost impossible to compare Rises to the other two films, as it was so radically different from either of them, but I felt it was a fitting end to the trilogy. It’s actually hard to believe the series is over now…in a way, I’m actually upset by the idea.

Batman is in a bad place after the events of The Dark Knight. After foiling The Joker’s (Heath Ledger) anarchistic onslaught of Gotham City and enduring the deaths of district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and his beloved Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Bruce Wayne, the Caped Crusader’s billionaire playboy alter-ego, goes into seclusion ala Howard Hughes, mentally and physically broken down.

Eight years pass, and Bruce finds himself finally lured out of his forced retirement when Gotham is threatened by a new madman in the form of the mercenary Bane (Tom Hardy), who is determined to destroy the city and everyone in it. Batman’s first confrontation with Bane goes disastrously wrong, and Wayne finds beaten down and broken. With the help of a mysterious cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), Batman must try and summon the will to rise up and save his city once again.

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises was a great movie. The stuff that went on in Gotham was straight-up crazy in this movie. The situation gets really grim, with Bane and his army essentially taking over Gotham completely and holding it hostage by means of a nuclear bomb. And while I was wondering how the heck Bane got all the money to hire enough mercs to control a major metropolitan city, I eventually suspended disbelief and just enjoyed myself. After all, it made for good drama, with Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) leading an underground resistance group after Bane has established martial law.

While I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises, I believe that Nolan just tried to do way too much with the story, even within the confines of a film that was nearly 3 hours long. As a result, things get a little crowded and some storyline aspects don’t quite get the development that they should have. Nolan probably should have either simplified things a bit or made Rises into two halves like the last Harry Potter flick. You know, maybe like “Knightfall” and then “The Dark Knight Rises.” I’d have dug that. But, regardless of its flaws, the film is still amazing.

Oh, and one quick question… why does Batman still insist on using his scary Norwegian Death Metal voice on people who already know his secret identity? That’s just silly.

Christian Bale, one of our generation’s truly great actors, was great as Batman, equally handling the emotive and physically combative aspects of the role of the Caped Crusader with ease. Bruce Wayne is in a dark place in this film, and Bale manages to bring out angst and turmoil his character is consumed with while he journeys towards his destiny and redemption. But as usual, Bale the least interesting character in the movie; unfortunately, that’s the problem when your adversaries are as colorful and over the top as Batman’s.

Tom Hardy, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors after starring in flicks like Bronson and Warrior (but let’s not talk about Star Trek: Nemesis, please), again displays his amazing adaptability in portraying Bane, the latest bad guy facing off against Batman. Unlike The Joker, the chaotic gangster clown played by the late Heath Ledger in an iconic, Oscar-winning performance in 2008’s The Dark Knight, Bane is a methodical yet hulking behemoth of a monster who is actually capable of going toe-to-toe with Batman…and beating him. Hardy has obviously been sucking down tubs of protein powder lately, as he bulked up significantly for the role.

The intelligent and charismatic

Bane wears a bizarre mask that looks like the facehugger from Alien wrapped around his mug, and speaks in a strange accent that, thanks to some post-production audio effects, makes him sound like a cross between Darth Vader and Johann Krauss. Some people have been complaining that Bane’s voice is unintelligible, but I could understand his voice just fine; actually, I thought it was pretty awesome-sounding. Bane, as played

by Hardy was also great…he was translated from the comics well (not directly, but he fit within the

confines of Nolan’s “realistic” take on the series) and, shockingly, Hardy established such a presence on-camera that he didn’t really make me miss The Joker at all, which is perhaps the biggest possible compliment you can give him.

Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle was good…better than I expected, actually, effectively playing a hot femme fatale-type while infusing her with a bit of humanity as well. She filled out the catsuit pretty well also, although not QUITE as well as Julie Newmar did back in the 60’s Batman TV show. Meow indeed.

The remainder of the cast – Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and the rest – all live up to the lofty standards set by their previous appearances in the series. And newcomers Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a Gotham City beat cop and Marion Cotillard as a potential love interest for Bruce Wayne all fit into the proceedings nicely.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the unfortunate passing of Heath Ledger, who so masterfully played Batman’s crazed psycho arch-nemesis The Joker in The Dark Knight, and what role he could have played in this new film. While some past villains of Nolan’s series are given fun little cameos in The Dark Knight Rises, The Joker is neither seen nor even mentioned, and his complete omission apparently has some fans up in arms. But the question is, how could Joker have played a part in the movie, short of re-casting someone in the part? I think Nolan did the tasteful thing, personally, although an aside by one of the characters (“at least

that Joker character is still in jail, imagine how things would be if HE was loose too!”) would have been cool.

I do wonder how Joker would have fit into the sequel had Ledger lived. That’s something I would have LOVED to have seen. What a shame…a great talent, taken from us far too soon.

So, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy is at an end, which will result in a series reboot which, in turn, is slated to pave the way for an eventual Justice League movie (DC Comics’ answer to Marvel’s The Avengers). I’m not sure how new Batman movies going forward will compare to Nolan’s films, but as far as The Dark Knight Rises goes, I was fine with how he chose to end his tale…it’s not perfect, and it falls a bit short of the high water mark set by the previous entry, but it nonetheless felt epic, appropriate, emotional, and gave closure to fans, such as myself, who have been following Nolan’s complex story since the beginning.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I hate using cliches, but every now and then nothing else will do to get my point across easily and clearly. This one has something to do with beating a dead horse. Maybe you’ve heard it used before?

Ice Age 4: Continental Drift is a computer generated cartoon that takes place during the Earth’s Ice Age (duh) and serves as the eulogy to a series that probably should have had the good sense to go out on a high note and die after its second installment. Well, I could perhaps be saying this about the third movie, but since I didn’t see it, I can’t. But if it served as a bridge from the second to the fourth, then it certainly had to be showing signs of the series heading downhill.

I actually really enjoyed the 2002 original (wow, has it really been ten years?) tale involving the unlikely team-up of a mammoth named Manny (voiced by Ray Romano), a sloth named Sid (John Leguizamo) and a saber-toothed cat named Diego (Denis Leary) and their attempts to return a human baby to the tribe of cavemen who he had been separated from.

Anyway, three sequels later, we have an after-school special plot involving Manny’s daughter hanging out with the “wrong crowd,” so to speak, causing friction in the mammoth family. And if that excitement wasn’t enough, we eventually find our intrepid threesome aimlessly afloat on an iceberg after the breakup of the continent they live on, leading them to all kinds of shenanigans involving pirates (yes, pirates!) in their attempts to get home so Manny can straighten out things with his daughter.

Yeah, that sounds like a fairly lame plot, doesn’t it?

Now, I’m not saying that Ice Age 4 is bad; It’s just that it’s clearly showing that the series is running out of steam, with re-used gags and a violently strong “been there, done that” feeling prevailing throughout. The plot actually is a bitter better than it sounds, but not much. Overall, Ice Age 4 just has the feeling of a film where the producers spun a wheel marked with random plot devices and it just so happened to land on “pirates.” But…how could there be pirates when the film takes place during the aforementioned Ice Age? Wasn’t humanity depicted basically as one step up from cave men in the first movie?

Many aspects of Ice Age 4 just seem forced. Even the chemistry found between the three leads, which was charming in the first movie, seems to have faded over time. Clearly, some people rolled into the recording studio for a paycheck and nothing else, although there are some fun performances going on here at times. However, there’s enough action and things going BONK and POW to keep kids amused; unfortunately, I can’t offer adults the same degree of hope in terms of their potential entertainment. It’s a shame, since earlier entries in this series did pretty well at the occasional joke that would go over kids’ heads so mom and dad could sneak in a chuckle as well. Pixar remains the master of that particular skill, it would seem.

Another staple of the series returns in the form of a parallel storyline regarding the misadventures of a saber-toothed squirrel named Scrat who is kind of like the Trix rabbit except with acorns. It’s still cute the fourth time around, but even this act is stretching thin by now as well.

Yeah, so Ice Age 4: Continental Drift is a decent effort with occasional spurts of entertainment and humor, but overall, it’s tired. Unfortunately, I think it was number one at the box office this week, so of course film studios have probably already green-lit Ice Age 5, 6 and 7. Why couldn’t parents have taken their kids to see Spider-Man again? Oh, well.

Up next week: The Dark Knight Rises. Until then, have a swell weekend, folks.