(Long Island, N.Y.) Great…my official 200th review for Long Island Exchange and it has to be The Raven. I hate Hollywood.

You know, I thought that the recent Sherlock Holmes movies starring Robert Downey Jr. that re-imagined the drug-addicted intellectual super-sleuth as a martial arts expert/action hero were pushing it as far as raping the memories of classic literature went. However, if there was an even more ill-fitting person to get this ridiculous treatment, it’s Edgar Allan Poe; this is especially true considering the fact that Poe was not a fictional character, but a REAL PERSON.

But, this seems to matter little to director James McTeigue and company, as The Raven is a fictionalized account of the life of the famous author and poet of the macabre as he is called into service by the Baltimore police department to track down a serial killer who is basing his murders on the fates of the characters in Poe’s grisly short stories. Yes, folks, Poe has to play detective to solve crimes that originated in the pages of his own books, obviously perpetrated by a crazed fan of some sort, leading to Poe engaging in fast-paced shoot-outs and chase scenes while racing against the clock to save the life of the woman he loves.

How contrived and ultimately lame does that sound, especially considering the fact that the real Poe was plagued with maladies ranging from alcohol and drug addictions to cholera, heart disease, rabies, and tuberculosis? Hardly the action hero type, I would say.

Of course, we’ll get to the secondary reasons why this movie is a miserable train wreck in a moment, but first I’d like to highlight The Raven’s main shortcoming- its star, John Cusack, who plays Poe himself. Plainly put, the guy is as miscast for the role as Bea Arthur would be if called upon to play Adolph Hitler. Cusack is a gifted actor when it

comes to comedies, but it appears that anything with a certain amount of gravitas is well beyond his reach. It certainly doesn’t help that he spends the entire movie looking like it’s the last place he’d rather be, which is kind of how I felt sitting in the movie theater watching this crappy movie.

As for the film itself, it ultimately fails because it’s so incredibly boring. The real Poe was a complex and interesting (yet very flawed) guy, and I think a legit biopic would have been far more enticing than shoehorning him into this terrible Sherlock Holmes-wannabe of a movie. The rest of the cast is limited in number, and none of the characters are really given much if anything intriguing to say or do as the pace of the movie just kind of plods along. Luke Evans, who plays Detective Emmett Fields, and Emily Hamilton as Alice Eve, Poe’s love interest that he spends his days drunkenly pining away for, are both almost as bland and uninspired as Cusack is.

And while the action scenes don’t quite approach the utter ridiculousness of Robert Downey Jr.’s Holmes flicks, there are a few scenes that reek of that taint, such as one where Poe chases the killer on horseback while having a shootout with him. Considering the fact that the real Poe was a frail, sickly man (as mentioned above), this portrayal of him really didn’t even come close to ringing true. It’s a shame dead people can’t sue filmmakers from beyond the grave.

So, here’s my 200th review, and instead

of reviewing

something at least fun, which I’m sure this week’s The Avengers will be, I get to review sewage with a plot shamelessly stolen from the life of a classic author who never asked for this stupid movie to be made to begin with. This treatment ranks right up there with the instant death known as the “remake” to me, folks, and it will never get my endorsement. At least, until it’s done right.

And The Raven? It’s not done right. Avoid.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, well, well…if it isn’t the most unoriginal action movie ever made: Lockout. Written and produced by Luc Besson, who has brought us great films such as Taken and From Paris With Love, Lockout falls directly into line with Besson’s established formula: take a cool, deadly, charismatic leading man, add him into a simple, derivative, one-note plot, set the blender to “kill,” and stand back and watch the carnage.

It’s funny how little details can separate two films that, on paper, can be almost identical in theme and/or content. Now, last week, I gave the awesome Indonesian flick The Raid four, count ’em, FOUR stars, within the context of being the best pure action movie made in the last 10-20 years. Did it have a plot? Not really. Originality? Nope. Dialogue? Barely. Insane, heart-pounding, unique, masterfully choreographed action scenes that blast you in the face, one after another after another, until you almost can’t take it anymore? YOU BETCHA.

And yet, when you put it side-by-side with another movie that takes the same simplistic approach – Lockout – their similarities only serve to
free it exam pdf highlight the weaknesses of Besson’s film and underscore the strengths of The Raid. How? Well, I’ll get to that shortly. First, let’s tackle Lockout’s plot.

Prepare for cliché overload in 3…2…1…Snow (Guy Pearce? In an action movie? Huh?) plays a government agent (cliché #1) convicted of a crime which he did not commit (cliché #2) who is offered a pardon (cliché #3) if he rescues the President’s daughter (cliché #4) from a prison (cliché #5), which happens to be in outer space (I guess that’s not really a cliché) which has been taken over by its prisoners after a riot (cliché #6). Snow is tough (cliché #7), insubordinate (cliché #8), spouts non-stop one-liners (cliché #9), and plays by his own rules (cliché #10). Those in charge loathe the idea of sending him in (cliché #11), but are forced to since he’s the only man available who can get the job done (cliché #12).

Whew! Yeah, I warned you…Lockout leaves no stone unturned when it comes to recycling plot elements from just about every action movie ever made. But otherwise, Lockout is a very straightforward tale; all the characters are simply caricatures you’ve seen billions of times before, the plot contains no twists, turns, or deviations from its narrative, and the action scenes, while solid, never fully manage to impress, partly due to the Lockout’s somewhat low-budget feel.

Not that’s there’s anything wrong about being low-budget, but when you overextend yourself beyond what your budget can accurately portray, you run the risk of heading into SyFy Original Movie territory, which is a place you don’t wanna be. Lockout actually mostly manages to look pretty impressive from a visual standpoint despite its $20 million budget, but it’s uneven; sometimes it also looks cheap. Meanwhile The Raid, which cost much less to produce, nonetheless looks consistently better because it’s low budget was dispersed into a production more realistic when considering the money available. Instead of an expensive CG space station, we have a run-down building, and the money is spent in ways more advantageous to the production.

Likewise, where Lockout and The Raid both are driven by simple plots, The Raid also works better in this respect due to the fact that the limited storyline enabled the filmmakers to run wild with inventive fight and stunt scenes without having to give each one context; sometimes working with less enables you to do more. Lockout, however, seems hampered by its simplicity. It delivers good action and fight scenes, but nothing that ever tries to push the envelope. Perhaps it’s because it’s not a film made with a cast of crazy Indonesians willing to throw themselves headfirst into walls and off of balconies, or perhaps it’s because Lockout is such a slave to the genre conventions that it’s following, but it’s bare-bones plot comes across as sluggish and predictable without the exhilarating combat delivered with nonstop intensity by The Raid. Instead, the gaps between fights just come across as filler instead of something driving a good narrative. Hell, I don’t think The Raid had ANY gaps.

Don’t get me wrong…Lockout is a good, solid action movie with a neat science fiction twist. But it’s so weighed down with following every action cliché ever conceived that it never really becomes engaging, because you feel like you’re watching every old-school action film ever made rolled up into a package that brings nothing new to the table. Plus, it had the misfortune of being reviewed by me mere days after watching The Raid, and ANY action movie would suffer in comparison in that case.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Okay, I’m cutting to the chase with this review because I want to tell you all about how awesome The Raid: Redemption is. First off, there are three things that my long-time readers are all too well aware of: 1.) I love action movies. 2.) 99.9% of modern action movies are limp, pathetic, and boring. 3.) 99.5% of these limp, pathetic, and boring action movies are American-made.

Yes, although we American proudly produced the finest examples of celluloid bloodletting and dismemberment known to mankind in the glory days of the 1980’s, since then big-budget Hollywood studios have been watering down their product, adding in unnecessary things like sub-plots, merciful heroes that have consciences and feelings, and – worst of all – lulls in the dealing of death and destruction that sometimes can last 20 minutes or more of running time. In the spirit of 80’s Action Movies, these are crimes of the highest order.

However, various foreign-made action flicks have been taking up the slack in terms of utter violence and ruthlessness…the most recent examples have been French director Pierre Morel with his amazing one-two punch of Taken and From Paris With Love, who films with protagonists that not only match the vicious stars of 80’s bloodletting in terms of ruthlessness, but in some ways even EXCEEDED them.

And now, the king of them all has surfaced…and from the most unlikely of places- Indonesia. Yes, an Indonesian action film, exclusively starring Indonesians, and made by a Welsh director. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the new king of modern action films- The Raid: Redemption. It has almost no plot. It has almost no dialogue. No comical sidekicks. No heroes that launch into deep, introspective looks into their soul about all the killing they’ve been doing.

What is does have is action. A beautiful, bone-breaking, non-stop dance of death that starts about maybe 5 minutes into the film and doesn’t really let up until the end credits. There might be one or two scenes where people take a break to talk for a few seconds, but that’s only so the audience doesn’t go into cardiac arrest. I mean, there’s only so much excitement we can take, and The Raid: Redemption just about finds our limits for such an experience.

Okay, the plot, such as it is, goes like this: SWAT team invades a 15-story building belonging to bad guys, fighting their way up, floor-by-floor. That’s it. Seriously. And I know you’re thinking that’s pretty thin, even for an action movie, aren’t you? How can that possibly fuel an entire movie? Trust me, it does; there’s not a boring second in The Raid: Redemption. Not one.

The Raid (the word “Redemption” was added to the American release for some copyright reason) stars actor Iko Uwais and highlights an Indonesian martial art known as Pencak Silat, which seems in many ways similar to Muay Thai, but perhaps even faster and with even more emphasis on offense. The movie (which is subtitled in English) starts out with typical gunplay as the SWAT team breaches the building and begins securing it one floor at a time on their way to get to the main boss at the top floor, just like in a videogame.

But things aren’t what they first seem- the situation quickly spirals out of control and the bad guys get the upper hand, and soon guns are eschewed in favor of brutal hand-to-hand combat in scenes that are inventive, brutal, masterfully choreographed, expertly filmed and edited, and insanely intense. Honestly, I can’t remember the last time a movie literally almost had me out of breath. Watching this The Raid is good cardio!

And yet, even with all the violence, the film still manages to have likable characters…well, the few that survive, anyway. Iko Uwais plays a member of the SWAT team who has a pregnant wife at home, and…well, we don’t really care about that. He only really becomes engaging when he’s jamming people’s necks through broken door frames. And DAMN, is he good at it.

And yes, your eyes aren’t deceiving you- I have given The Raid my coveted 4-star rating, something that, out of nearly 200 Long Island Exchange movie reviews, I’ve only given to one other movie: Stephen King’s The Mist (although, in retrospect, I should have given that one three-and-a-half…WALL-E, on the other hand, deserved four, but didn’t get it at the time. Ah, hindsight). Bear in mind, however, I’m giving it four stars based SOLELY on its merits as an action movie…if you’re not a fan of the genre, subtract maybe a star or two, depending on your tolerance for blistering death.

Seriously, forget the upcoming Expendables 2. There’s no way it can compare to The Raid, even with Arnold getting out of his rocking chair for one last go at recapturing his bloody 80’s nostalgia
before retirement. Purely from an action standpoint, The Raid: Redemption is the best movie I’ve seen in years. If you even have a passing interest in action/martial arts movies, this is an absolute must-see.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Honestly, when reviewing Wrath of the Titans, the sequel of Clash of the Titans, I could have gone back to my review of the 2010 original (itself a remake of classic the 80’s film) and simply cut and pasted the text into this very spot. And, with very few alterations, that review would be pretty much spot-on as far as how I feel about this movie as well.

However, posting my old review wouldn’t get me paid for this one, so believe me, I will indeed write some original text on Wrath of the Titans today. But, just to get it out of the way, I WILL reprint one blurb from my Clash review that pretty much sums up my overall experience with its sequel: “The Clash of the Titans remake is a decent way to kill time, but not much more. If you’re just looking for some action, it’s a good bet, but just be prepared for a film that doesn’t surprise you or involve you on any emotional level at all. You’ll most likely watch it, leave the theater, and not spend another thought on it as long as you live.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much how I feel about the sequel.

To recap things, Wrath of the Titans continues the saga of Demi-God Perseus (Sam Worthington), the son of Greek God Zeus (Liam Neeson, who is a god in real life…well, at least to me, he is) and a mortal woman who, after his epic quest to defeat the monstrous Kraken ten years earlier, now lives the life of a humble fisherman with his wife and son in some crappy seaside village. One day Zeus pops by for a visit and tells Perseus that the powers of the gods are fading because mankind is growing beyond the need for them. However, the bad part of this is that because their powers are fading, the walls of the underworld prison of Tartarus are crumbling and soon all sorts of crazy monsters will be running around free on Earth. Zeus asks Perseus to gather the world’s armies to help, Perseus doesn’t care, the end.

Well, not quite the end. Zeus’ evil brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and his son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) team up and imprison Zeus, stealing his mighty thunderbolt so they can revive their evil father Kronos in exchange for ensuring their immortality.

Then, as Zeus warned, Tartarus breaks, monsters attack the mortal world, and Perseus goes on a quest to rid the world of the terror unleashed upon it, free Zeus, and defeat evil once and for all.

Honestly, all that back story may sound impressive (or not, your mileage may vary), but in reality, it took up maybe a total combined film-time of maybe five minutes. Wrath of the Titans isn’t about plot or character; it’s about bad actors fighting pretty computer-generated monsters for about an hour-and-a-half.

Now, when I say “bad actors,” please note that I am NOT talking about Liam Neeson. No, he’s great as always, even in paycheck roles like these. Ralph Fiennes is certainly a fine actor as well. Heck, even John Bell, the kid that plays Perseus’ son Helius is pretty much okay. No, no, boys and girls…I am actually referring to one Mr. Sam Worthington. You know, the leading man and top-billed actor of this affair.

In fact, I can say with great certainly that if not for the existence of Channing Tatum, Sam Worthington would most likely be considered this generation’s most wooden actor. By far. His being shoehorned into leading man status by studios is just something I will never understand, and to date, he has lowered the quality of pretty much every movie I’ve seen him in just by his very presence…then he opens his mouth, and it gets worse.

Otherwise, Wrath of the Titans features plenty of fast-paced action scenes with plenty of wacky Greek mythological creatures killing and being killed by Perseus and his cohorts. Even in this era of overblown computer effects, some of the visuals on display here are pretty impressive, as is the action itself. But then it all comes back to the lack of development of anything resembling a solid story or characters that you care about, and as a result, it’s as engaging as sitting there and watching while someone else play God of War on your Playstation 3. It’s cool, but not very engaging.

Actually, that’s the perfect closing statement about Wrath of the Titans, for all you folks who like to skip to the end of reviews for the wrap-up: It’s cool, but not very engaging. Now go back up and read the rest of my review!

(Long Island, N.Y.) For me, The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the popular “young adult” sci-fi novel by Suzanne Collins, is a failure on many levels. I can’t even say that its wasted potential, since any shred of potential it displays is blatantly ripped off from other, better movies.

At its heart, one could best describe The Hunger Games as a mish-mash of Battle Royale, The Running Man, La Cage aux Folles, and Twilight. Here’s the plot: mankind destroys itself in a war, then rebuilds into a perfect society called “Panem” where everyone is rich and dresses like drag queens. Outside the walls of this bizarre utopia are 12 districts where all the scrubs of humanity dwell, barely eking out a living. For the past 74 years, Panem has been holding an annual event called The Hunger Games, where two representatives from each of the 12 districts, ages 12 to 18, are randomly selected to compete in a contest where they are all basically turned out into the wilderness to fight to the death (just like in the Japanese film Battle Royale), while everyone watched on TV (just like in The Running Man). Why? Beats me…while the opening narration claims the contest keeps the districts content, no one outside of the wealthy kooks of Panem seems to enjoy the carnage involved in kids lopping each other’s heads off.

We are then introduced to Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a teen girl who regularly sneaks out of her home district to bow hunt in order to feed her starving mother and younger sister. When her sister is chosen for the latest edition of The Hunger Games, Katniss volunteers to go in her place, something never done before in the history of the games. From there, Katniss is gathered with her fellow district combatants, given

2 weeks of basic combat/survival lessons for dummies, and turned loose against her peers. Who will win? Who will care? Not me, that’s for sure.

Honestly, even if extremely derivative, the story of The Hunger Games could have still managed to have been interesting if the writers had attempted to inject even one drop of depth into the script. When I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 80’s Action hit The Running Man possessed more thought and biting social commentary than The Hunger Games, you KNOW something’s wrong. Whereas The Running Man (which is awesome) featured a huge amount of satire on government cover-ups and mankind’s obsession with violence and entertainment, The Hunger Games just features an annoying subplot where all of its characters are obsessed with getting the idiotic residents of Panem to “like” them; it seems that getting people to “like” (and, in turn, sponsor) you offers some benefit during the contest, but it never amounts to anything whatsoever, aside from maybe a can of soup when painkillers and bandages would be more helpful. Nonetheless, we’re treated to stupid scenes where Katniss wonders how to achieve this likeability, only to be told that famous, time-honored movie cliché by her fashion designer (??) who dresses like Dennis Rodman circa 1997: “Just be yourself!”

The Running Man also featured rampant government propaganda to quell any uprisings in the public sector, and an ongoing, underground resistance movement determined to end the evil of the contest. In The Hunger Games, there’s none of this. The government does whatever they want, and the districts (and especially Katniss) just brainlessly go along without a single complaint (well, there IS one minor riot when one contestant is killed, but it’s really no big deal). Katniss seems more worried about getting people to “like” her and showing off her pretty fire-spewing dress (yes, she wears a dress that spews fire) than the injustices perpetrated upon the residents of the 12 districts, let alone doing anything even remotely subversive about it. I really fail to see why so many teenage girls love this dumb, generic character of Katniss.

Actually, it’s never even explained WHY the various districts tolerate The Hunger Games, or what the benefits are to the winners. Whereas the society depicted in The Running Man gathers together every week to watch their favorite program on giant outdoor television screens, cheering like maniacs and betting on the outcomes, the citizens in The Hunger Games…well, they ALSO gather together to watch the program on giant outdoor television screens, except without all the cheering and betting (actually, quite the opposite- most of them seem rather upset). Yes, novel author Suzanne Collins insists that she had never heard of films like Battle Royale and The Running Man before penning The Hunger Games, yet she somehow manages to lift whole scenes nearly intact from both of them. Odd.

Another fact that’s never explained about the contest in The Hunger Games is why the ages of the contestants range from 12 through 18. I mean, within the scope of a competition, it makes absolutely no sense to expect a 12 year-old child, in any way whatsoever, to be able to take on an 18 year-old adult; I know I could CERTAINLY beat the living crap out of any 12 year-old that came along in MY neighborhood. It would make far more sense to have all the participants in The Hunger Games the same age; there’s no reason to include children…oh, wait, yes there is. If there weren’t cute, adorable, harmless little kiddies involved in the contest, you couldn’t artificially

generate a big, emotional scene involving one being killed off, because we all know that it’s especially upsetting when a child gets whacked in a story, isn’t it? Especially when the filmmakers chose the most beautiful, innocent-looking, kind-hearted actress they could find, right? It certainly beats having to actually write boring stuff like character development to get you to care about someone when they can just jam a spear through some soulless child model instead, huh?

Oh, and Woody Harrelson is in this, and plays his usual goofy self in a role where he’s supposed to be a previous victor of the games who coaches new Katniss. If that’s a draw or

a deterrent to seeing this movie depends solely on you and your views of Woody Harrelson. Oh, and did I mention that there’s a steamy love triangle between Katniss and two fellas from her district that’s sure to heat up in the sequels?

How original!

Hey…in all my ranting, I haven’t once mentioned the quality of the action scenes in this movie- they’re abysmal. Plagued by shaking cameras, fast cuts galore, and separated by long-boring stretches, The Hunger Game’s action scenes fail on a level equally matched by every other aspect of the film. This movie can’t even boast a villain half as devious and hateful as Richard Dawson was in The Running Man…all we get here is Donald Sutherland sleepwalking through his role and the kid from American Beauty sporting an (admittedly pretty cool) satanic beard.

In the end, The Hunger Games is a watered-down rip-off of far superior films. Its characters are developed less than a polio victim’s legs; its thoughts and ideas are poorly fleshed out and incomplete; and its action scenes are limp and weak and

there’s a near complete lack of humor in any form. A

friend of mine argued against these facts by wondering if a lot of the original book’s content was lost in the translation to the screen, until I countered that the author was one of the screenwriters as well. So much for that idea.

The Hunger Games has all the attributes of a manufactured corporate franchise that someone in a suit is

trying to desperately kick-start, and I’m having none of it. This movie sucks…which mean everyone will flock to see it, ensuring that the next two novels in the trilogy are filmed and become blockbusters as well. *sigh*

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s always a letdown when a comedy starts out great, only to take a nosedive about halfway through. Such is the case with 21 Jump Street, a film based on the old 80’s TV series about young undercover police officers that featured Johnny Depp in one of his earliest roles. Now, Depp is out (well, he does have a cameo), and in his place we have Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, which is actually NOT the instant death you’d first expect such a pairing to be, shockingly enough.

But, despite their best efforts, Hill and Tatum can’t carry a film based on an old TV show that no one cares about, or a script as mediocre as this one gets.

Honestly, does the name “21 Jump Street” really ring any bells today? I think this rampant mining of movie and television history for film ideas is less a result of marketing executives attempting to tap into nostalgia and more just a lack of any new ideas among the collective monkeys who write scripts for Hollywood. There are so many original scripts and film treatments drifting around that don’t fit into established norms that deserve a chance, but the big studios are stuck in this rut of big stars, big bucks, and big name recognition. And this will continue until many expensive “blockbusters” take a nosedive at the box office ala Disney’s John Carter (although, honestly, that particular movie didn’t deserve the financial death it suffered). Maybe then some bigwig will get desperate enough to scale back the budgets, hire some nobodies, and take a chance on an unproven concept.

Until then, we’re getting stuff like 21 Jump Street shoved down our throats, though among the current flood of reboots/remakes it’s among the better ones…until it runs out of gas at the mid-point, that is. Acting as a continuation of the TV series as opposed to a reboot, Hill and Tatum play Morton Schmidt and Greg Jenko respectively, two rookie cops who get recruited into the revived 21 Jump Street division, which uses youthful-looking officers to infiltrate schools and whatnot.

Despite not quite passable at teens, the duo are assigned an undercover beat in the local high school, with the two posing as students in order to take down a drug ring. Morton, a brainy geek, and Greg, a dim jock, make a good pair; they’re each able to help the other out with their considerable shortcomings.

The two start making progress on their investigation, while basically breaking every rule they’re supposed to be upholding while they’re at it, including the ones regarding beating up underage kids or giving them loads of booze and weed. But hey, it’s the loose cannons who are the ones who get the results in movies like these, right?

Like I said earlier in this review, 21 Jump Street is actually pretty funny at first. Once scene in particular where Greg punches out a kid who takes exception with his environmentally-unsafe, gas-guzzling muscle car almost made me spit out my Diet Coke. What made it even funnier is that Greg specially picked that car for the undercover assignment for its perceived “cool” factor- it seems that Greg is unaware of the big “green” and “anti-bullying” sentiments that have been developing in high schools in the years since he graduated. Right before blasting the kid in his face, Greg has the following exchange with him:

“How many miles to the gallon does that car get? Ten?” says the student, in horror. “SEVEN!” Greg proudly replies.

Shortly after, the kid is on the ground, and as a result, everyone in school hates Greg the bully, so it’s up to the nerdy Morton to pave the way into the graces of the popular kids. That’s a nice twist, there.

Alas, that level of humor (such as it is) slowly starts to drain away, leaving us with a film that pretty much ceases being entertaining and amusing by its final act. It’s like the writers just blew their wads early instead of spacing the humor out more evenly.

But overall, 21 Jump Street is worth a look if you’re needing a solid comedy fix. Jonah Hill is slowly branching out from his stereotypical role of a fat nerd, actually losing weight for this role and playing a THIN nerd for once. In a landscape where young actors pick one gimmick and drive it into the ground, it’s nice to see someone try and shake things up a bit. As for Channing Tatum, I’ve gone on record in previous reviews ripping into him for being quite possibly the most wooden actor in Hollywood since that magical cigar store Indian came to life in Creepshow 2. But while he will never convince me that he has what it takes to be passable even as an average actor, he DOES seem to have a knack for comedy, actually cutting loose a bit and having fun with this role. Rapper Ice Cube plays the Stupid Chief who barks orders at Hill and Tatum throughout the movie and, well…he’s Ice Cube, what do you want me to say? He might be the only actor alive who has less range than Tatum, but for what he does here, he does it well enough.

So, go and see 21 Jump Street if you’re in need of a few laughs. But if you feel the need to get up for a bathroom break halfway through, consider not going back. You’ll have better memories of the movie that way.

(Long Island, N.Y.) You know, people are always ready to hate when one of the big boys takes a fall in Hollywood. Everyone was writing off John Carter, Disney’s big $250 million dollar sci-fi/fantasy epic, as the next Ishtar before it was even released. Based on the first of a series of novels penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs way back in 1912 (the first of the “Barsoom” series, titled “A Princess of Mars”), John Carter is the live action directorial debut of Andrew Stanton of Pixar fame; the man who had previously given mankind the precious, undeserved gifts known as WALL-E and Finding Nemo… two of the finest animated films ever made.

WALL-E in particular is an all-time favorite of mine…I remember back when I reviewed it that I had just given my first four-star review to Frank Darabont’s horror flick The Mist, and a mere three-and-a-half stars to Stanton’s WALL-E. Ah, hindsight…I’ve said this before, but I should have transposed those scores, or at least just given WALL-E four stars of its own. They’re both amazing movies, but the emotional resonance of WALL-E edges out The Mist just a little,

in my opinion.

Anyway, as I said, John Carter is Andrew Stanton’s first gig directing flesh-and-blood actors. Don’t get me wrong, there’s lots and lots (and lots and lots) of computer generated people in this movie as well, but give the guy a break, okay? Maybe in his next movie he’ll move on to a cast that’s maybe 75% real.

Now, as well read as I am, I’ve never actually read any of Burroughs’ novels (although I did just download “A Princess of Mars” for free on my Android Kindle app…yes, it’s free, go check it out), but I am aware of their esteemed reputation, even if the Barsoom series would be considered a tad obscure by today’s movie-going public. But from what I’ve heard, Stanton’s adaptation is fairly faithful, which appears to be its strength…and its’ failing.

The movie is set during the Civil War era, and revolves around the eponymous John Carter (Taylor Kitsch, who I only remember as Gambit in the crappy Wolverine movie), a Confederate Army captain who mysteriously finds himself transported to the planet Mars (or “Barsoom,” as the inhabitants call it), where he is forced to take part in conflicts that are tearing the planet apart. Along the way, Carter gets

mixed up with Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), and decides, like most hero types eventually do, to save the planet.

Now, you’d think that a simple human wouldn’t really be all that pivotal to world events when he’s surrounded by giant four-armed Martians, but Carter’s got a similar deal to Superman: due to Mars’ lower gravity and Carter’s greater bone density, he has super-human strength and jumping abilities, which is pretty cool. But in contrast, I guess Martians would be pretty wimpy on Earth, huh?

Back on track…the world of Mars…er, Barsoom, is brought to life with a rather stunning mixture of live-action actors and locations mixed with a generous helping of

expertly-rendered CG. The various computer generated creatures, vehicles, and landscape embellishments all blend together seamlessly with the practical elements- you never once get the feeling that these are just actors standing in front of a green screen. Some of the design choices, however, while true to Burroughs’ novels, might be considered suspect by some, evoking far too many deeply buried memories of the horrid Star Wars prequels. But there’s no denying that, visually, John Carter is beautiful…but EVERY movie is beautiful these days, and it takes a truly great story populated with likable characters to really put a movie over the top, and in that respect, John Carter stumbles a bit.

Andrew Stanton’s been taking a lot of heat for John Carter’s apparent failure at the box office…after

all, if someone’s backing your picture to the tune of $250 large, it’s a given that they expect massive box office numbers right out of the gate. That’s a huge load of pressure to put on someone, and for the most part, Stanton (who also co-wrote the script) did a fine job directing the movie. He’s obviously a master storyteller, but where the movie falters is in its complexity; there’s just too much going on, to the point that the movie becomes murky and hard to follow.

Breathtaking action scenes are separated by long stretches of tedium, and it’s not clear what age range Stanton was aiming

for- while he succeeded in crafting tales that appealed to both kids and adults (without alienating either) with WALL-E and Finding Nemo, John Carter feels awkward when attempting to adhere to its PG-13 rating, since it otherwise feels like a children’s movie; it is without any of the subtle sophistication that would appeal to a grownup, making me think that maybe they should have just gone for a full-on PG rating instead.

Taylor Kitsch, who I found to be horrible in Wolverine, actually does a solid job here as John Carter. He’s athletic, charismatic, and…well, I have no other words that end with “tic,” but suffice it to say that he’s good. Lynn Collins as the Princess of Mars does an amazing job of looking hot and half-naked, but thankfully she’s a fine actress as well, or all that would be for naught. She also shares some good chemistry with Kitsch, and seeing as how the central theme of John Carter is romance, that’s a good thing…certainly better than if they started stabbing each other to death on-screen, I would think.

With a backing cast consisting of Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Dominic West, and Mark Strong, John Carter pretty much delivers when it comes to the acting and eye candy. It’s a shame that the story is such a mess, and that the film itself doesn’t as seamlessly walk the fence between adult and child fare like Stanton’s previous works do. Don’t get me wrong, John Carter is still a more entertaining and rewarding experience than 99% of the crap that’s released nowadays…even though he’s not on his “A” game, Stanton still proves himself a superior writer and director who imbues his characters with memorable personalities.

Despite its problems, John Carter never ceases to feel like a true attempt to create something special, as opposed to just being a typical soulless, focus group-tested, by-the-numbers Hollywood attempt to kick-start a franchise. And for that reason alone, it’s worth going to see it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I’m sure by now you’ve heard that Project X, the product of first-time director Nima Nourizadeh and starring a trio of relative unknowns, is rather reprehensible from a moral standpoint, and for the most part, the film’s detractors are right. Project X is pretty much packed to the gills with highly unlikable characters, blatant misogyny, and rampant drug use without any repercussions (physical or legal), and all these unsavory elements are tied together by one of the most clichéd and tired story-lines ever conceived.

And yeah, watching all this left a bad taste in my mouth, which would normally make me feel like an old fogey if not for the fact that almost everyone else in the movie review biz is complaining about it as well. Now, normally my reviews are a little out of step with the established norms, but frankly, it fills me with a bit of relief this time that there are plenty of people out there taking issue with Project X’s pointless, overly hedonistic nature.

However, I’d also be lying if I said I didn’t find myself laughing here and there throughout this film. Mind you, I’m not saying that Project X (which is NOT a remake of the 80’s Matthew Broderick space-chimp flick, a joke that was old the first time I heard it) is a GOOD movie…I’m just saying that it’s an okay flick with some solid chuckles that tries way too hard to be edgy and cool. Way, WAY too hard.

As I said somewhere earlier in this review (I’m not sure where, but this is only my fourth paragraph…it can’t be THAT hard to find), the plot of Project X is as overused as they come- three high school losers, Thomas (Thomas Mann), Costa (Oliver Cooper) and J.B. (Jonathan Daniel Brown), throw a party in an attempt to be cool and score with girls. That’s it. But, of course, the party quickly gets out of control and basically destroys the entire neighborhood they hold it in, all while an army of teens are running all over and having sex, taking drugs, destroying property, and generally acting pretty much like little degenerates, to the point that even the local SWAT team can’t handle them.

DAMN, I really just said that, didn’t I? Am I old? Or just mad that I never attended a party like that? Granted, I don’t think anyone really has (Project X IS just a movie, after all), but if such a party were ever to be actually held and I found myself invited, I’d like to think that I wouldn’t run headlong into the middle of it in my underwear, waving a bottle of Jack in one hand and a fistful of cocktail weenies in the other.

Okay…I probably would.

Anyway, if Project X boasted main characters that weren’t such annoying little idiots, and if their horrible actions had any consequences for them whatsoever, it might be easier to overlook some of the extremes that the film goes to. But our three leads, discovered by the producers during a nationwide “talent” search specifically looking for people with little to no acting experience whatsoever, are bratty, devoid of charm, and just not likable in any way, with Oliver Cooper’s character being especially deserving of a slow and painful demise by way of acid bath or firing squad.

Oh, and did I mention that Project X belongs directly in the “found footage” genre? In other words, the movie is supposed to be comprised of camcorder video recorded by the teens as they just party, party, party. Now, the recent sci-fi film Chronicle found a way to delve into the found footage genre and do a very fresh take on it. Project X doesn’t- it’s just a grainy, shaky eyesore full of forced situations where the dude with the camera happens to be in the right place at the right time, all of the time (and the overall level of film-making and editing on display is rather amateurish). *Yawn*

Still, like I said, there are some laughs to be had in Project X, and in the end, this saves it from the wrath of a Chris Boyle Long Island Exchange Movie Review one-star rating, and it finds itself elevated to, say, a one-and-a-half star rating instead. Hey, it’s better than nothing…if it was as morally evil as it is but with NO laughs, I might have had to issue my first zero-star review. Still, I can dream of a day when a film will be bad enough to make that happen…

(Long Island, N.Y.) Taking the pro wrestling world by storm, Dwayne Johnson (AKA The Rock) left at the top of his game to pursue leading man roles in Hollywood, and with his charisma and impressive physical attributes, he seemed poised to take over the action movie crown for this generation. Hell, even the Austrian Oak himself, the godly ARNOLD, passed the torch to Johnson via a cameo in one of his early films. So, with all that going for him, did Johnson find a way to screw it all up? You betcha.

While initially making a few solid yet unremarkable action flicks and even being cast against type in a few ensemble pieces, Johnson soon tired of success and acclaim and started picking some of the worst scripts imaginable, many of them lame kiddie movies made by the Walt Disney. For a while there, it was clear that Johnson was purely out to make a buck while taking the express train to Scrubsville; clearly, a Syfy Channel movie of the week appearance was soon in the cards.

However, Johnson’s career is in something of an upswing lately. He’s cut down on the inane kid movies and embraced more mature, action-oriented fare once again- killing, cussing, and just generally being a bad-ass. Perhaps he stopped picking random scripts out of a barrel while blindfolded? Who knows, but while Johnson is making an attempt to actually live up to his huge potential now, it’s clear that he still wishes to maintain his relationship with Disney, hence the subject of today’s review: Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, a film that, while geared more for children, still actually manages to entertain those of us who are actually potty-trained as well.

When I first saw the poster for Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, I thought the “2” was an attempt to hip-hop up the title or something stupid like that. However, in reality this flick is supposed to be a sequel to a 2008 Brendan Fraser movie called Journey to the Center of The Earth, which I never saw (but I’m sure it had precious little to do with the classic Jules Verne novel it took its name from). Anyway, since I never saw the 2008 movie, I’m not sure how Journey 2 is a sequel, since Fraser is out, The Rock is in, and I don’t know if any of the other cast members from the original returned or not.

But it doesn’t really matter if you saw the first movie, since the story here is as simple as they come: Sean (Josh Hutcherson) has a new step-daddy named Hank (Johnson). They don’t get along (I was waiting for the inevitable cry of “YOU’RE NOT MY REAL FATHER!” at some point, but sadly, it didn’t happen). One day Sean gets an enigmatic, secret coded message and, in the spirit of bonding with his annoying twerp of a stepson, Hank uses his Navy training to help him decipher it. The message reveals that Sean’s explorer grandfather has discovered…Mysterious Island! Yes, the very same one from the Jules Verne novel of the same name.

Anyway, here’s the thing that had me confused (besides everything else)…they don’t explain ANYTHING to the audience. I’m not joking when I say the scene plays out exactly like this:

Sean: “Wow, grandpa discovered Mysterious Island! I have to go there right now!”

Hank: “Wait a minute young man…I’m coming too!”

And they go! It’s never explained what Mysterious Island is or what they expect to find there, or even why it’s so damn mysterious to begin with! Heck, we’re barely even introduced to the characters themselves before the adventure gets rolling…seriously, it’s like an ADD-afflicted three-year-old wrote the script and just couldn’t wait to get to the good bits. The movie very much depends on the fact that A) you’re intimately familiar with the works of Jules Verne, and B) you’re intimately familiar with the previous movie. Luckily, I’ve read quite a bit of Verne, but I inwardly pitied audience members who hadn’t…at least the ones that actually care about silly little things like a reasonable plot.

But once you get past this bit of juvenile nonsense and our duo arrives at Mysterious Island via a dim helicopter pilot named Gabato (Luis Guzmán) and his daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) and meets up with Sean’s grandpa (Michael Caine), the movie actually turns out to be quite fun and even charming to a certain degree. Mysterious Island is home to all sorts of wacked-out creatures and stunningly beautiful environments, and the CG used to bring them all to life is actually pretty convincing as our gang traverses the land and gets into all sorts of adventures. However, things get real when it’s discovered that, out of the thousands of years that Mysterious Island has existed, THIS is the day that it’s going to sink into the ocean (huh?), and the gang has to discover a way off the island before it’s too late! But wait, don’t they have a helicopter to escape in? Oh, yeah…I didn’t mention that Gabato’s helicopter had crashed when they first got there. Well, it did. They’re stuck.

I could go on about how nice the abundance of CG in this movie looks, but I could say that about 99% of the movies made nowadays, so what’s the point? Instead, let’s ignore that, and the borderline-retarded story, and instead talk briefly about what makes Journey 2 work as shockingly well as it does: the actors. Simply put, Dwayne Johnson has charisma. Even in his worst films, he’s very likable, but when paired with some greats like Michael Caine and Luis Guzmán (all of whom have excellent chemistry with one another), you have a film that could have been very generic, but instead gets you all warm and fuzzy. Shocking, I know!

Plus, Johnson was clearly bulking up for the new G.I. Joe movie he’s starring in while filming Journey 2, as he’s FREAKING HUGE here. There’s actually this bizarre scene where people are bouncing wild berries off The Rock’s pecs, because…well, I’m not sure why. The whole scene was actually disturbing and weird, actually. But the point is: he’s an all-the-way big dude.

I can’t end this review without mentioning the short film that plays before this movie. It’s a Looney Tunes number called Daffy’s Rhapsody. It’s a CG cartoon but here’s the kicker: the voices where actually done by the late, great original voice of the Looney Tunes himself, Mel Blanc! Turns out that he originally recorded the skit in the early 1950s for some kids’ album; the filmmakers cleaned up the audio, rendered stars Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd, and the end result is pretty darn awesome. Seeing Daffy in 3D was actually kind of weird (they even rendered his feathers), but in a very cool way. Daffy’s Rhapsody brought back the feel of vintage Looney Tunes in a way that modern attempts done from scratch just haven’t been able to capture, and I’d almost say Journey 2 was worth the price of admission alone for its inclusion.

Actually, no, it’s not, as 3D movie ticket prices are astronomical, but it’s certainly worth sneaking into before seeing another movie you’re more interested in that’s starting at about the same time, and they leaving when it’s over.

But that’s not taking anything away from Journey 2: The Mysterious Island itself…it’s a charming and enjoyable experience, albeit a very simple and brain-dead one. The cast is good, and visuals great, and the action is a blast. It’s an incredibly solid family film; nothing more, nothing less. And it’s a good career move for Dwayne Johnson…hopefully the new G.I. Joe movie he has coming out in June of this year will continue the trend.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Hello, children. Today’s review is Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, the Nicolas Cage-starring sequel to 2007’s Ghost Rider, itself a Marvel Comics-based tale of a stunt motorcycle driver who becomes possessed by a demon and the shenanigans that ensue. Now, I’m pretty sure I wrote a review for 2007’s Ghost Rider back in the day. Hold on a sec, let me check my review archive… Looking… Okay, turns out I DID review it. Let’s refresh ourselves and re-read it…

Hmm…okay. Turns out I gave Ghost Rider an average, two-star review. If memory serves, I recall it being somewhat entertaining and fun yet cheesy and forgettable at the same time. I can also say that the sequel, with Cage reprising his role as the flaming (literally as in “on fire,” not…oh, never mind), skull-faced agent of Hell out to punish the wicked (why would an agent of Hell punish the wicked?), is pretty much inferior in every way. In fact, if I had to sum it up in one word, that word would have to be “boring.”

If you didn’t see the original, don’t fret- Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance does a fine job of recapping its origin tale: stuntman Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage in his usual full-on psycho mode) is bummed out ’cause his dad is dying of…I don’t remember of what, but he’s dying, and Johnny is bummed, like I said. Satan tells Johnny that he’ll save his dad if he signs over his soul, which Johnny stupidly does. Dad dies anyway, and Johnny is, once again, bummed. That is, until Satan sticks a demon into Johnny’s body that causes him to transform into a fiery skeleton biker dude known as the Ghost Rider whenever evil is afoot, bringing punishment and retribution to those who do wrong. This, as I pointed out earlier in this review, makes no sense. I mean, shouldn’t Satan want Ghosty to strangle puppies and bad stuff like that? I don’t get it.

Anyway, a million superhero movie clichés later, and we find ourselves in sequel-land. Johnny has moved to some remote part of Europe to keep humanity out of harm’s way of his sinister alter-ego (even though he just punishes the naughty). However, in a rather bland affair, we discover that Satan has fathered a human son and now seeks to pass on his powers and life essence to this child so he can walk the Earth with all of his dastardly powers intact for the first time ever. Some guy finds Johnny, tells him if he saves the kid his peeps can remove his curse, Johnny accepts, is betrayed, loses his powers, blah, blah, blah. If it wasn’t for the fact that I had to keep rousing my friend from his slumber over and over I might have fallen asleep in the theater as well while watching this.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (the duo responsible for the bat poop-crazy Crank movies), yet their usual manic style is restrained during this particular outing by a PG-13 rating and a rather lame script. Liberal amounts of inspiration seems to have been taken from Terminator 2 in regards to the overall feel of the film, its settings, and even the bonding between Johnny and the cardboard cut-out kid, but it’s nowhere near as exciting or as cool as when James Cameron did it back in 1991.

Honestly, I really did find Spirit of Vengeance to be a bit tedious. There are long, bland stretches between the action scenes, but when one finally shows up, they’re usually somewhat awkward and unsatisfying. Ghost Rider’s rather boring methods of attack seem to consist solely of whacking people with chains (causing them to turn to ash) or staring into their eyes while holding them close, like a gentle yet firm lover. I think he’s supposed to be eating their souls when he’s doing this, but there’s this one scene where he does it to this guy for what feels like ten minutes, tenderly cradling his face in his hands all the while, and it comes across more like a weird love scene than anything else. But at least the part where he transforms some giant piece of construction equipment into a fiery death machine was pretty cool.

As for the acting, Nicolas Cage seems to understand the public’s view of him being a weirdo who spends most of his screen time screaming and generally being bonkers, and does his best to live up to that rep here. It comes across as quite forced in this instance, actually. Christopher Lambert pops up in what amounts to a cameo, and is completely wasted. I read on Wikipedia that he had to undergo three months of sword training for his part in the film, which amounted to raising a sword above his head and then NOT swinging it. Oh boy! No one else in the cast really stands out in any way at all except Idris Elba (who plays a Frenchman who, of course, loves wine), who should be starring in better movies than this.

Visually, the effects work is solid but not remarkable. Ghost Rider’s flaming skull looks pretty good most of the time and little touches like the surface of his leather jacket and pants bubbling from the heat he gives off are kinda neat. But the physics of his chain attacks are just wonky-looking and Ghosty himself doesn’t always gel with his live-action surroundings; I seem to remember him looking a bit more realistic in the original movie, although I do dig his grittier, grimier look this time around.

Oh, and the showing I watched was in 3D, but the 3D effect in this movie is completely non-existent, worthless, and not even remotely worth the small fortune that it adds to your ticket price. I CAN NOT wait for this stupid 3D gimmick to end, and the sooner it does, the better. So, if you loved, loved, loved 2007’s Ghost Rider and have been waiting for what seems like ages for a sequel, I can’t say your wait was worth it. Spirit of Vengeance is plodding, nondescript, and most of all, not fun. Skip it.