The End of the Page

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - Loud, Proud and Utterly Ridiculous

Look out! The critics are coming!!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Everyone strap in, because we are about to go on a familiar ride, one we all took last summer and now we look back on with a mixture of sadness and nausea. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is already breaking records and is primed to repeat the scenario of last summer’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The spotlights are pointed to the ring and we all wait for the inevitable three-way battle between the critics, the movie fans and the head honcho himself, Michael Bay. This flick already grossed more than $60 million dollars in one full day of release, which gives it the auto-greenlight for a third chapter in the robotic roadhouse, but as fast as the ticket sales went through the roof, the reviews have mostly plunged into the floor, many of them nailing similar points and themes running through the movie. I can’t honestly say mine will sound all that different, but you never know, I may crack an original joke here or there.

Revenge of the Fallen continues the mission of the Autobots and their decision to help the people of Earth rid themselves of the terrors of the Decepticons. Unbeknownst to our shiny, metallic heroes, the Decepticons are on their own mission to find a long lost source of Energon, the fuel that keeps them going, and with it revive Megatron, bring their supreme leader, “The Fallen”, back to power and blow up the sun (that’s one hell of a daily checklist). Dragged back into the middle of the fray is Sam Witwicky who finds himself battling with his own mind and a frantic jumble of ancient robotic lettering, possibly leading the way to an ancient machine which will help in the destruction of the sun. It’s a chaotic fight to the finish in a battle not just for the planet, but the entire future of the Transformers race.

There are many who will argue that this movie shouldn’t be held to any real criticism. We should just go in expecting the story and plot to be nothing more than linking posts between the battery of beautiful robot beatdowns. The CGI is amazing and the transformers are all incredibly well-animated, but the drawback is we’ve seen this all before in the first flick. So the opening argument doesn’t hold. All in all the fight scenes began to wear thin towards the end of what was already a needlessly long movie (clocking in at two-and-a-half hours). Remember, this is Transformers here, not the futuristic version of The Godfather. Numerous scenes could have been cut and others drastically shortened in an effort to trim the fat, but the wizards behind the curtain were hell bent on making this one longer, louder and more insane in every respect over the original.

No matter what the movie is about, no matter how fantastic or silly the premise, story is king and it needs due respect, which Mr. Bay and his creative team chose to ignore in an astounding sense. What’s even more shocking about the terrible writing is the duo behind it, now responsible for one of the most disappointing flicks of the summer, is also the same wordsmiths behind Star Trek, without a doubt the best movie of the year so far. They have managed to swing the pendulum of quality from one extreme to the other in a matter of two months. Here’s to hoping their talent follows the laws of physics and swings back once more towards quality and awesomeness as they gather steam for Star Trek 2.

I’m not going to lay out a litany of complaints about the script since that would take up too much time and possibly give me carpel tunnel syndrome, but I will address the controversy surrounding the twin autobots, Skidz and Mudflaps, who are characterized as urban, street talking brothers originally in the form of a beat up Ice Cream truck until they upgrade to newer, slicker looking street cars. These two play directly to the twelve-year-old members of the audience giving them all the comic relief they could ever want, but for anyone out of elementary school the hip-hop heroes were the most racist stereotyping seen in years. It was bad enough when one of them transformed for the first to display a prominent gold tooth jutting out from its bucktoothed mouth, but then the paperthin veil was torn off when both of them shuffle-stepped nervously before admitting they were both illiterate. There’s been a lot of subtle finger pointing going on since the movie released about where these particular character traits came from, whether it was in the original script or changed in production, but so far there is no clear winner in the blame game. To me, it doesn’t matter where it originated, what matters is all the people up the chain who witnessed it, approved it and thought, “Hell yes, that is hilarious.” It was pointed out by another perceptive reviewer that we wouldn’t have even gotten close to seeing these terrible stereotypes if those characters were played by real black actors on screen, but since they were animated robots, suddenly that makes it all peachy keen. At this point with all the cash that will be rolling in this weekend, I predict Mr. Bay and the folks behind the movie to lovingly give the whole racist stereotyping controversy a nice big middle finger and giggle their way to the bank, but I reserve hope that maybe next time around they will think a little more about it before greenlighting characters audiences thought they left in the dark days of cinema.

There were a few glimmers of improvement though and they deserve mention. Shia LeBouf still manages to show his talent even when battling against a terrible script and entire football fields of green screen imagination-land. He’s cemented his star in the blockbuster world, but hopefully it will give him more time and power to make his way back over to drama and indie fare again. If you haven’t already, check out The Battle of Shaker Heights, if only for him, Amy Smart and Shiri Appleby. Josh Duhamel once again gave some true grit, but was barely seen in the overall length of the flick. John Turturro managed to shake of his incessant annoyingness from the first movie and become a reasonable comic foil this time around. Yet, the real surprise and honorable mention must go to Megan Fox. She transformed (pun intended) from the bitchy, unattainable sex-pot into a real person, a young girl with feelings and a cuteness I didn’t expect. She gets a few brief moments in between the massive mayhem to shine just enough to give me and other movie watchers hope that her talent extends farther than her reflection in the mirror.

Recommendation: Bigger doesn’t always mean better and this is silver screen proof. A two-and-a-half hour explosion concert is nothing when not backed up by a worthwhile and legible story. For those thinking IMAX is the way to go, please don’t take any drugs before hand. Your mind will most certainly be beaten into a colorful mush.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Slides Off The Rails

Go ahead, mention “Battlefield Earth” one more time. I dare you!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Remake, rehash, reboot; call it what you want, it all boils down to the same thing, this story has been seen before. Now that doesn’t imply automatic boredom or even a certain level of quality, all it means right off the bat is the audience will be coming in with a particular expectation set by the previous version of the story. How big the expectation is will depend on how popular the original film was and how recently it was in the theaters. Most second chances at the silver screen come more than ten years after the original version, but that gap seems to be closing in the last decade. Maybe it’s a statement about our national attention deficit disorder or it could be a comment on there being a complete lack of new and original ideas.

It also could resonate in our current economic climate as a safer bet in the eyes of the studio. The film has a built in audience, which at least a portion of them will certainly be curious enough to come out and see it in an updated fashion. But, beyond the financial aspect, someone in the studio, whether it be the director or the writer or whomever, must think they have something new to add, some new take on the tale to make it worth all the time and energy to return it to the screen. On occasion they do follow through and allow us to see some entirely new dimension we previously looked right past, but in a number of examples the new version just proves to be flashier CGI and more contemporary actors, nothing at all to do with the story. In the end, the eternal question, looking past the bank accounts, is “Was it worth it?”

In today’s example, I would say not.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an action/thriller about a random New York City subway controller who gets unwillingly pulled into becoming a hostage negotiator when a ransom plan for a carload of subway passengers is hijacked underground. It’s a psychological tug-of-war between a devious and determined kidnapper and a seemingly moral citizen who can’t help but try and do the right thing. Each step along the way leads to bigger consequences as lives are lost and the money in play skyrockets until the whole world is tuning in to see how it will all end.

The original version of this was released in 1974 starring Walter Matthau as the unassuming hero and Hector Elizondo as one of the gang of hijackers. There was also a TV movie version in 1998 that tossed in Edward James Olmos as the good guy and Vincent D’Onofrio and Donnie Wahlberg as members of the gang. This new millennium version posts Denzel Washington in the hero role and counterparts him with John Travolta as the leader of the gang. The early versions were much more based around tension and intrigue, while this one went after it with more action, fast editing and hyper-kinetic camera tricks to infuse energy into the story. One of the other main differences was the hijackers were originally only named by color (possibly the inspiration for the same decision in Reservoir Dogs), but this version skipped out on that plot point altogether.  Tony Scott, the director of this installment, definitely retained his current style of loud noises, quick cutting and washed out coloring to instill a raw, edgy reality to the universe, but it didn’t feel like it added anything new to the story. I appreciated his visual stylings much more in Man on Fire, with Domino a close second.

As for the performances, Denzel Washington rarely disappoints. He is near the top of any list when thinking about an ordinary character put into extraordinary circumstances. He really embodies the everyday man having to rise up and take on situations way beyond his normal expectations. Even when playing the bad guy, as in John Q., he still relies on his ability to connect with the blue-collar movie watcher and portray that reality on screen. Yet, with all that said, being the best part of this film doesn’t give him a huge boost. On the other side of the punch card is John Travolta, who turns in a slightly less than believable performance as the criminal mastermind. Some of his issues can’t be discussed without giving away plot twists, but let’s just say he doesn’t fit the bill once the story is unraveled. Also, I’d have to go back to the other versions to see if this was present, but Travolta made an unusual amount of references to the attractiveness of Washington, both in person and over the phone. At a certain point in the film I wondered if Travolta would switch the ransom demand from large amounts of cash to a single date with Washington. I can easily and happily give Travolta his due credit when his performances merit it, as in Michael, Pulp Fiction and Face/Off, but this time out he pales in comparison to his co-star and borders on the ridiculous.

Recommendation: Not a great outing for Scott, Washington or Travolta. Avoidable on most accounts. Maybe catch it on HBO someday if you don’t feel like getting off the couch and you’ve already drained your TiVo.

Up: Pixar Soars Into the Clouds Once Again

These Jehovah’s Witnesses are getting really aggressive. Sheesh…

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Very few movie companies can step to the plate time and time again and still manage to knock it out of the park. Inevitably somewhere in the line-up, one film will falter and bring people’s expectations back to the land of reality, but Pixar is bucking that trend, keeping their level of quality and integrity far above the rest of the pack. There were some who said they stumbled with Cars, but in terms of box office and DVD profits, it actually beat out the original Toy Story and A Bug’s Life. Up to this point, nothing they have released has generated less than $350 million dollars, which ranks pretty high in terms of a solid track record. Floating calmly into the skyline of the summer movie season, Pixar continues it’s impossibly amazing track record with Up.

Up is a story of love, loss and rejuvenation for one cranky old man named Carl Fredricksen. A born adventurer, Carl finds himself alone and on the verge of losing his home, when he makes the life-altering decision to follow the dream set out by him and his wife to live on the edge of a cliff in a mysterious place called Paradise Falls. Not seeing any reason to leave his house behind to be destroyed by corporate construction companies, he attaches his house to hundreds of balloons and off he goes, soaring into the great beyond. Things get a little complicated, as things are prone to do, when he finds an accidental stow-away, the excitable and determined Russell, who just wants to help an elderly person with anything and receive his final scout badge. This unlikely duo goes with the wind and finds adventure, excitement and danger beyond their wildest imaginations.

Oh, and there are talking dogs. (That’s pretty much enough to get me into a movie theater right there.)

From the top, Pixar brings out the big guns and does what they do best, completely visual storytelling. Including yet another hilarious short film in front of the movie, an early montage showing Carl’s early years is shown with only music and no dialogue at all. No matter how long it has been since the age of the silent movie, the power of visual storytelling will never lessen. Just look back to last year with Pixar’s last effort, Wall-E, which ran through nearly 25 minutes of the film with rarely a word spoken. The main character had a total vocabulary of maybe a dozen words, yet viewers all around the word understood and loved him nonetheless. I can only hope the people in the live action world are watching and learning from the thought and effort put into these animated masterpieces and pull some of that into the more common mainstream films.

Right next to the genius of silence, Pixar also triumphs in the bringing to life of animals and inanimate objects. In Up, we meet Dug, a rambunctious, joy-filled dog who can talk due to the technology of the collar around his neck. He loves and devotes himself to anyone he perceives to be his master, but learns that some masters are better than others. Also joining in the roving gang of adventurers is Kevin, named such by Russell, who is a rather large, colorful and rare bird thought by most of the world to not exist at all. Kevin squawks, sings and does all the playful things we want from a Pixar pet and fits in very nicely to the tone and humor of the film. Kevin is also on a quest, which leads the gang into more trouble and excitement, but I can’t tell you what the quest is without giving away major spoilers. Deal with it.

Recommendation: This is another in a long string of hits for the Pixar gang and in my opinion only falls short to Wall-E and Finding Nemo (honestly, has there ever been a funnier character than Dory?). The movie is out in 3D as well, which was how I saw it, but I didn’t find anything in the film to be particularly amazing with the extra dimension. So save a couple bucks on the glasses rental and see it regular digital 2D.

Indeed, Love is a Battlefield

Come on wind, don’t die on me now. *Pfooooo….pfoooo….*

To many around the country and even beyond its borders to the outside world, the fight for marriage equality centers around the formerly progressive state of California and the infamous Prop 8. Prop 8 was voted on and narrowly approved in the November elections, thereby banning same sex marriages in the state. Less than a week ago, a decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8 by a vote of 6 to 1, leaving the ban in place, while a small note of logic and compassion slipped through allowing the nearly 18,000 same sex couples who were married in the brief time of legality to stay married in the eyes of the California legal system. In the amazingly harmonic words of the Canadian a capella group, Moxy Fruvous: “Can’t really call that a loss or a win?”

Let’s be frank here, it was a step back on the road to equality, even with the already performed marriages upheld. Supporters of equal rights for same sex couples rallied all over the state on the day of the decision, chanting and yelling, doing anything they could to keep their spirits up and not let themselves get crushed under the angry, fearful bus of bigotry and discrimination that just ran over them once again. For those of us on the side of equality, we knew this decision was likely. The Supreme Court has a great tendency towards not overturning what they describe as “the will of the people,” but we also knew the justices are all human beings, with the same faults and the same fears, one of which is being looked at unkindly by history and handing down a mass divorce decree for 18,000 couples would certainly not look good in the record books. Being prepared for the likely answer didn’t make it any less disappointing, but it did allow plans to be put in place in case things fell in that fashion.

The discussion now surrounds whether or not to bring the issue back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012. I completely understand the facilities needed to fight this and the finances which must be drawn to keep pace with those who want to see the ban stand, but I can’t see any downside to pushing forward and bringing the fight in 2010. Even if we lose once again, I feel confident ground will be gained and it will only bring us that much closer to success in 2012 (if necessary).

Let’s look at the facts here once more, just as a refresher:

- Although many opponents of same sex marriage use religious rhetoric and diversionary fear tactics, this is not a religious fight. The church has nothing to do with who gets married. The church, synagogue, mosque or temple, doesn’t issue the marriage certificate. In fact, they cannot even officiate over a marriage without getting the aforementioned certificate sent to them by the state. This is a government issue and religion has absolutely no place in the argument.

- Although the case brought before the state supreme court was ill-framed, the fact remains their job is to interpret the law and ensure it is fairly enforced over all its constituents, not just the narrow majority. One of the main roles of government is to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled on by the majority and this is point for point the failing in this case, not only in California, but nationwide. Beyond the whooping and hollering by both sides here in California, this issue should never have been left in the hands of the states. How can we ever say one state has the right to control who you love while another state doesn’t? Love is not a statewide right, like being able to smoke in a bar. Love is a civil right, one due to every citizen of this nation, no matter if they stand under the rainy clouds of Seattle or bask in the sultry sun of Key West. It is the basic human right to have your love for another person recognized by the government and take part in all the benefits wrapped up in that acknowledgment. There is a case being brought before the Federal Supreme Court now, launched just days before the decision to uphold Prop 8, and the two lawyers arguing for same sex equality are top people from each side of the landmark Gore v. Bush case, which awarded Bush his first term in office. These guys know what they are doing when they approach those hallowed halls of justice and those on the side of discrimination have no clue what is coming their way.

- In most states gay couples can petition and be granted the right to legally adopt children, but are denied the right to marry. Think about that for a second. How does this support a cohesive family unit, one so desperately protected by those against gay marriage?

- Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was quoted after the California Supreme Court ruling saying: “Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers.” So, to all those single parents out there thinking right now you are doing everything you can to provide for and love your children, guess what…you’re not enough. You’re not traditional and “nuclear”. You can’t possibly fully provide a loving and nurturing home for your children because you are only half as good as a gender balanced couple. Thanks for trying though. Please drop your kids off at the nearest adoption clinic so they can be fed into the foster care system until they’re eighteen years of age and dropped back into the world alone.

- The national divorce rate is 50%. What exactly is being torn apart by allowing more people the shot at having long fruitful, respectful and loving relationships? Does it look like the heterosexual population is really, truly respecting the “traditional” values of marriage? Those people who wave the banner of sanctity in marriage can come and talk with me once they legally shut down 24-hour drive thru wedding chapels officiated by Elvis impersonators. Reinstill respect and tradition for the straight world first before claiming the gay world is ruining it. Some of the couples who have taken advantage of the right to marry, in California and the handful of other states who recognize it legally, have actually been together for thirty years or more, just waiting and hoping for the day to make it legal and gain the respect and rights of thier country. I would love to see a statistic of how many straight couples make it that long without officially tying the knot.

President Obama did make a number of statements during his campaign pledging support for the rights of gay people all over the nation, both in regards to civil unions and marriage equality and in the realm of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which forces gay soldiers to hide their true self in order to serve and not be discharged. He has not made a lot of headway on these issues during his brief time in office, but I can honestly afford him some slack on these since it’s easy to see he has other, more nationally compelling issues to deal with (economy crashing, rising wartime violence, spiraling budgetary concerns, etc…). But make no mistake about it, the gay community and its allies, like myself, will not let him forget the promises he made and I fully expect them to be dealt with during his second term, when he won’t have to worry about the need for re-election votes.

I encourage all those who wish to deny the full rights of marriage to the gay community to find a history book, anything from the seventh grade and above. Crack it open and read a couple chapters on the suffrage movement of the 20s, the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s (pay extra close attention to the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education where we received the lasting legislative ruling that stated “separate, but equal” was inherently unconstitutional), and toss in a light dusting of the fight for women to serve in the military. If you look close enough, you will see where this modern day civil rights movement is heading. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for supporters of same sex marriages and it is unavoidable, whether you like it or not. History ignored is history repeated and although we would like to think people would see logic, reason and humanity in these early stages, we’ve already read to the end of the history books and seen equality handed down once again to those who most certainly deserve it.

Last note: For the supporters of marriage equality, it can be a touch confusing on how to support financially or with volunteer work since it feels like another grassroots organization sprouts up each and every day. With the people I’ve talked to and the research I’ve done, I happily point you towards Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign. These two organizations are incredibly motivated and connected with the fight, both in California and across the nation. If you want to support the cause, I recommend starting your research with either of these groups.

New Look, New Home

Conquering is fun!

[image via Flickr: mr la rue]

Big greetings to all the readers out there. You might have been a little troubled and possibly emotionally scarred by the disruption in service yesterday, so for that I humbly apologize. I’ve been working on a new blog design over the past couple months and it finally reached the point where I needed to turn it all on and see it work in action. There were a few bumps in the road along the way, but everything seems to be in place now. There will be more design changes to come, but hopefully they will not interrupt service at all.

Thanks as always for reading and please feel free to leave comments on the posts, share them using the new cool “Share This” widget and keep coming on back! In the coming months you will see some new voices, new topics and an expansion on where this whole project is going. If you have any interest in writing for The End of the Page or maybe just a suggestion on the blog itself, leave me a comment or send an e-mail.

Terminator Salvation: More Human Than Human

Yeah, that’s right, you stupid robot. Pull my finger…

Rating: 5 out of 10

I’m going to change up my tactic for you. I’m going to make an effort to increase your enjoyment of this movie without giving away any type of spoilers. Great debates have been held inside my head about the formation of this review, so let’s see if I can get them all to come together in print and actually make sense. If I get lost along the way, please send a search party and ask them to bring Nerd Rope.

Terminator Salvation brings the robot-battling franchise charging forward into the year 2018 and lands us deep in the war between machines and humans. The humans are being driven underground while the machines seem to be gaining more and more ground every day. When a miraculous tool falls into the hands of the humans which could swing the momentum their way and possibly end the war, John Connor has to make a choice between following logic and following his instincts.

Here’s the hint I’m going to offer you in hopes it will help you enjoy the movie just a little more: John Connor (Christian Bale) is not the main character in this movie! The trailer and the story arc up to this point have built him up to be the main focus, but while watching the movie your attention is drawn toward two other people: Marcus (Sam Worthington) and the teenage version of Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). These two characters, greatly helped by the actors portraying them, provide numerous layers and poignant moments and steal the focus away from the top billed Bale. Bale suffers both from narrow development of his character and one-note deliverance throughout the film. For large stretches he just feels like Batman without the mask. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy him as Batman, but in those films we get to see him as Bruce Wayne as well and he achieves a balance between different sides of the character. Salvation doesn’t really give him that chance, so the blame doesn’t fall completely on him. Worthington and Yelchin, on the other hand, really become the main story of the movie and steal the spotlight. Worthington shows great dramatic range, but he does lose a step during a romantic subplot with Moon Bloodgood. Yelchin, who also plays Chekov in the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek (so far the summers best flick), lands another major role in terms of storyline and mythological importance. As the young Kyle Reese he single-handedly represents the past and the future for the life of John Connor, which is a lot of weight to be shouldering on such a young actor, but Yelchin proves he is up to the task. Displaying innocence and hardened street smarts at the same time, he manages to bring the much lacking human element to this movie front and center.

There is an argument to be made that movies in this genre are not here to astound us with great acting or well thought out plot development. They are here to create insane CGI and never-before-seen special effects to literally knock us out of our cushioned seats. In that realm, Salvation did an exceedingly good job. The robots were bigger, the explosions were louder and you could literally hear each and every gear and servo inside the machines as they whizzed towards our woefully under-prepared human survivors. There is a pair of impressive chase sequences which included some very unique moments and that kept people glued to the screen. Very little of the action seems to move the plot or story along though and in the end you begin to wonder what it was all for; you almost feel the entire film didn’t even need to happen. No matter how deep a movie is inside the action genre, the audience needs to feel that the story had a distinct purpose and Salvation fails to completely deliver in the end.

The decision to focus more on the effects than story falls in the lap of director McG, who gained massive exposure when he brought the 70s iconic TV show Charlie’s Angels to the big screen. It doesn’t seem like he’s really changed that much in his style since then though. It is still all about flash and visual onslaught to keep the people bouncing in their seats without a foundation to make any of it meaningful. Charlie’s Angels was meant to be summertime fluff, so it worked out well, but Salvation has a darkness and grit which needs to be motivated in the writing and direction as well and that just didn’t happen. To extend the olive branch slightly towards McG, he was definitely weighted down by massive paradoxical plot holes in the film created long before he ever dreamed of taking the reins of this apocalyptic franchise. Despite the poor directing and plot development flaws, the box office numbers are not terrible ($68 million opening weekend), so you can be sure the graveled and gruff voice of Bale will be heading our way in a couple years to remind us, “You are the resistance.”

Recommendation: If you are interested at all in seeing this, do yourself a huge favor and see it in the theater. The sound and picture are a large part of what makes this watchable, so don’t discredit yourself with lesser visual and aural impact.

Added recommendation to McG: Leave out the Arnold cameo next time. Seriously. Really.

Angels and Demons: “Run, Langdon, Run!”

I wanna go back to Apollo 13. Most of that movie I just sat in a comfy chair.

Rating: 5 out of 10

There is always a line in the sand drawn between the movies and the people who go to see them. The line represents how seriously the movie is meant to be taken, on one side stands the production company and director who set the tone, while on the other side is the audience who chooses how they want to receive the film. The main battle seems to surround the idea of taking lessons or supposed “truths” learned in the film and applying them to the outside world. Most of the time this line is cut and dry (if the movie is not classified as a documentary, take it with heaping grains of salt; if it is a doc, take with slightly less salt). Yet when a movie has the audacity to delve into the world of religion, you can bet people are going to flood out of the woodworks to take the film and its creators to task for even the possibility of misrepresenting some aspect of their faith. The precursor to this film, The Da Vinci Code, was hounded by protests all over the world, some even authorized and organized by the Catholic church, but the film still trucked on and made over $758 million dollars worldwide. Now, with some water under the bridge, the church has decided to take a different tactic with the release of the new Dan Brown thriller, Angels and Demons. The furor started to bubble up, but word came down from on high that the film was seen as “silly” in the eyes of the church and protest and calls to ban it from theaters were wholly unnecessary. I could go into a whole different discussion about the over blown reactions to movies with religious subtexts, but I’ll save that for another day. For now, let’s take a look into the newest effort from much-acclaimed director Ron Howard and one of the members of the Hollywood royalty, Tom Hanks.

Angels and Demons centers once again around Robert Langdon, who is brought in by the church to help uncover the identity of kidnappers who have taken four high ranking bishops hostage. As the puzzle pieces are fit together, the picture reveals a much more diabolical plot to not only attack the Catholic church philosophically on its fundamental beliefs, but also physically by blowing up Vatican City. Langdon must run frantically against the clock to try and find these men before they are killed and discover the deadly device before thousands of innocent people are sacrificed in the crossfire of a religious war.

The first thing that should be noted about this film is its drastic improvement in many aspects over its predecessor. The Da Vinci Code was stunning in its ability to remove the tension and tempo from the book, which alone was one of the biggest factors for making it such an incredible best-seller. Learning from his past, Howard injected incredible amounts of tension into this episode in the life of Robert Langdon. The only downside is he might have gone a little too far. Feeling like a double-sized episode of 24, the pace of the film doesn’t slow down from the moment Hanks is recruited until the villain is finally revealed. Unfortunately, when the momentum should be rushing us into the final curtain, it slows down and drags us painfully through the last twenty minutes. Also, while I am all for ramping things up, this type of tempo can be draining when kept for such a long time. Most of my friends who watch 24 already feel winded when each episode finishes and that’s only after 44 minutes.

There was also a slight disconnect in believability in the continuing effort to keep the energy high because it seemed Hanks only had mere minutes to get from one location to the other again and again. Here’s the rub: it is made abundantly clear during the movie that people are pouring into the city by the truckload in anticipation of the new pope being named. The idea that Hanks and his compatriots could navigate the ancient Vatican City streets and catacombs in such short time is a bit ridiculous.

While those things took something away from the film, there were some really fun moments and solid work done by the cast which deserves mention. Hanks continued to school all other actors in how to play a leading man with intelligence instead of brawn (luckily this time without the crazy hair). He has an incredible talent for emoting frustration while not completely losing his cool and few things are as enjoyable as watching him outwit one character after another. Bringing added weight to the cast, Ewen McGregor comes on as the personal secretary to the recently deceased pope, which inherently leaves him as the man in charge until the new pope is elected. McGregor gave off the charm and dedication of a man of the cloth, but he balanced it the fervor of one who only sees a single path in front of him. If those two weren’t enough to give the cast the needed gravitas, Howard brought on two actors known for their unshakable seriousness, Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl. Skarsgard plays the gruff captain of the Swiss Guard, constantly doubting and rebuffing any deductions made by Hanks, while Stahl plays a cardinal with his eyes set on the throne and has no problem pulling rank over the younger and unqualified McGregor. Both actors brought an enjoyable sense of depth to their roles and kept the audiences continually guessing as to their true motives.

Recommendation: Angels and Demons is beautifully filmed and is certainly a step up from The Da Vinci Code, but it still ends up leaving a bit to be desired. Maybe third time is the charm since Dan Brown will soon be releasing his newest installment, The Lost Symbol. Wait and see…

Star Trek: Warp Speed Ahead, Mr. Abrams!

Seriously, why do you keep asking if we work for Benetton?

Rating: 9 out of 10

Forty three years ago, Gene Roddenberry created the legendary universe of Star Trek and the realm of Sci-Fi was forever altered. Thirteen years later, George Lucas unleashed Star Wars onto the world, proceeded to become a one-man space behemoth and a long standing feud was born between the two franchises. For the last thirty years Trekkies and Jedi Warriors have battled over which universe was better and more futuristically accurate (as if that debate is somehow winnable). In Hollywood the feud took on a different form, the face on the dollar bill. Star Wars cranks in with six films, while Star Trek has racked up eleven (including this latest effort), but I would wager Star Wars still holds the title for most money earned. So, do the Trekkies have to crawl back into their pods and weep in defeat? I think not, because there is one other fight to be had and that is in the realm of quality. While the original Star Wars trilogy is a stunning achievement, with Empire Strikes Back as the shining jewel in that crown, the recent prequel trilogy lacked almost everything that made the originals worth watching. On the other hand, Star Trek has stumbled back and forth in quality throughout their run, with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan setting the bar in the minds of many Trek fanatics, but this new reboot by uber-director/producer J.J. Abrams does exactly what it sets out to do. Star Trek introduces the franchise to a whole new audience, while simultaneously giving the die-hard fans new faces to attach themselves to, on top of managing to not ruin any of the previously cemented rules and storylines in the Star Trek universe. Trekkies all over the world can hold their heads high, prick up their ears and say, “Hey Lucas, that’s how you make a real prequel!”

Star Trek follows the origin stories of the crew of the new Federation flagship, the U.S.S. Enterprise. It brings together the two worlds of Kirk, a young ruffian with a penchant for challenging authority, and Spock, a half human/half Vulcan child forced to prove himself over and over again due to his mixed heritage. As the crew ventures out on their maiden voyage, they find themselves at the center of a destruction plot created by a delusional and time-traveling Romulan named Nero. Faced with a situation far beyond their training, the crew must make their choices, form their bonds and trust their instincts if they stand any chance of coming out alive.

Launching a reboot is always a dangerous game because while you stand to gain new viewers and fans, you equally stand to cause die-hard fanatics violent and vitriolic reactions, which can take a gnarly chunk out of your box office returns. With those cliffs looming in front of him, J.J. Abrams directed a brilliant beast of a film, packed with action, comedy and historically accurate references to the original canon. The overall story might be a touch contrived and not incredibly complex, but the point of this movie was not to unveil entirely new Sci-Fi concepts or storylines. All Star Trek needed to accomplish was the introduction of the main crew of the ship to a whole new audience without alienating the previous one and I think Abrams nailed it.

The movie definitely centers around our two heroes, Kirk and Spock, played by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto respectively. Both roles are truly daunting to step into due to the sheer weight of the cultural impact from the characters original performers, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (Nimoy gets to reprise his legendary role with a part in this film, while Shatner was left out). For them these roles became their entire lives and while they both were able to continue their acting careers, they will never be separated from what they helped evolve in those early years. Much to their credit, Pine and Quinto stepped right up to the plate and gave respect to the original portrayals, while finding subtle and poignant moments to make their own. Pine showed the brashness and lecherous nature of Kirk, but also found a playful, caring side which wasn’t previously explored, and all of that without falling into the trap of Shatner parody. Quinto slipped into the cool and logical exterior of Spock, yet managed to remind people of his human side and embrace the youth the character still had. In the realm of performance, this role continues a strong public presence for Quinto, who was unleashed on the TV audience as Sylar in the once-mammoth Heroes. Credit being given where it is due, Quinto provided one of the few remaining reasons to continue watching the show (although I believe they are on an upswing heading into Season Four with the return of their original show runner). Returning to Star Trek once again, the entire movie might have fallen off into the land of big-budget parody had these two actors not given such believable and stellar performances.

Spreading the spotlight around, Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Anton Yelchin (Chekov) and John Cho (Sulu) all got their moments and kept the bar raised quite high all around. Eric Bana, who played the revengeful Nero, also showed more layers than we are used to in our Sci-Fi villains, even though his storyline was a touch weak. The one person I wanted to make sure and give a special mention to is Karl Urban, who played the much mocked and constantly troubled Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy. This character gave us one of the most quoted lines from all Star Trek history, “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a [fill in the profession here]!” Sitting in that darkened theater you know the line is coming sometime and when it finally jumps out of that massive bank of speakers, you smile, you laugh, but Karl delivers it in such a way that you believe it too. This was yet another moment when the whole project could have slipped into mockery, but survived on the shoulders of its dedicated and convicted cast. Kudos to you, Karl. Well played.

If you’re wondering why this isn’t a perfect 10 on the ratings scale, my only real big gripe would be near the opening of the film. While the scenes of Spock as a child are useful and informative, the scene of the young and rambunctious Kirk played much worse and really needed to be rewritten from scrap.

Recommendation: Umm…GO SEE IT! I think I’ll be heading back for a second viewing just so I can experience it in IMAX.

Wolverine: Cuts Just Underneath The Bar

C’mon, who wants to try and take the Oscar host gig away from me? I dare ya.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Bring on the over-buttered popcorn, the obscenely large sodas and the amazingly radiated hot dogs…the blockbuster season is upon us! Every summer the world rushes into the theaters daring the movie studios to try their best to blow us out of our seats. CGI masterminds and real life stuntmen pull out all the stops in a yearly effort to make us drop our jaws once more at something we believed we would never see. Amazement and imagination collide inside a brilliant torrent of big-budget action flicks for the next five months and most studios bank their entire year on these “tentpole” films. The money made or lost on these cinematic feats can determine whether a studio will even be in business the following summer. With all that pressure, being the first one out of the gate is a big deal and this year that incredible honor is bestowed upon a familiar face, Wolverine.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells of the beginning of one of the most standout characters in the Marvel universe. It follows him from his start as a sickly child though his transformation into one of the world’s most deadly and indestructible killers. It also brings to light his mysterious past in Canada and what made him the missing piece to a terrible and destructive puzzle. Backgrounds and motivations are brought out of the shadows as we delve deeper into the lifeline of this wild and mostly untamed anti-hero.

There was a small rebellion right away when this idea got announced for a Wolverine origin film and the reasoning was some people felt we had already gone down that road in X2. While that is partially true, the secret of this script is it actually tells us more new information on the birth of other characters, letting Wolverine be the lynch pin to bring it all together. Beyond our cigar-smoking hero, we also get the origin story of Sabertooth and Deadpool, which in the end might prove to be the single best thing to come out of this film. Ryan Reynolds, who played Wade (aka Deadpool), has already signed on for a spin-off film surrounding the future of his wise cracking assassin. From the second he was announced as the casting choice fanboys around the world breathed a sigh of relief because they knew they had hit the jackpot. Deadpool is an insanely skilled weapon who never stops talking and cracking jokes, even during the most complicated missions, and that smart-ass nature makes Reynolds that absolute perfect choice for the role. Plus, we had seen him bulk up and take on the comic world before in Blade: Trinity and although the movie itself wasn’t anything to jump and shout about, Reynolds brought some much needed humor to the screen.

Getting back on track with this film, while the storyline of Wolverine might not feel incredibly necessary, the fans can’t seem to get enough of Hugh Jackman playing this iconic comic book role. This film is the fourth time we get to witness him wear the scowl of Wolverine and according to various Hollywood trades it won’t be the last. Making me and scores of other comic book geeks happy, the word has come down that the next Wolverine film will center around his time in Japan, which is a much more interesting storyline than this one.

Following the trend of causing your comic-loving audience to geek out for the sheer joy of it, Wolverine flooded the screen with numerous other characters, which sometimes can be a detriment, like in the original Batman franchise, but Marvel seems to have a slightly better hold on how to approach multi-character films. The most anticipated in this category was certainly Gambit, played by Taylor Kitsch from the TV show Friday Night Lights. I appreciated the physicalization of Gambit and the expression of his powers, but they toned down two of the best parts of who Gambit is, the Cajun accent and his overbearing romantic nature. Admittedly there was no female character for him to draw a bead on, but they could have dropped in at least one line or moment of him making a super-cheesy move on a girl in a bar and watching her melt under his skills. In the comics one of the most memorable things about Gambit is his determined romantic assault on Rogue, which in the X-Men film universe would have to take some clever restructuring since by the end of X-Men: The Last Stand Rogue has given up her powers completely so she can have a real relationship with Bobby Drake (aka Iceman). There were some rumblings about a possible Gambit spin-off as well, but I think his showing in this film wasn’t strong enough to warrant the money and resources, especially not when the Deadpool film is already greenlit and the Magneto script has also already been written (supposedly).

To the other names and faces popping up throughout this film, there was not too much else to get excited about. Will.I.Am, from the music group Black Eyed Peas, did a fine job as the teleporting cowboy, John Wraith, but nothing extraordinary. Dominic Monaghan, who is undoubtedly more connected to Hollywood history than anyone in this film due to his roles in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the TV phenom Lost, played the cool and quiet telekinetic Bolt, but he also felt slightly underused and just there to fill out a head count of comic book archetypes. Without going through the rest name by name, I will leave you with the person I thought was the worst represented, The Blob. No disrespect to the acting talents of Kevin Durand, but the physicalization of The Blob when he reached his massive and imposing size just ended up looking silly on camera. This brought one of inherent and most dangerous problems of the recent trend in adapting comic books for the big screen, some of the characters just don’t translate well in a realistic fashion. Sometimes you have to find creative ways to get them up there in a different physical form while still holding onto the core meaning and nature of the character, not that I know a way to do that in the case of Blob, but the fact remains, he ended up reminding me of Chet from Weird Science when he got turned into a big pile of crap.

Recommendation: Having a three movie lead-in for this character built up a huge following, which is great for box office potential, yet it also built up huge expectations, which this film did not completely meet. It has some really good scenes, but it fails to keep the pace up throughout.

The Soloist: Plays One Too Many Tunes

You know, it’s easier for me to tip you if the case opened the other way.

Rating: 7 out of 10

At the end of every year there is a wonderful, insane, intentionally over-hyped flood of films known as “Oscar Season”. This is when all the major studios release their heavy dramatic fare, which they hope will garner numerous nominations and armloads of awards. Those accolades not only boost the notoriety of the studios, but usually the critically acclaimed films get a much needed bump in the box office. So it is no wonder that the movie calendar gets incredibly crowded and sometimes a film gets yanked from the slate in order to not find itself dueling with other preening examples of award-bearing cinema. Last year this was the fate of the much anticipated film, The Soloist. Four months later, it sweeps into theaters as the only critical drama in town, looking to round up the reviews in a much quieter time, but it still has to answer the eternal question: Is it any good?

The Soloist is based on a true story (and a subsequent book) about a newspaper reporter named Steve Lopez, who stumbles across a homeless man, Nathaniel Ayers Jr., whose grace and prodigal gift for music inspires Steve to write a series of articles about him and help Nathaniel get back on his feet. Complicating this seemingly simple matter is the painful and paralyzing effects of schizophrenia, which Nathaniel suffers from. Steve finds himself dueling with how far he will engage himself with a subject for the sake of a story and where the line is drawn between objective journalist and compassionate friend.

This contemporary tale of friendship beyond the social mores is the most recent film from Joe Wright, fresh off his nomination for Best Picture in 2008 for Atonement. Known to the American audience more for his Victorian stylings, Wright brings his talent and skill for subtle and intriguing characterizations to modern day Los Angeles. He had well-honed weapons at his disposal with the dynamic duo of Robert Downey Jr. (as the sarcastic and sardonic Lopez) and Jamie Foxx (as the gifted and troubled Ayers). While both gave strong efforts, Downey stole every scene he was in and the movie tended to lag when it drifted away from his character for too long. I’ve seen Foxx do some incredible work before (i.e. Ray), but here he struggles in connecting with the audience, which I think had more to do with the writing and how his character was set up throughout the film. Also, the pair of protagonists didn’t have a physical and real life villain to compete against; instead their battle is against the internal nature of Foxx’s disease and the external nature of society and its treatment of homelessness. Downey comes off as earnest and true, but under all the heavy concepts and conflicts of the film Foxx feels buried and slightly monotone. Not that Downey needed the extra boost on his side, but he shares his storyline with the amazing and lovely Catherine Keener, who plays the ex-wife who can’t help remaining in love with Downey (not to mention seeing him every day since she is his boss at the newspaper). She tenderly supports Downey as he struggles through his journey from social disbeliever back into the world of a connected and responsible citizen.

Beyond the acting, another stumbling point was the various attempts to visualize the effect of music on Foxx’s character. It is truly important to know and understand how music flows through his soul and seemingly calms the numerous voices in his mind, but instead of letting Foxx give us that on screen, we instead receive one scene of two birds soaring through the Los Angeles skyline and another of a painfully long iTunes-esque light show while he listened to Beethoven inside the Walt Disney concert hall. Both choices played incredibly heavy-handed and failed to generate the subconscious connection needed to bring the audience along.

Recommendation: Downey continues his run and shows no sign of falling off his pace, which makes the film imminently worth watching. If they had picked one major story to work with, the schizophrenia or the plight of the homeless, the film would have been much leaner and stronger, but even so, it still shows some strong work from the amazingly competent cast and crew.