The End of the Page

The Book of Eli: Slick Style with Rough Substance

Somewhere out there, there is a snack shack waiting for me.

Rating: 4 out of 10

One type of movies has recently been building in the nationwide queue, Apocalypse films. We stared in wide-eyed wonder at the destruction imagined in 2012, felt the weight of despair in the bleak future of The Road and even the magical CGI-fueled paradise of Avatar can be classified as apocalyptic since that was the reason for the human expansion to Pandora. This week we bear witness to a little twist, a holy light in the gray darkness of the cold and dusty future, a film that suggests in the aftermath of what is to come you can only truly survive by pure and unadulterated faith. Nothing like a good dose of God to add spice to the end of the world.

The Book of Eli is a moral fable about a man, most commonly referred to as “The Walker”, who sets out on a journey west to find the one and only safe harbor left in the world for the precious book he is carrying. He crosses paths with the worst and the best (but mostly the worst) of what humanity has become in the wake of some type of nuclear holocaust. The extent of his survival skills is impressive, but it pales in comparison to his determination and resolve to reach the destination told to him only a voice in his head.  The road gets rougher as he passes through a town where the man in charge knows all too well the power of the book he is carrying and decides to claim it for his own.

Let’s start out with the nice things first, cause that is just the polite thing to do. As you can see from the picture above, there was a clear choice in visual tone to bring about this monochromatic, muted color palette to the world after the war. There was some incredibly stark imagery and compelling wide shots of our main traveler trekking across sheer emptiness and ruined wastelands. I was quietly pleased with that portion of the film, and only that portion, until I was reminded by the ending credits that this cross between Mad Max and The Road was directed by Albert and Allen Hughes, otherwise known as The Hughes Brothers. Looking back at their last film, From Hell, I suddenly put together all the pieces. The Book of Eli succeeded and suffered in the exact same way.

The Hughes Brothers have developed a style of powerful visuals and interesting color schemes, but they seem to forget about the rest of the recipe. The story lingers on in a menacingly slow fashion, broken up by frantic acts of violence, but a real ebb and flow is never truly achieved. Also, I will hold back all inclinations to what the third act twist is, but just know it left me extremely disappointed. I stand by the idea that films win or lose their audiences in the last five minutes and I was not only lost, but banging my head against the wall in order to develop short term amnesia. There were a good handful of ways the story could have ended, but they went with honestly the worst of the bunch.

In terms of acting, I actually thought Denzel Washington had a few really impressive scenes and it was nice to see him a little bit outside of the cocky, tough guy role that he was pigeonholed into over the last decade (like Man on Fire, Inside Man and his oscar-winning turn in Training Day.) Mila Kunis also stepped up for most of the film, yet I lost her when she started to become the rough and tumble chick again. She has a self-assuredness and confidence to her which works really well, but once she starts packing heat and sliding into some femme fatale position (ala Max Payne) she ends up a caricature instead of a character. Lastly there is Gary Oldman, who really has been playing parts like this for years. It’s not his best work by far, but even with that said, he still commands attention when on screen. His performance ended up making me imagine he was playing his same character from Leon, just many, many years older.

The End of the Page Recommendation: Honestly, I love religiously themed movies, especially if someone involved is carrying a crazy sharp machete, but this felt heavy-handed and preachy. A vain attempt was made at the end to balance that out, but it failed to remove the weight left by the previous hours. If you can get a copy of the actual 35mm film, find some of the really pretty shots, blow them up into posters and just be happy with that.

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.

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.

Fast and Furious: On the Road Again…

See that light over there? That’s our future. Let’s race to see who gets there first.

Rating: 6 out of 10

There are times when a movie ends and you just feel sad because you don’t get to spend any more time with those characters. No more twists and turns in their stories and no more chances for possible redemption, if they haven’t already achieved it. Yet sometimes you get lucky and a sequel is made, then if you’re really lucky a sequel is made of that, giving you the much sought after “franchise”. Certain movies you can look at from the very first moment and know they are destined for the franchise route, but I would challenge anyone to look back into 2001 at the original The Fast and the Furious and claim they saw this coming. It spawned three subsequent films, with this newest chapter opening to over $100 million dollars worldwide in its first weekend, a record for any April movie opening in history.

No palm reader in the world would have taken that bet.

Yet Universal Pictures seemingly struck gold with Fast and Furious and there is an entire pantheon of reasons why this worked. First, and most notable, was the return of the original cast making this movie feel much more like a sequel and less like a spin-off (ie: The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift). The two main machismo machines, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, haven’t shared the screen in eight years, so this was a huge draw for people who actually stood up for the quality of the original movie. Secondly, the original teaser trailer and the first theatrical trailer were both cut extremely well, showcasing the scope of the car stunts and the parkour-influenced foot chase with Paul Walker, which will go down in history as a close second to the foot race in Point Break with Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (Swayze throws a dog at Reeves, that cannot be topped!). The third element, which is a little less apparent, is that this movie is an “interquel”, meaning it is not placed exactly in continual sequence with the rest. Fast and Furious actually takes place in the timeline before Tokyo Drift, which is shown to the audience in an early scene where Toretto tells his friend Han, also reprised by Sung Kang, to get out of town for a while. Han replies by saying, “I hear they’re doing some crazy stuff in Tokyo.” So they aren’t necessarily pulling the Highlander 2 maneuver, where they just ignore that the movie ever happened and continue the series without ever mentioning it, but instead they are treating Tokyo Drift more as an off-shoot, which keeps it legitimate in the universe of the characters. All in all they had every element in place for a new chapter that frankly no one thought would ever happen, but it did, in a big way.

Diesel returns to the role of Dominic Toretto, the mad-dog roughneck of the road racing world, who is now running a gasoline stealing outfit south of the border. When one heist goes slightly off the rails, Torreto is forced to move along without his comrades and his girlfriend, Letty, played once again by Michelle Rodriguez. On the other side of the border, bad boy FBI agent, Brian O’Conner, reprised by Paul Walker, is hot on the trail of a massive mafia cartel. When another mafia killing cuts too close to home, O’Conner and Toretto have to team up once again to infiltrate the cartel and bring it down. Both men are fighting for justice, yet they have slightly different definitions for it.

On paper the plot line actually holds together really well, but let’s be honest, no one watches these movies for the plot. It’s all about the cars, the crashes and the chaos. Fast and Furious makes a decent effort in all those areas, bringing the car races back to the forefront of the movie, without losing the sense of needing a storyline. That was one of the things the last chapter in this franchise, Tokyo Drift, was lacking. The racing never escalated, never changed from nearly the first screech of the tires in the movie to the last. While in Fast and Furious, the races did change throughout the film, they lose a little credit for placing their most impressive race about one-third of the way in. The scene where Diesel and Walker have to race each other along with two others in hopes of being chosen for the cartel driving squad is full of variety and intensity, yet later on the races begin to feel a touch redundant. Also, that first race had pertinent meaning for the story, whereas the later races feel tossed in just because they needed another scene of cars zooming by. No matter how silly the movie you still need to make the action on the screen make sense, otherwise the audience will drift away.

Diesel and Walker return to form in these characters and give us what we all know and love them for. Diesel proves once more that he can intimidate with only a glance and also the fact that he never sweats, ever! Walker still retains his boyish charms and continues to be endearing when he tries to act all tough on screen against Diesel. Yet, while Diesel wins the machismo battle, Walker always looks more comfortable on screen with the ladies, as he proves once more with his re-ignited love affair with Toretto’s sister, Mia, played once again by Jordana Brewster. Brewster still shows her skill in being able to make a believable on-screen connection with people who aren’t all that talented in the lighter arena of human emotions. As for Rodriguez, she is one of the original four and used heavily in the marketing of the film, but she is in only a few short minutes of the movie and really boils down to a plot device.

Recommendation: If you liked the first film in the series, you should have no problem enjoying this one. It still has holes and many parts of it could have made more sense with some basic story adjustments, but in terms of this series it is just under the original. Plus, you might as well keep track of what happens so you can be all set for the next chapter, which Paul Walker just signed on to. Faster and Furiouser!

Street Fighter: 14 Years Evidently Not Long Enough

Should it be mentioned that neither of the fighters in the silhouette are in the movie? Nah…that’d be silly.

Rating: 3 out of 10

Video game adaptations have always had a hard and belabored road to the silver screen. The creative vision it takes to transform something from a playable game into a captivating and enjoyable story is chock full of pitfalls. First off, you find yourself dealing with the legions of video game fanatics who play these games religiously and feel the control on the joystick also issues them control over every facet of the character. So, pleasing them can be a particularly sticky task. Next you find out that many video games really don’t have a particularly interesting storyline, which means some writer clawing and scratching at the door to Hollywood has to earn his big break by taking on an adaptation, or re-imagining, that very few others would touch with a ten-foot fountain pen. Lastly, the studio has to try and balance the idea of making the movie enjoyable while still including enough reference to the game itself so they can use the title and character rights. Tack all that together and you’ve set yourself up for one hell of a struggle, and I didn’t even mention casting it! Yet, in the end the studios are happy to jump into the joystick-controlled quagmire because they are banking on the pre-made audience to show up and support their well-played games. Unfortunately, that only works when the game the movie is based on is still popular.

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is loosely, very loosely, based on the 1987 Capcom arcade fighting game. In the original game there were eight players you could choose from who resided in various countries and you fought your way around the world tournament style until everyone, including the final boss, was defeated. In this updated movie version, M. Bison (the original final boss) is a crime lord who runs a rapidly expanding syndicate taking over massive amounts of waterfront property in Bangkok. He kidnaps Chun-Li’s father to use his political connections and Chun-Li vows to take revenge and save him. Along the way she meets Gen, an old sage who once was a partner and fellow criminal alongside Bison, but has since turned his effort to helping people instead of hurting them. He teaches her to focus her energies and discover the secret to defeating Bison when the time comes. Running parallel to Chun-Li’s story is a rough and rugged Interpol agent who has been chasing Bison for most of his career and with the help of his new, vivacious partner in the Chinese gangland police force, he vows this is where the chase ends.

Now, brace yourselves, because this is where the niceties and political movie speak comes to a crashing halt.

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is terrible. It is a prime example of a studio and creative team reaching way beyond their abilities and trying to force the movie into a category it doesn’t belong (that being “good films”). They attempted to create a story out of a game where there really was none and build it into a possible franchise, but God help us if we get one of these for each character in the game. Other than the names the movie had virtually nothing to do with the game and only references it in the most trivial of ways. Street Fighter was a fighting game and for some insane reason they decided to make a movie with very few fight scenes, one of which, the highly anticipated battle between Chun-Li and Vega (barely acted by Taboo from the band Black Eyed Peas) only lasted thirty seconds and underwhelmed in an unimaginable fashion. Most of the first half is spent building up Chun-Li’s past and why her dad gets kidnapped, but all we needed to see was her kicking ass from the moment the lights go down. I never thought I would ever write these words, but here you go: this movie could have learned a lot from Dead or Alive (which didn’t even get a theatrical release). DoA never tried to be more than a video game movie and they respected the silliness and ridiculous nature of what they were trying to adapt. (Phew, I need a nap. Uttering that statement left me winded.)

On a lucky few occasions you might be able to power your way out of terrible writing and terrible directing with the power of strong actors, but Street Fighter chose in the realm of casting to continue its tradition with all things terrible. Kristen Kruek became an instant star and teenage fantasy of young and old men alike across the nation when she appeared in the TV show, Smallville. Capitalizing on her mixed heritage, she definitely has the look to pay Chun-Li in a Hollywood adaptation, but unfortunately all she has is the looks. In the time since she was a headliner on Smallville, where she is now mainly a cameo on random episodes, Kristen has not improved her skills to the level of headlining a feature film, even one as minimally dramatic as this. Right behind her in the sense of being cast on pure physicality is Neil McDonough, who plays the villainous crime lord M. Bison. He has been cashing checks based on his bad guy stare for years, but here it just felt overplayed, underwhelming and just, plain silly. Briefly showing a touch of inspired choices, Michael Clarke Duncan appears as Balrog and holds it down quite well, even if the Balrog in the game was nothing like him. Also, Moon Bloodgood, who briefly appeared last year in the short-lived TV show, Journeyman, plays the local gangland cop in charge of cleaning up the chaos Bison has brought to her city. Her character is completely unnecessary to the film and routinely just fodder for her partner’s bad pick-up lines, but she at seems to have the sense of the level of quality and tone the film was looking for. Last on the good side of things is Robin Shou, who plays the wise, mystical mentor, Gen. He is no stranger to the video game adaptation having starred as Liu Kang in the Mortal Kombat films, which are another pair of films the makers of Street Fighter could have taken some cues from. In all of this mess, this time I have gone against the grain and saved the worst for last, Chris Klein. Let me first say that I respect actors who know their type and play to it, while also holding respect for other actors who try to push their boundaries of skill. Chris Klein used to reside in the former group, playing the down home, clean-cut, high school quarterback type who just gosh darnit couldn’t seem to catch a break, but the mentally deficient casting agent somehow looked at him and thought he would be perfect as a grizzled Interpol agent with a penchant for bad one-liners and a total aversion to showering. Every scene with Chris reeked of a community theater impression of Colin Farrell ala Miami Vice (and even Farrell didn’t pull that off very well).

Recommendation: For the sake of clarifying why I gave this film any points at all; one point for Bloodgood, Duncan and Shou combined, one point for the film makers actually allowing people to die (which doesn’t often happen in these PG-13 versions), and one last point for giving me a big screen to watch Kristen Kruek on, who still remains quite cute, even after all this time. For those who might be wondering how this ranks up against the 1994 Street Fighter film starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, which was front-to-back a true black hole of quality, amazingly enough, they almost cancel each other out.

The International: Tension-Laced, but Underwhelming

I swear, just one more stop. Old Navy is having a fantastic sale.

Rating: 6 out of 10

There’s always something chuckle-worthy about particular movies and their release dates. Most people tend to forget the immense amount of time beforehand that goes into the creation of these films, so when something hits the theaters and happens to be particularly poignant to the current cultural climate, everyone thinks it’s just another hack writer or short-sighted studio executive greenlighting “hip” projects. Yet, most of these movies take years and years to make it to the big screen, so if they land at what many might see as “the right moment”, you can thank karma, your local psychic or just dumb luck. Now why would I start my review of this movie with such a particular topic? Good question, let me paint the picture for you.

The International is a suspense thriller about a dogged Interpol agent on the trail of one of the biggest banks in the world, the IBBC. At the heart of the investigation is allegations that the bank is using their deep pockets to fund third world wars in efforts to expand its global control and everyone who has tried to turn against them or gotten to close to the truth has disappeared or died. When the partner of our heroic Interpol agent is killed, he goes for broke and starts finding ways around the halls of justice. It becomes a tense game of cat and mouse as the agent tries to find ways in, while the bank tries to find ways to have him killed.

There you have it, a movie about someone trying to take down a huge international bank that is rank with corruption and the misusing the funds of its clientele. Sound familiar? It’s only mostly similar to the headlines in the financial section of every big newspaper over the last year. No, there might not be murders mentioned or third world guerrilla wars, but the idea that banks have become the villains in much of what is wrong with the financial markets today is incredibly easy for movie audiences to connect with. Toss in a gun-toting international agent who wants to show these banks they can’t just do whatever they want and you have something just ripe for the viewing market right now.

At the center of this whirlwind of money and deceit is Clive Owen, playing our agent with the tunnel vision of justice, Louis Salinger. Owen has been on a meteoric rise since his big break in a series of BMW mini-movies. He had been working for quite some time before that, but his audience grew exponentially from that advertising coup and now he is one of the top British imports to American films and solidly stands atop the list of male “bad ass” actors. He’s got the stare, he’s got the accent and he’s truly got the moral ambiguity to do play characters who do what needs to be done (aka his performances as Smith in Shoot ‘Em Up and Dwight in Sin City). He does a great job of playing people who play in the dirt and manage to stay clean. He doesn’t get as much leeway in The International, where Salinger is on a one track mission to bring down the IBBC, and there are only brief mentions of his past, but Owen still manages to create a compelling persona on screen. Opposite him on screen, also on the side of justice, is Naomi Watts, playing the American consulate agent Eleanor Whitman. Watts is usually a spectacular and powerful performer, but she fell a little short this time. The movie centered much more around Owen and gave Watts very little to work with and in the end it left her character feeling one-dimensional and emotionally forced. The biggest thrill as far as the acting goes is seeing the return of Armin Mueller-Stahl. Ever since his intensely acclaimed turn as the rigid father in Shine, he bounced around television and smaller films for many years, but in the last few he has landed bigger roles once again worthy of the weight and gravitas he brings. Here he plays an aging Communist relic trapped inside a capitalist world still trying to turn the tide in his own small way. He becomes the one character in the film who actually reaches a moral crisis and he plays the scene beautifully. After this we are lucky enough to be seeing him in the upcoming Angels & Demons, which if my dreams come true will be paced nothing like it’s predecessor, The DaVinci Code.

The International is a suspense thriller, not an action film, but nevertheless provides one of the most entertaining action sequences so far this year. With the construction of a picture perfect replica of the inside of the Guggenheim museum in New York, the filmmaker stages a highly charged, briskly paced gunfight which bears a sort of “reverse homage” to the legendary villain’s lair sequence in Bruce Lee’s Game of Death. In Lee’s version he has to fight his way up, floor by floor, through this mansion defeating a new boss on each floor. In The International, Owen has to shoot his way down a massive spiral walkway, dodging and dealing death around every spin, in order to walk out alive. They even built a completely fake exhibit to house in the museum just to have it destroyed, which provided that little extra kick of excitement.

Recommendation: A solid film, yet not mind blowing in any real sense. As most suspense thrillers go, it is better enjoyed with big sound and big picture, but theater viewing is not wholly necessary. Clive Owen continues to do what he does best and it will leave you buzzing with anticipation for what he has in store in Sin City 2 (which unfortunately is not due until 2010. Until then you’ll have to make due with Duplicity, due out later this year)

He’s Just Not That Into You: Light on the Charm, but It’s There.

“What? All I said was I thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a cool movie. What?”

Rating: 6 out of 10

There comes a time when the norm needs to be redefined, or in some rare cases, reaffirmed. This usually happens in areas where there are just too many signals, too many varied social customs to keep track of and no scene is more rampant for study and redefinition than the dating scene. While not being the most skilled movie to tackle the subject or the most flawed, it currently holds the title for being the most recent, which is why you get to read more about it right now.

He’s Just Not That Into You is romantic web spun around a modern day version of the group from St. Elmo’s Fire. One way or another all these people are connected to each other and at one single moment in time they are all experiencing a singular and unique version of love and relationships. From the tender awkwardness tickled by tiny sparks to the touching sorrow of bitter disappointment, all the heart strings are played. It is also another in the continuing trend of book adaptations from the “chick lit” market, following in the stylish, stiletto heels of The Devil Wears Prada, Sex and the City and the upcoming Confessions of a Shopaholic, proving that coveting the female moviegoer, over the commonly praised 18-24 year-old male market, can be an extremely profitable move.

This movie has a couple things working in its favor. First, their release date is near Valentine’s Day and makes for a perfect early date night with that certain someone. Second, it offers up an amazing ensemble of talented actors to portray this bevy of bumbling romantics. Yet, that last one also ends up being one of its biggest detractions. There are just too many story lines at work here and over half of them fall by the wayside before the credits roll. When trying to showcase each and every type of relationship problem, very few movies can give them all equal and effective share of the screen time (Love Actually, which is an immediate and highly superior comparison to this film, is nearly perfect, but still could’ve dropped one of its many tales.) As the pacing clumsily drives to the closing moments, only two of the couples were emotionally worth following anymore and everything else felt like a distraction from the meatier bits. I’m sure in the book there was more time to get involved with each and every relationship, but on screen it comes off as a bunch of separate movies trying to be told at the same time.  The throughline just isn’t strong enough here.

Getting back to the impressive, yet excessive casting, the people who shined brighter than the combined spotlight of the group are Justin Long, Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck. Long and Goodwin take the prize as the most emotionally satisfying and most complete character arcs in the movie. Long once again proves that he is much more than a jokester and begins to show off as a leading man, even if it is inside of a crowded room such as this one. I’ve been impressed with his comedic timing and earnestness ever since Accepted (the ending speech is pretty close to brilliant) and I pray he keeps getting chances to hold the reins in the romantic comedy world. Goodwin, on the other hand, epitomizes the hope and trusting nature of all those standing outside the party waiting for someone to invite them in. She’s adorable in a way that goes completely unchallenged in this film and I have no doubt she will be capitalizing on that in the coming years. Aniston and Affleck, arguably two of the biggest names in this cast, pull off touching and poignant moments inside the most subtle and least flashy story arc in the piece. Aniston has had her share of hard knocks since leaving the TV mega-hit, Friends, and Affleck also shows up with some bruises on his resume, but they are incredibly well matched here and take their scenes far above the level of B-movie romanticism.

Falling to the sidelines in the overcrowded group are Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore and Kevin Connolly. All of the characters here gave little to nothing to root for and because of that gained no real closure at the end. Cooper, who feels he was bullied into his marriage and now finds himself tempted by the incredibly alluring Johansson, enters the film the nice guy in a tough situation, but as the minutes slide away, so does his righteousness and strength as a character. In turn with that, Johansson brings up a common social question about what happens when you fall for a married man, but loses her focus in the third act, but that gets nicely blamed on Kevin Connolly, who plays a friend, sometimes “more than friend”, who wants more from her. Although that is a commonly played and often shown arc for the romantic comedy, Connolly neglects to bring the charm needed to bring the audience behind him and ends up looking needy and addicted to attachment. Jennifer Connelly gets the joy of playing Cooper’s silently bullying wife, who jumps back and forth between teasingly imbalanced and bravely stoic. If we got to see one of those ideas progress into the other, instead of the frantic switching between the two, maybe she would have been in the former category of actors, but her character ends with the audience wondering whether she was righteous or just walked on. The only one to escape this particular state of character confusion is Barrymore, but she falls into the singular fate of being only present to act as social commentary on the dating scene as a whole. Her story is practically non-existent outside of being a cultural narrator and it gets tied up in the closing moments in such a trite fashion that begs the idea they just didn’t want to leave her alone when the credits rolled.

Multi-story movies are not easy by any means and few of them can really handle the pacing and balancing act required to emotionally satisfy each and every character (again, see Love Actually for an example of doing it right, or as close to right as it gets). This film would have come off much stronger if it only chose those story lines from the book that owned their romantic notions and fulfilled the complete journey. Sometimes, you just have to be cruel and chose one from the many and leave the others to rest between the paperback covers at the local book store.

Recommendation: It’s a date movie, that much is clear, but an afternoon matinee this weekend might be the way to save a couple bucks and not feel like you ended the night just thinking, “Well, that was just alright.” Find a theater where the arms raise up between the seats so at least you can make your moves, even if the people on screen aren’t.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::