The End of the Page

9: A Beautiful Picture Can Still Tell Less Than a Thousand Words

I know you’re the new guy and all, but seriously, do you have any idea what’s going on in this story?

Rating: 6 out of 10

Animation for many years in this country has been relegated to the realm of children’s movies and that fact has happily and successfully been pushed forward by Disney, Dreamworks and the reigning king of cartoons, Pixar. I have nothing against any of these companies in terms of the style of animated movies they create; many of them are personal favorites of mine (I’m looking at you, Finding Nemo), but it’s very rare to find an animated film created solely for the more mature audience. Japan has been doing this for decades with their Anime industry (although they admittedly push this fact beyond my point by stretching into the actual adult or porn industry). These movies tell more dramatic stories, harbor a darker tone and don’t always end up filled with shiny, happy people (or fish, aliens, ogres, whatever the case may be). There are stories that can be told in truly amazing fashion through the art of animation and I yearn for the time when the American market opens itself up to those opportunities. Loading all that responsibility onto the shoulders of one film is surely too much, but I believe each one that lands on the streets of Hollywood helps pave the way for the next one, so let’s take a look at the next brick in that road.

9 is a post-apocalyptic tale about man versus machine. Artificial intelligence has once again turned against its creator and gone rogue, forcing an all out war between humans and machines, except this time humans got the short end of the stick. The only chance the human race has left rests in the cloth-made hands of nine small dolls, created by an inventor with skills in dark magics and then infused with pieces of his own soul. Each one has its own personality and the whole group must find a way to work together to rid this dead world of the mechanical scourge.

Directed and written by Shane Acker, 9 is a beautiful example of the power of animation. Sprawling landscapes mixed with devastating futuristic imagery makes for an impressive visual delight. Unfortunately, to live up to the dramatic power of the animation, it needed to be backed up by the strength and coherence of the story and that is where Shane fell quite short. Post-apocalyptic stories are nothing new, stretching from Mad Max to Wall-E (yes, it actually qualifies), but 9 brought a new twist to the “world left behind” because it was now seen and acted upon only through the eyes of small living puppets. The initial idea showed great promise, but the execution failed to live up to it.

Right from the beginning, the main character, who is named 9 for the number on his back, runs an illogically rapid pace from waking up in a completely new world to full understanding of his surroundings and making wild decisions affecting the entire group he finds himself with. He stumbles around nearly blind to the consequences of his actions, but he does it earnestly and with conviction so we are supposed to root for him. Unfortunately, you just end up feeling like he is chaos in a small cloth sack. Other characters, such as 1 (the power hungry leader) and 8 (the oafish brute), are also somewhat hard to get behind, even when they try to mean well. On the up side, 3 and 4 (twin catalogers) and 7 (the female rogue adventurer) are quite interesting and come along just at the right time to pick the movie up from the doldrums. As for the remaining puppets, 2 (the curious inventor), 5 (the one-eyed underling) and 6 (the partially crazy artist), they were all done well, but not given enough to do in order to fully draw in the audience.

One obvious way to notice the particular failings in this film is how long it feels despite being so incredibly short (it only clocks in at 72 minutes). Some of that feeling comes from the twisting, jumping and seemingly unconnected leaps of faith the logic makes throughout the film. If the road of understanding breaks underneath the feet of the viewer, they have to spend all the more time finding their way across.

The End of the Page recommendation: If you’re a fan of animation, try to see this in the theater, since it really does deserve to be viewed in the best fashion, but for those not in tune with the world of more adult-themed animated films, I’m sure there is a new episode of CSI: Anytown USA on somewhere.

District 9: Intelligence On Our Own Planet!

Wait a sec, was there crab in that dish? I’m really allergic. What do you mean you can see that?

Rating: 10 out of 10

Step back from your monitors, wipe your eyes and sit back down just so you can take in the full effect. The time has finally come, the perfect 10 is here!!! In certain genres, like Sci-Fi, you hope for a bunch of fun and flashy flicks, a ton of terrible pieces of tripe and one lone escapee from the chaos to shine as a bastion for this commonly maligned and under-appreciated area of filmmaking. Yet, this year we have been doubly lucky with the release of Moon, from debut director Duncan Jones (son of musical icon David Bowie) and now we have the incredibly original and yet comfortably familiar film District 9. I’ve decided to block myself from even looking into the remaining months of this year in hopes of pulling a Sci-Fi hat-trick with one more stellar addition to the ranks because the sheer hope of it makes me shiver uncontrollably. Before it gets too much and I lose the ability to type, let’s get into this wonderful and amazingly intelligent film.

District 9 is the name given to a government-created slum used to house aliens, negatively referred to as “Prawns”, who have descended into the airspace over Johannesburg with no reason as to why they are here. The initial excitement over first contact wears thin over twenty years of occupation and now the people of Johannesburg and the planet beyond have decided it is time for the government to move them even farther away from the city and human society. One man from a nearby multi-national military contractor is put in charge of the relocation efforts and what should have been the greatest achievement of his career becomes the most integral turning point of his life. “Right versus Wrong” is once again relabeled “Us against Them”.

There are a wide range of reasons why this movie succeeds so greatly in its message and mission. One of the first and most important I believe it its ability to borrow from previous Sci-Fi classics and repackage them in a new and fresh way, feeding us iconic imagery in a way which makes us feel like we are seeing it for the first time. There are no words to explain how hard that task really is. Starting from the look of the ship itself, a classic flying saucer design (very closely resembling the mother ships in Independence Day), yet the design team here adds much more of a steampunk feel to it. The ship is less shiny, less streamlined and actually looks like it is capable of breaking down, which is an important part of the story.

Moving beyond the surface, the subtext of the film is also a throwback to a number of previous Sci-Fi landmarks. Dealing with racism and segregation inside of an alien storyline is nothing incredibly new, since we all remember classics like Alien Nation and the TV mini-series V (currently getting a remake of its own), but District 9 piles on an even deeper layer by placing the whole film in Johannesburg and highlighting the already difficult class struggle inside the more poverty stricken areas around the city. They even pulled in the rampant crime syndicate that burrows through the society and seeks to gain money and power by exploiting the aliens and their technology. For many moments in the film, even with one of the “prawns” on screen, you might very well convince yourself what you are seeing is a live news broadcast. That type of realism comes from great research and great writing, learning to weave truth and real life situations into fictional worlds. Skills like that are inherent to creating a lasting and impressive story like this one.

Lastly I want to mention the arc made by the main character Wikus, played brilliantly by Sharlto Copley (a man with a whopping one single credit to his name before this one). Copley starts the movie as an ambitious, nerdy and somewhat adorable government worker looking for his big break. As he moves through the story you begin to see some cracks in the veneer, moments of rage, dangerous uncertainty and deep racism against the aliens (made apparent by his subtle but continued use of the term “prawn”). As the twists turn for our improbable hero he is forced to make a number of choices, ones that control the very outcome of his life. For such a touching, yearning and powerful performance to be given by someone with such an unassuming resume, it is one of those moments movie lovers wait for each year. I have little doubt that Copley will be seeing his list of credits grow and I hope to see that same list on this very site.

Neil Blomkamp, the director and co-writer of this amazing film, truly went beyond the norms of the Sci-Fi genre and brought together something with a contemporary and moving story. Very few times when walking out of a film with aliens, energy rifles and floating spaceships would an audience member hope to find that they have either learned something about how the world works or even more how they themselves view other people. Questions are indeed raised by this film about what we would do as a society in the face of an alien influx into our world. Would we welcome them? Would we attack them? It’s possible we’ll never know until the time comes, but District 9 lays out a very realistic and probable scenario, scary as that may seem once you’ve finished watching it.

Recommendation: Seriously, it’s the first 10 out of 10 film I’ve reviewed. What do you think I’m going to say down here – GO SEE IT! NOW!

Paper Heart: A Fake Story About Real Love

Did you just use the words “serve and obey”? Seriously?

Rating: 8 out of 10

Love. When we don’t have it, we want it. When we have it, we struggle to hold on to it. When we lose it, we blame it. Yet we always come back around to the beginning again and feel the need to bring it into our daily life. For some people it is a lifelong quest to find the kind of love only talked about in movies and books, while for others they are content with a much more temporary version of the emotion. Then there are those few and far between who for one reason or another can’t seem to find the connection to that world-driving feeling. This is the story of one such girl.

Paper Heart is a quasi-documentary starring Charlene Yi as a young girl who questions whether or not she believes in love. She drives across the country from Los Angeles to New York with a small film crew conducting interviews with a wide cross section of the American populace. Along the way she meets fellow actor, Michael Cera, and she finds her search for the meaning of love becomes increasingly internal instead of external. The arc of the documentary contours to the arc of their relationship and we witness her take that journey first hand.

[Minor spoiler ahead. Be warned]

There are two main things this movie has going for it. Firstly, when talking about the film, Charlene, who was also the co-writer and producer, and director Nick Jasenovec make no illusions about the fact they scripted the relationship storyline with Michael Cera. You begin to feel throughout the movie that things were just too perfect to all happen on film and it makes you doubt the authenticity about what you’re seeing. Yet, with the filmmakers completely and freely admitting those portions were created specifically as a throughline and emotional pathway for the film, you can relax and fully appreciate how well it was crafted. Secondly, Charlene herself is a joy to watch. It is refreshing and relieving to see her as herself, or a close facsimile thereof, instead of a ninety-minute movie about the diminutive stoner girl from Knocked Up. In Paper Heart, Charlene is adorable, honest, intriguing and at times nearly heartbreaking. She walks a very thin line between lovable and painfully awkward, but on this occasion she keeps her balance with rare precision.

Kudos also must be given the director Nick Jasenovec who also helped to craft the story and bring in the Charlene on-camera idea. If this were to have been crafted solely as a documentary about love it would have felt incredibly slow and long-winded. Being able to follow Charlene on her personal and poignant journey gave the audience a respite from the real-life interviews and personal stories from those outgoing and kinetic Americans along the road. Also, even though the director in the film following Charlene is named Nick, he is not actually the director. The softly toned performance of Nick was actually given by Jake M. Johnson and the crux he found himself in between creating a true and meaningful documentary and doing unnecessary damage to the growing relationship between Charlene and Michael felt incredibly honest and true.

Michael Cera himself does deserve mention as well. He has a very unique and particular charm to him and this role did nothing to detract from that. He is very easily pigeonholed into one small character type, yet I find nothing wrong with continuing to give us more when he does it so well. It was interesting to see him here acting as himself, but my personal favorite of his so far is still Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist (my deepest apologies to the legions of Arrested Development fans out there).

The half-documentary genre is a hard one to get right. The balance of the real world and the fictional one needs to be nearly invisible, but not to the point where the audience is feeling duped or lied to. Paper Heart moves along the line with rare confidence, especially for a creative team with such little previous experience. I was completely unsurprised to hear Nick and Charlene are working together again and developing a project for the near future. A narrative voice emerged in this film and I look forward to hearing what oddly funny and touching words will flow from it next.

Recommendation: If you find Charlene adorable, the film will touch you. If you find her too awkward to enjoy, the movie will most likely miss its mark. Also, at the screening I went to we made bets on the number of “awwww” moments from the audience. I bet seven (I missed by one, we got six.).

The Hurt Locker: Exploding with Power and Passion

I’m from America. I’m here to liberate your country. Why don’t you trust me?

Rating: 9 out of 10

In the years since we proved the motto “these colors never run” don’t include instances of running into other people’s countries under wildly false pretenses; we’ve seen the theaters filled with film after film dealing with the incredibly varied viewpoints of the Iraq War. Some are for the war, many are against, but all deal with the stresses and toil that it takes on the soldiers sent over there to protect us from afar and protect the civilians in that country from themselves. The biggest fear for any film covering this topic now is whether the audiences have seen it all. What more could possibly be brought to light after the 24-hour news cycle has been raking this story over the coals for nearly eight years? The answer coming from Hollywood seems to be making the stories more and more personal, connect them to individual soldiers and stories, whether they are true or based on true situations. We know why they are fighting, but we don’t always know who they are and that’s what still intrigues audiences.

The Hurt Locker centers around a bomb disposal unit in Iraq, dealing with car bombs, IEDs and any variety of homemade roadside explosive device. A new unit leader, Staff Sergeant James, finds himself trying to keep unit cohesion while not letting go of his unorthodox style of bomb defusing. Tempers flare, egos are tested, but the whole group must find a way to work together in order to keep themselves alive in their constantly hostile surroundings.

“Rare” is the first word that comes to mind when I describe this movie. In a project filled with so much inherent tension, very few are able to walk the hair thin line between too much tension, which would shut your audience down in some numb coma-type state, or too little tension, which would leave your audience bored and feeling as if the subject matter was taken too lightly. The story, the pacing and the intensity is handled beautifully by director Kathryn Bigelow, who really has had a intensely varied style of filmmaking ranging from the epitome of surfer action flicks, Point Break, to the turn-of-the-millennium sci-fi acid trip, Strange Days. No matter where she brings her vision, it always results in something unique to the current filmic landscape. With Hurt Locker, Bigelow paints a picture of three soldiers with completely different outlooks on their situation and she manages to give them all equal weight, which is an accomplishment in itself. She also is very specific with her use of camera tricks, like slow motion, so when they do appear in the film they don’t get lost in a sea of quick cuts, lens flares or unnecessary explosions. Overall it was a great effort from Bigelow and should keep her in the good graces of the Hollywood system for years to come.

Taking on the stresses of the bomb-busting trio are Jeremy Renner (Staff Sergeant James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant Sandborn) and Brian Geraghty (Specialist Eldridge). Renner takes the point position here and leads the trio through the film with a wildcat mentality and seemingly careless attitude towards death on the job. This might have come off as a one note performance for Renner were it not for the brilliant script and the arc which his character travels. Mackie and Geragthy both show their initial discomfort with working for their new unit leader in different fashions. Mackie does a great job keeping the strong face and trying to remind Renner that they are all a team and must work together, but Geragthy has a more youthful persona and he becomes an endearing soul to the audience, swinging back and forth between emotionally shell-shocked and frantically fighting for his own freedom. Truly toned performances all around.

The Hurt Locker feels a great deal like what The Kingdom wanted to be. A balanced social commentary about life on the ground in the war zone balanced with action and tension to keep the audiences involved and attuned to the fact they weren’t watching  a documentary.

Recommendation: If it is still playing in a theater near you, check it out. The sound design alone is reason enough to not wait for DVD. If you can’t catch it on the big screen, don’t worry, the performances and poignancy of the film still carries through. Plus, you could just turn up your TV really loud.

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.

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.

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.