Reaction to the Recent Announcement

By now, hopefully, the news has already sunk in, and the rest of the Oscar bloggers out there have already put in there two cents regarding the news that just broke. For the collective masses who don't follow anything about the Oscars, here is a recap of the big news of today: at the next ceremony, the number of Best Picture nominees will be doubled. The category will play host to ten nominees instead of the usual five, the standard for every Oscar category, excluding Makeup, Visual Effects, and occasionally Original Song.

For the record, the Academy originally chose ten nominees in this category starting in 1934, and continued this practice until Casablanca took the top award in ten years later. Since 1944, there have only been five films selected as Best Picture nominees. In a statement made to the press, still-President of the Academy Sid Ganis talked about this bringing more films onto the playing field to compete with Best Picture, and even cited 1939 as a great example to revive this tradition, when the ten nominees included Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Dark Victory, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men and Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Now, let's talk about the real reason the AMPAS is deciding to do this. It doesn't take too much brain to understand that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the amount of negative press the Academy received for its previous selection. Popular films that scored critically and commercially high, like The Dark Knight and, to a lesser extent, WALL-E, were shut out of the Best Picture category despite heavy campaigns and strong precursor showing. Instead, the surprise pick was The Reader, an art house film that seemed intentionally baited for Oscar recognition. The masses through their arms up and said a lot of nasty things about the Academy, accusing them of being out of touch and in poor taste. Like any institution with strong political backings, they rushed into this decision only when the previous year could have benefited more.

Now, I would like to think that having ten nominees this time will give an opportunity for more films to receive the honor that they deserve. It is true that I would have loved to have seen The Dark Knight nominated, and it probably would have if this system had been in place. But that is the past and there is nothing that can be done about that. I look at this year as being more inclined to think that Pixar will finally receive a Best Picture nomination. Up is on a whirlwind of success right now, and this is the best news for it. I still don't think it's their best, but consensus says it is so they finally have their legitimate shot at a nomination. Opening the field up does allow some other films to slip through that might have gone unnoticed before.

Still, in the end, I don't think I really support the AMPAS for doing this. For one thing, opening up the field may mean that some films get a Best Picture nomination that may not deserve it. Of course, that is all objective, but sometimes trying to find legitimate films to place that high honor onto can be a difficult one, hence why five are usually the best. Also, the more films competing for the top award, the less valuable it seems. There is something special about being honored in the top five, making the group very selective. If not a lot of films are eligible for the award, it seems like the award itself carries more prestige. Only one other awards group have 10 Best Picture nominees: the Critic's Choice Awards, and that is to match the symbolism of a critic's top ten list at the end of a year. It would be a shame if the Oscars become as useful as the Critic's Choice.

There is a reason why the Oscars are the most coveted entertainment prize. It's because it's hard to get one. Awards like the Emmys or the Grammys don't carry much baggage with them because it's so easy to receive multiple nominations and wins. If it seems like anyone can win, then the honor of winning is fairly light. The Oscars carry that prestige because of their consistency to limit the amount of awards it gives out, even sometimes striking out credited producers just cap the limit to three nominees. Ganis said that only one winner will emerge, but it still means that more people are invited to win, and the ceremony might lose something in the process. I said that had this been in place last year, The Dark Knight would have been nominated. But its nomination would have meant more if it came from a list that narrowed down five nominees instead of a list that includes the excuse, "It's only nominated for Best Picture because four other films had to be nominated with it."

I think the change is unnecessary and don't think it's going to be a radical new thing that's going to catch on because it's already too late. Besides, I don't think last year was the proper year to do it. I would have liked ten nominees in 2005, which not only included nominees Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Munich, Capote and Good Night, and Good Luck., but also had films released like A History of Violence, The Squid and the Whale, Proof, Batman Begins, Jarhead, Cinderella Man, King Kong, and many others. Once again, the Oscars react to something without thinking it through. If this blows up in their face, which it probably will, I hope they go back to five. But this news has proven one thing: no matter what the Academy does, people are going to find a reason to be upset with them.

The Year So Far...

We are pretty much at the midpoint of 2009, and with what I have seen so far, I suppose it's now time for me to comment on the films that have been released thus far. Like last year, I've found a lot of movies that I consider to be good, but am confident that they will probably not hold their top spots indefinitely. Likewise, the films that are low on my list aren't particularly terrible, and hopefully (or tragically) there will be others to take note of. Right now, I'd like to say what I think are the best out right now and name one film that is the worst of the bunch at this point.

Best So Far: Drag Me To Hell
-Sam Raimi's horror-comedy succeeds on nearly every level. It delivers great suspense in the horror realm while at the same time making the over-the-top nature of the genre recognize the comedic abilities it possesses. The film is a perfect example of that great blend that is helped by strong performances throughout the whole cast, headlined by Alison Lohman. She particularly is great because she herself is complex and not quite so much the damsel in distress stereotype. A great time at the show by an ace filmmaker.

Rest of the Best:

Adventureland
-A great disservice was done to this movie by the advertisements. They promised a comedy on the level of Superbad when it was anything but. It was actually much better that. It was a sweet comedy that based its characters in reality instead of the realm of caricature. Everyone gives a great performance and delivers at making this late 1980s world full of real problems for real people. This was a film that deserved better than what it got.

Away We Go
-Finally, a Sam Mendes film that actually leaves you happy at the end. His direction does help move the comedy along, but what really sells this film is the strong and complex relationship between stars John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. Rudolph in particular is absolutely astonishing in a role that is magnificently well played. A few false notes with some over-the-top characters aren't enough to bring the movie down tremendously, particularly with the two leads playing so wonderfully.

Coraline
-The look was maybe a little too similar to Nightmare Before Christmas, but the story and characters were still dazzling. I've never been the biggest Henry Selick fan, but his vision of Neil Gaiman's tragically beautiful world was definitely worth the look. It'll be out on video soon, and I encourage all to take the trip.

The Escapist
-Unfortunately, I didn't get to see this in theatres. Still, that didn't stop me from recognizing what a masterfully crafted film this turned out to be. Brian Cox heads a really great ensemble that works with a familiar premise executed in a really striking way. I'm not sure when the next opportunity to see this film will come around, but I highly encourage all to see it.

Star Trek
-I almost passed this up, but I do think this film deserves special mention because of how well it was able to succeed with hard core fans and oblivious summer moviegoers. The story may have taken a backseat, but that sometimes is preferable in order to focus on the characters, and they are particularly acted well by the whole ensemble. Director J.J. Abrams did an excellent job at bringing Star Trek into the new century, complete with style and substance.


The Worst So Far: The Soloist
-Wolverine stunk pretty bad, but at least it had the somewhat expectation to fail. The Soloist is the type of terrible movie made even worse by the good intentions from the cast and filmmakers. Everytime a sincere moment is trying to be conveyed, it comes across instead as overbearing and irritatingly slow. Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. are fine actors, but the material makes them sit in a vat of pretentious pudding. Joe Wright feels more contrived than ever, even more so than his previous films like Atonement, and the whole thing eventually suffocates itself with its own preachy messages that fall on uninterested ears. This was meant to be an Oscar contender at one point but was delayed a release date. I can see why, and beg you to not figure it out yourself.


The next six months hold many good things, and I'm definitely looking out for many of them, including Public Enemies, (500) Days of Summer, Inglorious Basterds, Shutter Island, Invictus, The Lovely Bones, Nine and many others. It will certainly be interesting, and I'll keep you all posted.

Review: The Hangover

The Lost Weekend

I am not a fan of familiar retreads on similar ideas that have been present in many films time and time again. It's usually a boring presentation that does little to offer any moviegoer anything to hold onto. This film has that set up and easily falls into the perception of it becoming another in a long line of sophomoric frat boy comedies that is shallow in its maturity and humor. At times, there are moments in this film where some elements may want to surprise you, and you may think that you're actually watching something that may give a bit of a surprise. If you blink, you might not see the trick. However, if you have the intention to actually pay attention to the film, you'll realize that whatever good qualities are left to behold get undermined by the film's self-deprecation of its style.

Oh, the old familiar places. It's the eve of a wedding day for the handsome groom Doug (Justin Bartha). To celebrate his last day of bachelorhood, do his friends try to give him a meaningful gesture that would have an impact on his future life and bonding with them? Of course not. They go to Vegas for the most superficial time of their lives. Doug's posse includes Phil (Bradley Cooper), the brass and crude one, Stu (Ed Helms), the soft and nerdy one, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Doug's soon to be brother-in-law. The next morning, the three friends discover their hotel room in a mess, a baby in the closet, a tiger in the bathroom, and sans Doug (as well as one of Stu's teeth). The rest of the day is tracking the events of the previous night and piecing together the information to find the groom before the wedding.

In complete honesty, I absolutely hated the first part of this movie. That is where the familiar premise is at its ugliest, with characters to match. Phil is a high school teacher that is rude to his students and even steals from them in order to pay for his Vegas trip. Stu is so passive that his cartoonishly shrill girlfriend constantly emasculates him. Alan has the mess of a mind and gets into awkward situations like shouting at strangers and hugging people with no pants on. None of these characters are particularly likable and it makes a hard case to care about their plight come later on in the film. Not to mention the countless homophobic jokes in that first part, I was ready to completely be turned off from this film.

Then, as the detective story started to surface, I could give or take certain things. I did appreciate no sudden flashbacks into what happened as we are clearly within the mindset of these characters. They have no memory of these events so the audience will not have a visual representation of what happened. That is something I can give director Todd Phillips (Old School) and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (Four Christmases & Ghosts of Girlfriend's Past) credit for in trying to make this movie more interesting than some of its predecessors. However, they also have to take the blame for in irregular comedic tone, unlikeable characters, and often times humor that strays away from edgy to just downright stereotypical, cheap and offensive.

Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis do their best, and I will say that the chemistry they all have is worth watching many times. Of the three, it is Helms who is the standout. Mostly known on The Office and his stint on The Daily Show, Helms is able to take any character, no matter what range of insanity they hold, and make them entertaining and heartfelt, and the same is said here. Cooper and Galifanakis are good in their roles, but their characters are so unlikeable that you just want to keep seeing them hurt rather than awaiting their advancement. I like Justin Bartha, and believe he showed great comedic timing and energy in the National Treasure films. Unfortunately, he's sidelined by the film's premise which should have made use of a less talented actor. Other supporting players range from the brilliant but wasted (Jeffery Tambor as the father-in-law; Heather Graham as newly wedded stripper) to the distractingly bad (Ken Jeong, a good actor in an offensive role as an Asian mob boss; Mike Tyson playing himself as bad as it can be).

I will admit that there were times when I laughed at parts of this movie, but I did not laugh nearly as much as other comedies. A comedy can get a slight pass on me, but it needs something to take me over the edge to strongly recommend it. Not only did this film not get close to that edge, but it ended up back tracking a bit. Some of the cast is good, but not all of them are able to save a movie that is burdened with a weak premise, faulty execution and, most importantly, unfunny jokes. Then again, many people probably won't care and will think they've seen the trick. Please, though, keep your eyes open; don't blink so you can expose the falsities for what they are. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: Up & Drag Me to Hell

An Uplifting Tale

I must give a congratulations to Pixar. But at this point, who isn't. It's amazing to see this company that started out with very little emerge as one of the biggest film studios in the country (my best friend thinks they'll end up owning their parent company, Disney). Film after film, I've continued to be amazed at the quality that comes out of this studio, and the simple reason is because their employees not only make the animation appear bright and vibrant, but also make sure that the stories are enough to carry the film all the way through, which is a lesson Dreamworks has yet to incorporate. For their tenth feature film, I wouldn't say that it is their absolute best, but I will say that it is another sparkling gem in the Pixar crown.

The studio, which normally has taken a keen interest in non-human subjects, tries the human route one more time here with the central story revolving around Carl Fredrickson, voiced by the always delightful Ed Asner and drawn, at least to me, to look like an old Spencer Tracy. Carl is a 78-year-old retired balloon salesman who is mourning the recent loss of his wife and impending demolishment of his loving home. Before he is forcibly shipped off to the retirement home, he equips his house with hundreds of multi-colored balloons and heads off for Paradise Falls in South America, unaware he has recently picked up a companion: Russell, an enthusiastic boy scout trying to obtain his last merit badge.

When they finally arrive in South America, they come face to face with an enormous endangered bird that Russell names Kevin, a dog with a monitor around his neck that enables him to talk named Dug, and Charles Muntz, a famous explorer looking for that giant bird and becomes the film's villain when he believes Carl and Russell mean to capture the bird for their own glory instead of realising their actual plan to return it to its family.

As people say time and time again (and as I just said in my introduction), what sets the Pixar films above many others are their incredible stories, and this film is no different. Pete Docter and his co-writer Bob Peterson create a vastly rich world with very intriguing characters, made all the better by their wondrous comedic timing. The other interesting note is how mature the world has become, especially during a serious montage between Carl and his wife that implies very heavy themes for an animated film. That was a side of the film that was very interesting and innovative. Unfortunately, it doesn't last long, and a good amount of the film is instead devoted to Carl's adventure that ultimately just includes moving his house from one rock to another.

The characters the film includes also tend to vary from really engaging to rather odd. I think separately, Carl and Russell would seem like characters who are one dimensional and couldn't carry an entire film. Together, they create a great comic duo with a relationship that never feels forced. The additions of Dug and Kevin would seem like cheap comedic tricks, but even they add to the warmth of the story and become a lovable part. However, Charles Muntz, voiced by Christopher Plummer, is an odd villain. He starts out as a lovable old explorer who is Carl's childhood hero to insanely cruel baddie with no stop in between. I would also say that the film's passe approach to Muntz's involvement with child endangerment were moments that made me wince a little.

In the end, I'm still going to highly recommend the film, and I think it is vastly superior to Docter's last Pixar film Monsters, Inc. There are warm characters and an engaging story, even if it isn't all engaging, and really noteworthy scenery particularly in the gorgeous 3-D format. This once small studio is no longer that way anymore, and if their future holds films of this caliber or higher, then we have nothing to worry about. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+




To Hell and Back

I'll give a word of warning to this film. If you go in expecting a serious, hard core horror film complete with the outrageous sequences of violent gore, tasteless nudity, gargantuan drug and alcohol usage, and people shouting profanities profusely, then you're going to be disappointed. Not only that, you are going to be probably fiddling in your seat and getting a bit annoyed with many sequences that dance around a scare or two before delivering a sequence so over the top that you can't help but break out laughing. If your intention is not to laugh but be scared all the time, then this isn't the movie for you. However, if you are familiar with director Sam Raimi's film career, and I'm obviously not talking about the Spider-Man series, then you'll recognize where the film's horror elements truly make this film: a wonderful horror-comedy. In fact, I might say a great one.

Alison Lohman plays Christine Brown, a bank loan officer who appears to have that ideal life, especially when she is dating her college professor boyfriend (Justin Long). In order to receive an extra push to receive a promotion, she makes the tough call to deny a mortgage extension to an elderly gypsy woman (wonderfully camped up by Lorna Rover). In a fierce retaliation, the woman places a curse on Christine in which she will be haunted by a demon for three days until it will eventually take her, body and soul, to Hell.

Many Raimi fans will appreciate his return to horror, and the advertisements even claim it is "pure horror". I wouldn't say that's necessarily true, and that is a great positive. There are many over the top gags that Raimi incorporates, but it is usually for the affect of rattling his audience intentionally or delivering a laugh. Yes, Raimi uses some of the genre's cheap shots, particularly from Christopher Young's very effective score, but even those moves are calculated. Raimi knows exactly what he's doing, and whenever a moment needs it, he knows exactly how to make it scary, funny, or many times both simultaneously.

What Raimi, and his brother Ivan, have also done well is their characters within the story. The story itself isn't of so much consequence, but the characters within them are of great value. Christine is the greatest asset, who in any other movie should have been the sweet, completely innocent victim. She's not a completely nice person here, and her faults bring credibility to her plight and even a feeling that the events that are happening may be justified. Not totally, of course, but the idea is a refreshing one.

Any other character outside of her can be labeled as over the top and hokey, but it is in the best interest of the film. Supporting players like David Paymer as the bank manager, Dileep Rao as the trusted fortune teller, and Oscar nominee Adriana Barraza as a medium who encountered the spirit before (in a really great prologue to the film) all deliver great moments from their roles and add much to the film. Lohman also delivers well on her character's many levels and is a welcomed bit in the film, and for anyone doubting Justin Long in this movie will find redemption in the very last look his gives in the film.

If you want a serious movie, then I'd advise you to look elsewhere. But if you are aware that this will be as much as a comedy as it will be a horror film (sometimes more so), then you'll have a really great time. Yes, there are moments when the genre cliches are thrown in, but the film is relishing in those moments and not taking them seriously. This is a great effort from a director who still proves he's got what it takes to succeed, whether he's directing Spider-Man's escape or dousing a victim in blood and flames. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Reviews: Angels and Demons & Rudo y Cursi

Second Coming

I wish that I had gotten to do something before I saw this movie that I ultimately didn't have the time to do. I really did want to read the book this film is based on. Normally, I don't think it necessary to read source material of a film, particularly if it need be to enhance the pleasure of the film, but this was a time when I really wanted to get to that book, particularly because I was one of the millions who sought out the cheap thrill known as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (and this is a book I actually like). Oh well, I suppose, the deadline has passed, and I have already seen this film. Now, I obviously can't judge how well this film holds up to Brown's original novel. However, what I can say is that coming from one of the few who found some pleasure in Da Vinci Code, this film is vastly superior.

Written as a sequel to the first film (though the events in the book take place before, that I do know), Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, thankfully rid of that God-awful haircut) once again finds himself in the middle of murder and intrigue all with a religious backdrop. Now he's been called to investigate the kidnapping of four prominent cardinals in the Vatican that just so happens to take place before the election of a new pope. The kidnapper has threatened to kill off the priests using methods upheld by the Illuminati, a free thinking, scientific based secret society (what other kind of society is there) that now claims to take revenge against the church for stopping their progress through torture and death centuries ago. At the end of it all, a stolen weapon capable of great destruction is promised to go off and consume the Vatican City entirely.

As I said before, this film is far better than its predecessor, and one of the reason is because it's light on the talking. One of the major problems of The Da Vinci Code was that many characters would break out into these grand monologues detailing the past hundred years of history leading up to his point. When these moments come after scenes of action, it screeches the film to a halt and creates an uneven tone. To be fair, this film does have its fair share of explanations, and they do slow the movie up, but the numbers are fewer. The film spends most of its time in fast paced and tight action sequences, and that is where the film really finds an accomplishment. I never thought the addition of David Koepp would be positive, but co-writer Akiva Goldsman should be thankful.

Returning to direct is Ron Howard, a man who has had an uneven career himself even with projects I thought were good (Cinderella Man I loved, others not so much). I think now Howard has learned from his mistakes of the past. He doesn't count on the characters to fill us in on a story that needs a lot of filling in by the characters. Sometimes a movie needs to be a plot-driven vehicle, and by Howard recognizing that this time, he's able to make sure that when the action and suspense need to pay off, they do so in a big way. Since Howard and his crew were banned by the Vatican from filming in their city, it's a little distracting to see every Vatican set take place within a computer generated world, but it still is a small complaint I have.

There isn't much to say about the cast, as Hanks is literally doing the same character he played three years ago. Nothing bad, but nothing spectacular to report either. Ayelet Zurer plays the new female companion for Langdon, and she feels like a stronger personality than her predecessor. Other nice additions include Ewan McGregor as a young, paranoid priest, Stellan Skarsgard as the shifty head of security for the Vatican, Thure Lindhardt as a tenacious and nosey Vatican bodyguard, and Armin Mueller-Stahl as an older cardinal with a great screen presence. The only thing this cast is missing is that spunk and energy that Sir Ian McKellen brought to the first film, which would have been a perfect fit for a rather bland assassin the film carries who is about as fun to watch as Silas's chastising.

I do not deny the film has some faults, as many other critics will promptly point out. However, I do believe this to be a film that has learned a great deal from the mistakes of the past, and has set out to make a film with a different goal. The movie focuses more on the action and suspense while throwing in a few good characters to match. I think this makes up for the film's trips in story that are dug in deep and plenty. I still feel sorry I didn't read the book, but since I've seen this film and what it is, maybe I don't want to anymore. *** / ****; GRADE: B


Sibling Chivalry

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time getting to foreign films. I'd really like to get to more of them in the theatres, but I guess some movie houses are afraid of subtitles and don't play them as often as they should. Last year I only got to one, the superb Swedish vampire film known as Let the Right One In. I seem to have already broken my record this year, and this film is my second one following with Mexican Sin Nombre. Although, I wonder if it counts if the two films are from the same country. I don't have the answer to that. However, what I do know is that this is a purely enjoyable and delightful film.

Eight years after the international hit Y Tu Mamá También, Diego Luna and Gael García Bernal reunite as companions on film. This time, instead of being close friends, they are distant brothers each with a passion for soccer. Luna is Beto, the more hot tempered brother who earns the nickname "Rudo" for his behavior as a goalie. Bernal is Tato, a starter on the field, who also is a passionate tone deaf singer, who gets the name "Cursi." Both are workers on a plantain farm when they get picked up by talent scout Batuta (Guillermo Francella). Because they're picked up at different times, they end up playing for different teams. Their rough dealings with fame lead to their personal lives is dismay and end with a climatic battle between the two in an all-for-nothing game at the end.

Luna and Bernal are great actors, and each are able to carry their own stories quite well. Bernal doesn't make Cursi being the always shy and quick witted one, and Luna doesn't let Rudo vent in one bad decision after another. We can admire Cursi's dedication to the game and professing love to his girlfriend yet be irritated by his casual naive sense and screeching singing choice. We can be upset with Rudo's poor gambling habit, yet be excited when his winning streak allows him to spread lavish gifts to his family. Both of these actors are able to make these characters well rounded, and that more believable. I'm still undecided about Francella, as his character sometimes slows down the scenes that could be more powerful with a sole emphasis on Bernal and Luna, but he mostly does a fine job at providing either comic relief or insight through his omnicesnt narration.

Carlos Cuarón, brother of Alfonso and co-writer of Y tu mamá..., takes the sole reigns here as writer and director, and he is able to show a good sense behind the camera. He is able to let all the scenes flow very nicely, and there are few that feel caught in stasis. I would still argue that he is better at creating the story, and the accomplishment of such well rounded characters should be just as much given to him as the film's lead actors. The characters here, and their fully rounded personalities, saves the movie from becoming another "brothers at war" piece. Instead we have something more complicated and even a little sweeter than that. Maybe the efforts of Carlos's brother, or the other that join the "Three Amigos" (Alejandro González Iñarritu and Guillermo del Toro are co-producers along with Alfonso), are to add to it, but whoever the persons are, they have done the film a great service.

To be fair, I'm not saying this is anywhere as good as the Cuarón brothers first effort, nor is the chemistry between Bernal and Luna quite as strong. Still, while the film is a softer accomplishment, it still is an accomplishment in the end. The two leads are still working well on screen, able to carry the film in the combined and separate scenes, and the film has a nice structure to overlook some flat execution and a few uninteresting characters. If you're like me, then you'll be having a hard time finding this film. However, I would advise you to seek out your theatre and demand they summon up the courage to embrace the subtitles. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Star Trek

First Contact

Even though I know Wolverine came out last week, I still have to say that the proceeding week's follow up almost seems like an eerily familiar premise. Once again, we are the witness to a once great motion picture series that began to lose credibility over the years, especially with its last film, and has attempted to reinvent itself by providing an origin story for its best leading characters. Unfortunately, Wolverine just didn't have enough to sustain a believable story, but with no competition, the film had an impressive debut. This week, the reinvention happens to a franchise that has a lot more fans and ends up being many times better.

After four films in the Star Trek franchise departed from the original crew and started to focus on the next generation with Patrick Stewart as commander, this new film takes the Batman Begins route and goes back into the past to discover how all the original crew members of the Starship Enterprise managed to gain their iconic roles. Here, the crew of the Enterprise face a nearly unrecognizable Eric Bana as Nero, a renegade, time traveling Romulan who is on a revenge crusade destroying planets as he goes along.

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who now play the respective roles of Kirk and Spock, are very convincing and do the parts justice. Pine, a relative newcomer, gratefully does not try to do a Shatner impersonation and instead makes the character his own. He manages to breath fresh air in a character that could have been destroyed by some antics of its original owner, but he definitely makes Kirk credible again. Likewise, Quinto not only resembles the original Spock (and yes, Leonard Nimoy appears in this film), but he's also able to give him a sensitivity that was absent from the early years that is pleasurable in this new era. Both Quinto and Pine do fantastic and believable work in this movie, whether they share the screen or not.

Other areas of the cast also shine, in particular Zoë Saldana as Uhura. This how the character should be played today, and Saldana makes her one to care about because of her sensitivity, admire because of her strengths, and fear because of her intimidation. There are also nice additions from Karl Urban, doing well as the surly surgeon "Bones" McCoy, Simon Pegg as the funny and jittery engineer Scotty, Bruce Greenwood as the now infamous Captain Pike (consult your nearest Trekkie/Trekker for more information) and even smaller roles from Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother, Nimoy himself playing his old character once again, and Tyler Perry (yes, that Tyler Perry).

Some other characters are only so-so, such as John Cho's Sulu, who isn't reserved enough to feel credible nor exciting enough to feel intriguing. Bana's villain also doesn't preserve too much menace in his scenes, but I would say he mostly does a good job with the limited material he is provided, and the same thing would be said about his henchman played by Capote's Clifton Collins, Jr. However, the one that truly felt like a wrong note is Anton Yelchin's Chekov. I was annoyed with the heavy and cartoonish Russian accent when Walter Koenig did it for so many years and it was just as annoying today. Hopefully the sequel will allow Yelchin to ease up on that distractingly bad voice.

Thankfully, J.J. Abrams did not set out to make a Star Trek movie that was completely faithful to the world that Gene Roddenberry created more than forty years ago. If one has a deep fondness for the original show or previous films, then some may be upset with the directions the plot and characters take. However, Abrams knows that an audience can sometimes just be stimulated by the action, and there are impressive action sequences in the film. Even still, Abrams also knows how to make the characters themselves drive the action forward, and the heavy suspenseful drama can be just as present in moments between characters rather than between dueling starships.

I would also give credit to writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (the men who penned Transformers and co-created "Fringe" with Abrams) for devoting some much beloved and needed time to cement a relationship with these characters so we can care about their future plights. Unfortunately, it also meant that when it came time to look at the actual meat of the story, the conflict, it felt like a lazy effort. Revenge used as a motivation for a villain is one overdone, and it causes the film to lose a bit in as the third act comes to a close. Because Nero doesn't seem to have an ambitious plan, his threat never feels greatly realized and some of the action falls flat. The eventual sequel probably won't have this issue, but this film was certainly lacking there.

In the end, though, this becomes a great sci-fi/action epic that is enjoyable for both hard core fans and summer movie audiences. Thanks to an incredibly talented cast and insightful direction from Abrams (who includes a few winks here and there to the original series), the film surpasses it's story problems. If anyone else was let down tremendously by last week's big release, try to forget it. This is where the summer really begins. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: Wolverine & Fighting

Original Sin

Every year, audiences are subjected to a film that has the distinct honor of opening the summer movie season. The only problem that tends to arise is that it is often a gamble as to whether or not you're going to get a quality film or not. Take last year: Iron Man was a film that exceeded nearly everyone's expectations, and rightfully so. You had a great performance from the unlikely hero Robert Downey Jr. plus a good supporting cast surrounding him. The only hiccup the film had was a rather lame villain from Jeff Bridges, but that wasn't enough to bring down the best movie of 2008's summer until that guy in the bat suit rolled around two months later. Then take a look at the year before that: Spider-Man 3. After everything that has been panned with that film, I hope I don't need to explain why it is certainly no Iron Man. Unfortunately, neither is film despite some lingering potential for it to please.

As the title suggests, the film's plot centers on the origin story of Logan, aka Wolverine, and chronicles the events in his life before he is introduced in the first X-Men film. Discovering his special abilities being able to grow sharp bones between his knuckles, he runs away from his mid nineteenth century home with his brother Victor (Liev Schriber; the character will soon be known as Sabertooth) and they fight in every war from the Civil to Vietnam. During this time is when he is recruited into a special task force with other mutants and is commanded by military commander William Stryker. After some tactical disagreements, Logan leaves the group.

Years later, he discovers Victor is hunting down many of the other mutants from the group and tries to stop him, especially after he kills the love of his life. Soon, he finds out the bigger plans of Victor and Stryker, and summons up all that mutant power to try and stop them.

I really enjoyed the first two X-Men movies, and a major part of that was director Bryan Singer. Like all of his movies, he's been able to take those isolated personal feelings of his (he's adopted, gay, and Jewish, a perfect combination to direct this series) and flushed out character driven pieces that also indulged the action senses. When the series was hijacked by Brett Ratner, we had far too many characters introduced, and I couldn't care less about what the plot meant to any of them because I wasn't allowed enough time to get to know them. The same is true with this film. Too many characters are present, and some of them disappear as lazily as they entered. Ryan Reynolds and Dominic Monaghan, who play a smart mouth sword wielder and a telekinetic with electrical powers, are interesting characters granted nearly one scene. The long awaited arrival of Gambit also feels forced and unnecessary, which is a shame given his potential as a character, and the same thing is said for Will.i.am's teleporting mutant. Once again, too much time is devoted to uninteresting characters, and too little time to the interesting ones.

Having said that, Jackman still proves that he is capable to deliver a solid action performance, and those expecting what he has done before with this character probably won't be disappointed. But then, Wolverine was never my favorite character in the X-Men gallery. His screams, punching and rippling muscles will please the men and women in the audience, which is what he's always been doing. Schriber is also a nice addition, adding some real personality to a character that could have easily become pedestrian and bland. I'd also add the always great Danny Huston to that mix, who plays Stryker. He's a real good "bad guy" actor and his menace is very convincing.

When all those other elements fail, one would normally think the technicals would back the film up to support it, right? Well, Gavin Hood's idea of good visual effects are laughable. I believe even an audience with an untrained eye will be able to spot the really fake looking claws attached to Jackman's hand as well as the crumbling nuclear tower with the flying Gambit running toward it. Despite winning an Oscar for his foreign film Tsotsi, Hood seems to be on a serious decline, as his previous effort was the horrendous Rendition. To be fair, Hood can keep the action going in many scenes and he doesn't let the film simmer too much in exposition and stale dialogue, but when it does happen, it's like Sabertooth's nails on a chalkboard and brings the film to an abrupt halt.

Evidently, the first attempt to branch off this series with films dedicated to one character has been the most successful attempt. I think it could have been only if it had gotten control over it's story. For me, I don't many many of these characters beyond what I remember from a long ago videogame, so introducing them and providing no explanation is not a set up I want. A more limited scope and perhaps more emphasis on the Logan/Victor/Stryker relationship would have been a good way to win my approval (more time with Reynolds, Monaghan, or even Tim Pocock playing a young Cyclops). Instead there is a very weak story that especially feels rushed at the end coupled with some sparingly impressive visual effects. I'd be interested to see what they'll do with the series for Magneto, played wonderfully by Ian McKellen in the previous films. I'll hold out for that effort much more that I did with this one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+



Don't Retread on Me

There's a lot of reasons why one might disregard this film and pass it up completely, and to be honest, there are times when this movie makes a good case for that argument. I mean, come on, if the poster next to this review wasn't bland enough, just look at the unimpressive title to the movie. But at least you know exactly what you'd be getting with this film. Or will you? That's the interesting thing about Fighting. Just when you think you'd only be getting the precise same formula done over and over again, and by the overcharged loads in last year's howlingly bad Never Back Down, you instead get only most of the same formula, and the rest is sprinkled with some surprises that actually make this a better film than normally.

The central plot concerns Shawn MacArthur (Channing Tatum), a broke Alabama native living the minimalist life in New York when while selling bootleg copies of "Harry Potter vs. the Hippopotamus", he picks a fight with a potential mugger. This, of course, catches the eye of Harvey Boarden (Terrence Howard), a well to do street hustler who wants to get Shawn involved with secret underground fights that people bet on. Throw into that a budding romance with a waitress at a club (Zulay Valez) and a rivalry with a former colleague (Brian J. White) and you have pretty much the whole premise of the film.

I'm not going to lie that the film is far from perfect, and much of that has to do with the story. The plot is just as ambitious as the film's title, and we the audience can see where every turn is going and every new twist revealed. That's a shame, considering director and co-writer Dito Montiel received high praise for his directorial debut A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (also featuring Tatum). Why such a lack luster story exists for this film is beyond me.

Tatum does do mildly well in a role that obviously doesn't require too much from him beyond looking good with his shirt off, and he does show that given the right material, he can carry a film as an attractive lead role. However, you can seriously say that he's about all the cast can offer, as everyone else plays their roles over the top to a mind numbing point. Even Howard, who I normally love, is annoyingly bad here. I don't know if it's his speech patterns or what, but everytime he begins to talk, my mind wants to switch off.

Having said all that, there are some redeemable aspects about the film that almost pull it out of it's hole. For instance, some of the fighting scenes pack a more realistic and heavy punch than most other films of this sort has, even though for a movie called "Fighting", there is actually very little of it in the movie. But I would point out that the last two in particular will actually hold some suspense in your mind and you'll feel like you're rooting Shawn on with the other spectators as well. Also, even though I didn't care for how Howard played Harvey, I did appreciate the way his character was handled. One would normally expect Harvey to be Shawn's enemy in the final act, but he actually turns out to be his greatest friend. That was an area I didn't expect to see that character go, and almost didn't recognize it because it's so unused. It was a good play for a movie that was limited in that amount.

In the end, I won't say that Fighting is a terrible film, but I think it has too many faults within its tame and pedestrian story for any kind of remarkable recommendation to come through. Ultimately, I can't say one halfway descent performance, an interesting and unexpected character arch, and two out of four well staged fight scenes are enough to overlook the other major problems of the story and weak acting from the other members of the cast. There is something salvageable in the film, but when it's all over, Fighting becomes a movie that's better than it should have been, but not quite as good as it could have been. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-