Author: Darren Goodhart

The vicious alien known as Boris The Animal has just escaped imprisonment on the moon and is now hellbent on getting his revenge on the man who put him there: Agent K of the Men In Black. Boris’ plan is to go back in time and stop K before the young K can stop him, and he succeeds wiping out all existence of anything that K has accomplished with one exception; his partner Agent J still remembers everything. Now Agent J plans to go back in time to 1969 and keep Boris from eliminating the young Agent K.

That’s the nutshell premise to Men In Black III, the latest film in the series and it’s also the latest movie from director Barry Sonnenfeld who directed the prior two movies. Sonnenfeld was last seen on the big screen in 2006 with RV and prior to that, 2002 with Men In Black II. He’s been spending the last few years working in television. Now honestly, until a few months ago, I wasn’t even aware that there was a third Men In Black movie even coming and I more or less thought that this series was pretty much through (especially considering that MIBII really wasn’t that good of a film). When I saw the original trailer for Men In Black III I thought it looked like it was going to be a lot of fun and thankfully, it is.

Men In Black III takes a bit of a different turn from the prior two movies providing more of a focus on J and K’s partnership and their origins. It’s got a lot of sentimentality and I think it’s hitting this series at just the right time. Oh, it still has all of the alien wackiness of the first two movies, but it takes a second place to a bigger display of heart. The start-up of the film is a little on the slow side, but once Agent J makes his time jump, the pace of the film picks up considerably. the film’s humor isn’t raucous, but more gentle inducing more smiles than belly laughs.

The film absolutely looks terrific and it’s clear that Sonnenfeld shot this with 3D in mind. It wasn’t shot in 3D, but converted, but it was a planned conversion. It really does look terrific and thanks to Sonnenfeld’s shooting style, it absolutely works with lots of in-your-face 3D effects as well as plenty of scene immersion. The visual effects are beautiful and master make-up effects artist Rick Baker gets a chance to shine here with his alien make-up work. Composer Danny Elfman has also returned to the series and provides the right familiarity with his score.

Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones both reprise their roles as J and K respectively, and while Men In Black III won’t be seen as their best work, it’s still good stuff and the two still display the same chemistry that was seen in the prior films, but getting even a little stronger by the end. Josh Brolin plays the young Agent K in 1969 and it’s a pitch-perfect impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones, yet there’s still a little glint of wonder to this character that the older K doesn’t have. Smith and Jones are great, but I tend to think Brolin steals the show.

New to the series, you have Emma Thompson playing Agent O who assumes command of the Men In Black after the passing of Zed (played by Rip Torn in the prior movies). Alice Eve (most recently seen in The Raven) plays O in 1969 and I think both version of this character are welcome additions to this series providing Agent K with way more depth than previously seen. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Griffin, the last survivor of an alien race who can see all of the possibilities of the future at any moment, and he also provides a nice sense of wonder. Jemaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords plays Boris The Animal and he’s pretty good as the vicious villain sort of reminding of what you might get if you crossed Mark Ruffalo with Tim Curry. There’s even a couple of nice cameos with Will Arnett playing Agent AA, who’s K’s partner in the altered future and former X Factor judge and Pussycat Doll, Nicole Scherzinger playing Boris’ girlfriend who helps him escape from the moon.

Men In Black III is a fun movie and in my mind, just the right sort of movie to follow in the wake of The Avengers, it’s a smaller sort of blockbuster still filled with terrific visuals, but with a bigger display of heart. It’s comfort food on the big screen with some new spice added thanks to terrific work from Josh Brolin. If you’re like most, you loved the original film and were disappointed by the second, fortunately third time is indeed the charm here and I expect you’ll have a good time with Men In Black III.

Alex Hopper is a 26-year old young man with no direction in life. On his attempt to impress a girl, he gets in trouble with the police. Alex’s brother Stone, a Naval Commander, lays down the law to his brother and makes him get his life in order by joining the Navy. As Alex and Stone are about to engage in war games, an alien threat comes into play, of course threatening to take over our planet.

That’s the real simple premise to Battleship, the latest Hasbro game and toy property to get the big screen treatment following in the wake of the Transformers series and the first G.I. Joe movie (with another of those coming as well). It’s also the latest film from director Peter Berg, who’s previous films have included The Rundown, Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom and Hancock.

I was curious to see this for a couple of reasons:

1. I thought it had a great initial trailer
2. I’m a fan of Berg’s previous films with the one exception being Hancock.
3. I had the Battleship game as a kid, loved it to death and of course was curious to see just how you’d make a movie out of this.

Now, just as I was curious to see it, I was also keeping my expectations pretty low. It is after all based on a game without any discernible characters and the game itself is pretty simple, so while I was curious I wasn’t expecting this to be as bright a spot as say, The Avengers when it comes to big screen, effects-laden action films. And also, initial word on the street hasn’t been all that encouraging either. But still, I am a fan of Berg’s, so I was certainly open to give it chance and make up my own mind about it.

It’s fortunate that I kept my expectations low… yeah, it’s nowhere near being the bright spot that the other big alien invasion movie out there right now (that of course being the aforementioned Avengers film), but it still has it’s moments. I just don’t expect those moments to be enough for anyone to want to give this anything further than a single look (though I do like this more than I did Hancock).

For something like the approach taken here, which is basically following the same pattern as other big budget alien invasion blockbusters since Independence Day, logic is thrown out the window. I expect that and am pleasantly surprised when it’s actually displayed. With Battleship, there’s no pretense at all that logic was ever even in consideration with all sorts of moments throughout that has you questioning the choice made. What Berg’s chosen to do is basically take the time to make his Michael Bay film wanting to bowl you over with it’s explosive effects and a salute to the military. There’s nothing at all wrong with doing that, it just goes over better when you have some actual smarts going into it as well as some really engaging characters, both of which Battleship lacks.

Taylor Kitsch plays Alex Hopper and right now, this isn’t exactly a good year for the young actor. Personally, I liked him in John Carter though he wouldn’t have been my first choice to play the part (that would’ve been Lost’s Josh Holloway). Here he’s not exactly real likable from the start, though of course he has a transformation during the film. The transformation is by rote though, just being a necessity to get through to it’s end and isn’t quite natural, though really that can be said for any of the characters throughout the film, they’re all cliches that are basically going through the motions. Of note though, this also features Liam Neeson as the Admiral of the Fleet and the big-screen debut for pop singer Rihanna. Neeson’s there to give this some gravity, but honestly it really doesn’t help much, especially considering that he’s only in the movie for about 10-15 minutes total.

But to give the film credit, it does have a great look and I thought the special effects were really nicely done. Steve Jablonsky has supplied a pretty powerful score that certainly helps punctuate the action. To me though, the coolest thing in the movie is a nighttime scene that actually pays real homage to the game on which Battleship is based on. This one scene is the most clever idea in the whole piece, it has intensity and it also brings it out from the players as well. It’s just a shame that the rest of the movie couldn’t have been this clever.

With all that being said, I still had some fun with Battleship but I’ll certainly grant you that it could’ve been a lot better than what it is here. It’s not exactly a recommendation, but it’s not a total loss either. There’s certainly a better option out there now, that being seeing The Avengers either for the first time or a second or third time (I’ve now seen it twice and it just keeps getting better) and there’s more promising things coming down the road. If you’re at all curious about seeing Battleship then certainly do so, but it’s best to keep those expectation way, way on the low side.

Loki, the evil half-brother of the Asgardian thunder god, Thor, seeks revenge against his brother by allying himself with aliens to take over the Earth and rule the planet that Thor has vowed to protect. Now, Nick Fury, the director of S.H.i.E.L.D., gathers together Earth’s own superhumans as the planet’s line of defense.

That’s the simple premise to The Avengers, the newest movie from Marvel Entertainment and the culmination of an ambitious undertaking by the studio since the first Iron Man movie. Nothing like this has really been done before theatrically (in America anyway, I suppose you could say Japan did this years ago with their giant monster films) and it truly is ambitious. You start movies featuring individual characters like Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor and Captain America, all with connective tissue between them, yet still standing alone as thoroughly satisfying films. Then you build to a point where the logical thing to do is to bring all of these characters together in one film for one big adventure. And it’s one hell of an adventure…

Joss Whedon is the director and one of the writers behind the movie, and he’s truly the right man for the job. Thanks to his past television work (and theatrical work as well- projects like Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse and the films like Serenity and his scripts for things like Alien: Ressurection, and even the first Toy Story amongst others), Whedon has proven himself to be adept at bringing together disparate characters and making them work in true ensemble pieces. Last week, I was certainly critical of his work with director Drew Goddard on The Cabin in the Woods and I wasn’t exactly that thrilled with Buffy The Vampire Slayer from season five on, but for the most part, I consider myself a fan of his work, and with The Avengers he’s hit a big home run.

The Avengers of course has all of the prerequisite big action and effects that you expect from a movie like this, but most importantly, it never loses sight of it’s characters within that framework. The “voices” for each of the characters are true to what you’ve seen in the prior individual movies and yet Whedon makes them all come together seamlessly and with some truly interesting play. Some real standout character moments for me in the film include the following; scenes between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner as they’re working out the scientific solution to their problem, another scene between Stark and Steve Rogers (Captain America) that tests Stark’s true motivations and if he truly does have the selfless intent to be a hero, and a nice moment between the Black Widow and Hawkeye after Hawkeye’s recovery from being used as a pawn for Loki. It doesn’t just stop there either; S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson is given some terrific depth that’s only been hinted at in the prior films and he’s made Loki into a truly malevolent menace, something which I think was little lacking in the Thor film.

And then there’s the technical side of things. The film just looks fantastic with plenty of terrific set pieces, fantastic visual effects and some really well-choreographed action scenes. One of my favorite moments in the film (and believe me there are plenty) occurs in the third act of the film and the battle with Loki and the aliens in the heart of New York City. This scene is a continuous action piece that shows all of the Avengers in individual action but also going even further with having them teaming with each other as well. How can you not get a thrill when you see Iron Man blasting his repulsor rays off of Captain America’s shield to take out some aliens, or seeing Thor and The Hulk fighting side-by-side high atop a giant alien beast? This is just fantastic stuff.

Whedon’s certainly got a first rate cast, no doubt about it. Everyone has returned from the other films with the one notable exception being Edward Norton from the Hulk movie. Norton’s been replaced by actor Mark Ruffalo, but I’ll get into that even further in a moment. Robert Downey Jr. Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner along with Ruffalo make up the core team and they’re all fantastic, with the standouts for me being both Ruffalo and Evans. The thing that I really admire about what Evans does here (and in the Captain America movie) is his stoic quality and being your literal “old-fashioned” hero who does the right thing without question. Evans looks great in the costume and to me anyway just commands the scenes when he’s in them. As far as The Hulk and Bruce Banner are concerned, well if I had my druthers, I would’ve rather have had Edward Norton here to maintain the continuity, but with that said, Mark Ruffalo does a truly fantastic job as the character. So even with my preference, I don’t want to slight anything that Ruffalo does here at all, and further between his performance and the script’s treatment of the character, I’ve got nothing but praise. There was a very thoughtful direction that The Hulk was being taken in in his own movie, that to me was logically and just as thoughtfully extrapolated on for this film. And of course, thanks to the abovementioned terrific visual effects, The Hulk himself looks more like Ruffalo which further adds to the terrific character quality. Those are my own personal standouts, but really the entire main cast is exceptional.

It doesn’t stop there; Samuel L. Jackson, Clark Gregg, Gwyneth Paltrow, Stellan Skarsgård, and Tom Hiddleston also return from the previous films and the standouts for me here are Gregg and Hiddleston. Clark Gregg has played Agent Coulson in all of the previous films and as I said above, he gets a lot more depth here as well as a turn that I was genuinely sorry to see happen to the character. When I reviewed Thor one of my criticisms there was that I thought Tom Hiddleston was wrong to play Loki, but after this, well I’m eating those words and just thought his game was stepped up considerably here. Hiddleston has real fire here and is, to me, just as commanding a presence as Chris Evans. The newest addition to the cast is Cobie Smulders as Nick Fury’s second-in-command, Maria Hill, a relatively newer character in the Marvel Universe. She doesn’t quite get as much to do as the others, but still she’s good and a good addition. Back in the day, when Whedon was connected with the Wonder Woman movie, Whedon was supposedly eyeing Smulders for the part. I really didn’t see that quality in her before, but thanks to this movie, I can plainly see what Whedon saw in her for that role.

It still doesn’t stop. For the comic fan (and I have to admit, I haven’t read a current Marvel book in the last 3+ years- sorry, it just started to fall off for me with their Civil War magnum opus and I left entirely after Secret Invasion), there’s loads of little easter eggs throughout (I was pleasantly surprised to see Project Pegasus in this as a for instance) that even lapsed fans like myself will catch. The Avengers certainly is a movie for the die-hard comic book fan, but it’s not limited to that. If your only appeal to these characters has been just what you’ve seen in the movies, well you may not appreciate it in the same way, but you should still have a grand time with this.

Of course, there are nits that can be picked, little (or large) things that we fans wish had been done here, but considering the huge quality of the overall film and the terrific performances of this exceptional ensemble cast, it would in fact be nit-picking. if we’ve learned anything over the last few years with all of the various comic book movies that have been made, it’s that anything is now possible as far as the type of material that can be brought to the screen. The Avengers reinforces that in a big way and further opens up even more possibilities. The Avengers might be the culmination of other films, but it’s also a brand new starting point and honestly I cannot wait to see what Marvel does next.

As if you couldn’t tell, The Avengers is for me one of the best movies I’ve seen this year so far. If fulfills on a promise started by Marvel Studios and adds even more. It’s a thrilling, fun and funny ride that will stick with you way after your first viewing and further just makes you want to see it again immediately (and I know I’m going to do that very thing next weekend). As has been the case with all of the Marvel films, there are additional scenes during and after the main credits, so whatever you do, don’t leave, they’re both great pay-offs and a sign of things to come. The Avengers is highly, highly recommended… if you haven’t seen it yet, run, don’t walk, to your nearest theatre and prepare for a 2+ hour thrill ride that you won’t soon forget.

I’m running a little behind on this one, I’d originally intended to post it last weekend, but unfortunately, personal circumstances came ahead of it. But still, better late than never…

As The Cabin in the Woods starts, were introduced to two technicians, Sitterson and Hadley, as they’re beginning to start their day. By their conversation, it all sounds like it’s going to be rather mundane, but as the title of the movie comes up, you certainly get the idea that there’s something way more to this than it seems. We immediately flash to a group of five college students who decide that they’re going to get away from it all for the weekend, literally heading to the titular cabin in the woods. but as they leave, we soon find out that they’ve been under some major surveillance and that aspects of their trip and preparations for it have been totally manipulated. As they get to the cabin, they realize that they’re getting way more than what they bargained for and both of the scenarios that we’ve been presented with are about to collide in a way that neither have expected.

Sorry if all of that sounds rather cryptic, but saying much more would lead into some major spoilers for this film, and I just don’t want to give too much away at the start of this review. The Cabin in the Woods comes to us from director Drew Goddard and producer Joss Whedon who also collaborated on the story together. These guys certainly have geek street cred, having worked together on the Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series and having separate credits like Goddard having been a writer on Lost and Alias as well as writing the movie Cloverfield and of course, Whedon also being responsible for such things as Firefly and Dollhouse as well as next week’s highly anticipated Avengers film. Lionsgate has been sitting on releasing this one for awhile, though I have to admit after seeing the trailer and knowing the pedigree here, I was certainly looking forward to it. Unfortunately, immediately after seeing it, I really wasn’t that thrilled by it, in fact, I just didn’t like it. Having had a week further to stew on this (and also having a chance to read an extensive interview with Goddard), I appreciate it more now than I did immediately after seeing it, but I still don’t think it’s that successful in getting it’s points across.

The Cabin in the Woods is some pretty ambitious meta-commentary from both Goddard and Whedon, not only on what they see as the state of horror films but also about the ideas of sending the young off to do the bidding of the old. It’s pretty apparent from the start that there’s some sort of master manipulation going on here. But, thanks to the rather snarky treatment that all of the characters and the situations get, it was hard for me to give a damn about either side and so the point for me was to see what exactly the punchline was at the end. And when it does get to the end, it does all get resolved, but to a point where there’s really no “pro” side to what they’re commenting on. Basically, if you look at the implications of it’s final moments, it’s not really saying much for the side of the young, at least from my point of view.

In the interview that I read with Goddard, The Cabin in the Woods was described as a love/hate letter to horror films. While I get Goddard’s points, they just didn’t come across to me in what I was being presented. To me, it’s points about horror films and it’s characters were more on the mocking and contemptuous side more than anything else with their “love” side being more confined to the film’s end and then still just not balanced enough.

And then there’s the characters… Each of the five college students are essentially playing two roles; pre- and post-manipulation. But the pre- side gets quite a bit short-changed, so much so that basically they all just blend together. Kristen Connolly plays the red-headed lead amongst the college kids, Dana, and she’s a bit on the dry side here, having me think that she was cast only because Felicia Day (a perennial Whedon favorite) just wasn’t available (and having said that, I think Day could’ve brought quite a bit more here). Fran Kranz (who played Topher in Whedon’s Dollhouse) plays everyone’s stoner friend Marty and is just too cartoonish to me, so much so that I had a hard time buying that the other kids would even be hanging out with him. It’s also worth noting that Chris Hemsworth is one of the college students having made this film before he ever played Marvel’s Thor character.

Faring better are the characters of Sitterson and Hadley played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford respectively. There’s certainly plenty of snark shown with these guys as well, but they have their moments where they do display the gravity of the situation that’s about to unfold and that certainly goes a long way. Giving them support, you have another perennial Whedon favorite, Amy Acker as a fellow tech and Brian White who plays security for this group. White stands out for me as he’s all-business in his part, and amongst the cast is the one who totally shows the importance of what’s about to go down. It’s also worthy of note that you do have a big-name actress (who’s a bit of a horror icon her own self) who comes in for a very important cameo.

There’s massive elements of The Cabin in the Woods that are very similar to parts of both the Angel and Dollhouse TV shows (specifically the Wolfram and Hart firm on Angel). The advantage that those shows have though, is that they had time to develop and here, it’s just shown as sketches more than anything else. I tend to think if we’d had just a little more time with the college students at the start and some more time with the organization behind this master plot, this could’ve been a lot more satisfying to me. As it stands, The Cabin in the Woods seems to me to be more concerned with it’s contemptuous lampooning more than anything else. I’m not adverse to this stuff getting fun poked at it all, but here it just went overboard and maybe some more serious development time would’ve helped to balance this better.

Again, I certainly appreciate The Cabin in the Woods more now than I did immediately after seeing it and I certainly admire the massive ambition that’s here. Compared to a lot of reviews I’ve been seeing, I’m in the minority on this one. I think it’s unsuccessful, but… I’m not going to discourage anyone from seeing this, and more, if you haven’t seen it yet and are of a mind to see it, I’d encourage you to do so. It may not have been successful to me, but there’s still some good ideas here and they very well might work for you.

The time is 1849 and the place is Baltimore, it’s the final days in the life of famed writer Edgar Allen Poe and during this time a mysterious killer is using methods from Poe’s own stories to commit his crimes.  Poe is enlisted to help solve the crimes by a smart young detective, Emmet Fields.  The stakes soon become even more personal to Poe when his fiancee, Emily Hamilton is kidnapped by the killer and used as bait for Poe to chronicle what he has seen.

This is the premise to The Raven the newest movie from director James McTeigue and starring John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe.  Previously, McTeigue has been an assistant director working with the Wachowski Brothers on The Matrix films and more recently he’s been directing on his own with such films as V For Vendetta and Ninja Assassin, both of which I enjoyed a great deal.  Combined with the inspired casting of Cusack as Poe, I was looking forward to seeing this and I had a great time with it.

The Raven certainly salutes a good portion of Poe’s most memorable works like Murders in the Rue Morgue and The Pit and The Pendulum but at it’s core, this is a mystery/detective thriller and that itself, at least to me, is also a salute as many consider Poe to be the father of the modern detective story.  Writers Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare have certainly done their homework and have crafted something here that’s a pretty nice extrapolation of what could’ve led up to the mysterious circumstances to Poe’s own death.

The visual style of the film is first rate and most will likely compare it to more recent films like Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow or more recently, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films.  For me, I think McTeigue has gone back a little further and the look  reminds me more of a combination of Roger Corman’s classic Poe adaptations and  the horror films of the Hammer and Amicus studios.  It’s very appealing and doesn’t have overt flash, but certainly the right detail (with the one notable exception being that Cusack is sporting a beard that the real Poe didn’t have- this will no doubt bother some, but I was OK with it).

And speaking of Cusack, I just thought he did a fantastic job here.  To me, it was obvious that he threw himself into his research and it shows on-screen.  Poe’s not made to be some sort of super-hero in this film, he’s basically the picture of desperation at this point in his life and it certainly adds to how he helps solve the mystery.  Luke Evans plays Detective Emmet Fields.  Evans has most recently been seen in movies like The Three Musketeers and Immortals (and will soon be seen in the new Hobbit films).  Evans does a terrific job here and though his role isn’t quite as flashy as Cusack, he still does a great job of keeping up with him and the two have very nice chemistry together.

Alice Eve plays Emily Hamilton more closer to a contemporary heroine, though it doesn’t feel out of place here at all.  Brendon Gleeson, Kevin McNally, Oliver Jackson-Cohen and Sam Hazeldine all fill out the rest of the main cast and do a nice job on the support, though I do want to call out Hazeldine a bit here.  I can’t really say why as I don’t want to spoil things, but I do really appreciate what he did in the film.

Now, The Raven isn’t perfect.  There’s a few plot holes here and there that fortunately don’t really bother me that much thanks to the film’s even pace and strong performances.  Also, it’s main credits sequence is totally out of place- it looks like something that would be used in a contemporary David Fincher film- but fortunately, they’ve kept this sequence to run at the end of the film.  If it had been set at the beginning, it would’ve stood out more on the negative side.  Still, I was plenty entertained by The Raven, primarily due to the performances of both Cusack and Evans, the good uses of Poe’s works in the murders and James McTeigue’s thoughtful visual style.  It’s a fun and cool diversion and certainly worth seeing if you have the chance.

And so it came to pass, three babies are left on the doorstep of an orphanage, though there’s something just a little odd about them.  The babies grow up to be young men with one of them having the opportunity to leave the other two by being adopted.  But this young man just can’t leave his friends behind and chooses to stay with them.  The three grow older and never leave the orphanage instead they stay behind and act as handymen.  But one day, they find that the orphanage is in financial trouble and ow the three leave their home behind, with the hopeful attempt to raise enough money to save their home… and of course have some eye-poking fun along the way.

That’s the basic story behind The Three Stooges the latest film from Peter and Bobby Farrelly and really this is just a hell of a lot of fun.  I’m a huge fan of the classic Three Stooges shorts and to this day, they still manage to get me to laugh in that sort of big, belly laugh way.  The Farrellys are obviously big fans as well and their little re-invention for a modern audience also manages to be quite the love letter to some classic comedy as well.

The Three Stooges is broken down into three separately chaptered stories all with the same running through-line.  It is one big story, but each individual chapter pays some great homage to classic Stooges situations of the past and I just did not want to see this end.  Now, I understand that some might take offense that this movie was even made, but really, the Farrelly’s hearts are definitely in the right place and they manage to not only pay homage, but re-invent while mixing the Stooges with their own brand of humor.

The best part of the film is the casting of Moe, Larry and Curly.  Chris Diamantopoulos plays Moe, Sean Hayes plays Larry and Will Sasso plays Curly and these guys are just brilliant.  Diamantopoulos has Moe’s look down to a “T.”  Sean Hayes is the only other person who I’ve ever heard pull off a successful impersonation of Larry Fine (the other is the great voice artist, actor and comedian Billy West).  Will Sasso is Curly Howard re-born.  The impersonations are absolutely spot-on, but even better is the timing and chemistry that all three have.  They absolutely excel at the gags, but the Farrellys also manage to bring a little heart to their film, and all three deliver the goods there as well.

There’s solid support for the boys from a great supporting cast including Jane Lynch, Jennifer Hudson, Sofia Vergara, Craig Bierko, Stephen Collins and the great Larry David.  I really have to give high marks to both Sofia Vergara and Larry David amongst the supporting cast.  Vergara plays Lydia, one of the villains of the movie.  She’s of course, drop-dead gorgeous, but also very much willing to put herself in a couple of pretty ridiculous situations and be a good sport about it.  Larry David plays Sister Mary-Mengele, one of the nuns at the orphanage and of course the one that the boys cause the most trouble for.  David’s lapping this whole thing up and you can just tell he’s having the time of his life playing the foil.  Also amongst the supporting cast, you’ll find the entire cast of Jersey Shore who I have to give props to for being good sports for the fun that gets made of them here.  As a downside to that, their appearance will no doubt date the film in later years, but for now, they certainly help generate some laughs.

I absolutely loved The Three Stooges and that’s for me pretty high praise considering I’m not really a fan of most comedies made today.  This one obviously spoke to my own affection for the classic trio, but the Farrellys manage to inject some of their own humor as well and the mix is absolutely hilarious.  I saw this with two other friends and honestly, we were laughing all the way through the film.  I honestly don’t know how this will play with those that aren’t familiar with the Stooges, but if you are a Stooges fan, I hope at least you’ll give this a chance.  Personally, I’d love to see the Farrellys, Diamantopoulos, Hayes and Sasso re-team and do this again.  The Three Stooges is fantastic, slapstick fun from start to finish.

It’s the latter part of the 21st century and a former CIA operative named Snow is under investigation for a potential conspiracy against the United States government.  Things are looking pretty bad for Snow and he’s been told that he’ll be doing time on board MS One.  MS One is a prison that orbits the Earth and all of it’s prisoners are held in stasis to do their time.

Simultaneously, Emilie Warnock, the daughter of the U.S. President, is taking a little trip to MS One to investigate rumors of experiments involving the prisoners there.  As she’s interviewing one prisoner, a particularly bad piece of work named Hydell, things go awry.  Hydell manages to get a hold of a gun and quickly the tables turn to the point where the prisoners are all freed from their stasis chambers.

Back on Earth, it’s reasoned that the best person to go in and save Emilie is Snow and now he’s making preparations to go aboard MS One.

That’s the premise to Lockout the latest movie from producer Luc Besson’s production company, Europa, and it started as an idea from Besson.  For those that don’t know, as a director, Besson has directed films like La Femme Nikita, The Fifth Element and The Professional. As a producer, Besson’s been behind films like Taken, From Paris With Love and The Transporter series.  Lockout is directed by James Mather and Stephen St. Leger and they also co-wrote the screenplay with Besson.

By it’s trailer, Lockout looks like it should be some pretty good mindless fun.  Well, really it’s just slightly above average as far as an action film goes, though there are a few saving graces.

Strongest of these saving graces is Guy Pearce who plays the part of Snow. Now Pearce has bulked himself up a bit and certainly looks the badass part.  What he does well though is that he doesn’t take the whole thing that seriously and it’s reflected in the character’s wisecracking dialogue.  He’s fun to watch whenever he’s on-screen, but it’s not for great action bits.  The other saving grace to the film is some pretty rich production design.  This has a terrific look to it and the visual effects are all pretty nicely done.

Where this fails though is in part of it’s casting and just the fact that with one exception, there really isn’t any great memorable action scenes.  Now of course, I’m a bit spoiled as I’ve just seen The Raid: Redemption the night before and that was just loaded with terrific and highly memorable action scenes, so much so that it makes Lockout look pedestrian in comparison.  Now I don’t expect every action film to go to the same lengths as The Raid: Redemption did, but I’d like to hope for at least a couple of really great set pieces in most action movies.  To my count, Lockout has only one that’s really inventive and that’s a motorcycle chase near the start of the film, with it’s only problem being that it’s over too fast.  After that, there’s really nothing to speak of.

As far as it’s casting goes, Pearce is the best thing about the movie going in.  Maggie Grace plays Emilie Warnock and she looks terrific, but she doesn’t really bring much else to the table.  Oh the script tries to get some adversarial banter going between her and Snow, but their chemistry just seemed a little too forced for me.  Vincent Regan and Jospeh Gilgun play are main villains aboard MS One.  Gilgun plays the abovementioned Hydell, and Regan plays his brother, Alex.  Neither are particularly effective in their parts and Gilgun is just hard to understand most of the time.  Lennie James and Peter Stormare play Shaw and Langral respectively and both are handling the investigation of Snow.  They’re both solid but man, I’d almost wish they’d been cast as the main bad guys aboard MS One instead as I think both could’ve brought a little more threat to the parts.

Lockout isn’t an offensively bad film, it’s just not that memorable.  It does run at a pretty quick pace (weighing in at 95 minutes) and it doesn’t take itself that seriously thanks mainly to a fun performance from Guy Pearce.  But really, this could’ve used a lot more in the action department and would’ve been helped significantly with better casting in the parts of the President’s daughter and the main villains.  As it is, it’s not a bad diversion, but one that you could probably wait to see when it’s no longer in theatres.

It’s been over 10 years since Perseus defeated the Kraken. Perseus was asked by his father Zeus to join him in Olympus, but declined to live his life out as a normal man.  He married Io and now has a son named Helius.  Io has since passed on and Perseus does his best to keep his son away from the life that he, Perseus, once led.  But Zeus has kept a watchful eye on his son and now the time has come where Zeus must call upon Perseus for his aid.  The ruler of the underworld, Hades, and the god of war, Ares, have joined forces to release the Titan, Kronos from his imprisonment in Tartarus and rule over the world of man.  At first, Perseus declines wanting nothing more than to spend his days with his son.  Soon though, events transpire that forces Perseus to join the battle and live up to the responsibility that’s part and parcel to his heritage.

That’s the premise to Wrath of the Titans the sequel to 2010’s Clash of the Titans and it’s also the latest film from director Jonathan Liebesman who directed last year’s Battle Los Angeles.  2010’s Clash of the Titans (a re-make of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen film) is not exactly well liked by most out there; I’m OK with it my own self- it’s not the greatest movie ever made, but it’s far from being the piece of trash that most make it out to be.  The thing that I don’t really forgive about it though is that it was the first major release post-Avatar to jump on the 3D bandwagon with a rushed 3D conversion, and at least in my estimation, was the starting point for the anti-3D feelings that you see from a lot of filmgoers today.  With that sort of pedigree (keeping in mind that Battle Los Angeles isn’t exactly well-liked either- though I enjoyed it a great deal), Wrath of the Titans has a couple of potential strikes against it before it’s even out of the gate.

Fortunately, Liebesman and crew took a good look at what was wrong with Clash and have gone to some considerable lengths to make it’s sequel a lot more fun.  And it is that, quite a bit of fun, but still with a few faults.

Liebesman shot Battle Los Angeles with an effective hand-held style that was great for putting you right in the middle of the action and he does the same thing here.  Now that style isn’t totally prevalent in this movie, and there’s plenty of instances where Liebesman will pull back his camera and give you a much clearer vantage point for all of the action.  While I prefer the hyper-stylized look of a similar movie like Immortals, this is  still a pretty darn good-looking film with some well-choreographed action, a few very cool set pieces and some terrific visual effects (very impressed by their rendition of Kronos which totally looks like it could’ve been a creation by the late, great Jack Kirby).

Now they do play a little fast and loose with the basic mythology and the characters are somewhat simplistic, but the ride is fast-paced and the 3D is absolutely fantastic.  That is the real improvement over Clash.  Clash’s 3D was an afterthought, Wrath’s 3D is well executed especially during the action sequences.

Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Danny Huston reprise their roles of Perseus, Zeus, Hades and Poseidon respectively.  Worthington really looks more the part now with his hair grown out.  He’s terrific in the action scenes and while he won’t win any dramatic awards for this, I thought the final scene in the film between Perseus and his son, Helius (john Bell) was actually pretty cool.  Neeson and Fiennes certainly both add gravity to this, and look like their having their own fun with it as well (especially Neeson).  New to this production are Rosamund Pike, Edgar Ramirez, Toby Kebbell and Bill Nighy.  Kudos to both Kebbell and Nighy for bringing a good sense of humor to the film.  Kebbell plays Agenor, the son of Poseidon and Nighy plays Hephaestus, the god who served as the blacksmith to the gods.  Nighy in particular looks like he’s having a ball with the part.

Wrath of the Titans won’t change anyone’s world, but it is a helluva lot of fun and a significantly better movie than it’s predecessor.  The look of the film is terrific, the action scenes and visual effects are exciting to watch, and the 3D is spectacular.  I had a great time with Wrath of the Titans and certainly recommend it.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have gone to see this movie.  I really had no familiarity with the source material at all other than knowing the basic premise, which seemed to me to borrow liberally from a great Japanese movie (and book and manga) called Battle Royale.  Honestly, that was all that I knew about this other than the fact that it was big with a younger audience… that should’ve also been a tip off.

It’s a non-distinct time in the future.  A dystopian society has surfaced after an apparent uprising between the Haves and the Have-Nots (obviously written during the Bush administration, heaven forbid this could’ve ever been written during the Obama administration) across 12 different districts.  Now the Haves keep the Have-Nots at bay with their force of peacekeepers, but they also give them a little bit of hope in the form of entertainment known as The Hunger Games.  In The Hunger Games, a boy and a girl from each district (aged between 12 and 18) is chosen to engage in mortal combat against the other districts.  24 combatants enter the 2-week long game, but only one will survive, but to that one, fame and riches.

We’re now in District 12 and introduced to the sisters Katniss and Primrose Everdeen.  Primrose is set to be entered into the Hunger Games drawing for the very first time, and of course, her name is drawn to represent District 12.  Katniss, doesn’t stand for it at all, and says she’ll be the first actual volunteer for the games if they’ll let Primrose go free.  And of course, that’s what happens.  On the boy’s side, a young man named Peeta, who has an attraction to Katniss (much to the chagrin of another young man named Gale) is chosen and the two embark on the journey to participate in the Hunger Games.  Happy Hunger Games everybody!

I think the biggest problem that I have with The Hunger Games is just that it’s way too long, boring and just takes itself way too seriously.  Director Gary Ross has previously made films like Seabiscuit and Pleasantville (I actually enjoy Seabiscuit a great deal).  They’re directed in a somewhat safe style and it looks to me like he’s trying to be a bit “edgy” here by using lots of hand-held camera work and quick cuts, with the occasional break to let you bask in the production design.  This needed a real visual punch that, in my opinion, Ross doesn’t have (as much crap as he gets, a Paul W.S. Anderson could’ve really directed the hell out of this).

From what I understand, this is a very faithful adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ original book, and for fans of that, they’ll probably be in total heaven with this (and if our audience was any indication, it was just me and the friends I saw this with that had problems with this, but then we’re all white males near 50 or in our 50s as well).  The film’s vision of the future just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.  It’s societal breakdown is told in just the simplest of strokes and it’s technology aspects and rules of the game are amorphous, with changes being made simply to advance it’s plot more than anything else.  For example, the games themselves take place in an ill-defined “arena” which is all controlled from a central source that can literally create life when it needs to (talking about the terrible CGI “dogs” seen at the very end).  The rules of the game are abruptly changed twice just to advance the “relationship” between Peeta and Katniss (these names are just soooo precious).  With the second climactic change of the rules, I just literally laughed out loud when it happened… it was just so safe.

I mentioned Battle Royale above and one of the great things that has going for it is it’s variety of characters that aren’t at all what they might appear on their surface.  Now sure, in the end, they might still be considered two-dimensional but that’s still one dimension more than most of the characters of The Hunger Games have.  Katniss Everdeen is the idealized nurturing female protagonist with no real faults at all and no real depth.  She’s told from the start the she has to win The Hunger Games and of course she does, but does it in such a way in which there’s no real blood on her hands.  The only real change for her is in the relationship that develops with Peeta, that just sort of comes to us as a matter of plot convenience.  I mean heaven forbid that she should remember that Peeta at the start of the games hooked up with a bunch of rivals in order to take Katniss specifically down.  Now to be fair, if you see a Die Hard movie with Bruce Willis, you’re sure to see Willis’ John McClane triumph in the end, that will happen, but at least the ride is fun and interesting with lots of great action and some snappy dialogue and one-liners that make it even more entertaining.  That type of movie still manages to build some suspense and there’s really no suspense at all in The Hunger Games.

The production design is… interesting.  It’s sort of like taking the great Ken Adam (who designed so many Bond films) and had him working with Lady GaGa and the Bravo Network at the same time.  There’s aspects to it that I think are quite cool (the control room for instance) and others that’s just perplexing.  I mean really, conservative “Haves” who will dress up in sparkly colors and have the hair colored blue and all bunned up in the future?  Yeah, I sorta find that one hard to buy.

And then there’s it’s whole social commentary, which is simplistic as is it’s cultural commentary.  I’ve read that this is supposed to be a big statement against reality TV shows and it just plays likes it’s written by a writer that just resents the concept of these shows more than one who’s done some actual digging into them.  Reality TV competitions are here to stay just as much as Young Adult genre fiction who’s fans thinks it’s far superior to anything else that’s ever been written before.

Performances… well I really can’t fault Jennifer Lawrence for what she does as Katniss.  She’s doing everything that’s asked of her, I just don’t think it’s asking much. The same can be said with the rest of the young cast as well.  The bright spot for me is in the character of Haymitch played by Woody Harrelson, a former winner of the Hunger Games, and Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz, the stylist for Katniss.  Both of these guys at least give the impression of more depth and have a bit more “lived in” quality to what they do.  I also have to give a little call out to Wes Bentley as Seneca, who I guess is the “producer” of the games.  Not so much for his performance, but more for being willing to let the filmmakers mold him into the cartoon character villain (and appearance wise, really all he needs are real horns coming out of his forehead).  That actually takes some stones to give yourself over to that, so good for Wes.

So in the end, well, The Hunger Games just wasn’t for me.  I’m clearly not it’s intended audience though I was most certainly willing to give it a chance.  It’s intended audience will no doubt absolutely love this to death and if this weekend’s box office is any indication, I think it’s a safe bet that you’ll all get your sequels in the future.  I believe I will pass on those and if I want to see something that uses this similar premise again, I’ll just satisfy myself by picking up the just-released DVD or Blu-Ray of the far superior Battle Royale or else watch something like The Running Man again (which at least knows how to not take itself so damn seriously).  Happy Hunger Games everybody!