Category: Text Reviews

Aliens have publicly landed on Earth and they’ve been with us for the last 20 years…They’ve mysteriously “landed” in Johannesburg, South Africa (their ship remains afloat above the city) and they’ve proven not to be a threat and more destitute than anything else. The aliens are evacuated from their ship and put into a refugee camp outside of Johannesburg called District 9 where life is hard for them and about to get harder. Over time, the aliens, derisively called Prawns by humans have become a major annoyance to the people of the city, and now it’s in the hands of a Haliburton-type of corporation to move them from the city to a location some 200 kilometers away, where they’ll be less of a concern to the people of Johannesburg. This corporation, called MNU who has more plans than just the displacement of the aliens, puts this task into the hands of a rising bureaucrat named Wikus Van De Merve who’s life is about to take the turn for the worse…

And that’s the basic premise to District 9 the new movie from director Neill Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson and it’s one incredible ride from start to finish.

Now parts of this premise are certainly nothing new in movies, with the basic idea being one that was handled years ago in Alien Nation, but District 9 ups it’s ante considerably by placing it in a location that’s just as alien to American viewers in South Africa, and griming it up dramatically. It’s story is told in both a mock documentary style and straight-up narrative that blend together pretty well as the events unfold and it doesn’t really let loose for a moment.

There’s a lot of back story established though there are some holes, but I don’t necessarily think those holes are there for lack of an effort, but more for getting the main thrust of this story moving forward. Or maybe Blomkamp is trusting his audience to sort of fill in the holes themselves (these holes being the language barrier between human and alien and aspects of a lack of involvement from other nations of the world here- but with a 20 year past of being on Earth, there are certainly ways to fill those holes in yourself). Regardless, they don’t hurt how this moves, and discussion of these things makes for great talk after the experience is done, and believe me, there’s room for this property to move in all sorts of ways beyond what’s here…

It’s really incredibly well made and well-paced. Jackson’s visual effects team WETA has gone the extra mile here and there’s no seams showing, the visual effects of District 9 are so far, for me, the best I’ve seen in movies this year, and one can only hope this will be remembered come Oscar time… and for maybe more than just the effects…

… what I’m speaking of in particular is the performance of actor Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merve which is just loaded with all sorts of nuance. He starts this thing as almost a Steve Carell-type of movie character (sort of thinking of The Office’s Michael Scott as a serious character) who just grows in leaps and bounds as events happen to him and unfold for him along the way. He’s not a typical movie “good guy” (nothing in the movie is typical really at all) and there’s shades of grey here at the start that don’t necessarily put you in a rooting mood for him. But it unfolds pretty naturally and we’re with Wikus as this goes and by it’s end, you can’t help but really feel for the poor guy. Big kudos to Blomkamp and Jackson for not using any name actors here, as it obviously adds further to the realism of the piece.

As I said at the top, this is just one hell of a ride, and the whole thing will spur a lot of discussion afterwards, particularly with genre fans. They’ve certainly left this open for a sequel, and I have to say I hope this does well enough for this to happen. It’s R-rated and it certainly earns that R in it’s graphic violence, so fair warning for those that might be a little squeamish out there. It borrows from a lot of other movies, but puts it together in a way that’s fresher than anything else out there. This one made a great impression on me, and is certainly right up there with The Hurt Locker as one of the best things I’ve seen this year. Don’t wait for video on this one, catch it in the theatres… highly, highly recommended.

A devastating new weapon has fallen into the clutches of a sinister terror force and now it’s up to an elite multi-national fighting force to save us all.

That’s the basic plot of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the next film designed to get the fans of The Transformers and the latest film from director Stephen Sommers.

I have to say that when I was younger (but older than the G.I. Joe fan base) and this form of G.I. Joe toy came out, I just wasn’t interested at the time. I thought the cartoons were big toy commercials and the comics were the ass-end of Marvel Comics (except when artist Michael Golden was involved here and there, and then I wanted to at least see the book). But I have to say, when I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought it looked like it could be a fun ride (which I’ve found out is certainly counter to fans of this stuff, with a lot of the comments really hating the trailer and especially the mechanized suits involved with it- I don’t get that, but there you go) and so I was at least interested in seeing the movie…

And I’ve always liked Stephen Sommers’ movies– oh sure, they’re not the greatest things ever committed to film, but just some fun brainless and harmless stuff that was a good diversion for a couple of hours. In the end, that’s what I thought of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra though also I was fairly indifferent to it as well. It was a pretty ride with lots of big-ass stuff being thrown at you on the screen, but with little or no emotional investment, at least for me. But let me say, if I was 10 years old and seeing this for the first time, I’d probably love it to death.

Now the thing is, I thought anyway, for fans of this stuff though, they’d probably just eat it up. I mean, they loved Transformers so they should probably love this as well, but then admittedly, I’m about as far removed from that fanbase as can be, so hell, I don’t know for sure. I mean it was always, at least from what I know, this particular group of good guy toys against this particular group of bad guy toys in a never-ending cycle, and near as I can tell, the movie delivers that…

My own biggest criticisms is that I thought the effects for the most part were pretty obvious looking (but near as I can tell that’s a directorial choice, and it doesn’t really hurt the movie) and that the lead character on the G.I. Joe side, Duke, played by Channing Tatum, is pretty much stiff as a board. There’s never any real risk of danger to anyone here in a way that made me give a damn, but then I don’t know if that was exactly the purpose of it, I don’t think it was. I’ve seen one review where at the end of it, he said to go see The Hurt Locker instead, and I just sort of think that’s a wrong direction to go in when writing a review of this movie, trying to compare it to something that’s super-real, when this is obviously an adolescent fantasy that’s trying to stay true to it’s roots (or at least near as I can tell).

Sommers has a big and pretty cast for this movie, the above-mentioned Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller (who it;s kid of nice to see in something as opposed to reading incessant gossip stuff on her), Dennis Quaid, Ray Park, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Christopher Eccleston, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols amongst others. and Sommers even manages to get “his guys” in some of the parts, like Brendan Fraser, Arnold Vosloo and in particular Kevin J. O’Connor. Nobody’s going to win an Oscar for this and really I don’t think anyone really cares, they all fill their parts well at least physically (and I happen to think Sienna Miller looks way better as a brunette in glasses than she does a blonde) and I guess they’re doing just what Sommers wants them to do. There was one point where I was watching this and thinking of the motivations of one of the characters, the Baroness, and applying to her some stuff that Martin Scorsese has said about simplistic character motivations just bugging him, and then I just had to laugh because I was going there for this movie, which of course was just ridiculous (much like the above comment from the reviewer who said you’re better off seeing The Hurt Locker instead).

As I said, if I was 10 years old, I’d probably think this was the coolest thing in the world. I tend to think that if I was a fan of G.I. Joe in the day, I’d probably eat it up as well. For me, it was a fun visual diversion for a couple of hours, though in the end I still didn’t care one way or the other when it came to a human element in the film, but then I hardly think that matters here…

It’s 2004 and the setting is Baghdad as we’re being introduced to an elite Bomb Squad of Bravo Company as they’re getting ready to do what they do best, take out any bombs. Unfortunately, tragic results ensue, and the two men left, Sanborn and Eldridge, with only 38 days left in their rotation, get a new squad leader, Staff Sergeant Will James…

The only problem is James really comes alive with the action that he faces, and goes the extra distance to get his job done, much to the dissatisfaction of the men underneath him.

The Hurt Locker just became the best movie of the year for me of those that I’ve seen thus far. It’s also the return to the big screen by director Kathryn Bigelow, who hasn’t had a full length feature in theatres since K-19: The Widowmaker and who previously helmed such movies as Strange Days, Point Break and the vampire classic, Near Dark, and it’s just a stunning return to form. Delivering over two hours of tension right from the get-go, yet still being a full and satisfying character piece, and a great showcase for it’s lead actor Jeremy Renner.

There’s no Hollywood politics in this piece, or any Hollywood military cliches with any of the characters, and that’s extremely welcome. Bigelow isn’t afraid to let a scene go on for as long as it needs to to get the right atmosphere and tension, and the way this all unfolds is just like a good book, with little bits to tease and inform at first and fuller character bits coming along the way, until it’s final resolution.

Jeremy Renner has been one of these guys who’s been out there for a long time (I guess most recently seen in the TV series The Unusuals) doing good solid work more as a supporting guy more than anything else. The Hurt Locker is a big breakthrough for him and honestly, I hope he gets remembered for this when Oscar nominations roll about, he’s just that good in delivering this character that has way more to himself than just what his surface actions show. He’s backed up with fine work by both Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as Sanborn and Eldridge, and though they are the support here, neither actor or character gets shortchanged. Also in the cast are small roles by some bigger names, Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly are all in here doing good “bit” work that does nothing to take away from Renner, Mackie and Geraghty.

I know this one has been out there for awhile now, but only recently has it come to a theatre near enough to me that made me want to go see it. It may not be in a lot of areas out there, but if it is, I’d urge anyone to seek this out. It’s solidly engaging for it’s entire time, a great return to the big screen from director Kathryn Bigelow and a star-making turn from actor Jeremy Renner. Like I said at the top, already for me, the best movie of the year and of course this is highly, highly recommended.

As we start, we find that young Brüno is a flamboyantly gay 19 and the top of the fashionista world in his native Austria- he’s the tops one moment and the next his world has come tumbling down. Now at his lowest, Brüno, decides to come to America with his sole goal: to become a big, famous star…

So’s the basic premise to Brüno the newest movie from star Sacha Baron Cohen, following up his fantastic success with his last move Borat with another in the same vein- partially scripted with some manufactured events and some totally real but combining to give you a comedic experience really unlike anything else out there right now. The temptation is there to say “if you liked Borat, you’ll probably like Brüno just as much,” but if our audience was any indication, that may not be true… oh for me, I laughed harder than I have at any other movie I’ve seen this year and at the same time I was just as appalled at some of the things that I saw on screen (in particular, two scenes, one involving former Presidential candidate Ron Paul and another with various “stage parents” that was really horrifying). Borat did a lot of shocking things, but with Brüno, Cohen and director Larry Charles push the envelope even further, if you can imagine that.

Now, obviously, this plays a lot with it’s character being gay and pushing that in some situations, and there’s where my one criticism lies- it’s mostly doing that with the expense of mid and southern USA in mind, definitely adding to a stereotype of those regions perceived perceptions of homosexuals. And while that perception may be true to an extent, I’d figure that given the extreme situations here that Brüno’s creating, even the most “enlightened” heterosexual, East or West Coaster might react in the same ways- it’s just more of a guaranteed laugh going the way that they’re going.

But still, I was mightily entertained, and much like with Borat I’m at the end of this just wondering how the hell they did everything that goes on here (which is something that I certainly cannot say with most of today’s conventionally scripted comedies) and just what steps are taken for Cohen’s safety in these situations. After seeing Borat, I thought that Cohen was one of the bravest performers out there, and Brüno just reinforces that.

There’s also the possibility that a little of this can go a long way (especially with some reviews that I’ve read), but I think this is paced just right and at a lean 88 minute running time, certainly packs a lot in.

But still… this may not be for everybody. Brüno goes for quite a bit of shock and for quite a bit of discomfort, even more than Borat, and understandably, that just may not be everyone’s cup of tea. I’m not exactly the biggest fan of a lot of contemporary comedies, a lot of people have told me to see The Hangover for instance, and from what I’ve seen of the trailer, I think I’ve already seen the movie (it may very well be good, I’m really just not interested in seeing it and they haven’t sold me on it being a “must view” experience with their trailer- and I can say the same thing for Judd Apatow movies, Jack Black, Will Ferrell and so on)- but with Sacha Baron Cohen’s work, I can’t say that, his work is fearless, and there’s always something there that’s just unlike anything else out there. I laughed, I cringed, and I certainly had a good time talking about this afterwards and that’s enough for me to give this one big recommendation…

1933, four years into The Great Depression and the time of bank robbers like Alvin Karpus, Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger- and also the time when FBI head J. Edgar Hoover charges agent Melvin Purvis with the task to bring John Dillinger to justice…

… and there you have the premise to Public Enemies detailing the cat-and-mouse pursuit of John Dillinger and the newest movie from director Michael Mann. I have to say, when I first saw the trailers to this, I was real excited for the film with visions of Mann’s crime epics like Heat and the TV series Crime Story in my head, though the reality after seeing Public Enemies is more along the lines of Mann’s tepid re-make of his own Miami Vice into a film…

Sorry to say that, but this was disappointing to say the least and and way too padded out, so much so that it’s more sleep-inducing than exciting, though to be fair, there’s a few good set pieces along the way. But good set pieces just do not make a good overall movie, and what this lacks is character (which Heat had in droves) and a fun/excitement factor that would just keep you glued to the screen. I was left at the end wishing this had been more Brian DePalma’s The Untouchables more than anything else.

In Heat, there’s a lot there that basically illustrates why our protagonists are the way they are and while this didn’t have to go to the same depths that Heat does, what’s here leaves you with protagonists that are very one and two dimensional. Dillinger is given the greater emphasis and a lot of that is basically pointing you to a direction of “Well, he wasn’t really that bad a guy” at the end. Now that would be fine I think if the same consideration had been given to the other side- the law- especially because there is an equal amount of time given to both, but here Purvis and his crew are given very little other than just the acts of finding Dillinger (though some members of Purvis’ squad are shown in a blood-thirsty capacity, that’s be fine if there was more to it, but here it’s more to enforce sympathy with John Dillinger more than anything else).

I can’t fault the actors with this, Johnny Depp is Dillinger and Christian Bale is Purvis and both do decent jobs with the material that’s given. The standout to me was actually Billy Cruddup in some brief scenes playing J. Edgar Hoover. The least here is Marion Cotillard who really just didn’t leave anything lasting for me in the end.

The fault here is clearly Mann’s who wants to underplay this so much that it loses any sort of sense of fun or excitement that this should have about it. On top of that, at least to me, there’s a lot of times where it’s hard to figure out just where you’re at in the film- location-wise anyway and how all of it coordinates together. I’ve read online of a lot of technical inaccuracies to what really happened and honestly, that doesn’t really matter a lot to me in the end for something like this, as long as what you have in the end turns out to be fairly exciting.

Public Enemies doesn’t do that though, and instead, there were more times where I had to fight off sleep more than anything else. Reviews are all over the map on this, so some out there may very well like this and think it’s the greatest thing to ever hit, but for myself… I think I’ll sit back tonight and pop in DePalma’s The Untouchables again…

In brief, four armed men hijack a New York City subway car and hold the passengers of said car hostage, wanting a ransom demand met within an hour’s time frame, with the Transit Authority and the NYPD doing their best to save everyone.

That’s the basic plot of any version of The Taking of Pelham 123 adapted from the novel by John Godey (and no I’ve never read the novel- though in this case, if one day I ever get the chance I certainly will). First given theatrical life in 1974 by director Joseph Sargent and starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, it’s since appeared in a more forgettable TV movie and now re-made again for theatrical release by director Tony Scott and starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta.

Now generally speaking, I really don’t mind the practice of re-makes, if something fresh can be made from an existing property and I’m interested in said property, then I’m more than willing to give the filmmakers a chance with it. This is one instance though when I’ve had my own trepidation about this, because the 1974 version of Pelham 123 is right up there as a movie that’s really special to me and knowing what Tony Scott does with his films- bringing in a higher-pitched energy that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t, well for myself, there was reason for concern. The thing that I like about the original, is that it is of the moment and very matter-of-fact in what it does. On top of that, the New York “feel” is extremely authentic to the timeframe the original is shot in, Matthau, Shaw and all of the other characters have a lived-in quality to them that doesn’t really require any sort of expansion, and everything unfolds in a highly logical way. Plus it’s got this tremendous score from David Shire that’s used very effectively and not at all overdone. And “overdone” was the thing that I was most concerned about with Tony Scott’s version of the film.

I still have a huge preference for the original, but I have to say, for bringing this property to the forefront with a modern audience in mind, I think Scott and scripter Brian Helgeland have done a pretty decent job and fortunately they’ve avoided some of the traps that I thought they’d play up- this being Scott’s overdone style and a modern convention of doing something a little more wise-assed with some of the passengers held hostage (basically making sure that one of the passengers would have to be like Alan Ruck in Speed).

Other than the basic plot though and the lead character’s last name- everything here is different from the original- the character name in common is Garber, that was Walter Matthau in the original (Zachary Garber), who was playing a Transit Authority cop, in this Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber (undoubtedly a tip of the hat to Matthau) and he’s no cop, but a transit authority employee currently acting in a dispatching capacity. The biggest difference here is that I suspect Scott and Helgeland have seen messageboards and seen that a common complaint that comes up is “Where’s the character development?” and so they decided to add a lot more weight to the basic character’s of Garber and the antagonist Ryder, played by John Travolta, than what’s shown in the original film- basically going for a more personal connection to these characters than what Sargent did in the original, which was make the situation one that was more black and white, and what Scott and Helgeland have opted for is something with a lot more shades of grey.

Fortunately, it works here, though my one caveat is the fact that the connection between Ryder and Scott is made pretty high-opera personal by it’s end and that’s something that I don’t think needed to be done, but at least here it’s more a moot point than what it might be with other movies.

The other thing that I have to give Scott credit for is holding back quite a bit on his style- oh sure, things are still highly kinetic, but not necessarily in the way Domino was, but still not as held back as Crimson Tide (my own personal favorite of Tony Scott’s movies). It’s not at all a distraction to this movie, so my hat’s off for that.

Of the cast, well I think Denzel Washington is solid as a rock, and I give him kudos for choosing a role like this that isn’t necessarily as proactive as others that he’s done. John Travolta does a real nice job as Ryder, and coming off of the death of his son when making this, I think he manages something here that’s pretty interesting, if quite a bit more over-the-top than what Robert Shaw did in the original. The original film also plays a lot more with the other three gunmen, and that’s something that’s not really dealt with here, but again this is going for something a little different than the original, so I won’t hold that against this. Filling out the cast is John Tuturro as an NYPD negotiator and James Gandofini as the Mayor of New York, Gandolfini is solid as expected and it’s really nice to see Tuturro play a part where he’s not a douchebag. Tuturro’s character also adds to what Garber has to do here, basically splintering off the function of what Matthau’s character did with the original.

I saw this with three other friends, two of which have seen the original film and one which hadn’t but plans to. My friend who hadn’t seen the original really had a good time with this, and I suspect that others who haven’t seen the original will probably have a pretty decent time with it as well. I’ve seen the original, and as I stated at the top, certainly had my fears going into this, but I don’t think the remake does anything to tarnish the original by any means, and other than the basic plot, it’s a pretty different movie. With that said, the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 is a pretty taut thriller and I do recommend seeing it. But also, if you haven’t seen the 1974 original and like to watch 70s films, then by all means if you have the chance, catch that as well…

Y’know, I expect that working for Pixar in whatever capacity has to be about the best employment situation anyone could ever be in- I mean, here’s an organization that makes movies the when you examine the idea on paper, just shouldn’t work for the most part in satisfying a mass audience, and yet they continue to pour out masterpiece after masterpiece, all with long-term appeal and filled with solid storytelling, engaging characters, the greatest technical proficiency, loads of heart, and on top of that, nearly everyone who encounters a Pixar film always comes away with a great movie-going experience… it’s got to be the greatest workplace in the world, knowing that you’re doing that…

… and of course, their latest film, Up is no exception. It’s just fantastic on every level…

This is the story of an average man, Carl Frederickson, who as a child yearned for adventure, and found the same in a young girl named Ellie. But life got in their way, and though they managed to have a wonderful life together, complete with it’s ups and downs, that spirit of adventure eluded them and Carl, now in his later years, and having lost his wife, gets ready to go for broke and pursue that adventure in a big and fantastical way… with the help of a young boy scout named Russell.

I’m not going to say anything further than that, the rest of Up should simply be seen in a theatre and enjoyed, pretty simple as that… and when you go to the theatre to see this, you’re in for a heart-warming experience, with great adventure, absolutely wonderful characters in Carl and Russell (and the friends they get along the way), a lot of very funny situations, and of course, the sheer technical proficiency that Pixar is known for.

Carl is a terrific character, just an absolute classic for Pixar, designed to seem like a cartoonish version of the legendary Spencer Tracy and wonderfully voiced by Ed Asner, this old man is engaging in a big way and you’re with him every step of the way of his adventure. The bond he forms with the young Russell, is very natural, never forced, and it’s easy to see, as Carl certainly sees a lot of himself in the young Russell.

We saw this last night in digital projection and with the full Disney Digital 3D experience, and while I would recommend that to anyone planning to see Up, seeing it in 3D isn’t an absolute necessity. Up is so confident in it’s story, that it doesn’t have to rely on 3D to draw the audience in by any means, it’s pretty much incidental to what’s there. Oh, it’s still well done, and nice to see if you have that opportunity, but hardly necessary for the enjoyable experience that comes from this fantastic movie.

Along with the main feature, as usual with a Pixar film, you get a short film with it, the wonderful little fantasy Partly Cloudy which is a clever little piece dealing with birth and storks and clouds, and it’s a satisfying appetizer to the main course that you’re about to receive.

Don’t miss Up, easily one of the best movies that I’ve seen for the year and right now, leading the way at the top of the list…

Christine Brown is a bright, young bank loan officer, she’s got a solid relationship with a young professor and she’s up for an assistant manager position at her bank. But the bank manager is still waffling on his choice for the job, edging towards someone with more initiative than what Christine has had. An elderly lady, who’s just really creepy from the start, comes into the bank wanting an extension on her home, and when Christine presents this to her manager, the manager gives Christine the chance to make the call. Christine chooses this one time to make the tough call, in a moment of big ambition, and denies the woman her loan. When the woman then begs to have her reconsider, things really begin to go awry for Christine, as she later finds that she’s just crossed an old gypsy who’s put a horrifying curse on her.

That’s the basic premise to Sam Raimi’s newest movie, Drag Me To Hell, which finally has the acclaimed director returning to his roots with over-the-top, tongue-firmly-in-cheek horror, and I have to say I was just entertained with this movie from start to finish. Raimi mad a name for himself with the Evil Dead movies and further with the Spider-Man films, and with Drag Me To Hell he really looks like he’s having a lot of big-ass fun getting back to his roots.

Now, there’s things here that you know will happen, that almost has to happen and while some might find that familiarity tiresome, I thought it was a really fun ride getting there. This is over-the-top, but a few shades less than say what Sam did in Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness but still it has those moments when you know you’re for sure watching a Sam Raimi horror movie. To me as well, this follows the path of old E.C. Comics as well, and when you’re doing this kind of horror movie, those comics are always great templates to go by.

Allison Lohman plays Christine Brown, and it’s pretty much her film. she’s got a delicate line to cross here, in both being sympathetic and at the same time totally deserving of what’s going to happen to her, and I think she does a pretty good job. I could only imagine how this was pitched to her- “Now, Allison, we’re going to have a lot of fun with this movie, but there’s one catch- you’re going to end up with a lot of gross stuff literally in your face, so hopefully, kiddo, you’re up for that…” And I have to say, Lohman had to be a good sport on this film, as she does just that, end up with having a face full of grossness at least five or six times during the film. she’s backed up with Justin Long as her boyfriend, and David Paymer serving a supporting term as the bank manager, as well as others. But probably the other biggest presence in the film is the old lady, Sylvia Ganush, played by Lorna Raver, and she’s pretty much felt throughout the film, though she’s not on-screen the same way Lohman is.

Whenever I’ve talked horror movies with people in the past, the question of whether something is scary often comes up. I don’t really get “scared” by horror movies any more (that kind of went away in my mid teens) and find that the more effective films usually have a more disturbing quality to them more than anything else. I don’t really see Drag Me To Hell as that much of a “scary” affair and I don’t necessarily think it’s supposed to be- it is predictable, but really most horror films like this are supposed to be and when they’re really well put together, then for me, the ride is really enjoyable. The ending that this movie has is the ending that it has to have and when the moment comes, I was genuinely entertained by it, and for a big studio made film, I think this one really delivers the goods.

As Terminator Salvation opens, we’re first introduced to Marcus Wright, a death row prisoner who has signed an agreement with Cyberdyne Systems before his execution in the year 2004- then we fast forward to 2018 and center in on John Connor and the Resistance after a disastrous confrontation with Connor the only one left standing. But after Connor is taken away, we soon see that one other has also survived- Marcus Wright! Connor’s taken to other Resistance leaders and a plan is revealed that they hope will stop the machines once and for all, with eventually both paths crossing and along the way, the search for Connor’s father, a teenaged Kyle Reese, also takes place.

That’s a very brief synopsis for Terminator Salvation the fourth movie in the Terminator franchise, and the start of a new direction for the franchise while trying to maintain some of the same elements that have kept this venerable series strong- and I think it’s just a terrifically fun movie…

The director who goes by the name McG is responsible for this, and I know that name didn’t exactly give me the greatest confidence in the world going in, but I have to say, I think he’s made a hell of a piece here- a great action ride with an emotional center that to me is reminiscent in a way of the original James Cameron films, but also moving in some new directions, though it’s ultimate resolution (in future movies) should just be in one direction.

This is a terrific looking movie, with some solid action set pieces (a couple of which puts me in the mind of George Miller’s Mad Max films and a nice weaving of both Connor’s and Wright’s story’s, though Wright’s story is the bigger deal. Everything works really well on a technical level and that of course is really cool to see. McG is well aided with a nice score from Danny Elfman that certainly knows it’s part of a bigger story, and uses Brad Fiedel’s original Terminator music as well.

There’s certainly been a lot of press lip service about Christian Bale, mostly around his now infamous confrontation with a crew member on the set, which really meant a whole lot of nothing to me, as just a point used by the press and the internet community to bring this big star down a peg or two. What really matters is what’s on-screen, and while this may not rack up to what Bale has accomplished with the Batman movies, what he does here is set a solid foundation for (hopefully) what’s to come in future movies. Bale’s outshone in this movie, by actor Sam Worthington who plays Marcus Wright, and Worthington is just solid gold here, as both an action presence and being the real emotional center of the film. Anton Yelchin, who’s really having a good summer with this and the Star Trek movie, plays the young Kyle Reese, and he’s obviously looked at what Michael Biehn has done with the original, and does a great job with the part. There’s solid support work from Bryce Dallas Howard (playing Connor’s wife Kate), Michael Ironside, Common and Moon Bloodgood (what a name). Helena Bonham Carter and Jane Alexander are also in the movie, in real glorified cameos, though Carter’s is the bigger part and the more meaningful one here- Alexander’s is more a walkthrough, but I see it as a set-up again for future installments. Still, this is a solid cast…

… and as I said at the top of this, a really fun movie with a lot of very cool nods to the other films (mostly the first), lots of great action bits and a new direction to take this in to what should be it’s ultimate resolution once all is said and done. I’ve heard that it’s getting all sorts of bad reviews, but I just don’t get it, I was solidly entertained by this new direction and think the set-up is there for more cool stuff in the future and of course this is, from me anyway, a highly recommended film…

The Pope has died, and as the Vatican prepares to name his successor from four possible candidates, they find themselves under attack and their candidates kidnapped by what appears to be a resurrection of The Illuminati. Now, Professor Robert Langdon finds himself recruited by The Vatican, even after his last escapade with them, in order to save the kidnapped and ultimately Vatican City.

That’s a real simplified premise for Angels & Demons, Ron Howard’s sequel to The Da Vinci Code both adaptations of Dan Brown’s books, and at least in my opinion, a better movie than The Da Vinci Code.

Howard packs quite a bit in this film and even with a 2 hour and 20 minute run time, it runs at a pretty brisk pace, especially in comparison to the prior film, and the main reason for that is more a focus on keeping this closer to an action film, and it doesn’t hurt here at all.

Tom Hanks returns to play the part of Langdon, and while this is no real stretch of Hanks’ skills, he’s rock solid in the part. He’s backed up with an international cast including Ewan McGregor, Avelut Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl and they all do what’s asked of them here pretty well, especially McGregor and Skarsgard, though really this doesn’t necessarily ask that much of them, other than to fill the stock parts of a thriller.

I’ve not read the books, so I can’t say anything as to how faithful they are. And even though I enjoyed this, I do have one complaint and that’s that it’s red herring ending is a little too obvious when it happens- this moment happens, seems like it could be logical, but deep down you know it’s not and that more has to come about . It still works here, but just seems a little too familiar.

Still though, Angels & Demons is a nice diversion and I do recommend it, but your mileage may vary depending on what you thought of both the books and the prior adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. From what I’ve read, it you’re expecting a hardcore adaptation, you might really be disappointed. I wouldn’t really say that this is “must see” summer movie viewing, but still I had a good time with it.