Eastern Promises

When I first saw the posters for this movie, “Eastern Promises”, I wasn’t all that gung-ho to see it, mostly because I had no clue what it was about. I figured it was probably some romantic drama that wouldn’t hold all that much interest for me. Later on, I saw a preview for the movie, and was surprised to discover that the movie dealt with the Russian mob, featured two very talented people in the lead roles, Viggo Mortensen (‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy) and Naomi Watts (“The Ring” and “The Ring 2”), and boasted a critically acclaimed director at the helm with David Cronenberg (“A History of Violence”). After discovering all of this, I must say that my interest was indeed heightened; however, when the movie was released it spent so little time at my local cinema that I never had a chance to go see it. So, I was left waiting for the eventual DVD release, but was the movie worth the wait after all?

“Eastern Promises” is the story of how one action, no matter how benevolent it may be, can be enough to bring your entire world crashing down around you. Anna (Naomi Watts) was living a peaceful existence as a nurse when one night a pregnant teenager is admitted to her hospital, and gives birth, but dies shortly after. With this Anna begins her search to discover if the teen had any surviving relatives that would be willing to care for the newborn child; however, the deeper Anna gets into her search the more frightening the discoveries she makes about this young girl become. During her search Anna comes across the name of a local restaurant owner, but this is far from any ordinary restaurant, as it is merely a front for a Russian mafia family. As she tries to discover the teen’s connection to the restaurant, Anna receives a warning from the driver/assassin for the family, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), to basically stay away if she wants to live. Now, Anna must try to do what’s right for the newborn, protect her family, try to keep her world from crumbling around her, all while seeking justice for the wrongs that had been committed against the teenage mother at the hands of the mob.

As I stated earlier, I really wanted to see this movie after I found out what it was about. I figured the two lead characters were being handled by two very capable Hollywood talents, and the director had impressed me with his previous effort “A History of Violence”, so I thought that this movie had a decent chance of being very good. After viewing it, I was somewhat mixed on my opinion of the overall film.

The actors were all very good in each of their individual roles within the film. Viggo Mortensen is definitely worthy of any awards he may receive for his role as the driver/up-and-coming assassin for the family. His character Nikolai was incredibly brutal at times, seeming to contain no shred of remorse one minute, then the next he would seem to have a genuine compassion for Anna and her family in his desire to protect her from the evil of his ‘family’. Naomi Watts was solid as Anna, a nurse who by only trying to do what is right puts all that she knows in jeopardy. The rest of the cast is comprised of various European actors, most of whom I had no recollection of seeing in any other films prior, but each were great in their various roles. Well, I take that back, I had seen Vincent Cassell in a film or two, the most recent was his villainous turn in the thriller “Derailed” co-starring Jennifer Aniston and Clive Owen, and I believe he was much better in this film than the latter, due to his character being much more conflicted and not just a complete bad guy. His character was vicious when he had to be, yet also was so weak in front of his father that you almost felt sorry for him at times.

The story was good, though moved a little slowly at times. It was very brutal and bloody, shockingly so in some places (primarily the shower fight scene), but then other scenes were perfectly tense with great dialogue to move the story along, and then there would be these seemingly unnecessary scenes that just seemed to drag the movie down. There just didn’t seem to be a good balance for the film, perhaps if some of the slow scenes had been trimmed up or removed completely the film would have been better.

The direction from David Cronenberg was strong, and he was a suitable fit for the film’s gritty, ultra-violent subject matter and the consequences entailed, as he had shown with his previous thriller “A History of Violence”. Sometimes I wonder if Cronenberg is merely trying to shock the audience or make them somewhat uncomfortable with what he puts on the screen. His last film featured very violent sequences that were incredibly realistic and hard-hitting yet not disturbing, but “Eastern Promises” seemed to go even further with the brutality, especially the shower sequence. That scene in particular was necessary to the story, but could have taken place in some other location. The shower location was probably chosen in an attempt to shock the entire audience with the graphic violence and nudity contained all in one scene. I just have to question whether Cronenberg is including these sequences to better the story or to satisfy a thirst for being as unconventional and shocking as he can be with his movies.

Overall, “Eastern Promises” is an alright movie, it’s nothing great but not horrible either. The movie boasts some very impressive performances from each of its actors, and some of the hardest hitting fight scenes I had seen in quite some time, but some very slow periods throughout the film coupled with an overall dreary tone kept this film from being anything worth watching a second time.

“Eastern Promises” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity.

The Kingdom

Movies focused on the Middle East as a theme seem to be all the rage for people in Hollywood. There have been several films that have tried to make essentially the same political statement over and over, such as “President Bush is wrong” or “This current war is unjust” or “It’s all about the oil”, examples of these sentiments would be the overtly political, dramatic films aimed at skewering the current administration or the war effort, such as; “Fahrenheit 9/11”, “Lions for Lambs” (surprisingly written by the same writer as this film), or “Syriana”. Few films these days seem to make any type of attempt to put a favorable light on the war effort or the Bush administration. A recent film release set in Saudi Arabia seemed to actually make an attempt to keep politics out of the film, or at least not focus on it, opting instead to merely show our government and its agencies trying to do the right thing by assisting others and showing the kind of jeopardy our soldiers face on a daily basis while doing their job. The film I am referring to is director Peter Berg’s (“The Rundown” and “Friday Night Lights”) high-octane military thriller “The Kingdom”, starring Jamie Foxx (“Collateral”), Jennifer Garner (“Daredevil”), and Chris Cooper (“Breach”).

“The Kingdom” is the story of a team of FBI agents who are assigned to assist the Saudi Arabian government in solving a mass murder of both Saudi and American citizens, and bring the vicious killer responsible to justice before he strikes again. As the team begins their investigation they find themselves hampered by the limitations imposed by the Saudi government officials, and that of their own superiors who wish for them not to get too involved in the proceedings. But, through their sheer determination the team manages to break through these barriers, but just as they do, they find themselves as the newest targets for the very madman they are trying to stop.

I am very much impressed by the talent director Peter Berg has for crafting an extremely intense movie experience full of racial tension, wartime conflict, tense drama, and a little bit of political intrigue without resorting to the same old attack the President or the current war tactics used by so many other directors in Hollywood. It’s also surprising just how realistic this movie is, and just how serious the subject matter is when compared to the somewhat lighter content in some of his previous films, primarily “The Rundown” and “Friday Night Lights”. It’s evident that Peter Berg has definitely come a long way as a filmmaker and his movies speak volumes to that sentiment, as does his ability to get A-list stars for each of his films from Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (“The Rundown”) to Billy Bob Thornton (“Friday Night Lights”) to Oscar winner Jamie Foxx for “The Kingdom”. This is one director whose films seem to attract some of the best talent in Hollywood, and have so far appeared to be worth watching.

The story for “The Kingdom” is a very tense, action-packed thrill ride that was very well-written by Matthew Michael Carnahan (“Lions For Lambs”). He has crafted an emotionally charged story that could have been ripped right from today’s headlines, in fact according to director Peter Berg the film was based loosely on a story about a team of U.S. government agents attempting to assist in some sort of investigation in the Middle East and the hardships they faced in trying to do so. Kudos must also go to Matthew Michael Carnahan, along with director Peter Berg, in regards to resisting the temptation to include as much political leanings in this film as possible, opting instead to keep the focus on the U.S. agents trying to do the right thing, and leaving the politics out of the equation. However, Carnahan must have needed an outlet later on for his pent-up political thoughts that he didn’t use in this film, thus releasing them via his overtly liberal script for 2007’s “Lions For Lambs” starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep.

The actors were all very impressive in their individual roles, each cast member that comprised the main characters was fully prepared for their roles and it showed. They all went through training courses on how to properly hold and fire weapons, clearing rooms where hostiles may be present, and multiple other military tactics; all of this was done as a conscious effort on the part of the cast and the director to make this film as realistic as possible and to respect what the men and women of our armed forces must go through on a daily basis.

In the end, “The Kingdom” is a very well done military thriller that gives us a glimpse at what life is like for our soldiers, and for the people that are living in that region of the world. A very good movie that shouldn’t be written off as being just another piece of anti-war propaganda, but as a movie that tries to show our people doing what’s right even when their lives, and others we may not agree with, are at stake.

“The Kingdom” is rated R for violence and language.

Halloween (remake)

With the release of “Halloween” in 1978, director John Carpenter introduced audiences to one of the horror genres most iconic villains, Michael Myers, and ushered in the era of the slasher film. Even though his film was not classified as a slasher, the many sequels, and countless other film series’, which were spawned from it were definitely slashers. Skip forward to 2007, after 7 sequels, some good and some not so much, the ‘Halloween’ film series seemed to have run its course. So, it must have appeared to some executives in Hollywood that the only options left for this franchise were to, A) let it die (which would have been fine and should have happened after “Halloween: H20”), B) continue making pointless sequel after sequel that would most likely wind up going straight to DVD shelves (case in point, the ‘Hellraiser’ series), or C) remake/reimagine the franchise. Apparently option C seemed the most viable, as musician/director/writer Rob Zombie (“House of 1,000 Corpses” and “The Devil’s Rejects”) was tapped to helm this new incarnation of Michael Myers with his remake of the original film, simply titled “Halloween”.

“Halloween” is partly a remake of the John Carpenter original from 1978, but is also an origin story for Michael Myers. Young Michael Myers seemed like a fairly normal 10-year-old kid, but appearances can often be deceiving. Behind his seemingly innocent facade was a cold-blooded killer, he just hadn’t fully manifested himself yet. Then one Halloween night, Michael suddenly unleashes his dark side resulting in a string of grisly murders. After that fateful night, Michael is locked away in a psychiatric hospital where he meets his longtime doctor Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), and begins to fall even further into the abyss of his murderous psychosis. Fast forward 15 years, and Michael suddenly decides it is time to escape the hospital that has served as his prison for so long, and return to the town where his rampage began and finish what he started.

The choice of Rob Zombie as director and writer for the new film didn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Sure, the franchise had kind of wandered into the typical slasher sub-genre of horror films, but Zombie’s brand of horror was much more extreme and gratuitous than anything contained within this series. However, when the movie was released and began receiving some praise for the reinterpretation of the original classic, I thought maybe Rob Zombie had managed to make a more mainstream movie; instead of his typically demented brand of horror that he’d been crafting over the last couple of years. So, when I rented the film I approached it openly, and had hopes that it would be good, and possibly equal the original (which should always be the goal of any remake). If nothing else I thought the movie might give an interesting origin story to the character of Michael.

Upon watching the film, I soon realized, after getting about 30 minutes into the unrated version of the movie, that this was nothing that really resembled its predecessor. This film, although not a typical Rob Zombie movie, contained most of the familiar elements that he loves to include in his films, i.e. plenty of language, graphic nudity, disturbing images, and extreme violence. Basically, Rob was making a more toned down film than usual, but in the end it didn’t really feel like it was a part of the ‘Halloween’ series. Really it seemed to fit more in line with Zombie’s previous two disturbing pieces of cinema, than with the film it was supposedly paying homage to, while trying to breathe new life into the character.

The story, as I stated earlier, is a mixture of origin tale and remake all rolled into one film. The first half of the film is devoted to the early years of Michael Myers, essentially expanding on the opening moments from the original movie. This portion of the movie was somewhat interesting because it was showcasing a different time in the life of this villain, and also giving some clues as to why he became a killer. But, this new origin seemed to contradict the opening of the original film. Because here Michael’s family is painted as broken and abusive; whereas, in the original he appeared to have come from a loving home and he simply snapped one day. Having Michael come from such an abusive upbringing served as a way of explaining why he killed some members of his family. However, it also seemed like an attempt on Zombie’s part to humanize Michael in an attempt to gain sympathy for the character from the audience.

Trying to build sympathy for Michael is where I feel the movie made a big mistake. The film is about Michael Myers, a masked killer and horror legend, I for one do not want to be made to feel sorry for this character. Why should we as an audience be sympathetic to him? Why not just show him as a kid who suddenly snapped, committed a horrible crime, and then show how he slipped further into psychosis while in the mental hospital? That is what I thought this movie was going to do, and to an extent it did, but it also seemed to go to great lengths to engender sympathy, which should not have happened.

The good news is that the scenes centered around Michael’s time served in the institution are where the film finally begins to gain some momentum. These are some of the most fascinating scenes in the movie, and I thought that Rob Zombie actually did a good job of showing the character’s gradual descent into madness. While in the institution scenes, Zombie did provide me with an interesting observation about Michael that I hadn’t anticipated. Several scenes focus on the exploration of why Michael always wears a mask, and it is within these moments that the story really gains its footing. As I said this area of the film is by far the strongest and most intriguing for me.

The second half of the film, is basically a rehash of the original with some changes made to certain events. This portion of the movie works on some levels, but not as well on others. I liked some of the changes that Rob made to the original film; although it was interesting to see that even after all these years, some aspects of the original are just too good to change. However, as good as parts of this section of the movie was, they were overshadowed by Rob Zombie’s penchant for blood, gore, and gratuitous nudity. All of those unnecessary elements took away from not just this portion of the story, but the entire movie as well, due to them being sprinkled throughout.

The actors in this film were decent; those playing the various teenagers were average at best. Their performances for the most part were fairly by the book; therefore, their characters were somewhat forgettable. Not a single one of the younger stars contained even an ounce of the screen presence of Jamie Lee Curtis. Her performance in the original film is part of what made that film so successful. Laurie Strode was so sweet and innocent, and Jamie played her so naturally that you couldn’t help but invest in her character. But the ones here were pretty much standard horror film fare. No real standouts, just a bunch of unknowns trying to make a break, even though none of them deliver anything resembling a memorable performance.

The highlight of the cast was Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis, the role made famous by the late Donald Pleasence. Malcolm plays Loomis as a caring child psychologist who desperately wants to reach Michael in hopes of finding some good in him. When Michael escapes, Loomis comes after him with such zeal that it seems borderline obsessive. McDowell is truly fun to watch as Dr. Loomis, and steals every scene that he is in. We get to see more of the time Loomis spent with Michael as a boy in the institution as he attempts to understand what happened, all of which was alluded to in the original but never explored. Malcolm convincingly takes the role from being a man who only cares for this young boy as a patient to becoming obsessed with stopping a monster for whom he feels responsible due to his failure in reaching him early on.

In the end, “Halloween” is a lackluster movie and a weak excuse for a remake. It fails to even come close to capturing what made the original film so good, and I think a majority of the blame must be laid on the shoulders of the film’s writer and director Rob Zombie. His talents as a screenwriter and director are average at best, definitely not worthy of big screen feature films. His body of work seems more at home in the Direct-to-DVD marketplace than in your local multiplex. Even if you are a fan of Rob Zombie’s movies, there should be no denying that his adaptation of “Halloween” is nowhere near good enough to hold a candle to John Carpenter’s original film that started it all.

“Halloween” is available in rated R and unrated editions, both containing graphic violence, language, nudity/sexuality, and gore.

Underdog

Some movies just don’t sound all that appealing from the moment you hear about them. Case in point, Disney’s newest film “Underdog” based on the classic cartoon series about a crime fighting super dog. The premise is stupid, just as it was on the cartoon, but the cartoon still managed to entertain audiences in its day and it still does with reruns whenever they air. But when I heard that Disney was making a live-action adaptation of the cartoon, I thought this is going to be a really stupid, most likely crappy movie. But then I saw a preview for the movie, and my opinion changed, the preview showed that the movie had decent acting talents Jim Belushi, Peter Dinklage, Patrick Warburton, and Jason Lee; the film also seemed to be full of humor, with a little bit of slapstick thrown in for good measure (a must when adapting a cartoon); and it seemed that the movie actually had good special effects for making a flying, talking, superhero dog believable. So, I went from not caring if I ever saw the movie, to actually looking forward to getting to sit down to watch it.

“Underdog” is the story of an ordinary beagle named Shoeshine (voiced by Jason Lee) who through a series of unforeseen accidents; finds himself in a lab operated by a mad scientist named Dr. Barsinister (Peter Dinklage). When Barsinister tries to experiment on Shoeshine, the dog breaks free causing a devastating accident in the lab, and he is exposed to an experimental chemical that leaves him with super powers such as flight, strength and the ability to talk. After breaking free of the lab, Shoeshine finds himself a new home with a security guard (Jim Belushi) and his son, where he determines that his newfound powers can be used to save the citizens of Capital City from evil as the crime fighter, Underdog. However, when Barsinister, along with his henchman Cad (Patrick Warburton), discovers that this new hero, Underdog, is actually their escaped beagle, they will stop at nothing until the dog is returned to them, leaving the fates of those Shoeshine/Underdog cares for hanging in the balance. Now, all that remains is for us to hear those famous heroic words, “This looks like a job for Superm…err, umm… oops, wrong movie, here’s what I meant, “There’s no need to fear, Underdog is here!”.

Well, here’s the lesson that I learned from watching Disney’s new film, “Underdog”. Sometimes it’s better to go with your initial gut instinct, instead of letting your mind be changed by smart marketing types who know how to properly edit batches of film together to make a fun, entertaining trailer that will get your attention and make you want to see the film, even though your better judgment is telling you that there’s no reason at all that you should even be tempted to watch it.

The problems I had with “Underdog” are not major, but they are big enough gripes to take away from the overall enjoyment of the movie. The story isn’t anything spectacular by any means; I mean it is supposed to be a kids movie that is adapted from a classic kids cartoon. When a studio sets out to make a kids movie, which is something that Disney does quite often (though to varying degrees of success as of late), then the filmmaker(s) and the writer(s) should feel some obligation to entertain the parents on some level, not the entire time necessarily, but at least a little bit. Especially, when the subject matter is taken from a classic cartoon series that some of these parents most likely watched and loved as kids, therefore I think there should at least be some kind of joke or sight gag or something that adults would get and enjoy as well. Now, I’m not saying there needs to be some kind of raunchy humor, by no means is that what I’m implying, you still keep the family-friendly tone, but there are ways to inject humor aimed more at adults without getting dirty, ‘Looney Toons’ used to do it all the time in their animated shorts, so why can’t the current crop of creative types come up with anything?

The casting choices for this film were good, for the most part; some of the more talented members of the cast seemed wasted in their roles. Jim Belushi and Patrick Warburton are two very funny actors (in my opinion), but in this film neither funnyman is given much to do. Jim Belushi has had great success with his hit sitcom “According to Jim” on ABC, and with various movie projects throughout the years, but in this film it seemed like they didn’t want him to be funny, which is fine he’s done drama as well, and he’s good at it, but his material is just so paper thin that I’m surprised he even signed on to the film. I mean, his character basically exists as a plot device to get the dog, Shoeshine, into a loving home, setting up for the obligatory shenanigans around the home that have been done to death in other movies, except here they can take things a little more extreme due to the whole super powered dog trick. Now, Disney has used Patrick Warburton in at least one of their previous films the hit animated movie “The Emperor’s New Groove”, he was the hilarious not-so evil, evil sidekick Kronk, who essentially stole the show, even got his own sequel “Kronk’s New Groove”. In this film, just like Jim Belushi, Patrick’s character seems like a waste of time, he’s given a few funny lines to say, but other than that he pretty much just stands around with nothing to do. With two solid comedic actors in such thankless roles, it makes me wonder was the script much funnier before filming or editing took place or were the paychecks just too good to resist? Actor Jason Lee (better known as Earl on TV’s “My Name is Earl”) was decent as the voice of Shoeshine/Underdog, he gave the character a likeable charm and sharp wit, but truth be told, any other actor could have done just as good, it’s not like he has crafted a character that people will only remember his voice associated with. Peter Dinklage was good as the evil Dr. Barsinister, he seemed to be enjoying the role and being allowed to ham it up, but after awhile even his character seemed to have less and less to do. The younger actors (the one playing Jim Belushi’s son and his would-be girlfriend) were alright, but both seemed inexperienced, and their performances felt stiff because of this.

The special effects employed in this film were all very well done. I was surprised that for a kids movie that was adapted from a cartoon that the effects looked much more realistic than cartoonish. The flying scenes in particular were really well done, especially the sequence where Underdog is squaring off against three other super powered dogs working for the evil Barsinister. Basically, the effects are the only real highlight for this film, at least from an adult’s perspective; kids will no doubt be entertained throughout the entire duration of the movie.

Overall, “Underdog” is an average movie, that’s aimed solely at kids with little to no humor that ever manages to get above the level of cute. So, you parents out there who may believe that the movie looked good based on the previews (in case your curious this is a case where most of the funny parts are in the previews) and your fond memories of the cartoon series, don’t expect too much from the end result. You will most likely wind up just as disappointed as I was, but at least your kids will be happy, so at least you’ll have that.

“Underdog” is rated PG for mild violence.

The Last Legion

The story of King Arthur and his fabled sword Excalibur has been told in numerous films throughout the years, from “King Arthur” to “Excalibur” to “First Knight”, the tale of Arthur and his knights is one many people know very well. Most know that Arthur removed the famed sword from its stone prison and went on to become king and ruler of Camelot, but no one seems to know just how the sword got into the stone, and what exactly may have been the history behind one of the most revered weapons of all time.

“The Last Legion” is set during the fall of Rome, shortly after the newest Caesar, Romulus, had been appointed. Rome was the seemingly quintessential empire, no place was better than Rome, but its glory was not meant to last forever, as invading hordes have set their sights on taking the city. In order to save the new Caesar, who is merely a boy, a brave general (Colin Firth), must join forces with the boy’s mentor (Ben Kingsley), and a master warrior (Aishwarya Rai) to find any remnants of Rome’s once vast legion of troops. Their fateful journey, though it began as merely a fight for survival, leads to the discovery of the sword that would one day be known as Excalibur and will change this group of heroes’ lives forever.

When this movie was set to come out, I really didn’t care if I saw it in theaters or even on DVD; it just didn’t seem to interest me all that much. The story, based on what was shown in the few trailers that I had seen, appeared to be borrowing heavily from previous epics set in the same time period, chief among the films seemingly being copied was Ridley Scott’s awesome film “Gladiator”. Even though I didn’t think the film looked all that good, and its lackluster performance at the box office supported this assumption, I still gave it a try, because my Dad had been one of the few that I knew of that had actually gone to the theater to see the movie and he enjoyed it. So, when it arrived on DVD, I borrowed my Dad’s copy, and I have to say that it was a lot better than I expected.

The story is not the most original, these days there are few that actually are, but it is still an entertaining ‘what if?’ tale of the pre-Arthur days of the sword Excalibur. To my surprise, the parts of the film that the trailer had led me to believe were being borrowed from films such as “Gladiator” didn’t actually occur within the movie as they had been shown previously. It’s very deceptive the way that the editor’s of the movie previews will splice several scenes together to make an audience think one thing is happening when it turns out that whatever was being shown may or may not happen as it had appeared. Of course the way these trailers are edited together is to find the best possible way to present the overall story for the movie in two minutes or less, but sometimes their methods backfire and the audience is turned off, which I believe was the case here. The way the preview was put together led me to believe that this film was merely a rip off of numerous films I had already seen, so why would I want to see this one. Had the preview been done differently I may have seen the movie sooner, or at least had more interest in seeing it.

The casting for this film was very solid, there were a couple of surprises in the cast that I never would have guessed for certain roles, but the choices worked out very well. The surprising cast members were Colin Firth (“Nanny McPhee”) and Ben Kingsley (“Lucky Number Slevin”). Both actors are very talented and have had very successful careers but their roles here did not seem suited for them, at least not at first glance. I for one would have never pegged Colin Firth for the warrior type, in the movies that I’ve seen him in he’s not exactly the powerful leader type that you would want protecting you. As for Ben Kingsley’s character of Merlin, well he’s not as big of a surprise casting choice, but I still have always pictured Merlin as more of a Gandalf (from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy) kind of character, so I would have thought someone more like Ian McKellan would have been right for the role, but I would have been wrong. Both actors did terrific jobs with their respective characters, and though I wouldn’t have chosen them for the roles, the choice paid off and the movie was better off for it.

One thing that did seem strange about “The Last Legion” was the lack of blood during the battle sequences. In today’s modern epics where swords are involved there is generally some blood being visibly spilt, but not in this movie. Part of me appreciated the lack of blood being shown (there was some but it was very minor), so that the movie could achieve its PG-13 rating and be able to be viewed by younger audiences. But, another part of me wanted a little more realism from the battles, meaning a little more blood than what we got. I’m not saying that I felt the movie needed to reach “Braveheart” levels of blood, but when swords are involved in fighting generally the person on the receiving end is not left looking too pretty. However, in this movie there were a few times that I noticed that after someone was supposedly sliced by a sword there was no visible mark left on the victim’s body, and no residual blood left on the sword, a perfect example is when the warrior woman (I can’t remember her character’s name) is fighting off wave after wave of opponents she’s slicing them left and right and her weapons don’t seem to have any blood on them whatsoever and the dying bodies don’t look like they got cut open. At this point the lack of blood is somewhat distracting from the fight scenes, I mean a little realism would have been nice here, just because the film is getting a PG-13 rating doesn’t mean it has to be so clean and pretty. I understand that in the old days of cinema this type of thing would have been acceptable, but not anymore, these days to be a memorable epic film, you need to have a great story, excellent cast, breathtaking visuals, and some level of realism (especially in the fight sequences). I’m sorry that’s just the way it is nowadays, and you can thank films like “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” for making it that way.

In the end, “The Last Legion” is a good movie, I appreciated that it presented the story of Excalibur in a different way than previous films, and even the lack of blood was appreciated to an extent, but also served as somewhat of a distraction for lacking realism during the battles. After watching the movie, I wish it would have done better at the box office, it deserved more recognition than it actually got, and I believe the blame lies with its marketing. Not just with the way the preview was edited together, as I had pointed out earlier, but also the lack of build up leading to the movie, I didn’t see a single preview for this movie until about a week or two before its release. How are people supposed to get excited over a movie with that little amount of time, and most people more than likely didn’t even get a chance to see the previews? I don’t know why the people behind this film wouldn’t put more effort into marketing their film, unless they either didn’t have all that much in terms of an advertising budget or were lacking in faith in their final product. Either way their film paid the consequences, which is a real shame if you ask me.

“The Last Legion” is rated PG-13 for violence.

War

I have mixed feelings when it comes to watching martial arts movies. I enjoy them when there is a good story, energetic action sequences, and engaging actors filling the roles. However, I’m not a big fan of the martial arts epics where I have to read subtitles all the time to know what exactly is being said, and I generally don’t get much out of the fantasy-style fight scenes in the martial arts films that seem to be more popular these days. Sure, they can be fun to watch, but they are so obviously fake that it’s distracting, that type of fighting style belongs in science-fiction (“The Matrix” for example), but not here. Me, I prefer to see the kind of martial arts films that are set in a more realistic world, where the fights seem to be natural and don’t appear to use as much obvious wirework, though I don’t mind if some of the fight sequences get a little out there in terms of believability, after all something must be said for style, just so much as it’s not all the time. Examples of the kind of martial arts films I prefer to watch would be the ‘Transporter’ films starring Jason Statham or “Unleashed” starring Jet Li. Both Jet Li and Jason Statham generally make successful box office action movies, though I tend to prefer Jason Statham’s movies over Jet Li’s (Li tends to make more of the fantastical, martial arts epics that aren’t my cup of tea), but when the two came together in the recent action film “War”, I figured this movie has the possibility of being one of the best martial arts action films to date, I mean with these two together how could it miss. So, after it was released to DVD I proceeded to rent it at my earliest convenience, and once home I was ready to sit back and enjoy a thrill-a-minute, action packed ride. But did this “War” live up to its potential or was it merely good for absolutely nothing?

“War” focuses on FBI agent Jack Crawford (Jason Statham) who has spent many years of his career endlessly pursuing the world’s deadliest assassin named Rogue (Jet Li). Most believe that Jack is pursuing a ghost, that Rogue is merely a mythical figure created by the Asian gangs to gain more power and instill fear into their enemies. However, after Jack’s partner was killed by a man who leaves all the familiar traces of Rogue, Jack vows to hunt the killer down no matter the cost. As his quest for vengeance intensifies, Jack finds himself being pulled deeper and deeper into the middle of a war between two rival Asian gangs, where death is but a misstep away, and nothing is what it seems.

Here’s a movie that really frustrated me after I finished watching it. For the most part, I enjoyed “War”, I felt that it had a good story, incredible action sequences, the acting was solid, and the characters even had some depth to them, which is surprising for this type of movie. So, after enjoying the movie for roughly 85% of the almost 2 hours running time, about 15 minutes from the end of the movie the whole experience just falls completely to pieces. What went wrong, you ask? Well, sometimes a film tries too hard to throw the audience for a loop by inserting a sudden twist in the story, and as a result sometimes everything ends up crumbling faster than it was built over the duration of the film.

Such was the case with “War”, the writers Lee Anthony Smith and Gregory J. Bradley (both first time feature film writers, which may explain some of the problems) had crafted a fairly solid story that managed to keep my attention from the very beginning of the film, but then with one little twist intended to shock the audience, they managed to ruin the entire story and their engaging characters that had been created in the process. I was left feeling like I had basically wasted the last 2 hours of my life, the time I had invested in the story and the characters was pretty much erased by one pointless plot point created by two writers that wanted to shake things up in their story to avoid the, albeit predictable, obligatory showdown between the two leads that should have been the highlight for the entire film. What we were left with was the most disappointing moment in the entire film, resulting in a letdown of a martial arts film that could have been one of the better of the genre given the talents brought together.

As disappointed as I was by “War”, there were some high points to the film along the way. The actors were all good, at least the primary actors, the countless thugs working for the Asian gangs were essentially stock villains good for nothing other than being beaten by FBI agent Jack Crawford (Jason Statham). Jason Statham was very good as Jack, he played him as a man obviously torn by the decisions that he’s made since his partner’s death, and the results of those decisions, yet he was filled with an unyielding resolve to bring his partner’s killer to justice. Jet Li delivered yet another good performance, though not as nuanced or emotional as his character in “Unleashed”, he still manages to give audiences a strong, yet conflicted character that will kill without hesitation one moment then show compassion for others the next, and above all else he will remain true to himself. The direction under first time feature film director Philip G. Atwell was fairly typical for an action film, full of quick cuts, frantic camera movements, and of course filling the entire screen with as much mayhem as possible during the overblown and entertaining action sequences. Sadly, these positives, along with some other ones that I didn’t list, were not enough to keep “War” going strong from start to finish.

Overall, “War” is an entertaining action film for a majority of the running time, but one plot twist manages to ruin the entire movie. If you’re a fan of Jet Li or Jason Statham, do yourself a favor and rent one of their better movies that will leave you with much more of a satisfactory ending, such as “Unleashed” or “The Transporter”.

“War” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Death Sentence

“Death Sentence” is the kind of movie that I thought looked intriguing from the first time I saw a preview for it. However, I was somewhat uneasy about whether the movie would be all that good due to the fact that its director’s previous work had been solely in the horror genre. Sure, the director, James Wan, had been successful in his own genre with his smash hit “Saw”, and had shown an aptitude for chilling audiences to the bone while delivering plenty of twists and thrills along the way, but just because he was successful in that genre didn’t mean his success would translate all that well into the realm of action films. But, we were about to find out with “Death Sentence” whether James Wan was a director that could successfully jump from genre to genre, as horror master Wes Craven had done previously with his thriller “Red Eye”, or was he destined to be nothing more than a horror film director who simply had delusions of grandeur.

“Death Sentence” is the story of Nick Hume (Kevin Bacon), a loving father and husband, who is content with his peaceful, quiet life until one fateful night when his eldest son is brutally murdered right before his eyes. Dissatisfied with how the killer’s trial will most likely turn out due to a possible deal between the attorney’s, Nick opts to take matters into his own hands and deliver his own brand of justice. However, Nick never imagined that his decision to become judge, jury, and executioner would come with such dire consequences as the rest of the gang that the killer belonged to has declared open season on Nick and his family. Now, with his family in danger at almost every turn Nick must end this seemingly never-ending nightmare before it’s too late.

Well, I’ve got to say that sometimes it’s nice to be wrong about people and your expectations of them. Case in point, I figured that director James Wan was nothing more than a really good horror film director, but with “Death Sentence” he has proven that he has what it takes to deliver gripping drama, intense action, and edge-of-your-seat suspense without resorting to buckets of blood, showing myself, and I’m sure many other moviegoers, that there may just be more to this young director than previously believed. Even though James was branching outside of his comfort zone with this film, he still managed to bring in a little of what he knows best by having some of the action sequences be fairly brutal and bloody at times, but to his credit he never over did it with the use of blood. Sure the graphic nature of the fights may have felt a wee bit excessive at times, but then again we are talking about high-powered weapons being used at close range at times, so the results would not be all too pretty and I think Wan handled the action scenes very well.

The actors were all great in each of their roles; every actor seemed to bring a richness and depth to every character on the screen. Kevin Bacon (“Hollow Man”) was excellent as Nick Hume; he was such a good family man who was utterly broken when his son was murdered sending him on a downward spiral into anger and despair, while unlocking an almost primal urge to seek vengeance against those who had wronged him and to protect his family no matter the cost. The supporting cast members were equally powerful in their roles from Kelly Preston’s (“Sky High”) quiet, yet strong portrayal of Nick’s wife, to Garrett Hedlund’s cold and calculated leader of the gang, and even John Goodman’s psychotic gun-running criminal kingpin. Everyone gave terrific performances, some were even surprising with how good they truly were and how different from anything I had seen them in previously, primarily Garrett Hedlund (“Four Brothers”) and John Goodman (“Coyote Ugly”). I had never seen either of those actors in such dark roles before, but both handled their characters extremely well, and at times were downright chilling in their portrayals.

I really appreciated the fact that both director James Wan and star Kevin Bacon (according to the DVD special features) took the time to ensure that Kevin’s portrayal of Nick was as a realistic businessman with no apparent weapons training, so that when he finally purchases firearms to deal with the gang, he didn’t know how to properly use them. Therefore his character was much more believable than most leads in this type of film, where the character even if they’ve never had any weapon’s experience whatsoever, when the chips are down and it’s time to get down to business the lead always knows how to handle any weapon at their disposal, which is obviously unbelievable. So, it was nice to see a revenge-themed movie take a more realistic approach by having the lead appear visibly uncomfortable with the handling of weaponry.

“Death Sentence” is a very gritty, extremely violent revenge thriller that easily knocks the wind out of you early on and never really allows you a moment to catch your breath again until the credits roll. It’s not an easy film to watch, but is one that fans of the genre should definitely enjoy.

“Death Sentence” is rated R for violence and language.

Shoot ‘Em Up

Some movies you just can’t seem to understand why you bother watching them. There are just certain movies that are kind of like train wrecks, you know that the outcome will no doubt be disastrous, yet you can’t help but watch as the movie reaches its inevitable conclusion. It’s these types of films that have earned the title ‘Guilty Pleasures’, because no matter how hard you try there’s just no explaining why you’re watching the film, because there isn’t much of anything to merit your attention, but there you sit, like a goober, watching a movie that you know will end up being a waste of time. A recent example of this is the 2007 brainless, action movie “Shoot ‘Em Up” starring Clive Owen (“King Arthur”), Monica Bellucci (“The Matrix Reloaded”), and Paul Giamatti (“Cinderella Man”).

“Shoot ‘Em Up” is about a man named Smith (Clive Owen) who, out of sheer coincidence, happens to be in the right place at the right time as a man is attempting to kill a pregnant woman just before she is about to give birth. Smith follows the man, proceeding to intervene before the murder takes place, after dispatching the killer and assisting the woman in childbirth, Smith finds himself in yet another fight between the would be killer’s former cohorts, led by a man named Hertz (Paul Giamatti). After escaping from the fight, Smith finds himself the surrogate father to the newborn baby after the mother is caught in the crossfire. Now, Smith is on the run with a baby in tow from a maniacal mad man, and his only assistance is a prostitute (Monica Bellucci) with the proverbial heart of gold.

Writer/director Michael Davis has managed to take a bunch of over-the-top, overblown action sequences strung them together with one of the weakest storylines I’ve seen in a feature film (even some of Steven Seagal’s Direct-to-DVD films have better plots), assembled a fairly strong cast (each of whom should really have known better than to do this movie, but you know the saying, “Money talks.”), and somehow convinced New Line Cinema that this was a viable property worthy of theatrical release. Kudos for the effort Mr. Davis, I don’t know how you did it but the fact that this movie ever made it to theaters is beyond me, this movie’s script had DVD bargain bin written all over it! I will give “Shoot ‘Em Up” and its writer/director Michael Davis this, the action sequences may be over-the-top in every sense, but they are mostly a lot of fun to watch, although by the end of the movie I found myself tired of the endless barrage of gunfire that had permeated almost every scene in the film. If nothing else, these stylistic, fast-paced gun battles is probably what kept my attention in this film, because it sure wasn’t the story which wasn’t made clear until approximately 15 to 20 minutes from the end of the film.

For an action movie to succeed with audiences it must of course contain plenty of high octane, energetic action sequences to keep the adrenaline junkies going, but it must also have some semblance of a storyline tying the fight scenes together to give the movie some sense of purpose otherwise we’re just watching a bunch of meaningless fights that don’t have any point behind them and that gets boring really quickly. But, when a movie’s story isn’t made clear to the audience until about 20 minutes from the end of the movie, then I think the writer has made a horrible mistake and is lucky the audience has made it with them this far into the film. In the case of “Shoot ‘Em Up” writer/director Michael Davis was fortunate that he had crafted such creative and fun gunfights to keep my attention, plus the fact that I like the cast helped him out quite a bit, because without those key components I would have ditched this movie long before the basic plot was revealed and would have felt that I hadn’t missed much of anything. A little advice for Michael Davis, if you intend to keep the audience on board with you for this kind of movie, it would probably be a smart idea to give a little bit more of the story away throughout the entire duration of the film, not just waiting for the end to explain everything like its some massive secret that would change the entire movie experience.

The cast that was assembled for this film, led by Clive Owen, Monica Bellucci, and Paul Giamatti, were of a much higher caliber than I would have expected in such an inferior piece of so-called “entertainment”. Even though the story was lacking in almost every way, the actors managed to do a decent job of creating characters the audience could become interested in, even if their story arcs were essentially non-existent. I must say Paul Giamatti was actually a surprise as the villain in the film, I never thought that he could handle playing the main villain in such a movie, but the over-the-top performance he gave as Hertz fit right in with the rest of the movie’s tone, and was actually one of the best things about the entire film.

If nothing else can be said for “Shoot ‘Em Up”, it at least lives up to its name, this film is essentially nothing but one gun battle after another and before long all the style and quick camera cuts in the world can’t help these scenes from looking the same and leaving the audience bored. I believe that even die hard action fans that love to see nothing but non-stop action will be hard pressed to actually enjoy this movie all that much, because by the time the movie is almost over you’ll probably find yourself hating the constant barrage of gunfights and wishing for a little drama to fill up some time.

“Shoot ‘Em Up” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

With the great commercial success that 20th Century Fox’s superhero adaptation “Fantastic Four” enjoyed with audiences it was only a matter of time before a sequel would make its way onto the big screen, though much to the dismay of the critics. Essentially all critics, and even some audiences, disliked the more tongue-in-cheek approach to superhero movies that director Tim Story brought with his adaptation of Marvel Comics’ first superhero family, but most audiences loved the more light-hearted approach to heroics that is often times missing in these types of films, such as; “Batman Begins”, “Daredevil”, and “X-Men”. Jump forward a couple of years, gather together the cast of the original film, along with director Tim Story, and with the obligatory origin tale out of the way, 20th Century Fox was ready to send Marvel’s first family back into the fray in “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer”.

“Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” begins with the members of the Fantastic Four and the world preparing for the impending nuptials of Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd) and the Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba). However, this happy time is proving to be anything but that for the members of the FF as the media is constantly meddling into their lives, prompting Sue to wonder if it’s at all possible for her and Reed to raise a family and be superheroes at the same time. As the stress builds, Reed and Sue decide to break-up the Fantastic Four after the wedding, a decision that greatly disturbs the Human Torch (Chris Evans) and the ever-lovin’, blue eyed Thing (Michael Chiklis), who feel the decision should have been made as a group. Shortly before their wedding date, a man named General Hager (Andre Braugher) alerts the team to an impending threat that could mean the end of the world, as a giant world-eating monstrosity known as Galactus is approaching Earth, and leading the way is its herald the powerful Silver Surfer (voiced by Laurence Fishburne). Now, the Fantastic Four must put aside their differences with not only each other but also with their former nemesis, Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon) who has apparently returned from the dead with knowledge that may possibly save the world or condemn it under his oppressive rule.

As a fan of the first film, “Fantastic Four”, I was hoping that the sequel would at least equal its predecessor and maybe even surpass it at times, but I have to say that I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit more than the original. Almost everything about “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” was better than the first film, not that the first film was bad. I mean the first film is like most first superhero movies, it was the origin tale which is needed for the audience members that aren’t up on the comics to know just what exactly these characters are all about. For an origin movie the original was well done, and captured the feel of the comic rather well, there were a few gripes (the main one being the film wasn’t as serious as it should have been, a little less humor would have been nice), but nothing that really took away from the overall enjoyment of the movie. The direction felt much more focused, it seemed like Tim Story was more confident with special effects this time around, which was evident in the more visually exciting action sequences, the camerawork was much more fast-paced and exciting, utilizing more movement with the camera to make the audience have a sense that something was always happening on screen.

Assisting the director in elevating the quality of this sequel was the improved storyline that focused on a much bigger threat than what was featured in the first movie. The drama the team dealt with seemed a little more refined, and it was especially appreciated that we didn’t have to deal with anymore sulking moments on the part of the Thing regarding his appearance. Most of the characters had evolved since we last left them in the previous movie, a must for any sequel to be successful, and this is especially true for superhero films, and this film took this rule to heart and the movie was better served because of that. I was surprised that Johnny seemed the least developed from the first film, his character was essentially the same as he was when we last left him, which felt a little strange that he wouldn’t have matured at all, but by the end of this movie his character’s story arc had matured him into more of a man rather than a hot-headed kid who only looks out for himself 9 times out of 10. I was pleased that the writers took this film into a little bit more of a serious direction than the previous one by balancing the drama and the comedy better than the original had done.

The actors all gave terrific performances, the cast seemed like they were truly enjoying themselves even more so than they did in the first movie. Each actor looked just as confident, maybe even a little more so, with their characters, a benefit of having played the same characters previously so that the actors knew the characters much better and therefore felt more comfortable in their skin. The most improved performance was without a doubt Jessica Alba’s, not that she was bad in the first movie, but she seemed much more at ease with her role, delivering a more confident and in control Sue Storm than she had seemed before. The newest members of the cast, primarily Andre Braugher as General Hager and Laurence Fishburne as the voice of the Silver Surfer and actor Doug Jones (previously portrayed Abe Sapien in “Hellboy”) supplied the physical movements for the character, were welcome additions to the franchise and gave the movie some fresh conflicts to deal with. Braugher did a very good job portraying Hager as a man with an axe to grind with Reed, and it would have been nice to see or at least hear a little bit more of their history to better understand what had occurred between these two characters in the past that causes such obvious animosity. The character of the Silver Surfer was by far the best addition to the franchise, and served as the catalyst for the Fantastic Four’s newest threat that they face. The physical movements of Doug Jones that gave the Silver Surfer an air of superiority, combined with the deep, resonating voice of Laurence Fishburne molded the Surfer into a commanding presence, which comic book fans and moviegoers would like to see more of as this film merely piqued the audience’s interest.

Lastly, the special effects work on this film, as I briefly mentioned above, was far superior to what had been done in the first movie, so a big thumbs up must go to the talented team at Weta that supplied the effects. The effects for the main members of the Fantastic Four seemed more refined, but the biggest achievements by Weta on this film, were the work done on bringing the Silver Surfer to life and also creating the cloud/machine used by Galactus (the Silver Surfer’s master) to drain various worlds of their energies. Both aspects of the film looked excellent, and I’m sure bringing a highly reflective being such as the Silver Surfer to life on the big screen was no easy task, because there’s only so much reflecting that you’d want his body to do before there’d be no way of knowing where he ends and the environment around him begins. Kudos must go to Weta on finding the perfect balance of reflectivity for the Surfer, and for giving comic book fans a living, breathing, realistic looking Silver Surfer for us to enjoy.

To sum up, “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” is a highly entertaining sequel that builds upon the already solid story put forth by the first film, and serves to point this franchise in the direction it needs to be heading. Namely bigger and badder foes, more serious conflicts, and more drama in their lives, but without losing some of the lighter moments that make this franchise so entertaining for families who feel that there’s not much out there for them to enjoy.

“Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” is rated PG for brief language and violence.

Fantastic Four

When the comic book movie craze officially hit with the release of blockbusters such as, “Spider-Man”, “X-Men”, and their hugely successful sequels, many comic book fans were left wondering when will Marvel’s first superhero team, the Fantastic 4, make it to the big screen. Since at the time DC Comics had not released “Batman Begins”, Marvel Comics was the only comics’ distributor releasing movies, so of course their characters were the primary focus of fans. Many began to worry with the poor performance (in movie critic’s minds, that is) of “Hulk”, “Daredevil”, and “Elektra”, would comic book movies continue to be made or would the superhero genre die out once again. Luckily, the genre has not died, despite movie critic’s most desperate wishes, and in 2005 Marvel’s ‘First Family of Heroes’ were given the big screen treatment they deserved, and audiences were treated to a more tongue-in-cheek comic book movie, that still delivered the goods in terms of storytelling and quality.

“Fantastic 4″ is essentially the origins for this team of reluctant heroes. Dr. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and his best friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) are attempting to persuade the extremely rich industrialist, Victor Von Doom, to fund an expedition into space to study a cosmic anomaly that is nearing Earth’s orbit. Von Doom agrees with the proviso that he and his lovely assistant/girlfriend, Susan Storm (Jessica Alba), along with her hot-headed brother Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) are allowed to join them on their voyage into space. Though the expedition begins pleasantly enough, except for Johnny’s practical jokes on Ben, things quickly turn awry as the cosmic anomaly reaches Von Doom’s space station sooner than expected and all 5 members of the expedition are bombarded with cosmic rays. Upon their return to Earth everything appears to be normal, but then everyone begins experiencing changes in their bodies, and new powers developing. Each member exhibits different powers, Reed has the power of elasticity, Sue gains invisibility, Johnny can control fire, and Ben becomes hard as rock. These four out of the five member team try to learn more about the source of their new powers and possibly find a cure for them. Meanwhile, Victor Von Doom, whose skin is slowly becoming a metallic alloy, and also has the ability to shoot electricity from his hands, is becoming increasingly distrubed and blames Reed for causing his current condition. However, instead of finding a cure, he embraces his anger along with his power and turns on the society that has begun to shun him. Now Reed, Ben, Sue, and Johnny must decide whether to rid themselves of their powers or join forces to battle their onetime comrade and protect humanity from his evil.

Though not nearly as serious as “Spider-Man” or “X-Men” or any of the other Marvel Comics’ movies for that matter, “Fantastic 4″ still gives an engaging story that can be both serious and humorous. The casting is terrific, all of the actors perfectly embody their comic book counterparts, especially Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis. These two actors excellently capture the constant bickering/bullying between the Human Torch and the Thing, while at the same time showing their underlying loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for one another if the need arose.

Director Tim Story (“Barbershop”) proved himself to be a solid action director after previously being known for comedy films. Some of the action sequences felt a little by the book, as if he wasn’t wanting to take too much of a chance due to him being new to the genre, but he still managed to deliver a very entertaining sci-fi/action flick. Where Tim Story did succeed really well was in selling the comedic moments to the audience, each of the funnier scenes worked very well throughout the film, although at times I thought the comedy was a little too much in the forefront of the movie and that the action and drama were taking a backseat, but those times were few.

For Tim Story not having a history with special effects in his movies he managed to do well here, no doubt thanks to the experience of the rest of his crew. The special effects work was all very well done, especially for the Human Torch and Mr. Fantastic. The shots of the Human Torch in full ‘Flame On!’ mode are some of the best in the entire picture, and are really fun and exciting to watch on screen. And kudos to the special effects team for making a man be able to appear to stretch his body without looking cartoonish, I’m sure that was a fine line they walked in the creation of Mr. Fantastic’s special effects sequences, but the team handled them very well. Also, congratulations to the practical effects work done on the Thing’s suit that Michael Chiklis wore. I was impressed that the decision was made to use a real suit for the character, instead of the taking the easy way out by using CGI.

Even though critics tore this movie apart and tried to convince the public it was not and could never be a big success, the box office numbers provided by fans and general movie audiences proved otherwise. If you enjoyed “Spider-Man” or “X-Men” or any of the other comic book movies, or are just a fan of sci-fi/action movies with good storytelling, then “Fantastic 4″ is a movie you should see. However, do not watch this movie expecting to see the same level of drama as “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” had, this movie is much lighter in tone, while still delivering a good story with plenty of drama mixed in.

“Fantastic 4″ is available in theatrical and extended editions, both rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief sensuality.