Goodfellas

In the 1970’s director Francis Ford Coppola treated audiences with possibly the most accurate, yet somewhat romanticized, depiction of life in the mafia with his brilliant films “The Godfather” and “The Godfather 2″. Ever since those two movies, no other movie has come close to touching the quality that is displayed in these two films for this genre, some have tried and come close (“The Godfather 3″ being chief among them), but none have succeeded. That is until director Martin Scorsese released his biopic on the life of mobster Henry Hill with “Goodfellas”.

“Goodfellas” follows the life of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a small-time hood who happens to participate in a robbery with Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro), calm and calculating individual, and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), a psycho with an incredibly short fuse. Little did Henry know that this robbery would place him on the path to becoming a ‘made man’ in the very mafia family that Jimmy Conway eventually becomes head of. As Henry Hill rises through the ranks of ‘La Cosa Nostra’ he manages to find some peace and stability when he meets a young woman (Lorraine Braco) that he marries and begins a family. However, the excesses of mafia life eventually begin to get the better of Henry, as he begins to unravel, and making matters worse his one-time friend and Don, Jimmy Conway believes Henry may be a threat to him and plots to ‘whack’ him. With his life in possible jeopardy, Henry has two choices, one stay true to the family and face possible execution, or two, become a government informant and be placed into Witness Protection, becoming a rat in the eyes of the ‘family’.

Director Martin Scorsese’s work here is by far some of his best. His gritty, realistic approach to this true story, really shows the audience the great wealth and success (if you can call it that) that mafia life can have, while at the same time showing the pitfalls that can occur in that same life. The cast that Scorsese has managed to bring together for this film is truly excellent, and the performances by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Ray Liotta are so powerful, and at times scary, that you can really appreciate the great talent that these actors possess. The supporting cast is equally talented, and just as worthy of praise as the three leads. An interesting note is that for his role of the psychotic Tommy DeVito, Joe Pesci improvised some of the more extreme moments the character has, earning him great critical praise and somewhat typecasting him in this type of role.

The story is an excellent cautionary tale on what can happen when your choices lead you on the wrong path, even though it’s the only path you ever dreamed of. The movie is probably just as strong as “The Godfather”, maybe even stronger due to it’s even greater authenticity and lack of romanticizing life in the mafia. For those moviegoers that enjoy mafia themed movies, but have never seen this gangster classic, you must do yourself a huge favor and watch this movie, you will not be disappointed.

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

Hitch

Typically when I’m choosing a movie to watch in my spare time, I will choose from action, drama, comedy, sci-fi, thrillers, etc. (what you would basically expect from any guy), I can honestly say that I very rarely choose a romantic comedy, and never a musical. However, sometimes a romantic comedy comes along that looks interesting and funny to me, generally because the premise is different from most or because I like the stars in it, or simply because my wife chooses the movie for our movie night. In the case of “Hitch” it was a combination of the first 2 factors, but for some reason my wife and I never got around to watching this movie in theaters, and for the longest time on DVD. But recently, we sat down and watched it, and I must say that even though many critics and some moviegoers weren’t entertained that much by the movie, I found it to be highly enjoyable and one of the better romantic comedies I had seen.

“Hitch” is the story of Alex ‘Hitch’ Hitchens (Will Smith), a man whose job is to find ways for a man to successfully woo the woman of his choice into a successful dating relationship. Hitch is a man that is good at his job, but never really finds the time for his own dating life. When Hitch begins coaching a pudgy accountant (Kevin James) on how to get noticed by an attractive, wealthy heiress, his own love life begins to blossom, but through a series of mishaps starts to go horribly awry. Inevitably leaving Hitch wondering why he can make love happen for complete strangers but never for himself. But before he can figure out what’s going on in his life, a newsreporter (Eva Mendes) is trying to uncover the true identity of this so-called ‘Date Doctor’, and after protecting his identity for so long Hitch finds himself in the media crosshairs, and his profession on the line.

As far as romantic comedies go, most of them are generally predictable to some extent, sometimes the predictability of these types of films lends to boredom for me. However, there are a few romantic comedies that manage to be predictable, yet still entertain, and then there are the few (very few) that just surprise you by not being all that predictable. “Hitch” falls somewhere between somewhat predictable and not all that much, there are the typical romantic comedy elements that are crucial for this type of film. For example, guy finds girl, impresses girl, things get serious, some secret about guy is discovered by girl, girl breaks up with guy, guy proclaims love for girl, and all is well with the world – those are your basic elements (give or take one or two) to almost every romantic comedy these days, and “Hitch” contains several of them. The difference for me was that unlike a lot of other romantic comedies where the story is so thin and the humor is virtually non-existent that you find yourself already knowing how the movie will end and checking your eyelids for holes within the first 30 minutes due to boredom, “Hitch” keeps things going at a very steady pace with plenty of laughs and clever dialogue that I never got distracted by getting ahead of the story, and remained entertained throughout. Probably the element I enjoyed the most of the movie was the way the character of Hitch had taken a by-the-book approach to dating, as far as his tips go, that worked like a charm for every guy that he tutored, yet could never get the same approach to work for him, and in the end he discovers that love, much like life, isn’t always so simply figured out.

The performances by the cast were uniformly strong, Will Smith and Kevin James out-shined everyone, which wasn’t really all that surprising given their comedic and acting talents. Eva Mendes was very endearing as the woman that Hitch is trying to start a relationship with, and she shows a great on-screen chemistry with Will Smith that made their couple very believable. The story as I said earlier contained many of the familiar elements of most romantic comedies, yet still entertained me, and I never felt like I’d seen it all before. The ending is what you expect, and of course hope for in this type of movie, but the execution of the ending was done in a very interesting and unique way that I didn’t expect, probably making it a much more enjoyable ending than most.

With all of that being said, “Hitch” isn’t the most original romantic comedy, but there are numerous elements that are unique, and allowed me to overlook the same old elements that are so tried and true to this genre. It was a very entertaining movie, that provides you plenty of laughter and leaves you feeling good, which is what these movies should do.

“Hitch” is rated PG-13 for language and sensuality.

Hannibal Rising

In the history of cinema there are many great cinematic villains that have terrified movie audiences over the years. Often times they are frightening in appearance or deeds, sometimes they are misunderstood or victims of circumstance, and they can even be so captivating that you can’t help but pay attention to their many evil acts. These great villains range from the dreaded Darth Vader, to the slashers known as Freddy, Jason, and Leatherface, or the brilliant evil genius’ of the James Bond films, to the most feared psychological villain of all time, Hannibal ‘the cannibal’ Lecter. Moviemakers lately have felt the need to explain the origins to some of cinema’s classic villains from George Lucas’ prequel trilogy of ‘Star Wars’ films, to Leatherface’s lackluster origin story in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning”, the most recent addition to the list of villains getting the origin treatment would be Hannibal Lecter in the Weinstein Company’s adaptation of Thomas Harris’ novel, “Hannibal Rising”.

“Hannibal Rising” is the origin story of Hannibal Lecter, showing how he went from being an innocent young boy in Lithuania to society’s most deadly, cannibalistic serial killer. As a young boy in Lithuania, Hannibal witnessed the deaths of his parents in World War 2, leaving he and his sister Mischa to fend for themselves. Just when Hannibal thought things couldn’t get worse, a group of militia men invade their home, taking Hannibal and Mischa hostage. Some time after that, grown up and in college, Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is mastering every course he takes, and well on his way to earning his doctorate. Little does his professors know that Hannibal hides a dark, deadly secret. In his own time he is obsessively pursuing the men that formed the militia, and if there’s one thing Hannibal intends to do when he finds them, it’s take his pound of flesh for what they’ve done.

The decision to make a prequel to the popular Hannibal Lecter trilogy of films seemed like a waste of time and space, simply a way for the studio to just cash in on the character’s well-known name. Which left me feeling like this would be a pathetic movie, because more than likely not a single person associated with the previous films would be involved, and for the most part I was right on that count, but there was a glimmer of a chance that this movie would be more than expected. Shortly after the film was greenlit, it was announced that the movie was being written by none other than Thomas Harris, the creator of Hannibal Lecter, based on his novel of the same name that he was in the process of finishing up. With that prospect, I thought that “Hannibal Rising” (at the time the movie was being called “Young Hannibal”) just may stand a chance of equaling its predecessors in terms of quality storytelling and acting that is among the best Hollywood has to offer.

Well, as good of a writer Thomas Harris is, or I should say was (his other three books in the Lecter series are great works of fiction), this novel and the screenplay that was based on it are far inferior to anything offered in the other installments. I was disappointed by the movie for several reasons; first I felt the actor chosen to portray young Hannibal was only okay. I understand he was trying to only give hints as to what this character will become later on, and I’ll give it to the actor, there were a couple of times that I saw a glimpse of Anthony Hopkins’ creepy portrayal seep in, but these were few and far between. For the most part the actor was just flat in his performance and apparently the only expression he really knew how to make was a snarl, he didn’t really have any of the nuances that Anthony perfected in this character.

Second, it seemed like Hannibal took to cannibalism a little too easily. I understand that the experiences the young man has endured would definitely scar a young child, but when he commits his first act of cannibalism, there doesn’t appear to be any uncertainty or disdain for what he’s doing. He simply does the deed, doesn’t appear to be bothered by it, in fact he may even have enjoyed it (the movie really doesn’t explain this), and moves on in search of the next victim on his list. Which brings me to my third problem with this movie; aside from revenge being his motive for killing those who’ve wronged him, he doesn’t show any further conviction to commit murder. Leaving one to wonder why he continued to murder throughout his life? Did the events in this movie create such an obsession within him that he just felt compelled to do more or what? This was an aspect that wasn’t explained, and I felt should have been, especially since this was to be the origin of his evil life and a deep psychological profile into the why of his life of crime. Instead, Thomas Harris’ screenplay barely scratched the surface, no doubt because the Weinstein’s are hoping to cash in on further installments of prequels, since Hopkins is probably through portraying the character.

“Hannibal Rising” is not the worst film ever made, it’s actually an ok movie, and if it had been the first in the series to be made, it may have seemed better. However, when comparing it to the other three already in the franchise, “Hannibal Rising” pales in comparison. The other movies contained many psychological aspects to them, especially “The Silence of the Lambs”, “Red Dragon” and “Hannibal” did to an extent just not as much, but this film didn’t contain any. There was potential, especially given that Hannibal endured a horrific childhood which is the root of his evil, but aside from a few dream sequences we don’t get much insight into his character. Which is probably where the biggest problem of this film lies, is that in trying to explain why Hannibal is who he is, the makers of the film try to make the audience feel sympathy for him. This is one of modern cinema’s greatest movie villains, I don’t want to feel sorry for him, I want to see what made him who he is. The filmmakers tried to accomplish the why of the character, but went about it wrong, they only focused on his thirst for vengeance, nothing further to shed light on his murderous impulses throughout his life. My guess is that the filmmakers were wanting the audience to feel that his killing is justified, at least in this movie (it’s just a really sick brand of justice), and in doing so you sympathize with him. What this all boils down to is that everyone pretty much dropped the ball on explaining the origin of Hannibal Lecter, opting simply to give audiences an average revenge tale, just a little gorier than most.

“Hannibal Rising” is unrated containing violence, gore, and language.

The Guardian

Let me start off by saying that when I first saw the previews for this film I had mixed feelings about whether I wanted to see it. A part of me really wanted to see the movie because it looked good (although I had a sneaking suspicion that I knew how it might end, but that wouldn’t ruin the movie for me necessarily), but another part of me was unsure of the film for two reasons and both reasons deal with the two lead actors. Reason one, Ashton Kutcher (“Butterfly Effect” and MTV’s “Punk’d”), I personally don’t think too much of Ashton’s movies, “Butterfly Effect” was cool, but his other efforts I didn’t care a whole lot about or even want to see. The ‘why’ of my not liking Ashton’s films probably has a lot to do with his show on MTV, and from that I find it increasingly difficult to take him even remotely serious as an actor and therefore I found it hard to believe he could be that good in this film. My second reason is Kevin Costner, at one time he was an excellent actor who churned out hit after hit, but sometime around the release of “Waterworld” he apparently lost his good judgment for movie roles. Which resulted in some rather lackluster movies from the actor. So, with his track record being less than stellar of late, I was unsure about whether this would be another one of those box office stinkers of his, and the fact that Kutcher was the co-lead in the film lended this theory more credibility. However, two beacons of hope gave me reason to think this movie may just be alright after all, the first was Ashton’s strong performance in “Butterfly Effect” which surprised me, and the second was Kevin Costner’s 2003 film “Open Range” which I felt was some of the best work he’d done since “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”. With those two thoughts in mind, and the fact that after its release many people told me that it was a good movie, and one I should see (the critics disagreed with most general audiences on this point, most critics didn’t think much of the movie), I actually got excited to see the movie, and so I decided to sit down and see if it really was as good as people, whose opinions I agree with, thought, or if the critics were right that this movie couldn’t tread water.

“The Guardian” is the story of ace Coast Guard swimmer/rescuer Ben Randall (Kevin Costner), who is one of the United States Coast Guard’s best; however, after a recent rescue operation goes horribly awry, Randall is left reeling from his grief. To help him cope, his commanding officer (Clancy Brown) sends him to a Coast Guard training center so that he may train new, raw recruits how to be the best rescuers they can be. While there Randall’s patience is sorely tested by an up-and-coming hot shot Jake Fischer (Ashton Kutcher), whose arrogance and focus on being the best in his class is merely hiding a deep tragedy in his past that he is hoping desperately to forget. Though polar opposites, these two men may just find they have more in common than just their desire to save lives, and in the process they may just help each other cope with their deep pain, and become even greater heroes so that others may live.

So, I suppose you’re wondering what my thoughts were on this movie, obviously based on my rating of it being a 4 out of 5, then I must’ve enjoyed it. Well, truth be told, I did enjoy it. Yes, the movie is fairly predictable (just as I suspected), but on the flip side the movie was also really enjoyable. Both leading stars, Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner, gave great depth and realism to their respective roles. Both character arcs were fairly easy to see how they would go, but there were a couple of twists that I didn’t see, I mean I knew that Kutcher’s character obviously had some tragedy in his past, but I was surprised as to what it turned out to be. And the scene where Kutcher reveals his past to Costner is very well-acted, especially on the part of Kutcher, who brought a surpising vulnerability to his role at that point that I never thought him capable of.

The story for “The Guardian” was very formulaic, but never boring. A big part of this movie’s success goes to the skilled eye of director Andrew Davis (“The Fugitive”) who took a basic, by-the-book action movie in the vein of “Top Gun”, and made it an inspirational homage to the brave men and women that risk their lives in the U.S. Coast Guard. Where this movie truly shines is in the breathtakingly realistice rescue sequences that were done with input from the Coast Guard to ensure a realistic tone and feel. By seamlessly blending CGI and footage shot inside a 750,000 water tank, these sequences are a testament to what these brave men and women in the Coast Guard must go through on a daily basis when they are sent to rescue someone.

The only complaint I have with this movie, also lies in the predictability of the movie. There were numerous plot points in this movie that have occured time and time again in movies that are quite similar, though I won’t list them here because it could ruin some of the story for those that may not have seen it yet. Aside from the rescue sequences there really was no new ground being broken here, but that’s not really a bad thing for the genre, because why fix something that’s not broke. However, the predictability of a scene near the end is the chief reason that I couldn’t give the movie a 5 out of 5, I won’t say what exactly happens, but anyone that’s seen the movie probably knows exactly what I’m talking about. The movie would have been so much better if the writer had opted not to use this over used, easy-to-see coming plot device that numerous movies of this genre include in their films in an attempt to lend gravity to the entire movie. A move that was hardly necessary in this film, and would have been much better if left out.

All complaining aside, the movie is a solid action film, that is meant as a very heartfelt homage to the brave members of the United States Coast Guard who risk their lives everyday so that others may live.

“The Guardian” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Hellboy

In the world of comic books there are many well known heroes that populate the various universes of each publishing company’s books. From DC Comics’ popular characters of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman to Marvel’s Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four; each of those characters are beloved by comic book fans worldwide. Aside from those characters and their respective companies there are numerous other characters that have built a cult following in the comic world, but are not as well known by the mainstream public. One such character would be the Dark Horse comic book Hellboy, created by writer/artist Mike Mignola.

In theaters many of Marvel and DC’s heroes have been finding their way to the big screen with varying degrees of success, most are wildly successful, but a few have faltered along the way, but not too many of the other companies have managed to bring their properties to life with as much success. Sure, there was “Spawn” (property of Image Comics) and “Judge Dredd” (British publication called ‘2000 A.D.’) in the mid-nineties, but they weren’t all that successful, so the likelihood of these little known characters finding success with movie audiences was slim to none. At least that was the case until director Guillermo del Toro (“Blade 2″) passed on an opportunity to direct the 3rd installment in the ‘Harry Potter’ franchise, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”, to bring one of his favorite comic characters to life.

With a successful director, such as Guillermo behind the lens, New Line Cinema must have felt fairly confident in the film’s success after he had done wonders for them with the second installment in the ‘Blade’ trilogy, so with a director on board who respected the source material, and a talented cast of actors consisting of Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, and John Hurt, this little known comic book was about to become a living, breathing reality on the silver screen.

“Hellboy” begins in 1944 during World War 2, when Rasputin, a mad sorcerer in league with Hitler, opens a dimensional portal to Hell, and through this dimension a baby demon emerges. Before Rasputin can take the baby demon and raise him to be an instrument of death and destruction, the Allied forces stop him. Among the Allies, is a young man who raises this demon, appropriately named Hellboy, teaching him the ways of the hero. As an adult, Hellboy (Ron Perlman) works with an agency known as the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, founded by the very man that raised him Professor Bloom (John Hurt), their job is to track any paranormal activity on Earth, and protect humanity from any danger that may be the result of that activity. Now, 60 years after releasing Hellboy on Earth, Rasputin has returned with the intention of using Hellboy to unleash the 7 gods of chaos upon Earth. With Earth’s survival hanging in the balance, Hellboy and company, consisting of the firestarter Liz (Selma Blair), a human/amphibian hybrid named Abe Sapien (acted out by Doug Jones, but voiced by David Hyde Pierce), and FBI agent Myers, are in for the most difficult fight of their lives.

After finding moderate success in Hollywood with the science-fiction/horror movie “Mimic”, and following that up with his much more successful comic book hit “Blade 2″, director Guillermo del Toro probably seemed without a doubt the best choice to bring Hellboy to the big screen. Not only is Guillermo a gifted director in the arena of special effects and horror, but he also has a knack for making his characters have a sense of humor which serves to lighten the mood in his otherwise darker toned movies, those elements combined together with his affection for the source material created the optimal conditions for another comic book movie franchise to be born, proving him the right man for the job.

After Guillermo signed on, it was time to build the cast for the project. Now, I’m sure casting for this movie was probably typical by most comic book movie standards, but the difficult part had to have been finding the right man to don the red make-up and prosthetics that are used to create Hellboy’s demonic visage. Enter actor Ron Perlman (“Alien: Resurrection”), an actor that has made a career of playing somewhat strange, even scary characters, and who by the way is no stranger to wearing plenty of prosthetics. After all, Ron Perlman’s best known role was that of the Beast in the live-action TV series “Beauty and the Beast” opposite actress Linda Hamilton (“The Terminator”), so with his experience with prosthetics and his penchant for strange characters, it was almost as if he was destined to be this character. The supporting cast members do very well with providing depth and reality to these strange new heroes that join together to face monsters determined to destroy us. There really wasn’t a weak actor/actress in the entire bunch, a true rarity in the various genres that this movie fits into, i.e. horror, science-fiction, comic book. It was a welcome addition that everyone involved on screen and off appeared to have a deep respect for the source material and the fan base, and not just being there to collect a paycheck.

The special effects for the movie were very well done, especially the scenes with Liz’s fire power being showcased. These scenes are where the CGI really shines. As I touched on earlier, the prosthetics and costume department also deserves great praise for their outstanding work done here, from Hellboy to the monsters that he faces, to Abe Sapien or Kronen, every aspect of costumes, prosthetics, and practical effects is top-notch all the way. And finally, the story for “Hellboy” was very fast paced and entertaining, without skimming on the details of the character, which I appreciated greatly due to my lack of awareness in regards to this comic book. Without this entertaining and engaging story that was smartly written to play well with audiences that would be hard-core fans of the comic and those that have either little or no knowledge of the character whatsoever.

With all of that being said, “Hellboy” is a terrific comic book based movie, that as far as I know, stays true to the source material without making newcomers to the character feel lost in the shuffle. Definitely a solid entry into the pantheon of comic book movies and a welcome addition at that.

“Hellboy” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Ghost Rider

When director Mark Steven Johnson was lucky enough to be tapped to helm Fox’s big screen adaptation of “Daredevil” he turned out to be an absolute perfect fit for the genre. Not only was he a fan of the comic, but he wanted to go against the Hollywood grain, and stay as true to the source material as possible. A move that was bold, but had proven successful several times over (“Spider-Man”, “Batman”, and “Superman” are good examples), and the choice proved to work out well for “Daredevil” as well, resulting in big box office numbers and DVD sales. So, after achieving success with his first comic book adaptation, Mark moved on to a character even more obscure than Daredevil, and since he’d proven himself with great success previously, Sony gave him the OK to both write and direct what he hoped would be Marvel’s next big franchise, “Ghost Rider” starring Nicolas Cage and Eva Mendes.

“Ghost Rider” is the origin story of Marvel’s self-proclaimed ‘Spirit of Vengeance’. After having sold his soul to the demon Mephistopholes (Peter Fonda) to save his father, Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) must become the Ghost Rider, a bounty hunter whose purpose is to send escaped demons back to Hell. As if being a demon hunter wasn’t enough to deal with, Johnny is trying to rekindle a relationship with an old girlfriend (Eva Mendes), while trying to gain control over the entity within him. Now, a demon named Blackheart (Wes Bentley) along with his minions, have come to Earth in search of a group of evil souls that was hidden by a previous Ghost Rider many years ago, Mephistopholes summons the Ghost Rider to stop Blackheart before he gains control of the souls and destroys the Earth.

“Ghost Rider” was one of those movies where I wasn’t sure how it was going to fare at the box office. I had hope that it would do well, but I was aware of the fact that the character was not one of Marvel’s most popular or well-known, unlike Spider-Man and X-Men, but then again Daredevil wasn’t known of too much outside of the comic book medium. The biggest advantages that this movie had going for it was the fact that Nicolas Cage (“Con Air”) was attached as the lead star, so fans of his work would surely turn out, Eva Mendes (“Hitch”) is popular with guys so that would put some more butts in the seats, and the director had achieved commercial success with his previous effort “Daredevil” so he had garnered some faith amongst comic book fans. With these advantages “Ghost Rider” had a decent chance of holding its own at the box office and possibly spawning a future film franchise. But did it deliver the goods, or was it a film that should have remained in development hell where it had stayed for so many years.

I personally enjoyed “Ghost Rider”, even though most critics hated it, I felt that it was a very faithful comic book adaptation, and a rather difficult one at that, since the history of the character has been tweaked over and over throughout the years at Marvel. Director/writer Mark Steven Johnson did a very good job of taking all the various histories of the character, finding the common themes among them and weaving them together to make a cohesive story that was full of terrific special effects, fights, drama, and even some comedy. He proved himself a very capable director for the genre with “Daredevil”, and even though this movie isn’t as dramatic as his previous effort, it was every bit as engaging and taking a character that is relatively obscure in the mainstream and making him popular is a tremendous achievement and one that both he and Marvel can be proud of.

The actors did very well with their characters, for the most part. Nicolas Cage was an excellent choice for Johnny Blaze, Cage’s quirkiness as an actor made him ideal for such a far-fetched role. Eva Mendes was solid as the love interest, early on I thought her performance seemed a little off, but she rallied after her first couple scenes and made the character hers. Sam Elliott was great as Caretaker, his scenes with Nic Cage were used mostly for exposition, but he managed to make them fun, and actually stole the scenes away from Cage every time. Peter Fonda, though not in the movie a whole lot, appeared to be enjoying his role as Mephistopholes, imbuing every line with a hint of malice, and delivering a more restrained performance than most actors when playing a role like his. Which brings me to the weakest member of the cast, Wes Bentley. Wes played the role of Blackheart so over-the-top that he seemed almost goofy in places rather than scary, near the end of the movie he finally scaled back his performance and began to deliver his lines with much more realism and finally fulfilled the villainous role he was in. For the most part if the special effects team hadn’t done some tweaking to his facial features and the sound team wouldn’t have manipulated his voice, Wes wouldn’t have been very effective as the villain, but their work saved his early scenes in the movie, giving his performance a little more balance, but not much.

However, with all the great performances, and even the weak one by Wes Bentley, “Ghost Rider” wouldn’t have amounted to anything if it weren’t for the outstanding special effects work that brought ol’ flamehead to life. The special effects team worked hard to get the digital fire to look realistic, which is not an easy task given how random fire acts, and many times CGI created fire can be easily spotted when compared to real flames. But this time was different, the effects team not only made the fire realistic, but also managed to convey emotions using the flames, by playing with shadows on the skull of Ghost Rider, and also giving the flame a blue hue when he was calming down (a decision that is not actually scientifically accurate, a flame actually turns blue as it gets hotter not as it cools). The Hell Cycle also featured some CGI enhancements, specifically the flaming wheels. In the comics, the wheels were pure flame, but for the movie the decision was made to have actual wheels be engulfed in flames to lend more weight to the motorcycle on screen. The effects for all the demons that Ghost Rider must fight and all the powers he uses to dispose of them were all excellently rendered and are truly top-notch in the field of CGI. The best looking effect sequence was the ride across the desert with Ghost Rider and his predecessor riding side by side, that scene alone is a prime example of how high the quality of the CGI was in this film.

Assisting the special effects wizards were the sound technicians who were tasked with the difficult job of creating sounds that could be passed off as being supernaturally created. In this task the techs succeeded brilliantly, the sounds were all very well crafted, all of the enhanced voices were very cool, most were only subtle enhancements (for Mephistopholes and Blackheart), but Ghost Rider’s was by far the best vocal enhancement and the most involved. Every line Nicolas Cage spoke for Ghost Rider was enhanced through several filters to achieve the perfect sound that was described as being a ‘deep, demonic, mechanical lion’s roar’ mixed with his voice.

As a side note, there are two versions of “Ghost Rider” available, the theatrical release and the extended cut. Both versions of the film are very good, but I would have to say the extended cut is the better version to watch, with approximately 20 minutes of footage inserted back into the film. This version of the movie contains much more depth, featuring several scenes that explain a few plotlines a little more, and just serves to flesh the story out a little better, making for a much more fulfilling movie experience.

All in all, “Ghost Rider” is a solid comic book adaptation, that stays true to its roots, delivering an entertaining ride that doesn’t disappoint.

“Ghost Rider” is available in theatrical and extended versions, both are rated PG-13 and contain violence and language.

Wild Hogs

Here is a movie that I figured I knew how it would turn out from the get-go. The premise was that of four buddies who love to go riding their motorcycles together on weekends calling themselves Wild Hogs, and throughout the rest of the week lead rather dull, boring lives. So, with that premise being obvious from the trailers I thought the movie looked alright, it appeared to have plenty of humor from its rather talented ensemble cast comprised of Tim Allen (“The Santa Clause”), John Travolta (“Ladder 49″), Martin Lawrence (“Big Momma’s House”), and William H. Macy (“Cellular”), but I wondered if all the funny parts were in the preview, a problem that many comedies seem to fall prey to. However, upon its release movie audiences were praising it as being one of the funniest films of the year, and a must see movie. This of course made me curious, so one night my wife and I decided to go see a movie and “Wild Hogs” turned out to be the one we wound up going to see. And let me tell you we were absolutely rolling with laughter, as was the rest of the audience.

“Wild Hogs” is the story of four friends, as I stated earlier, who are all having some form of mid-life crisis, and they decide to take a road trip on their motorcycles across the country. With no plan, no map, and no cell phones, just them and the road, these four guys are in for the ride of their lives. However, their trip doesn’t always go as smoothly as they’d hope, after having some rather embarrasing mishaps that they’d love nothing more than to forget about, these four friends decide to stop off at a bar for a drink. Except this isn’t any ordinary bar, it’s a biker bar belonging to a dangerous biker gang known as the Del Fuegos, who don’t take too kindly to wannabe bikers in their territory. So will these ‘Hogs’ survive their road trip adventure or find that sometimes it doesn’t pay to be wild.

This is one movie that definitely surprised me by how good it really was. What surprised me the most was the fact that for being an ensemble comedy it was absolutely hilarious throughout the entire duration, and each of the lead actors had their fair share of the laughs to give. To me, the most surprising of the entire cast was William H. Macy. I’ve always thought he was a good actor, but never thought of him as much of a funnyman, but all that changed with this movie. He was by far the absolute funniest of the 4 main actors. Don’t get me wrong Tim Allen gives his most hilarious performance since his run on “Home Improvement”, John Travolta’s never been this funny, and Martin Lawrence hasn’t been this on his game since the first “Big Momma’s House”. But it’s William H. Macy’s performance that is most memorable. Ray Liotta as the lead biker was a good choice for the villain, and it was obvious he was having fun playing the role opposite such comedic talent and he even had a couple of humorous moments to shine in.

The story was actually much better than I predicted it to be, with plenty of surprise cameos, and humorous setups and one-liners, it was nice to see a comedy that didn’t rely purely on sight-gags and slapstick. Director Walt Becker is no stranger to comedy after helming the hilarious “Van Wilder”, but this was definitely a different type of comedy for him. “Van Wilder” was a very adult-oriented, raunchy comedy as most National Lampoon movies are, but “Wild Hogs” is a fairly family friendly film that doesn’t fall back on the run-of-the-mill sex jokes or fart gags; instead, this film survives on the terrific comedic timing of its talented cast and well-paced script.

“Wild Hogs” is one extremely funny ride of a movie that the whole family should enjoy, especially those with a penchant for motorcycles and road trips.

“Wild Hogs” is rated PG-13 for language and mild violence.

National Treasure

Walt Disney Pictures has sure hit a streak of massive live-action box office triumphs of late. Usually Disney does well with their animated films, but for the most part their live-action movies just don’t quite add up to the same box office success. However, in recent years Disney’s managed to change their luck, sure there’ve been a couple of flops here and there (“The Shaggy Dog” remake), but those have been massively overshadowed by their successful releases, such as “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” and the sequels that followed, “Remember the Titans”, and “Hidalgo”. One movie of Disney’s that actually surprised both audiences by how good it was, and critics with how well it did at the box office, would have to be the Nicolas Cage, ‘Indiana Jones’ inspired, action/adventure film “National Treasure”.

“National Treasure” is about a treasure hunter named Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) who along with his partner Riley (Justin Bartha) are seeking this lost treasure of the Knights Templar that Ben’s grandfather had told him about. It turns out the Gates family has been trying to find this secret treasure for years and have never succeeded, but Ben is getting closer. With clues hidden in numerous places, Ben and Riley are inching closer and closer to finding the treasure. However, Ben isn’t like most treasure hunters, his only goal is to find the treasure and divide it amongst various museums so that all the world can see. But they aren’t the only ones who know of the treasure, a rogue treasure hunter (Sean Bean), who used to work with Ben until he betrayed him, is searching for the treasure as well, and his motives are not nearly as pure. As both close in on the final clues, each man comes to the realization that the biggest clue lies in Washington D.C. on the back of the Declaration of Independence. Now, Ben will attempt to steal the Declaration of Independence for two reasons, one is that he hopes he can find the answers to solve the clues that has consumed his family for generations, and secondly, to protect the document from reaching his competitor’s hands, who will use the treasure for his own selfish gains.

“National Treasure” is actually one of those movies that looks good from the trailers, but also leaves you wondering if it’s just a knock-off of some previous hit movie (‘Indiana Jones’ trilogy, in this case). But surprisingly, even though there are elements that are similar to Steven Spielberg’s classic trilogy, this film does deliver to audiences a truly engaging and entertaining escape that feels both fresh and new. Director Jon Turtletaub (“Phenomenon”) and uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer (‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ movies) have taken what was most likely a run-of-the-mill action/adventure and spiced it up to become better than it actually was destined to be. Truth be told, the basic story is fairly formulaic and easy to predict, but the solid performances, fun action sequences, and even some really funny bits of comedy give the movie a much more polished feel. The story actually did have some interesting bits of trivia about our nation’s history sprinkled throughout as part of the clues, which I felt was a neat touch, and just the way each of the clues linked up was very well thought out, which also assisted in elevating the basic plot from your average action movie.

The actors all do very well with their roles Nicolas Cage gives a more low-key performance that doesn’t appear to include his usual quirkiness that he’s so well known for. Sean Bean is right on in the role of the rogue treasure hunter, villains are roles that Bean plays very well, and he always manages to entertain. Justin Bartha provides the bits of comedy that were used to break up the adventurous overtones, without them feeling out of place or forced. Cameo appearances by Jon Voight, Christopher Plummer, and Harvey Keitel are all entertaining and fun to see, although I guess Voight’s role is a little more than a cameo but he’s only in the latter half of the film.

“National Treasure” is a solid, action/adventure film that has a little something for everyone, and can be enjoyed by the whole family, and as a little bonus you may even learn some bits of trivia that you never even knew about our country.

“National Treasure” is rated PG for violence.

Smokin’ Aces

Here is a movie that I thought looked really good from the moment I saw the first trailer. It featured an all-star cast ranging from younger stars Ryan Reynolds, Ben Affleck, and Jeremy Piven to veterans Ray Liotta, Andy Garcia, and Alex Rocco, which together should create plenty of interesting scenes, plus some really impressive action set pieces, and what appeared to be a really engaging story this should make for a really good movie. Throw in a critically acclaimed director, Joe Carnahan (“Narc”) and “Smokin’ Aces” becomes what should definitely be a movie to see, but in the end could this ensemble movie meet the high expectations that I had set for it?

“Smokin’ Aces” begins with a mob hit being placed on the head of Las Vegas illusionist/mob entertainer/recently turned FBI rat, Buddy “Aces” Israel (Jeremy Piven). Responding to this extremely high-profile hit is a melting pot of deadly talent that includes a team of bail bondsmen (led by Ben Affleck), an attractive femme fatale (Alicia Keys), a torturous sadist, and a trio of savage brothers who live to kill. As these various hit men (and women) converge on Las Vegas, unbeknownst to them is them is the fact that the FBI is trying to seal their deal with Buddy who is still waffling on whether or not to completely become an informant. To fully convince him, and to try to save his life are two agents (Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta) who have been ordered by their boss (Andy Garcia) to do whatever it takes to ensure that Buddy doesn’t fall into harms way before making the deal.

So, with all my expectations regarding this movie, could “Smokin’ Aces” live up to what I hoped for? Well, sadly it couldn’t. Now, you might be thinking that I set my standards for this movie too high and so I was destined to be disappointed, maybe so. But I’ve had some time to think about this movie since watching it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that even if I hadn’t been so excited to see it, I still would have been disappointed in it. The movie just flat out does not deliver the goods, plain and simple.

The story is intriguing enough, and though it was fairly simple, I thought it worked to this film’s advantage due to the amount of characters that were receiving so much screen time. However, the mix of humor and drama didn’t feel smooth, I personally would have preferred less humor, and some of it may not have been so intentional, but to me the humor went a little too far into stupidity at times to not be noticed. Thus, taking away from the seriousness of the overall story. The worst offenders regarding the stupid humor were the trio of brothers, these guys were supposed to be scary, but instead they came off as being imbeciles and at times almost incestual which was a pointless, and gross character trait. Adding to the problems that took away from the story was the fact that by 3/4 of the way through the movie I began to really not care what happened to any of the characters, most were became highly unlikable (not that there were too many of them to root for anyways), and some of the plot points began to not make as much sense and became pointless or cliché, making the story seem excessive for such a simple premise, so when all was said and done the movie basically crumbled under its own weight.

What did work fairly well for this movie, and these are the only parts that did, were the acting and the gunplay. Pretty much the entire cast of talented actors deliver very strong, sometimes intense performances that would normally make for a great movie; however, the story didn’t serve them as well as they served it. The action sequences were all very impressive to watch, sometimes a little too crowded, and therefore confusing as to who was shooting whom, but nonetheless they were fun. But the majority of the action doesn’t occur until the final act of the movie, and by then I was just wanting to see how it all ended, and wasn’t really caring too much for the characters. But, it was also during this final conflict that the movie began to crumble, because the chaos of the action was too jumbled and the characters became a little too clichéd. So even when the movie was doing what it did best, it was still failing to me. All of this served as a definite sign that this movie could not live up to anything more than what it truly was, a Direct-to-DVD movie filled with A-list Hollywood talent that allowed it to hit theaters rather than be doomed to the bargain bin.

“Smokin’ Aces” is rated R for violence, language, drug use, and sexuality/nudity.

Men in Black 2

After successfully saving the planet from a deadly alien threat and raking in big money at the box office, the boys at ‘MIB’ were livin’ the good life and enjoying all the perks of being beloved by moviegoers. Which is probably why Columbia Pictures felt the need to bring more intergalactic action and hilarity to the masses with a sequel to the highly popular film with the hopes of starting a franchise. So, 5 years after their first big screen adventure, Agent’s K and J (Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith) are back again to save mankind from the worst scum of the universe, in Barry Sonnenfeld’s “Men in Black 2″.

“Men in Black 2″ finds Agent J (Will Smith) having a difficult time keeping partners while protecting the Earth from alien threats. After he de-neuralized his former partner/mentor Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), J feels he’s better as loner agent than partnered up. However, when a deadly new threat comes to Earth in the guise of a lingerie model (Lara Flynn Boyle), J and ‘MIB’ must bring in the one agent who will stand a chance of stopping this threat and saving humanity once again, Agent K. The only problem is, he doesn’t remember anything about his life in ‘MIB’.

What happens when a movie is so successful that it makes tons of money, turns its young lead actor into a mega-star, and catches audiences completely by surprise with how good and unique of a movie it was? Well, the obvious answer would be to make a sequel and cash in on the original film’s success, which is exactly what Columbia Pictures did. However, there is a slight problem with this plan, how do you top what’s already been done? The surprise factor is gone, the freshness has worn off, and it’s possible that due to the mediocre animated series that was spawned from the original movie has diminished people’s interest in the series.

To solve their possible problems Columbia Pictures brought on two writers that can handle the type of material needed for this type of movie, meaning plenty of action, humor, and sci-fi fun. Next, the powers-that-be managed to convince the main cast to reprise their roles from the first film, and lastly bring back the director that made them successful in the first place. So, did Columbia’s plan of action work for this film or was it to fall prey to being yet another inferior sequel in an already long list? The answer, mostly yes, but there were some issues with the movie.

The cast was excellent, which isn’t surprising given the talent assembled here, but as much as I enjoy Will Smith in most movies he makes, at times he actually felt boring to me here. I understand that the goal was having his character in the place of Tommy Lee Jones’ at the beginning of the movie, being the serious career agent, no longer the care free rookie, but he came off like he was bored, leaving his performance feeling stiff. Now, I will say that once Tommy Lee Jones’ character was back in play, Will Smith lightened up and the movie quickly picked up and felt more like the original, but the early part of his performance does put a bit of a damper on things. Tommy Lee Jones returns to playing the role that he does best, and apparently it’s the only role he knows how to do, the no-nonsense serious man with a mission and a really dry, subtle sense of humor. Though the schtick is the same as before, it’s still fun to see these two characters interact on screen, easily erasing the crappiness of the children’s animated series. The supporting cast was solid throughout, I did grow tired of Johnny Knoxville’s character, but he did provide some humorous moments. The rest of the cast was fun, and giving more screen time to Frank the Pug and the ‘Worm’ guys was a nice touch.

The story was a good follow-up to the original, with plenty of humor, though not as much as I’d hoped for before Agent K returns, but still the jokes were funny. The action was energetic like before, though a little more over-the-top in places than even the previous film had done, and the sci-fi elements were inventive. However, with all that being said, the story did suffer some from the fact that it had lost its freshness and originality since the first one was so much of a surprise and audiences didn’t know what to expect, but this time we had a pretty good idea. Honestly it didn’t matter what anyone did in this movie, no matter what was tried they just couldn’t match the original, which is unfortunate since the characters are so fun and story potential is everywhere, but in the end you still can’t do better than what’s come before. This is actually one of those rare cases when the potential for a sequel is there, but the studio should avoid going through with it for the simple fact that you most likely won’t be able to do better than what you already have done.

“Men in Black 2″ is still a fun movie, though not as good as the original, but that doesn’t mean the movie’s not worth seeing or owning. Yes, there are some problems with this movie in some areas, but most are overcome early on, leaving audiences with a rather enjoyable movie experience.

“Men in Black 2″ is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sensuality.