Resident Evil: Afterlife

Eight years after the first entry into the Resident Evil film franchise, the series is still a gamer favorite as it goes into its fourth chapter, “Resident Evil: Afterlife”. For horror franchises, once you pass the second or third installment, most of them begin to falter in some capacity, so how long before this critic-proof, zombie series outstays its welcome with moviegoers?

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” is set approximately four years after the initial outbreak upon Raccoon City. Alice (Milla Jovovich) is continuing her crusade to destroy the malevolent Umbrella Corporation. At the same time she is making her way northward to one day join Claire Redfield (Ali Larter) and her band of survivors that headed to a supposed infection-free zone somewhere in Alaska. However, Alice quickly discovers that the safe zone was nothing more than another elaborate ploy by Umbrella. With time and patience running thin, Alice luckily finds and enlists the aid of Claire, her estranged brother Chris (Wentworth Miller), and a few others in one last-ditch effort to save humanity from Umbrella and the undead nightmare that has plagued the world.

Continuing his writing duties, and returning to the director’s chair for the first time since the original film, Paul W.S. Anderson may be running out of steam with this series. There are several indicators that lead me to this conclusion.

For starters, several elements within the movie are unapologetically borrowed from other successful films. Granted, this series has taken from many a movie or event along the way, but none so blatant and borderline lazy as those found in this film.

The most obvious sign of laziness lies with the film’s primary villain (not the zombies as one may think), but a new genetically enhanced individual controlled by Umbrella. This character is so unoriginal that he appears to have been plucked directly from the mold of the Agents used for “The Matrix”. From his speech pattern, movements, fighting style, and attire (right down to the sunglasses), everything about the character screams “Rip-off!” I know movies borrow from previous releases all the time, it’s impossible not to; however, when it reaches a point that plays more like plagiarism rather than homage, then it’s downright shameful.

Also, the energy and excitement that used to permeate this series seems to have been erased from existence, much like most of humanity. The franchise first began showing signs of a much slower, somewhat meandering pace with the previous installment. It appears that Paul W.S. Anderson was unable to shake this potential problem, and with this newest chapter we are given a film that seems to be just going through the motions with very little momentum propelling it onward.

Then there is the issue with the zombies themselves. Because this is a zombie series, it doesn’t take too long for the proceedings to become stale. After all, there are only so many ways one can kill a zombie. Not to mention, the majority of the world is infected. Meaning, a way out for humanity seems more and more implausible with each passing entry.

So, my question is this, “When is enough “Enough!”? Maybe we’ve already reached that point with the previous film and this one is merely another attempt at delaying the inevitable? Based on the story issues I addressed here and others potentially on the horizon, if this series’ issues are not rectified, I would say that it has gone on long enough. I figure it’s maybe one more movie away from becoming just another horror franchise past its prime that doesn’t know when to quit.

An area that up to now hadn’t grown quite as stale, but was definitely showing signs of wear, is the visual effects work. The first film suffered a little from moments of sub-par CGI, but the previous two installments made definite improvements in this area, despite the continually lacking financial support from the studio. Yet with this entry the visuals seemed to take a step back as some shoddy CGI work was employed. Some of the visuals were mediocre to the point of being as pathetic in some instances as they were in the original film.

Now, there are two possible causes for this waning visuals issue, and both may be correct, but I leave that for you to decide. First, Paul W.S. Anderson wrote and directed the first film and this film, and both suffered from lacking visual effects quality. Whereas, he only served as writer for the other two installments and their visuals were noticeably improved.

Second, Paul W.S. Anderson filmed this entry using 3D cameras (which undoubtedly came with a heftier price tag) and was forced to spend more time and effort staging shots accordingly. Of course, while I’m sure the camera technology added a bigger price tag to whatever was allotted for cameras on this film, the time spent crafting scenes could have been far less involved if Anderson had chosen to not be annoying with the use of 3D.

What I’m referring to is this; he went with the “throw things at the viewer’s head” approach that crappy 3D movies in the 80’s employed. If he had simply done what James Cameron had done with “Avatar” by making the 3D non-obtrusive, then perhaps more of the budget could have gone towards CGI effects. Plus, the use of 3D will magnify flaws in a movie’s CGI (if there are any to be found), so when your budget is insufficient for your effects from the get-go, using 3D seems to be a poor decision at that point.

By now you have no doubt noticed that the series as a whole is wearing down, and keeping that theme going is the film’s cast. While the performances were decent, there was really nothing new or fresh in this department, and in particular, the two female leads are looking a bit bored with themselves.

Series star Milla Jovovich has been with the franchise since the beginning and has claimed in interviews that she knows Alice inside and out (somewhat paraphrased). Having such a familiarity with a character isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it can help keep a performance on track and natural. However, in this instance, I believe that due to Alice being Milla’s comfort zone as a character, she is no longer finding any challenge in the role. Therefore, she comes off as uninterested in the character, despite her comments to the contrary, and the performance suffers in the process.

In the other lead role is actress Ali Larter, who joined the franchise in the previous installment and injected new life and eye candy into the proceedings. Yet, just like Milla her performance is beginning to run thin. This is most likely due to the lack of significant character development for her character Claire since the last movie. Ali has proven in previous works that she is a capable actress, but even the most qualified of actor or actress needs a role that will continue to develop and interest them. Otherwise you wind up with the uninspired performances we found here.

Several actors and actresses joined the cast this time around, but the most notable newcomer to the series, at least in name, definitely not in performance, is actor Wentworth Miller (TV’s “Prison Break”). Wentworth portrays the role of Chris Redfield, the long-lost brother of Ali Larter’s Claire. His character was poorly handled as he is nothing more than an action hero cliché. To be specific, he’s the prototypical strong, silent, no-nonsense type. Granted Chris was apparently in the military prior to his current situation we find him in, this based on what little backstory we are granted for the character, but his asinine tough-guy routine felt played out and lame from the get-go.

To sum things up, as I’m sure it’s quite obvious at this point, this entry left a lot more to be desired than its predecessors and could easily signal doom for the future of this franchise. If another sequel is to be made, then there needs to be some substantial changes implemented to get the series back on track. Do whatever it takes to bring back the entertainment value this franchise once had in spades. If nothing changes, then the “Resident Evil” series will become just another laughing stock in the already long list of horror franchises that outstayed their welcome.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife is rated R for violence and language.

The Crow: Salvation

Four years after the demented sequel “The Crow: City of Angels” almost grounded the franchise, Dimension Films returned to the series with “The Crow: Salvation”. Unlike its predecessors, this installment would not be granted a theatrical release; instead, it was cast out amidst the movie wasteland known as Direct-to-DVD, in other words, where franchises typically go to die.

“The Crow: Salvation” is the story of Alex Corvis (Eric Mabius) who is awaiting his day of execution for the murder of his girlfriend, Lauren (Jodi Lyn O’Keefe). Unlike most death row inmates, Alex is genuinely innocent, yet not a single person believes him. However, shortly after his execution, a mystical crow resurrects Alex so that he may find those truly responsible for his girlfriend’s murder, dispense justice with extreme prejudice, and ultimately prove his innocence.

Years ago when I first watched this movie I held the belief that it had been unfairly cast aside as yet another weak installment in this slowly dying franchise; thus, the reason for being released solely to DVD. I thought that it was just the studio’s lack of faith due to the dismal failure of the previous film that prompted them to forego any sort of theatrical release for this feature. However, upon my most recent viewing, I now see that the decision to send this movie directly to the DVD bin was the right choice.

While “The Crow: Salvation” is a stronger and undeniably better movie than “The Crow: City of Angels”, it does not even come close to holding a candle to the original; nor feature anything from the story, to the performances, to the action that would make it a successful theatrical venture either. Now, there are bright spots amidst all of those elements I just listed, but there are just as many equally dark blots as well.

For starters, the story written by Chip Johannessen (TV’s “24”) takes the series in a slightly new direction. Unlike the previous two films where the hero knows who needs to be punished, Alex actually has no clue. Where Eric Draven (Brandon Lee, “The Crow”) and Ashe (Vincent Perez, “The Crow: City of Angels”) relive memories or glimpses of the crime that claimed their lives through flashbacks; Alex’s flashbacks allow him some moments of cherished memories, but mostly serve to unveil the grisly truth behind Lauren’s death and just who exactly was responsible. This new twist on the familiar flashback plot device was a welcome addition, as it shook up the stale formula for the franchise. Too bad more of this movie’s story didn’t perform as admirably; otherwise we might have had the makings of a worthy successor on our hands.

Where the story mostly goes awry is in the dreadfully mismanaged “man with the scars” storyline that was weaved throughout the film (he’s the man that Alex claims is behind Lauren’s death). Not only was that plot point uninteresting, but every time it was mentioned it would cause a slight chuckle at how ridiculous it sounded (an unintentional result, no doubt); plus, that plot device has been done with much more believability and intrigue in other films, such as “The Fugitive” (i.e. “the one-armed man”). When writing a mystery, I would think ensuring that the various aspects of the story remain interesting would be my prime concern. At the very least make sure it doesn’t come off as a cheap knock-off of other more skillfully written screenplays. Maybe I’m just way off base on this one though.

Another weak spot for the story is the dialogue, a problem which I believe to be two-fold. On the one hand you have the script which features some solid dramatic moments between characters, but just as often (maybe even more so) there are just silly, cliché-ridden bits that are painful to hear and couldn’t have been much easier to speak. While much of this issue can be attributed to the writer of the film, the actors and actresses delivering the lines must bear some burden of the blame. Primarily, because there were several instances where the dialogue was perfectly fine, but the performances fell flat for one reason or another.

Speaking of the performances, why don’t we take a look at the cast and dig into what worked on their front and what didn’t, shall we? Taking over the mantle of the Crow this time around is actor Eric Mabius (“Resident Evil”). I was pleased to see the casting choices improved for this installment as Eric is much more believable as the vengeful type. He portrays Alex’s anguish over the loss of his beloved Lauren genuinely, and at the drop of a hat shifts startlingly (in a good way) into revenge mode when the flashback reveals itself to be more than just a glimpse of their love, but actually another clue to the crime. Where his predecessor, Vincent seemed goofy and at times too weak in his anger, Eric is clearly drawing upon something more primal as his anger engulfs his character (harkening back to Brandon Lee’s initial portrayal years before).

Even though Eric Mabius’ performance was a definite plus for the movie, he did struggle occasionally with coming across as a little too playful and immature during his mission. I do think this was a possible outlet for the writer or director to help Eric convey Alex’s youthful spirit despite the dark circumstances. However, it tended to come off as irreverent and juvenile all things considered. In a movie like this, where the premise is already far-fetched, you don’t want whatever credibility and/or believability you have with the audience to be squandered over immature performances or writing. This is not that hard people, it’s just common sense.

Alongside Eric is actress Kirsten Dunst (“Spider-Man”) portraying Lauren’s sister, Erin, to whom Alex is trying to prove his innocence and earn a newfound trust. Kirsten as we’ve seen in her various other film roles is a talented actress, and there are glimpses of that talent seen here. Yet, surprisingly much of the time she seems prone to overacting one minute and being emotionally flat the next. Plus, her performance is replete with poor line readings that one would expect from an acting newbie, but not from an experienced actress. Maybe she didn’t really care for the role, and only accepted it to gain another paycheck? Who knows? Whatever the reason, she definitely seemed unable to convincingly sell the character to the audience in any respect.

In the smaller supporting roles are some fairly recognizable actors ranging from Fred Ward (“Armored”) to Walton Goggins (TV’s “Justified”) to William Atherton (“Die Hard”). Most of these guys have played similar characters before, all to a much greater degree of investment within the roles as well. Out of the three, Walton Goggins held the most promise as a cop that could be construed as a predecessor to his most recognizable role as Shane Vendrell on FX’s “The Shield”. Even then, his character in this movie wasn’t allowed a chance to really develop beyond one-dimensional due to the script rushing past any moments for character development of any kind. Just another example of how this movie failed to capitalize on its potential.

Landing one of the smallest roles in the movie, although her character plays a central part to the story, is actress Jodi Lyn O’Keefe (“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later”) as Lauren. As was the case with the original film, the driving force behind our hero is the loved one that he lost, and in that tradition the actress playing the part is relegated to little more than an extended cameo. In that time, Jodi does give a very strong performance that had to be taxing considering she was likely only on-set for a week at the most. Not a bad piece of work for such a small amount of time both on the job and in the film.

Lastly, the look of the film comes across as a movie trying to reach beyond its low-budget means. While it’s not always a bad thing for a movie and its director to aspire for bigger and better, the result must still look and feel like a professional production. Oftentimes, over the course of the movie either the sets or the action sequences just felt like they were attempting to be too big and bold given the economic pinch Dimension had employed. Perhaps if a more experienced director than relative newcomer Bharat Nalluri had helmed this movie, the limited budget wouldn’t have proven such a detriment.

Or maybe what really ought to have happened is that Dimension should have forced a rewrite that could make the movie stronger, thus enabling them to feel more comfortable with providing greater support for the series. Now there’s a thought, instead of letting a franchise flounder with average or below sequels, take it by the reins and guide it back to greatness. Oh, such a novel concept.

You know, it’s a shame when by the third installment the creative masterminds are desperately trying to reinvigorate a dying franchise before it’s too late. Even with an obviously clear mandate to keep the series going no matter the odds, releasing a sequel with a hit-and-miss track record across the board isn’t exactly the best solution. Although, “The Crow: Salvation” is leaps and bounds above its lackluster predecessor, it still finds itself a distant second to the original; not to mention, it leaves me wishing I had just watched the first film over again.

“The Crow: Salvation” is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/nudity.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

After “Twilight” sunk its teeth into a considerable chunk of box office receipts in 2008; one year later the follow-up film that left many a female moviegoer anxiously awaiting its release finally arrived. The release of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” to theaters created an even greater feeding frenzy (as it were) regarding the books, merchandise or anything else remotely related to Twilight than its predecessor had managed to cultivate. With all of the pandemonium surrounding this film’s release to theaters in late 2009, and its subsequent release a few weeks ago on DVD and Blu-ray, I was left wondering, “Does this latest installment really live up to all the fuss?”

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” finds Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward’s (Robert Pattinson) romance running into trouble after a mishap leaves Bella injured and one of Edward’s vampire brethren in a momentary bloodlust. Fearing for her safety Edward exiles himself from Bella’s life, vowing never to return. As Bella struggles to cope with the loss of her love, she begins to find solace by testing fate in dangerous and deadly ways. Not wishing to see Bella injure herself over the memory of some vampire, Bella’s friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) steps up his attempts to woo her to his side. However, the timing for Jacob couldn’t be worse as he is undergoing a supernatural metamorphosis of his own that will unleash the animal within.

From the viewpoint of a person who found very little enjoyment from the original movie, I had little expectations that the sequel would prove to be much better. My wife told me that she felt I would probably like this movie a little bit more than the previous one, but she wasn’t sure how much. Truth be told, she was right. I did like this one just a little bit more than its predecessor, but not by a whole lot.

What makes this entry work a little better than the original? Well let’s look at the first one’s primary weaknesses. The first film was comprised of an incredibly weak storyline, wooden acting from most of the cast, amateurish dialogue, and barely TV worthy visual effects work. All of this left me with maybe ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyment in the movie. In essence, it shouldn’t take too much to make a slightly better movie than what has come before.

For the sequel, we are given a somewhat more interesting storyline, written once again by Michelle Rosenberg and based on the novel by author Stephanie Meyer. The story focuses upon a different side of the supernatural world, namely werewolves, which inhabit the area surrounding the city of Forks. There were times where this aspect provided some interesting moments and one could almost forget all the sappy clichés that consume the rest of the movie, but these moments were few and far between. Generally speaking it was the same old teenage angst angles being played out like any number of the CW Network’s TV shows or the previous movie for that matter.

Bella and Edward’s story takes a bit of a backseat, which thankfully lessens some of the cheesy romance that dominated the previous film. Instead, replacing their nauseating romance is a bunch of scenes showing Bella screaming in the middle of the night. Apparently this is caused by the heartache of losing Edward being so horrendous that it manifests as an almost physical pain. Although that was never truly addressed in the movie, but I’m told it is in the novel.

Plus, there are a plethora of scenes showcasing Bella’s new daredevil side that she’s embraced whole-heartedly, because it’s the only way she feels close to her beloved. Her entire story arc is so ridiculous that I actually felt a semblance of the apparent pain Bella was feeling, because while watching her scenes unfold I felt like I was being tortured.

To be honest, the only aspect of the story that really sustained my interest was when the Volturi (the elite of the vampire world) arrive on the scene. While only featured briefly, their scenes were the most dramatically engaging, filled with mystery, and an underlying malevolence that left me curious as to what all they had in store for future installments.

Sadly, even during the film’s strongest points, the screenplay runs into issues. Once again Melissa Rosenberg is guilty of not divulging enough detail from the books in order for those in the audience that haven’t read the novels to fully understand the how and why of what’s occurring. For a movie to truly work, at least for the non-readers, the story must not rely on inside information gleamed from the novels; instead, this information needs to be presented in the film’s story. However, I’m fully aware that I am not the target audience; the predominantly female readership is, so I doubt this issue will ever see resolution. But, I digress.

The cast for the film performed almost completely as I had expected. Robert Pattinson is as wooden as ever in his continuing quest to usurp Hayden Christensen from the throne of worst actor ever. Robert’s lines are delivered so lethargically that one wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out he had been reading off cue cards. I know Edward is a vampire, meaning he’s a member of the undead, but he claims to love Bella (meaning he clearly still feels emotions), so one would expect him to react with some semblance of an emotional range. However, one would be wrong in this expectation and I don’t believe this is a result of a poor script. I believe that Robert Pattinson couldn’t act with any truly convincing range if his career depended on it, which it apparently doesn’t, so he has nothing to fear there.

Actress Kristen Stewart turns in a similar performance to her previous attempt; except this time she includes many overwrought and unbelievable scenes of agony and heartbreak. Her acting wavered between slightly unenthusiastic and just downright bored (except when screaming, then she was enthused), which could almost be considered a step up from her previous performance. Once more for such a high-profile role, I’m surprised by her apparent lack of interest in the character. If she is acting this way based on some cue from the books regarding Bella’s personality, then perhaps that should be addressed somehow in the movies. Otherwise she just appears to be handing in another terrible performance.

Then we have Taylor Lautner rising up from the ranks of barely utilized supporting cast member to third lead in the movie. His performance is the most consistent amongst the primary players, but even then, he’s not delivering anything really worthy of note. His character’s bogged down with as much angst and weak dialogue as the other two (Kristen and Robert), except Taylor does his level best to overcome these short-comings. His was a commendable effort to be sure, but one that was destined to fail from the get-go.

Lastly, in the minor supporting roles, the same two actors manage to outshine the other cast members, despite their minimal screen time. Billy Burke continues to provide some of the best moments and cheese-free lines of dialogue out of the entire cast. Just as before, whenever Billy’s character appeared in the movie, those tended to be the most enjoyable scenes. Which is quite sad considering his total time in the movie is maybe ten minutes. As for the other reliable member of the cast, Peter Facinelli in the relatively thankless role as surrogate father to the Cullen “family” of vampires. This time however, he’s relegated to next to nothing in terms of screen time, but he does the best he can with what little he’s allotted.

Now, on to the primary reason for which my wife thought I might enjoy this installment more than “Twilight”… the werewolves. The inclusion of the werewolves into the story brought more action into the mix, along with even more visual effects (both elements were sorely lacking in both quantity and quality in the previous film). While the action scenes in this film were fairly entertaining, they were marred by sub-par CGI which detracted from them every step of the way. Most likely the core fan base for these movies doesn’t really care too much about the visual effects work for their beloved characters. To me there’s no excuse for such a weak effort to ever be put on display from a major Hollywood production.

This film was released in the same year as “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “Avatar”, both CGI-intensive movies and for this one to come out with such a weak offering is unacceptable. Obviously the “Twilight” movies have made a lot of money and will continue to do so, meaning the budget shouldn’t be an issue. What it boils down to is this, in this day and age, CGI characters can look incredibly realistic, but if done wrong they will stand out like a sore thumb. In the end, Summit Entertainment needs to provide a bigger budget for the remaining films. Especially if they plan to use the werewolves or any other CGI-created characters in the later installments, otherwise the end result will be just as inferior as it was in this movie.

Finally, to address the question I posed at the beginning, does this movie live up to the fuss? In my estimation, even though this entry was slightly better than its predecessor, I would still have to answer with a resounding “No!” However, I must say again, that I am not the target audience for this franchise. So, based on my wife and daughter’s undeniable enjoyment of the movie; I would have to say that if you are a fan of the previous movie or the books, then this installment will definitely entertain you and leave you thirsting for more.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

Ocean’s Twelve

Three years after finding success with the remake of the Rat Pack classic “Ocean’s Eleven”, director Steven Soderbergh and the cast of the previous film return for another go-round with “Ocean’s Twelve”.

“Ocean’s Twelve” begins as Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and the rest of his band of thieves have gone their separate ways. However, the Mark in their previous heist, Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), has discovered where each member of Ocean’s Eleven has fled to and made it his personal quest to get all of his money back with interest. Now, Danny and crew must unite once more to successfully pull off another massive job, and once again, failure is not an option.

As an avid movie buff I find it increasingly irritating when Hollywood cranks out a sequel to a hit movie without ensuring that the newest installment can equal the previous film. Worse than that is when it is blatantly obvious that the sequel was made only in an attempt to cash in on the success of its predecessor rather than improving upon it. This is essentially how “Ocean’s Twelve” feels to me whenever I sit down to watch it. In my opinion, the film feels like Steven Soderbergh was looking to make another big hit and he figured why not try to catch lightning in a bottle twice with another Ocean’s movie. The problem with this is that the story written by George Nolfi (“The Bourne Ultimatum”) isn’t nearly on par with that of the original.

With “Ocean’s Eleven” we had a great story that was thoroughly engaging, with terrific characters and interaction, and a sort of carefree atmosphere that was just enjoyable to watch. Then we come to “Ocean’s Twelve” and the first thing anyone will notice is that the atmosphere of the first one has been completely stripped away. In its place is a much more somber tone, devoid of a majority of the fun-loving spirit that made the previous effort so entertaining. Secondly, the story was too slow in its pacing, with large segments of the film appearing to just meander aimlessly about, before finally zeroing in on the primary plot once again. Lastly, the characters, while remaining mostly interesting and intriguing, are not without problems of their own that creep up over the course of the movie. Namely, their interplay with each other felt less focused, and many of their conversations seemed irrelevant to the overall story.

I must point out, that even though many of the elements that clicked so well in the first film were omitted or changed for this one; that doesn’t necessarily make this a bad movie. Truth be told, I was fine with the fact that Soderbergh and his writer attempted to shake things up a bit more with this installment. For a lot of movie franchises, shaking up the proceedings is the only way to ensure a sense of freshness in the production. However, in this instance, perhaps they went a little too far with the changes; resulting in a movie that almost feels out of place in the series. Honestly, if it wasn’t for this story continuing directly out of the events from the previous film, “Ocean’s Twelve” would have felt far too removed from its predecessor, and I would have been hard-pressed to enjoy it as a sequel at all.

I stated earlier that the cast from the original reprised their roles for this film, and this is something that I appreciate very much from any franchise. This is not because the cast was doing anything revolutionary in this series (they aren’t), I just appreciate when a film retains continuity for characters by keeping the same cast members whenever possible. While the returning members are not challenged any further by this movie in terms of their acting capabilities, it did provide many of them a chance to expand upon their characters’ individual storylines. For instance, Matt Damon’s character of Linus is taking a more proactive approach in this story, unlike in the first film where he was more reactive due to his insecurities. I also like that Julia Roberts, although relegated to little more than an over-glorified cameo, was allowed to participate to an extent in the con. Her scenes were made more enjoyable because they injected some of the moments of levity into the otherwise vapid atmosphere of the movie.

Even though I was pleased that the original cast reprised their roles for this film, I was disappointed by the fact that several of them appeared to be bored throughout the duration. Two prime examples of where the cast lagged was with George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Their once snappy, quick-witted banter that was so entertaining previously, now lacks the enthusiasm and natural flow that filled their prior performances; instead, their conversations felt tired and over-rehearsed. Surprisingly, the newest addition to the cast, Catherine Zeta-Jones (“The Mask of Zorro”) also appeared uninterested in her character. Every time she was on screen she would deliver her lines as flatly as possible, and look completely apathetic in her role. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I was signing onto a film, sequel or otherwise, I would do my level best to seem as motivated for my character as humanly possible. Anyways, I digress.

While I know it may appear that I disliked “Ocean’s Twelve”, it did still manage to entertain me despite the laundry list of problems. However, those problems that creep up along the way do cause it to fall well short of its predecessor. To paraphrase this film’s own tagline, “Twelve is not the new eleven.”

“Ocean’s Twelve” is rated PG-13 for language.

Push

Imagine a world where seemingly ordinary, everyday people living among us were granted the gift of super powers. If you’re thinking that I’m referring to NBC’s hit show “Heroes” you wouldn’t be too far off the mark, as this is essentially the primary concept on which that series is based. Even though the premise sounds an awful lot like that show, what I’m actually referring to is the recently released sci-fi drama, “Push” starring Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, and Djimon Hounsou.

“Push” focuses on just a few of the many super-powered beings that populate our world, as they battle an evil government organization known as “Division”. When a young telepath named Kira (Camilla Belle), whose ability classifies her as a Pusher, escapes from a Division compound with a very valuable secret in her possession, Division must unleash its most powerful assets, led by an even more powerful Pusher known as Carver (Djimon Hounsou), to bring her back. To save herself Kira must rely on Cassie (Dakota Fanning), a 14-year old Watcher (one who sees the future or a possible future), and Nick (Chris Evans), a telekinetic Pusher.

When watching “Push” one quickly begins to realize that if they are a fan of the TV show “Heroes”, they need to do their best not to think too much about the similarities between the two entities. I understand that finding an original idea in television and film is becoming much harder to accomplish; however, when an idea for a film appears to be an almost blatant carbon copy it gets to be a little bit frustrating. That being said, while “Push” closely resembles “Heroes” in many respects, I did do my level best to attempt to ignore those similarities and just judge the movie on its own merits. I will admit I do have to deduct some points for the obviousness of how unoriginal this idea for a film truly was.

Screenwriter David Bourla (“Larceny”) does start things off by earning the film some credit by approaching these super-powered beings in a way I hadn’t expected. Bourla chose to actually have the characters be accustomed to their powers, and in some cases thoroughly enjoy having them at their disposal. I had anticipated that there would be some characters that despised their lot in life and would view their powers as a curse more than anything else; while that does occur in one or two instances, for the most part every one of these individuals appear perfectly content with their abilities. This is one aspect of the story that was more of an original thought for a movie such as this. In truth, it is the approach that I wish “Heroes” would have chosen to go with for the majority of their characters, rather than having so many of them loathing their circumstances. Anyways, I digress.

Aside from that initial approach to super-powered beings, the remainder of the screenplay trudges along at a menial pace, plagued by several bouts of cliché-ridden or simply bland dialogue, until it is time for another requisite action sequence to show off one or more of the characters super powers. While the dramatic areas of the film leave something to be desired, at least the action scenes were entertaining, allowing the audience moments of excitement to break up the monotonous proceedings.

One other major gripe regarding the story of this film is that the second half falls prey to several major plot holes and logic errors that cause the movie to completely crumble under its own weight. Not to mention the final moments of the movie leave several plot threads dangling, obviously in hopes of a sequel; however, the film isn’t strong enough to support another installment. Truth be told, the writer, and for that matter the director, producer, or anyone else involved in the production of this film, should have realized that the prospect of a follow-up was an ill-conceived notion. Therefore, the story should have been much more resolved at the film’s closing with only minor plot points left open for the possible (unlikely) sequel.

Director Paul McGuigan (“Lucky Number Slevin”) imbues the film with a gritty, realistic tone, and his choice of lessening the flashiness of the visual effects employed for the various powers was a wise decision that strengthened the overall feel of the movie. I also enjoyed the vast amount of detail on display in a majority of shots in the movie, but I did find it distracting that the director chose to apparently switch cameras at random. This choice resulted in some scenes, or moments within a scene, to be covered in a very thick layer of visible grain that is absent the rest of the time. The random moments of heavy grain over the image and occasional flashes of bright white or washed out scenes made me wonder if Paul McGuigan was trying to make this movie more artistic than it could ever hope to be. Whatever the intention for those odd choices, the result was a mixed bag of visuals that left me bewildered in the end.

Starring in this wannabe superhero flick is Chris Evans, who is no stranger to special effects intensive movies after his work on the two “Fantastic Four” films. As an actor Chris was able to show off a little more of his acting prowess in this film than he was in the aforementioned. However, having seen several movies where Chris’ characters are more sarcastic in nature, I found myself wishing for a little more levity from his character than what was on display. Alongside Chris is the talented Dakota Fanning (“Man on Fire”). Dakota has impressed me with her acting talent for quite some time, and for someone so young she knows how to draw the audience in, but in this film her role just wasn’t enjoyable. At times I actually found Dakota’s character somewhat irritating, and wished that she would have received far less screen time.

Joining Chris and Dakota as a super-powered fugitive is actress Camilla Belle (“10,000 B.C.”) who plays her role in a manner that is so bereft of emotion that one could almost conclude that she had absolutely no desire to be in the film. I find it extremely annoying when an actor or an actress agrees to a role and then proceeds to play the part without any shred of conviction. Why sign onto a movie if you don’t actually care to put forth an appropriate amount of effort? Rounding out the primary cast of characters is the underrated Djimon Hounsou (“Blood Diamond”). Unfortunately, Djimon’s role in this film as the lead antagonist won’t be garnering him any more attention for his work, but his role in the movie is a highlight as he brings such a powerfully commanding presence to any character he portrays.

“Push” is a movie conceived as a painfully obvious attempt to cash in on a trend, such as the continued success of comic book movies or the popularity of “Heroes”; however, due to its lack of originality and coherence in the last half of the film, it falls well short of its much more capable contemporaries.

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

Punisher: War Zone

Perhaps there are some comic book characters that just aren’t as enticing to moviegoers in the same way as say, Iron Man, Spider-Man, or Batman. In my estimation, Marvel Comics’ anti-hero Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, would be one of those characters that only commands a much smaller niche audience than the aforementioned ones. This thought is further supported by the fact that in 1989 the character arrived on the big screen in what could easily be called one of the worst comic book adaptations ever made, not to mention it was just a horrible movie in general. In 2004, the character made a resurgence on the silver screen in a much more faithful and enjoyable adaptation that produced decent numbers (when combining the theatrical and DVD releases), yet still was viewed as a less than stellar release for a Marvel Comics film adaptation. Which brings us to the 2008 release of “Punisher: War Zone”, the third, and based on the horrible numbers it pulled down at the box office, most likely the final attempt at finding success for the character on the big screen.

“Punisher: War Zone” follows the extreme vigilantism of former Special Forces operative Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson). He is a man whose family was murdered before his eyes, and he now wages a seemingly endless war on the Mafia as the killer of killers known as The Punisher. During his latest mission in his self-declared “war”, Punisher targets mobster Billy Russoti, and in the process inadvertently finds himself in the middle of an undercover FBI investigation. Due to his interference, along with the ever-increasing body count of Mafia hoods filling city morgues, Punisher finds himself having to elude the law, while trying to finish what he started with the Mob.

This latest film iteration of Marvel Comics’ skull-clad anti-hero is a mixture of good and bad, resulting in a movie that will miss more moviegoers than it hits. Let’s start with what this current adaptation actually did right. As a comic book fan, I found this version of the character was much more accurate to the source material. From the location of the film being set in New York City, the appearance of Ray Stevenson in character looking as if he just walked off the page of the comic, to the inclusion of the characters of Micro and Jigsaw, so many elements within this movie made this the most accurate depiction of the character we’ve seen, and most likely will ever see on film. The action is fast-paced and very brutal, and at times it can be quite inventive. Plus, I would be remiss if I didn’t admit that it is kind of nice seeing such evil people getting their come-uppance.

Now, on to where the film went wrong, something that occurred frequently throughout the movie’s duration. For starters, why were there so many unnecessary bouts of over-the-top performances that at times wandered over into the despicable realm of camp? Whoever had the idea to give the film’s primary villain, Jigsaw, some of the dumbest moments in the film really should have thought twice about it. For me, I find it hard to take a character seriously when he acts so stupid and childish several times over the course of a movie. While on the topic of bad character choices we can’t forget to mention that the characters Loony Bin Jim and Detective Soap were two of the most annoying, and utterly pointless characters within the film, and truthfully every time they appeared on-screen the film’s standards began to drop even further (not that they were all that high to begin with). I mentioned the action as being a plus; well it’s also a minus for this film. This is due to the fact that the action appears to be the only driving force in this movie, the story takes a distant second or maybe even third in the grand scheme of things. While I am a fan of action films, I typically enjoy the ones where the movie doesn’t feel like one excessive fight after another. On top of that the violence is extremely gory, not all that big of a deal to me most times, but when I’m not supposed to be watching a horror film I don’t expect there to be buckets and buckets of blood being spilled across the screen (to the extreme that would make the most ardent of slasher film fans happy). Lastly, the story, written by Nick Santora (“The Longshots”) and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (“Iron Man”), is extremely thin and at times finds itself on the verge of becoming non-existent. While it does contain just enough detail to loosely hold everything together, there are too many missed opportunities to capitalize on character development or even just include a slight bit more exposition on how a character knew to do this or that or go here or there. Had the writers gone through the extra effort it would have gone a long way in making this a better film.

As for the cast of this film, they may not be the same caliber of talent as most Hollywood A-listers, but they do a decent job with what they’ve been given. Ray Stevenson (TV’s “Rome”), as I stated earlier, looks just like the character from the comics, and his performance is solid given what little he had to work with. I personally preferred Thomas Jane as the character, he just seemed like a more talented actor, not to mention his whole movie I found better than this one, but Stevenson’s interpretation was a close second. Portraying the villainous Jigsaw is actor Dominic West (“300”). So many things went wrong in Dominic’s performance, he’s over-the-top in most of his scenes, and on top of that his make-up is some of the worst I have seen in a film in quite some time. Honestly, I’m surprised and disappointed that anyone felt that any portion of Jigsaw’s character was done correctly as both a fully-developed character and an adaptation.

In the area of the supporting characters, actress Julie Benz (“Rambo”) was essentially wasted in her role as a widow to a fallen undercover FBI agent. Julie does a good enough job with the lame story arc that her character is given, but her whole portion of the movie could have been removed, because its only purpose was to make the Punisher appear to have a softer side (which isn’t like his comic book counterpart at all). The character of Micro, the weapons supplier for Punisher, as played by Wayne Knight (TV’s “Seinfeld”) was not much more than a cameo, and aside from being a nod to the comic book, he wasn’t really all that important to the story as it turns out. Plus, if you aren’t familiar with the comic books his involvement with Punisher and importance to him isn’t very obvious, so you find yourself wondering, “Why does Punisher even care about this guy one iota?” This was just a prime example of how a little bit of character development and/or exposition would have benefited the story.

Finally, “Punisher: War Zone” isn’t a horrible movie, and I would say it falls somewhere in between the 1989 disastrous attempt and the much better 2004 remake. If you are a fan of the character, then you will probably find that this movie is worth watching once, and who knows, you may even enjoy it. Personally, I believe if you took the best parts of the 2004 film and mixed it with the best portions of this one (which only amounts to about 30 or 40 minutes) then you could really have a terrific Punisher movie. That being said, I don’t believe there needs to be another movie featuring this anti-hero. I think three is plenty, and since it doesn’t appear that they got it perfectly right on any of the attempts, I don’t think number four would fare any better.

“Punisher: War Zone” is rated R for violence, gore, and language.

Lakeview Terrace

How far would you allow someone to push you before you begin to return in kind? That is the basic plot of “Lakeview Terrace” starring Samuel L. Jackson and Patrick Wilson. It’s a story of two men who find themselves locked in what seems like an unending battle of one-ups upon each other. For those of you that love movies and have seen your fair share of them, you may be thinking, “Didn’t Sam Jackson already do a film just like this several years ago with Ben Affleck?” The answer is yes, and the film was “Changing Lanes”. So, what could possibly make an actor of Samuel L. Jackson’s caliber want to do a virtual retread of a film he already did, especially when said film was quite good, albeit depressing. The only reason I can think of is that “Lakeview Terrace” could be viewed as a movie with more of a commercial appeal than the former, but if that is the primary reason (aside from the considerable payday Sam undoubtedly walked away with), was this endeavor a worthy one?

“Lakeview Terrace” focuses on a young couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) as they begin to settle into what appears to be their dream home in the most ideal of neighborhoods. Everyone in the neighborhood seems pleasant, and as an added bonus they discover they have an officer of the LAPD (Samuel L. Jackson) living just next door. But, as the newlyweds quickly discover things may appear too good to be true, as their man of the law neighbor soon begins interfering in their daily lives in some very intrusive and increasingly creepy ways. The only question is how far will this couple allow themselves to be pushed before they choose to fight back?

If I were in charge of creating a film, and had even the slightest glimmer of hope that said film could become a hit, there would be a few aspects of the film that I would want to make sure were in perfect working order before I would even begin production. For starters, the script must be top-notch. Without a solid backbone to base the movie off of, what hope does one have of crafting a movie that will entertain audiences and keep them talking about the experience for days to come? Second, the casting must be ideal. If the cast doesn’t work well, it doesn’t matter if the script is Shakespeare or a modern classic, it will fall flat if not handled with the proper care from those speaking the dialogue. Lastly, I would try as hard as I could to keep my movie as original as possible (a feat that is harder and harder to accomplish these days), or at least avoid using tired, old clichés and predictability so that the audience will stay interested in what I’m putting on the screen. In the case of “Lakeview Terrace” some of these items were utilized to a degree of success, while others either failed miserably or seemed to be completely ignored.

As far as the story goes, “Lakeview Terrace” was well-paced, with a good story that features plenty of suspenseful moments to keep the thrill-factor up for a majority of the film. Writers David Loughery (the upcoming film “Obsessed”) and Howard Korder (“Stealing Sinatra”) have managed to take a decent premise (albeit one that has been used quite often in films), and imbue it with a hefty dose of tension to keep the audience paying attention; however, the characters are either far too clichéd or just plain unlikable to really invest ourselves in. Despite a fairly well-paced story, the movie fails in the end because I just didn’t care about the main characters at all; and for a movie like this to succeed I believe you have to be able to choose a side in the conflict or else what’s the point.

In regards to the cast, each member did well with their respective roles, even if some were overtly unoriginal and tired. For Samuel L. Jackson the part probably seemed good in conversation, but I have to think that after reading the script he should have been able to figure out that his character and the one-ups in the movie have already been done before with much greater success in previous films. Truthfully, I’m surprised he even signed on due to the fact that the basic plot for the movie is nothing more than an updated and sleeker version of his previous work on “Changing Lanes”. Whatever his reasons, at least Sam did a good job in the role, as he usually does; and surprisingly he actually delivers a more restrained performance than most, a slight change of pace for one of his many characters.

Alongside Sam Jackson we have Patrick Wilson as the new husband next door. Prior to this film I had seen Patrick in the movie “Little Children” opposite Kate Winslet (“Titanic”) and I have to say that not only did I hate that film, but I also couldn’t stand Patrick’s character either. Something about him is irritating to me, I don’t know if it’s his demeanor or presence or what, but I have a hard time actually liking any character he plays. So for this movie I did my best to suspend my loathing of Patrick, in hopes of becoming invested in his character in order for the story to work better. It turns out this was a wasted effort because the script only devotes a small amount of time early on in the film to making him seem like a likeable person, before he begins to retaliate against Sam’s character, while at the same time becoming insensitive and mean to his wife.

Speaking of Patrick’s onscreen wife, Kerry Washington does a nice job in the role, and is really the one likeable person out of the main characters. Surprisingly, her part seems very limited despite being onscreen for a decent amount of time throughout the movie; it’s just that the writers don’t seem to give her all that much to do except be mistreated by the other two characters in the film. What’s strange about her character, is that she is established at numerous times throughout the movie as a fairly strong-willed, opinionated woman, lending to the school of thought that she wouldn’t put up with too much crap from anyone. However, over the course of the film she never once stays truly angry about anything going on around her. While her character may be the most likeable in the story, she is also the most unbelievable in terms of what she puts up with from not only her neighbor, but also from her husband. A man who supposedly loves her, yet never seems to show any kind of remorse regarding things he has said and done. So for her to put up with all that without fighting back on her own, seems like a bit of a stretch given her character’s basic make-up.

“Lakeview Terrace” should have been a great thriller, and many of the necessary components were in place to make it so; however, the unlikable characters, somewhat unoriginal story, and characters for that matter, diminished any chances of me truly enjoying the movie. As for the film’s director, Neil Labute, this was a better effort than his previous work, the dismal “The Wicker Man” remake, but still not a great movie, so better luck next time.

“Lakeview Terrace” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sexuality.

Max Payne

Video game film adaptations always seem to be hit-and-miss with both their quality and audience approval. For every successful entry into the genre (“Resident Evil” or “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”) there is an equally unsuccessful one to counter it (“Doom” or “Alone in the Dark”). Continuing on in the tradition of the less than stellar entries we have Mark Wahlberg’s latest actioner, the disjointed revenge thriller “Max Payne” based upon the popular video game series of the same name.

“Max Payne” follows the revenge-laden path of the titular character (Mark Wahlberg), as he is embarking on a quest to bring to justice those responsible for the murder of his family. The further Max goes to solve the crime, the more twisted the answers he finds become, and what he discovers may just push him to the very brink.

As a fan of the two video games centering on the character’s rather violent exploits, “Max Payne” and “Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne”, I was leery of how accurate the film adaptation would be to the source material. When I found out that Mark Wahlberg (“Four Brothers”) would be portraying Max, I gained a little more faith in the production, because Mark had said he wouldn’t have done it if the story didn’t have enough substance to sustain his interest; thus allowing myself to become cautiously optimistic about the end product. However, upon its release reviews of the film were less than stellar, not exactly a surprise given the type of film; but despite the criticism the movie went on to produce some decent box office numbers, leading one to wonder if perhaps the movie may be better than expected. Having now seen “Max Payne” for myself, I believe that even though it is fairly faithful to the first video game especially, the movie is such a jumbled mess that I find it hard to believe that anyone could really enjoy it.

For starters, the story is obviously attempting to be a semi-complicated mystery/whodunit, yet the actual screenplay is far too simplistic to appropriately service this style of movie. The film would have been much better served by a screenplay that devoted the proper amount of time and effort into developing the mystery rather than teasing the viewer with snippets before heading off into the next overblown action sequence. Typically in mystery movies there is always a twist somewhere along the way, generally involving a character whose motives you thought you knew, but it turned out you couldn’t have been more wrong about. Just as I suspected would be the case, “Max Payne” did its best to incorporate one such twist; however, the under-developed storyline caused the twist to be easily deduced way before it ever occurs, completely removing any kind of suspense or anticipation from the equation.

Another problem with the story is the sense that many key scenes are missing from the final film, due to characters seemingly popping up out of nowhere; yet somehow aware of what all has transpired and ready for action on whoever’s side they’ve chosen. I know that sometimes in a film the viewer is to assume certain characters have had some sort of dialogue off-screen that filled in some gaps, this is usually mentioned in passing within a scene to give the viewer a clue that this has occurred. However, in this film no such clue is given, and this assumption has to be made far too often; to the point that it quickly leads one to presume that the script, as written by first time screenwriter Beau Thorne, was so paper-thin, that no thought was ever put into actually bridging the gaps in the story or fleshing out any of the characters’ relationships along the way.

Action director John Moore (“Behind Enemy Lines”) brings a stylistic flair in the vein of “Sin City” or “The Spirit” to the film, utilizing a lot of neutral colors with splashes of bright reds and other colors here and there to accentuate the action. I did appreciate that John took a few moments within the film to incorporate the bullet-time effect into some of the action. Even though this effect has been massively over-used ever since “The Matrix” made it popular, it is a staple within the video game, so as a gamer I was glad to see its inclusion. The problem with the bullet-time effect is that when it is initially employed in the film, the context doesn’t really make a whole lot of logical sense (much like the rest of the movie), and the effect while appreciated feels wasted in the end.

Speaking of the director, I do feel it is only fair to dump some of the story’s faults onto him as well, since he would have had some say in the final cut of the movie. Perhaps, next time he should think about elaborating on some plot points instead of glossing over them to move onto the next action scene. I will say that John and/or the editor of “Max Payne” was wise enough to keep the momentum of the film moving along quickly, so as to not allow the audience a whole lot of time to realize just how weak the storyline truly was, until after they’ve finished watching it.

Mark Wahlberg was a good choice to portray the tortured soul of Max Payne. Although criticized for a lack of emotional range in the role, I felt Wahlberg played the character the exact way as he is portrayed in the video game. Plus, when a person’s family is completely wiped out, I don’t see that same person being all smiles too often; no, I believe he or she would probably be a pretty depressing person to be around. As a testament to Mark Wahlberg’s performance, even though he is fairly one-note emotionally throughout the course of the movie (there are a few instances of happiness from Max sprinkled about), he still is able to keep the viewer entertained, despite a meager script.

Supporting cast members are mostly comprised of cameo appearances within the movie, which harkens back to my complaint that characters just pop-in at random and are gone just as quickly as they appeared. A few of the cameo and/or supporting characters were played by Chris “Ludacris” Bridges (“Crash”) as a member of Internal Affairs investigating Max, Chris O’Donnell (“Batman & Robin”) as a former co-worker of Max’s late wife, and Olga Kurylenko (“007: Quantum of Solace”) as a woman who may be linked to what led to the murder of Max’s family. Truthfully, the only real supporting cast members that had more than five to ten minutes of screen time were Mila Kunis (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) as an assassin that assists Max occasionally while trying to find her sister’s killer, and Beau Bridges (TV’s “Stargate: Atlantis”) as a former cop and confidant of Max. Beau seems to get the lion’s share of the screen time out of all the supporting characters, and he does a good job with the stock character he is given to play; but his part in the overall scheme of things is so easily deduced that he seems wasted in the role.

Heavy on the violence, yet light on the story, “Max Payne” is one video game adaptation that knows how to bring the action of the source material to life on the big screen; but fails to deliver a story that even begins to resemble that of a good movie, let alone a decent video game. If you are a fan of the video games then you may enjoy “Max Payne”, but my guess is that you’ll wish you would have just spent the two hours playing through the story rather than simply watching it.

“Max Payne” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence, language, and sexuality.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

After releasing two highly successful entries into the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ franchise with the outstanding “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” and the solid, yet somewhat flawed follow-up “Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest”, Walt Disney Studios was supremely confident that their third, and possibly final, entry into the series would be a colossal blockbuster. With “Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End” audiences hoped they would finally get a satisfying ending to the story that began in the previous movie, and be provided with a solid ending to one of the most original, fun, and entertaining movie franchises. But, does the movie actually live up to the high standards set up by its predecessors or sink under its own weight?

“Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End” picks up right where the second film left off. Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), along with Captain Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), are on a quest to rescue Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from the unenviable fate of being stranded in Davy Jones’ Locker. Their quest will take them from the edge of the world to Singapore to Tortuga and more, all the while battling betrayal at every turn, and attempting to stay one step ahead of their pursuers.

Well, even though Disney, in conjunction with director Gore Verbinski and producer extraordinaire Jerry Bruckheimer (director and producer for the first two ‘Pirates’ films, respectively), delivered to audiences two incredibly entertaining films (the last film was somewhat disappointing in the end), they were faced with the daunting task of repeating themselves for a third time. Even though the same creative team was essentially behind each one of these films, including the same two writers, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot, something went awry with this film.

There are several problems that I had with this movie; chief among them would have to be the seemingly lacking sense of fun and enjoyment within the story and among the cast. The first two films, yes even the second movie even though it was darker in tone, possessed a spirit of fun that was infectious which added to the overall entertainment value of the films. For some reason, and I’m at a loss as to what the reason may be, this film seems devoid of fun for a majority of the film. Another problem is that the tone in this movie was even darker than that of its predecessor, and therefore felt even more removed from the spirit of the original. Now, I don’t have a problem with movie series’ getting more serious, and even somewhat more adult or darker as the franchise progresses, but this series just seemed to go way too far in that direction, to the point that it’s dreariness was distracting from the story.

The story for this film is another problem I had with ‘At World’s End’, for one it was way too long, especially since this was supposed to tie up the story begun in the previous movie, which was already over two hours long on its own, but adding almost 3 hours to that story seems over done. Secondly, the story seemed bloated; too many new characters were introduced into a story that already possessed enough characters to possibly confuse some audience members. Plus, new plot lines seemed to be getting added left and right, and in almost every scene one of the characters was betraying somebody, and after a while I started to lose track of who was on who’s side at any given time. Basically, the story wound up being one massive, overly long semi-confusing jumble of a conclusion that wasn’t even remotely satisfying when compared to how the series started.

As far as the actors in this movie, they were all good as they were in the previous movies, but seemed a little uninvolved in the story at times. Surprisingly, the highlight among the cast this time was not Johnny Depp, sure he was still fun as Jack Sparrow, but at times even he was getting a little old, no, this time the bigger surprise was Chow-Yun Fat as a new pirate lord hailing from Singapore. It’s too bad he wasn’t used all that much, but he definitely created a new engaging character that was one of the few welcome additions in this whole mess of a movie. The other surprise character in this movie was Keith Richards’ portrayal of Jack Sparrow’s father, sure his cameo role was small, but in the few minutes he was on screen he managed to cultivate a character that was dangerous and mysterious, and one that would be fun to see explored should there be another film in the series.

One final note on this movie before I sum up my thoughts, I must give kudos to the technical wizards at Industrial Light and Magic for their outstanding and incredibly realistic work on this entire film series, without them these films, and many others, would not be possible. The team at ILM is without a doubt comprised of some of the most talented people working in special effects today, and deserving of any honors Hollywood bestows upon them.

Overall, “Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End” is an average movie, that doesn’t even come close to living up to the quality of the first film. Since, this movie is supposed to be the conclusion to the story started in ‘Dead Man’s Chest’, I find it strange to say that a story that is almost 5 hours long can’t even hope to come close to matching the sheer entertainment value of the first film that clocked in at approximately 2 hours. Now, if you have been a fan of the series, and most moviegoers are, then you should probably see this movie, just to see how the story begun in ‘Pirates 2′ ends, but most likely you’ll be disappointed and left wanting to only watch the first film over and over again, and removing the last two from your DVD collections.

“Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End” 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.