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.

Saw 3

Here’s the thing that’s proving to be somewhat strange for me with the ‘Saw’ series of horror films. I had seen each of the first three movies in the franchise when they were initially released to DVD, and had developed opinions both good and bad for each of the films at the time. For instance, when I watched the first film, “Saw”, I really didn’t think all that much for the movie, I thought it was alright but not worth all the hype it had received. Then I watched “Saw 2″ and felt it was a much better movie than the original, I thought the story was improved, and didn’t borrow as heavily from other influences. After that I watched “Saw 3″, but I hadn’t seen the first two in so long that I thought the third film contradicted certain elements contained in the first two, and was also much gorier and seemingly short on plot. However, after re-watching each of the movies in the franchise back-to-back my opinions have somewhat changed. I actually found myself liking the original film much better the second time around, and found “Saw 2″ to be fairly disappointing by comparison, due to a lack of character development and an over-reliance on shock and gore, instead of developing an eerily creepy atmosphere and a story that would deliver genuine thrills as the original film had done. Which brings me to my re-watching of the third film in the series, “Saw 3″. Going into this film I wondered if my opinion would change as drastically as it had on the previous two films or if it would remain essentially the same as it was after the first time I watched the movie. Either way, I was curious to see what results awaited my repeat viewing of the film that I felt was the weakest in the series thus far.

“Saw 3″ picks up immediately after the events of “Saw 2″, and we find Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) desperately trying to free himself in order to save his son. However, Amanda (Shawnee Smith) isn’t as fair as Jigsaw and has no intention of allowing Eric to escape. After their brutal altercation (essentially tying off the dangling loose ends left over from the previous film), Amanda joins her mentor, the ailing Jigsaw (Tobin Bell), in overseeing their latest series of tests, one involves a doctor (Bahar Soomekh) who is extremely talented and caring in the operating room yet is cold and aloof to her family at home. The second test focuses on a heartbroken father (Angus MacFadyen) who has lost his son in an automobile accident and would give anything to exact vengeance on those he holds responsible. As each of the subjects advance through their own series of tests, Jigsaw’s already deteriorating health seems to be declining at an increasingly rapid rate, but this will not deter the maniacal mastermind from seeing his carefully designed plans come to fruition.

When I watched “Saw 3″ for the first time after it had recently arrived on DVD in early 2007, I initially found the film to be just another standard horror film that was intent on using as much blood and gore as the MPAA would allow in a film. Basically the filmmakers wanted to see just how much they could get away with before the audience was completely disgusted. The traps had seemed more grotesque, and were even more inescapable than those in the previous two films (which it turned out was the case due to Amanda’s refusal to give her victims a chance at life, a fact that was shown in several flashbacks throughout the movie), and the results of the traps were even more bizarre and horrifying than what either of the first two films had attempted. Also, I had thought that the story for “Saw 3″ contradicted certain events of the previous two movies, especially the first movie, and a couple of moments in the second, leaving me wondering why the writers of this installment, James Wan and Leigh Whannell (who also wrote the first film together), would contradict their own work from the original movie.

Well, after finishing “Saw 3″ for the second time I must say that my opinion of the film has changed in some instances. I found that the story, which I initially found contradictory, was very well put together and was not contradictory in the least. The story also felt more in sync with the tone of the original film, by having Jigsaw and Amanda’s traps be more planned out, forcing their victims to take part in them rather than the rather coincidental approach to the second film where the victims seemed to be allowed to avoid the traps if they could. One facet of the story of “Saw 3″ that I really enjoyed were the flashbacks to events surrounding the first two films, which really deepened the story for the overall franchise and connected each of the films together even more than before. For the most part, I liked that the flashbacks explained the change in how the traps went from being escapable to impossible to survive, and also how careful the planning was for the traps used in the first film. One complaint I did have with the flashbacks was the fact that we are introduced to Jigsaw’s past, which was fine, but we are shown a woman with whom he is seemingly in love with, but we learn nothing about her other than the fact that we see them together for a couple of scenes. I really hate it when a movie simply introduces an element into the plot that is intended to be resolved in the next film, so that nothing comes of it in the current movie you are watching. Why bother including a segment in one film if nothing will come of that segment until the sequel, just wait and include the segment when you (meaning the writers) are ready to flesh it out further. Because the segment, though intended to show a much softer Jigsaw from the days before he became the monster he now is, was ultimately pointless and even more irritating due to the fact that it seemed like it’s sole purpose was for us to feel some empathy for Jigsaw, and view him more as a normal human who has slipped into a state of insanity, rather than a man who was merely masking the monster hidden deep within.

The traps of “Saw 3″ were just as I had initially felt, they were way too grotesque and seemed to be intended to shock and gross out the audience as much as possible rather than scare us. I don’t understand why horror films have shifted from trying to scare the audience with atmosphere, story and a genuinely creepy villain, but instead have chosen to simply shock us by including as many gross sequences as possible into a 90 minute film, but that’s what the powers-that-be must feel is needed to make a successful horror film these days. Maybe it’s because we moviegoers have become de-sensitized to such things, that the only way the moviemakers feel they can scare us is by shocking us with as much blood, gore, and sadism as they can get away with under the guidelines of the increasingly liberal MPAA rating system.

As a franchise, the ‘Saw’ series has definitely fallen into the school of thought within filmmaking that feels it is necessary to show the most gore possible to give the audience a good scare. When this franchise began, the original film was more of an actual horror film, in the vein of the old school horror films from Alfred Hitchcock (“Psycho”) and John Carpenter (“Halloween”), relying more on atmosphere and the audiences own imagination to create genuine thrills with which to scare us, not buckets and buckets of blood. However, over the course of three films, the ‘Saw’ series has become just another horror franchise, albeit with much better scripts than your average horror movie (which allows these films to rise above the rest of the current crop of horror offerings), but one can definitely see the downward spiral in terms of quality that is occurring within the series.

The characters of “Saw 3″ were much better than those within “Saw 2″. This time around I actually cared whether the main characters survived their respective traps, unlike in “Saw 2″ where I would have been fine if the majority of them failed their tests. The new cast members to the franchise fit into the same profile as those of the previous film. Both of the two new lead characters were portrayed by acting talents that many people would recognize if they’d seen them, but most likely not by their names. Bahar Soomekh (TV’s short-lived drama “Day Break”) was solid as Lynn, the doctor who had all but abandoned her family emotionally, but in the midst of Jigsaw’s trial, discovers that she longs for nothing more than to hold her family members yet again. She was so genuine in her desire to do what is right according to the oath she took as a doctor by helping Jigsaw through the pain of his cancer, and at the same time she was so afraid of losing her life to the trap she was in that she was tempted to take a life in cold blood. The character of Jeff, the distraught father, as portrayed by Angus MacFadyen (“Braveheart”) was a character that was so consumed by his thirst for revenge that he teeters on the edge of sanity, and is struggling to retain his last shred of humanity so he can be there for his daughter that desperately wants her father back. Angus portrayed the conflict within Jeff perfectly, each of the trials that he faced tested his thirst for vengeance, while at the same time threatening to strip him of his last shred of humanity, and each time Angus played the indecision perfectly, and in the end gave audiences a character that was so deeply flawed, and yet the audience couldn’t help but relate to him and his struggles.

“Saw 3″ is a better movie than “Saw 2″, and felt more in line with the tone and quality of the first movie. However, as improved as “Saw 3″ was, it still fell prey to the shortcomings of its predecessor by featuring an over abundance of gross-out moments intended to shock the audience rather than scare it, and way too much blood and gore, to the point that it detracts from the overall movie.

“Saw 3″ is available in rated R and unrated editions, both contain violence, language, and nudity.

Hitman

I am a video game fan and I have been since I was a little kid when I got a Nintendo one Christmas. Speaking from the viewpoint of a video game aficionado I am somewhat particular when it comes to my beloved games being adapted into feature films. For the most part Hollywood has done a decent job of delivering their versions of these iconic video game characters without straying too far from the source material. The most successful video game to movie entries would be the ‘Resident Evil’ series starring Milla Jovovich, closely followed by Angelina Jolie’s turn as the voluptuous vixen Lara Croft in the two ‘Tomb Raider’ films. Most recently Hollywood has turned to yet another video game character for inspiration, but this character comes from quite a different world than that of the previous two adaptations. Simply known as Agent 47, the title character in the acclaimed ‘Hitman’ franchise, gives gamers the opportunity to become one of the world’s most premier assassins as they carry out hit after hit for the highest bidder. Now that Hollywood has taken notice of this silent, but deadly anti-hero, does his adaptation live up to the spirit of the video game or is this one adaptation that needs to be executed before it can do any more damage?

“Hitman” follows the deadly assassin known simply as 47 (Timothy Olyphant) as he silently, and efficiently eliminates any target he is assigned. He is the best at what he does, but when he is betrayed on a high-profile mission to assassinate a public figure, 47 finds himself on the run from the very people he works for as the remainder of their highly trained assassins are in hot pursuit. As if this wasn’t enough for 47 to be concerned with, he is being relentlessly pursued by an Interpol agent (Dougray Scott) while trying to protect a beautiful woman (Olga Kurylenko), who has inadvertently found herself trapped in the middle of this deadly pursuit.

This is an odd movie for me, in terms of what my opinion was for it. On the one hand, I found it to be a moderately enjoyable, yet flawed video game adaptation that grasped the essence of the game (including some of the distinct visual imagery of 47 in action). Yet, on the other hand I found the lead character of 47 to be somewhat mis-cast which was a little distracting. Softer spoken Timothy Olyphant is a solid actor; however, I don’t believe he was the best choice to play the much deeper voiced assassin. Also, the story felt a bit thin in some places and in other places as the betrayal of 47 unfolds the story seemed to become more contrived and convoluted, as if the writers seemed unsure of their end result leading to an unfocused second half for the film. Overall, the story remained paper thin, seeming to serve no other purpose than to lead the audience along from fight to fight until we reach the inevitable overblown, guns blazing conclusion.

The acting was decent, though by no means stellar from any member of the cast. Timothy Olyphant (“Live Free or Die Hard”) was adequate in his portrayal as the stalwart assassin 47, but he seemed somewhat uncomfortable in the role at times, appearing less confident than the character should be, but leading up to and during the numerous action sequences Olyphant was spot-on as the murderous 47. The supporting cast was average at best, and was led by Dougray Scott (“Mission: Impossible 2”), who was forgettable in his role as the Interpol agent pursuing 47, seeming to basically phone in his performance. If his performance in “Hitman” is any indication of what he believes to be good acting, then I’m not too surprised that I haven’t seen him in anything of real note since his villainous turn as the main antagonist in “Mission: Impossible 2”. The last supporting cast member worth mentioning was newcomer, and soon-to-be Bond girl in “007: Quantum of Solace”, Olga Kurylenko who did a good job of vamping it up for the camera as a temptress for the chaste 47, as she tries in vain to seduce him with her numerous sexual advances. Though her performance wasn’t Oscar worthy, it was merely decent in my opinion; she apparently must have done something right, either in this movie or in an audition later on, to catch the attention of the creative forces behind the James Bond franchise. Whatever the case may be, I think Olga’s going to have to up her acting game if she expects to convincingly hold her own against the capable talents of Daniel Craig and Judi Dench in the next ‘007’ film. Olga’s performance in “Hitman” did fit in with the rest of the cast as being merely average, yet unremarkable and from what I saw there wasn’t much in this movie that would entice me to see her in any other films.

The primary drive, and cause for most of my disappointment, for “Hitman” was the vast amount of action sequences that were generally entertaining to watch, yet didn’t really seem to stand out as anything we haven’t seen before from other entries in the action film genre. The problem for “Hitman” was not a lack of action, but maybe an over-reliance on action to the point that the story seemed to be an afterthought for the writers and French director Xavier Gens, serving merely as a means to get 47 from one fight to another with not much substance in between. This is a real shame as the video games feature a rather involved, well-written storyline that holds your interest and works hand-in-hand with the action of the game to keep things moving along for the person playing the game, without feeling like lines of dialogue strung together to hold us over until the next fight. Shame on the writers for not coming up with a better story that would have fully lived up to the standards set forth by the various games that comprise this beloved video game franchise.

“Hitman” is not a great movie, in fact at times I found it to be somewhat boring and by the numbers, yet it was a decent action film with some impressive action sequences throughout the duration to grab your attention after boring you with insipid lines of dialogue between gun fights.

“Hitman” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

30 Days of Night

For years now the horror genre has been filled with movies that are simply a dime a dozen, very few contain original ideas or break any new ground in terms of thrills and chills (the ‘Saw’ series is somewhat exempt from this notion) and lately it seems that for source material Hollywood horror-masters would rather adapt some film that has already been done in Japan (“The Ring” and “The Grudge” are good examples of this) instead of looking for inspiration from sources much closer to home. Aside from remaking already successful films from other countries, the only other types of horror films seem to be zombies, and frankly I’m getting to be a little zombied-out, other than the ‘Resident Evil’ series I really don’t enjoy those types of movies all that much; so needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that Steve Niles’ graphic novel “30 Days of Night” would be adapted into a feature film. I have never read the graphic novel, though I have flipped through it and been somewhat intrigued by it, but the fact that the horror genre was trying to look elsewhere for story inspiration got my interest piqued. Not to mention the trailer for the film looked really intense, creepy, and just impressive for a vampire-themed horror film, a sub-genre that needs some new blood injected into it now that the ‘Blade’ series is at an end, and the ‘Underworld’ series seems to have disappeared for awhile at least. However, does “30 Days of Night” have what it takes to take back the night or is this an entry into a genre that needs to be staked in the heart?

“30 Days of Night” is set in a small Alaskan town that is preparing for the annual month long plunge into 24/7 darkness. Every year it’s the same thing for the people of this town, so all of them know exactly what to expect and what to do to make it through the dreary time of the year; however, this year will be much different from what they are expecting as a deadly group of savage vampires is invading the small town for a veritable vampire paradise as the sunlight will be non-existent for the next 30 days. Doing their best to protect and lead the scared people of the Alaskan town is the local sheriff, Eben Olesen, (Josh Hartnett) and his estranged wife, Stella (Melissa George), who are trying their hardest to make any kind of sense out of their desperate situation, and hoping that they can last out the month long seige.

Director David Slade (“Hard Candy”) and his team of writers Steve Niles (who also wrote the graphic novel) and Stuart Beattie (“Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”) and Brian Nelson (“Hard Candy”) try their best to not only bring the graphic novel to horrifying reality, but also to show that vampires can be just as captivating to audiences as the living dead. Try as they might, I don’t think the director and his writers were completely successful. For the most part the movie is moderately enjoyable, though not memorable by any means, and there were several moments sprinkled throughout the film where I found myself just getting bored by the constant bickering between the survivors and some of the stupid decisions some would make. Now, I know that the survivors were no doubt going stir crazy being cooped up in attics to try to hide from the vampires, but I would think they could have tried harder to get along, especially for the sake of survival, though I guess the writers probably felt that the conflict would intensify the drama rather than make it seem more juvenile.

What I did like about the story was that the setting was in Alaska during that area’s annual month of darkness (though I believe in reality it is a little longer than a mere 30 days), so unlike most vampire movies where the humans have the advantage during the daylight and the vampires at night to balance things out a bit more, here only the vampires have the true advantage as it is constantly dark, and the human survivors’ only advantage is their knowledge of the surrounding area around them. It is this dynamic that works the best in the movie as the vampires mercilessly hunt the humans in their homes, trying to sniff out their hiding places, but the humans use their knowledge of the area homes and hideouts to their limited advantage as they struggle to find supplies and more fortified shelters. Even though I enjoyed this aspect of the story, I did feel that near the end of the movie it became the element that annoyed me the most as the vampires seemed too incompetent to find the last remaining survivors of the town even though they’ve had ample time to do so, not to mention the fact that the humans bravery/borderline stupidity as they make one last attempt at safety seemed too easily achieved given the vampires superior speed and agility, yet they couldn’t seem to catch up to us normal folk, a very strange and unbelievable aspect to the storyline.

The actors were for the most part surprisingly strong given the type of movie it was. Josh Hartnett’s (“Black Hawk Down”) performance as the local sheriff was one filled with devotion, honor, strength, and courage as he fought to protect those in his charge, yet his love for his estranged wife at times almost put the others in jeopardy as she was his paramount concern. Melissa George (“The Amityville Horror”) was solid as Stella, the estranged wife of local sheriff Eben. She also brought a great strength to her character, and a warmth and calm that soothed the rising frustrations and conflicts amongst the other survivors. The actors portraying the other survivors were a mixed bag of talent and performances, most were good, but a few were a little too bland and forgettable, just like their characters. The standout performance for the entire movie belongs to none other than the chameleon-like talents of actor Ben Foster (“3:10 To Yuma”), who delivers a flat-out creepy character to audiences, as the man responsible for leading the vampire horde to this peaceful town in hopes of becoming one of them. His performance was not only the best in the entire movie, but his scenes were so good, and interesting to watch that I found myself wishing he had been one of the main characters rather than the small supporting role he was given.

“30 Days of Night” is nothing more than an average vampire-themed horror film, that borrows from movies and stories that were executed much better, such as, John Carpenter’s “The Thing”, “Salem’s Lot”, and even the zombie film “Night of the Living Dead”). There are some interesting concepts featured in the film, primarily the month long darkness and giving the vampires the majority of the advantage in the fight for survival; however, these concepts were not enough to keep me entertained for the duration and in the end I couldn’t wait for the credits to begin to roll.

“30 Days of Night” is rated R for violence and language.